Benz

Look, I told you and you are wrong regarding the purpose of Multiculturalism. It is used to screw Quebec that is strongly against it. I never heard or read anyone saying that they need it to please Quebec or keep us in. Guys like you are just starting to realize what we have been telling you for the last 41 years. I am glad that you open your eyes on the negative effects of it but, clearly, pushing Quebec out of Canada will not help you fight back Multiculturalism. On the contrary, you would lose your biggest ally. You are doing alot of free statements that are not backed up at all. Several countries are using more than one official laguages and ALL of them see that as an advantage, not an inconvenience. If it bothers you personally, then there is only one thing remaining to do. We will remove English from official language and you will need to learn French. Then you will be satisfied. Even if you get rid of Quebec, there are still french speaking people in Canada and they won't give up. The advantage you are talking about for bilingual people, are for federal jobs and even then, it happens often that the federal fails to comply. It is totally normal that the bilingual people have an advantage. What is not normal is, English Canadians do not have proper or decent level of teaching french in schools. English Quebec schools teach French very well and the kids are perfect bilingual. I have some English friends living in NB and they are mad at their government that is not doing the necessary measures to help their kids learn french. It gives an advantage to the french for bilingual jobs, but ut is not the fault of the french. It is because of stubborn english politicians that hate french and think about their own hatred. There are so many other countries having more than one, or more than 2 languages in the world. It is very common to see people speaking 2, or 3, or more languages. Plus, scientific studies are saying it is good for the brain to be able to speak more than one language. We are no longer in the colonialist times where the dominant needs to culturally genocide the conquered ones. You are not helping yourself with such a narrowed vision of your own personal culture. There are only positive points of becoming bilingual or trilingual or more. I never heard of someone saying, "ah sh!t, since I learn this new language, my life is a nightmare". On the contrary. This is total non sense. You are alone in your corner. The rest of the world is saying the exact opposite.

Then I guess you still do not understand what the Multiculturalism is about. Being Canadian does not mean much, it becomes just a civic nation where the only thing we have in common is the location within the borders. That is why I took the time to explain to you the difference between an individual's culture and a national's culture. I do not think you understood my point. I see you agree with me that immigrants still need to become Canadian and I see nothing wrong with individuals keeping their original cultures as long as it concerns only their private life. But the Multiculturalism goes further than that and it touches our fundamental values and this where I do not agree with it. Most of the time, the conflicts that can occur from another culture and our culture, regards the religion. One example among others, the helmet you need to wear when you are driving a motorcycle. In the English Canada, it seems to be accepted by a small majority, that one individual can subtract itself from the rule and not wear the helmet if its religion says no. I am pretty sure Scott Mayers is on my side on that one and it is a big no. Whatever what your original culture or religion says, you need to comply to our rules because security prevails over beliefs or traditions. At least, it is a fundamental Quebec value. Maybe you do not agree and feel ok about it. Then it is a debate between you, Scott and other English Canadians. In my vision of what Canada should be, my nation (Québec) decides how it works in Québec and your nation (English Canada) decides how it works outside Québec, because it is a civil law matter. If it was a criminal matter, then it would be the same rule for every Canadians but, both nations need to agree on the rules. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. The English Canadians give themselves the exclusive right to decides how it works and even if the we have our own civil laws, the constitution is above it and it has been settled only by the English Canada. That is why in Quebec, after the decision of the Supreme Court, we need to accept religious weapons in our public schools and managed the security with public money. Which is still very outrageous for us and totally unacceptable. Multiculturalism allows and/or tolerates immigrants to use the rules of where they come from and apply that here in Canada. We also have a good example of that with the Sharia law that has been authorized in Ontario. Sometimes I shake my head and clamp my arm, wondering how the heck did you end up with a situation like that. This is so unacceptable in Québec, it is over my dead body. Although a small majority of English Canadians are ok with that, I know alot of Canadians are not ok with it and Scott Mayers is not alone.

