Benz

I also notice that we seem to agree on every thing at the end, maybe even a little bit about Parizeau. I would like you to see his positon on another angle. Not that I am agreeing with him. As I told you, I blame his attiude and his strategy. There are nothing in what you say that justify accusations of racism and anti-semetism. I was not aware of what you are bringing me here. I did not know he targeted those specific groups, but I beleive you because it's logical to his sad phrase on that memorable night. The reason why Parizeau hated Jews, Greeks and Italians, is not because they were Jews, Greeks or Italians. It's not about the race or something like that. He hated those groups because they choose English over French and they masively vote liberals at all cost. Those 3 groups are very against the PQ and the sovereignist project and Parizeau does not accept that those groups take the side of the federal at the expense of Québec. I must admit that when I was young, I was also thinking like that. Later, I came to realise that hate does not help anything, not a single point. Those 3 groups are just assimilated and linked to the anglo community and that's it. They don't do that because they hate us like Parizeau thinks. Their loyalty goes to Canada before Québec just like any other anglo. Also, another reason why we should not be so angry about that, is that we have our own responsabilities in that outcome. Long time ago, when there was massibe immigration of Italians, the catholic churches rejected them from the french school systems. They said they had no money. So the Italians were forced to go into English schools. Very bad decision at that time and that caused the situation we have now. Back then, the churches had too much powers. They were in charge of the education system among other things. So, back to Parizeau. He hated those groups for the same reason a pro-cons hates the liberals, or a pro-liberal hates conservatives. It was not personal or racist. It was hatred based on partisanship. It is still bad and I still think he was wrong, but it's not the same as racism. If he was racist, he would have been with every one. Which was clearly not the case.

If some fields are clearly stable and accepted, others are still battlefields of the tension. It is accepted that one can choose its religion and wear what its religion orders to. It is also accepted that if you work in a position of autority like a policeman, you must wear specific garments to show what you represent and the role you play. Now the conflict is, some people think they can use the freedom of practicing religion of that first field and apply it into the second field where there are rules of homogenization. They think their right to practice their religion is stronger and overpass the common good. This is where we are divided. Because it's now the religion that set rules into a field where rules have been defined by everyone, for everyone, for the common good. It is a total intrusion way above one's individual rights. Like if the power of religion is absolute.

We are indeed very different on that. No, the court's decision is not ok. It is based on the constitution, which is not ok. It's not ok to allow religious organizations having such an ascending on the politics and rules. It is for you? Well good for you! We do not agree that the religions can have such priviledge over the people. Religious garments while occupying a functio of autority, are a sign that the person is not capable to seperate its religious beleifs from its role. It is an issue. Because we know too well that some people are not capable of placing the rules of the country above their religious beleifs. If their god are in contradiction to the rules of the country, their loyality lies with their god. Most of the time, those people wear religious garments. I do not mind if some people wearing religious garments are capable to make the difference. Because if they do, they won't see a problem with leaving their religious garments while in duty for such role. Singh can beleive and practice the religion he wants. He can wear whatever that religion tells him to wear. But not when he is in position of autority. Because those religious practices are not his own. They belong to the religious organization and the religion should not have such priviledge in our society. They are suppose to serve spirituality. Nothing else.

He does not respect his own promises. Alot of people here voted for him because it was the best way to beat Harper. They did not really knew what they were doing. The hang over is difficult to recover. I do not have the time to exlain you everything that he does that the Québécois do not like. There are too many things. He is just not credible at all, very insignificant. Most of the people here call him mister selfy. He is way too close to the religions. A prime minister should not show himself so much with religious organizations like that. Showing up with visible minorities and ethnical groups is very good, no problem at all. Showing with religious organizations, including those known for radicalism, it's another story. KPMG and their clients... do I need to explain how much Trudeau is considered as a traitor? In the campaign, he was blaming Harper regarding Raif Badawi, the spending in the military, the attitude toward the natives and many other things. But now he is doing worst than him, or just the same. The debt... omg... I am not against investments that can bring long term benefits. But the spending he is actually doing is terrible. He is litterally wasting the money. He is trying really hard to be worst than his father on that. Netflix... no tax. While canadian providers have to pay the tax. This is so wrong. He sets an unfair competition. Despite I do not like Mulcair, he would have been better than him.

That is what the Libs should have done.

