Benz

or exiled to his islamic friends at North Captiva island.

The need to save SNC, the entity, is obvious. But the leaders of SNC must be accountable for what they did. We do not need to save leaders of SNC, just the entity. But what Trudeau did is just plain stupid. He wanted to travesty the justice in order to save not only save SNC, but its leaders as well. He did not have the intelligence to make and assume a political choice that would do the right thing. He rather attacked the justice. It is more than wrong. IMO this is criminal.

The percentage of the people in Québec that will votes for Trudeau, will determine the percentage of shame I feel on my nation-state. Well, except for the Anglos' votes. Anglos in Québec always vote at 95% for the Liberals no matter what. Andrew Scheer has different values and interests than me. On many subjects, he is the opposite of what I cheer for. But he is not doing it against me. He is rather server the interests of other people thinking like him. I see him as a respectful opponent on which I just desagree. Trudeau is rather a real ennemi. A vicious traitor compulsory liar without moral and scruples. He is bad for all canadians and is capable of the worst to serve its own personal interests. He disgusts me more that I thought it would be possible even if my imagination is quiet fertile. Lucky for me, I can vote for the Bloc. But Trudeau is so bad for Canada, that I would be ok for a conservative majority government for the next 4 years. Just to make it clear for the liberals that Trudeau is not acceptable under any circumstances. Yesterday Jagmeet surpised me. He said he is ready to open the constitution to allow québec to get back in. Just like Layton few years ago. I wonder if this promise will work out as well this time. Jagmeet Sign has positionned himself against Québec on the bill 21. For sure he will be questionned about that. What kind of credibility his assertion on the constitution can be if on such subjects, he wants to fight against Québec. I am heating the pop corn.

I think in the future, the english canada will realize that something is wrong by giving such power to religions. Quebec is just few steps in advance but, eventually you guys will catch up. You are starting to debate about it and this debate has been done before I was in age of voting here. But maybe I am wrong and it will always stay like this on your side. It is not a matter of taking the religion seriously or not. It's a matter of understand what is the role of the religion and where are the limits. You keep bringing the point that your side is giving full rights to religion to force people to wear this or that, ban this or that. I repeat, Quebec gives the people full rights to choose their religions, practice them in their privacy and cult locations, as long as it covers spirituality. But when it becomes politic, like "do this, do that", it's not forbbidden but, it's not out of immunity. Their rules must NOT get into contradiction to our rules. Thise is where Quebec and the ROC are very different. I do not think your totally understand the concept. I think it is the first time you read someone exposing those facets of the religion like that. I agree with you regarding the non existing place this goes into the political agenda. Even fanatics like Trudeau understand they have too much to lose to oppose to Quebec on this matter right now. I am sure his internal surveys are blinking red right now. I have no problem to recognize that our basic values and morale roots are coming from the religion but, to me it is just a history. Religions do not set the rules anymore, we do with the Justice institution and political institutions. Now regarding the constititon and its conflict with our position, we are back to square one on why Quebec consideres leaving Canada. Those rules are set without us and therefore, are not legitimzed to us. There is the non withstanding clause that I think can make the exception possible but, I am not an expert on the matter either. I have a feeling that after the election it will become a new battleground. Unless maybe the conservatives win. But I think you know better than me what they would do on that matter if they win.

