“It’s all [pick a language] to me.” Have a look at the variations raised in this other board’s thread on that saying: http://www.proz.com/forum/lighter_side_of_trans_interp/170914-its_all_greek_dutch_chinese_to_me_which_one.html
OK, I want to mention something else here. I said that the opposition to official bilingualism among English-speaking Canadians mostly comes from the fact that (outside of Quebec) so few of them speak French, so this lack of proficiency keeps them out of jobs they would consider desirable. And they don’t understand why those jobs are kept from them, and sometimes (a bit like the OP) they suspect that it’s some sort of dishonest affirmative action. But I think there’s also another possible explanation.
You may have heard a few weeks ago that a French-speaking family who were travelling on an Air Canada flight couldn’t be served in French, and so sued the company. They won their case, some money, and Air Canada were ordered to improve their French service. The Official Languages Commissioner, Graham Fraser, said that it leaves much to be desired. This event was reported in Quebec, but didn’t make too much of a bang. If you’d ask me, or I figure a good number of Quebecers, I’d tell you that given that Air Canada, despite being privatised, is apparently still in many ways under the control of the federal government (as seems obvious right now, when the flight attendants are poised for a strike), it makes sense that they have to follow the language policies of the federal government. But the reporting was rather different in the rest of Canada, where the mood was indignant at the court decision, and at the nerve of the plaintiffs. Even the actual news (i.e. not editorial) articles seemed to be asking “how dare they?!”
From what I can see, a large number of anglophone Canadians (often the more liberal minded, but not only them it seems) place a lot of importance to the changes of the 60s (the introduction of official bilingualism, for example, but also the introduction of officially multicultural policies) as a founding event in their history; the point where Canada became “enlightened”. I’ve seen some of this on this board: before 1960 the “Anglo Borg” (as per Muffin’s term) tried to assimilate everyone – maybe even the Picard speakers – but then, with Trudeau, all cultures of Canada started to be valued by Canadians. It’s really important for them for this to be true, and it also serves as a way for them to distinguish themselves from Americans. In another thread, where I was saying that I would never think of asking for service in French, even in government offices, outside Quebec, I was told that even in Calgary I could manage to get it.
So why did the Air Canada story touch such a nerve among English-speaking Canadians? Why do they dislike the reports of the Official Languages Commissioner? It may be because they perceive that they did everything that should be done about that whole issue back in the 60s, so now they should reap the kudos instead of complaints. Canada is as bilingual as it should be and whining is unreasonable. It may also be that it shows what they want to believe about the country to not be quite so. All those are possible reasons why someone would find this Air Canada verdict insulting, despite being in favour of bilingualism, in theory.
(bolding mine)
It is? I’ve never noticed that.
Thanks for the explanation, Muffin. At first I thought there was some purpose behind your choice of “Dutch”.
FTR, I thought the ruling against Air Canada was correct and appropriate, although it was clear that the plantiff was kind of being a dick about the whole thing.
In what way? (As I’ve said, I haven’t followed that case closely and the motivations of the plaintiffs weren’t very much commented on here.) Some people may think that in order for their linguistic rights to be respected, they have to be assertive about them, or as some might view it, act like dicks, otherwise nobody will care.
When you consider that the incident revolved primarily about drink service and that he initially sued for $500,000, made comments to the effect that his $12,000 award wasn’t personally satisfying (I think we can feel comfortable in saying he didn’t suffer that amount of damage), and was capable of communicating fluently in English, I feel safe in considering him a bit of a dick. As I said, this is not to deny the fact that he had his right to be served in French denied him, and that Air Canada needs to shape itself up in this regard.
The irony being that the drink in question was a 7up, which in Canada is a Pepsi product (Muffin ducks and runs).
Thank god they don’t source Vachon products in-flight.
Tries to keep Muffin between myself and the mob while running.
so every Canadian airplane has to have at least one bilingual flight attendant lest some bilingual dick not feel “personally satisfied”? Pretty cool.
He may very well have seen it as a moneymaking opportunity. But if you’re giving the fact that he’s fluent in English as a reason why it’d be dickish for him to assert his linguistic rights, note that this is what I’m talking about: the idea that these rights are unimportant because French speakers all know English as well anyway. Or should know it.
I’d never even think of trying to assert my linguistic rights when I’m outside of Quebec, for these very reasons: I’m fluent in English anyway, and I’m afraid that I’d look like a dick and that I’d be a bother to them. Even inside Quebec I’d be shy about asking for service in French. (Thankfully, not living in Montreal, I almost never have to insist on it.) Maybe we need those jerks, or else nobody will ever make sure that language rights are respected in Canada.
