Benz

What you gonna do? Declare war on us? Do it so the whole world see your true colors and and understand why we wanted to leave. You live in the delusion that you own the natives and they wish to be owned by you. It is far from the reality. ----- It is not what I said at all. Trying to picture me as an evil racist twisted mind with your interpretations won't make any good. I suggest you take a step back and take a more objective and less emotional approach. You are not making any point this way. If you say so. I don't find odd to say the rules shall be the same to everyone. If you do, good for you.

speaking of substance. Can you fill yours? I don't see any. A motion is a symbol, a rule in the constitution is substance. I am offering a solution to the union that would end the desire for Québec to leave. If it is not constructive, what else would be? Cannot be met? Says who? Why the Europeans can and YOU CAN'T. What makes you less capable than a european? ----- Independant means, totally seperated. Sovereign means, in control of all your politics, whether it is independant or a union. As I often say, the Europeans choosed to build an union where all the members agree to the rules. They are sovereign because the union is according what they want and expect from it but, they are also commited to the engagement and must respect it. They follow and respect the rules of the union, so they are not totally independants, but the rules are what they agreed on. Europeans are 20 different cultures and they managed to get along. In Canada it's impossible? That smells the former USSR. It's not because you can't, it's because you think you will be able to dominate the constitution and keep us as is forever.

Are the Polish racists because they think they are not Germans? Are the Irish racists because they think they are not Italians? Your definition of racism is wrong. They are what? Zulus? Being different is racist? No, racism is when you think you have superiority or the others are inferior based on genetic traits. Québécois do not pretend they are superiors. They say they have a different opinion of what Canada should be and how stuff should be done. That is not racism at all. Pure laine is an expression some people use to identify those who are born in Québec and having roots from the former New France. It IS NOT used to discriminate or have any racism opinion toward those who do not fit that criteria. If one use it for that matter, it will be immediatly accused by other pures laines to be raciste and will be condemned. We don't and never said the pures laines people are superior or should have more individual rights than anyone else on earth. I think it matters. Even more for you than for me. What kind of relations do you want with your fellow canadians in Québec. Do you want your neighboring accuse us of racism when we are not and give us the signal that it's not worth it for us to try having good relations with you? Our behavior toward you is important and so is yours toward us. I will not build my argumentation on hatred and lies. If my friend says Will Bill is a racist Nazi anti-Québec and wish to gas us, I will defend you and reveals his lies. Even if my goal is to eventually seperate my land from your's. Why? Because if I allow that to happen, it can only leads us to something worst. Doing things for the wrong reasons do not end to the expected results. I would not support Québec sovereignty if the leaders would be racists. The consequences of what my lovely Québec could become would be far worst than the status quo. According to who? I beleive you and I, if we do exaustive searches, we can find racist people everywhere. Maybe I can find a french Québécois who hates anything that is not pure laine, just as well as you can find the very same on your side. Racists are everywhere. The important thing is, what is the official picture? Do the leaders are racists? Do the institutions are racists? Do the laws are racists? Do the measures to fight racism are strong and supported?Look, you are accusing me of racism and I am not even close to be one. So how can I take seriously the examples you are saying. I can name you alot of public figures that are not pure laine at all and they feel very much they are accepted and considered true Québécois just as well as the "pures laines". The Québécois are not racists in general but, they are not perfect and yes, it is possible to find some racists in Québec, even among the sovereignists. But they are not on the frontline, they are not saying it out loud and when they do, others like me give them hell and make sure they understand it is not acceptable. How about, what you hear and what you see comes from not honest anglos that bulls--t you? The Quebec bashing is very popular in TROC, it's scary. Look, do you remember the Dawson's killing in Montréal? This english guy killed Anastasia and shoot at other kids in a english college (Dawson). It was a sick boy and he wrote why he did it. It was clear that this guy was not mentally fine. Despite the book and the explanations, the newspaper Globe And Mail wrote, the killer prolly did it because of the oppresive language laws. It is outrageous that they wrote that. It couldn't be more far from the truth. But this is the kind of sh!t you guys read regarding Quebec. It's no wonder why you think we are evil bad guys. You keep on being fed by extreme lies of all kind. When I read your news, I wonder if I am not Jason in Friday the 13.Ask yourself, if we were that bad, wouldn't we do worst than what we are doing now? What is being said doesn't match with the reality and it is your responsibility to question and doubt what is being said. Long time ago, I thought the english people were fundamentally bad people, racists xenophobic, colonislists and so on. After I saw all the bs you guys read, I realised that if I was in your place, I would probably think the same you do. I now put water in my wine when it comes to judge you. Relativity. I am more tolerante toward all the préjugés(not sure how to translate, bias or prejudices)you guys have. However, in return, I expect you do the effort to question your sources and consider with an open mind what a real Québécois is telling you. You know I am not racist and I haven't said anything racist. Being different and claiming to be respected as is, you know it is not racist at all. It's not like if I asked that different rules are applied to the english and french. I say the rules are the same to everyone, I just want both cultures can have a say on them. That is not racist. That's what I do for the last 15 years. It was very instructive. It helped me to understand why our both cultures are so at opposite ends. I also understand why what seems so normal and acceptable for us, is so itching you at the same time. We are pretty much aware of that. We are ready to opt for independance. We will offer it as a "just in case they change their mind". Because I beleive that once Québec says yes to sovereignty, it is possible the silent majority in english Canada will be very mad at the Quebec bashers and will rather say "look at what you've done!". Maybe it won't happen. I do not expect it to happen this way, but I will not shut the door and run my ass off Canada if the attitude changes.That is what being sovereign is all about. Québec gets the control of its future, with or without TROC.

