Benz

Harper has proven that it is possible to win without substantial supports from Quebec. Indeed. Not easy thought. Still, it is a faisable strategy. Now that Trudeau is destroying the little credibility left in the eyes of those unicorn-rainbow dreamers, it might be more possible than ever. Not exactly. He said, the Québécois are a nation. He did not recognized Québec as a nation-state or distinct society in the form used by Meech. He was very clear that for him, it means nothing and changes nothing. At least, he destroyed the Quebec Liberal's distinct society confusion bu****it card. The sovereignists are thankful for that. I also think it helped him a little bit in Quebec because he won more seats than we would have expected from a very conservative party. Is it possible to formulate a party where the western conservatives and the Quebec progressives can both find satisfaction? I do not think so. The former Progrssive-Conservative party was transvestite into a second liberal-like and it was against nature. The biggest mistake of Harper was to turn his back on the promise of decentralisation and reform the senate. It did not looked like a bad move to drop that at the moment but, in the long run, it brings us all to square one once the liberals get back the power.

Actually, the only one time I remember we were mocking his french, is when he said "nous allons en erections" instead of en élection. Translated back in English, it is "we are going to have a boner". We got a good chuckle on that one.

What to expect from a man that says "STAY HOME" and then go on vacation at his chalet later on. He is doing exactly what he is asking us to avoid. No, he is not only asking, we can be fined for that. Trudeau is an imbecile and no one can argue against that.

Jagmeet rewarted in Quebec? Jesus! You definitely not looked at the results in Quebec. He got almost wiped out. Only one seat in Quebec while the cons had 10. It's the second time you say something false. You can easily found the facts on internet. 1) An anglo from Toronto with average french won Quebec's heart, Layton. No one cares if he is born in Montreal, there no differences between an anglo of west island and someone of outside Quebec. 2) Jagmeet got rejected and had less support in Quebec than Harper had. You are grieve yourself of rediculous. End of the story.

Layton's french had a big english accent. His french was not better than the one of Harper. For several years, Quebec did not want him at all and he had no chances. Until the day he said Quebec must be bring back into the constitution. So yes, it's an excellent example that contradicts you. Following election was not Layton, it was Mulcair. Although he is an English, hs french was very fluent. Perfect biingual. However, in the past, he fought against bill 101. He took care to remove the promesse of reopen the constitution for Quebec. That is why he lost in Quebec. With Jagmeet, a guy who thinks you can avoid wearing a helmet and replace it with a turban on a motorcycle? He was considered as a big joke. None of those two guys are comparable to Layton, none of them have the same success, despite both of them had a better french. So yeah, the point still prevails. Example of a leader that can win the heart? I did not say it happened, I said it can happen. Since Quebecois are not conservatives at all, very few are, it is indeed difficult to find someone among the conservatives that could please Quebec. But if an English speaker with bad french really get interested in quebec politics and what Quebec wants, it is possible to say something Quebec will like. It's not because it never been attempted that it can't happen. I could return you the favor. Name me someone with poor french that did promise to Quebec something that is important to Quebec. Layton did. His french was just ok, not elegant.

Jack Layton. Bang! You are demolished. Do not attempt to save your face by claiming he is born in Montreal. Because he was born and raised in a very English community and he moved to Toronto in 1970. I remember his poor level of french at his debuts. He eventually managed to make it fluid and understandable. He never been identified has, someone coming from Quebec, or a Québécois. Although he said it few times, he did not play the card "look, I am from Québec" that much. He never pretended to be something he is not. Jack Layton was having poor results in Quebec at every federal elections until the day he said something like "The situation of Quebec with the constitution is unacceptable. It's time to reopen the door and repair the injustice caused to Québec.". 2 weeks later, he wins the biggest amount of seats in a very long time in Quebec and become the leader of opposition in Canada. Even if you have someone with a bad french, a leader can easily win the heart of Québécois if it shows respect and the sincere will to repair the injustice that still leaves us out of the constitution lap. But if you keep presenting a wolf to a horde of sheep, do not accuse the sheep to be xenophobic toward the wolf when they refuse. By the way, despite Harper represented the exact opposite model of what the Québécois are looking for, he still have win alot of respect from us when he decided to recognised the Québécois people, even among ennemies. At the next election, he gain some seats in Québec and destroyed the best liberal tool used to manipulate the anti-Quebec people in the ROC. Every time you try to portait Quebec people as evil, you just shoot yourself in the foot and you bit the dust like every before you.