Don't be childish regarding Parizeau. My answer remains, so is my question. What does Parizeau said or did regarding the Jews? As I said, he blamed the ethnics for voting No. He was wrong, because he should have blamed himself for not doing the necessary to be convincing. He did not Attack anyone with racist comments or discriminations. If he did, inform me. I must have miss something. I admired Lévesque. He was transparent, open and trust worthy. Parizeau always left me with doubts. Like if he has something in mind that he is hiding from us. He was also a little bit stubborn, although he was capable to give up when it became obvious that it was in his best interest. After he dismiss, he was that typical step mom always saying something that light ups fire. Each time he opened his month, alot of sovereignists were praying that he does not say that would force the PQ to do damage control. Neverthenless, Parizeau is very intelligent and he was also admired by alot of sovereignists for what he accomplished. It is ridiculous that you say I behave like I am his nephew. I blame him for that phrase he said on that night. It has caused alot of damages for the sovereignist movement for many years. But if you think that the fact that he blamed the ethnics for voting no, is enough to insert him into the anti semetic bag, then you are very wrong about that. You are no better than Singh accusing anyone who challenge his loyalty of being racist or such. Do you agree with what Mitch Garber said? I am very aware of the opinion of Taxme regarding you. He is abig boy. He can defend himself. For me, judaism is just another religion like any others. Israel is a nation. One can be a jew and not as much to go with Israel. I have work for 3 years in a Israeli company having a branch based in Montréal. So I saw all kind of jews. The pro israeli ones as much as those who criticize Israel policies. The very stereotyped traditional jews as much as the liberal ones that are clearly canadians (or even Québécois). So, unlike Taxme, I beleive you are very capable to stay loyal to your canadian nation. You should not be taxed of being loyal to Israel rather than Canada, if you agree more with the position of Israel than the one of Canada regarding a topic. I am not really a fan of the "either you are with us or with them" mindset. Regarding Singh, I totally agree with you. He will be challenged, at least in Québec, for showing off his religion like that. However, he will be contested for the ostentatiory of his religion, not his faith in his religion, not his origins. If he thinks he can blame us and build a guilt trip on a discrimination toward his minority image, he won't have the expected results here. We do not buy such crap. I do not know him much. I do not know if he will hypocritely attempt to play that vcitimization card or if will stay put with the topic. We will see. But from the little I know so far, it does not look good for him. That said, there are probably few of his policies that I could agree with him. But I will never vote for someone that is not capable to seperate its religious practices from its political functions. Mulroney was brilliant. I am not conservative and there are alot of his policies that I did not agree with him, but he knew what he was doing and he was good at it. He had a good understanding of the big picture.

I sincerly did not witness hostility, or at least not systematic hostility toward non french tourists outside Montréal. However, I am french, so it is very possible that what you say happen more often than I am aware of. So I will not deny what you say, I am just telling you that most of the time, tourists do not resent any hostility outside Montréal. Québec has a good reputation for tourism, even among unilingual English speaking people. Jacques Parizeau said "à cause de l'argent et le vote ethnique". Parizeau blamed the no side to cheat with the rules of the campain regarding the money. He also blamed the non pure laine for massively vote no. The majority of the sovereignists like me did blame him for that. Although the facts are right, the blame is wrong. Well at least for the ethnic. Parizeau did not do the required efforts to win the support of the non pure laines. He should blame himself instead for not doing the necessary to be convincing. Instead of just blame them plain and simple. That said, there is no mention of the jews or anything anti-semite at all. That is why I am asking you where you could have seen or heard of anything like that. I do not even remember hear him say the word jew. Perhaps you are mixing up with Yves Michaud? Regarding the lack of french cultural products consumed by the anglos... (I do not know why you think it is relevant to mention a french african, because I have put the focus on English canadians, not the australians or else... anyway)... I prefer to invite you to listen at the interview of Mitch Garber (a jewish anglo) at the tv show Tout le monde en parle. I totally agree with him, including his critics on the needs for french Québécois to learn English language. Listen to the 6 first minutes of this interview: "I think Quebecois have been able to couch certain anti semitic or anti Muslim or anti black sentiments in the name of cultural protection but certainly not all Quebecois." Do you think there is one place in this world that does not have their anti-minorities? Québec is no different. The majority of people are not like that, but it's always the angry minority that are the most noisy. It's the same in English Canada. Here, we hear about the anti-Québécois and the anti-french. We do not hear from the silent majority that appreciates Québec and the french. Blame the medias for that. Québec is an inclusive society that welcome alot of immigrants and even if Québec some days seperates from Canada, it will continue to be like this. Language laws are NOT discriminating English language. Get over it. You can have signs in English. The law only forces you to have the french translation and predominent. If the English language would be forbiden, then and only then you could complain about discrimination. Same for the schools. All English Quebecers are allowed to go to English schools. No discrimination there. The victimization has to stop. You fool no one outside English Canada. PS: Sorry Charles Anthony. We will try to not abuse of the off topic.

