English Only

[Tim Whitehead]

Here's a brief history lesson for you on Québec's language laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bill101/

Brief synopsis. Some provincial governments have tried to make "French-only" laws, but they have been shot down as unconstitutional. The current law, which is about 13 years old, states that exterior signs must have French larger than the English on their signs, but does not ban any English, or say that French is the only language that may be used.

At the same time, French is the official language of Québec, so contracts and such are all in French, I believe.

Also, the vote on Québec secession was 11 years ago, and yes, the vote very narrowly failed. Language was one of many issues in the whole situation. The situation is very complicated, and goes back hundreds of years...

[Sonny]

I'm obviously not Canadian, but I think it runs a little deeper then that Tim. Quebec is pretty much openly hostile toward English.

Don't all kids have to educated in French. And all govt. documents must be produced in French? And jobs must be offered to multi-lingual job applicants first before English only job seekers?

[sohotrightnow]

Per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_in_Canada):

English and French have equal status in federal courts, Parliament, and in all federal institutions. The public has the right, where there is sufficient demand, to receive federal government services in either English or French.

While multiculturalism is official policy, to become a citizen one must be able to speak either English or French and more than 98% of Canadians speak English or French or both. While the nation remains officially bilingual, the majority of Canadians are fluent only in English.

French is mostly spoken in Quebec with pockets in New Brunswick, eastern and northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, and southern Manitoba. In the 2001 census, 6,864,615 people listed French as a first language, of whom 85% lived in Quebec. 17,694,835 people listed English as a first language.

The official language of Quebec is French, as defined by the province's Charter of the French Language, which was introduced by the Parti Québécois in 1976. However, the Charter also provides certain rights for speakers of English and aboriginal languages. Quebec provides most government services in both French and English.

[Hackalicious]

France and Canada are two countries that have enforced new strict language laws for people to only use French. I'm sure there are others.

Tsk, tsk. Hiding behind "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", Sonny?

They French and Quebecois can keep their language purity committees and official state languages.

Americans don't put up with that crap.

We should stop whining and learn a couple more languages. It'll make us more competitive in the global market.

Evolucionare o morirá.

[Ben Clark]

If anyone needs to learn to speak English it's Joseph Vento, the owner of Geno's. Have you heard that guy talk? It's a train wreck.

[Sonny]

Tsk, tsk. Hiding behind "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", Sonny?

No. I'm just for allowing private businesses to conduct business on their own private property as they see fit.

[beckner11]

Maybe the guy simply wants quicker and more efficient service in his establishment and if there is someone speaking another language, trying to order, it will slow up his lines. I've never been to an authentic cheesesteak place before but I hear they are very popular and hectic and someone holding up the line with trying to put together a coherent order would probably cause either the loss of customers or their frustration, especially since we're in a society that is very conscious of their time.

[Tim Whitehead]

No. I'm just for allowing private businesses to conduct business on their own private property as they see fit.

Theoretical question for you, Sonny. If I had my own business on my own property and decided that I didn't want to serve blacks or people in wheelchairs, would you support my right to do that?

[StrykerFSU]

Not to speak for Sonny, but I think there are some obvious differences. This is a question of communication. The owner of Geno's is not saying that speakers of foreign languages can't order food because they are foreign or black or in a wheelchair. Geno's is merely asking that if you choose to order food, please do so in the language spoken by the workers within the restaraunt and thus making the entire operation run more efficiently. There's a reason that English is the international language of business and science.

Like I've said before, Geno's is a high volume operation and is trying to maximize profits by turning out delicious piles of steak and whiz and they have no tolerance for ANYONE who slows down the process.

[Tim Whitehead]

Not to speak for Sonny, but I think there are some obvious differences. This is a question of communication. The owner of Geno's is not saying that speakers of foreign languages can't order food because they are foreign or black or in a wheelchair. Geno's is merely asking that if you choose to order food, please do so in the language spoken by the workers within the restaraunt and thus making the entire operation run more efficiently. There's a reason that English is the international language of business and science.

Like I've said before, Geno's is a high volume operation and is trying to maximize profits by turning out delicious piles of steak and whiz and they have no tolerance for ANYONE who slows down the process.

Yes, there are differences, but it all boils down to discrimination at the heart of it. (For the record, I'm not sure how I feel about the "English only" policy, but this is for the sake of argument). If discrimination over language can be justified because it's private property, then discrimation over anything can really be excused, since it's that person's private property, no?

