Leafless

Or is that what can Quebec expect? As if we don't all know. $$$$$$$$$$$

No, only intoxicated by his hallucinary self-righteous BS. Another citizen of the world who has made Canada his home, damn it.

"Poland's conservative prime minister rejected European Union criticism Thursday of a proposal to fire teachers for ``homosexual propaganda,'' saying it was not in the interest of society to have more gay people." How true, don't ya think? http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6589607,00.html

Do you know how to speak French? No, I don't speak French, nor would I consider learning French under the discriminatory terms of the federal government or the City of Ottawa or any private business that caters to federal government promoted artificial bilingualism in order to gain employment. I would consider French if there was a natural demand originating from the source province, Quebec to learn it. But up to now it seems Quebec would rather cater to Quebecers and French speaking Africans rather than English, mother tongue Canadian, bilingual candidates for what jobs there are in Quebec. Quebec is not serious about official bilingualism and opening their doors to bilingual English speaking Canadians or out of province service providers and are overly culturally protective to be of any kind of net benefit for English speaking bilingual Canadians. Natural bilingualism cannot function with a Quebec 'one way street' attitude.

This is a completely different take concerning the morality and wisdom of the federal government imposing and promoting a potentially hazardous product that is potentially harmful to ones health. This is why it is in the moral and religious section as it has nothing to do concerning the net benefits of an energy saving device.

So, the government of Canada wants to eliminate incandescent light bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent lights in order to save energy. But what they are ignoring is the associated fluorescent health hazard. Some people, how many is anyone's guess, who are sensitive to the frequency pulsations given off by cheap fluorescent lighting. These pulsations 120 hertz per second or pulses per second, cause headaches, migraines, sore eyes along with unknown side effects. No one knows what these potentially long term exposures to fluorescent light can do and could be a definite risk since people will be using fluorescent lighting on a regular basis when incandescent lighting is phased out and will no longer be available. Science tells us our eyes adapted to a steady white light such as the sun and not to a pulsating light source. The worst part is, as fluorescent lights age the pulsations decrease to around a hundred hertz making it even harder on the eyes. The ends of a fluorescent tube I understand where there is hardly any light decrease even lower. Even laptop computers and LCD televisions or any type of monitor that contains a fluorescent back light to increase screen illumination can potentially cause problems. Even the light itself from a fluorescent tube gives off a yellowish light and not white light because of fluorescent natural tendency to produce an abundance of blues and reds. This of course is not noticed because of the phosphor coating on the inside of the fluorescent tube producing a white light but with a lot of blue and red escaping producing the familiar yellowish light. So why would the federal government promote a product that has the potential to create a fairly serious health hazard for many Canadians, with also no recourse to switch back to incandescent lighting??

Please do tell me what the need is, as maintaining an obsolete language should not be the responsibility of Canada or Canadians. 'Tyranny of the majority' under our system of a Parliamentry Democracy is a socialist fable as you know Quebecers are represented just as equally by their MP's as any other Canadian. The only problem is they don't like to LOSE, and to that I say, to bad. Now we are talking, REAL, 'Tyranny of the majority', the 'Majority Unlimited' relating to the unlimited powers of the federal government itself. It does strip our individual rights away. Not because of the imposed multicultural policy ( although doing so and not including the electorate to be part of thee process shows a federal level of contempt against Canadians) but from the after effects caused by problamatic, improperly planned, immigration and cultural policies. The Charter discriminates racially and strips away individual rights. Compared to other countries in the world, the U.S. provides its citizens with a higher level of freedom and rights than any other country in the world. Immigrants are trampling over each other to become a U.S. citizen, unlike Canada who sells out the individual rights of its citizens to attract immigration.

You are the one that is generalizing. Like I stated previously that it is a fact that approx. 50% of Quebecers are separatist and that is proven from the results of the past two Quebec referendums on separation. The other 50%, if they were not Quebec French nationalist, would not be demanding that the English respect the French language and speak French in Quebec or would not be demanding bilingualism policies outside of Quebec. This is fact!!!! Give your head a shake! You yourself are sympathetic to Quebec French nationalists or you would not be going to the ridiculous extremes defending bilingualism in this thread. I suggest you see a doctor.

Actually I would say you were living in the slums amongst poor people..... That is BS. Your labelling of poor people as slum dwellers is uncalled for and only proves how arrogant you are. Cities stuff uncultured ethnic immigrants or troublesome welfare cases into housing anywhere they can find it. This is what makes finding accommodation tricky in Canadian cities where price alone does not dictate deluxe accommodation in rental units or even regular housing. We found this out one time renting a deluxe townhouse, only to find out at a later time the adjacent units on both sides of us were occupied by a multitude of students sharing the rent, all with five sets of friends who visited on a regular basis. What a hole that was. But then again, since we are all equal in this country there are no grounds for complaint.

I don't intend to be sarcastic, I am being critical if anything, of a tyrannical government intent on stripping individual rights away. Incidentally raises another question concerning the financial expenditures relating to supporting the federal vision of equality for all, at the huge financial expense of the majority. Of course this single aspect does not bother you at all, of course not. Simply continue to allow our rotting infrastructure, health care and the likes to continue to fall apart. Things just are not suppose to work that way in a Parliamentary Democracy. The federal government, if it wants to change the system, do it. Stop playing with Canadians constitutional rights. Every Canadian initially has the same rights. Canadians are protected against acts of discrimination and have been since the 60's. What the Charter does is pit societies against one another, when in fact there should only be a single Canadian nation or country. The Charter disicriminates. Why should nationalistic Quebec a 'have not province' have more powers than all other Canadian provinces and why should the federal government cater to its obsolete language stripping away individual rights of other Canadians in the process? When you start breaking down the country into groups, you are looking for trouble and that is what Canada has allowed to happen. The U.S system is superior and does not compare to Canada's Parliamentary Democracy. The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguards the rights of the Individual and the Minority.

