Richmond, B.C., considers banning Chinese-only signage

[kwoldtimer]

Relevance?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin (among other "prohibited grounds of discrimination) is illegal in Canada. Advertising a position with a language requirement does not run afoul of the law, istm. I suppose you might be able to test it if a white, Mandarin-speaking person applied for the job, was unsuccessful, and could prove that this was because they were not ethnically Chinese. How likely is that to happen, however?

That is my point, that it's not against the law. Discrimination based on language is just a silly as discriminating on race or sexual orientation.

So requiring an employee to speak Chinese in Canada should be illegal as it's discriminating against other Canadians that speak an official language of the country.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

That is my point, that it's not against the law. Discrimination based on language is just a silly as discriminating on race or sexual orientation.

So requiring an employee to speak Chinese in Canada should be illegal as it's discriminating against other Canadians that speak an official language of the country.

I'm puzzled as to how you expect employers to fill positions with third language requirements if they can't specify the language requirement. If a private sector employer wants to offer third language services to his clients as a courtesy, it seems entirely within his rights to do so. It's pretty mainstream as a practice, as was noted earlier.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

That is my point, that it's not against the law. Discrimination based on language is just a silly as discriminating on race or sexual orientation.

So requiring an employee to speak Chinese in Canada should be illegal as it's discriminating against other Canadians that speak an official language of the country.

For the purposes of discrimination or non-discrimination in terms of jobs, language knowledge is considered a "skill" as opposed to an unchangeable personal characteristic like race, disability, gender, etc. Human rights law also recognizes religion and sexual orientation as unchangeable in this way.

Language skills are hardly unchangeable, so requiring language X for a position is akin to requiring a licence to drive heavy trucks for certain jobs.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'm puzzled as to how you expect employers to fill positions with third language requirements if they can't specify the language requirement. If a private sector employer wants to offer third language services to his clients as a courtesy, it seems entirely within his rights to do so. It's pretty mainstream as a practice, as was noted earlier.

It's not legal in Québec or New-Brunswick (for provincial juridictions). People need to learn the official languages.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For the purposes of discrimination or non-discrimination in terms of jobs, language knowledge is considered a "skill" as opposed to an unchangeable personal characteristic like race, disability, gender, etc. Human rights law also recognizes religion and sexual orientation as unchangeable in this way.

Language skills are hardly unchangeable, so requiring language X for a position is akin to requiring a licence to drive heavy trucks for certain jobs.

Language is a major component of the Canadian Charter of Rights as I posted. Should that be removed from the chart?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's not legal in Québec or New-Brunswick (for provincial juridictions). People need to learn the official languages.

I think it might only be the case in Quebec, and here it's quite circumscribed. Generally it's to prevent employers from requiring English for all positions across the board. Often historically that's been done in some workplaces in Quebec simply because the boss wants everyone to speak English to him and between themselves. So in Quebec at least, if someone protests that English or another language is required for a job, an employer may have to "prove" that it's necessary. AFAIK it's rarely contested and usually common sense prevails.

There was this case recently where the union for Gatineau city employees contested the bilingualism requirement for a job or jobs.

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/...t-cour-supreme

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Language is a major component of the Canadian Charter of Rights as I posted. Should that be removed from the chart?

"Language knowledge" is not the same as simply "being" a francophone, anglophone or allophone.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"Language knowledge" is not the same as simply "being" a francophone, anglophone or allophone.

LOL, I guess we'll disagree on that. Having a common language means the same opportunities for everyone in the country and a basic ground for communication and unity. For me that is a right, and the province that I work in understand that right and protects it.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think it might only be the case in Quebec, and here it's quite circumscribed. Generally it's to prevent employers from requiring English for all positions across the board. Often historically that's been done in some workplaces in Quebec simply because the boss wants everyone to speak English to him and between themselves. So in Quebec at least, if someone protests that English or another language is required for a job, an employer may have to "prove" that it's necessary. AFAIK it's rarely contested and usually common sense prevails.

There was this case recently where the union for Gatineau city employees contested the bilingualism requirement for a job or jobs.

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/...t-cour-supreme

You still have to serve the English minority as it's included in the Chart. (many nuances but still is the main objective).

In BC, nothing prevents a company to hire hundreds of Chinese-only speakers. If you don't think that it's discrimination fine, like I said we'll just disagree on that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

LOL, I guess we'll disagree on that. Having a common language means the same opportunities for everyone in the country and a basic ground for communication and unity. For me that is a right, and the province that I work in understand that right and protects it.

