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

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't think there is a universally appropriate view of this matter.

But given that Canada is the product of colonization and mass migration, I think it is unreasonable to expect the instant culture to remain static.

Immigration tends to result in asymmetrical reciprocal acculturation (in the Canadian context, the more powerful culture in this engagement would be the White English speakers or White French speakers), but given sufficient concentration of population, that asymmetry could become more symmetrical or even asymmetrical in the other direction.

I don't see a problem with that. Canada is constantly changing.

By expecting newcomers to adopt the local culture through artificial means, it dismisses their cultures. We need to engage with newcomers as equals. On the basis of what works and what is appealing, cultural elements can be appropriated by whomever whenever.

I don't want newcomers to change their culture, and I don't mind if they incorporate parts of it into ours. There are a lot of great things in Vancouver that have been brought here by immigrants. All I ask is that they add their culture to ours, not replace it. So I don't care if there's Chinese on a sign, just put English on it too. Vancouver has been very inclusive to immigrants, all I ask is that they be inclusive back.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Have the Chinese submitted petitions asking that English-only signage be banned?

I wouldn't put it past them to do just that -- if business signage written exclusively in Latin characters started popping up in a mainland China city, I would not be surprised to hear that, at the very least, the city council over there is considering asking for at least a tiny bit of Chinese on the signs.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I wouldn't put it past them to do just that -- if business signage written exclusively in Latin characters started popping up in a mainland China city, I would not be surprised to hear that, at the very least, the city council over there is considering asking for at least a tiny bit of Chinese on the signs.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the Chinese in Richmond.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the Chinese in Richmond.

I know you did, I was just trying to make you realize that Chinese in BC is not an apples to apples comparison with English in BC but rather with English in the PRC, while English in BC would be apples to apples with Mandarin/Cantonese in the PRC.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by giallo

So what's happening in Vancouver, if anything is happening at all, is a reaction to a culture that really doesn't want to adapt initially. As time goes on, the new Mainlanders with become part of Canada just as every large group of immigrants before them have. It just takes time.

I think there is tension because on the one hand there are legitimate cultural concerns and one the other Canadians themselves have a huge amount of (highly exploitable) cultural baggage related to racism. And then some people are actually racist.

The housing debate is a one good example that's more important than this signage issue. I've never seen a very clear investigation of the impact of foreign ownership on the ability of locals to own housing. It seems like there is almost no hard data, and part of the reason for that is likely that accusations of racism are used to shut down the debate. These come from people who want to be politically correct and from people who are making lots of money from real estate. Meanwhile the whole issue has nothing to do with race; there are plenty of Chinese people in Vancouver who can't afford $2M houses either. In the end, the public debate around housing in Vancouver is framed so poorly that almost nobody is able to think about it clearly. With signage, it's also difficult to have a reasonable, practical debate. Maybe Richmond's council meetings are saner. Probably not.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This surprising idea that somehow the burden of adaptation and accommodation should henceforth be primarily borne by the host society in such cases is something you only hear on SSP Canada and perhaps in certain bien pensant Canadian circles.

It smacks of desperation to ''out-tolerate'' the entire world as if self-effacement was somehow a badge of honour.

This idea that the burden of adaptation and accommodation should be borne by the newcomers to society is something you typically hear among a significant number of Quebecois, and the right wing parties of Old World continental European nation states.

It smacks of desperation to subject vulnerable individuals to intolerance in order to salvage the remnants of a dying culture.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

This idea that the burden of adaptation and accommodation should be borne by the newcomers to society is something you typically hear among a significant number of Quebecois, and the right wing parties of Old World continental European nation states.

You only hear it from them because they're the only ones you ever get to hear about in the media on this continent, but I'm nearly certain that it's by far the dominant view from humanity.

The "New World Anglo" culture is about the only one I know that might consider going against that overwhelmingly dominant view among all the cultures of Earth that the burden of adaptation is on the newcomers and not on the greeters.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

I know you did, I was just trying to make you realize that Chinese in BC is not an apples to apples comparison with English in BC but rather with English in the PRC, while English in BC would be apples to apples with Mandarin/Cantonese in the PRC.

