From Caroline:
You are all ignorant. I personally believe in God and modesty, but just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should disrespect me by trying to tell me my beliefs are false. I respect your beliefs, so why must everyone constantly fight about it. Stop being immature and learn to respect each other. This discussion is about being bare breasted, not God. If someone makes a comment that they’re for modesty because of their beliefs, it is rude and disrespectful to tell them otherwise and vice versa. Grow up. (Pokedandprodded.health.com, my emphasis.)
The above came from a health website where the author was promoting topfreedom. Naturally, the web being what it is, some supported the idea (and this included males who simply wanted a change of scenery), while others disagreed. Many, if not most, who disagreed did so for religious reasons. While they spoke of modesty, they always tied it to a belief in what they thought was the will of God.
To be fair, some were fine with a belief in God, but added that God, as far as they knew, never intended for breasts to be reduced to nothing more than objects of sexual attraction. Others, though, made it clear they did not have any religious beliefs and criticised those who did. I won’t pick sides on this specific issue.
However, Caroline’s reaction to comments by others does bring up an interesting philosophical issue. She wants atheists and agnostics to show her respect by not telling her that her false beliefs are exactly that: false. She says she respects the beliefs of atheists and agnostics, but she clearly doesn’t want to hear them because they are, apparently, disrespectful – even if she respects them. If she at least tried to criticise both sides by also castigating the religious people for criticising those who see no problem with baring breasts, religious or not, I might have given her the benefit of the doubt. But she didn’t. Only we atheists and agnostics are capable of disrespect, it seems.
While it’s fun to wax philosophical on such issues, there is one thing we must remember: Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion and its constraints, and this must include the right to criticise religion. Is it possible to do so in such a way that religionists will not feel disrespected? I doubt it. After all, many tend to not see the plank in their own eyes when they criticise non-believers for the sawdust in theirs. (Matthew 7, 3.)
If they bring up the subject of religion, they should expect to be soundly rebuked by whatever Internet user is on at that time. It’s the nature of the medium as well as a natural consequence of debate in a public space.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Reaping What We Sow
Note: Some time ago I was sent an email which was said to contain a monologue from Ben Stein, although alterations to the original text showed it to be more than it pretended to be. I began writing a blog entry in reaction to it. Before I could finalise it, Gabrielle Giffords, a U.S. member of Congress, was shot in the head by Jared Lee Loughner, who then turned the gun on other people, killing six and wounding 13 others. She was holding a “Congress on Your Corner” public meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, when the shooting occurred. Given some of the parallels between the event and the email I was writing about, I’ve decided to combine the two.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Christians often like to boast about how their lives are better because they follow God’s Guide to Better Living, a.k.a. the Bible. Yet, some seem to have a particular disdain for one of the 10 commandments, the one that prohibits bearing false witness.
Recently I was sent an email concerning a speech, or perhaps a monologue, delivered by a certain Ben Stein. I’m not too sure who Ben Stein is. I have come across him all too infrequently on TV, usually as an actor in commercials, but also as some type of political and financial expert. At the very least, he seems to be educated and well-read. If we took the email at face value, though, he would seem to be someone who states, if not believes, that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or, at least, the United States are.
The email says that the monologue was read verbatim on TV. After checking on snopes.com, I see that is the case, but only up to a point since alterations were made to the version I received. In other words, part of the statement can be attributed to Mr. Stein, but not all. For example, there is mention of Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the late and famous preacher Billy Graham, in the email. But in the original text, she is not mentioned at all, nor is there any mention of the suicide of one of Dr. Benjamin Spock’s children. (Indeed, it would appear no such suicide ever took place.)
I’d like to know why some Christians felt the need to add things to Stein’s statement and pretend they were his thoughts. Someone, somewhere, felt something should be added to Stein’s commentary on Christmas and the U.S. attitudes toward it. Does this mean Stein’s great for drawing attention but just won’t go far enough? Are Anne Graham’s statements so flimsy that Stein is needed to prop them up? And if Stein didn’t mention Dr. Spock, why pretend that he did?
On to the email:
- - - - -
Stein says that while he is Jewish, he has no problem with Christmas trees being called just that, or with people saying Merry Christmas. He adds that he doesn’t feel slighted in the least. Rather, he likes the fact he is being included in the celebrations. Later, he says he doesn’t mind if a manger scene is displayed at “a key intersection” near his home.
Stein isn’t explicit, but I think what he’s saying is he prefers “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays.” Through this, he is arguing against the (mistaken) belief that private citizens and private sector businesses are prevented from saying Merry Christmas due to the presence of non-Christians. How they came to this conclusion is a mystery, but it’s one they like to repeat to look like victims of reverse discrimination.
