6 ms·

Because having multiple official languages adds more layers of bureaucracy to everything and amounts to a colossal waste of time and money. We have this in Can

Because having multiple official languages adds more layers of bureaucracy to everything and amounts to a colossal waste of time and money. We have this in Canada, and outside of Quebec, nobody cares about the French language. In fact, many manufacturers specifically avoid Canada in some cases due to the requirement to put both English and French on the packaging. All government communication has to be written twice. Government employees must have fluency in both languages. All that waste, and for what? A language that nobody else uses.

barking 7y ago
You'd still expect manufacterers to put your language on packaging and for the government to communicate with you in it, I presume?
- kstenerud 7y ago
  Yes, but without the requirement to have two languages on the packaging, you can have one design for both Canada and the USA. Canada is a tiny market by comparison, so it's often not worth the expense of designing separate multi-language packaging just for them.
  - born2discover 7y ago
    I would argue that there are smaller countries where packaging has to be in more than one language and companies that seek to enter that market are fine with it. If your only argument against doing business in a country because of the language requirements, you aren't a good businessman/woman. Because you are sacrificing a market share for something that can be easily done: translate once, print indefinitely.
    - kstenerud 7y ago
      It's not just the words themselves; you need a completely different package design. It's not like in Europe where the package is mostly the same except for some language-specific section. In Canada, you need to translate EVERYTHING, including the slogan [1], and even the name in some cases. Every English sentence must be translated and presented in equal size in French. You can call it good/bad business practice all you want. Real manufacturers do make conscious decisions to avoid the Canadian market due to these costs. The reality is that we suffer because of this policy. There is one silver lining, however: Online retailers like Amazon seem to be exempt. [1] http://blog.generalmills.com/wp-content/uploads/Honey-Nut-Cheerios-Canada-Bees-2.jpg http://blog.generalmills.com/wp-content/uploads/Honey-Nut-Ch...
      - born2discover 7y ago
        I see! Then I do understand why you'd be in favor of dropping French as it seems to me that Quebec might be doing a bit of a protectionism dance there. Where I live (Switzerland) the minimum to have is the information text translated (the one at the back). But the brand itself can remain as it is. Usually however, you do see a bit more translated, such as subtitles or things like what type of product that is, like "whole-grained bread" and things like that. Also we're lucky to be in the middle of Europe, so companies that export to France and Germany tend to create one double translated product for both countries and it's imported to Switzerland as well. But yea, if you force double work on the companies without any rational reason behind, then they might try to reduce costs by simply avoiding the market altogether.
born2discover 7y ago
I live in Switzerland where everything you've mentioned has to be done thrice (3 official languages: French, German, Italian), yet I am firm in my belief that it should be maintained. It's not about whether anybody cares about a specific language anywhere outside of a province. It's about maintaining a language as one of the elements of the culture and country's identity. If only criterion to keep or strike a language as official one was whether it's spoken by a majority or a minority, then you'd be living in a dictatorship of the masses (where majority decides for everybody else). Learning a second or a third language is not a burden. It's an opportunity. An opportunity to immerse one self into a different culture, different world view... It should be seen as gift to widen one's perspective and not a financial burden. And using the money as an argument against this or that is a dangerous slippery slope. Because with the same argument one could argue against a lot of other things: "Why maintain a universal healthcare, it costs too much!", "What? Maintain free education? Who needs that, it costs too much!"... And so forth, and so forth.
- kstenerud 7y ago
  I do agree that multiple languages are a good thing in general. I speak English, French, and Japanese fluently, and am now learning German. However, I also believe that bureaucracy should be minimized, especially at the federal level. And when it actively impedes the flow of goods and services (as it does in Canada because it's such a small market), you're throwing away far more than you gain.
  - afiori 7y ago
    EDIT: apparently I misunderstood the problem with Canada. This comment make less sense for this particular context. I still endorse the general point. having labels in a language people can understand is not bureaucracy. Bureaucracy would be having to compile every document in both languages. A problem with multiple national languages (I have small experience of this living on the border between Germany and France and medium-short permanence in Benelux) is that if you have to write everything in two/three languages there is no space left for English to accommodate tourists. On the other hand, if there is already an translation infrastructure it can maybe be adapted to one more language more easily....
sys_64738 7y ago
Quebec is big is population and land size so saying 'nobody cares' is being disingenuous. It's an official language so can't be ignored.
afiori 7y ago
In benelux it is even more extreme, there must be German/Luxembourgish French and Flemish/Dutch. often there is no longer space for English :) Anyway globalization need to be respectful of local identities. It is one of the tenets of a multicultural society. By insisting that population leave behind their local languages you are either fragmenting countries or cooking up a dangerous backlash.