In Quebec we are in a unique situation which IMO justifies a unique set of measures like we have.

I grew up in and lived much of my life in Anglo-Canada so I can understand why people there are more laissez-faire about such things, as they have always easily sorted themselves out naturally (due of course to the anglo-hegemonic structure of society that was put in place there long ago).

At some point though things may change and they may come to no longer see things so magnanimously.

It'll be their decision to make.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I get your point guys but the FB reactions are a bit disingeneous. Obviously they meant a Chinese speaking person.

Actually, the vast majority of Chinese people conflate the ability to speak Chinese with being ethnically Chinese, and would hardly expect there to be a pool of non-Chinese people who speak Chinese well enough to serve Chinese-speaking customers, so I don't think that is true at all.

What I think is odd is that the sign is in English. Maybe because it's a large sign next to the roadway? I see "Help Wanted" signs written in Chinese at restaurants in Waterloo and Toronto all the time. It's a very effective way of making sure that you only get Chinese employees.

I'm not sure your complaint really holds water, though, d_jeffrey. Setting aside the fact that we all know that by "Chinese-speaking person," if that is descriptor to be used, they actually just mean Chinese person (for cultural as well as linguistic reasons), I think you could argue that many jobs require particular skill sets that put them out of reach of people. Is the principle behind "we need someone who can chop onions fast" really all that different from "we need someone who can speak Chinese"?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Actually, the vast majority of Chinese people conflate the ability to speak Chinese with being ethnically Chinese, and would hardly expect there to be a pool of non-Chinese people who speak Chinese well enough to serve Chinese-speaking customers, so I don't think that is true at all.

What I think is odd is that the sign is in English. Maybe because it's a large sign next to the roadway? I see "Help Wanted" signs written in Chinese at restaurants in Waterloo and Toronto all the time. It's a very effective way of making sure that you only get Chinese employees.

I'm not sure your complaint really holds water, though, d_jeffrey. Setting aside the fact that we all know that by "Chinese-speaking person," if that is descriptor to be used, they actually just mean Chinese person (for cultural as well as linguistic reasons), I think you could argue that many jobs require particular skill sets that put them out of reach of people. Is the principle behind "we need someone who can chop onions fast" really all that different from "we need someone who can speak Chinese"?

You really should rethink what you wrote here. The stereotyping is borderline racist. And yes, the principle is extremely different.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Actually, the vast majority of Chinese people conflate the ability to speak Chinese with being ethnically Chinese, and would hardly expect there to be a pool of non-Chinese people who speak Chinese well enough to serve Chinese-speaking customers, so I don't think that is true at all.

Oh, I am fully conscious that "Chinese person" and "Chinese speaking person" are totally conflated. They probably wouldn't hire Dashan for this job. Or maybe they would and I am just making assumptions.

Anyway, it's a skill that (some) Chinese origin people have and that this business had identified as a need. I don't see this as a big deal.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

You really should rethink what you wrote here. The stereotyping is borderline racist. And yes, the principle is extremely different.

Erm...I'm genuinely not sure if you're trolling or not. How is what I wrote borderline racist, and how is the principle different?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Erm...I'm genuinely not sure if you're trolling or not. How is what I wrote borderline racist, and how is the principle different?

To equate someone who can chop onions fast to a Chinse person for once?!

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

To equate someone who can chop onions fast to a Chinse person for once?!

That's not what he said. He said ability to chop onions versus ability to speak Chinese. Two abilities, which people either have or they don't.

IT seems to me by over-reacting and calling such a thing racist, the racist one is in fact, you.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by geotag277

That's not what he said. He said ability to chop onions versus ability to speak Chinese. Two abilities, which people either have or they don't.

IT seems to me by over-reacting and calling such a thing racist, the racist one is in fact, you.

LOL, stop with the kindergarden arguments please. Read the previous paragraphs relating abilities to race/language spoken. To me it's completely inacceptable.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

LOL, stop with the kindergarden arguments please. Read the previous paragraphs relating abilities to race/language spoken. To me it's completely inacceptable.

I look forward to your protests of companies daring to hire Chinese speakers for Chinese translation duties as well.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I look forward to your protests of companies daring to hire Chinese speakers for Chinese translation duties as well.

Or you should just read back my posts about such issue.