Canadian 'Labour Socialism' or European 'Social Democracy'?

163 posts / 0 new
Last post
Machjo

I should perhaps mention too that I know a few FN here in Otawa who are in business. So no, business isn't a foreign concept to them at all. Remember the fur trade? OK, bad example because of exploitation via alcohol addiction. But that major issue aside, they knew business.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There are times when nothing short of a strike or the threat of a strike can make management treat workers decently.  And trust me, if you want to see what life is like for workers where unions DON'T have power(btw, in Germany, they still have a huge amount of power)look at the U.S. South, or at Mexico and Latin America and much of South Asia. 

Workers having places on a board of directors is all well and good(although they usually don't get anywhere close to enough strength on such boards to have the chance to carry a vote on anything unless the bosses, through that mythical "enlightened self-interest"(the kind that doesn't ever actually exist in any real corporation)decide to let them have a few crumbs. 

I'm all for actual worker self-management(which you aren't talking about in any serious sense), but your approach is tokenism.  And inevitably, at some points either the union representatives  on the board give up in humiliation and self-loathing(as Douglas Fraser of the UAW did when he resigned from the GM Board, and you can find his farewell letter in Zinn's "Voices From A People's History") or management simply decides that the "threat" is over and just gets rid of them.  And then, without unions(as you would have it)what are workers left with?  Workers will always be powerless as individuals, just as all other individuals are powerless unless they join forces with others.  You're basically saying that everyone should trust the boss to be a saint.

Unions do have problems.  But it's delusional to act as if they exist solely for the good of the "union leadership".  Without them, life in the North American work force would still pretty much be like this:

Machjo

I oppose tokenism. I was thinking giving them the same vote they'd get in a workers' co-op. If you legislated that kind of law, the labour union movement would be redundant.

Now, having said that, I'd be more than happy for the Ontario teachers' union to prove me wrong about unions, possibly by getting together with the FN, the deaf community, and others to, for example, propose that the Ministry of Education adopt a Hungarian-style second-language instruction policy (i.e. that each school be free to teach the second-language of its choice as long as its course plan is approved by the Ministry of Education to ensure the pedagogical quality of the plan), along with granting each school the freedom to choose the medium of instruction of its choice between English, French, and the local FN language, while establishing some kind of incentive system to ensure that each school be motivated to choose the languages that best suit the interests and inclinations of parents and students.

If it could do that, I'd be very happy.

Fidel

Machjo wrote:
As for the school voucher system in Sweden, it's been in place since 1991. I typed 1992 above, but that was just my bad memory. It was 1991, so it's well over a decade now

In Sweden, the 1991-1994 government introduced a voucher system at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among public and independent schools (friskolor) in the community.

Quote:
"The voucher is 'virtual' and worth the average cost for a place at a state school. Restrictions prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students, creating true equality of access. [14] There is no user charging involved at all or pupil selection, making it as universal as state schools.

I can, and I'm sure profiteering private enterprisers can see bags of room for abuse of a voucher system here in the English speaking countries.

 

Quote:
As for two-tiered health care, I know less detail on that. I'm not sure if Sweden has that, but I know some other mainland countries do. But sicne when I'm not sure. Anyway, I just found this that might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care


I think what you'll find is that Nordic and European countries actually spend more public money as a percentage of total on health care than Canada does, which allows more private money in health care as a percentage of total. So advocates of a Euro-Nordic health care system in Canada should actually be telling us we need to cut private spending on health care in Canada and not increase private sector funding.

remind remind's picture

LOL, you have the wrong idea about unions and co-determination in Germany

 

Machjo

Fidel wrote:

Machjo wrote:
As for the school voucher system in Sweden, it's been in place since 1991. I typed 1992 above, but that was just my bad memory. It was 1991, so it's well over a decade now

In Sweden, the 1991-1994 government introduced a voucher system at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among public and independent schools (friskolor) in the community.

Quote:
"The voucher is 'virtual' and worth the average cost for a place at a state school. Restrictions prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students, creating true equality of access. [14] There is no user charging involved at all or pupil selection, making it as universal as state schools.

I can, and I'm sure profiteering private enterprisers can see bags of room for abuse of a voucher system here in the English speaking countries.

I'd read that before, and it comes from Wikipedia. Yes, I think those restrictions are reasonable. I was referring to a Swedish-style system the whole time, not a US-Republican-style voucher system without regulation. Where's the issue with that? If more restrictions are needed, we add more restrictions. For example, we could say that each public school could teach the second-language of its choice, whereas each private school that wants to participate would have to be owned either by a not-for-profit NGO or a workers' co-op. We could even go further and say that while public schools can choose any second-language of their choice, non-government-owned schools must teach either a sign-language, the local Aboriginal language, or some kind of international language like Esperanto, etc. With such limited options, some parents would likely choose to say with the public system, or pay out of pocket and choose not to use the voucher, or maybe a few, thinking that having their child learn a sign-language, a local Aboriginal language, or Esperanto, etc. coudl be a part of their chil'ds moral education, teaching him that some things are worth learning for their social benefit, and not just financial gain. What would be the issue with such restrictions?

 

Quote:
As for two-tiered health care, I know less detail on that. I'm not sure if Sweden has that, but I know some other mainland countries do. But sicne when I'm not sure. Anyway, I just found this that might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_health_care


I think what you'll find is that Nordic and European countries actually spend more public money as a percentage of total on health care than Canada does, which allows more private money in health care as a percentage of total. So advocates of a Euro-Nordic health care system in Canada should actually be telling us we need to cut private spending on health care in Canada and not increase private sector funding.