Why should Canada emulate China on this matter? (Hypothetically, of course, I don't know much about municipal language bylaws in China)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Why should Canada emulate China on this matter? (Hypothetically, of course, I don't know much about municipal language bylaws in China)

Neither do I (know much about municipal affairs in the PRC).

To answer your question, I would not be surprised to see Canada try to emulate nearly everyone else (including, likely, China) on this matter.

Most countries on Earth aren't blank slates and if you are peacefully and legally welcomed in an already existing one, it's not abnormal to be expected to have to do a few things differently in order to adapt to how the locals have been doing things before you.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

With signage, it's also difficult to have a reasonable, practical debate. Maybe Richmond's council meetings are saner. Probably not.

Why is it so difficult? The debate is not that complicated. Well, at least at first sight, to me. "Should there be a requirement of at least one word in [presumably the official language of BC] in each sign, yes or no...?" Signs with no language on them can be exempt.

(Common sense should make that requirement useless, and obviously many places will never need to vote such a requirement anyway, but it seems Richmond might.)

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Neither do I (know much about municipal affairs in the PRC).

To answer your question, I would not be surprised to see Canada try to emulate nearly everyone else (including, likely, China) on this matter.

Most countries on Earth aren't blank slates and if you are peacefully and legally welcomed in an already existing one, it's not abnormal to be expected to have to do a few things differently in order to adapt to how the locals have been doing things before you.

That's simply a positivist description of how many countries treat newcomers. It does not provide any reason as to why Anglo Canada should adopt this.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

It does not provide any reason as to why Anglo Canada should adopt this.

Reasons have been given (by others, not myself) all over this thread: it's a very exclusionary attitude to sit idly while letting one minority get away with taking ownership of the public sphere in a way that in practice basically prevents everyone who's not part of that minority from participating in it.

This proposal aims to remedy that with new regulation to ensure that the public sphere stays at least somewhat accessible to everybody, not just the Chinese.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

You only hear it from them because they're the only ones you ever get to see in the media on this continent, but I'm nearly certain that it's by far the dominant view from humanity.

The "New World Anglo" culture is about the only one I know that's going against that overwhelmingly dominant view among all the cultures of Earth that the burden of adaptation is on the newcomers and not on the greeters.

Why should the people in the New World Anglo realm adopt the views of the Old World nation-state realm?

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

Reasons have been given (by others, not myself) all over this thread: it's a very exclusionary attitude to sit idly while letting one minority get away with taking ownership of the public sphere in a way that in practice basically prevents everyone who's not part of that minority from participating in it.

This proposal aims to remedy that with new regulation to ensure that the public sphere stays at least somewhat accessible to everybody, not just the Chinese.

And many in the New World Anglo realm have problems with such regulation because:

- It fails to adequately account for demographic shifts
- It restricts the freedom of expression
- It imposes restrictions and burdens on businesses
- It is waste of taxpayer money to regulate text used by businesses
- It gives undue privilege to one particular culture that occupies/occupied a dominant position at one particular time period in one particular area
- It is inconsistent with Canada's history and evolution; Canada is the product of colonization and mass migration

I think it is beautiful to see a minority gain an ownership interest in Canada's public realm; it is sad that one particular culture wants exclusive ownership of the public realm in a supposedly multicultural state.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

Why should the people in the New World Anglo realm adopt the views of the Old World nation-state realm?

First, I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I can understand the reasons behind such an idea.

Second, not everyone living in New World Anglo realm agrees that it's a culture-free blank state. IIRC (forgive me if I'm misquoting) Metro-One earlier in this thread was a bit pissed that the Chinese seemed to think BCers should be thankful for them bringing [their] culture to a place that before them was devoid of any. GlassCity also seems to think that today's BC isn't a blank slate for the Chinese to come and paint it the way they see fit.

So, yes, there are people (plenty of them, I suspect) in the New World Anglo realm that would think more like the people of the Old World.

It's the only 'realm' out there where your views, Doug's views, etc. are reasonably popular, but they're still by no means THAT dominating over there.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

First, I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I can understand the reasons behind such an idea.