He can't sue. After all he said on Québécois, Europeans, Russians, women... he has no chance to win anything. Even if they fired him for the wrong reasons. If the neo-canadian wearing a puppy is an important subject for him. He can use its popularity to promote it. I am sure many followers would support him. Unless he does not really care it was just another topic where he could say something bad to pass his own frustration of failing to win the cup. In 5 seasons, his team got kicked out of the playoff 3 times out of 5 by the Habs (those damned frenchies).

Cherry should have been fired or forced to appologies to many times before. Sexist, xenophobic, name it. After all he said on the women, russians, europeans, french, Québécois... there are tons of material to blame him for. Now that he is fired on his "you people", I get double mad. Because after all he did wrong, he is fired of something he did nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong by his opinion that immigrants should were a puppy. You may agree or desagree with him, but there is no blame of anything that holds the line. His sanction is not because he lied, statistically, it is true that the immigrants tend less to wear the poppy. The blame on him is because he blames them for not woring it. This is one of many proof that this country is paralysed by the Trudeau's multiculturalism. You can defecate on women, french or any non-english white people but, don't you dare to say anything about immigrants. Even if it is true. This is so sick. -------------------------------------- Now, what I think about the opinion itself? Imagine he says that to an indian from India. I am choosing that specific country because after discussing with few of them, I noticed that many of them (not all) do not know anything about the two world wars. They can't name the countries involved and they know only the original definition of the swatzika which is several thousands of years old. So of course, they know nothing about the poppy as well. Why should blame them? Because what they experienced of the suffering regarding wars and what they still remember, is the bloody religious war they have been through at the time of their independence of a conflict the british purposely put oil on fire and hold a big responsability in it. So who is going to tell them what flower to wear on what day... our british colony? Maybe you prefer to take the example of Rwanda that suffered from a genocide in which Canada among others has its share of responsability as well? What flower on what day shall we dare to tell them to use? Or what about Sudan where a Albertan Oil company paid para military organisation to create civil wars for the beefit of coastal oil company to pump the underswater ground while the mainland is fighting one against each others. We are not the center of the universe and our involvements in wars and foreign conflicts are not always hands clean. This is why Cherry should have been more sensible. It is ok if he invites immigrants to buy a poppy. It's arrogant to blame them for not doing it. But in both cases, there is not even a start to discuss about conditions to fire him. This is clearly an assault against freedom of speech.

Considering that many women are abandonned and have already one or many other kids they barely or can't provide support, abortions is also an effective solution but, I admit it is not necessarly constructive without proper education. What disgusts me is, if you just blow the dust off the surface, you will see the corruption and how the money is redirected into other interests. How much of that money really goes to the ones in need? It's surprising how big is the leak.

Unless your religion says you can. To have any right in this country, you gonna have to adopt or create your own religion. Canada: "You can't ride anymore, not safe". Me: "My godssays I can". Canada: "oh, ok, sorry! I will tax more the other non believers so when you have an accident, they will pay for you. Because obiously, you need a tax break. I do not want to mess up with your god."

I was talking about decisions like forbidding sikh to ride without helmets andother kind of rules like that. You think it's the ROC's taxes that makes us having more intelligent rules?

There is no way Québec will accept such non sense.The only compromise I would do, is to revoke indemnity after a motorcycle accident. Same for public health care. When take the decision to not wear a helmet, it is at your own expense. No helmet, no public hospital. Go private! In Quebec, we have the automobilist insurance and every one are covered. We would do an exception for the sikh not wearing helmet. But we are not like that. We prefer to protect them from themselve and no helmet is not an option.