In the past years in Québec, we often talked about the scenario where NDP and the Bloc could merge and be a strong credible choice for the left. Unfortunatly, NDP has been too stubborn trying to fight the Bloc instead. NDP doesn't want to solve the constitution dead end that Québec feels strongly concern about. If the NDP would have been serious, the Bloc would either have to merge with them or desapear from the scene. If the recent polls in BC and Qc starts a wave in the other provinces, NDP might not win this time but will become a serious option for the next election... and the libs will go down, down, down...

The only reason why we never could find a solution is, the ROC has the option to say no without the consequences. Once Québec gets sovereign, a no from them conducts us to independence. Then and only then, we will be in good position to negociate and only then, we will see if they really want to be our partners in the canadian adventure or if they don't care about us at all. That's why I am sovereignist. Le respect, ça s'impose. Ça ne se demande pas.

Ah oui? Can you explain me what is that veto? The recognition is only a motion. We want it written in the constitution so no one else will ever remove it and pretend again we are not a nation. Because that is nothing. You can vote a motion to recognize the life on mars, it won't change anything. I don't get you. Are you talking about the equalization? Modifications we would want in the constitution now: -Québec nation -Québec veto on constitution -Religion not above public rules -Senate reform (at least senators chosen by the regions instead of by the pm) -opt out of a federal program with full compensation -decentralization as much as possible, at least no more doubling -program to help minorities to defend their rights I might forget some, those are the ones I remember the most. Future modifications: -Everything (I cannot think of a point where TROC can modifiy it without us and it would be ok), maybe there are some but, they are not the majority.