1) I don't think I understand your message. What is bigotery and why? Remember that we are only talking about position of authority. Sikh are not banned to wear their symbolsm unless they fill such position or where security prevails. Also, there is a grand-father clause to respect their original conditions of employement. Yes it is a point if everyone must comply but, it's a small one. The main one is that a religion's policy DOES NOT get any consideration when facing our laws. Religion's spirituality should be totally free, not the religion's rules. Well, at least, this is how we see it in Québec. Up to you to give the religions such power that they can override your rules with theirs. 2) To me, it is totally irrelevant. They do not need to do such sacrifice to gain the right to wear it. However, despite all the respect they deserve to fight alongside with us, it does not grant them the right to put down our secularism laws. We did not make a pact with the devil by accepting their help to fight the ennemy. Wearing crosses... first, it must be reminded that were are only talking about ostentatious symbols. So if you wear a big cross while you are a judge at the court for a case between a christian and a muslim. How much partial the judge will look like in its eyes? Howe can I trust someone in a position of authority to take de right decision, if the person would rather not do that job if can't wear its symbol? We are talking about someone that would sacrifice a career for a symbole. No way this person will choose our rules if they are in contradiction to their religious ones. That, I cannot accept. Even if your grandpa's blood lies on the battleground. I listened to a sikh woman last week-end explaining that she wears a turban because not only man can do it and she beleives in equality. ok for me, I do not mind. But she still has to comply to bill 21. Yet, she says the rule is unfair because, it means she cannot work on a position of authority. That is absolutetly NOT TRUE. She can work, but without the symbol. Just that is enough to justify the existence of the rule. But then she adds, we (the sikh) feel very shy about our hair and it is the same as if you (non sikh) were naked. Oh really? If what you sy is true, ti means you should be shy to see my hair, right? Otherwise, it's a problem you personnaly have and it could be solved with a psy. But it is far worst than that. Not only we did nothing to make you shy, but the blame goes 100% on your religion. They are the one banning you from doing a job without a symbol, they are the one making you feel ashame of your hair psychologically uncapable to go bare head. We are not the problem, your religion is. Then you want us to comply to your religion and override our rules? It's a big NO right there. Solve the issue with your religion. I need to insist on the facets of the religion. In Québec, both facets are different and do not have the same considerations. But on your side of the country, I think that vision of the facets of a religion is something you might never heard or read before this week. You guys always considered a religion as a whole where the priviledges are absolutes.

What about Switzerland? Multi-national states can sustain if and only if a mutual agreement can be reach with one another. A balance can be reach. But I think it's a little bit off topic. Argus rather talk about diversity and massive immigration. While you are rather talking about countries having within its border, nations that have been conquered and where their original national identity still prevail.

Il est parfois difficile de savoir ce que les gens pensent uniquement en les voyant agir. J'appuie mon opinion davantage sur la façon que le système fédéral est conçu plutôt que ce que les gens en pensent. Le sujet ne préoccupe pas les canadiens anglais, alors j'ai plutôt assumé qu'ils en pensent tel qu'il est conçu. La dernière fois que j'ai entendu un canadien anglais contester la monarchie, c'était John Manley lorsqu'il convoitait le direction du PLC (LPC). Ça fait très longtemps!

At some point of my life, I hated the anglos. I did not understand why they do what they do and I concluded that only a bad person can think like that. But I knew it was too simplist and I really wanted to understand. It turns out that sometimes 2 persons can take the same decision based on total different reasons depending on their experiences or where they stand. Understanding does not mean agreeing, but it opens the door to constructive discussions that can't occur if you limit your vision on hatred. Now I know that despite all the french bashing the medias generously spread over their consumers, the anglos do not hate the french and the french do not hate the anglos. Despite they are different, they have more in common than they like to admit. The french do not have disdain of anglos. The french consumes so many anglos cultural products, it would just be masoshism. The french are rather frustrated and offended that the anglos have absolutly no consideration of the french opinion and position. If an anglo takes a decision that regards the french, it will be based on his own opinion of what is good for the french, not in agreement with the french. Then the anglos will think the french is just whining because he/she beleives the decision was right and fair. This is the dynamic of the 2 solitudes. The reasons that push the people here to stay in Canada is diverse. For some of them, it's economical ss you said. But for many others, it's a loyalty to an idealism of what Canada should be. Quebec people have their pride and they do not swallow the equalization b.s. Although it is now a reality that Quebec gets more than it contributes, it is not as much as the anglos loved to think and it is not a reason to stay in. We aspire to more than that we would prefer to be a lucrative state than a poor one. That said, it is true that once in a while, I hear someone using that reason to stay in Canada. But it is not the majority of people. Even the Quebec federalists that would like to stay in Canada know that we would do good if indepedant and the equalization is not a stopper.

