Benz

It is so much better when it is done by a capitalist democracy that denies it's people human rights. Do you want me to find a picture of a not undercover agent working for American democracy that has a black civil in a choke hold with his knee until death?

And I suppose you are this man on your profile's picture. Of crouse. When I was in college in the early 90's, me and my friends were often signing our names with a shortiest version of our firstname plus the letter z, just because it sounded funny to hear. So we were Yvanz, Yanz (Yanick), Patz (Patrick), Marcz, Francz (François) and Benz (Benoit). It is true that it could sound German but, to the ears, it can also sound Ben's. So I was sometimes called Uncle Ben's by my friends just because it sounds funny. When come the time to create an account whether it is for email or else, I was using benz just because I did not want to use my real name and was too lazy to find something else. In 30 years of using that username on different sites, I think you are the first one that reproach me to use a german looking name rather than a french one. The running gag would have been completed if I had a girlfriend named Mercedes.

I was ironic. Maybe the irony in french cannot be translated to english so easily.

What a coward! Sweden gave a candy punishment to Mailloux, but for the same offense here, he would get a criminal record and the maximum sentence is 5 years. Why he does not blame Sweden to not protect their own girls against foreigners? Why Canada isn't showing the example to Sweden by taking care of this case and give a proper punishment? He blames the CH, but doesn't blame the NHL. Mailloux was available for pick. If the NHL did not want anyone to pick him up, the NHL could have just ban him and no one would have pick him up. Does Trudeau is just showing of his cowardice toward the NHL or is he just not smart enough to figure out he can blame them as well? Mailloux admitted his crime and is ready to pay the price. But no one is bringing the bill. It is not up to the Montreal Canadien or any other NHL team to manage alone the Canadian's justice or the NHL rules.

My wife is foreigner and I know she had to take some vaccins to be granted a permanent residency. If the Canadian government adds the covid's vaccin to that list, any other futur immigrants will have to take it. If your future wife does not want to get it, you are left with 3 other options. 1) You move to her country 2) You face the challenge of long distance relationship 3) Second guess your love

We do business with China and Saudi Arabia, but it is the canadian tourists visiting Cuba that are to blame. I am so glad I do not think like a fearmonger of communism. Not to mention that facts prove that the more you isolate the population of a country with commerce restrictions, the bigger the support to their dictator is. Go on, blame the tourists. We are amazed by your lights.

The French were not better than the British in the Carabean islans, specially Haiti, and in Africa. So I do not know why they played it so nice with the natives in North America. Maybe because they were not in position to do so. I am not naive on that. Of course the French had to fight against few natives. Mostly against the Iroquois that were raiding among the colonists to kill mothers and children. The English paid them back with weapons for every scalps they were bringing back. But the majority of the natives were allied of the French, the treaty of 1701 Great Peace is the perfect example. I do not know if it is because I suck with the English language, but I do not understand why you think we expect you to say "sorry" over and over. You would like me to consider myself as a Canadian like you. I know you think it is the right thing and you mean it with respect when you say it. I do not question your good will. But you have to understand that YOU (English only) defined what is a Canadian and YOU setup the rules. Which happens to be not fair with people that are not exactly like you, such as the natives and the French. Of course you do not experience it, because you are none of them. Just as much as I do not experience the racial discrimination on the black people. I am not the one who gets arrested just because my skin is black. It doesn't mean I do not know it exists. As an English canadian, you do not have to use the Supreme Court to subscribe your child to a public school in your language. You are not confined into a small reserve having no drinkable water. Originally, a Canadian was a French colonist. Until the late 1800's, the English were still naming themselve, North American British. So when the English decided to adopt the name of Canadian, the Canadians thought it would lead to reconciliation. We would be both Canadians, with the only difference of the spoken language. At first, the French saw this as a good news. Then later realize it was just a trap and the it changed nothing to the behavior of the ones in power. After a while, the French were so disgusted, they decided to change their name to Québécois. Do you see Quebec looking to get annexed to France? If France would claim such thing, our response would be, wait a minute cousin, we have changed alot since you gave up on us more than 250 years ago. The culture of Quebec nation is mixed. The language ties us to France and the french sphere but, we are also very north american on several other perspectives. We are not Europeans, we are North Americans and we do not intend to change that. I am French for the language, not for the nation France. Just as well as you are English for the language, not for the nation England. How come I have to explain you this? I thought you knew us better than that. Is it how you see us? You think that if I would be on that battlefield, I would say screw you English speaker? I would have saved you even if you were American or British. Because it is the right thing to do among allies. You under estimate the ties even a "separatist" could have with a English Canadian like you. I do not cheer against Team Canada in the Olympics. It is not because you do not understand the need of recognition of our nations that I would entertain futile hatred with you. I think you extrapolate our claim to a total rejection of you with resentment. You are wrong, this is not what we are. You mean 5 countries, not five nations. Well, I can give you Czechoslovaquia. Now separated into 2 nations, the Czecks and the Slovaks. Do they regret? Nope! Actually, even if it was bloody, does any nation who got its independence, ever regret it and would have change their mind if they could go in the past? No! Look, Quebec signed a deal with the Cree, nation to nation. Quebec recognizes the sovereignty that the Cree were asking. Now their land is a share sovereignty between them and us. Do you think they regret and would like to go back to when they had no recognition at all? Remember that few decades ago, they were accusing us of genocide. Now the relations are just as good as we hoped. Nothing is perfect but, breaking that deal is not on the radar for none of both sides. Cree and Quebec have proven it is possible to get along by recognizing each others. We are not divided by what happened 200 years ago. You recognize it happen and I do not blame you for what your ancestors did. The problem is not there. The problem is we are still living into a system that is the direct outcome of what your ancestors did. A system that is not fair to those who aren't English Canadians. I am asking you to recognize who we are, so we all have a say on the rules that are applied on all of us. Then being Canadian would now mean something to the French and the natives. It is not about having different rules. The rules must be the same for everyone. It's about having a say on those rules.