Stop pretending this comes from a marginal group. You are fooling yourself. Everyone in Québec share the main idea. Some prefer independence, others wait until you change your mind... Québec being a nation with at least a veto in the constitution is a consensus among all provincial parties. Easy to say now that the english is the majority. Try proposing that to the Europeans just to see what would be their reaction. Do you think I am racist? Do you think I promote those ideas based on racism? Look, several people and leaders from Québec tried to make you understand that very simple principle. I am not doing it thinking that I will succeed. I'm doing it for two reasons. 1) Although I am ok with independence, I still have this little hope inside me that we could finally come to an understanding. I am looking at the Europeans and telling myself, damn, they are more than 20 different nations and languages and they managed to get along in a real confederation. Why can't we, we are just 2. 2) To prove my fellows you guys are too stubborn and understand only what you want to. It's your country, your constitution, your rules, your stuff. There are no places for us in it, unless we accept to be like them and play by their rules. Some federalists in Québec keep bullying us by saying that you will change. It doesn't take long to realise it is not even on the radar. Really? Ok then. Give up on your's and take ours. For now, french is the main language and Québec's culture is to be promoted everywhere else. I think I know why you may come to think like this. You are already flood by the american culture to a point your are not sure what you are yourself. Keep in mind that once Québec has a say to the constitution, every citizens are equal. The rules are the same to every one, no matter what language, culture or location in the country. Québec only wants to make sure those rules are NOT set only by the anglos. That's all. This is a contradiction. The Supreme Court force the school BECAUSE it is a religious argument. I cannot bring a concealed weapon at school if it is not because of a religion choice. Interesting. Imagine that TROC wants to add an amendment and we will name it BLA. TROC wants to add BLA into the constitution. For Québec, BLA is unacceptable. It is outrageous for them. What are the possibilities.1) English domination, they add BLA because they outnumber the french and the french can f--k off 2) Québec veto, TROC can't have into the constitution because Québec does not agree and abuses of its veto even if it may come back in their face later when it will be their turn to propose a modification 3) After negociations, english accept to modify BLA so it becomes acceptable to the french 4) The french allow the english to add BLA as long as it is applied only in TROC If the french are the ones to propose BLA? Take the previous paragraph and reverse the words french and english. We can agree in negociations. You are just not use to it. You never care what we think and want because you don't have to. You can modify the rules as you wish, even if it is against 100% of the Assemblée Nationale. No more my friend. We share this country or we split it. Québec cannot do that. It's a two sides medal. If we refuse too much, we can do it as well. It is in our common interests to make the system works. Otherwise we both lose. One cannot dominate the other. If it has to be done, so be it. Québec would eventually leave anyway. Although it is possible, I still think that not only Europeans can get along. Am I too naive? Or a Star wars society, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. I beleive the threat of global imperialism will rise as much as globalization grows. I don't fear globalization, I am concerned about those who would like to turn it into their thirst of power. Insular... whatever. It's the other way around. Can't wait to debate among the other nations. I would be glad to tell the world I agree with Kyoto while Canada doesn't. You already see Québec as a little tourist trap. See, this is exactly what we do not want anymore. Another nation telling us what to do and what to be. You don't know what is good for us. We know. You will not convince any of us with paternalism.

EU is a confederation. Canada is a federation. To have a say, they must not be outnumbered by the english. I exlained you all this. My definition is the same as everyone else on this planet. Yours is not. A nation without a nation-state, just like the other former sovereign natives you all conquered and place into reserves. They are native nations on an individual basis but they cannot be considered a nation body. Let me know whenever you leave alone your imperialist mindset. In the mean time, I'll continu to tell my fellows you guys will never change and will never let Québec be a nation and share this country with us.

No I didn't. Be more accurate. It all have to do with it. If the anglos do not want to be imperialist anymore, they will at last accept that the french canadian is a nation and they will share the constitution so both have a say. If they still want to act like soft imperialist, they will continu to deny the french and will keep the constitution only for themselve like they do now. Are we in 2011 yes or no? You and me have a different understand of what nation means. What other word would you use then? They are not, I respect that. But you won't tell me that my nation isn't. Plus, it's not even your government's official position anymore. Even Harper recognizes the Québec nation in his own words. The laine pure? 100% of the Assemblée Nationale says Québec is a nation, that includes all the anglo Québécois. Good luck trying to convince are all wrong. Ok, then we will have to separate. I told you we do not want more money. We are not asking to grant us more territory... you are just bad faith(translation of mauvaise foi). You are not listening, you understand only what you want to understand. Do the entire Europe is hostage of Ireland? If you are not serious, it's not necessary to continu the discussion....I will answer the rest later... have to go.

Why the government asked to get a veto if it thought it already have one? Arrête de faire l'imbécile. Trudeau also tried to get into provincial juridictions. He was trying to put his nose into provincial business where he does not belong. Bourassa isn't the best premier Québec had though.At what cost Québec must have a veto? What's worth having a veto on constitutional changes if the federal can do whatever it wants in first place.