Do not confuse Trudeau's Multiculturalism doctrine with having people from multiple different cultural origins. It is not the same at all. It is important to understand the difference between the individual's culture and the nation's culture. They are not the same. What you like to eat, it is individual, not national. Even though in the popular language we name it national because it is widely used by the people, it is still an individual thing. In Quebec, we say that Poutine is a national food typical from Quebec. But it doesn't mean you need to love eating poutine to be a Québécois. Some people don't like it is just fine. I go to Cabane à Sucre only once a year, while I am eating lebanese food almost once a week. It doesn't mean that I am 52 times more lebanese than Québécois. National culture values would be like the quality between men and women, children's rights, everything that is in the constitution, forbidden force mariage, stuff like that. Basically, everything that is related to an interaction between minimum two individuals or an individual and the state. Individual culture values is what belongs only to you. What you like to eat, read, see, sing, listen, etc... The problem with the Multiculturalism's Trudeau version is that one individual, or a community, can decide to subtract themselves from our rules and setup their own rules. The stronger that community gets, the more they can do such abstractions and get tolerated. We are not talking about choosing a type of food. We are talking about avoid wearing an helmet because of religious beliefs or forcing your daughter to marry a man of your choice because your culture always did that. Although the last one is illegal, it is tolerated and happens very often. This my objection to Multiculturalism. I do not mind at all that immigrants preserve their individual cultural origins but, regarding the national cultural values, they need to comply. They need to become Canadians. That said, although Quebec's culture and English Canadian's culture are 80% similar, I expect that the English Canadians respect that 20% difference and do not try to force us being like you for the our remaining differences. That was what the biculturalism is all about.

Whether you like it or not, the english, the french and the natives are different cultures and there is nothing wrong with a country having different cultures. We are not the only one in this world. You really need to read about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, I think it will interest you. What they called Bi-culturalism has nothing to do with the Trudeau's Multiculturalism. Alot of people are confused by the name and think that Multiculturalism only means having people coming from many cultures. The capital M on that word is important because it is a name given to a doctrine and not a common name. Bi-culturalism and Multiculturalism are names of a very different point of view of how the politics and the interactions should works between the Canadian cultures. One is not a smaller number of the other. It is way more elaborated than that. It is important you understand both concepts. You are talking about culture imposition. Perhaps you need an intensive reminder of your own history. The British and then the English Canada have banned french language from public schools in many places in order to do cultural genocides and for the natives as well. IF, and I mean IF because maybe I translate your thoughts wrong, you think this should continue until the genocide is completed, I recommend that we shot a bullet between your eyes. If you do not want to learn anything about the natives and the french language, it is your right and I respect that. Get off your mind that cultural genocide of the natives and the french is something you will be free to do if Quebec gets separated. Like I said, maybe I get you wrong and you were only talking about the federal's bilingualism. Well, perhaps you should travel a little and realize that there are several countries in this world that are in the same situation, or have way more than 2 languages and no one suffer from it. If you do, the problem might lies between your 2 ears. Few states in USA use sporadically spannish languages for their hispanic population and no one ever died or suffered from that. Look, it is only 2 languages. Take a breath and move on. The word culture is vague and can be used in some many different contexts and understandings. So when we have discussions about culture, we spend more time trying to figure out what we mean by culture than go thru the subject it self. The reason why both languages are required for the constitution is because, the language is more than just a syntax. It is a driver for the culture and its understanding. When a phrase is written in a foreign language to you, although you know the basic of that language, it is possible that you understand wrong what the person wrote really meant. By having the law or rule in both languages, it forces the legislation to write it in a very clear way that can be understood well by both cultures. It's the conclusion that all countries in the world having the same situation came up with. It's no big deal, there is no issue with that. You are trying to make up a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe your example of metric vs imperial system is not exposing the whole complexity of that doctrine but, I understand what you mean and I agree with you. The Multiculturalism doctrine does indeed creates alot of problems like that. One good example of it is the possibility of a religious community in the area to use public money to have religious public schools. That doesn't fit at all with the concept of secularism. If religious people want to use a private religious school, this is legitimate and allowed but, public religious school, it really doesn't make any sense. Still, the Multiculturalism not only allow it, it promotes it. In the biculturalism concept, no such thing is allowed. I totally disagree that the rules could be different from one person to another. The rules must be the same to every one. What I am saying is, the cultural dominant group should not set alone the rules that are applied to every one, including those of the other founding cultures. Which are the natives and the french. The most funny part of your intervention is that you blame the use of culture to introduce religion in politic. It is in fact very English Canadian to do that. Quebec has the opposite value and rather not accept that the religion as any say in politic and the rules of the society. Yet, you blame Quebec for that and want to separate Quebec. Don't you realize the irony of what you are saying?

