Benz

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.

Some mainstream medias do have columnists criticizing immigration in that trend you suggest. So you cannot say they don't. However, it is true that the majority of main stream medias are not addressing this and yes it is dangerous. When you swipe issues under the carpet, you are just delaying a problem that can only get worst later on. If the majority of people think the immigration is too big, then they become part of the problem as well. We have alot of space in this country, we can get the double or triple of what actually get and it would still not a problem of numbers. The problem is rather the efficiency to assimilate the society's functioning. It's easy for a british immigrant to come live here, it's only issue will be to drive on the right side of the road. But someone coming from a very different culture, it's big challenge and not every one succeed. It's normal that it is more difficult for some than others. It's not a new data that we could not see it coming. We knew this for quite a while. The help provided for their integration is just not enough for some immigrants. So if we state that we need to reduce the number of immigrants, we also must admit that it means that WE FAIL. The problem is not the immigrants, the problem is us, we are not good enough to do what it takes. If we compare ourselves with other countries, some are doing just fine with the same numbers or more. Others are doing worst with smaller numbers. Let's assume and be consequent. Here is an analogy. You are very hungry and are offered two choices. You can have 2 medium burgers or, 1 big burger that is the exact double of the 2 others. No ustensil, just the burger(s). You decide to take the single big burger. Then once you start eating, you figure that your mouth is not big enough and you complain. You cannot say the problems are the meat, the bread and the accompaniements. Because if you would have chosen the 2 normal burgers, you would have eaten them both because you were hungry enough for both and there would be no problem. So you are right when you say the medias do not address this like ti should. But you are wrong on the "should". The medias are taking sides of the polarisation of the extreme opinions. The ones that want as much immigrants as possible no matter what, and those who think there are always too many immigrants anyway. The medias fail the burger test. some medias want you to reject all burgers, others want you to choke on the big one. That is danger.

Of course they don't. They are not stupid. It's only a small group of individuals that swallow such crap.

In english canada yes. In Québec, Bernier is a joke. There is a reason why even in his own riding he didn't pass.

Although I choosed to be vaccinated, I have concerns regarding this vaccination passport. Neverthenless, here I will only respond to your point. If you are a candidate for serious damage, then demonstrate it and we will provide you a free pass. Since you can't, the facts are rather saying that the chances to get serious damages if you catch covid-19 are seriously greater than the ones to side effects from the vaccine. So your point rather justify vaccination than the other way around. You will get a better point if you compare this situation with infectious decease. Take the flu for instance. For most of us, once you catch it, you just spent at most few days of inconvenience. But for few old people, this can be deadly. I never saw any kind of measure to prevent people for having the flu from getting in a residency for old people before 2020. Why out of sudden it matters? Do you need a aid-free passport to date someone? Dig a little. There are comparable situations where no actions are taken that can make you wonder.

I know the Talibans do, but they are not legitimated to do so. they will never be.

This is exactly where you are wrong. Never a judge can appointed by any religion and follow the writings of a religion. Under no circumstances, this could be legitimated in any country.

Every election, ever since I am born, it is the same story. A substantial number of NDP supporters change their mind at the last minute because they fear the conservatives and rather vote for the Liberals. This one will be no exception.

You did judge. You are judging that it could be applied. It means that any individual religious freak can decide to apply a punishment based on its own interpretation of the readings. Even if it is done by a religious authority, it still is a non legitimated person and totally against the rules of the society. There is no way this could possibly be ok.

There is a missing option. He will send a big bunch after the gets elected.

Although the people who hate Quebec are very noisy and very visible, they are the minority. There is alot of bad faith from those who entertain the xenophobic hatred but, they must not get more importance than they deserve. From the point of view of one individual's life, it looks like the issue is forever. But from the point of view of the society's existence, this is a small issue in the timeline. Compare that to Finland's Finnish people. At any giving time in the past when they were controlled by the Swedes or the Russians, the Finnish were experiencing frustrations. But today, the Finnish have no issue (or major issue) sharing a bit of their sovereignty with the Eurpean Union. This is morelss what Quebec's society aspires to. People like Moonlight Graham prefers to dig a hole and stuck their head in it. They would even pour ciment to make sure it doesn't get out. If there is no way to solve that, then so be it. Let's go for complete separation. But does it have to be done with hatred and lies? I think no. I have better expectations from my fellow Canadians.

ok, so you are ignoring what I am saying rather than replying and you go back to your previous saying filled with ignorance and bad faith. You are showing me your limitations and your intelligible weakness. I feel sorry for you, it must be frustrating to not be able to sustain the conversation. But maybe you are not smart enough to figure you failed, so you do not realize it. Just a little recap, just in case you have a sudden sparks of lucidity. The federal is not listening to the Provincial politicians, it is only filling the pockets of the Quebec federal politicians and their "friends". The people of Quebec do not win, the suckers of the federal party in power do. All english speaking people in Quebec are voting Liberals. Something to make jealous any dictator of this world. The french rather vote Bloc in majority. Accusing the french for the ones sent by the english people, is totally retarded. You totally over estimate the percentage of money sent to Lavalin compared to the amount spent in other programs such as the Nuclear and the Oil and many others. no wonder why you didn't bring any numbers. The french have to fight up to the supreme court to just open a school against the province that refuses and yet, you have the nerve to say you bend over backwards. The french outside Quebec do not get from you the 20% of the respect and considerations that we do give to our fellows english in Quebec. Read the Commissioner of Official Languages for once. You should try to get out of your denial for once. Maybe you will appreciate it. Always hating people is energy consuming. We do not hate you (the people), we hate you (the stupid individuals exactly like you that keep accusing us of something you entertain). You are hypocrite. The majority of Canadians are not like you, but that is the silent majority. The minority is noisy and is unfortunately taking too much space in the politics. So no I will not STFU. I will serve you back your own projection. Because this is exactly what you deserve. There is a word to describe what you are, Xenophobic.

You are going to make my Philippina wife jealous. ?