Can you read english? Here is a pdf document for you. So you stop saying anything. http://www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/relations_autochtones/ententes/cris/20020207_en.htm

Move back to Québec? Why? Don't be silly and stop trying to put words in my mouth. I wish there is something we could do with all the other french so they can voice into the french cultural group but, the damages are non-reversable. They are condemned to be minorities in the ROC. The only way I can see is to create a dual citizenship french/englis-canadian not base on where you are, rather on from you are born. Then again, what to do with those having parents from both sides. Or all the new immigrants. I don't know how this can be set properly. Giving Québec the constitutional veto is simple and réalisable. Why don't you try something constructive instead. Do you have a better solution? How can you fix the system so the english majority does not rule alone the constitution anymore. What are your solutions to give the french a say on the constitution? I'll go get my popcorn.

Beside the natives, who are the other nations of this union? No I don't. Having a religious weapon in a public schools is against the respect of values and secularity. Your constitution places personal religious beleif above the choices of the society. That individual can still go into a private school where it is allowed to do so. That is freedom of choice and religion. Your constitution goes too far by allowing one individual to put its personal religion beleifs at the expense of every ones else. In english Canada, perhaps not. In Québec, it's already done. The Québécois are fiercly against that. Again... don't be smartass. Manitoba made it official, other provinces did it unofficially. French schools were not allowed by the authorities of PEI and NS. The french won in the Supreme Court sometime after 2000, so they can now have access to french schools. For centuries, they couldn't go to french schools. You are ignorant by choice. You could have search further before calling me a liar again, you did not. Will you get caugh a third time or you learn your lesson this time. You know what? I don't have any problem with that. If those provinces ever choose to be sovereign nations, I will be the first one to congratulate them. However, I never heard or red anything stating that. I never heard Saskatchewan saying it is a nation and claiming to be recognized as so. Nor any other provinces. I never heard of any other province asking the status Québec asks. It is the other way around. They choose to not be a nation. In 1982, in 1990... as of today, those provinces choosed to not be different nations. I dare you to demonstrate the opposite. I want see that. You are doing a gymnastic twist with words trying to reduce and cloudy the concept. Total denial. Germans, Polish, Russians, Bresilians... extraordinary? No, just a simple veto. Should the first nations have a veto? Probably! It's something that must be debated. However, we need to debate that with them. We cannot pretend to speak in their names. Even if you would like to give the french outside Québec a veto. How could you possibly do that? All the other groups do not claim to be a different nation than the main one. They at most claim to have some particular differences but, they do not pretend to be different nations. It cannot be compared with the differences between the english canadians and the Québécois. Canada IS NOT a confederation. If it was, it would be a total different situation. If it was true, it would have been done 40 years ago. You have a serious difficulty with your history. The original land covers also the actual Ontario to the Mississipi down to Louisiana. You can't take anything from Québec wihtout declaring a war.

Yes. It will force you to push further your reflection before taking such shorcuts. Unless you like when I tickle you. Every single time, the 9 english provinces sided with Ottawa and Québec was left alone. Québec was the only one to stand up. If your system is too difficult to change, then it will die just like the old USSR and every big dinosaures that cannot adapt. It's the theory of evolution. Those who survive are not the strongest but those with the better capacity to adapt themselve to the changes.The changes are necessary. We have to do what is needed to be done. I don't care if Trudeau made it very difficult to change. Québec does not recognize the Clarity Act. It is built upon the constittion Québec did not signed. It is like if the murderer set the rules of its own trial. The integrity of Québec's territory belongs to Québec. Any attempt to partion it is considered as an act of war.Can you seriously beleive your attitude encourages us to stay in your status quo? It's the other around my friend. You motivate us to leave. Be sure I will copy paste this to the poor french federalists in Québec that still beleive it is possible to discuss with you. That is exactly what they need to hear to understand we will never get what we want in the current system and the only logical choice is to choose sovereignty. It's people like you that kept on feeding the project. Ironically, I must say thank you.

