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

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This isn't entirely accurate IMO.

You're entitled to live wherever you want in Vancouver. And you shouldn't be prevented from living in this particular condo complex because you don't speak Mandarin and the provincially-mandated condo board you have to pay fees to only wants to communicate in that language (which is a non-official one).

As well, I assume that the condo board has to file information and other materials to the city and province, and I highly doubt these would be written in Chinese characters.

I'm not sure what the situation is in BC, but I took a quick look at Manitoba's Condominium Act and it doesn't appear to include any language requirements in relation to how the condo corporation conducts its affairs.

But as you and I have pointed out, given that so many official documents will have to be prepared in English anyway (including ones submitted to government in addition to ones that relate to other businesses such as insurance-related documentation), it's not like an English-speaking owner can be frozen out entirely... the documents will still be legible to him or her.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not sure what the situation is in BC, but I took a quick look at Manitoba's Condominium Act and it doesn't appear to include any language requirements in relation to how the condo corporation conducts its affairs.

But as you and I have pointed out, given that so many official documents will have to be prepared in English anyway (including ones submitted to government in addition to ones that relate to other businesses such as insurance-related documentation), it's not like an English-speaking owner can be frozen out entirely... the documents will still be legible to him or her.

If I recall correctly, the media report indicated that the summary minutes of board meetings were either poorly translated or suspected not to be accurate. If the latter, this is clearly a condo with problems that extend beyond language.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not sure what the situation is in BC, but I took a quick look at Manitoba's Condominium Act and it doesn't appear to include any language requirements in relation to how the condo corporation conducts its affairs.

.

Likely because the issue has never been raised before.

I'd expect it will be "clarified" in BC at some point in the near future, as a result of this.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If I recall correctly, the media report indicated that the summary minutes of board meetings were either poorly translated or suspected not to be accurate. If the latter, this is clearly a condo with problems that extend beyond language.

Very true. You can certainly have a condo board that does a shoddy job and fails to be accountable to owners in English too.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by esquire

Very true. You can certainly have a condo board that does a shoddy job and fails to be accountable to owners in English too.

Obviously there's a bigger issue here with a society experiencing growing residential segregation ... It's one thing for a condo board to operate from its inception in an ethnic language. But now you'd have to be wary of buying in any condo where the potential existed that the board could suddenly declare a new official language and shut you out of effective participation or understanding of what is going on.

[geotag277]

The question of the language used in the AGM for condo boards raises some interesting legal and practical questions.

Fundamentally from a rights perspective I believe we are talking about an issue of participation in a legally mandated stakeholder meeting. Practically speaking, the communications used must be legally distributed in official languages, along with interaction, requests for information, and all associated dealings with the board in question. So the only real practical consideration that a person who is facing a condo board running an annual meeting in a language they don't understand is not being able to ask questions and participate in that meeting which happens once a year.

There is a question of how important that "right" really is, but taking a step back, I find the language used in the "human rights complaint" a bit odd. He says it was an impact to his dignity that the meeting was run in a language he didn't understand. Theoretically speaking, if this was an individual who only speaks English, and the meeting was run entirely in French, an official language of Canada, I'm wondering if his dignity would still be intact or not? What if the meeting was run using Tansi or Oki languages? Dignity still there or not?

As far as I know there is a similar issue in Montreal regarding condo boards running their meetings in English when there are French speakers in the building. Again, the same protections exist for disseminating material in official languages.

Furthermore, this isn't far removed from annual shareholder meetings performed by public companies. As a French only speaker in Quebec, if you own shares in Encana, you are in the same situation regarding your "right" to participate in the annual shareholder meeting.

There are some interesting questions poised for sure, and the actual language used in these AGM does currently exist in a legal netherworld, but I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. If there was an important grievance an individual has against a legal entity such as a company they own shares in or a condo board, there are legal channels to pursue that require interaction in a language mandated by Canada. We are really talking about participation in a generally superfluous meeting that happens once a year, and I think there is a danger of a slippery slope here regarding enforcing legally mandated requirements.

Something to consider as well is that there are a wealth of private translation services a person can employ if they absolutely require participation in this meeting. If that French speaking shareholder of Encana wanted to voice a grievance publicly in the annual shareholder meeting through a targeted tough question, they would likely have to hire a private translator for the duration of the meeting to speak and translate on their behalf. The right of participation is not necessarily missing entirely even in the cases of a language barrier owing to these options.

Apologies for the rambling I just thought this particular case brought up some very interesting considerations and these are some of my thoughts on the matter.

