Should money decide Chinese-sign debate?

Should money decide Chinese-sign debate?

July 18, 2012.

Richmond City has hundreds of signs in Chinese. Should they be allowed because they might make companies profit? Should non-Chinese get used to being "irrelevant" in Richmond, as one leading intercultural figure seems to suggest.

Some believe the debate over Chinese-language signs in Metro Vancouver should come down only to whether such signs can make companies a profit.

This financial argument in defence of Chinese-only and Chinese-dominant signs came to my attention belatedly, after I was directed to the writings of occasional Richmond newspaper columnist Joe Greenholtz, who wrote a piece headlined: “Sign language reflects business”

Joe Greenholtz, Richmond

In his condemnation of my column earlier this year, headlined“All Canadians benefit from a common language,”Greenholtz made two key arguments in favour of Chinese-dominant or Chinese-only signs in Richmond and elsewhere in Metro Vancouver and Canada.

The strongest case made by Greenholtz, who describes himself as a “regulated Canadian immigration consultant,” is that the sign debate should be decided by money.

After chastising people who don’t support Chinese-only or Chinese-dominant signs, Greenholtz said: “Chinese-only signage is not primarily an immigration issue or even a multiculturalism issue. It’s a commercial issue… It’s not about exclusionary practices, it’s a business decision about appealing to a defined demographic.”

After making his case — that the potential to earn money should top cultural concerns about community cohesiveness and interpersonal communication — Greenholtz appeared to go on to say English-speaking Canadians should just accept that they are not significant anymore.

This map shows where ethnic Chinese people live in Metro Vancouver. The yellow and darkest-coloured neighbourhoods show the highest concentrations. Parts of Richmond are 80-per-cent ethnic Chinese. This was one of the interactive maps used in a fall Sun series on the rise of ethnic enclaves.

Greenholtz wrote that people who oppose Chinese-only or Chinese-dominant signs are simply “feeling the pain of being irrelevant in their own backyards, for the first time.“

He was, in effect, referring to people like the more than 1,000 Richmond residents who have signed a petition about the signs, which they’re taken to politicians at all levels. (The politicians have told them they’ve touched on a huge, complex and sensitive issue.)

But as I understand the statement by Greenholtz, who earns a living from immigrants and serves on Richmond City’s Intercultural Advisory Committee, he is saying native-born or English-speaking Canadians should just accept “being irrelevant.”

I must admit I only disagree with Greenholtz’s first argument; that money should trump Canadian culture and tradition and the usefulness of a common language in building bridges between people. (For what it’s worth, Greenholtz also ridiculed Quebec’s efforts to maintain its centuries-old French culture by legislating that French-language signs should predominate over English signs.)

But I just don’t get Greenholtz’s second argument; that a large cohort of Richmond residents should just get used to the discomfort of now being “irrelevant.”

This from a member of Richmond’s Intercultural Advisory Committee?

There are other things I could raise to further this complex issue, but this is enough for now. Even though the Chinese sign debate might not be the most important in the context of Canada’s high immigration rates and multicultural policy, it has powerful symbolic value.