They did not ask. They took. They give a little bit of money to YMCA to block their own windows. They forbid people to bring non kocher food into the jewish hospital (although it is a public hospital also funded by public money). They did not pay their municipal taxes in few cities. Like in Boisbriand if my memory does not fail me. And so on...

hehe! It must have been a real pain for you to admit the french in Quebec are doing better.

Oh, this one passed under my radar. I knew that some Sikh are asking for that priviledge but, I did not know it was granted. What province and when?

No, not every religious person uses its position to prioritize their religion. But the all of those that cannot give up their symbols, they do. It is a weak fallacy to say that bill 21 is futile just because one religious person can still prioritize its beleif without wearing symbols. It is like saying it is pointless to request a criminal investigation on a candidat that wants to be a teacher, because some pedophiles have not criminal cases yet. Nope, we filter those we are pretty sure that can't distance themselve from religious rules and that is a good start. Regarding the woman's turban, I was pointing out the irony to shake Argus' opinion that the first "victims/targets" were muslim women.

You definitely do not know Québec at all if you think we are ok with a weapon at school or a Turban instead of a helmet (whether it is construction or motorcycle). The religous weapon at school was THE biggest scandal regarding religious symbols. Bill 21 is as much for that than face covering. I challenge you to prove what you are saying.

The biggest scandal in Québec was that Sikh kid that could, with the help of the Supreme Court against Québec, wear his Kirpan inside a public school. That bothers us way more than a bed sheet on one's head. Same for those who would like the right to replace a helmet with a Turban. Bill 21 is not perfect. It is still possible that a person without symbol could use its position to prior its religious rule at the expense of the ones of our society. But at least, we get rid of those who are obviously doing it. It's not true that someone who is ready to sacrifice its job for a religious symbol, will withdraw its beleif when in opposition with our laws.

Based on what delirium do you come to that assumption? The law applies to all religions. So a sikh cannot wear his turban during its functions. Ironically, it is a sikh woman that wanted to wear a man's Turban, who is the first one to refuse the rule and move to BC. Not a muslim. That victimization b***s**t over muslim women is an islamic game that even muslims do not swallow. Get over it.

Look, you are losing the focus on the reality. People are not forbidden to wear symbols in public spaces. They are forbidden to were them while they are operating a function of authority. If you think your religion prevails on the conditions of such position, I totally respect that decision. Just do another kind of job. You can continue to keep your lifestyle according to what your religion orders you do it. You just can't do it in such position. Whether you like it or not, the people in Quebec do seperate the dressing code order by the religion from their faith in that religion. I am ready to fight until death to defend that principle. Do not melt culture and religion into the same jar. 2 persons of the same culture can have 2 different religions. 2 people of the same religion can have different cultures. Although it often happens that the religion has a major impact on one's culture, it is still 2 different things. And if you think keeping a position of authority free from religion is a stomp to the religion, then you have a very weak opinion of the people's faith. If your faith is jeopardised by that, then the problem is your faith. You better start asking yourself if you realy beleive in this. You need a psychologist that will help you to sort out your thoughts and values. You are still totally free to practice the religion of your choice. We do not and will never place the spirituality of an individual on the same level of the political religious rules. The right to beleiver in whatever you want does not grant the religious organizations to make people do whatever they want them to do. Practicing a religion is a right but, it is not absolute. The rules of the society prevail. In your english canadian society, you think it's ok to let religions rule their people without limits (or very few like the criminal code). I have no problem that you manage your society like that. I do not agree but, I respect your decision that affect your society. In return, I expect that you respect our decision for our society.

It's not a big drift and it is still in the topic. It regards the bill 21 and how May wants to attack it. When someone mentions the words communism, socialism or something like that, then it becomes off topic.