You did not address the explanation I am exploring regarding the different point of view between Quebec and the ROC regardling religion. Regarding the place of spirituality, we all the same page. The difference lies in the politics of the religions. You guys extend the power of the religions way beyond the spirituality. When a religion tells the people what to were and what to do, they are litterally establishing policies on your conduct and behavior. This is where we do not draw the line at the same place. Such thing in Quebec is considered personal and cannot be applied in a public role context. The religions are doing that to enforce the indoctrination and the feeling to belong to their religious communaity. So in the mind of the Quebec society, those rules are not absolute and should not overpass our laws and rules. It is irrelevent to say smoking is not a right. Because wearing a symbol is not a righ either, something not forbidden does not translate into a right. Not wearing a symbol meanwhile you work, does not alter your faith. You cannot compare our rule with the banning of french language. It's not comparable. Bill 21 does not forbid people to practive their religion, or even the right to beleive in their religion. That example rather shows your misunderstanding of the law and its spirit. By the way, bill 21 does not force someone to lose its job. There is a grand father clause that allows people hired before the day of the bill adoption to keep their symbol. No one will lose its job. In justice, the appearance of a conflict of interest is as much damageable as a real conflict of interest. If someone is ready to refuse a job because it cannot wear a religious symbol, it means that person passes its religious beleif before the our law. It means in a position of authority, most likely, if that person faces a conflict between what its religion says and what the law says, there are greater chances the person will choose what its religion says. But if the person accepts to respect the rule of bill 21, it then prooves it is capable to draw the line at the right place when it comes to decide what must be applied. That is why this bill exists and why it is applied only on authority position. The immunity and power you give to the religions place their political agenda on a high stand that we (in Quebec) think can be dangerous for the society. I do not agree with you but, I respect that decision of your's as long as it applies only on you. I expect the very same for us as well. You may not agree but, you should let it go and observe. Just as well as we do observe from distance your multiculturalism and its impact. What do you think of my explanation of the place of religion and its role. Still think you should force your rules upon us regarding the religion? @WestCanMan although I answered to him, I think it also answers your message.

Oui, à une époque où les anglais n'étaient pas des canadiens.

I am rather progressive and I see nothing in common with them, nothing I can agree. Idiocy is not an exagerated term to weigh her statement. If the progressives of western canada are all like that, no wonder why you develop such an allergy to them. It is difficult to evaluate from here, but the media tend to picture english canada like a whole monolitic block that thinks like her. I kind have a serious doubt about it. A certain majority at best.

2 points here... 1) I respect her opinion about the religious symbols that should be allowed even in a position of authority. I totally desagree but, I am ready to fight for her right to express that opinion. If the other provinces prefer to allow it, I do not mind as well, it is their own business. I mind my own. However, she goes far beyond that. She litterally wants to fight Québec on bill 21. That is unacceptable. It would become a fight federal vs provincial reveals propensity to disctatorship. 2) Her opinion also reveals her very high level of stupidity. Saying that bill 21 bans religious people to work and force them to choose between their faith and their work. This as imbecile as saying that the laws ban smokers to work. The laws ban the cigarette at work. Not the workers. Workers can still smoke outside of the perimeter. It's the very same thing with bill 21. It only bans the symbols. Not the faith. People can still work without any problems. They are just not allowed to wear religious symbols. If your faith is so fragile that you cannot keep it without your symbol, then question yourself about that faith. If your religion forbids you to remove your symbol at all cost, then the problem is your religion, not bill 21. Opinions like that disgust me and only reenforce the legitimity of bill 21. That being said, I understand the english canadians and the Québécois have a very different perception of the place of religion in our society. Religions have several facets. Regarding the spirituality, Québécois and Canadians are on the same page on this. The place of the religion and its role on the spirituality has the same place for both groups. Where both groups are different, is on the facet of politic and the intervention of the religion outside of the scope of spirituality. Like when religions tell you to wear this, do that, forbid this and that, eat this, not that... When a religion is attemptinng to rule your life, it goes far outside of the scope of spirituality and the mind of the Québécois, the religion loses its immunity on those topics. When the religion respects the bondary of private personal life or places of worship, it's ok. But when the religion tells you what to wear or do at work work, it is sometimes tolerated but, definitely not well seen in Québec. In english Canada, it seems to be totally accepted. I am not sure about why and there might be more than one explanation for this. I understand that the english canadians beleive that the Queen is chosen by God and the whole monarchy structure relies on the faith the people have in the religion. If one can question the place of religion, then the monarchy can be questionned as well. Even if it is a symbolic one. Like the symbolic role of sovereign of the Queen for the country. A role transmitted by bloodline, of course because the religion says that it is god's will. That scenario is accepted as fact in Canada and rejected as pure bullshit by Québec. Québec has alos alot of people that rejected religions, without necessarly reject their spirituality. People that still believe in their god, but do not follow any religion or barely the one of origin. People in Québec do not hesitate to question or challenge their religion, unlike in Canada where they rather tend to swallow anything that is being said. Of course not all the people but, definitely more than in Québec. The relation of the english canadians with their religion is the last of my concerns. I really do not care despite my opinion on religion and I expect them to respect my opinion as well about what is good for Québec. What I do not respect, is the assholes who considere the bondaries we put on religions as xenophobia, islamophobia, racism or b.s. like that. Thinking like that is an intellectual mediocrity that deserves no respect at all.

