SURREY — The Editor, I read your recent Roses and Rotten Tomatoes this week, as I usually do. It is a great column that gives us a perspective of the little things that occur to everyday people throughout our city. 
However, I was confused about one of the items on July 3.
“Roses to the person who was brave enough to say they found it impolite for two employees to speak another language other than English while working. All I can say is, you only said what a lot of us are feeling and thinking. Bravo!â€
Perhaps you missed giving us the context of the situation. I don’t see how a person could be considered “brave†and not “rude†by asking people to speak English at work.
I know in Quebec that they have laws around using French in the workplace, but nowhere else I am aware of has any restriction on language in the workplace.
I was just at the bank and they have the various languages that you can be served in posted on their window.
I am sure that they see it as a competitive advantage to hire a linguistically diverse staff to serve an equally diverse community.
I find the phrase: “they found it impolite for two employees to speak another language other than English while working†ironic.
Would it not be impolite to interrupt a conversation between two people at their workplace to ask them to speak English? And for what purpose? So you could eavesdrop on them?
I do not understand the context of this story. I usually find the writer to hold relatively progressive views, but this appears to support intolerance.
Could you please explain?
Al Payne, Surrey