What is your point? Are you saying that SNC-Lavalin should not exists and is artificially kept alive? How about the automobile deal where Ottawa keeps only the constructors from Ontario? If we take in considerations all the subsides Ottawa is giving and cover up our eyes on all the corruptions, it is true that Quebec isn't the biggest loser, nor the biggest winner. SNC-Laval, Bombardier and so on, they have good workers doing a good job and their salary gives good income for the federal. Same goes for all other companies that benefit from the federal funding outside Quebec. No, the problem is, the leaders of those companies are getting a sh** load of money by corrupting the politicians. If you think that only Quebec benefits from it, then you are very dishonest. I will shut up when the french canadians won't have to use the Supreme Court to send their children to public schools. I will shut up when the french canadians will receive the same treatment as the english people do. The biggest irony in that, is the example of New Brunswick. Alot of English people over there would like their children to learn french. But the french courses suck. They complain about it but the authorities do not give a ****. Then the same politicians that refuses to give proper french courses to their own citizens, also complain that only the french people can get good bilingual jobs, because they are better bilingual than the english ones. This is so english politician mindset. First you refuse to have good course, then you whine and blame the others for your own choice of ignorance. You whine, then you blame the others for whining. It is called projection. Montreal gazette... again and again, the same angryphones that whine because they cannot have English-ONLY signs. Cry me a river.

Take the natives for example. They have been sovereign ever since they arrived in North America until your ancestors beat them, reduce them to small reserves and apply on them their own rules. Now you are saying them "that is life dude, accept your faith". Well no, it is against nature to deny who you are. The natives are natives first. Their hearts and souls belong to their own nation first, not Canada, or Manitoba, or Québec. Same goes for the French in Québec. What you are saying is, you have no trust or confidence on us at all. You believe that if this country is about the recognition of its nations, it will lead to the collapse of Canada. That is what you think of us. Then after, you wander why we do not identify ourselves as Canadians first. The actual Canada is a picture of the past. It is the picture of the post French and Indians war outcome where the British defeated us. Why is it so hard for you to conceive that you should draw a line where the past is left behind and work on the future with what is left of your "former ennemies". Do not fool yourself. If you think that the recognition of our nations lead to the destruction of Canada, it is because you still see us as enemies. You fear of what would happen to the CAD value but, yet, you are ready to sacrifice that rather than recognize the different people of this country. You do not make the effort to put yourself in our place. You prefer to picture on ourself the construction of your own fear. Indeed. I'll never blame you for what happened before you. That would be unfair. But what I want you to get concerned on, is the actual outcome of what happened in the past. The British had the intention to destroy all of us and swallow us into their nation. No success, we continue to be what we are. What path do you want to take? The one that tries to convert us like you are, once and for all? Or the one that gets along with us without the fear that we will backstab you? You have an incredible opportunity here. Neither Quebec, nor the natives have anger toward you. No one wants the blood spread on the floor. No one wants to revenge. No one wants the war. Quebec is not divided between those who love and those who hate Canada. It is rather divided on those who still have hope you will accept this reality and those who no longer have. The natives have all the reasons in the world to hate you because of the cultural genocides they went thru and yet, they just want things to be normal with the recognition they deserve. I do not understand why you just do not take the hand that is offered to you. You should question yourself if it is worth it to take the chance to destroy this country by refusing this handshake that would clear out the past once and for all. Regarding the USA, they are having so many concerns on this planet, I am pretty sure the last place they want a new conflict is their own backyard. If Canada gets unstable and slides to serious conflicts, you can bet foreigners will involve for their own interests. Europe, Russia, China... name it! Some of them would do it just for the pleasure to bother the Americans. If that happens, both of us would be the biggest losers. I cannot imagine that you, as a citizen, would let it happen. I know that trend would be very unpopular here in Quebec. The actual system places us (french and natives) in a position where you guys set alone all the rules and consider us as conquered people. The first question you must ask yourself is, how far would you go to keep it as is? How much are you ready to lose in order to keep the status quo? Don't be that dog that cannot let go its wood stick from its jaws. But if you do, then assume it until the end. Either we share this country, or we separate. We are ok to follow the very same rules, our only condition is that we agree on those rules. How much are you ready to sacrifice of this country for not sharing the setup of those rules? If you prefer separation, then the second question is, do you want to solve it as a reasonable adult, or do you want the whole international community to mess up our playground?

