Benz

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.

When I look at the link you provided, it says that the school allows the same thing to all religions and that they are doing that for a very long time. So what makes you say that the treatment is different with the muslims? Do they have an imam coming overthere every friday or the students are alone? I agree with you that the religion has no place in a secular school. However, it means ALL religions should not be in schools. The school's point is, it does not cost them anything, it's not taking school time since it is at lunch time, it is not disturbing anyone or anything. Yes, it is all true and I agree. Neverthenless, would we let a political organization to take a room in a school like that? Would we allow any sort of organization to do a weekly meeting of any kind within the school's walls? What if a group of students use a room like that during lunch time to talk about the return of Inquisition? People are free to practice their religion in public places, in private and in places of worship. A public school does not fit into those categories, nor would a police station, justice court or ice rink hockey. The religions are so free, they have so many advantages, they must leave our public schools alone. Spending time to worship a god during lunch time instead of being with your classmates from other religions is not going to ease integration and good relations. At least it is not every day. But it would get less attention if it would be just once a month.

He will stay there for a long time. If a guy like Chrétien can last so long, so Trudeau can. He may leaves after a major defeat and come later though.

hmmm! I do not think we should have a fixed rule on that. An evaluation should be done. If we see that he does not learn anything and still have the same mindset, kick/ban him out of the country. Sometimes people learn from their mistakes and they are changed. Not only he would not be a threat anymore, he would be useful because he can share his exprience going through the conditionning or mindset that lead him to this. Si I am not oppose to the revoke, but I am not in its automatic application either.

You are very naive if you think that it would change anything in the mind of a terrorist. Think about it. The guy is ready to commit an horrible crime and deal with all the consequences that go with it. Do you really think that losing its canadian citizenship weigh anything in the balance? Picture this... "I will kill alot of people, I will end up in jail for life, or I will suicide myself, I will be know as a terrorist anywhere on this planet... but at least I will not lose my canadian citizenship, so let's do it. Oh wait, what? Now I can lose that citizenship, ahhh shoot! ok I won't do it then." Is it how you think it will works? What garanty you have the terrorist will be considered terrorist in its native country? Yes in some countries the terrorists will have a really hard time, but in some others not. One thing for sure, the family of a potential terrorist will fear to reveal information to the authorities if it means that it can lead to citizenship revokation. To me, this weigh way more than anything else.

Yes they are. There are two ways to become a canadian. By birth on the land and by immigration. Once you are Canadian, you have the same rights. But revoking the citizenship of a canadian who become canadian throught immigration is not a problem for me on the principle. It is a problem regarding the potential consequences I have explained in my previous post.

Look at the big pictures. Fast food is cheaper, not good food. Sometimes the farmers have those specific corns instead of producing real food and the reason is because it is subsidized (bigger profit). It makes fast food cheaper at the expense of good food. We are not about to stop eating anytime soon. The needs is there and will always be. The jobs will still exist. The orientation will be just better. Recently I have visited the Philippines. A third wolrd country much more poor than I expected. It's like living 200 years ago but, with cars and cell phones. Despite the living conditions, the food is good. I have eaten very well. Even when I was eating amoung the locals in their homes, not "expensive" restaurants. We do not have a good attitude regarding the food. We do not subsidizes the right ones. We do not protect the quality and leave the poor consumers at the crocs of industries looking for profits.

I explained the opposite. I do not care about what happen to the terrorist or a so called right for immigrants to stay canadians forever. What I care is, as you say, I prefer to lock them up here, (keep your enemies closer) and also, I prefer that the family and close ones of a protential terrorist collaborate with the authorities without having the fear that their close one lose its citizenship just by association with terorism.

I agree with the principle of that tax but, all products concerned by that suger should be taxed just the same way. Then 90% of the fast food will become expensive. Ironic because the US government is subsidizing the industry of that sugar. A tax to fight the subsidize. How about we cut the subsidize in the first place? Well I know, most of the subsidizes are in USA and we are in Canada.

Indeed. They do not have calories but, they make you feel hungry and you eat more. Which is just as worst. Not to mention they can damage the brain of the youth.

You cannot imagine how much I do not care about that. We can revoke the citizenship of a born canadian terrorist if you want. If that makes some sense to you. Immigrants being granted the citizenship is not a right, it's a priviledge. While being born in Canada and get the citizenship right away is a rather a right. As I mentionned in my previous post, making sure the new canadians feel safe to not lose citizenship of their own people they want to save from terrorism, is a reason so important that i makes your concern totally irrelevant.

It's a very good point. I have been away from this forum for a while. Sorry if I did not go through all posts in this thread before posting my opinion. I see another reason why we should not revoke citizenship based on terrorism acts. There are some immigrants that contacts the police when they are suspecting their children or relatives being possibly influenced by terrorist agents. They want to prevent the problem and are asking the help of the authorities. Now if those immigrants are afraid to see their relatives losing their citizenship because of association with terrorism, they might not contact the authorities this time. That reason alone is good enough to not revoke the citizenship. We do not want to escalate the fear. We want the people to be confident in our authorities to take care of the problem or potential problem. Prison for life for terrorists is good enough for me.

Chrétien was not popular among the french, or was less popular than the Bloc. Yes, compare to the rest, Québec looks socialist. It's the most hostile province to conservatives. But Québec is not that much out of reach for a good reason. The people here are not taking the federal election as seriously as the rest of Canada. Look, we voted majority Bloc for 6 elections in a row. It shows how much we did not have the intention to take the power and were rather trying to send a message. Then we vote for a majority of NDP. One of the best score they ever had in their history. Alot of people here voted Trudeau in the last one but, it's not because he charmed Québec. It's because he became the most serious contender to win against Harper, after Mulcair has destroyed everything that Layton has built. It's true that Québec still is a place where the conservatives cannot put too much hopes. But I think it is not impossible to win 20 to 25 seats. The Québécois are not interested to try the Bloc again, they are very desapointed in NDP and Trudeau... trust me, it's just a matter of time that he will be as hated here as his father was. His popularity is overrated in Québec. He got lucky more than anything else. But if the next leader of the cons has the same authoritarian mindset of Harper, then trying to convince Québec would just be a waste of time.

You are right. I think that comparing anyone to Trump is mostly like a Godwin point because he is a very extreme singular reactionary . I was rather refering to the strategy and methods, rather than the Trump's erratic spontaneous declarations. Compared to Trump, O'Leary looks reasonable but, he has a flamboyant style that might not score as well in politics as it did in business and tv shows.