That is because in your conect of religion, there are no difference between the 2 facets of it, spirituality and political rules. See my previous post for more explanation. Your concept is totally rejected here in Quebec. When a religious rule comes into conflict with a rule in our society, the last one prevails. Still, the beleiver can ask an accommodation and there will be a debate on whether or not the request is reasonnable. Unlike in your society where the religion's rule prevails. Québec vs China... in China, the religion is banned. In Québec, no religion are banned. Only the symbols in position of authority. Although the crucifix has been removed from the Salon Bleu of the assemblée Nationale, it is not banned and is still exposed somewhere else. Your giant exageration rediculizes your position. Christmas tress are not banned anywhere, although we observed few places where it was requested by some religious people other than christians that it should be removed. So much for the respect of traditions by religious people. No religious locations are experiencing any kind of oppression. Chruches, Mosques, Synagogs and such are all free to practice. People are still totally free to practice their religion. But not in the scope of position of authority. This what the principle of secularism is all about.

Argus made it too wide. The rules apply only on people in a position of authority. It does affect the confidence you can have in such services. If one is ready to sacrifice a job opportunity because of its religious symbol, it is highly possible that this person would rather choose its religious values against the rules of the society, when they are in contradiction. When you are not capable to take your distance from your religion rules, you can be in conflict of interests. In justice, appearance of conflict of interests are as much damageable as real conflict of interests. Whether the person would do it or not is irrelevent. That is why you cannot be a judge of a case where one member of your family is in. even if you are capable to be impartial. The appearance of conflict of interests is enough to justify that you are not selected to be judge of such case. Usually, a judge pull itself out because they are perfectly aware of this principle. The same principle applies on any position of authority. I'll give you an example of a fictive religion. The religion ABC has these 2 rules: 1) You must wear a hat having the shape of a S on your head. 2) If a boy and a girl are arguing against one another, the girl has the right to give her opinion but, the boy has the last say. Now how this is going on in our society? Men and women are equal, so the rule number 2 is not acceptable. The follower of such religion cannot make a point with that. But if the person of such religion is in a position of authority. How can you be sure that this person is capable to take a decision that respect our value of equality of men and women, instead of respecting the rule of its religion? There are no way to be 100% sure, but there is a way to reject a big bunch of indoctrinated people. You forbid the religious symbols for a position of authority, how can we make sure it won't abuse of its power? Does that person is capable to take its distance from a religion, can it accept to remove the symbol to proove it? If not, it means the same person will most likely override our society's choices with its religious rules. Even if a specific individual wouldn't, the risk is too high and we are in a situation of conflict of interests that I explain. That is why this bill 21 exists. To make sure it is understood that secularism prevails. As I explained in another post, in english canada, you guys mix up two facets of the religion into one cloud that you call religion. For us, the spirituality and the political rules of a religion are 2 different facets and they are considered differently. That is why here in Québec, although we allow every one to beleive in anything, we do not allow anyone to do whatever in any circumstances. Unlike you guys do with few exceptions. Well, I beleive Argus is right and alot of people in english Canada are totally fine with bill 21 and might want the same. How many, that is another story and I do not know the answer. You might decide to call us stupid as much as you want. But your opinion rather demonstrate the other way around.

Although I strongly desagree, I respect the opinion of people that think the religious symbols should be allowed to people in a position of authority. I can fight for them to have the right to express that opinion, even if I desagree. What I do not respect, is the people who has a fallacy reasonning that without justifications, convert the secularism rule into any sort of phobia (such as "ethnonatiinalist"), even if nothing in the bill itself or in the historic behavior of those who passes it can demonstrate that assertion. One should at least have the decency to at least explain itself instead of just a lazy intellectual free accusation. In another thread, I have exposed the different opinions, visions and understanding of the religion between Quebec and Canada. I beleive I did it in all respect of the people who think different than me without sinking into foolish denigration of the counterpart and I expect no less in return. Tweaking the federation to bulldoze your narrowed mind is not what I call "well educated electorate".

He is more wise than I expected. I think he is trying to make a point that he is not forced to wear the Turban and has no problem t remove it if required. It will probably influence few people here.