Appease? Appease! We are not meant to be appeased. We are not looking forward to be appeased. We want to be respected as an equal partner. Not considered as a dominated vassal that needs to be appeased. Quebec never been recognized as a nation officially in the constitution. Harper did a motion to recognize the Quebec individuals as a nation. It's a good start but, he made sure that it has no recognition politically. One serious attempt in 1987-1990, but as always, you turned your vest and betrayed your engagements. The one of 1992 is a sad joke. It's a canadian running gag. You guys betray us, then you blame us for your decision. Well, as I said to Army Guy, I did a mistake on this one. This is not exactly what we claimed in 1990 and I wrote it too fast without paying much attention to this point. Regarding the number of judges, there was no precisions on that. It was only said that Quebec wants a say on the nominations. We do not want Ottawa to choose alone who would be the judges of this country. The main goal here is, we want to make sure the judges would be impartial. If they all come from Saskatchewan and they are honest and fair, I do not have a problem with that. The problem is, I do not trust a single bit the prime minister of Canada to make a good choice. If the other provinces want also a say on the nominations, then why not? The point was also about the nominations of the senators. This whole senate is a farce. The prime minister is the one to choose the senators. We can't force you to be smarter than that. If you guys are ok with such joke, then at least let us choose our own senators. Quebec senators should be chosen by Quebec, not the PM of Canada. wtf? Do you listen to yourself when you are saying crap like that? Who has benefit in Quebec from the money those corrupted politicians looted from public funds? Only the corrupted ones did. Not the common people like me. I did not get any penny out of it. SNC-Lavalin's profits are going outside of Canada in fiscal paradises with the complicity of those politicians. How the f**k should I be satisfied with that? Who voted for the liberals in Quebec? The English people. They are 100% supportive of those corrupted ones with scores that would make any dictator jealous af. Bombardier? Great company with great workers and the worst stupid leaders. But why those leaders are still running the show for Bombardier? Because Ottawa always supported them. Ottawa never listens to us. Of course I remember this crappy sponsorship scandal. Obviously, you are not smart enough to remember that the Bloc Québécois was very strong and was getting all the french seats of the province. So it was again the English voters and very few federalist French voters who placed them in power. Not US!!!! Yet, you blame us. WTF should I have done beside voting for someone else? Kill them? You need to have the balls to blame your own fellows living here. There are the ones to blame. Again, how much money did I get from that. Sweet f***all! The corrupted ones got it all and nothing ended up in my pockets. Not a single penny. Please, get them all. I will give you those bastards anytime. Trudeau (father and son), Chretien, all liberals elected here in Quebec. I am paying the airplane tickets right now. They are causing us more damages than anything else. They are the worst of what humanity can get. But do not blame us for that. That is very coward of you. Have the balls to face their real supporters.

1.1 This is something I can't figure out regarding your reasoning. How come the recognition of our nation would make people not treated the same? On the contrary. People would still be treated the same. The difference is, we would have to both agree on the rules. But the rules would still be the same to everyone. Right now, only your nation is recognized and pretends to be the only one in this country. But it is not the reality. Quebec and the natives are all different nations and Canada is not the only one country in this world having more than one nation within its border. For me, being a different nation than yours, is not a good reason enough to separate from Canada. The federalism is suppose to be flexible enough to respect that reality. But it becomes a reason to separate if your nation does not recognize us because you guys wants to keep absolute power over the rules. It's time to turn the page of the "French and Indian war", and recognize and respect each others. 1.2 That's the only way to make sure we get along. As long as one side can decide of everything, it will always be a problem. 1.3 I did a mistake on that one. This is not the official request we presented in 1990 and I wrote it too fast. My bad. Please check the reply I will do to Moonlight graham. 1.4 In 1980, the group of 8 was claiming exactly that. Unfortunately, the group of 8 betrayed Quebec and give up that and rather go with Trudeau. We are 100000% agree with any other province that would claim the same. Unfortunately, we are the only one claiming it. But I strongly suggest that you guys claim the same for your respective province. Right now, you guys let the federal spending whatever it wants, wherever it wants, however its wants. You are giving way too much power of spending to that the federal. I think just reducing seriously the power and the coverage of spending would be better but, you guys seem ok with that. So at least, the very least, we need the full compensation of an opt out. 2.1 Yep, Alberta has contributing alot lately, but Alberta also has benefit alot in the past for its development. It would be a great futile exercise to compute all spending, contributions and investments of the last 200 years. Of course there are winners and losers. If we separate, what happen if we do not agree, what happen if we do agree. I believe that we both benefit to make it simple. 2.2 Over my dead body. Quebec has also being taken out territories. You are watching the point from a very narrowed view. It can only lead to war. It's amazing how you discard your own history to suit your today's ambition. Remember that you did cultural genocide to the french and natives living outside Quebec. Now that the cleansing is done, you behave like this whole country is legitimately exclusively yours. You will never make a point with it. If this is really the path you want to take, there will be blood. Give up on this imperialistic attitude. What is done, is done. If the ROC wants to exchange territory, let's discuss it. But if the ROC wants to take from Quebec what is left to Quebec, then let's kill each others. 2.3 Quebec is not in a position where it can starts create geopolitical issues and problems for a caprice. USA wouldn't tolerate sterile disputes anyway. This is definitely not the way we plan to behave with our neighborhood. If we do such thing, it is because you would have been looking for it. I do not expect you to reach that point. Right now, you are thinking like a federalist pro-Ottawa. Quebec always being able to get along pretty well with its neighbors. Whenever there is a dispute, it's always because Ottawa puts is nose in it.