Yes. We will be glad to accept an union with the ROC. Based on a confederation model, like the actual EU or something like that. 90% of the sovereignists are former federalists fedup waiting that the ROC understands Québec. I am one of them. I was federalist in 1990. I got confused between 1990 and 1992 and in 1992, I became officially sovereignist. The sovereinists are more than willing to negociate a constructive union. Québec and the Cree signed a nation-to-nation deal without the intervention of the federal. The first time that such treaty is signed since the last aboriginal tribe felt in the hands of the federal and reduced to a reserve. In your face. Just for your knowledge, Québec has already agree with the Cree, the Innus and the Inuits. They all have new sovereignty on a respectable piece of land. They do NOT wish to lose that. If you want a chance to convince them to f--- things up with us, you gonna have to start respect them more than what you do now with the natives outside Québec. Otherwise they will never beleive your lies. They are more chances that the natives outside want to join Québec than the other way around. The Innu of Labrador to start with.Anyway, if you think you know how the natives think, you may got a heck of a surprise. Neither you, nor me can speak in their names. Indeed. Who is asking that? That is not what I said. You have serious difficulty to concentrate and read exactly what I wrote. I said Québec should have a constitutional veto on the constitution. I didn't say Québec should have a veto on the House of Common or the Senate.

What are the odds that the Libs and NDP would agree to give the power to the Bloc? Seriously! I wouldn't be honest if I let you bet on that. I don't know why you guys fear the existence of a coalition. I cannot imagine a scenario where the Bloc would give the power to the Libs. Libs would have to do historical concession to the Bloc and that is against their nature. If the NDP is the official opposition and the conservatives are totally losing their mind... maybe a coalition could happen but... damn... it has so tiny chances... if we get to such situation, the coalition would become a good thing. You have more chances to win the lottery IMO. By the way, the Bloc prefers a conservative minority more than anything else. In Quebec, the anglos vote liberals at a 90%+ rate, even back when the liberals were at their worst in the sponsorship scandal. So the Bloc prefers a fight Bloc/Conservative among the french voters than a fight Bloc/Liberals. The odds that the government is a minority are better this way.

You forgot to say the PQ wants to eat babies, rape dogs, establish slavery, hung anyone who dares to wear a maple leafs jersey and put a reward for the one who will kill Don Cherry. You are living in a fictional world that has nothing to do with the reality.

What will you do if the natives in Canada wants to join Québec? Oh that was a total different story. The federalists were Quebec's government back then. Also, the Mohawks have always been a different case from the others. Since the 2001 Paix des braves treaty, the relations with the natives are very good. Better than they had with the federal government since the beginning. Don't worry. It won't. It's not even considered. You don't get it. Natives don't care. To do not belong neither with Canada, nor Québec. They are only interested to get a better future. We will see when we get there. I'm confident.

Mulcair isn't half of what Layton is. NDP doesn't have a bright future if Mulcair is taking his place. Whether you like NDP of not, Layton has this sympatic face. Even a right winger would say, "I hate Layton's policies but I am sure he's a nice guy". Mulcair is just "meh". He didn't impress me much back when he was with the provincial liberals, not much with NDP either.

Your mama never told you to look both sides when you cross the street? The sovereignists got 49.4% the last time. How much the federalist got every single time they tried to change Canada? Several fails before 1980, fail in 1982, fail in 1990, fail in 1992, fail in 1999, fail, fail, fail... and the cherry on top, no one in Canada wants to open up the constitution, the door is closed for good. How the federalists in Québec are suppose to sell the idea that it is possible to renew the constitution and bring back Quebec in? The odds are not good for the quebec federalists and you are not helping them much.