Geee! You are so mixed up and confused. I am a sovereignist so I could just say thanks for the support but, I'm not that only-self-interest oriented. Multiculturalism: Definitely, you have no clue of what you are talking about. The Canadian Multiculturalism is a political concept created by Trudeau and inspired of the British's one. It was his solution to screw Quebec nationalism and To marginalize it among all other immigrants' original cultures. Quebec nation is very opposed to that multiculturalism. Quebec rather stands for the 1960 commission Laurendeau-Dunton's conclusions vouching for a bi-culturalisms classifying canadians into 2 cultural groups, the french and the english canadians. The multiculturalism not only destroys those two identities by inviting the immigrants to not assimilate those canadian identities and rather keep their original one, it also wants to promote it. Instead of looking for a common ideal where we can all identify ourself, the multiculturalism rather promote divisions where every body can isolated themselves into ghettos. If you think getting rid of Quebec will solve that, you put your finger into your eye up to your elbow. On that matter, Quebec is your biggest ally. Actually, as far as I am concern, your only one. In your second paragraph, you are confusing the recent woke-like methods and reasoning, which has nothing to do with Quebec. Quebec seams to be the least woke province so far. It is a wonder where you were in the last 10 years. If there is one province that is protecting the principle of separation of churches from the state, it is Quebec. The secularism is a strong value and we are wrongly accused of racism by the simplistic weak minds that rather put religious claims above everything. Regarding the natives, you got it all wrong also. I don't even know where to start. First of all, it is the White English people that decided the degree of perfection of the native individuals by a pure bureaucratic system. The federal determines your "indian" status percentage with a follow up registry of your lineage. This is so not native historical mindset at all. The natives were sovereign nations doing trades, treaties and relations with the European settlers before the british and the americans confined them into small reserves. The federal deal with them as individuals because it is easier to manipulate them and loot the resources. You are also mixing up about who claim what you call their "genetic species". Some natives are literaly assimilated to this Indian Act and they play the game. They are called fake indians by other natives that claim the minimum of respect of their sovereignty. They are playing your game, just as well as some immigrants are playing the multiculturalism game to erode our society into multiple ghettos. You are confusing the actors and who is doing what. Quebec and the natives ARE NOT against the principle of treating everybody fair. The rules should be the same to everyone and neither Quebec, nor the natives are opposed to that. However, Quebec and the natives are nations and when the rules are set by the dominant without the concerns of those nations, it appears that sometimes the rules are NOT fair to everyone. So many rules are unfair, the only way to make sure they get solved, is to allow a say to these people as distinct nations. You are the very living proof for why it needs to be like that. Once everybody has a say on the rules, the rules can be applied equally on every one. What you denonce is not the will of Quebec and the natives, but rather the disciples of this multiculturalism concept mostly coming from your side of the fence, but also includes some individuals among Quebec and the natives. You are identifying real issues and you are not wrong on how it works out but, you have it very wrong regarding who does what. You are having a blurred view of the big picture. I invite you to extend your observations, you will be surprise by what you will find.