There you go. It's a good start. If you like the term family to represent all provinces, then you need a detail to express the reality of the current context. It would be like if 9 children out of 10 are boys and the other one is a girl, or vice versa. Or 9 are biological siblings and one adopted. Quebec is its own nation. We have many differences and the most obvious one is the language and the culture that comes along. It means we see things differently on some points. But we also are having our common points. If you understand that the rules cannot be decided by the majority alone, then you are on the right track. But if on the contrary, you think you can compensate this unbalanced power by your good will, it won't do it. Alot of conflicts will be encountered.

1. I will try to make it as short as possible. We think that a real confederacy would suit Canada much better but, unfortunately, the idea never grows up outside Quebec. So we have no other choice to focus only to what regards us. The most important point that needs to be understood is, we do not want that the rules could be changed without our approval. We have no problem to follow the same rules, as long as we agree on the rules. Trudeau said in 1980, "f**k Quebec, but to compensate, I will put the non withstanding". The problem with that, is whenever it regards the cost of a program, if Quebec does not agree on how the program is managed and retire, we lose the money from it. But the money belong to the people. It's not fair if one gets nothing just because of a disagreement. Again, if the federal would be more decentralized, the issue wouldn't occur. One example among many others, the Scholar Sponsorship. Ottawa wants to give money only for the best students. Quebec rather wants to split the money even among the students. That was a big futile fight in the beginning of the 2000s. Quebec recognized as a nation Quebec veto on constitution (no problem to extend that to regions or even other provinces) Equal number of french and english at the suprême court, minimum 3 coming from Quebec. Full compensation on an opt out. Limit the the right to practice a religion to a private life context. A province can extend it to the absolute if it wants, I do not mind about that. 2. Very, very sliding subject where every one is having difficulties to be objective. Military, infrastructure, debts... the most reasonable would be that everyone get its fair share. But what is a fair share? Circa 1840, the debt of Upper Canada has been cut in half and shared to the Lower Canada that had no debt. So many investment has been done outside Quebec with our money, so many programs that we did not get our fair share. It's impossible to agree on what is fair, we must rely on what is the most realistic way to process that issue. Territory. Even right now, there is an issue about that. The south border of Labrador is one of them. It just doesn't make sense. Same thing regarding the islands along the northem coast of Quebec. It does not make sense that they belong to Nunavut. Whether Quebec separates or not, it should belong to Quebec. Now regarding french territories outside Quebec and english territories inside Quebec. It should be resolved in 2 steps. First step, the borders stay as is. Second step, Quebec and Ottawa can try to deal afterward and exchange territories. Connections. Not an issue. It would be just like USA right now. Alaska is not connected to the mainland. Hawaï is far away. The maritimes can choose to stay with the central and western Canada. Circulation throught Quebec is just one point among many others that can be negociated easily. 3. Other than constitution? When the federal does not intervene, Quebec does get along pretty well with the other provinces. The shit hits the fan when the federal stick its nose... or when the rules are unfair. There might be details that need changes but, it's minor compared to the constitution. If the provinces could control the power of Ottawa to spend money, it would help to reduce alot of irritations. But only Quebec stands on that. So a full compensation on any federal programs would do the job.

