Benz

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.

Saying that Quebec rules Canada because guys like Chretien and Trudeau are from Quebec, it is like saying Austria ruled the Nazi Germany because Hitler was born in Austria. Quebec never liked Chretien and those voting for him were either english Quebecers or very federalist francos. Same for Trudeau that is considered the greatest traitor in our history. It would be more appropriate to say they are Ontario's Quebec puppets. Since Ontario use to elect them, while they were very unpopular here. Did you forget about the BQ era that started to diminish only after the liberals got beaten by the conservatives. Quebec as always be against multiculturalism, so do not blame us for that. Quebec also never had the intention to match the Ontario's ambitions of importing immigrants, so calm down on that as well. The problem you get when you do such assertions, is you totally discredit yourself. It does not pass the test of facts. So basically, you take whatever you think goes wrong and you blame it on Quebec, even if nothing neither in history books or media records can back that up. How can you be taken seriously after that? NB is not bilingual. It has the smallest difference between the number of french and english speaking people. That does not make them bilingual. By percentage, the francos in Quebec are more bilingual than the anglos in NB. Even when we combine both english and french, Quebec still beats NB in the number or percentage of bilingual people by a huge margin. Quebec is the most bilingual province. Having "ch" and "rd" on road signs like "ch. Young rd", is not enough to pretend the province is bilingual. If I try to live a french life in Toronto, I will never come close to get what an anglo gets in Montréal. Ontario prints bilingual documents. So does Quebec. Poor you! It is very typical. You are not complaining of not being capable to receive services in english, you are complaining because your fellow french canadians receive the bare minimum services in french. I can imagine you talking to your psy and spit your frustration of the fail of Lord Durham's project to totally assimilate the french. So you get all itchy because the highway has french only signs. Ok, I will make it up to you. You give the french outside Quebec the very same priviledges the anglos get in Quebec and I will turn our signs bilingual. I promise! Your call! The total of complaints from non french or english speaking people visiting Quebec is... 0. But eh, whatever makes you happy. 40% of the french are separatists? I do not know today but, in 1995, it was 60%. I never wanted english being banned or such. I am actually speaking to you in english and I am not going to take a shower to wash this dirty sound polluting my ears. What you are doing is, projection. You think that we are as childish haters like you. Oh we probably have few individuals like that but, they are marginals. Just like you are in the english Canada. Your last paragraph is so funny that I have nothing to add. It clearly shows what you think of Quebec and your political myopia. Quebec is does not want to have anything to do with english language. Yeah right, of course!

Québec will never become a TOM-DOM of the France. If it becomes sovereign, it will stay sovereign. We are rather talking about economical partnership. But it would rather be an influence of the French in the EU to create close ties with Quebec, rather than just a one on one France-Quebec.

I do not know where you get your sources but, I suggest you ask few to Dougie93. China is not grasping its hand on Quebec and Quebec is nothing like any African countries. Close ties with a north american country like Quebec would not only benefit France, but the whole EU. Especially since they lost UK, the home of the British Queendom, sovereign of Canada.