I say, religion is something personnal/private and cannot be above public rules. Specifically public schools. It doesn't mean that I am against freedom of choice or religion. At home or in a religious building (church/mosque/synagogue), you are free to beleive whatever you want. At schools, or public pools or anything, your religious actions or codes must not be in contradiction with public rules. Sometimes some reasonable exceptions are allowed but, they are case by case.If it is ok for you that religious kids can go to public schools with weapons and women can wear burqa in swimming pools, good for you. In our culture, it is not acceptable. At least, not in public environments. They can do whatever they want in private (even schools and pools). The answer was rather to inform you. You thought I was lying. Now you know the truth. Yes it has something to do with the constitution. The language is currently protected in the constitution but, not enough. The conservatives killed a program helping the minorities to fight for their rights. For now on, if you can't afford it, your rights can't be protected. This is what a weak constitution is all about. Come on... do you read english? I say the number of french is decreasing and you interpret that I aggrandise. So what? English and French are the only two languages because they are the two founders. Do you want to add a third official language? Which one and why? No. NB has only 30% of french. Not special. It is the wording used by the federalist at the time of Meech because they thought the english people were too afraid of the word nation. Now that it is no longer a problem. Québec is a nation. It means it needs to have a say on the constitution. Over my dead body. The whole Québec does not agree with you. I just wish they could come down here and read guys like you, so they can know that we will never find a way to agree. In your eyes, we are nothing. We must desapear in the shadow of your nation. ok, so we will continue to promote the independance of Québec then. This is not a confederation. It is a centralised federation. The french wanted a confederation. It never been one. It should have been. Because the french will never accept to be dominated by an english majority. The opinion of both cultures must be considered in the rules of this country. There are no equality. it is nine against one. nine english against one french. A structure according to the will of the english people. The french never agreed to what Canada became today. We do not agree. So stop trying to give us more money thinking it can shut our mouths up. We do not want more money, we want the control of our politics and we want a say on the rules of this country. Even if you give us more money than the others, this is not what we want. None of the ones we ask, only those that do not matter. So you say... and we do not agree. Stop giving us all those little gifts. We want to be considered as a nation. No more, no less. We can manage our future just fine. It is not a confederation. Take it or leave it. We are a nation and we do not accept to be swallowed in an english majority. If it is too itchy for you, then we must go our seperate ways. The Europeans are 20 different cultures and they can manage to get along. If you are too stubborn to tolerate one partner, then it is farewell and have a good life. We are not an indian reserve. To rule the majority??? To rule... the majority. How the hell giving a veto to Quebec can give Quebec the power to rule the majority. You are so biased and stubborn, it's crazy. look at yourself. It's not even a veto on the house of common or else. It's just a veto on the constitution. A veto does not allow you to rule the others. It means that both must agree to set the rules. Share? No way, the french's place is to eat in the dog's plate eh? Then Canada must split. Now you are mixing up national identities with religious beleifs. No wonder why your system is messed up.

I am as much amased by your narrow vision of your own country than you are regarding your understanding of "quebec separatism". Equalization: Stop bullying to yourself. It is just one federal program among others. Québec doesn't get a single penny from the Nuclear subside, nor from the oil subside. Overall, Québec doesn't win much... that is if it wins. Even if it does, not as great as you imagine. As I said, the biggest winners of the equalization are the maritimes but in the overall, they are the biggest losers. It is worst than Quebec. You can't wait so see what the "whiners of Québec" will do after seperation? So we are too. I am glad you support the independance of Québec then. I can't wait to prove you are wrong. ---- No problems! We will offer you an association but we won't insist if you reject it. It's the other way around. Don't try the smart ass approach. The negociations better be fair or the game can get ugly for both. Québec has always had more respect more respect for the aboriginals than you did. Forget about it. Plus, the integrity of our territory regards only Québec. If you want to trade pieces of land, you may try to offer something at best. You can forget about taking anything against our will. It would be bloody and ugly. No. They will be angry and bitter at Ottawa. Because the Quebec's claims are legitimated and fair. You have no idea how much I don't care about your mood. You can stuck it up into your ---. Just as much as you don't care about Quebec's place in Canada. I bet the other way around. All the little snorting kids like you will be scoled by the silent majority. Trudeau is the number one reason why we want to seperate. He f--ked things up good. His works is our number one motivation to seperate. It would ba as much pain for you that it would for us. The pain for both of us will depend on your stupidity. You live in a fictional world where Québec depends on Canada's generosity to survive. The pain will hit you hard when you will discover it is not true. --- That is because you are immuned to logic. Ottawa gets way too much money for what it needs to do. Instead of transfering the money or tax transfer so the provinces can collect more, Ottawa spends into domains that is not of its concern. The Bloc has to tell Ottawa where to spend the money, because the way the system is built, Québec can't get its share of the money and spend it where it belongs. The other provinces are whining about the Ottawa's choices but they don't want to change the system. Québec and the Bloc are the only logical ones. The others are whining kids. --- Then change the f--king rules. Only Québec is asking to reduce Ottawa's power to spend. If the role of Ottawa is reduced to what it really supposes to and it collects lesss money so the provinces can collect more, one would drag less money from its neighbor. If you think it's Quebec that do so, then Quebec would be limited to its own revenues and the ROC will keep more for itself. How ironic that Québec is the only one asking for it? Or perhaps you should stop swallowing lies and wake up? It should ring you a bell that there is somthing wrong in what you hear and read in the english medias. You all act like brain dead zombies. Unable to question the flaw in your logic and considere another option of what you've been told.