I won't surprise you if I tell you that I do not give you any credit for the comparison of our patriotism to the Trump's self-interest exploit of pseudo-nationalism based on populism. By comparing both, you rather show a disdain and misunderstanding of Quebec's aspiration. You say you have compassion for Quebec and I do believe you. I do believe you feel it. Nevertheless, it is from your angle under your considerations. Let me show you another angle. Let's say that you love belugas. You consider them as great creatures, among the most wonderful on Earth. You go to Canada's Wonderland to admire them. They do nice tricks to wow you and with their behavior, they make you think they enjoy it. You pass a good moment and when you go back home, you feel more admiration toward them. But what about them? when the show is over, they go back to their tiny pool where they turn around indefinitely. The next day, they have to do that again if they want to eat. They are not there by choice and they cannot choose to leave. They work everyday and if they have a rest, it's in a tiny space for their size. It's do or die. No other option. I did go to Canada's Wonderland 3 years ago. Although I was impress by what they can do, it was heart breaking to see where they end up after the show. When the show ended, I was staring at the other human show. The crowd leaving with satisfaction and smile on their face, while right there under their eyes, they could see those poor beasts turning around in their jar. How come they do not see what I see? That is the parallel I want you to open your eyes on, when you are trying to paternize us about the price of freedom with all of your compassion. Ottawa is taking decisions that do not go with the interests of all canadians. Only for the benefit of few of them, or maybe the majority but, at the expense of many others. While Ottawa is subsiding oil in the west, nuclear in Ontario, Ottawa is not only giving nothing for Quebec that has to develop its hydro alone, but it is also contributing to hinder it. Do you think Ontario could afford to refuse dealing with Quebec's hydro if Ottawa was not subsiding their nuclear industry that much? What about NFL that is trying to avoid dealing with Quebec, its natural and only neighbor, by getting around us at 10 times the cost it would take to just deal with us. Of course NFL cannot afford to do that alone. So Ottawa is helping them and since we contribute to the system, it's like if we are helping them to screw ourselves as well. I can go on like that with many other cases but, I know the cassette. Ottawa is also giving us candies here and there. Like if that would compensate somehow. It's still bad on the big picture. But the point is not only economic. The place of religion is a good example. We have a different understanding to the extension of the practice of it. We limit it to the private context, you extend it to the absolute. Although the non withstanding clause exist, the federal is still trying to derail it at the court that has to base its judgement on the constitution that we did not sign. Instead of respecting each's others opinions, it's a continual fight and load of insults and accusations. What about the language now. According to the constitution, as a french, I can go into a french school anywhere in Canada. Well, yeah, according to the rule. But that is not the reality. How many french schools have been opened AFTER some people had to fight with money, time and energy, up to the supreme court to make it happen. Some of them saw their children grown too old to go to that school because it took so much time. So much effort and public money has been spent to fight against that. So much resistance from the political side from both the province and the federal to fight against that right. It is very dissuasive among most of the common people with all the consequences that come along. I can continue like that with so many other examples and topics. I think I made my point. Giving up on freedom is a very high cost. Your applauses and fishes you are giving me are not enough for me to be satisfied with turning around in your jar. There is no good reasons that it should continue like that. Quebec is a nation and needs to be sovereign just like any other nations in this world. Whether we are totally independent or a member of a flexible federalism, it is secondary. Both are ok to me. I am not saying that to convince you that Quebec's sovereignty is good for you. It is totally irrelevant for you because it is not up to you to decide anyway. It doesn't change much for you. It would only change the dynamic of our political and economical relations. You say you have compassion for the french and Quebec. Good, then acknowledge this. Because the paternalism you have over us and the disregard regarding our revendications are not compatibles to what you stand on many subjects. How many times I told you it is ok to not agree regarding the place of the religion, as long as we respect each other's point of view. But you end up with silly accusations with total disregard of our points and of course, total lack of valid ones on your side. What a way to conduct a debate eh!

The responsibility depends on the angle you take it. From the point of view (action -> consequence -> punishment), a child shouldn't be responsible of the actions of its father. However, when one of your own is in trouble caused by anyone else, whether it is related to you or not, and can't make it without your help, it is your responsibility to help. That is the principle of living in the society, rather than a far west style where it is everyone for itself. If the Red River flood Winnipeg area causing huge damages, we are going to help because they are our fellows, not because we have anything to do with the flooding. If the natives are struggling with the consequences of the actions of our grandfathers, we need to help because they are our fellows, not because it was caused by our grandfathers. That notion is important to understand for both sides, the one who ask and the one who help.

You paint an idyllic version of Canadian politic that is comparable to paint a white horse with rainbow colors and put a groom handle on the forehead, to make it look like an unicorn. Like if the celebration is only meant when everything is just fine, or look fine. I suggest a different target. This one is for the people, not the politicians. Happy Canada day to the Canadians.