Second, not everyone living in New World Anglo realm agrees that it's a culture-free blank state. IIRC (forgive me if I'm misquoting) Metro-One earlier in this thread was a bit pissed that the Chinese seemed to think BCers should be thankful for them bringing [their] culture to a place that before them was devoid of any. GlassCity also seems to think that today's BC isn't a blank slate for the Chinese to come and paint it the way they see fit.

So, yes, there are people (plenty of them, I suspect) in the New World Anglo realm that would think more like the people of the Old World.

It's the only 'realm' out there where your views, Doug's views, etc. are reasonably popular, but they're still by no means THAT dominating over there.

Of course. There are also many people in Quebec and Old World Continental European nation-states that adopt the view on multiculturalism and immigration typically associated with the New World Anglo realm.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

- It restricts the freedom of expression
- It imposes restrictions and burdens on businesses

There are already plenty of restrictions and burdens on businesses; this would be one extra droplet of water in an ocean, no business would "feel the pinch". Richmond could even grandfather all existing signs to make sure no one has to spend a penny over this. It doesn't cost anything more to include an English word when you're creating new signage.

And freedom of expression in business signage is already somewhat restricted, again, this wouldn't change much. For example, using the municipality I'm most familiar with, some of my buildings in downtown Sherbrooke that have retail at street level are in historical areas that the city has deemed worthy of preservation, so there are already rules on the size, colors, type (hanging over sidewalk or not), lighting, etc.

Businesses have managed to live for decades with that kind of restriction on their freedom of expression... Adding one English word is really far from relevant compared to the maze of regulations that are already out there in many cities.

- It is waste of taxpayer money to regulate text used by businesses

Again a droplet of water in an ocean.

- It gives undue privilege to one particular culture that occupies a dominant position at one particular time period in one particular area

Isn't that somewhat normal?

- It is inconsistent with Canada's history and evolution; Canada is the product of colonization and mass migration

I see it as perfectly consistent with Canada's history, which has been for most of Canada's existence the established groups trying to fight the newcomers. Remains to be seen how it will end this time. And resistance is a LOT more mild than in the past...

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by lio45

There are already plenty of restrictions and burdens on businesses; this would be one extra droplet of water in an ocean, no business would "feel the pinch". Richmond could even grandfather all existing signs to make sure no one has to spend a penny over this. It doesn't cost anything more to include an English word when you're creating new signage.

The existence of extensive regulations and burdens on businesses should not serve as a justification for imposing even more regulations and burdens. In fact, it should make us more cautious about adding even more regulations and burdens.

And freedom of expression in business signage is already somewhat restricted, again, this wouldn't change much. For example, using the municipality I'm most familiar with, some of my buildings in downtown Sherbrooke that have retail at street level are in historical areas that the city has deemed worthy of preservation, so there are already rules on the size, colors, type (hanging over sidewalk or not), lighting, etc.

Businesses have managed to live for decades with that kind of restriction on their freedom of expression... Adding one English word is really far from relevant compared to the maze of regulations that are already out there in many cities.

If a dozen businesses in Richmond feel that adding English language to their signage is not worth doing, then forcing them to do so is a restriction on their freedom of expression. The existence of a maze of regulations should not provide impetus to further complicate matters. Rather, it should make us cautious about further adding burdens to businesses.


Again a droplet of water in an ocean.

Taxpayer money is evidently scarce in Canada, given the number of substantive problems we have and the underfunding of potential solutions to those problems. Given these conditions, we should be cautious about how we spend taxpayer money.

Isn't that somewhat normal?

Isn't that somewhat sad?

I see it as perfectly consistent with Canada's history, which has been for most of Canada's existence the established groups trying to fight the newcomers. Remains to be seen how it will end this time. And resistance is a LOT more mild than in the past...

Canadian history and evolution has many aspects. Sure, one aspect of Canadian history is intolerance. From residential schooling, to Komagata Maru on the shores of BC, to racist immigration laws, to Japanese internment, to suppressing German heritage in Kitchener, Canada has a history of intolerance. However, another way to examine Canadian history would be to look at how it has evolved since those instances of intolerance. Perhaps this explains why "resistance is a LOT more mild than in the past..." The Canadian narrative is one of greater tolerance of differences.