Charest is maybe the only one canadian that can make me vote Trudeau. I actually do not know which one I hate the most between the two. They are by far the 2 canadians I hate the most among the 38 millions but I can't decide who is the worst. Trudeau is stupid but, Charest is malignant and it makes him more dangerous. The name Charest is inseparable from the word corruption. Charest will never do something without corrupting what he is doing. Never. Whatever the program or action that his party is doing, it will be done if and only if it is done with corruption. There are no moral limits to anything with this guy. The name of Charest is so dirty in Quebec that even as of now, its shadow continues to keep the french in Quebec from voting provincial liberals. If the conservatives choose Charest, they would be selling their soul, their mothers and their children. The first time I heard his name as a potential candidate for CPC, I thought it was a joke.

1. I figure that their thinking has something to do with what they say and do. If it is not the case, it's their problem. what concerns me is what they say and do. 2.I understand that you just surrender and that think life goes on.

On paper, CAQ is more right wing than left wing but, above all, it is a populist and reactionary party. It tries to sail on the current population's opinion. They wanted to have more vaccinated people, they annonce a measure that looked good in the caucus meeting, got a very negative response and then change their mind. You guys wrote more thoughts and opinion about it in this thread than they did in all of their meetings on the same topic. ?

I have mixed feelings about this. I took two shots and got the covid. I am all for vaccination but, there is one catch. The wording regarding the responsibility of the big pharmas regarding their vaccines seems clear to me. Although they are responsible, you are the one that needs to prove it and it must be almost out of any reasonable doubts. I took the choice to trust them anyway but, I respect those who do not. If it was more clear that the companies accept their responsibilities, then I would be easily in favor of such measures.

This is not what I see and experience. On the contrary.

1. No, they are idiots that think that what they are doing, is social justice. They think they have a moral superiority above anyone to a point where they don't even need to justify themselves. 2. Of course not. 3. They did want to rename the rock, they accused the rock of being racist because one racist guy decided to give it a non official racist nickname. 4. In your scenario, the guy would be just a carpet. If someone tells me, "you can't surf because you are white and only people of my origin can surf based on my belief that we invented that sport", I would politely answer the most appropriate response... fuck off. The only real offense I could do is, if I pretend that I (or the whites) invented that sport. Then it would be bad because it would be cultural appropriation. But just surfing on the waves, no it is not.

1. Yes he does and you do it as well. You believe those people can't pass the tests and the only solution is to remove the tests. You wrote it black on white. 3. well, it's an area where it is difficult argue since I am not from Ontario. Here the colored people can pass the tests but, you are saying they can't in Ontario. It is your call. I dare you to explain me why. What is that condition that would explain why the colored people can't succeed in Ontario no matter what? 4. And why it has to be done at the expense of quality? 5. Neither from the judge, nor from you, I could contemplated long term solutions. 6. Obvious to you. I do not see the gain of having weaker teachers. 7. what? never mind. 8. We are not discussing about the acceptance level for test results, we are talking about totally removing the tests. 9. ok, I guess we covered it all up then.

It's your perception that is wrong. The Quebec's identity is its strength. Our originality often serves us well and better than trying to be just like anyone else. Money has no language. Money talks its own language. In the economy, it's like in the nature, emptiness is easily filled. If one does not want to comply to the language rules and rather choose to suicide its business, someone else will take its place. As simple as this. You think it hurt us in 1976 when these wealthy anglos left the province with their money? On the contrary. The french people took the left space and the french were having better conditions afterward. The competition is strong and the idiots are always easily replaced.