Maybe. Do you have any sources? You got my curiousity. Neverthenless, the point is, it was the rule and it was up to London to decide. 30% of NB is french. A huge number of those french speak also english but we cannot say the same regarding the english. We cannot say that NB speaks in the name of the french. It is safer to say the overall opinion of NB will be rather closer to the english provinces than Québec. Québec is the only one that can speak in the name of the french. I wish NB could, but they can't.Does Nunavut wants a special status? My ears are wide open. The only other way would be to give seperate individual status to people. Your citizenship would be french-canadian or english-canadian. Depending on what you are, your opinion goes into one group or the other one. If both groups vote yes in a referendum, then the new constitution is adopted. It would be as valid as giving Québec a constitutionnal veto. But it would be damn more complicated to manage. What to do with people having parents on both side? I am sure it could create other kind of problems that are not worth it. I prefer that no different status can be set on an individual basis. Just for the nation-state Québec. Even if it means the anglo-Québécois will be counted into the same bag of the french and the French outside Québec in the same bag of english canadians. No systems are perfect. Keep in mind that we are only talking about a constitutional veto. No, it is not what I am saying. You even quoted me right. Read again. I was saying the Official Language Act made french public schools illegal. I was very accurate and I provided the sources to demonstrate what I said. I invite you to do the same. Even Manitoba's website is saying it. You don't agree, prove me otherwise.

In the past, what was killing Layton chances is the fear of a Conservative government (whether it is majority or not). Many potential NDP supporters were voting for the Libs to make sure the Conservatives do not win. Although the same people still fear a Conservative majority, now they are not as much afraid of a Conservative minority. Also, Ignatieff doesn't represent the savior against the "conservative threat". Same goes in Québec. The lower are the chances of Harper to win a majority, the better are the chances to see a switch from the Bloc to NDP. It makes the end result less predictable. However, I wouldn't be surprise if Harper wins few points and this sudden NDP's support melt as well, even if it is not a direct move from NDP to CPC.

Are you trying to claim pity? Blame your ancestors for that because they oppresed the french language. The ratio would be more balanced and "opportunity" for the anglos to learn french would be greater if all the french canadians could send their kids into french schools. Now you are trying to argue that it's not fair for you because it's easier for the french to learn english? It cannot be a valid point under any circumstances. Not in Canada. No good reason? You may beleive reducing the pool is bad, but you totally failed to demonstrate my reasons are not good. Plus, it's not like if we have to find hundred thousand judges. Just nine. You are easy to discourage. I didn't say they should be perfect translators. By the way, isn't it better to say"as easy as you say"? I didn't learn much english at school. I wasn't paying attention and I was doing the minimum. I got interested later on when I used it at work and when I had an anglo girlfriend. I wish I had an immersion program and take the courses more seriously. Neverthenless, when I compare my level with several average americans on the net, I considere myself not so bad. Possible. My opinion is not closed. I'd like to hear the opinion of the linguists about it. I think the criteria is worth it. Unless one can prove me that attending a reasonnable level is more difficult than the benefit the justice can get from it.