Benz

Where I do live in Laval, several english and french are living in the same area. Despite they do not go to the same schools, anything else is done together. I am the head coach of the hockey team of my son, and half of the kids, plus my main assistant that follows me for several years now, are english. Although I always use the french language at first, I allow the kids to talk to me in english and I can repeat in english if they did not understand the first time. I do not need to do it because the english kids have a good level of french and they understand well. The french kids are starting to learn english, they can understand when I or my assistant is speaking english. I have been coaching hockey and sometimes soccer for several years now and I never witness any kind of animosity between the two cultures. No conflict of what-so-ever, not even once. Hatred to each others is something they learn when they get older and hang out with other adults entertaining hatred. Or from medias. Kids see other kids and it does not cross their mind to build a mindset of hatred based on the language. Kids, trainers, parents... although they are all stronger in one language more than the other, they all feel 100% of the same group, same team. I can brag that we are a good example of what the relation between the two cultures should be throughout Canada. I know in Montreal there are areas where you can see unilinguals english and french but, I wonder what are the proportions of that, vs bilinguals. Our case in Laval is not unique at all.

Maybe. I was relying on the comparison between the elections regarding the comments and motivations of their choices. Maybe I misread. Then I would ask you, what did Harper offered more when he got elected vs when he did not. What Poilievre should have offer the last time that he did not. Not afraid, exasperated. When Trump wanted to renegotiate the free trade treaty, Trudeau chose to sacrifice Québec's economy on both the milk industry and steel. Ottawa always take decisions to weaken Quebec and then the bashers complain that Quebec receive too much equalization. But when the time comes to spend money against Quebec instead working with Quebec (Muskrat Falls and the electric line to avoid Quebec), it's a blank check with unlimited funds. Usually, this is the time where you remind us that back when Chretien and Martin were in power, they were giving subsides to their personal friends in Quebec and although only those friends could benefit from that money at the expense of honest businessmen, you pleased yourself to think we were all sucking money from your pockets, although we never saw the colour of it. Same old, same old...

At that moment, people voted for the "devil they know". The time spent in the opposition made Harper look less devil, and or, more familiar and therefore look less dangerous by the people that were not ready to vote for him. My point is that I think the same is going on with Poilièvre.

I think I would feel bad about it until my last breath. ? ? I am sure he has seen worst and like most of the artists, he learned how to spend energy and love to the people that love what is doing and avoid those who do not like. They learn how to build a shell and heal from that but, he probably got hurt for a moment. Before he became my favorite singer of all time, I thought he was just another boring singer trying to get attention with his weird videos. (I grew up in the Much Music channel era) Then I saw this average movie Say Anything and got impressed by the music played when Cusak made love to his girlfriend and when he brought his radio standing above his head. I thought it was a good song and I wanted to know more about the artist. I listened more carefully to his works and also when he was with Genesis and bang, I became fan for life.

I must admit that is a good one. I think he has a serious chance to win the next election and maybe align 2 mandates in a row. Like Harper did before he eventually won, he is getting the experience and more familiar to the voters.

According to the judge that must comply to the article 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, it does. That is the whole problem.

What is Multiculturalism? This is Multiculturalism: https://www.qub.ca/article/une-enfant-sacrifiee-au-nom-du-multiculturalisme-1082322020?utm_medium=cxense#cxrecs_s Raped and tortured by her own family because she refused to wear the hijab. A canadian juge decided to deny her the help she was asking for because he considered the violence is normal in a muslim family, and therefore, the justice system should comply to that religion and culture. How could you even think this is acceptable?

Some people are confused regarding Multiculturalism. It is a political doctrine. It consists of having individuals identifying themselves to a foreign nation only, the one of their origin. That would justify them to be treated differently from the others and having their own set of rules, coming from those external nations. As oppose to pluriculturalism, where people can identify to more than one nation, including the one they are living in. The french and the natives do not rely on foreign nations to defined themselves. They co founded this country with the english canadians. They are not immigrants bringing their foreign national values. The french do not try to recreate France within the Canadian borders. Multiculturalism leads to many non-sence rules and exceptions to fondamental rules. Such as having an Islamic trial in Ontario, allowing Sihks to drive motorcycles without helmets, allowing Sihks to bring weapons at school, etc... well, for my nation's perspective, it is non sense. You guys are more divided on that topic than we are. Except that on your side of the fence, the pro Multiculturalism are in higher number.