You do not talk like someone aware of the content of Meech and the 5 traditional requirements Québec claims. When I say Quebec, I include Quebec federalist like Bourrassa, the one who settle those 5 conditions. In 1981, there were no compromises. Quebec has been kicked out and isolated. It is still today, the best reason to separate. It is still today the same system, same constitution. Don't bother trying to make a point about "we can't please everyone". Our conditions are totally legitimated and no european countries would have accepted the existence of the EU without them. They are 20, with 20 different languages and cultures, and they get along better than us with only 2 official languages. Unless you bring me a paper from the doctor stating that you are an inferior race not capable to get along with people, there are no reasons to behave like that with us. It is the pure old form of imperialism and nothing else. It's no different than with the natives as well. You won't see it, if you do not want to see it. In 1981, Lévesque did a huge concession. He gave up on the Quebec veto claim and in exchange, he wanted all provinces to get an Opt Out of federal program with full compensation to all provinces. 7 other provinces agreed with me that it would be a great thing. They were called the group of eight. Then Trudeau said, ok, I will support your idea and in return, help me to convince the 7 others to accept a referendum. The next morning, the 7 others betrayed and back stab Quebec to sign a new constitution without Quebec. For Meech, he whole country betrayed Quebec again for what? Cause one man somewhere was not happy? I am gonna tell you this straight. As an Anglo, you have no credibility to do me the moral about compromises. Quebec did compromises all the time and as been betrayed every time. It's like if Germans would be moralists to the Jews regarding the racism. Compromises is what your people should have done. When you slam the door in our face, this has nothing to do with compromises. You do not have to convince me about the advantages of stick together. I am already sold to the idea of an adequate federalism that fits the face of the actual Canada. We all get benefits on the geo-political concerns to be united. That part, I am all in. What I refuse, is the actual conditions that were set without us and against our interests. People of Quebec has decided by a tiny margin to stay in Canada, yep... but keep in mind that 60% of the french decided to break free. You need to thank the cheaters for that. If you are satisfied with the outcome despite the results, good for you. Keep sleeping on your both ears. Everything is just fine. The question was clear. It was about giving sovereignty to the people. But added to the question, it was bounded also an obligation to the government of Quebec to offer partnership. It did not garanty or make the sovereignty conditional to the acceptance of the offer to the english Canada. The people who do not understand that, are by coincidence the same people who does not understand what Quebec wants. In clear, the same kind of people who will never understand anything because they do not want to. As long as the international community understands it, it's good enough. We do not need you to understand a question that is not addressed to you. Regarding Alberta, it's not something that can't be solved. Their concerns are only economical, not political. The difficulty lies in the logistics and conflict of interests. This is the kind of thing that Ottawa has a great pleasure to turn us all against one another.

It is not our intention to ask permission to the British. We will rather ask the internation opinion to recognize our existence as a nation state. That is stronger than any other british crown rules or past agreement about the conquered territory where the force was used.

When you want to protect the integrity of a country, you do not piss off a nation like Quebec like that. If Chretien really wanted to preserve the integrity, he should have repaired the betrayal of 1981 patraited in 1982. As long as he refuses to do so, whatever he wants regarding Canada is irrelevent. Trudeau and him are the greatest sponsors of seperation ever. They have no credibility of what-so-ever regarding any kind of clarity. Quebec did not trust any of them. "I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today" hmm, no. I never heard anything like this in my life. The Quebecois do not seek any kind of support from the monarchs. They were not against the principle of having the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. They were against the current version and needed few amendements. When english Canada said "we do not care about your opinion, we set the rules without you", they doomed Canada. It is just a matter of time before it collapses. Canada with 10 provinces is living on borrowed time just because of that. I see you are not aware of what Quebec is asking. Yes we ask for asymmetrical federalism but, you have enumareted only the points that are ok with us. Not the ones we do not agree. So you do not iknow and understand why we did not sign in 1982 and why we still can't sign today. How can you think you could ensure the sustainability of Canada if you do not know why we want to break free from it? You are wrong about Mulroney. He said it many times and still say it today. Canada should have signed the Meech accord. The status quo is food for separatism. Of course the other provinces do not see the need to change the constitution. It is their constitution. They choosed it. In their point of view, if it is not broke, don't fix it. But it is broke for us. We are excluded of its design. And it is for us a major reason to quit. So it is broken. They just wait until Quebec really breaks it to do any move. They wait until it is too late. Alot think that Quebec is just black mailing and will never do it. Even after they got a victory by a tiny margin by cheating. So it is pretty clear that Quebec will never find an open mind from the ROC and sovereignty is the only solution. Right now the sovereignist leaders are trying to repair many mistakes did in the past but, it is just a matter of time before that subject comes back to a greater importance. Because the issue is still the very same. You are talking about Energy east... but in the case of Quebec, this is a different topic. The seperatism in Quebec and the one in Alberta per se, have very different basis. For Alberta, it is motivated by money. Their feelings about it vary or is proportional to the ratio of what they get or give to the federal government. There is no such things as Alberta nationalism. They do not feel Alberta is a nation. They feel different from the maritimes as much as Californians feel different from New Yorkers. Unlike Quebec, where the people identify thenselve to the Quebec nation and see Canada only as a federation. Canada is a civic space, Quebec is home nation. People of alberta see their land as a province. People of Quebec see their land as a nation state. Sure there are also few economic reasons why Quebec wants to split, but they are rather the results of unfair rules and too centralized government that has too much power. Quebec tends to assume its choices and its situation. Quebec never got any money from the federal to develop its energy industry. Unlike Ontario and Alberta in nuclear and oil industry. Quebec respects the rules, when Quebec are part of the decision about what are the rules. Some other provinces don't care much about the definition of the rules, but they complain after when it's not going the way they would like. So our observations of the canadian dynamic can be resumed in one phrase. It's "one for all and all against one". One more thing, you say the ROC would never go for... it is important to remind you that in 1981, almost all provinces were on the side of Quebec concerning the claims. Until they turn their coat and betray us. Yet, they are still complaining of the outcome. Same for Meech 1987-90. The provinces and the federal were in agreement with Quebec. Until few traitors like Trudeau, Chretien and others managed to sabotage the proccess with the complicity of Clyde Wells and elijah Harper. Instead of solving the issue, the ROC turned their back on Quebec again and the accord died. Basically, what it means, is the ROC would be open for that, but it is always the bash Quebec group that win at the arrival line. That part, is in your hands.

