Benz

I would be pleased to ease your pain and seperate Quebec from Canada. But I your suffering is not really a concern for me right now. Although I do not like the actual federal system, I think something useful for all can be saved. And as I said, and you confirm it once again with this post, even if Québec goes, you will still blame Québec for all your problems for several decades to come again. Anglos in Quebec are not treated as second class citizen and they DO NOT feel like it either. That is a construction of your mind. You are doing your drama queen about the predominence of french over english on the signs, but english language is still used and no one are feeling bad about it, because the facts place the anglos, even in Quebec, in much better position than the french. Take the ratio of english hospitals and schools for its population. Not only the anglos have nothing to complain about it, they are one of the best treated minority in the world. If english Canada would give the french outside Quebec the same ratio, the french language would thrive like never before instead of going down. How many french hospitals? The only one I remember of is Montfort. In NB, where the number of french and english is the closiest, there is a system for the english only, and there is a system bilingual. No system for french only. The number of french schools are limited to the opinion of anglos about what it is worth for it. Where the number justifies... the english opinion. So the french needs to use Supreme Court to open schools. With such disrespect about the french minority, what difference does it make that both languages are used on the cereal box? Keeping french alive is a struggle in many places in Canada because the french have to fight for very basic things that are protected by the rights, but not respected by the authorities. There is a rule that gives an advantage to the bilingual people and since the francos learn english, unlike the anglos about french, then they have an advantage over anglos. But look at your narrowed mindset. Instead of being smart and blame your own educational system to teach you basic french, and therefore, have the asset of speaking both official languages, you are on the contrary blaming the federal to hire people capable to serve its own citizens in both languages. Your mindset makes you think that it is your right to be unilingual and you should be hired at the cost of avoiding services to your own fellow citizens. On top of that, you have been raised in Quebec, in the english system, when the language rules were not created or not yet efficient. You, alone, are a good reason of why Quebec needs those rules and why english Canada should give a better system to its own citizens. For every single whinner like you, there are hundred others who are asking a better teaching of french language. Call them ass kissers if you want, I bet their opinion about you is not laudatory either. The bilingual federal requirement is not a loss for the anglos. The weak french teaching in their education system, that is a great loss. Recent studies revealed that bilingual people have a great advantage over the unilingual. The brain stay sharp longer and is less likely to develop Alzheimer. See, even the science has no pity for you.

It is true that the liberals (both french and english) were clever to maintain the "2 solitudes" in its state for their own advantage. Corruption and dysfunction are appropriate words to describ that, I agree. Although Quebec leaves, you are not free of the federation (the one you call wrongly confederation). The political maturity of english canada on the matter is not as developped as Quebec. With or without Quebec, your problem remains the same. You do not like that federation model. Maybe you would prefer a real confederation (or maybe the english language, it is preferable ot use confederacy). Not sure I understand the subtle difference between those two words. But one thing for sure, the vision of what Canada should be is seen differently by the 2 solitudes. The english wants a centralised federation as it is right now, the french rather wants a decentralized confederacy giving provinces (should rather be states) more autonomy and sovereignty. Ironically, you want to get rid of the best ally to accomplish that. That makes me chuckle. But maybe you just want the collapse of Canada fair and square. Provinces would become all independant countries. Which can be problematic in the long run when you have a big elephant in the neighborhood like the USA. Not sure what you really want... but then, it is another topic. This one is about the french in Canada.