What are we going to do with those benefits? Bigger Zoos for polar bears? It's like if we had said in 2006, if the edge funds collaps, it will affect only the americans and our economy will benefit from it. It's not exactly how it happened. All the points raised by Moody are only one angle of it. There are side effects that we may adapt for the best, but others are unpredictable. It's annoying to have a moral, really. I wish I could see it like the inertia-ists. They seem to be living so well with that. It reminds me what Ash in the Alien movie said about the creature. "I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."

Islam is indeed the most noisy, but the sikh have done efforts to get attention as well. Well I do not know about France, but here in Canada, we have weirdos asking the right to use Turban instead of helmet for construction or driving motocycle. There was this kid who obtained the right, from the Supreme Court, to go into public school with his religious weapon, Kirpan. The French do not tend to waste time on such sillinyess. Unfortunatly, Canada does sometimes.

No, ignorant people need long speech because of their lack of knowledge. But when ignorance is a choice, the long speeches are indeed useless. Do not worry about me, I will not strive on your case. :d France is defintely NOT an example of what you state. Actually, most of the muslims in France do agree with their laws and measures. Only the indoctrinated or extremists are whining about it. That is ironic.

It is the opposite. The english cop looks like the good guy and the Quebec cop looks like everything that a cop should not be. But at the end, both styles are complementary. But if you ask a real policeman to comment about the Quebec cop in the movie, he would tell you that this cop is the exact opposite of what a good cop should be. It is a hollywood style movie and many films can be comparable. I am trying to think of a similar one. Maybe "The Nice Guys" made in 2016 with Ryan Gosslin and Russel Crow. Or "48 hrs" (besides that one is a prisoner helping the cop). Despite how much you hate Quebec politics, I really think you could like that movie. Regarding your political opinion, you are just repeating yourself. You have the merit of being honest, candide and doing whatever it takes to walk into the path that leads into the direction you want.

My happiness is not related to your capacity to follow a conversation. Thanks to care about it. haha! Short lines are not interesting for us in a political forum. Like Scott says, It's better to hang in the twitter sphere then. What you call "ancient" secularism, is the one that is still applied in most country using it. Where is located that "new" one and how does it attack religious rights?

As I said, there are french and english versions of it, so the number of subtitles are reduced because I agree, it gets annoying to READ a movie. Because I do understand both well, I do not need them. It's not promoting the multiculturalism politics, even if it involves 2 cultures. I am not twisting your arms. lolll Since you know a bit about Quebec and the swears and all the clichés, I thought you would like it. But there is a danger that you might develop more sympathy toward Quebec, so maybe it is better you not watch it. haha!

When people take the time to give you a substential answer, it is because they think you are worth it. If you say you won't read because you think it is too long when it is only 20 lines, you will lose the interest of people to debate with you. This is an adult forum, not a smalltalk chatroom between teanagers. Take your time to read, other wise people won't bother to reply to you after.

It is very possible. That is why I think Canada will change its attitude toward Quebec and will be more nice then it ever been. At that step, offering candies like in the past just won't work. I beleive Canada will be very open to the ideas of political partnership (maybe confederacy) that Quebec will offer. Not because the federal like it, because I am 100% sure other provinces will say, if it is good for Quebec, it's good for us too. Ottawa will struggle with a Quebec that has a mandate to leave and the other provinces that might say, "what makes you think you are still legitimated to talk in my name?". Maybe the provinces will all decide to push Ottawa aside and build a new federation provincing more flexibility. I can think of some provinces that would go this path, while I know many others who wouldn't. Ottawa won't have it easy.