oh the province won't do something for Quebec, they would do something for themselves. If the yes would have win in 1995, Chrétien would have probably resign. He was blamed by its own fellows for the course of the referendum. He played the hard line until the others slap him and tell him to play nice. Out of sudden, at the very end, Chrétien made alot of promises. He respected none of them, of course, but he did them anyway. If Chrétien would have failed, the ROC would never trust him to speak in their name. You think at that moment the rest of the country would have speak in one name and easily rally behind someone just like that? Of no sir. The country was already very divided. Let me remind you that when the federal was sneaking in the competencies of the provinces regarding the health funding, Chrétien failed at it once again. Although 8 provinces including Alberta bent the knee to him, Ontario did not and they sided with Québec. Mike Harris was not the kind of guy to fear Chrétien. He did not do it to please Québec. He did it for the best interests of Ontario. Several times, whether it is during the referendum or after, Ottawa tried to make Ontario say they would shut the door to Quebec after a winning yes but, Ontario never accepted to prostitute itself like that. On the contrary, Ontario rather stated that regarding the economy, it would be business as usual. Not because Ontario loves Quebec or any kind of feeling. Just because it is against their best interests. There is no economical consequences for English Canada to kick Québec out of the constitution fold and slamming the door every time but, breaking ties and plunge the area into a military conflict, it would have devastating consequences to the other provinces as well and there is no way one PM would get the legitimacy to do that. I rather expect the collapse of the federal. I know I did not convince you. You just need to know that you place yourself in a mindset where you think Canada will be very united into a military course of action that has nothing to do with the actual Canada.

None of the examples you listed are the work of the woke. The woke are irrationals. For an identified issue, they always find out the worst imaginable solution. It always create more problems than it solves and it is always arranged in a way that it creates as much conflicts as possible. The woke do not ground with reality and they avoid facts. If Matt Damon admits he once used a sexist expression that he won't use anymore, the woke will do a public trial against him and request that ne never do anymore movie ever. If a racist director at university that is long time gone, gave a racist nickname to a 3 billions years old rock, the woke will blame the rock and accuse the rock of being racist. If a white guy is doing surf on the sea, he will be accused of cultural appropriation by the woke, just because people of Hawai were doing it before the whites. That is what woke look like.

1. ok, but it doesn't change anything. The judge has invented a discrimination that does not exist. Unless you truly believe that the colored people are inferiors. 2. Do you have doubts? 3. You are asking me why the political class of Ontario is not taking the necessary measures to give everyone the same chance? How about you ask an Ontarian. 4. Why do you substract the student phase of an eventual teacher? How do know how it works in your area but here, you need to study if you want to eventually become a teacher. How long do you evaluate the long term solution? If you just lower the requirements, how is that suppose to help the concerned communities to raise the bar? 5. That is all...? you certainly have an easiness to get confortable with an absence of explanation. 6. The fallacy of that legal opinion is a shame for the justice system. Considering as practical, the acceptance of failing teachers, based on the colour of their skin, is somewhat kind of very singular and arbitrary. How do you calculate the effectiveness of this measure and of course? how much of abstraction must you do regarding the success of the students that need to deal with a weaker teacher? The first times black players were allowed to play professional sports, the clubs owners were using the best of the best. Whatever the sport, athletics, basketball, baseball and so on. If you were black, you had to be very good to be chosen. With time, the blacks came to dominate several sports and today the club owners do not take a chance. As soon as one black can be just as good as any other white man, they take before someone else does. But for the teachers, you have the opposite approach. Instead of doing what it takes to makes sure they get the same chance to succeed, you bring down the success bar for to accommodate weakest teachers. You have to admit one thing. The success of the students that will end up with those teachers is definitely NOT part of your considerations. I'll tell you how such measure could be considered as relevant. If the demand for teachers would be greater than the system can produce, then the test would become an issue. Because although some teachers would failed the test, having a weaker teacher is better than no teacher at all. But what's the big picture here. The reason why the test has been put in first place, is because there were a certain amount of people trying to become teachers and the test would filter out those who are not good enough. They want the best of the best. But now a judge says... "nah... now you need to take anyone because we do not believe the coloured people can make it". hummm really? One thing for sure, that judge really didn't feel the need to be convincing.

The woke mouvement started in USA and was slowly introduced in Quebec through English universities such as Concordia and McGill. Eventually, several French were also "contaminated" by that ideology. However, the course is reversing faster here than the rest of America. People here are not afraid to fight back the woke and the majority reject them fair and square. It seems that in the rest of America, the people are still afraid of the woke but, I expect that it will change eventually. Woke doesn't quite fit in common sense. I always get at least a chuckle every time I see Bill Maher making fun of the woke.