Nope. Don't get fooled by the illusion of that website. An immigrant that is refused by Quebec, can still be accepted elsewhere in Canada. Also, an immigrant accepted by Quebec, is not guaranteed to be accepted by immigration Canada. Canada has the last word. But this is not the biggest concern here. You voted for them, not us. PE Trudeau and Chrétien? We so disagreed with them that we hold a referendum to separate from the country on both of them. When Chretien was in prime minister, Quebec was voting for the Bloc. Only English speaking people of Quebec were voting 100% for the Liberals. Blame your own fellows, not us. PE Trudeau betrayed us and did the exact opposite of what he promised. We were so disgusted by him that we voted for the Mulroney and the conservative. We were so satisfied that we wiped them out and voted for the Bloc. It is very coward of you to blame us while you admit that your Harper was just the same. We never agreed with PE Trudeau. Even Robert Bourassa was totally against him. It is silly to put on us what they did just become they come from here. While here, we have the same consideration for them that the people in France had for the Nazi's collaborators. All the guys you named, had a huge support from the English people in Quebec and the Ontarians. No way I will endorse their decisions. NO F*CK*NG WAY. Do Quebec was pleased by that? Is doing a referendum to separate is a good way to show our appreciation? Gee Argus. Be smarter than that and look with your eyes. That nation building mostly done by the liberals was not to please one or another, it was to create a non natural nation to justify a system meant to satisfy itself, not the people. They wanted Canada to take a direction where the French would fit and get assimilated. It is ironic because it is the other way around. It is in English Canada, mostly Ontario, that the people swallowed that model. We never agreed to that nation building type. It is not our model. We always valued the concept of multinations of Canada. If the ROC wants to cheer the Queen of England, it is the last of our concerns. You guys can do whatever you want. In a flexible federalism, we share what we have in common and we manage our differences in ourselves. But that is not what the liberals wanted. They wanted a hybrid one size fit all kind of nation because they thought it was the only we to keep us united. Does it work? Not really. But you are only fooling yourself if you keep thinking that guys like me are the same as guys like them. The schools are under the power of the provinces, not the federal. Quebec has the power over its own schools, but not yours. You eny that we teach pride to our students about history, then do the same. Don't blame us for the cowardness or your provincial politicians. Otherwise, you have what you deserve. Get a grip. This is only whining. If you do not want a bilingual country, then let's separate this sh!t. We merge all the french parts of Canada to Quebec and we split. Then you will have your unilingual English country. Otherwise, stop complaining. It is perfectly normal that both languages are required for the federal jobs. It does not advantage Quebec, it advantages the most educated and intelligent people. oh well, then, you are right, it does advantage Quebec. Because Quebec is better at being bilingual than the others. Then don't blame Quebec, blame yourself. You are the one who fail. Or, you pull your head out of your ass and do the right thing. We totally reject PE Trudeau's multiculturalism. Yet, you still associate Trudeau to us. You are your own biggest issue. You are unable to identify the real problem and its origin. You feed your own confusion. But I know why you do that. You do not have the courage to fight your own demons, so you blame us for something, even if we are fighting against it. If Quebec separates, it will only solve the Quebec's problem. It won't change anything to you. You will still face the very same problem with the federal. You think it will be easier without Quebec because you lie to yourself about the big picture. But the reality will catch you up. The liberals won't disappear. The weight of Ontario will increase. The federal will increase its power justified by the fear of other separations and will become more centralized. Quebec can be your greatest ally but you keep on spitting on it. Indeed. Trudeau was very against nationalism. He disdained both sovereignists and Quebec provincial federalists. He hated both Lévesque and Bourassa. It is in his logic of multiculturalism. He believed only in a cultureless state and rule of law. His son is his own product. Justin does not understand that. He just applies it. oh no, that is NOT what the natives said. They said they do not belong neither with Quebec, nor with Canada. They are their own nation, their own culture. Agreements are only for the sake of mutual interests. Right now they have a pretty good deal and they would never give up on that. If they want to separate, they would lose the Paix des Braves, and therefore their shared sovereignty and of course, all income from Hydro-Electricity. You can't manipulate them anymore.

I am not insulting your intelligence, you are peeing on your own intelligence yourself. 99% of the jobs are not concerned by that law. Nothing else is. It only concerns 4 jobs in position of authority. So the religious people wearing symbols can still do it anywhere in public and in all other job types. Not bad for a society that is supposed to fear them. If we feared them, we would forbid it in all or most of the jobs. We would forbid it in public space, etc... You rather sound like you want to incite hatred toward Quebec nation. Despite that the facts are proving otherwise, you invent a fear that does not exist, like if the law would be irrational. On the contrary, your accusations are. You are not even trying to argue on the main point, you try to drift this into illusion of fear. Bad faith or plain stupid? I told you many times. I am ok if you do not agree, but do not splash me with an opinion that is not mine, just to suit your point. This is disrespectful and fallacious. Respect the opinion of the ones you do not agree with. Don't put words in their mouth that they did not say. Do not invent actions they did not do. Do not invent motives they did not have. If you still do, at least, try to demonstrate it instead of just free accusations. The biggest issue here is that you do not respect facts and reality. Is English signs are forbidden? NO. No matter how often you lie, it will never become true. The law says you cannot show a sign in English only. French must comes along. Not replacing English. Yet, you guys still say that English is forbidden. It's not true. You do not have a problem with our law, you have a problem with the reality. English is not forbidden in Quebec, just as well as the Earth isn't flat. Same thing regarding the language spoken in an enterprise. English is not forbidden. What is forbidden, is forcing English on people. If I want my colleague to speak to me in French, that colleague has to comply. But if I am ok that he speaks to me in English, the law can't do anything. Also, that rules is applied only between coworkers living in Quebec. If I speak with a co-worker living in Singapour or Vancouver, the law doesn't apply. You can use the Nazi's technical solution to lie until some people think it is true, bottom line, it will never be true. Yeah, you are talking about the signature of a nation that was teared down less than 30 years before that. A nation who saw its leader hung up. That federation was a great improvement compared to what it was before. But it did not take long that we experienced its downsides. So basically, what you are saying is, the only solution is to separate or use the notwithstanding clause as often as needed. The message is pretty clear.