barking 7y ago

You'd still expect manufacterers to put your language on packaging and for the government to communicate with you in it, I presume?

kstenerud 7y ago
Yes, but without the requirement to have two languages on the packaging, you can have one design for both Canada and the USA. Canada is a tiny market by comparison, so it's often not worth the expense of designing separate multi-language packaging just for them.
- born2discover 7y ago
  I would argue that there are smaller countries where packaging has to be in more than one language and companies that seek to enter that market are fine with it. If your only argument against doing business in a country because of the language requirements, you aren't a good businessman/woman. Because you are sacrificing a market share for something that can be easily done: translate once, print indefinitely.
  - kstenerud 7y ago
    It's not just the words themselves; you need a completely different package design. It's not like in Europe where the package is mostly the same except for some language-specific section. In Canada, you need to translate EVERYTHING, including the slogan [1], and even the name in some cases. Every English sentence must be translated and presented in equal size in French. You can call it good/bad business practice all you want. Real manufacturers do make conscious decisions to avoid the Canadian market due to these costs. The reality is that we suffer because of this policy. There is one silver lining, however: Online retailers like Amazon seem to be exempt. [1] http://blog.generalmills.com/wp-content/uploads/Honey-Nut-Cheerios-Canada-Bees-2.jpg http://blog.generalmills.com/wp-content/uploads/Honey-Nut-Ch...
    - born2discover 7y ago
      I see! Then I do understand why you'd be in favor of dropping French as it seems to me that Quebec might be doing a bit of a protectionism dance there. Where I live (Switzerland) the minimum to have is the information text translated (the one at the back). But the brand itself can remain as it is. Usually however, you do see a bit more translated, such as subtitles or things like what type of product that is, like "whole-grained bread" and things like that. Also we're lucky to be in the middle of Europe, so companies that export to France and Germany tend to create one double translated product for both countries and it's imported to Switzerland as well. But yea, if you force double work on the companies without any rational reason behind, then they might try to reduce costs by simply avoiding the market altogether.

born2discover 7y ago

I live in Switzerland where everything you've mentioned has to be done thrice (3 official languages: French, German, Italian), yet I am firm in my belief that it should be maintained. It's not about whether anybody cares about a specific language anywhere outside of a province. It's about maintaining a language as one of the elements of the culture and country's identity. If only criterion to keep or strike a language as official one was whether it's spoken by a majority or a minority, then you'd be living in a dictatorship of the masses (where majority decides for everybody else). Learning a second or a third language is not a burden. It's an opportunity. An opportunity to immerse one self into a different culture, different world view... It should be seen as gift to widen one's perspective and not a financial burden. And using the money as an argument against this or that is a dangerous slippery slope. Because with the same argument one could argue against a lot of other things: "Why maintain a universal healthcare, it costs too much!", "What? Maintain free education? Who needs that, it costs too much!"... And so forth, and so forth.

kstenerud 7y ago
I do agree that multiple languages are a good thing in general. I speak English, French, and Japanese fluently, and am now learning German. However, I also believe that bureaucracy should be minimized, especially at the federal level. And when it actively impedes the flow of goods and services (as it does in Canada because it's such a small market), you're throwing away far more than you gain.
- afiori 7y ago
  EDIT: apparently I misunderstood the problem with Canada. This comment make less sense for this particular context. I still endorse the general point. having labels in a language people can understand is not bureaucracy. Bureaucracy would be having to compile every document in both languages. A problem with multiple national languages (I have small experience of this living on the border between Germany and France and medium-short permanence in Benelux) is that if you have to write everything in two/three languages there is no space left for English to accommodate tourists. On the other hand, if there is already an translation infrastructure it can maybe be adapted to one more language more easily....

sys_64738 7y ago

Quebec is big is population and land size so saying 'nobody cares' is being disingenuous. It's an official language so can't be ignored.

afiori 7y ago

In benelux it is even more extreme, there must be German/Luxembourgish French and Flemish/Dutch. often there is no longer space for English :) Anyway globalization need to be respectful of local identities. It is one of the tenets of a multicultural society. By insisting that population leave behind their local languages you are either fragmenting countries or cooking up a dangerous backlash.