NOthing to do with the legislation, because too many of them were fighting against it. Nothing to do with the legislation because the federal government was to cowardly to allow a national referendum to answer this question and only allowed tyrannical judges and courts and parliament to answer the question totally bypassing the electorate.

Older children and teens to-day through no fault of their own make unwise assessments relating to the homosexual lifestyle for the simple reason they lack life's experiences and are therefore ignorant to homosexual propaganda. Ask any teen to-day relating to the homosexual lifestyle and SSM and they will reply in most cases, or something to the effect: 'if they don't bother me, what's the harm'.

Marriage, kids pertaining to SSM just don't ring any bells relating to a majority heterosexual population. Your children are the result of a heterosexual marriage. To suggest heterosexuals who frown on your new potential SSM marriage and who could possibly create instability pertaining to the lives of your children and could jeopardize your children's future is bull. If anyone is jeopardizing your children and possibly their future is you, by your hand, by involving yourself in a still controversial homosexual marriage. Don't blame the heterosexual society in general who had nothing to do with SSM legislation.

I did say "basically" there are two sides two an issue but then again there could be three or four. But relating to what system our 'Parliamentary Democracy' or a 'Republic'. Basically either way if your not represented with winning numbers, you lose. The use of the Charter in this country allows judges and courts to intervene, but at the expense of loosing individual rights by those affected by a courts imposed decision. What a comparison. What does the "best patrolling policeman population ration for my city" have to do with preserving individual rights? The two main criteria that determines that IMO are: (a) The actual proven requirement for 'x' number of patrolling officers pertaining to proper law enforcement. ( What the city can actually afford in relationship for the actual proven number of patrolling police officers.

My definition of tyranny, if you want to make it an issue, is the same definition of what the minorities have been screaming about for years: "Tyranny of the Majority"...inducing our beloved tyrannical 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. How can judges and courts possibly intervene when it is out of there jurisdiction to do so under our form of government. It none of their business. They are out of order, there not even supposed to be there. In our country our political system is both a Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy. The electorate in Canada are represented in individual ridings across Canada by their respective elected member of parliament (MP) who represent their concerns in parliament. MP's relating to issue's of importance, vote in the House of Commons and the winner of that specific issue wins with 50+1 of that vote. Also there is NOTHING stopping parliament from implementing a national referendum relating to important constitutional issues or other important issues that involve all Canadians. Sorry, I misunderstood when you said: "What's really wanted is government in MY image." When you say: "it relies too much on the politics within parties and not enough on the issues", this means democracy is working and is something you should want. Don't forget, basically there are always two sides to any issue. Those for it and those against it. I would much rather see an issue democratically resolved than accept a forced government decision.

In Canada we protest against federal government abusing legal immigration without the proper infrastructure and immigrant integration conversion process with the net result turning major Canadian cities into slums.

This is still tyranny by the majority being parliament, the judges and courts overriding individual rights. This defines Canada as a dictatorship. Understandably, what you want and I (since the Canadian government offers no alternative) is a Republic, a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written constitution, adopted by the people and changeable from its original content or meaning by the people (citizens or electorate) only by its amendment with its powers divided between three separate branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Any type of democratic government (Direct or Representative , majority or minority) amounts to a dictatorship when compared to to the U.S. which is a Republic with the Majority Limited (vs. Canada majority unlimited) under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.

This is exactly how I view our present form of government, a dictatorship.

That is basically what we have now, oligarchy pretending to represent the majority, otherwise known as unelected judges and courts. But what exactly do you call our present form of government as with the Charter calling a lot of the shots it no longer is a 'Parliamentary Democracy'.

Your an Ontarian, right. I was born and raised in a French district in Ottawa East and all my friends were Francophone who spoke to me only in English because that is the language they wanted to learn and wanted to speak, from the time I was five to the time I left home at twenty-four. For all you know, maybe I am French. This all changed when the Montreal Quebec university crowd began moving into West Quebec and Ottawa West demanding people speak to them in French. This had a minimal effect. It was the city of Ottawa's detrimental bilingual policy that changed the face of Ottawa's majority English city of course with federal government interference promoting obsolete French all the way. I know all about Francophone's in Quebec and Ottawa, so anything I say are not generalizations but are fact based on knowledge, relationships and experience. O'Brien will have next to an impossible job to kill Ottawa's bilingualism policy now that it is in place, just like politicians will have an almost impossible job to kill the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'. It will require a revolution or similar to restore the previous non-bilingual political order.

The chief distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a democracy, the Individual and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy, like we have in Canada called a Parliamentary Democracy. Whoa, along came the 'The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' that allows courts or judicial rule, rather than representatives of the electorate make decisions for the citizen's of Canada. So, in effect Canadians are no longer directly represented by their Mp's but rather 'judicial rule', meaning we no longer have the type of democracy that we are lead to believe as being majority rule, pertaining to majority vote concerning MP's voting on issue's. So every time we go to vote, with the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' in place, we are in fact agreeing to the political concept of a 'nation being ruled by the courts' with Canada no longer being ruled by the old 'Parliamentary Democracy' it was prior to the Charter. Canadians as far as I know never agreed to this concept by referendum or anything else and if parliament continues to rule under the title of a 'Parliamentary Democracy', it can be seen and is absolute 'outright fraud' against the rights of the electorate of Canada. Agree or disagree?

This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties. So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war?

The devil weed IS bad for the lungs. Anyways, your not a mouse, are you?

Hey, it worked for Quebec. You can't really blame anyone else for trying.