I appology for not being very well informed about the said legislation proposal. Is it about setting restrictions to the right of abortion? Or is rather about removing the priviledge or having free public support for abortion in some specific cases? If it's about the first one, I understand the objections seem arrogant to you. Until a specific number of days, the right of the woman prevails over the fetus. Discussion about it can only open a can of worms. However, if it is about removing the priviledge of using free public health care in some conditions, I am open for discussion. Not necessarly in favor of setting conditions, but I think it is legitimated to raise the question. I think free abortion has sometimes the undesired effect of disempowerment. I do not know what is the best solution to that but I think all possibilities must be debated.

@taxme August1991 was on the edge of arrogance, but I think he does that because he wants you to bite the dust. 1. You are very wrong. The English and the French people do live along way better than the medias would like you to know. Sometimes you can see an anglo artist adopting the french culture and performs in french language. The french will love them like one of their own. Whenever the french have the occasions to demonstrate how well they speak English, they just do it. Even if the anglo is begging to speak french so he can learn and practice. The majority of the English people are totally ok with the language rules. Only few angryphones are complaining out loud. 2. Toronto speaks English, but so many immigrants speak with so different accents, boring is the appriciation of august1991 and I don't feel like it's relevant to comment. 3. That was true few decades ago. The tensions are not as high now. English are getting use to it and the French do not feel endangered as much as 30 years ago. It still contemporary but, not explosive. 4. The only thing that was bothering the french, is when that some English people and companies were not respecting the french fact. And also, the tendancy from the immigration to choose English over french. With the language policies, it's now impossible to have signs with English only and immigrants must use french public schools. Giving that you can learn pretty good English in french schools, every body are happy and most immigrants are trilingual. @Rue I agree with alot of things you said. So I will focus on those I don't. 2. Québec is NOT unilingual. Québec has french as official language, but English has a minority status. The English have the rights and their language is protected as well. So English people can have English publics schools and use their language every where. They can communicate with the government in English and the cities having at least 50% of English people, are considered bilingual. Which allows them to function in English as well as in French. 3. "Tourists who do not speak French outside Montreal find themselves faced with hostility when they don't speak French" says who? We never heard of anything like this from anyone. On the contrary. Even if a trourist talks to someone who speaks french only, the local often tries his best to make itself understood. People in the régions usually have a good attitude with the non french speaking tourists. Just as well as most of touristic regions in Canada with non enlish speaking tourists. That said, it might be true that the Québécois will not be as sympthic if they know they deal with an anglo that does not give a **** about the french language. 4. " Parizeau was an anti semite racist pig" are you aware of Something I don't? Can you tell me what he did or said to deserve such accusation? " Daniel Johnson Jr was a good Premier." he was liberal. His brother Pierre-Marc was péquiste. "That said French Quebecers fought in WW2 although many were known for resisting the draft like Pierre Trudeau. " yep, he was riding a bicycle with a nazi uniform while Lévesque was correspondant de guerre in Europe during the WW2. "I have no problems with Quebecois asking me to speak French. No one forced it on me. I wanted to speak French. Its just common courtesy. Most Quebecois I know spoke English. All we minorities left in the late 70's because the economy collapsed and there were no jobs for us and discriminating against non Francophone names was acceptable in those days. ". Come on! Back then, most of the best jobs were owned by English speaking people. When they left, the french took the empty spaces and English and French are getting along pretty well so far. I have anglo workmates and neighbors. I never felt any tension regarding the language with them. Most of the time, we speak french, but I sometimes switch to english as courtesy (or because I do not want to lose it) and they sometimes use english when they are not quiet sure about the translation of their thoughts. I know the medias like to build a bid story about the linguistic conflicts or lorsqu'un agent de la police de la langue se met à errer et outre passer son mandat, but aside that, the relation is pretty good. Unfortunately, English people do not put enough attention to the cultural products from the french culture. It contributes to the 2 solitudes.

Delegates from Québec are very uncomfortable with him. They had to correct him several times in the campain. Sometimes they litteraly told him to avoid some subjects. I think at this point, they are on damage control mode for the next few years. They will try to save their jobs. Plain and simple. So you can bet they will now prétend that Singh is a great leader that Canada needs. Even if they prayed days and nights that they would end up with anyone but him in the last race. Alot of Québec people are very desapointed by Trudeau. It would have been easy for NPD to take back the advantage but, now with this, I think few will block their nose to avoid the stinks of the liberals and vote for them again. Or maybe we will assist to the return of the Bloc Québécois. Or maybe Scheer will manage to leave the shadow of Harper behind and make significant wins in Québec. Too early to say right now.