So sure, in some sense, I give you that an intolerant municipal bylaw would be consistent with Canadian history, but it would be consistent with one aspect of Canadian history -- that of intolerance. I'd prefer policies be consistent with how Canada has evolved as a result of these instances of intolerance, and where many Canadians would like to take this evolution.

See bolded.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

This idea that the burden of adaptation and accommodation should be borne by the newcomers to society is something you typically hear among a significant number of Quebecois, and the right wing parties of Old World continental European nation states.

It smacks of desperation to subject vulnerable individuals to intolerance in order to salvage the remnants of a dying culture.

How is that at all intolerant? While there are still problems, Canada is easily one of the most accepting and welcoming nations in the world. A host country should not have to go out of its way to accommodate new comers. Being able to come to Canada is a privilege. I cannot begin to explain how fortunate I feel that I worry about things like term essays and getting laid, rather than whether or not my apartment building will get blown up, if I was rejected entry and was still living in Donetsk. The least anybody could do when presented this opportunity is to learn the local language and make an effort to include yourself in this new culture. It's just completely illogical that you can come to a drastically different country, but then carry on as if nothing's changed. The only reason it happens here is because we allow it to. Say you used to be a car mechanic and you were allowed to show up to work dirty and smelly because it doesn't really matter. Then you get hired as a server at a fancy restaurant. Is it intolerant of the restaurant to request that you shower before your shifts? Or should they just allow you to carry on, because they wouldn't want to be intolerant to your existing habits?

And don't call Canada "a dying culture." Just because it's not obvious doesn't mean it's not there, and should not be protected.

Overall, asking immigrants to slightly adapt their language and habits to fit the existing society isn't being intolerant, it's not being a cultural doormat.

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

And many in the New World Anglo realm have problems with such regulation because:

- It fails to adequately account for demographic shifts
- It restricts the freedom of expression
- It imposes restrictions and burdens on businesses
- It is waste of taxpayer money to regulate text used by businesses
- It gives undue privilege to one particular culture that occupies/occupied a dominant position at one particular time period in one particular area
- It is inconsistent with Canada's history and evolution; Canada is the product of colonization and mass migration

I think it is beautiful to see a minority gain an ownership interest in Canada's public realm; it is sad that one particular culture wants exclusive ownership of the public realm in a supposedly multicultural state.

We don't want exclusive ownership of the public realm. We want to try and hold on to being a part of it, having established it first. I agree, these ethnic communities are indeed beautiful and add to the vibrancy of a city. It's a large part of Vancouver's image. But they should still be accessible to Canadians. There's a difference between a funky ethnic neighbourhood and an ethnic enclave exclusive to Chinese. I live in a "white enclave" of Metro Vancouver now, and some people have expressed concern that this little suburb is intolerant and unaccepting. So how come it's wrong when Whites have enclaves in a city, but it's intolerant if Chinese don't?

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

See bolded.

Asking there to be English on a sign is not a burden at all. Like lio45 said, existing signs could be grandfathered in so as not to create expenses for existing businesses. Just in the future, if any new businesses open up they will be asked to have English on their signs. There is absolutely no burden in asking the sign designer to put English on the sign as well, and it wouldn't cost the business any more. It's much more of a burden for Canadians to try and figure out what all these businesses are around them because, unfortunately for them, they only speak the country's official language.

It wouldn't cost a dime of taxpayer money to put in a bylaw for signage. It's not like we'd hire more officers just to cruise the streets and look at signs all day. It would just be another thing to check when inspecting a new business permit. Wouldn't add more than 5 seconds to an inspector's job.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

A host country should not have to go out of its way to accommodate new comers. Being able to come to Canada is a privilege. I cannot begin to explain how fortunate I feel that I worry about things like term essays and getting laid, rather than whether or not my apartment building will get blown up, if I was rejected entry and was still living in Donetsk. The least anybody could do when presented this opportunity is to learn the local language and make an effort to include yourself in this new culture.

Being born in Canada is a privilege, as well; a privilege granted out of sheer luck. When a newcomer chooses Canada as his or her home, Canada is also privileged.