The story is about two policemen, one from Québec, one from Ontario, that have to work together to solve a murder case. Both men are the cliché of their respective province. The Quebec cop is sloppy, always borderline in his work, the Ontarian is well dressed, very stuckup, too much by the rule... At one point, the english cop ask the french cop about his swearing and he the meaning. So he teaches him all the words and combinations you can do. While he is explain this to the english cop, he is also beating up the ass of a bandit that is also swearing. The movie is bilingual with subitles, but I think they did both versions for 20% of the scenes. It reduces the quantity of subtitles. So you can rent the english version and 35% of the movie will have french. It's the same for the french version. I recommand it to you. The story itself is so so, but the dynamic of the two men is very funny. There is also a Bon Cop Bad Cop 2, that happen many years later and part of the movie is in USA. So the english cop thought he would have an advantage over his Quebec colleague, but it turns out that despite the language, when he crosses the border, he is no longer home. Do not worry, the movie does not promote multiculturalism.

Hahaha! The movie Bon Cop Bad Cop could refresh your memory about the swear words.

Of course we desagree and we both knew we would not convince the other one to adopt the same opinion. I was just curious to see how you think and what is the base of the opinion you forged and what are your considerations. You have a very high propensity to assert and almost no interest to demonstrate. That is also another curiosity for me. Observation I am doing while drinking my beer, because this all I am capable to do, of course. I think when I was 20, I could have been offended by what you say. Today I am rather amused by it because after all, you express your opinion very candidly. One last question to satisfy my curiosity. You were raised in Quebec. How is your french language level?

No, secularism is also practiced by religious people. You are mixing up the concepts. Secularism is very useful in a context of multifaith societies. It allows the people of different religions to setup a neutral state sharing common rules and rights no matter what is your belief. Each religions have their rules and values and sometimes they can be contradictory. So in a securalism state, everyone must comply to the rules setup by the people. while in a religious context (churches, mosques, etc...), it's the rules of their respective god. Science dfinitely does not support the existence of God. If you attempted to demonstrate that in the forum, please show me where. God exists for their believers based on the faith and writings they evaluated good enough but, it is not, a scientific proof. You don't get to decide if the assertion or observation is a scientif proof or not. It does not work like that. But I will wait to see what you consider proof before developing more on that. Especially if you think the maths can proof the existence of God. I heard Chuck Norris can divide by zero, so why not! lol I wonder if you understand the difference between atheist and agnostics. The Atheists consider that since the existence of God can't be proven, therefore, there can't be a god. While the Agnostics rather say that we can't prove the existence, or non-existence of god, therefore, God is irrelevent. Their concerns are rather the anthropology and the systems the humans need to use. You have the feeling secularism is an atheism's political tool because it suits their denial of the existence of god, but that is a coincidence. It also serves the need for religious people to have a neutral state in a multifaith society. They won't stop to beleive in their god because of that. Secularism is no threat to beleivers. It is an obstacle for the religious extremists that want to force their beleifs upon the others though. The religion is a system to serve the beleivers' spirituality in first place. But for others, it is more than that. It is also a life style and a set of values and rules on how to behave in society. The beleivers are also not standardized. There are deep beleivers that do everything they are being told by religious ahtorities, and other more liberals that keep a distance from that, without second guessing their beleifs. Secularism is a good tool to prevent the encroachment between the state and the religions. The state does not interfere in people's spirituality and the religion do not interfere in the application of the rules of the state.

This is like saying there are only two colors and you have to choose between white and black. Take your side. Depending to topic or the context, sometimes I can feel like an anywhere, sometimes like a somewhere. But never strickly one or another. I consider all humans equal and I expect to be treaten as fairly as I do to others, no matter where they are on the globe. On the principle, or at first sight, the anywhere seems to be the most appropriate for mankind. But two ennemies come and break the whole schema. The transnational companies that want to smash the sovereignties and abuse of their power over the masses, and the tyrany of majority. Our societies are not even close to handle that at a global level. Then the somewhere becomes very important and a minimum of defenses and measures to protect your sovereignty are very relevent. Idealists tend to go to the extremes, whether it is the somewhere or anywhere.