Again, you do not get the point. The "dagger" itself is not an issue in a day-to-day personal basis. It is an issue if you wear it during your functions as a PM. You have a serious difficulty to understand the difference because in your mindset, the spirituality of an indidividual and the constrainsts ordered by the religious organization are the same for you. That is why you think you can simply say you do not mind about his religion. I do not mind about his religion as well. I mind about his unability to draw the difference and prove he is capable to not folliow a religious order. I beleive my explanations were quiet clear about it.

You are totally off my point. I do not know if it is because you do not understand what I explained or if because the concept is out of your reach. Does Kennedy had an ostentious catholic symbol its religion ordered him to wear? The choice of religion of Singh is not an issue. Not at all. His inability to take his distance from it and be secular while in function, that's the issue. I also explained you the position and the reasoning along with it. It's sad that you limited yourself to the comparison of simplistic protestants afraid of a catholic president.

I see that many of you guys think he will divide the liberal votes for the favor of the conservatices. He is that good in English Canada? I would not be surprised if he can't even score one seat in Québec. I am rather wondering if he will push more traditional NDP supporters into the arms of the Liberal party. Which can't be good for the cons. The cons needs a substential division between NDP and the Libs.

Allow me to make you see this on another perspective. Québec and the ROC have a very different vision of the roles and players around the religions. For the ROC, it's all about the individuals. One individiual has the right to choose and practice its religion and the religion is seen as a sacred protected cloud under the individual's fundamental rights. For Québec, the individual's spirituality and the religious organizations are seen as 2 totally seperated entities and the religious organizations are NOT protected by one individual's religious rights. The diffirence is major. Québec and the ROC both have one point in common. One individual has the right to choose its religion and practice it in its privacy, public place and cult locations. However, for Québec, that right is limited to the individual. The religion itself does not have the same legitimated right. So if a religion tells you what to wear, what to do and what to eat, those orders are NOT considered as an absolute individual religious rights. Québec doesn't give a shit what your religious organization tells you to do. We consider that you must be intelligent enough to draw the line between what are the choices of the society and the orders from your religion. We know that some people are not able to understand and respect that difference. That's why we require a more explicit secularism than most of the people in the ROC does. When I see a guy like Singh, not capable to remove its ostentatious symbols like its turban and its kirpan (a weapon) if he becomes a PM, it gives me the signal that he will most likely take the wrong decisions if he is confronted in a situation where his religious beleifs are in contradiction with his position of PM for all canadians. He owns his spirituality but, he does not own his religion. He must be capable to take a distance from it. That is the very least I expect from my PM. No way I can trust him if he can't remove his weapon while un function. Whether it is lock sealed into a case or not. That's why we do not mind if a man wears a kirpan when serving burgers in a fast food chain, but we do not accept it if he is a judge, a teacher, a policeman... a PM. Religious practices are not absolute sacred rights of your spirituality. They are orders from religious organizations. They are protected only if you are the only one that is concerned by them. When you occupy a role of autority, every one are concerned. If Singh eventually takes the decision to get rid of his ostentacious symbols while in function, his religious beleifs will become totally irrelevent for me. I know he will be able to draw the line between the choices of our society and his own personal religious beleifs. He would then become credible and he would have the same chances of anyone else to win my political support.

What you are saying is not false, but it's not compelling in that specific case. Children have rights. If the child of a Jehovah's Witness is dying and need blood transfusion, we will take the child from its parents and give it no matter what the parents think. Because we think children's rights are more important than the parents' rights over their children. In the case of Khadr, we failed at all levels. We fail to protect him from his dad, we failed to prevent his move to Afghanistan to serve the terrorists as his dad wanted, EVEN IF WE KNEW his dad is a notorious terrorist... whether or not he was the one that throw that bomb does not change anything. He was a child and the justice should have been adapted accordingly. We failed at that as well. Whether you have seen from your own eye or not, a little 8 years old girl blowing up herself as a human bomb and kill dozens of innocents, it does not make any difference. If we would have patriated Khadr and have a tribunal for youth, the system would have take care of his reeducation. Noooo, instead, we violated his rights and now we give me 10M. You think children should ne judged the same way of the adults? Be my guess, try and change the system.