Quebec has the control of its immigration after Canada did the first draft. We do with what's left. Number of people not speaking french does increase. I do not know where you get your stats but you are totally off. You are clearly missing the point. I will repeat. A non neglectable amount of immigrants that do not have french as native language, do prefer to adopt english only on the basis that english speakers outnumber the french in North America. They do not hate french, they just go practical. If the amount of people thinking like that is critical, it does become a collateral threat to french language. So now you are blaming Quebec for the lack of measures Canada is taking to make sure the immigrants learn english outside Quebec? Tell me you are not that coward and stupid and I am just misinterpreting your saying. If you like what Australia does, then do the same. I heard there is a serious issue with that in Vancouver. We have nothing to do with it. The I-am-too-old excuse, I can manage to swallow it. Otherwise, your social aptitudes are very restrictives if you have no intention to learn about the society's language where you live and limit yourself to the very tiny surrounding. I admit that the learning of French language is difficult for no good reason. I am among those who claim a major change and simplification. So, I agree that if you do not practice and hear it often, it's difficult to keep it. That excuse goes for someone living in Calgary, even with the best intentions of learning it. But if you are living in Montréal. What is your excuse? Well, one possible excuse is, the french people would talk to you in English anyway, so you can continue being lazy. Well that one, the blame goes to those French who are too helpful. Besides that, you have everything you need to learn it. You really need to show where and how Quebec object to English Canada for preserving its own culture. It is the other way around. I think you guys need to take inspiration from us sometimes and do more. The multiculturalism's policy is a serious threat to your culture IMO but, I do not see much Canadians sharing that opinion. As for Canada not a nation... I do not know exactly what Legault said, but usually what the people here are saying is a little different. Canada is not a nation because it is a federal country having nations such as English Canadians, Québécois and the natives. For several generations, the English Canadians were trying to erase the French and the natives and totally swallow them as one nation named Canadian. But although they tried very hard, it never become true. More than ever, the natives do not consider themselves as Canadians. They are Cree, or Ojibway, or Innu in first place. The same goes for the Québécois. The concept that the English Canadians deciding alone all the rules (constitution) because they have the majority is totally rejected by everyone else. The former british imperialism is over and English Canadians need to move on and accept the reality. Quebec signed a deal nation to nation with the Cree where those natives can now share the sovereignty of their land with the provincial government. That is a good example of recognition and collaboration between the two and both benefit from it. The federal is too centralized and after the English Canadians complain that the Quebec is controlling it too much. If you want Quebec to mind its own business, make sure Ottawa does the same.

You are mixing up the natives and the woke fads. The real natives are no woke. However, the fake natives that only care about the free skidoos would do.

If the problem would be the capacity of making babies, we would have ten times more adoptions than we actually are. Other societies are having the same issues with birth rate. Japan and China are both facing issues with that now. But they are so many, they do not have the need to compensate with more immigrants. Now if I compare with Canada, the Quebec's birth rate is 1,58 and the Canada's birth rate is 1,50. It seems that your speedo is a little bit tighter than ours. But since the rest of america is english, it is more interesting for the immigrants to choose english over french, or chinese... well, for now.

Freedom of speech? WTF? Listen, you might not agree regarding the place of practice a religion and I respect that, but stop the BS about the freedom of speech. This is so ridiculous. Unconstitutional? You are talking about your constitution that we have no say because you slammed the door in our face. I will care about your constitution only the day will open the book and sit at the table to review it. Until then, it is your constitution that is a joke. Why you guys only focus at hijabs? We had bigger concerns with Kirpans and Turbans. I am telling, no way the Sikh will be able to break our laws regarding the mandatory helmet for bikes like they did in few other provinces. Over me dead body. Regarding the law, you are totally missing the points anyway. This why sometimes I wonder if thinking in english somehow limits the brain capacities, there has to be an explanation. You have all the rights to not agree with us and I have no problem with that, I respect that. But that is not the issue here. You just don't get it. You just don't understand anything. You can understand and do not agree, but you don't get to that level. Or maybe you do but, you are so childish that you prefer to play stupid. English canada and Québec have a very different scope that covers religious rights. What we have in common is, we both agree that everybody can choose its own religion and can practice it as well. The difference between us is the coverage of where you have the right to practice it. For us, it regards the private life (by the way, I am not sure if private life is the appropriate translation of what I have in mind, en français j'utilise l'expression contexte de vie privée) of an individual and/or the community of the same believers. For you, it is extended to all levels of the society. When a person goes to work, or occupies a public job, that person IS NOT in a context of private life. So for us, in such context, one individual does not have the right to use its religious practices. You may do if there are no issues with it, but if there are, you cannot claim a right to practice your religion. That fundamental right is only in a context of private life. The opposite is true as well. A company cannot forbid the practice of a religion if there are no good reasons for it. So out of the private life context, it's neither a right, not forbidden. It's a case by case situation. Unlike you, the right of practicing the religion applies in any possible kind of context. Now regarding bill 21, the rule says that religious symbols are forbidden only in the context of position of authority. It concerns only few number of jobs. The reason why it is required is the exactly the same why it is required that a person in position of authority has no conflict of interests of what-so-ever. Among those who wear a religious symbol, you can classify them into 2 categories. The first one, although they were it, it is not mandatory for them and they do not have an issue removing it if it is required. The second one, they are SO INDOCTRINATED by their religions that they prefer to lose their jobs rather than just removing it. Those people are more afraid of their god than our laws. The problem with them is, if they are facing an issue where our law says one thing, but their religion says the opposite, they will not choose our law, they will choose their religion's law. If they are ready to lose their job for just a symbol, for sure they will make such choice regarding the law as well. That is why we cannot afford to take the risk to let them have position of authority. Any other kind of job or role in our society, they can only pay the consequences of their actions. But in a position of authority, they can do damages. We are filtering them out of those positions. Is it possible to an indoctrinated person to play that role and never face such issue? Yes it is. But I am no gambler and I have nothing to win to take the risk. You wanna be a judge, a policeman or a teacher? Be fully secular. Otherwise, there plently of other kind of jobs you can still do. Again, you have the right to totally disagree with me, but don't be an @$$ by pretending that where are racists attacking people wearing hijabs. Unless this is your thing, twisting reality and spreading hatred with lies.