Regarding the Mohawks: True. However, it is important to understand that they do it in a context of being afraid to lose the control of the very little control they have in what is left of land for them. So I understand them, their concerns. They should have their own control of who is natives and who is not, it would clear off their fears. Regarding the Québécois: False. Someone born in Africa with a very black skin can become a Québécois at 100% and recognized as one of them by the others. You can ask to many immigrants that adopted Québec and Québec adopted them in return. You are confusing with the differences English Canada has with Québec. By the way, I do not know where you took that Hymne, I never heard of it. Before the creation of the recent canadian anthem, the english used the God Save the Queen and the french used Vive la Canadienne. Because of course, at that time, the english identified themselves as British of North Americans, while the french rather identified themselves as the true Canadiens. As time passed by, the english adopted the name Canadian and the french got rid of it to adopt Québécois instead. Today, the kids and the young adults do not know that song. The Royal 22e Régiment is still using musical version.

CAQ won a strong majority of seats and 41% of the votes. Clear win, no doubts about that. Better than we all expected since they did the worst campaign of them all. The results were like the polls said. Well, like Léger Léger did say. Qc125 was off. Although QLP finished second in seats, they go a terrible 14%. All the anglos voted Liberals, almost non of the francos voted Liberals. The division between english and french is greater than it ever was so far. I do not know why Anglade bothered to speak french after her defeat, only anglos voted for her. QS and PQ are fighting each others and the result is, only the hard core of both sides are still voting for both. All the prospects are still voting CAQ. QS is no longer as independentist as it use to be. They are evasives on the matter. The QCP did an impressive 13% of the votes but, got no seats. However, most of the new supporters for Duhaime are coming from those who were mad at the sanitary measures. Anti-mask, trucks convoy, conspirations, etc... he could gather those people on his side. But most of them are no conservatives. They don't even know what conservatives are. I think the QCP will stay alive for one or 2 other elections but, that's about it. It will eventually melte at the same speed it melted for the federal NDP in Québec after Layton. Unless Duhaime is more talented than I expect and he manages to turn them into real supporters of the Conservative party as is. Some interesting stats... Votes: CAQ = 41% PQ+QS+QCP = 43% QLP = 14% Seats: CAQ = 90 PQ+QS+QCP = 14 QLP = 21 Bottom line, QLP and CAQ get more seats than they deserve. The 3 others get almost the support of half the population but, they got only 11% of the seats. I am not a fan of the proportional, but a hybride would avoid such disparities.

Do you think you are a good representative of the English Canada? Although Jack Layton was speaking a good french avec un léger accent, he was not capable to win supports in Québec until the day he said that it is not acceptable that Québec is rejected from the constitution, he would change that and he agrees with our legitimated claims. Then bam, the orange wave flooded Québec. The next NDP's leaders avoided that topic and within few elections, the NDP felt back to the 4th position in Quebec. If you want to win Québec, it's easy. Even one with a poor french accent can do it. But they don't want to please Québec. They just want to suck up votes. Even with a good french language, the Québécois can smell you a thousand miles round.

I expect that as well, but if there is one thing I can give him credit for, is that he performs very well at making people swallow bs. It's a natural with him. I think he is a psychopath. When Trudeau is lying and bs-ing us, his face and his non verbal is warning us, he sounds as fake as a Rolex street seller. Charest has a way to make the shit sounds real. Give him one or two mandates and he will turn Canada into the most corrupted place in the world.

You are the very first reason why so much things go wrong in this country. You are totally blinded by you hatred schema. The most ironic in your saying is that you blame the others of what YOU do. You took natives' sovereignty, stuck them into reserves and take away resources from them without proper compensation. To maintain them into their dependency state, you grant to their individuals some benefits. Despite you are the big winner overall, you blame them for the little you give them only because you regret that your ancestors just did not erase them from the surface of the world. Same thing with Quebec. You start with vouching for our worst politicians because they are the best well placed to screw the Quebecers but, in the same breathe, you blame the very same politicians for sucking the country's wealth and drown it to Quebec. Not only you do not assume your choices but, you are so blind that you cannot figure out the money goes in the pockets of the politicians' "friends" list that is funding the big machine, you still think despite all evidences that it is the people of Quebec that benefits from it. What is sad about you is that you are using your hatred to the natives and the Québécois to blind yourself from the reality. This reality is that you are nothing but a poor STOOGE serving the system that advantages the establishment at your expense. You are the pawn of the neo-liberalism and you are too ignorant to understand that are sacrificed for the benefits of people more rich than you. Your imagination cannot size how much weak and shabby you are to our eyes. We actually feel happy that you hate everyone because it makes you waste your pitiful life doing something that consumes you inside. Go and drown into your own stupid hate. Shoot me another of your blame, like if anyone gives a sh!t about it.

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.