[Andy6]

The level of required disclosure in a professionally managed public company is far higher than for a condo board run by volunteers. The condo owner is far more dependent on condo meetings for information than a shareholder is on a corporate AGM that the overwhelming majority of shareholders wouldn't ever attend. Also, such meetings discuss and make crucial decisions relating to what is usually a person's biggest asset, his home, which is a highly illiquid asset compared to Jean-Guy's 100 shares in Encana.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Andy6

The level of required disclosure in a professionally managed public company is far higher than for a condo board run by volunteers. The condo owner is far more dependent on condo meetings for information than a shareholder is on a corporate AGM that the overwhelming majority of shareholders wouldn't ever attend. Also, such meetings discuss and make crucial decisions relating to what is usually a person's biggest asset, his home, which is a highly illiquid asset compared to Jean-Guy's 100 shares in Encana.

At the same time all practical considerations regarding voting, changes to the condo, budgeting, proposed agenda items, and so on would be protected by language laws in interacting legally with the board. AGM are general informational meetings. Practically speaking what is the gap here?

[Acajack]

I do think there could be an element of residential segregation involved in some cases. (People who don't speak Mandarin being forced out, or at least not feeling welcome, which ultimately would have the same effect.) Which is potentially problematic given that the province effectively tells you you have to be a member of the condo corporation (and especially, pay fees to them, which are decided by the board whether you like agree with them or not) in order to live in such and such a place on such and such a street.

Condo boards bear the indirect imprimatur of the state to some degree: they have "power" over residents that the province agrees to give them. They exist within a legislative framework that is the responsibility of the province.

Kind of like how the government agrees to give unions the power to collect dues off your pay if you want to work in a particular place.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by geotag277

At the same time all practical considerations regarding voting, changes to the condo, budgeting, proposed agenda items, and so on would be protected by language laws in interacting legally with the board. AGM are general informational meetings. Practically speaking what is the gap here?

From what I've heard of them, they are meetings at which items of great personal significance to the daily lives of the owners are discussed and debated in a much less formal forum than a shareholder meeting called to vote yes or no on a series of well defined questions, at which very few shareholders are personally present or would have any reason to be.

[esquire]

I appreciate the nature of the dilemma as presented by Andy6, but I don't know that there's an easy way around this one. Even if you take the existing requirements for filing official documents, etc. in an official language and ramp them up by requiring meetings to be conducted and minutes to be prepared in official languages as well, there is still nothing to prevent the condo board from being dominated by speakers of a particular language on an unofficial level.

It's not hard to imagine scenario involving a condo building in Richmond where practically speaking, it would be hard to get elected unless you can speak Mandarin. Even if the meetings themselves are conducted in English, there is nothing to prevent directors from staging informal gatherings beforehand (which, let's face it, are typically where the real decisions are made in many kinds of organizations) where the shots get called in Chinese, and at the meeting you just get a bunch of resolutions on the floor with little discussion or debate. So those types of legislative amendments might be an improvement over what existed previously, but it still wouldn't necessarily lead to de facto equal participation for people who don't speak the majority language.

[geotag277]

The reality of the situation is that a majority of unit owners in this strata are Mandarin speakers and will likely be speaking Manderin to each other in all casual communications and furthermore this is the voting block which holds the balance of power.

Laws need to separate the feelings of "I am not comfortable with the majority of unit holders in this strata speaking Mandarin" with actual legal rights of strata holders. It's a fine line that bears similarities with the private business advertising question as well. "I don't feel comfortable with these Mandarin only signs" is a very ambiguous sentiment such that an actual legal reaction and actual motivations employed need to be thought about carefully.

[elly63]

Angela Merkel Calls Multiculturalism 'A Grand Delusion'
The German chancellor said immigrants will have to do more to assimilate.
Ryan Grenoble News Editor, The Huffington Post 12/14/2015

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by esquire

Good for them. Go to any marginally global city on this earth and it's virtually assured that you will find a predominantly English speaking expat community where people do business, socialize and educate their kids in English. I don't know too many people coming back from stints overseas who become fully proficient in the local languages abroad. This is not much different.

It's hypocritical for us to invite foreigners to come here to our multicultural land of freedom, with their presumably plump bank accounts, only to all of a sudden start dictating to them what language they may or may not do business in.

LOL. These aren't expats by and large they have immigrated to Canada.It boggles the mind that anybody would actually try to defend this...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Obviously there's a bigger issue here with a society experiencing growing residential segregation ... It's one thing for a condo board to operate from its inception in an ethnic language. But now you'd have to be wary of buying in any condo where the potential existed that the board could suddenly declare a new official language and shut you out of effective participation or understanding of what is going on.