Clarity act has no legitimity. You cannot be the judge and the party of a cause like this. Someone independant, or simply the U/N/ could decide whether the question is clear or not. Québec has nothing to win of having an unclear question, because after that, the other countries will not recognize the result. I wouldn't either in their place. But the english Canada is not the one to decide what is clear or not. In particular the case of Quebec. Because Quebec has been kicked out of the constitutional commity in 1981 despite it is the only one not english province. No other provinces are as legitimated than Quebec to leave. The federal is responsible for that and is not the one who gets to decide of the clarity.

Look, I am not saying what you state is wrong. I knew it moreless because although I read the BNA act long time ago, I can't say I remember all the details. I know the natives are actually using that specific argument and playing that card for their claims. What I am rather saying is, the actual constitution of Canada have a weight that might diminish alot the scope of BNA act. Before, the Queen was the effective sovereign of Canada. Now it is rather Canada making the choice to keep the Queen as symbolic sovereign. Canada could easily say that it retires that position to the Queen and there is nothing she can do about it. So for me, playing the BNA act card is not promising. The natives are playing it because they have nothing else. As for your feelings regarding the canadians, I understand. I got my share a desapointment as well. I am avoiding defaitism, but I am not building any hope as well. Confusious said, "your son is not your son, he is the son of his time". It's not impossible that after few generations, the game can change and have new people thinking differently. But when? in 300 years? I think that as long as Quebec remains a simple province, nothing will change in Canada. It's a ciment. If the people of Québec says YES to its sovereignty, the game becomes totally differently. Because then, Canada would have something to lose of doing nothing. If the people in western Canada play their cards well, it would be a good opportunity to try and reshap the political structure of the country. But they will always need to consider the others as well. They will never rule Canada. Québec claims are often similar or in the same direction of what the westerners want, but they always been the one to fail us. So I am not very sensible to their complaints. I tell them come back to me when you have more maturity and when you really stand for what you want instead of blaming me for all your problems. In clear, what do you really what for the provinces. Do you want them to be all independant countries? Bound only be an economical agreement like free trade or something?

The Supreme Court has made a decision about it and I don't recall they mentionned anything like it. They rather relied on the constitution. Can you point out to me the part where it supports your assertion please?