ETA:
That’s for Air Canada. I don’t know exactly what the law is like about them (maybe Muffin or another one of our Canadian lawyers could tell us), but they’re Canada’s flag-carrier airline, and they used to be a public corporation. They’ve been privatised, but they’re still today in some ways under the control of the federal government. (For example, their flight attendants are currently threatening a strike, and the government threatened to pass a law forcing them back to work.) So I think they’re obligated to follow the rules of the Canadian public service in some ways.
Any alternative would allow the possibility of Air Canada flights with no English-speaking cabin crew. I can’t imagine that would sit well with Anglo-Canadians, much less the American and British tourists on the flight.
It’s not the fact alone that he can speak English that made him a dick for pressing this case. That taken alone wouldn’t lead me to call him a dick, as everyone has the right to be served in the official language of their choice by a federal institution (or quasi-federal, as you point out). But it’s that fact combined with the fact that he tried to turn it into a moneymaking opportunity, that makes him a dick. I don’t think we’ll be erecting any statues to him in the future.
Back in the late teens and early '20s, there were a number of struggling railways in Canada that landed up in the federal government’s hands, resulting in the Canadian National Railroad, which was a crown corporation due to the crown/government owning it. In 1937, the CNR started up Trans Canada Airlines as a subsidiary, so TCA (rebranded in '64 as Air Canada by Cretien to make the name bilingual) was part of a crown corporation. In '69, Trudeau brought in the Official Languages Act, which required federal government institutions and crown corporations to provide services in both French and English. In the late 70s, Air Canada left the CNR nest, and continued on as a separate corporation still owned by the crown, and therefore still covered by the Official Languages Act. As part of Air Canada’s privitaization by Mulroney in 1988, the Air Canada Public Participation Act made it subject to the Official Languages Act despite it no longer being a crown corporation.
Apparently, “As of March, 2010, 47 per cent of Air Canada’s flight attendants were bilingual, Federal Court heard. Twenty-six per cent of the airline’s employees in contact with the public, and 59 per cent of its call-centre employees, were also bilingual.” (Globe and Mail), but Air Canada has repeatedly not provided services in French on routes where there are a lot of French speaking customers (e.g. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc876/2011fc876.html ). I have to wonder if it is more of a staff scheduling problem than a corporate rejection of bilingualism.
It’s complicated: For historical reasons it applies only to Air Canada, not to any other Canadian airline.
For example, on some of the flights of the non-Air Canada regional carrier in my city, whomever happens to be in the last seat in the plane gets to pass out the food and drinks.
Fair enough. But you agree that people are justified to assert their linguistic rights, even if they themselves don’t require them, if they consider the principle to be important enough.
You’ve got some pretty interesting stories with airplanes. Are there still flight attendants inside their planes? I’d think the law would require it.
Also, Muffin, thanks for the information regarding Air Canada.
code_grey, are you paying attention to what we’ve explained in this thread? Maybe I misunderstood your last post, but it seems to me that you’re trying to cherry-pick data to fit a narrative (possibly the one that was exposed in the article linked to your OP) instead of truly attempting to understand what’s up with Canada’s official languages.
I don’t know what the regulations concerning flight attendants in Canada are (I assume the are regulations based on passenger capacity, but that’s just a guess), but I have been on quite a few small flights (e.g. Pilatus PC-12 – a 9 passenger plane) that did not have one. The pilot or co-pilot always shut/opened the door, gave a safety talk, and checked our seatbelts.
Here’s one that resulted in a town council meeting and a demand letter to me from a lawyer: Pickle Lake Low
Certain Air Canada passenger to flight attendant: “Do you serve muffins on this flight?”
AC Flight attendant: “We’ll serve any passenger, sir; including SDMB members.”
I can confirm this. In my experience flying between Lethbridge and Calgary (both in Alberta, and only 40 minutes apart by air), the aircraft are small (i.e. Beechcraft 1900D, with only 18 seats), the flight crew consists of a pilot and co-pilot, and the safety lecture is given by the co-pilot: “Okay, exits are there, there, and there. You guys feel that you could open them if you need to? Yes? Ah, just push this and pull that, and throw the door out. But only when we’re on the ground. Got it? Okay, great. Everybody belted in? Good. Let’s go.”
Most often, the co-pilot stands (as well as one can stand when one cannot fully stand up) at the front to give the talk, but on a couple of occasions, has just turned around in the co-pilot’s seat. No PA system is necessary; the aircraft is that small.
Sometimes I wonder just what the hell Air Canada serves. On one flight, they took the bilingualism concept and translated it into multiuse. They served us something had some of us eating it as a dessert, and others cleaing up in it thinking it was a finger bowl. I had a few sips first, but then switched to using it as a finger bowl.