Yeah, I know it’s not proof of anything. But when I read hogarth’s post, I just thought that it made perfect sense that this building was in Toronto. It encapsulates a perfectly Torontonian mentality.
And I’m not claiming that there is any law forcing buildings not to have a fourth floor. (That’d be ridiculous to be sure.) Just that building designers make the effort of skipping numbers, sometimes causing some confusion by changing unit 1713 into 2016, for a reason. I’ve suggested an explanation for this behaviour, keeping in mind what we know about Toronto.
Seesh. If I was to point out some local absurdity in Quebec and paint all Quebequois with it, I’d be flamed to a cinder. And rightly.
Need it be said that I’ve lived my whole life in Toronto and never encountered a building lacking a fourth, thirteenth and fourteenth floor? One swallow does not a summer make, etc.
Oh, but then, maybe those actually living in the city are not included in the “we” who “know about Toronto”.
Except what was likely going through the building designers head was "Hmm, my target market includes a large number of Asian Canadians and I’m going to have trouble selling suites on the 4th floor so we’ll just renumber it so that issue goes away.
I got a great deal on the first new house I bought because it was one of the last left in the development. It was going to be street #42 and it was lot number 74 and floor plan #4. Apparently that was too many 4’s for many of their potential buyers and it got passed over til the blowout sale at the end.
Hey, you people do that all the time. Often it’s not even a “local absurdity”, but just something you haven’t understood right by virtue of, you know, not actually speaking with us. Do you want me to look through the comments sections of English Canadian media for examples? Won’t take more than a few minutes. (Heck, even finding actual media articles, editorials for example, that do this, shouldn’t be too hard.)
Well, there’s at least one. But yeah, I know that what I posted wasn’t proof of anything. It’s just something I found funny. And I think it illustrates what I’m saying about Canadian multiculturalism.
That makes sense.
Wow, now everybody’s responding to my joke. I guess I touched a nerve. But I see that nobody’s actually tried to argue with me about the significance of multiculturalism itself.
Grey, are you disagreeing that Toronto is an ethnically diverse city? And that Torontonians are very proud of this fact, it in fact largely defines how they view themselves? And that for this reason they view ethnic diversity (and openness to various cultures) as a good in itself? And that sometimes they overevaluate how diverse and open-minded they are, which is what I was lampooning?
It’s a bit like Americans who claim that the US is much more diverse than Europe, because the US has 50 states, with a wide variety of cultures, from coastal Californians to New Englanders to Hawaiians to rural Louisianians, while Europe is pretty much uniform. They do this out of ignorance of what Europe actually is. I claim that Torontonians, and most Canadians who pat themselves on the back about how open-minded and multicultural they are, are often only exposed to a subset of what cultural diversity means.
But I’m not part of a collective. I’m me, an individual. I’m not responsible for what someone else writes, just because they write it in the same language as I.
Tu quoque isn’t a defence, still less when it is aimed at the whole of English Canada.
It simply seems to me that for someone sensitive to unfair or ignorant stereotypes of what you identify with, you have no hesitation about dishing them out about what you don’t. I suggest this is not a persuasive form of argument.
I dunno. What’s your argument as to the significance of multiculturalism? I’m seeing a lot of you stating English Canadians believe this or that, but I’ve seen no reason to believe your characterization of what English Canadians believe is any more accurate than your “joke” about Toronto.
Perhaps leaving aside what English Canadians believe, what is the thesis of your argument about the significance of multiculturalism?
What I’m saying is, this is quite unlikely, because many people have done it, are doing it, and will do it in the future, and don’t seem to be attracting social opprobrium for it. In fact they seem to get applause.
To make it short, I believe Canadian-style multiculturalism is merely the recognition that people of different origins are now part of the Canadian commonwealth (i.e. not all Canadians are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants these days). To me this is a truism, and something all countries that accept immigrants have to face. There is nothing special about it.
Now why do I care? I shouldn’t, really. But I get two different messages coming from the west. One of them usually comes from Ontario, especially from Toronto, and from liberal-minded people, who seem to believe that this philosophy (which, as I’ve said, is nothing special) is something unique to Canada, in fact a founding element of Canadian identity, and actually unique to English Canada. These people will childe francophone Quebecers for not supporting this philosophy, when in fact we do face similar issues. The other message usually comes from further west, from conservative-minded people, and tells me that multiculturalism has gone too far, dammit, and that we should say once and for all that Canada’s an English-speaking country and that there are definite Canadian values. They also seem to blame francophone Quebecers, or Quebec in general, for something. And this, again, for a “philosophy” which is barely even one.
Even then, I probably shouldn’t care. But yet, many Canadians seem to view French speakers in the country through the paradigm of multiculturalism, that is, as an ethnic minority. I disagree with that, I think it defeats the whole history of this country, but it doesn’t change the fact that it gives me a very direct reason to care about the subject.
That is because Canadians as a whole think of themselves as ‘better’ than others because they are Canadians (eg. not Americans). Ergo, multiculturalism, foisted upon us by politicians, must be a good thing because we are doing it.
These people will childe francophone Quebecers for not supporting this philosophy, when in fact we do face similar issues.
Speaking for myself, this is where you fall down. In the portion of the country where English is the primary language, we don’t give a shit about what language you want to speak. What we care about is that because you choose to speak a particular language you should be given some special consideration. But that applies to most other things outside of the language issue.