I've been watching this happen over the past few years in my neighbourhood. It's becoming increasingly Korean. The nearby businesses are slowly turning over and are getting replaced by Korean places, and the number of Koreans in my building seems to be slowly going up (it's maybe 50% right now).

Today the mix is such that there could never be Korean-only council meetings but it's easy to imagine things continuing on the same path. Maybe in 10 or 20 years the strata council will be completely Korean. There will still probably be some residents remaining from today. I don't think it would be very fair to switch the council meetings, building notices, etc. exclusively over to Korean. The Richmond scenarios are often pretty similar. A lot of seniors who live there today purchased their properties back when almost everybody around them spoke English.

There's a subtler thing happening too, which is that my area is becoming a bit less appealing to non-Koreans. I have nothing against Korean stuff but I wouldn't normally shop exclusively at Korean businesses, so the number of relevant businesses for me has gone down somewhat over the past few years, even though the neighbourhood has been growing. The pool of neighbours I can meaningfully interact with is also smaller than it otherwise would be, so there's less to keep me here. The gradual segregation may or may not continue but it seems like a pretty natural process that isn't really driven by anything but immigration itself.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by elly63

Angela Merkel Calls Multiculturalism 'A Grand Delusion'
The German chancellor said immigrants will have to do more to assimilate.
Ryan Grenoble News Editor, The Huffington Post 12/14/2015

Mekel hits the nail right on the head.

"Those who seek refuge with us also have to respect our laws and traditions, and learn to speak German,” she said. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion.”

For a country to remain viable there have to be shared values. You can't have a coutnry built on one vast collection of ethnic ghettoes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Mekel hits the nail right on the head.

"Those who seek refuge with us also have to respect our laws and traditions, and learn to speak German,” she said. “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies, and therefore multiculturalism remains a grand delusion.”

For a country to remain viable there have to be shared values. You can't have a coutnry built on one vast collection of ethnic ghettoes.

Which is why Canadian multiculturalism is so successful compared to exclusionary practices of at least some European countries.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Which is why Canadian multiculturalism is so successful compared to exclusionary practices of at least some European countries.

I am skeptical of this. Is Canada really more sophisticated in the way it handles immigration, or more forceful as far as assimilation goes? Canadians used to like to brag about being less concerned with assimilation than other places ("cultural mosaic"). And if Canada's so great at this, why are major Canadian cities seeing the sort of segregation they are?

I think the biggest difference is in the immigrant populations themselves. Language issues come up with Chinese immigrants because that's the most salient problem to locals, but there are a lot of other hypothetical problems that haven't arisen because, overall, Chinese immigrants are fairly compatible with the Canadian economy and even social values. If Canada had instead accepted millions of refugees who turned out to be hardcore religious extremists I don't think we'd be having the same conversation.

If we want to look at another group, Jamaicans in Toronto still commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, and Toronto has essentially had a terrible stop and frisk type system for years (!). But Canada is supposedly immune to these issues.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by someone123

I am skeptical of this. Is Canada really more sophisticated in the way it handles immigration, or more forceful as far as assimilation goes? Canadians used to like to brag about being less concerned with assimilation than other places ("cultural mosaic"). And if Canada's so great at this, why are major Canadian cities seeing the sort of segregation they are?

I think the biggest difference is in the immigrant populations themselves. Language issues come up with Chinese immigrants because that's the most salient problem to locals, but there are a lot of other hypothetical problems that haven't arisen because, overall, Chinese immigrants are fairly compatible with the Canadian economy and even social values. If Canada had instead accepted millions of refugees who turned out to be hardcore religious extremists I don't think we'd be having the same conversation.

If we want to look at another group, Jamaicans in Toronto still commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes, and Toronto has essentially had a terrible stop and frisk type system for years (!). But Canada is supposedly immune to these issues.

I would say more open and welcoming than "more forceful", but it is probably the biggest difference. Certainly there are identifiable groups in the country that have struggled more than others to flourish in Canada, but they are a small minority, overall. Of course we also have nothing comparable to the uncontrolled influx of migrant populations that parts of Europe have been experiencing in recent years. That is something to be grateful for, imho.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Of course we also have nothing comparable to the uncontrolled influx of migrant populations that parts of Europe have been experiencing in recent years. That is something to be grateful for, imho.

Yes, I think Germany is dealing with a much more challenging situation because they haven't been as free to choose who to allow in. It doesn't make much sense for Canadians to pat themselves on the back for doing comparatively better when this country is simply lucky not to be near other unstable countries. If one million refugees landed in Canada I'm not sure this country would be better at handling them.