Professional naysayers know better, but continue to obfuscate the argument. Agents and institutions of government do indeed have to find ways to be as respectful as possible of all religious beliefs. Government neutrality in religious matters demands no less. This does NOT apply to people in their own spare time, nor to private sector businesses. If a private citizen on private land wants to display a crèche, more power to him. And even government employees can say “Merry Christmas” to clients. That is the official name of the holiday.
Someone as well-read as Stein should know that. If sincere, he should make that clear.
“I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.”
This statement by Stein is dishonest in the extreme. Atheists themselves know very well that the U.S. is not an atheist country. What we say is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention GOD! The constitution is godless. This is NOT the same as saying the U.S. is an atheist country. Stein is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to know this and to know that he is not being honest.
And now, those statements attributed to Stein but definitely not his:
- - - - -
The email goes on to give us a quote from Anne Graham, purportedly after many southern states were devastated by Hurricane Katrina: “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman he is, I believe he has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us his blessing and his protection if we demand he leave us alone?”
First of all, the quote isn’t entirely accurate, but more of a paraphrase. Secondly, this was not in reference to Hurricane Katrina, but to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Don’t believe me? Check out urbanlegends.about.com and breakthechain.org. Still, for the purpose of this study, let’s consider the statement as is.
The email writer called the answer profound and insightful. To me, it just sounds like blaming the victims. God wouldn’t save them because “we” told him to butt out! So much for being All-merciful. In any case, how do we know all the Katrina victims wanted God out of their lives? Oh, it’s the cumulative effect of being shunned by so many fellow citizens, you say? Then Anne Graham and those who think like her are guilty by association?
In reflecting upon the September 11, 2001, the author goes on to suggest that terrorist attacks by Muslims are caused by the absence of prayer and Bible reading in American schools. Therefore, we wouldn’t need all the extra security in the airports if we would just start praying again in schools. Wow!
Concerning the many shootings that have happened in recent years, especially in schools, the email author wonders why we listened to Dr. Benjamin Spock and stopped beating (okay, “spanking”) our children. “Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves,” the email continues.
Why does the email writer assume the killers don’t know right from wrong? Only truly insane people could ever aspire to such a state of mind. The people who commit these acts know very well what is right and what is wrong. What they suffer from, rightly or wrongly, is a delusional sense of injustice so great that they see these horrendous acts as “necessary evils.”
I don’t know why some people kill. Some say children learn to be violent when they are spanked. Others say children lose their inhibitions when they lose their fear of punishment. I am NOT a proponent of spanking. However, does anybody really know who’s right?
“Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW'.” If we sow confusion, dismay and division, that’s what we get. In that respect, the email author seems to know his or her job.
But let’s try to go beyond the confusion. First of all, what did we “sow?” We made reforms to the education system that discourages dropping out, so students stay in school longer. If those students responsible for school shootings had already left school, they probably would have killed workers in the field instead. What did we reap? Murders on a scale commensurate to the high-tech weapons of today. No wonder such carnage didn’t happen in the past. The technology just wasn’t there. What used to require five gunmen can now be accomplished by only one.
Turning now to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona:
They didn’t occur in a school setting, but given the age of the shooter, they could have. Whatever his politics, if any, it seems more like he just wanted to make a splash. He certainly did. Some want to blame the political right, and I sympathise with them. If a link could be established between vitriolic speech by some and the violence of another, I would be overjoyed.
But the truth is there probably wasn’t any link in this case. As time goes on, we learn that whatever his influences, conservative talk shows and Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” target list weren’t among them.
So who – or what – would our aforementioned email writer suggest we blame? Lack of prayer in schools? Parents who don’t spank their children? Easy access to dangerous weapons?
I wish I knew the answer. In fact, I’m sure NOBODY knows the answer, other than to say that Jared Lee Loughner was a very sick man. Not insane; just sick. I don’t believe prayer would have helped. Not without a straitjacket anyway.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Germ Theory
What is the best way to avoid catching diseases caused by bacteria and viruses? Obviously, it would be to avoid exposure to the bacteria and viruses.
This is simple enough for us to understand. But how does one explain this to people who, for all sorts of reasons, have never been exposed to the germ theory of disease?
This is a challenge facing those who would teach AIDS prevention in parts of Africa where the idea of communicable disease through sexual relations is unknown. This is undoubtedly a problem in many other parts of the world, but given how widespread AIDS is in Africa, it is particularly troublesome there.
Geoffrey Clarfield spent more than 25 years working in Africa and the Middle East in policy, education, culture and institutional capacity building. I recently saw a video in which he was commenting on a question that was posed to him by a young worker in the field: How does one teach basic health and prevention programs when the intended audience does not believe in the germ theory of disease? And in the case of AIDS, things get complicated when someone asks, “Why should having sex with a beautiful woman (or a handsome man) kill me? We’ve been doing this for gazillions of years; otherwise I wouldn’t be here.”