So you got an exhausitve sample. Few guys drinkers mad at you because you are english is more than enough to juge the whole nation in that basis, eh? Sure! Where I live, the quantity of anglos is around 40%. in the hockey or soccer team of my son, the anglo kids percentage is approximatly the same. The relation of the french and anglos are very friendly. No animosity, no mistrust. Our sons play together and we cheer for the same team. All the anglos have a sincere respect of the french language and they always choose to speak to me in french, except there is something specific they are not sure how to translate. I often return the favor by using english sometimes. Your own personal experience does not weight much in the balance. The actual reality is far from what you think of. Neverthenless, if you left in the 70's, I do beleive you that you might not feel welcome in your own birth place. At that time, the injustice toward the french was major. The french had all the reasons in the world to hate the english. But the situation has changed alot in 50 years. Now the french are respected and seen as equal to english people, unlike back then where the french were still seen as second class citizen by the anglos. Of course, there are still some few whinners playing the bash french Quebec like if your life depends on it. But they are not the majority and are rather just few. Although I do not deny that you may have that experience in the past, just the fact that you do not bother about what wrongs your "kind" did to make them mad at anglos, is one of the many justifications itself that make a point against you. When I compare the relation of the french and english today, with the time of my dad and my grand father, I see a huge improvement. Of course, there are still alot like you that entertain hatred without scrupules. But although you guys are very loud, your number diminishes with the years. The fun part about how you describ the french and Quebec, is that you put so much hatred and exaggeration, that you totally discredit yourself. At best, you only please the people as as you. I am sure you are a nice person in real life and you are totally capable to be smart and open. You just make the choice to avoid it. I guess it's like smoking. You did entertained for so long those lies and hatred that it is too difficult to stop. Even when you can't avoid the truth. We should try to invent a "stop-the-hatred" patch. I am a sovereignist, so of course, I do not have a problem with your opinion of splitting Canada. But if Canada changes its dynamic and respect a great level of autonomy to Quebec, I do not have a problem to stay in Canada. You cannot blame the seperatists to be the one that milk Canada. They are the ones who want to leave. If you think the exit of Québec will solve any of your problems, you are living in a fairy tale riding a unicorn in your old town roads. The very same problems will continue as usual. Except this time you will have to blame someone else than Quebec. The reason why I still consider the possibility to find brainstorm on a different union despite I am sovereignist, is because I see how it goes in the international relations and I think both the ROC and QC still have a common mutual interest to get along. You think the federal drags too much from you for what you get in return? No problem. Stop whinning and accept the decentralization requested by Quebec instead of supporting the usual coward politicians you send there that always back stab us. The immaturity of the conservative westerners is annoying and desapointing. Your behavior is childish, yet you think you are a superior race over those poor beer drinkers. If only you knew how small you look like when you do that. But I guess you do not mind. Your interests lies in the good old nostalgia where english and french were fighting against another to be the king of the hill.

In the last 30 years, the french of PEI and NS, and also a little bit elsewhere, had to fight up to the Supreme Court, with alot of energy, time and money, just to open a school. At that time, I had no other choice to note that the english canadians behave like imperialist *place-your-best-coarse-word*. The point I often heard is, in the opinion of the english people, there was not enough french people to justify the existence of a new school. While in the mean time in Québec, all english speaking canadians were granted the right and were going into english public schools. The number was not questionned, it was a right. But in english Canada, that right was not existent for the french. So after the french finally won at the SC and after the first schools were built, something unexpected from the english community happenned. English people were trying to send their children into french schools. It is a phenomenon also seen in NB. What is the reason to explain that? Simple! A big number of english canadians would have loved to learn french and they desire their children to learn it because they considre it is a great asset in their life. The level of french taught in the english schools is terrible and inefficient. This changed my opinion about english Canada. The reality is very different from what the politicians and the medias would like to portray. The silent majority of english canadians not only have no problem with the french, but they would love to be able to communicate or at least understand it. The bad intentions of very few loud ones often prevents if the silent majority to have the chance to learn french, and of course, give a hard time to the french canadians outside Québec. I am back from a vacation of 2 weeks in NB. I visited the Acadie and also areas where english is the most used language. When I taked to english people, I saw three types. Those who can do a little bit of french and are pride to show what they can do, those who cannot speak it and are sorry for it, and those who clearly don't give a f--- about french and are definitly not sorry to not being able to serve me in this official canadian language. I like to meet the real people living normal life like that. It changes from the hatred you often read in english medias or just here in this forum with the usual french bashing whiners. Argos is right that it is not realist to change Canada into a bilingual country per say. Well, not in the short term for sure. But I think that if the spirit of encouraging bilingualism was real and efficient, a greater number of people than we could estimate would follow that path. I am working for a big company that employed several thousands of people. Among them, I'd say 30 percent are more confortable in english than french and when we speak with each others, it is not rare that we mix the conversation because we all understand both languages. I would speak french, my colleague speaks english and it is all fine. Not frenglish tho, that never sounds nice. I think that is the kind of spirit that should be encouraged in Canada. I see this as a mutual respect for both official languages and hopefully bring closer the 2 solitudes. We have to be realist, we cannot reproduce Canada wide what is going in my company but, just removing the obstacles would greatly improve the relations between french and english people of this country. Now, how would it perceived in english canada? It only depend on how big is what I describ as the silent english majority. Maybe I get it wrong and the silent people are no majority. That is up to the english people to tell me. For many of you, I already know what you will going to say.