I think newcomers should be treated as equals. They need not feel indebted to the host society. They need not feel pressured to act in a certain manner in order to please the natives who mercifully bestowed this privilege upon them. I view the relationship between newcomers and natives more equally.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

It's just completely illogical that you can come to a drastically different country, but then carry on as if nothing's changed. The only reason it happens here is because we allow it to.

That's a very paternalistic sort of view toward immigration. It's like saying "be happy we letcha in, now do as we say."

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Say you used to be a car mechanic and you were allowed to show up to work dirty and smelly because it doesn't really matter. Then you get hired as a server at a fancy restaurant. Is it intolerant of the restaurant to request that you shower before your shifts? Or should they just allow you to carry on, because they wouldn't want to be intolerant to your existing habits?

This example is irrelevant, because it does not deal with what the government should do. Private parties have more latitude to do as they please and arrange their relations with one another as they see fit. For example, English and French may be the official languages of the federal government, but I as a restaurant owner in Saskatoon am not obliged to provide services in French.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

And don't call Canada "a dying culture." Just because it's not obvious doesn't mean it's not there, and should not be protected.

I wasn't referring to New World Anglo culture, which is thriving, amorphous, and dynamic. I was referring to Old World Continental European nation-states' cultures, and Quebec's.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Overall, asking immigrants to slightly adapt their language and habits to fit the existing society isn't being intolerant, it's not being a cultural doormat.

To characterize tolerance in this instance as being a doormat seems to unduly characterize the overall situation as rather adversarial. I do not view it that way. This is not a battle that we must win. This is individuals exercising their rights and freedoms.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

We don't want exclusive ownership of the public realm. We want to try and hold on to being a part of it, having established it first. I agree, these ethnic communities are indeed beautiful and add to the vibrancy of a city. It's a large part of Vancouver's image. But they should still be accessible to Canadians. There's a difference between a funky ethnic neighbourhood and an ethnic enclave exclusive to Chinese. I live in a "white enclave" of Metro Vancouver now, and some people have expressed concern that this little suburb is intolerant and unaccepting. So how come it's wrong when Whites have enclaves in a city, but it's intolerant if Chinese don't?

I don't think having established it first gives any superior claim to the public realm. What should hold a superior claim to the public realm should be dictated by whatever individuals feel is more practical and appealing. Consider it a cultural free market of sorts.

I never suggested it is intolerant for Whites to have portions of the city where they are the majority. Segregation to some extent happens, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I would not want to live in places like Richmond, Markham, Brampton, or a litany of towns where Whites have an overwhelming dominance demographically. But others may want that, and I am completely fine with that.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Asking there to be English on a sign is not a burden at all. Like lio45 said, existing signs could be grandfathered in so as not to create expenses for existing businesses. Just in the future, if any new businesses open up they will be asked to have English on their signs. There is absolutely no burden in asking the sign designer to put English on the sign as well, and it wouldn't cost the business any more. It's much more of a burden for Canadians to try and figure out what all these businesses are around them because, unfortunately for them, they only speak the country's official language.

It wouldn't cost a dime of taxpayer money to put in a bylaw for signage. It's not like we'd hire more officers just to cruise the streets and look at signs all day. It would just be another thing to check when inspecting a new business permit. Wouldn't add more than 5 seconds to an inspector's job.

It would certainly be burdensome.

- Inspectors would need to spend additional time on certain applications.
- Rejected applicants will presumably have administrative avenues for appealing their rejections. Administrative tribunals must be set up, or existing administrative tribunals will need to do more work.
- Lawyers must be hired by both the government and the private party; or existing lawyers serving the government must do more work.
- Upon exhausting administrative remedies, courts must get involved.
- Complications will arise as to the application of the law. Should businesses that have names in roman letters that mean nothing have a translation? (E.g., IKEA or NOKIA or Zellers or Google or whatever may be meaningless; should they have English signs providing an explanation of the contents contained in the store?) What about businesses without any words and simply images or logos? Where does one draw the line between a image / logo vs. text? What about images with letters present on them? What about verifying that the English translation is consistent with the meaning of the non-English text on the sign? The government may need to hire translators, and certainly debates could arise in deciphering the accurate purport of the non-English text. Things like idioms and colloquialisms could further exacerbate that issue; perhaps a euphemism is being used to advertise handjobs, for example.