Wilber, if we do not know, then we do not know. That's it! Does the aboriginal encounter another civilization when they arrived here? Do they fight against them? Do they have breed with them? We do not know. Our knowledge about their coming 15k years ago is only our own deduction after the analysis of évidences found. There are no texts or record to explane us that history. So this irrelevent. Because we do not know. One thing I am pretty sure of, if there were non aboriginal humans living here before the current aboriginals arrived, they were not many and I doubt very much they were claiming the whole americas as their country. It's pretty safe to say the aboriginals were not immigrants. Although I am sure few of them were immigrants sometimes migrating from one tribe to another for whatever reasons.

The Pens are my second favorite team ever since Mario Lemieux joined the club when I was still a little boy. So it was a pleasure to Watch them win again. Lemieux has the touch as a owner and knows how to get surrounded by winners. I cannot say the same with my habs. We need the Leafs to make us look like winners. I admit the refused goal could have make a difference but, I do not feel the Pens stole the serie. They had their way to come back stronger and if they would have lost game 6, they would have still be 100% ready to get their best for game 7. It's true that it would have been nice to see an underdog like Nashville to win the cup. In the future, I hope the Canucks or why not the Jets go for the cup. They deserve at least one in their history. Well, the Jets needs a miracle but, it feasible for the Canucks. They have been close few times.

It's not false... but she does not live in Canada. So technically, she never immigrated here. Just pass by and visit us at our expenses.

His declaration is questionnable. He explained himself. For him, once a culture has influence from something external from France, it means it's not french. He stated the influence of Picasso and many others who had an impact in french art. If it is what he really thinks, it was clumsy to say that french art does not exist. He should have said something like art does not have nationality and therefore, there is no such thing like a national art, including the one of France. But that would have been to clever from a multiculturalist like him. Multiculturalist gurus who think that all the cultures are good except your's and that foreigners are all bringing you cutlure wealth to your poor one. That kind of thinking is the exact ugly opposite side of the ugly facist one of the FN. That is why Macron won only with 62% instead of une écrasante majorité like did Chirac against Lepen father, more than a decade ago. Macron and those in the same kind of mindset are feeding the extreme right with their non sense blindfold eyes. Marine Le Pen is an extreme right winger, she has Dangerous political positions and it is a very good thing that she is not elected... but... she is not as worst as the bien pensant would like to demonize her and she addresses real problem with immigration policies that many others like Macron blindfold themselve. The people expériences the conséquences of that and it is no surprise if she got so much support. Seriously, at some point I thought she would get it this time. Leaders in France really need to address their problems with lucidity because next time, she might win. Fortunately, there are a rising number of french politicians that understand the importance of address the multi ethnicity with a pluriculturalism policiy rather than a multiculturalism one, but it seems that Macron isn't among them. So I am happy that Le Pen did not win, but I am not enthusiast with Macron. I think it is a feeling shared by all alot of french Citizen right now.

Do penises cause climate change?... Of course, but I am cautious and aware of the major impact my penis could have. I have changed the body temperature of all the women who used my penis. So if all the women in the world see me naked, you good for major global warming. Social construct?... whatever!

She prefers a white doctor with a orange tan and yellow teeth.

They were colonists and they colonised Virgin lands... (by Virgin, I mean no other humans were occupying the territory. So they were not immigrants. Immigrants are people who come in a country already occupied by inhabitants.

The new documentary A Stroy Of Us is amjor load of bullshit, lies and false historal facts. Severe critics of historians from both english and french sides. Trudeau introduces that self called documentary (the most approprate designation should be mockumentary) and hereby endorses those lies. If he is not yet the worst PM ever, he is really working hard to become the one. I think the worst about him is yet to come.

Why do you think Canada bought 4 wreck submarines from UK for a ridiculous elevated cost? It was a work around way to help the war in Iraq by supporting their allies.

The line is very thin. If all religions have the same benefits, protesting against the muslims is islamophobia. If the other religions do not have such benefits, then the protests are clearly justify. We are talking about the same kind of protests. The same reactions. The context reveals the true agenda. That is why I am asking those questions. The answer of Jim Spyropoulos is very bad. It's not up to him to determine if a school must comply to the agenda of a religion. It's a debate our society must have. A religion must not have a say on your calendar or working hours. But our society can decide if the school system can adapt the need of those religious people or not. We already have christian holidays. Maybe we can change that to something more common. In a society with a big cultural diversity, we cannot comply to the need of every one. We need a common ground. So the religions must adapt to the constraints. Not the other way around. We could let down the easter holiday and choose a specific neutral date. No one will be totally satisfied but, every one must understand that it is not realistic to comply to every one. That is the challenge of a multi-confessional society.