Drinking beer and partying...lol... that was what Lieutenant-Colonel George Monro said before his defeat against the french. You have a pretty bad unfounded (as usual) opinion of the french canadians and I bet you re-read yourself 3 times to make sure your hatred was clear enough. Your forum mate Nefarious-goes-banana added a layer... because there is never enough Quebec bashing in this land of open mind people. I won't put my cancered toe into that torrent. Instead, I will reply to QOC who seems panicking about QS. QOC is not wrong and I moreless share his view but, from a different angle. It pleases alot the establishment to see the greens, separtists and leftists being divided and that is the only reason why the SRC-CBC and the Desmarais' medias are giving such exposure to that party. I think QS will never, ever going to win an election, nor even be the opposition party. They sealed their future real bad in the last election and after. The best expression I could use to describ them is, Useful Idiots. An expression often used to describ people having a position and doing anything that leads to the exact opposite results. They are the worst separatists ever, they are behaving like if the religions are leading them, they have no clue how the economy works and they sum up the greatest amount of falacies of all canadian political parties combined. I am a left sovereignist very concerned by the environment and I consider them as enemies. The more I hear them, the more I get disgusted. I might not afraid to see them winning an election, but I ma very concerned by the damages they are doing by influencing all those young idealists following the trend. I see nothing good to get from that.

The way you phrase it, one cannot bring his wife / her husband unless the other criterias are met. Same for the children. I go live in Japan for 2 years, get married and have 1 baby, I cannot use that program to bring my wife and my child with me. Nor if I married a wife I want to bring her a 19 years old girl. Even if my wife is accepted, her daughter might not. Or vice versa.

I could have said the same few years ago. Especially when Layton was the leader. But I think that the election of Singh is a revelation of how the libetarian-left took alot of space in that party. It's a doctrine that cannot be reasonned. I understand him to be hopeless regarding NDP. Maybe you are right and the mountain is not as complicated to move as it may seems. But when the leader of a party says that one should have the liberty to choose according to his religious beleifs and substract itself from the rules of wearing a helmet for security, I conclude that I do not belong there. NDP has broken an important link with the core values of the canadians and it's not everyone that is capable to close their eyes on this.

Alot from all sides. But the most virulants were liberals. One in particular that I try to remember his name. I did not see him posting recently. I have been absent from this forum few years and my memory is failing me about who said what. Liberals did not change much about that topic, but the conservatives did. They realize more how much toxic is the multiculturalism than before. Bernier added more precisions to his thoughts and I must say that I agree with most of what he said. I do not remember I ever agreed with him before on any other subjects.

How ironic! 10 years ago, when I was saying moreless the same thing, the same conservatives that are currently on his side, were fiercely accusing me of being a facist racist or something like that. The mindsets are changing in Canada. The left is totally divided in 2. There is a new form of leftist. They are libetarians. Usually, that is a property that you would find only on the right wingers. Not anymore. The best example of this is when Singh says one should have the right to choose to avoid protection helmet for bikers. Personal beleifs and individual rights are now, out of sudden, greater that the common good and people's protection. Even if it is the society that ha to pay for the consequences of your decision. I have zero affinity with that position. Culture is also a word used in so many different angles. In this topic, I make a clear difference between one individual's culture, vs a nation-level one. The second one is something shared by the people that defines them as a nation. Music, food, etc.. are cultural traits that may be shared by alot of individuals but, they are still only to the individual level. Those are not the kind of things the government or state shall interfere in. However, when it comes to communitary traits, like the respect of each others, equality of sex, the behavior in the society, no forced marriages, children's rights, etc... those core values are expected to be shared and adopted by every one. That is what defines a nation and its nationale culture. The problem with multiculturalism, is that those who believe in it, they think we should allow (or even propmote) people from another culture to live with its outside values, even if they are in contradictions to the ones defining Canada on the national level. They do not understand the consequences.