As for your efficiency argument, tell me this. Most places now I imagine have laws making buildings wheelchair accessible, correct? Why do you think this is? Maybe because people in wheelchairs were "inefficient" and "slowed down the process" at certain places of business. If Geno says he doesn't want people in wheelchairs in his business because they slow down the line, get in the way, etc (and don't say they don't in many situations), is he justified? Have you ever been in line behind an old couple at a restaurant, where they take an hour to order because they don't understand the menu, all that (happens all the time)? Can restaurants ban old people that get confused, and heaven forbid, need to walk with a cane, because they "slow down the process".

:::Added later:::

My view here, after thinking about it some more, is that this is selective discrimination. He doens't like people that don't speak English, so he doesn't want them in his store. Is it legal? I don't know. Is it racist/wrong? I think so...

[StrykerFSU]

I hear ya. I really don't think that Geno's has a leg to stand on in this case. The forces of political correctness have spoken and Geno's will have to adjust.

[cjwilhelmi]

No. I'm just for allowing private businesses to conduct business on their own private property as they see fit.

Theoretical question for you, Sonny. If I had my own business on my own property and decided that I didn't want to serve blacks or people in wheelchairs, would you support my right to do that?

Tim - Honestly I think that they as a private owner can say that and that they have that right. However, I would personally boycott the establishment.

[Danny Hogan]

He doens't like people that don't speak English, so he doesn't want them in his store. Is it legal? I don't know. Is it racist/wrong? I think so...

i dont' think it ever said anywhere that he didn't like the people or that he doesn't want their business. He just wants them to speak english.


i aslo guarantee he has a 'terrorist hunting license sticker' and/or a 'calvin peeing' sticker somewhere

[Hackalicious]

Tsk, tsk. Hiding behind "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", Sonny?

No. I'm just for allowing private businesses to conduct business on their own private property as they see fit.

By your standard, private business owners should be free to discrimintate against people because of race or religion. This was the exact argument used by people opposing civil rights. Private business owners with racist customers even had a legitimate argument, by saying "I'd hire a black guy, but then no one will shop here".

Fortunately, we live in a regulated free market and have rejected this as a society. Employers cannot discriminate against people because of reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying business.

For instance, what if I made rules for my back-end office that:
1. All females must wear short skirts and revealing blouses.
2. Corn-rows and afro-style haircuts are strictly forbidden.
3. Employees must only speak English to each other, even during break time.

(These are all real examples, by the way.)

#1 has been defended in cases where it is part of the job, most notably at Hooters. Otherwise, it's just a rule meant to discourage female employees from working there.

#2 is still the standard policy for many retail stores. To flip it, imagine if an employer told a white guy that he had to kink his hair into an afro with a hot iron or else he'd be fired? That's nonsense that has nothing to do with doing his job, but that's what a lot of people face today.

#3 is defensible in business-to-business or customer interactions. If you're dealing with people who speak a particular language, on a regular basis, speaking that language is a rational job requirement. However, I don't think you can make a business case that there is any reason to forbid another language from being spoken at all.

[Campbell]

No. I'm just for allowing private businesses to conduct business on their own private property as they see fit.

Theoretical question for you, Sonny. If I had my own business on my own property and decided that I didn't want to serve blacks or people in wheelchairs, would you support my right to do that?

Tim - Honestly I think that they as a private owner can say that and that they have that right. However, I would personally boycott the establishment.

As much as it bothers me, I feel that a private property owner should have that right. If you own a restaurant and want to serve only certain types of people I feel that should be your right. I would not go to such a place, but if it is private let them be. The only time I would argue with issues like this is when it comes down to public money related to a business, charity, group, etc.

The smoking bans that are springing up all over the country are another good example of private business owner rights getting pushed aside. I certainly enjoy the non smoking bars more now, but overall I think people need to make decisions for themselves before patronizing private businesses, not the government.

I remember when I was in college I used to go to a barber shop pretty regularly. One day in the shop the N word starts floating around pretty freely with both the barbers and the customers. I was surprised, and at first kind of wrote it off to this being Texas and these guys being "good ole boys". I decided later it was BS and took my business elsewhere. They gave pretty good haircuts there, but it wasnt worth it.