Clarfield adds that the ideal ages at which work can be done to change attitudes regarding sex is between the ages of five and 15. But non-governmental organisations are forced to accept projects aimed at university students or mine workers, for example, because that’s all the governments are interested in funding.
In the video, Clarfield doesn’t specify why governments would do this. But I wonder if it may have something to do with the queasiness often felt when the topic of sex education comes up. Not that long ago, “abstinence only” sex education was being promoted by far right and not-so-far right governments, despite mounting evidence that such education doesn’t work. For purely ideological reasons, important opportunities at home were lost. Could the same thing be happening internationally?
This is simple enough for us to understand. But how does one explain this to people who, for all sorts of reasons, have never been exposed to the germ theory of disease?
This is a challenge facing those who would teach AIDS prevention in parts of Africa where the idea of communicable disease through sexual relations is unknown. This is undoubtedly a problem in many other parts of the world, but given how widespread AIDS is in Africa, it is particularly troublesome there.
Geoffrey Clarfield spent more than 25 years working in Africa and the Middle East in policy, education, culture and institutional capacity building. I recently saw a video in which he was commenting on a question that was posed to him by a young worker in the field: How does one teach basic health and prevention programs when the intended audience does not believe in the germ theory of disease? And in the case of AIDS, things get complicated when someone asks, “Why should having sex with a beautiful woman (or a handsome man) kill me? We’ve been doing this for gazillions of years; otherwise I wouldn’t be here.”
Clarfield adds that the ideal ages at which work can be done to change attitudes regarding sex is between the ages of five and 15. But non-governmental organisations are forced to accept projects aimed at university students or mine workers, for example, because that’s all the governments are interested in funding.
In the video, Clarfield doesn’t specify why governments would do this. But I wonder if it may have something to do with the queasiness often felt when the topic of sex education comes up. Not that long ago, “abstinence only” sex education was being promoted by far right and not-so-far right governments, despite mounting evidence that such education doesn’t work. For purely ideological reasons, important opportunities at home were lost. Could the same thing be happening internationally?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Jane Doe’s profile at NudistSpace.org
Yep, if you know a person by his or her full name, and that person happens to be registered with nudistspace.org, you can probably find the profile through a regular Google search. If you’re a member of nudistspace.org, did you know that?
I had heard some rather unflattering things about nudistspace.org and normally wouldn’t even be writing about that site. However, I once read an article I liked a lot in Going Natural and discovered the author had a profile at nudistspace.org. Now, it’s possible it’s a case of stolen identity and someone is just posing as the author. Many other people were victims before and many more will fall victim as time goes on. However, for now, I have no reason to believe the author didn’t knowingly create the profile.
In the short time I was a “member,” I could see that the site really was the antithesis of naturism. The site offers the following warning to all potential new members:
Please Note before the registration:
• We are Nudists oriented club, we are very against to the sexual life style. (sic)
• We are not an "adult" site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
• We are not an erotic picture site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
Despite this warning, the truth is there is much talk of sexual activity (and not just theory), and even swinging and gang bangs. Indeed, the author I referred to earlier was a member of some of those groups. And while I don’t think any of their photos may be “erotic” per se, “crotch shots” are definitely rampant.
Now, I like the idea of being able to discuss such things with other nudists. I just don’t think it should happen on a site that says, “we are very against to the sexual life style” (sic). Is it really so difficult to create a website for “sexual enthusiasts” that includes a section for those enthusiasts who also happen to be nudists? That would seem so much more appropriate than trying to accommodate sexual groups on a nudist site.
However, that’s not even my main objection. Because of the stigma attached to naturism, a large number of naturists/nudists would rather be known by their “usernames” until such time as trust is formed between different members. Also, usernames are meant to reduce the risk of an employer or other non-understanding person from discovering his or her employee’s “extra-curricular” activities. Nudistspace.org does not do that. Rather, if you do write in your real name when asked, you will be easy to find on Google after enough time has passed.
Don’t believe me? I came to discover this by looking up a very well-known nudist. While she has scaled back her Internet activities in recent years, she used to run her own website dealing with nudity and sex for teens. I put her name into the Google search field, added the word “nudist,” and instantly found “Jane Doe's profile at NudistSpace.org” near the top. (Of course, for this article, I replaced her real name with "Jane Doe.") I clicked on the link and came to her profile.
While she did give her first name on that page, her last name was nowhere to be seen. But the Google search gave her full name. In checking out my own profile page, I discovered that if one were to save the Internet page to one’s hard drive, the file name would include the name under which the person is registered. Not the username, but the REAL name. For those who truly value their privacy, this can only be described as a dead giveaway.