As a Quebec sovereignist, I do not like the equalization for several reasons. The principle or the idea is ok, but the way it is applied is not. I am ok with the federal doing the administration of it, but the federal SHOULD NOT decide how the equalization works. The provinces should decide between themselves what are the rules and how it should work. Once they agree, they mandate the federal to manage. Obviously, all provinces should agree. The actual system gives the power to the federal to change the equalization to whatever it wants and make it suit its electoral decision for its own interests, at the expense of few provinces. That is dead wrong. Some are whinning that Quebec gets more because of their social programs. Listen carefully, that is YOUR problem. Quebec will not give up their programs because you do not want to give any in your province. It is your call. You are not happy with the system, be my guest and let's change it. I am all in. You do not want to touch that? then stop whinning. Canadian equalization is also a smoke screen federalist strategy to make Quebec looks like a loser that need the others. But although we get money from the equalization program, we lose money in many other federal programs where we do not get anything. Overall, we are not milking the system like the equalization shows. For several years, even if the equalization was giving us back money, we were losing overall. Now that the gas price is very high, I guess we get more than we contribute. It's difficult to say because we need to compute the other federal probrams in the balance. I say if we are not capable to get along with a fair equalization program, then let's stop it. But then, it will become more obvious for Quebec how much we lose in this federalism. Why do you think so many federalist, even in english canada, want to keep it in place? Yes it is to pander Quebec. But who really win? The provinces need to be more mature and play in bigger role in the federation. But the good old "all-gainst-Quebec" prevails and they end up giving a white card to the federal and here we go again... the whinners are blaming Quebec for that. Pathetic!

As I said, he won the last time by a small margin against 3 others dividing the votes. Are you really that suprised? Easy to say indeed. But who cares. It's not like I am braging about a prediction I did not make. I just said it's no surprise. Coderre was a big mouth and had alot of attention but, I do not think he ever been very popular.

His defeat is no surprise. He got away with it the last time because of the division of the vote into 4 opponents. This time they were only two in the race. Good riddance, I won't miss him. But give him a year or two, and he will be back somewhere. Federal, provincial, whatever-wherever... or maybe a break into a consulat for few years until another come back.

I totally agree with your post. I will just reply to few points. 1) Regarding the cross, it's a gray area. You cannot compare that crucifix with the religious garmants. No one is wearing that crucifix. The people that are in favor of keeping it there have good points. The people in favor of keeping it are saying that it is a trace of our past and then because of patrimonial reason, it should not be removed. I still think that in the balance, we should remove it. Since it has been placed there by Duplessis few decades ago at a time the Church was having too much power, I do not feel too sensible by their so called patrimony thing. 2) That niqab/burqa has nothing to do with the identity of a woman. On the contrary, it is to destroy a woman's identity. Replace her identity with the indoctrination of a anti woman rule. To format her mindset to a religious and macho constraint. If it was not the case, they would see no issue at all to remove it when required. That one is not a grey area. 3) Québécois do not like Couillard because of financial decisions. Complete austerity toward the people that need help the most, while at the very same time, he gives enormous amount of money to his friends of the party and wealthy people. Even Charest did not go as far in the imbalence between the poor and the rich people. I think Couillard is the most unpopular liberal among the french people in the Québec history. I could not imagine it was possible to do worst than Charest. But he did. You are not affected by his decisions, that's why it looks difficult to explain for you. Ask to the nurses, the teachers, the social workers, ... ask anyone. When you apply such austerity on the people, at least do not give that much money to the wealthy ones at the very same time. His image is toasted. He also took very bad decisions regarding the religious symbols. I doubt the bill 62 will be enough to revitalize his reputation. I think the back stage liberals are already planning the replacement. Their only hope is the division of the other parties