But, this is what the judge is saying. The judge observes that minorities fail the test more than others. The judge does not consider that the minorities are capable to cover the gap. Therefore, the outcome places the minorities into what he call, discrimination. His observations place a color on those minorities and there you go, the tests are out of sudden, racists. It is a very narrowed point of view. Now let's see it from another angle. If we put our observations further, we would probably notice that the minorities often coming from a background of community living in poverty and an environment of lower quality education in their sector. Therefore, if we address that problem from that angle, we would come to the conclusion that those schools need a better improvement of their teaching quality. If money is an issue, we could take measures to make sure those students have the same chances as the "white" ones do. Once we know every one starts on the basis and same chances, we would expect that the ratio of success is mostly the same for every one else. The judge and you, prefer to avoid the test. Other people like me, prefer to make sure every one gets the same conditions to succeed the test. It's two opposite approaches. Yours is based on the race. You conclude that few races are inferiors, so the tests must be avoided because those people just cannot make it. Mine is rather a problem of education context and should be address as is. Stating that the test is unconstitutional, is one of the biggest insult to intelligence one could make. It is super extra woke.

The canadian federal government does not give a shit about Australia's aboriginals as well. So when Québec becomes independent, the indigenous of Quebec is not its concern anymore. What I mean by real negotiation is, slamming the door in our face won't be an option anymore. Like 1981 and Meech 1990. For the rest, you have been misinformed. We do know that it's normal to share the debt if we share the assets. The only time you could have heard of us not sharing the debt, is if someone on Canada's side would have said "no negotiation", ok then, keep your debt as well. You over estimate the federal. The other provinces won't be easy on the Prime Minister, in particular if he is coming from Quebec like Trudeau. If Quebec would have said yes in 1995, Jean Chretien would have been in a very weak position. His failure would probably lead him to resign. Keeping the shit together would be a very difficult challenge for the PM. The consequence on Canada's economy would be too devastating. It would be absolutely impossible to go back to status quo and the country would be broken forever. Because if you think the people will just be quite and obedient after something like that, it means you still have alot to learn about Quebec. I know the federal is capable to be idiot but, not to that point. If you think the Québécois are not brave enough to stand against the threat of silly canadian politicians that do not have a legitimate mandat to raise violence from its own population, it means you do not know much about us. The federal had to give up on all strategies based on fear because it doesn't work anymore. That is why they did the love-in as last desperate attempt to convince just enough people to save their skin.

Do you think Quebec would offer them less than the federal actually does? Quebec has given the Cree more than ever gave. The federal never wanted to consider them as real nations and never wanted to talk with them as a nation. Therefore, they cannot pretend to be talking for them. Because they don't even recognize them and still think they can own them. If they would have signed some sort of sovereignty recognition and territory concession, then the natives might have something to lose. But it's not the case. Ottawa is making it pretty easy for Quebec to separate and bring the natives with them. The deals are not difficult to match up. Since Canada is also one of the only 4 states that refuses to sign up the UN's aboriginal convention, they would be in a very bad position to go and cry a river at the international community. Good, then there will be real negotiations this time. Not like the last ones where English Canada can slam the door in the face of Quebec and get away with it. With a mandate of sovereignty from its population, Quebec will be able to negotiation on common basis with Canada. As I said, the last thing the USA want, is an open conflict on its northem border. They won't interfere, to make sure it doesn't give any idea to anyone else to do so as well. But they will interfere is someone else is doing so. They will do whatever they think must be done to make sure negotiations are going well and get solved asap. So, bottom line, military conflicts won't occur. I never said that. USA always think of its best interests first... or should I say, USA only think about its best interests. One thing for sure, the negotiations won't be easy and will last longer than we would like. I am not saying that it can't end up bad, it will always be a possibility. But I have been thinking about it more than once and I fail to see a point where it would be an advantage for one side to go for violence rather than trying to negotiate. Even among the most radical ones, there is nothing that is worth to go there. You bring it down to the individuals. I am not saying I am not afraid of a very well trained soldier who would attack me. I am saying that I am not afraid he would attack me. The army wouldn't fire the trigger even if the most anti-Quebecois would be sitting on the Prime Minister's seat. The October crisis did not end up well for Trudeau and the Québécois became fearless of the federal after that. It had the exact opposite effect than he was looking for. Politicians are sometimes stupid but, they are bright enough to figure out that the more you are violent toward another nation, the more your justify its sovereignty and freedom. There is a possible scenario that could happen. The other provinces will be more than interested with an option Quebec will propose and they will tear down the federal to replace it with less centralized system. Ottawa always managed to avoid this by using the other provinces against Quebec but, Quebec was not sovereign. If Quebec is sovereign, it's a major game changer in the context. I wouldn't bet on that, but it is a possibility.