For those who truly want to give nudistspace.org a try, you have now been warned. If you have a relatively unknown given name and a substitute surname, you may want to consider using them.
I had heard some rather unflattering things about nudistspace.org and normally wouldn’t even be writing about that site. However, I once read an article I liked a lot in Going Natural and discovered the author had a profile at nudistspace.org. Now, it’s possible it’s a case of stolen identity and someone is just posing as the author. Many other people were victims before and many more will fall victim as time goes on. However, for now, I have no reason to believe the author didn’t knowingly create the profile.
In the short time I was a “member,” I could see that the site really was the antithesis of naturism. The site offers the following warning to all potential new members:
Please Note before the registration:
• We are Nudists oriented club, we are very against to the sexual life style. (sic)
• We are not an "adult" site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
• We are not an erotic picture site. if that is what you are looking for, go elsewhere.
Despite this warning, the truth is there is much talk of sexual activity (and not just theory), and even swinging and gang bangs. Indeed, the author I referred to earlier was a member of some of those groups. And while I don’t think any of their photos may be “erotic” per se, “crotch shots” are definitely rampant.
Now, I like the idea of being able to discuss such things with other nudists. I just don’t think it should happen on a site that says, “we are very against to the sexual life style” (sic). Is it really so difficult to create a website for “sexual enthusiasts” that includes a section for those enthusiasts who also happen to be nudists? That would seem so much more appropriate than trying to accommodate sexual groups on a nudist site.
However, that’s not even my main objection. Because of the stigma attached to naturism, a large number of naturists/nudists would rather be known by their “usernames” until such time as trust is formed between different members. Also, usernames are meant to reduce the risk of an employer or other non-understanding person from discovering his or her employee’s “extra-curricular” activities. Nudistspace.org does not do that. Rather, if you do write in your real name when asked, you will be easy to find on Google after enough time has passed.
Don’t believe me? I came to discover this by looking up a very well-known nudist. While she has scaled back her Internet activities in recent years, she used to run her own website dealing with nudity and sex for teens. I put her name into the Google search field, added the word “nudist,” and instantly found “Jane Doe's profile at NudistSpace.org” near the top. (Of course, for this article, I replaced her real name with "Jane Doe.") I clicked on the link and came to her profile.
While she did give her first name on that page, her last name was nowhere to be seen. But the Google search gave her full name. In checking out my own profile page, I discovered that if one were to save the Internet page to one’s hard drive, the file name would include the name under which the person is registered. Not the username, but the REAL name. For those who truly value their privacy, this can only be described as a dead giveaway.
For those who truly want to give nudistspace.org a try, you have now been warned. If you have a relatively unknown given name and a substitute surname, you may want to consider using them.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Language policy
The following letter was published in the Nov. 26, 2010, edition of the Times Transcript, in Moncton, NB.
The letter is signed Daryl Doucette, of Moncton, and I underlined part of the letter myself. Let’s take that underlined portion and change it around a bit:
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual French New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual anglophones who simply refuse to talk French to their fellow employees!
Anyone want to bet that Doucette would see absolutely no problem with this?
The "Official Languages Act" of New Brunswick is "up for review" in 2012, meaning articles can be added or deleted, making them "law" in the province.
There is a policy in place now, in the provincial civil service, which is titled the "Language of Work" policy.
It states that the employee has the right to work in the "official language" of their choice.
The SANB (Acadian Society) is working with the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick, Michel Carrier and affiliates to have this "policy" implemented into the "Act."
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual English New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual francophones who simply refuse to talk English to their fellow employees!
This ludicrous discriminatory policy must be thrown out the door and not be allowed to be implemented into the Act.
There is a policy in place now, in the provincial civil service, which is titled the "Language of Work" policy.
It states that the employee has the right to work in the "official language" of their choice.
The SANB (Acadian Society) is working with the Commissioner of Official Languages of New Brunswick, Michel Carrier and affiliates to have this "policy" implemented into the "Act."
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual English New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual francophones who simply refuse to talk English to their fellow employees!
This ludicrous discriminatory policy must be thrown out the door and not be allowed to be implemented into the Act.
The letter is signed Daryl Doucette, of Moncton, and I underlined part of the letter myself. Let’s take that underlined portion and change it around a bit:
The implications of this are as follows: no unilingual French New Brunswicker in the future will be hired into the provincial government civil service, as they will not be able to communicate with some of the perfectly bilingual anglophones who simply refuse to talk French to their fellow employees!
Anyone want to bet that Doucette would see absolutely no problem with this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)