Well, I do not understand the leftists in English Canada. The left here in Québec is divided. The real progressive left is with the PQ, the other extreme left is with QS. QS called themselve progressives but, I agree with you, there are not progressive a single bit. The majority of leftist people in Québec are with the PQ and taking a position comparable to mine. The minority, around 20%, is supporting that pro religion at all cost approach. Outside Québec, it looks like the opposite. A clear majority of leftists support the pro religion approach and ready to defend the rights of the religion to indoctrinate so much their people that we must allow them to force their subjects to wear whatever religius garmants at any circumstances. Is this right? Am I exagerating or wrongly influenced by the medias? I think that if we want to fight that obscurantism, we need to avoid references to left or right. It's a problem that is far beyond that. It plays to much in the favor of the obscuranists.

1. Even if the law targeted only the burqa/niqab, it would not be racism. But since it would be unfair to have such law only for them, then while at it, we made it for everyone. That's fair game. 2. I did not say it is specifically, I said the obscurantism of their burqa/niqab helps to add more legitimity. You draw your own conclusions by twisting the meaning of my words. What is obsvious, is how you stand on the side of the obscurantists to defend their rights to apply their indoctrination of anti-women symbols. You are defending the symbols, you are defending those bastards and their messages. Yet you call us racists. So graceful!

The whole Québec nation is a dog fucker masking its racism because we want uncovered faces in some conditions... hmm wow! Look, you are totally welcome to explain why you think we are better off to let people having their faces covered at any circumstances. You are legitimated to think your points outweight our points and debate about it. But this is not what you do. You are expressing your xenophobia toward the Québec people with your own made-up false accusations. It's plain and simple Québec bashing. Uncovering faces is not about security, it's about identification. The principle does not have anything todo with the beleifs of the religion in question. That shy bill does not even consider the bad side of that religious rule made by the obscurantists. It's a generic rule that apply to anyone having a face covered in specific contexts. Besides that, the burqa/niqab has been created to destroy the women's confidence. The indoctrination purpose is to force the women to feel bad about themselve and totally insecure. Those who created that rule, also say that if a woman not wearing such clothes is raped, it's because she deserves it. Men have no responsabilities and are legitimated to abuse women not wearing those restrective clothes. That's the mentality along the burqa/niqab. It has been created for that purpose and it is claimed as is. There are absolutely nothing cultural or legitimated in that symbol. Few muslim countries like Morroco are banning them for a reason. So, pay attention on how much I do not give a **** about how mister Eyeball thinks my whole nation is a dog fucker by forcing those poor indoctrinated women by a shitty version of that religion, to reveal their faces in a bus. Mixing such bill with racism, is a clear demonstration on how narrowed is your mind about that topic. Do not attempt to justify yourself. You do not stand a chance. Do your mea culpa and change your attitude regarding your silly accusations.

You can try to team up with the Bloc Québécois and convaince them to apply their logic at large for all canadians. Québec always considered itself as a state, not a province. Back in 1867, Québec wanted a confederation, not a federation. With strong states and a small central government. The others wanted a strong central government with smaller provinces. Your ideal federation that you are looking for is much closer to the one Québec wants. However, it's for total different reasons. Despite the difference in the ultimate goal, the principle of the existence of a state level instead of province or territory is the same. It could be a starter for brainstorming your vision of how the federal should be.

If you do not want to be subject to any federal law, only independence is your solution. But to play the game and brainstorm about the possibility, let's try this. What you need, is to create a new level. There is the Territory level, mostly governed by the federal with a very small local administration. There is the Province level, having alot of autonomy but, still having alot of power duplications and few domains that are managed by the federal. What you want is to create a new level, the State level. More autonomy than a province, but it has to depend on its own with minimal help from the federal. You would still have to respect the canadian constitution, but you would have a say on it. Which is not necessarly the case of all provinces. There is only one catch. Canada has to agree with you to create such level. I cannot see how you could manage to convince the federal of such thing. Not realistic. That can be discussed only on a theoriy basis.