I request a copy of that "lease". ? The reality is, the federal divided Rupert's land and give it to the existing provinces no lease. It's now part of the integrity of the provinces. It was the proposition for the short term. Of course, if the outcome of negotiations turn out otherwise, we would not insist. The sovereignty project did not depend on it. Although a majority of Québécois wants sovereignty, alot of sovereignists are open for partnership. Again, if possible. The actual EU is an important example of that. Not necessarily the exact scenario we wanted but, something like that. Since the beginning, Quebec is more in favor of a confederacy type of federalism rather than a centralized federal system as of now. Of course, if the ROC has no interest for it, total separation prevails. That was the official position of the PQ. "We are going to offer it, but they want it, then no deal, just split off."

Over my dead body. It doesn't work like that. I know you guys still think you OWN them, but you don't. Quebec treats its natives differently. For us, they are nations. Not your nations. The federal is not legitimated to interfere and we will not accept that. Quebec has created Canada along with NB, NS and Ontario. Not the other way around. Once we are sovereign, the federal can't do anything. We are going to ask the other provinces, do you accept that the federal talks under your name? If the provinces say yes, the the federal will represent the interests of the province. End of the story. You definitely do not measure how laughable Canada's army (english and french) is in this world. The first ones to jump into the bandwagon will be those have interests to create instability so near of USA and the last thing the Americans want, is a bloody conflict just next to its border. If a violent conflict occurs, here are the steps to come: 1) USA tells Canada to F--- --F and let it go. No war next to my back yard. Then the canadian's prime minister will pee in his pants first, then sign up peace and a reasonable sepatation deal with Quebec. Not because they like us, they don't give a ---- about us. They just don't want to get the whole international community's attention in their neighborhood. They are ending few international conflicts right now because they want to focus on the next biggest explosive one, Asia. 2) If no one understands the message, USA will just conquer all of us in no time and put a s--- load of effort and time spending to make it diplomatically acceptable to the rest of the world. "We did not want them to kill each others, so we conquered them". And then European countries and few others will want some garanties, as an hypocrite way to stick up their noses into our politics. If you take the path of violence, there no other scenario. Just to see you thinking that you may play this game and the kind of outcome you expect, shows how much you are nothing but just a joke. Among all the possible scenarios of an after winning YES, the only scenario that scares me, is this last one. I am definitely not afraid of a little beaver like you playing king of the hill . But the big southern neighbor, it's a different story. It's definitely not in my wish list to become an American. No offense to them personally, it's the values and the way their society works. That's why even though I want independance, I'd rather be very negociable with Canada.