Quebec gets around 50 000 new immigrants (whether it is from normal process or refugees) per year and in that number, most of them do not have french as mother language and moreless only 40% do speak functional french. Although french courses are free and the government subsides them, still alot of immigrants won't learn french. The birth rate of the french people is very low and it does not take a phd to understand if the number of people not speaking french increases all the time at this pace, it soon will become a serious issue for the french. Even among the people who learned french because they have too, their native language is not french. It could be spanish, arab, vietnamese, tagalog, name it. For those people, french and english are both foreign languages to them. Alot among them have learned english before french and are probably still master it better. If we force them to use french, they will. But if you ask them which one they would prefer, they would go with the one that is mostly used in north america. They do not love one more than the other. Those two languages are both equally foreign to them. It is just a matter of pratical in the big picture. I do not blame them. If I move to Spain, I would tend to choose Spanish because it is spoken by most of the country and also half of south america but, if I move specifically to Catalonia, they would expect from me that I learn the catalonian language as well. It is not practical for me because I already know a bit of spanish and catalonia is spoken by only the catalonians. Not elsewhere. But this is not about me, this about the catalonian nation that wants to preserve its culture. The issue here is only about the number of non-french immigrants that do not or barely speak french and have the possibility to avoid it. If their percentage wouldn't be so big compared to our birth rate, it wouldn't be an issue. As for the use of french in the work place, although it is illegal according to the language laws, it is still a major issue. I have seen it several times. I had to use english with some workmates that do not speak french at all even if they are living here in Quebec for many years. Most of them had an english worst than mine. This is something that is difficult to understand for me. I am very different. If I move to another country, let's keep up with my previous example, and I get a job where I can speak french or english and I am not required to use spanish or catalonian, for sure, I will not limit myself to that. I will take on me to learn the catalonian language. I will be too curious to get to know them, their culture and what drives them. I might not become speak it perfectly, I might not become a writer in their language, but I will eventually be able to communicate with them. Just because I like to connect with people and understand what they like, what make them laugh. So when I see people living here in Quebec for several years and not being able to say Bonjour or few sentences in french, that is totally alien to me. How can you live in a society and be so close minded and isolated like that? Don't get me wrong, I feel the same with the french that do not speak english. I did not learn english because I have to. I learned it because I was way too curious about how life is going on outside Quebec and to communicate with the rest of america. I started to learn spanish for the very same reason regarding central and south america. But I never lived outside Quebec, just visit for vacation or business. So how can you live for so long into a society and never learn its language, it sounds so stubborn and narrowed. Then I decided to ask the question directly. Whenever I met someone not speaking french in Quebec, I asked the person. There were a variety of answers. Sometimes it was just as narrowed as it sounds. But sometimes I could understand. The answer that came the most frequently is, the person feels too old and too busy to learn. Those people are very glad that their children go to french schools and speak perfect french, and they wish they could do just the same, but they feel like they can't make it. Are they right? Maybe they are wrong and if they put the proper effort, they would make it. Maybe we don't force them enough. Or maybe they are right, maybe it's true that you get to a point it is more difficult to learn a new language. Or maybe some people are just stronger than other. Maybe I am superior to them and I can't expect them to learn as much as what I can learn. I do not know. Maybe a little bit of all that. My wife is having the same issue. She was living in Philippines. Her language is Pangalatok, she knows Tagalog as well and she did her best to learn English. She got a very hard time to learn it and it is still very basic. She is still mixing up the past/present/future when she speaks. We could communicate in english and we felt in love. That is great but, the downside for her now is, she has to learn french. It was so difficult for her to learn english, now she needs to learn french. I see how she is struggling with that. She really wants to learn it but, if I push harder she will have a nose bleeding. For her, english and french are just foreign languages and she doesn't have a preference. Again, she would have preferred to stick up with english not have to learn a new one but, eh! She felt in love with a french guy. Conclusion, the language laws regarding the schools are a very good thing. Very important for the preservation of the french culture. The laws regarding the workplace are also important but, it's a bit of gray area. I now understand those who are struggling with it and at the same time, I also witness bad attitudes. I am less drastic than I once was but, measures to help and encourage the francization are still important. The threat to the french language in Quebec is not necessarily a problem of attitude but, rather a capacity of the society to digest its immigrants and make them adopt the language. Where is the solution. More tools for immigrants? More restrictions? Not everybody are the same either. It is still a challenge and as long as Quebec will have a high rate of immigration, the challenge will go on. I take that challenge.

Are you Don Cherry? ?

The rest can be read here... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-memo-for-canada-back-off-of-quebecs-bill-21/