If it was like you said, we would be trying to assimilate all muslims and change them into catholics. Not only the muslims are totally free to practice their religions, they can even use tax break to promote their religions like any other religions in this country. If we are trying to homogenized them, we definitely suffer from lack of efficiency. lollll

Allow me to help you get more comfortable with this. If a woman is hired as policewoman, do we tell her what to wear? Do we force her to wear a uniform or she can wear whatever she wants? If a woman is a teacher, can she wear whatever she wants? Can she do her job in bikini? Nope, we have a certain minimum requirements and therefore, we tell her what to wear and what not to. Depending on what you do or where you are, there are up to a certain point, rules where we tell women what to wear... just as well as to the men. The rules are the same and applied on both gender. We always said what to where and we will always do. Even if the rules are very flexible, there are still rules. So, banning a garmant that covers your face, does it remove the women the right to wear what they want? Not more than getting topless into a bus. It's a justified rule for identification. IT IS NOT, under any circumstances, an excessive restriction over the right for the women to wear what they want.

You clearly failed to demonstrate that we are xenophobic and I explained you why. You are trying to victimize the muslims like if those rules would be against them. Which is far from the truth because many muslims do agree with those rules. The muslims are warning us themself about the danger of those obscurantists. The real muslims have no problem to respect our rules and that does not jeopardise their faith into their religion. On the contrary. It helps save it from the obscurantists. Your last sentence says alot about you. You considere my concern about the harmful religious indoctrination to women as a government's new religion. We are definitely not on the same page. It is not that much off topic since we are talking about a subject that touches directly the bill 68 in Québec and that Singh said he will fight against it as much as he can.

Yet, he cares that all other religious organizations can freely indoctrinates their followers to values that are against the canadian ones. All protected under the sacred so called individual freedoms. This is a very sophisticated hypocrisy.

Ahhh! you were talking about the crucifix in the Assemblée Nationale!!! That is not the same thing. I was talking about what people wear. That is another subject. You are vicious. So regarding the crucifix at the A.N., it's a tricky one. In my opinion, we should remove it. But the point of those who would like to keep it, is that thing is a patrimonial object. Although I am no longer catholic and do not beleive in god, I admit they have a point. catholicism is part of our history and even if we have a seperation of Church and state, we do not need to erase our past. Having that thing in the A.N. does not jeopardize the mindset of the people Inside it. It is rather a matter of image than a matter of trust. We will not lose the confidence in the politicians to take the right decision, should there be a conflict between the rules of the state and the values of christianism, just because of that crucifix in the room. That is why I am tolerating it so far. But as I said, I would prefer have it moved to somewhere else. Regarding the "poor woman" in the bus that can't no longer wear a burqa or niqab... I do not care about your feelings. I care about how she must feel to think she needs to wear such thing. I care about her lack of self confidence and the power her religion has over her throu indoctrination. While the only thing you care about, is the right of that religion to control her mindset.

The key word is ostentatious. If one has a discreet symbol, it is accepted. The goal is not to make the person feels we want to take the religion out of soul. It is to make sure the religion has its limits and the person understands if there are a conflict between its religious beleifs and the rules of the society, those last ones prevails. If a policeman wear a little crucifix or a little crescent moon or anything like that Under its clothes, it is the last of our concerns. You think that all religious should be granted by default. I rather think that symbols and religious practices are forbidden by default for functions of autority. But one can ask for a accommodation and then we evaluate if it is reasonnable. I can't see a good reason for the functions of autority. But for other public jobs, there are plently of possibilities. No double standards. A christian should not be allowed to wear an ostentatious symbol more than anyone else. I never said that an ostentatious crucifix should be allowed.

Homogenization can be for common good and can be for the worst as well. Homogenization itself has Nothing to do with good or bad, it is how we use it that can be morally judged. Hybrid uniforms are not neutral. Therefore, they are attemps to make the religions win their point. Accommodations are not a bad things, when they do not have effects on people other than those concerned. If Jewish stores opened on sundays have only customers from Jewish community and they do not compete with non Jewish stores, there are no conséquences. All accommodation requests have to be evaluated seperately. Some may be rejected, others accepted. I have no problem that religious people are asking accommodation. I just don't accept that they get it for granted only based on the fact that they are religious. Religion is not a free pass reason. I see that you think it's not ok. Be sure that you are not near to convince me anytime soon. At least not with those weaks cases.