The Brexit is a good example that if one wants to seperate, it is totally legitimated and can do so, but you better do it for the good reasons. The British thought they could play a silly game with EU and now they realize that it is turning against them. For now, EU is firm but, still playing nice. Once the Brixit is completed, I bet EU will offer more than a nice smile to Scotland that will attempt again a new referendum. The British are perfectly aware that the EU has that joker in their handle.

Tell that to the Acadians and their experience with the Grand Dérangement. Explain them how much they were protected by the crown all that time. The only reason why the british were giving candies to Quebec and appease their aspirations, is because they were afraid that the USA would win the jackpot and fetch they colonies. For english Canadians, Quebec was an excuse of not being american. When we look at what is our southern neighbor today, it was a wise choice. House of windsor has not much to do with the "protection" of the french since 1982. Quebec tried to stop that patriation because the english Canada changed the constitution without Quebec's consent. The Queen never gave a damn about it. So much for the "direct relatioship". So the americans don't want anyone. Then why they keep pushing for another referendum in Porto Rico, one after another until they win? Why they just do not let them go? What is the other one again, virgin islands? If Canada collapses and all provinces become independants, you can bet the americans will build a plan to swallow them, one by one, under their conditions by taking all means and indirect pressures to accomplish it. For the last ones who would resist, they are going to use the traditional "national security" excuse. They will pretend that terrorists could use those indies just as much as they said they were WMD in Iraq. Or maybe not. Maybe they will not add any of them, but they will sure benefit from that division more than they do right one when canadians are united. On a geopolitical angle, there is more to benefit for canadians to stay united, but not at all cost. The actual federal system is living on borrowed time. That, Zeitgeist better realizes it before it is too late.

Of course, Québec has a very different opinion about your queen. Québec is republican and the idea of one individual having such position based on its lineage, this is totally against our democratic principles. You might not feel any hurry to change that from your english position, but for Quebec, this is non sense. Although we respect the people who chooses that kind of system, because they can do whatever they want within their borders, this is definitely a big no for us. |I wish the Feds don't take care of health and education, but unfortunatly, they do. Not that much for now, but they do. This is something Québec has always been against and the other provinces always betrayed us about that. In the sense that they say the feds should keep its hands out of it but, when the time comes to sign, they step down and side with the federal. Only québec has the balls to hold on. Only one man in english Canada never let us down on that subject, it is Mike Harris. You say the Feds must policing many stuff like ports, etc... oh yueah it does, but who is policing the feds? When the Feds decided to deregulate the train transport and let the private sector regulate itself, what happened after? Several deads in a train crash in Mégantic. The decision of the Feds was completely imbecile. The provinces need more power to bring the Feds back on ... track. So far, the french culture has survived despite Canada. If you say it would have been worst with the americans, I admit to agree. Very tiny consolation on your part. Where I do totally reach you without reserves, is regarding the threat or being swallowed by USA. I see what is going on over there and suddenly I feel that our canadian problems are just amusements. As much as I want Quebec to be sovereign, I am also concerned about how Canada can collapse and become a feast for our imperialist neighbors. There is something good to do with this country, but leaving it as is the sure way to lead it to its destruction. Changes need to be done. You barely talk about the native/indigenous. They are also nations that deserve the respect of their sovereignty, or at least for what they are capable to assume. The best way to avoid the end of Canada like the Roman Empire, is to adapt it to the reality of the people. Go back to the roots. What Canada really is about? It's a nation founded by the english, french and natives. Before and after the british destroyed the sovereignties of the two others. There are many different federation models in the world and some can inspire us, just as well as we can inspire others. A federation where their founding people can be proud of being what they are without being enemies in the opinion of the english majority. I dream of the day I would be just as proud of being canadien, like I am of being Québécois. Just like an Austrian can identify itself as both Austrian and European. We are not there yet. Natives identify themselve as Cree, Ojibway, Innu or else, but not as Canadians. That does not mean much for them. Same for the Québécois. English Canadians should really question themselve about what kind of Canada they want. The one their former imperial leaders shaped with blood, or the one the actual living people are.