Why not go the other way and increase public funding? The way I see it si the more private funding their is in a two-tiered system, the more of an indication that there is a lack of sufficient public funding. Without that private sector, the lack of public funding would not be as obvious since we'd think all is rosy. By allowing private funding, it could serve as a kind of litmus test or barometre to indicate when public funding is lacking. Whenever private funding increaess, that's the cue that government should spend more on it.

Machjo

remind wrote:

LOL, you have the wrong idea about unions and co-determination in Germany

 

 

From my understanding, in Germany, they do have votes, but whether sufficient, I don't know. If so, then let's go with the German system. If not, then let's just create our own and give co-op-style voting rights to workers in all companies. A catch of course might be that the workers would be expected to invest some of their own money into the company after awhile (and I think that would be more than reasonable), but co-determination is preferable to confrontation, isn't it?

Fidel

Machjo wrote:
Why not go the other way and increase public funding? The way I see it si the more private funding their is in a two-tiered system, the more of an indication that there is a lack of sufficient public funding

Under the neoliberal model, the forumula for undermining public sevices in general is to 1. defund it 2. defame it, and 3. privatize and deregulate it

You'd have to examine the political parties' platforms, and even their records in power in Ottawa and Queens Parks to figure out which of them is for the neoliberal agenda and which one is for well-funded public services and public utilities in Canada.

Machjo

Here is some info on the Hungarian system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Hungary

 

I don't necessarily agree with all the details of its second-language teaching policy, but you will see how varied the languages of instruction can be. This Wikipedia article isn't as detailed as one I'd read before, but it's the most detailed one I've been able to find available in English or French so far.

Machjo

Here is some info on the Hungarian system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Hungary

 

I don't necessarily agree with all the details of its second-language teaching policy, but you will see how varied the languages of instruction can be. This Wikipedia article isn't as detailed as one I'd read before, but it's the most detailed one I've been able to find available in English or French so far.

Machjo

OK< here's a more detailed one in English, in about as much detail as the original one I'd read:

http://www.ecml.at/documents/members/HungaryNR.pdf

Machjo

Alright, that last link isn't so detailed either, but I can't seem to find anything on-line as detailed in English at the moment, but anyway, Hungary's is known as being the most liberal across Europe, in that it now has a list of over 20 languages students can choose from, including languages as diverse as Latin and Esperanto, just to give an idea of its liberalism. So why could the Ontario system not do the same for FN languages and sign languages as equal to French?

Fidel

[url=http://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?articleid=640]Privatization and neoliberal trade agreements(GATS) threaten public education[/url] CAUT & OSSTF

remind remind's picture

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Machjo

Ken Burch wrote:

Machjo wrote:

 

 

 

 co-determination is preferable to confrontation, isn't it?

In a perfect world in which management always had progressive,  long-term oriented values.  But that isn't the world we live in.  In the world WE live in, management is tied,  hopelessly and irrevocably, to short-term self-interest and to short-term rate of return for its investors, even when this means(as it has more often than not since 1980)in achieving those returns through cannibalizing the enterprises through "asset-stripping", and layoffs, and wage and benefit cuts for those not laid off, instead of actually trying to GROW the business through providing a usable good or service at a decent price.

If we legislated co-op-style administration in companies, how would that be any different from labour unions?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Machjo wrote:

 co-determination is preferable to confrontation, isn't it?

In a perfect world in which management always had progressive,  long-term oriented values.  But that isn't the world we live in.  In the world WE live in, management is tied,  hopelessly and irrevocably, to short-term self-interest and to short-term rate of return for its investors, even when this means(as it has more often than not since 1980)in achieving those returns through cannibalizing the enterprises through "asset-stripping", and layoffs, and wage and benefit cuts for those not laid off, instead of actually trying to GROW the business through providing a usable good or service at a decent price.

In that world, confrontation is a survival skill, and essential to preserving one's self respect if you're a worker.  The bosses want to break us all down and drag us all back to the 1890's.

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question:

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: If

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: If you

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make it

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make it more

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make scuh

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments?

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic can the left

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic can the left be

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic can the

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic can the left be in

Machjo

remind wrote:

Because perhaps their right wing governments do not want to, marteno, oops machjo.

Why wait for the government? Could the Unions, FN, deaf communities and others get together and write a draft resolution on this? I'm sure les francophones would oppose their special privileged monopoly in the second-language classroom, as would the Catholics with their privileged position, and maybe even many Anglophones, since schools would have more choices for medium of instruction.

But in spite of all this resistance, if they could draw up a well-written resolution, pointing out that it's been done already in Hungary, and reminding people of the land-claims and FN rights, who knows, maybe they could convince some government or another.

Add to this that they could even through money into the arguement. Whether the school teaches French or Algonquin as a second-language, the cost is more or less the same either way, in terms of teachers, textbooks, etc. It's just that instead of language X, the children are learning language Y. THe money saved in not haivng to teach them French is the money being used to teach them the FN language, or sign language, etc. So as long as it can lay down a plan to show that, it might have a chance, maybe.

Then let me ask another question: what do you think could be done to make such an idea more palatable to right-wing governments? How pragmatic can the left be in getting

Pages

Topic locked