Equality for everyone is an important thing. If there is a Canadian value it is that.
I think the bigger issue is that unless Quebecers are whinging about something like taking their ball and playing by themselves in the corner, they are mostly ignored or, heaven forbid, treated like one of ten rather than one of two. It is asking to something special just because you can rather than because of your need. I shouldn’t say that it is only something that Quebec does, but Quebec does it more consistently going so far as to elect parties that are there to move Quebec towards separation.
French speakers are a minority in Canada, in North America, in the Western world, in the whole frikken world, it the entire universe. Why should you be treated any different. That the majority in Canada wants to treat you as equal to every other citizen in Canada is a good bloody thing. The only condition we put on that is that is the expectation that we are treated the same way in the portion of the country where French is spoken and is in the majority.
Yep, Canadians are proud, that’s for sure. I envy them, really.
As a conservative (ex-)Albertan, you may not care about what language I speak at home, or outside where you cannot hear me. Why should you, really? But if, say, the City of Calgary decided to print forms in 25 different languages, would you consider that a good thing, or a freakin’ waste of money? I can tell you that some people would definitely think the latter.
Oh, what I would give to be ignored by the rest of Canada! Just let us do our thing over here, and do your thing over there.
Canada was founded as a compromise between English speakers and French speakers. All the constitutional laws that have been passed in this country were based on the principle that French speakers should have at least one province as their home (and out of 10, they have perhaps one and a half today). Until Trudeau arrived, that is, and fucked everything up.
So for this reason, francophones in Quebec aren’t an ethnic minority. That’s just not true. Elsewhere in the country, yes, and they’ve accepted that status. But Quebec is our homeland, and that’s it. You expect to be treated there the same way as we are in the rest of the country? Heck, we treat you better!
I live in Hong Kong now. Oddly enough, I hear other languages spoken far more than English here. It doesn’t bother me. Really, understand that no one cares what language you speak.
If the cost of doing so was reasonable, then have at it. There are online translators that do translating on the fly. It probably isn’t as much of a big deal as it once was. Yet, if there is a cost, and a definite need (rather than we should do it because we’re 'multi, and there is a limited budget, then priority should be given to those languages that require it. You might want to prioritize resources to the next most populous language. But maybe those people all speak English as well as their own language? Why bother spending the money on them then? Address the need.
All the constitutional laws that have been passed in this country were based on the principle that French speakers should have at least one province as their home (and out of 10, they have perhaps one and a half today).
That is a principle that constitutional law is based upon? If you think that then you must accept that you are being given special treatment. I don’t. If tomorrow every French speaker decided to give it up for English, there is no law that would stop them. And vice versa.
You mean that there are people who don’t understand that a smaller number is less than a greater number? Or is it the term ‘minority’ that you don’t like being applied to you? You feel because you are ‘minority’ you are treated less than those in the ‘majority’? Could it be because you yourself and your culture looks down on those in the minority? Rather than saying you are a Canadian and in Canada you are the majority?
Yes, I expect to be treated fairly anywhere in Canada. It has nothing to do with language, it has to do with respect between two people. I don’t expect a region where French is the primary language to have people catering to me in English. Why would you think I would? But if I want to start a business in Canada, I should have the ability to use whatever language in whatever way I like to attract my clients. And if that excludes the majority of my potential clientelle, then that is my loss, isn’t it?
Who wants to be treated better?
[QUOTE=Cat Whisperer]
No problem - just quit asking for extra money to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. “I’m special so pay me money”. Nothing equal about that.
I’ve been following this case in the Ontario Court of Appeal with great interest. The finding under appeal is that by making it illegal to operate a bawdy house, the government is placing sex-trade workers at risk. Lawyers speaking for the Government of Canada are arguing that by keeping it illegal, “the government is not participating in violence against women by enacting laws to discourage johns and pimps from buying and selling women’s bodies for sex” - Michael Morris, quoted from the linked article. The trial goes on for the rest of this week.
It’s a very interesting case, with great possibilities for major social change.
Prostitution is legal in Canada. If the government does not want prositution, then the government should go at it head on by making prostitution illegal, rather than continue to go at it indirectly by making the legal practice of prostitution dangerous for prostitutes. Personally, I think prostitution should continue to be legal, and the government should stop trying to make it dangerous for prostitutes. Regulate it like any other business.
I’d like to throw the question out to our fine legal minds - could any as-yet-hypothetical legislation making prostitution itself illegal survive a challenge on Constitutional/Charter of Rights and Freedoms grounds?
I love that prostitution case because the media never fails to attach a picture of that leather-clad dominatrix with each article. That one is particularly nice!
Anyone worried about the budget? All that back and forth about it last sitting of Parliament and it passes with nary a word in this one…
Also, we’ve just voted (294-1!) to stay in Libya for another 3.5 months. I support the mission but are we overextending our forces? We’re still busy with Afghanistan even though we’re transitioning to a training mission there. As for Libya, once Ghadaffi falls there will need to be some boots on the ground and I bet they’ll be Canadian boots. (As an aside, all this talk of boots on the ground ignores the fact that there are already some there- Green Berets and SAS and the like who are teaching the rebels how to point their AKs at the enemy instead of shooting them in the air. Hence the rebels now winning battles instead of getting their asses handed to them. But no scandals attached yet… odd.)