No. It is the opposite. In only few public sector. Police, Judge, Teacher and Prison guard. That's it. Any other job, private or public are not involved. Only jobs in position of authority. If you want to know what is going on in french canada, do not feed on english medias. You are more arbitrary than us. Again, you flirt with arbitrary. Take it from another angle. What is the goal here. It's to make sure that the person in position of authority is impartial. There are no existing way that we can assure that it won't happen with people not wearing symbols. However, we are 100% sure that will happen with people that refuse to remove its symbol. If you are that much indoctrinated that you are ready to sacrifice your entire career for a religious symbol, it is then 100% sure that if you are place into a situation where you have a conflict with the rules of the society and the rules of your religion, you will choose the side of your religion. It is against secularism and that is why bill 21 exists. It is a matter a perception. We have nothing against people wearing a religious symbol, the problem lies with those who CAN'T remove it. We just do not want that people that CANNOT remove their symbol, to NOT be placed in situation of authority. The bill has no discrimination. Anyone from any religion can do the job, without the symbol. The discrimination comes from the other way around. It's specific religion versions that forbid their own people to not do the job. These are the facts. See it from another angle again. The religion organisation is one thing, the people believing in it, is something else. No matter what religion you believe in, I must respect you and your belief. I do not need to agree, I may think god does not exist, it does not matter. Every one must respect any one's belief. However, what I think of a religion, is all free game. I can say whatever I want about a religion. No matter how cruel my opinion is. As long as I respect the people who believe in it. No. Maybe you are refering to the withnonstanding clause? Although it is not handle in the criminal law, it is not allowed for a teacher to have sex with a student even if that student is major, 18+. Why? Because the teacher is in position of authority. As simple as this. For the very same principle, teachers must not wear such symbol. Teachers are in position of authority and children are easy to influence. We must make sure the teacher is able to draw a line between its religious rules and the society's rules... and of course, choose the rules of the society, even if it is against its belief. If you can't remove your symbol, you can't make the right decision once you face such conflict.

You definitely do not understand what is going here. The huge majority of people are in favor of this law. Otherwise, that law wouldn't exist. Plus, we know it's a setup. The only one that is doing discrimination here, is the religion. She can work without that religious symbol. Therefore, the problem is the religion, or to be more precise, that version of that religion. The majority of Muslims here agree with the law. Many other countries, either Europeans or Africans, do have more severe laws. Your conception of the place of the religion and the secularism is very anglo-centered. You really don't get it. They would score in their own net. The role of secularism and religion are different in Quebec. Look, I will explain it to you. Open your mind and pay attention. I am not saying that to convince you of my opinion. Just to help you figure out how it works here. Freedom of religion is also important in Québec. Anyone is free to choose and practice the religion of its choice. The difference with french and english Canada, is the coverage of the practice of a religion. For us, the place of the religion is only in the field of spirituality. If your religion tells you to wear this and that, you are 100% sure that the society will not bother you if you are in a cult location or in a context of private life. But if you are working or playing a role for the public, it is different. You are not in a context of private life. You are out of the scope of the spirituality. No matter what your god thinks, if we say that you cannot wear a religious symbol during a sport game, or during your work, or while attending a public school, then you can't. Your god is not above our society. This is the major difference between us. Because you see the religion above everything, while we keep it within the scope of spirituality and private life. Now you see why secularism is important to us. It's two different fundamental visions. I think it is ok to disagree. I totally disagree with your vision but, I respect your choice. I do not think you understand how violent this phrase is. It means women have to be modest, otherwise the men are justified to do whatever they want. Women have to step down and accept their inferiority and their fate. That is exactly what this "modesty" is all about.

"Ignorance is bliss" - Cypher (Matrix) No. You are avoiding the context. Even if the Talibans were not having the power, it was still dangerous for women to not wear it. The mentalities did not totally disappeared right away. Compare this as if you are a woman wearing a very short tight skirt in the most dangerous place of New York city. Although it is legal to do it, it is most likely possible that there would be no police officer to make sure the law is still respected and applied. Also, when a woman is forced to wear something like that for so long, it has psychological effects that can last even if the obligation is gone. It removes their confidence, their security feeling and their "pudeur" (I do not how to translate that one... modesty? decency?). Basically, even if they are officially free, they are not inside their head, not ready for this. When you see your sisters, cousins, friends getting raped and killed for many years just because they are not wearing, nor not wearing it well, it kinda mark you for quite a while.