Leafless

Canada a united country! In reality Canada are two primary solitudes divorced, with Canadians forced to pay alimony to a province which is the primary cause of fragmented Canadian nationalism. But back to the topic and the question to be asked is how can a minority French residential language continue to have such disdain for the majority commercial language of this country while being fed federally and without signing our constitution? This is a black mark concerning the administration of this country and a direct insult against the English speakers of this country. Leafless...again, I agree. But you do understand no Canadian PM is going to challenge this because they do not want to be PM during the break-up of this country, right? What do you prescribe? Of course I understand and that is why this I initiated this topic. I don't write the news and for this item to be newsworthy, obviously it is problematic in the minds of many. On a provincial level premiers can address this problem and can alleviate it by applying the same linguistic logic as Quebec applies to English. Up to now the problem is increasingly worsening as is evident by this article and many just like it. More should be done by the English sector of society, who at present are patiently waiting for our political leaders to constitutionally alleviate the problem, something that obviously won't happen to quickly without English intervention in the way of demanding proper political representation from our national federal parties. If Canadian national federal politicians are content with being strong armed to the level of Quebec political lackeys, then the country for all practical purposes is not Canada, it is the country of Quebec.

Canada a united country! In reality Canada are two primary solitudes divorced, with Canadians forced to pay alimony to a province which is the primary cause of fragmented Canadian nationalism. But back to the topic and the question to be asked is how can a minority French residential language continue to have such disdain for the majority commercial language of this country while being fed federally and without signing our constitution? This is a black mark concerning the administration of this country and a direct insult against the English speakers of this country.

Playing the language game for sentimental reasons with the country at stake, makes as much sense as religion does to an atheist. There is more to it then that and sooner or later some PM will have to bite the bullet and call a spade a spade and publicly acknowledge Canada can do no more for Quebec, with the main cause being gross discrimination against the rest of the country with national political parties all participating in what could be seen or described as a fraudulent abuse of public funds to meet Quebec's unjustifiable demands. Actually Canada should be the last place for the French to flex their political muscles as in the LEGAL sense outside of the 'uncontested founding nation title', Quebec has no legal rights to propagate their non- commercial minority language outside of their province or no legal right to Canada outside of it being a province within Canada. This is a sad state of affairs when Canadian citizens have been totally left out in the decision concerning their own constitution, to allow this nonsensical case of linguistic dizziness to perpetually continue with the makings of some drunken poker game.

There are no real answers when you are involved as a victim against some nut case, male or female. I don't condone violence, but in certain situations deadly force of one sort or another is sometimes required and in turn is up to the courts to decide your fate. In the case of relationships, one should always be cautious who they take on as a partner.

As a matter of fact David Warren has an interesting editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, Sat. Jan.20/2007, titled "Time to take sides in today's culture wars". In this editorial he describes Canada's cultural past and present, and says: " Which does not mean there are not two solitudes. "A man cannot serve two masters" according to a very old saying and when push comes to shove we tend to take sides. And that is what the culture wars have been about, in Canada and throughout the West; forcing us to take sides, for the purpose of annihilating one culture. As ever it is the minority that feels itself pushed towards extinction. Yet the odd thing is, there are still millions of them -the BIGGEST of all contemporary factions." It is obvious Quebec is taking advantage of Canada's political generosity and is in direct competition against the English language. Very unsportsmanlike, even if I say so myself.

Keepitsimple You must falsely assume men are not severely victimized, in a variety of ways, even more so than women, but it is hardly ever mentioned or even talked about. Actually women are better protected by the system then men are.

"The Universite du Quebec en Outaouais public consultation on its plan to phase out English-language business programs is seriously flawed because it is in French only, according to professors who teach the courses." ---------------------------------------------- Talking about the spirit of co-operation relating to the Chinese killer satellite issue. Here is one relating to the spirit of linguistic co-operation by allowing Quebec to continually renew (every five years) and override Canada's constitution with the 'notwithstanding clause' relating to Quebec's language policy along with giving the French language 'federal official language status'. I mean, who wants that dumb HICK commercial English language in Quebec?? The nerve. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...a0e36b3&k=51665

The Chinese are playing the game like any other country with political interest. The point of the matter though is who owns outer space relating to killer satellites? The tiny strip around the earth that harbours satellites is controversial. The Chinese are being accused of not co-operating with treating that strip of space as a 'civil space area'. The problem I have with this is if indeed this strip is reserved for electronic communications serving the world, then what the hell are spy satellites doing there. As much as I hate to say it the Chinese could be within their rights, to protect their national interest.

Bu!!sh!t. Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos. Canadians built Canada. Who we traded with doesn't change that. Americans have allowed Canadians to build Canada. Just think, Canada could possibly have ended up in a similar fashion to Alabama.

Sure. Defence of our territory, sovereignty and people. And, by extension, mutual defence of the allies that help us protect ourselves. Why don't you be accurate and admit "by extension" is what you really mean, since there is NO WAY, Canada can be described as competent relating to the 'political interest you describe'.

What counts as U.S. bashing? If I say the George W. Bush is the worst president in American history, is that US bashing? Depends, if you are a citizen of that country, you have that right. If you are NOT an American citizen then, NO, you are directly bashing Americans who put President Bush in power.

Bu!!sh!t. Well, maybe you can tell us how Canada became the country it is today, by trading beads with the Indians ans selling fridges to the Eskimos. Then there's Britain and France and how they greatly contributed to Canada with the other weasel countries in the world that basically want nothing to do with Canada. What were you saying about bullshit????

Harper is already displaying political unaccountability by currently displaying unnatural catering to a province that refuses to stand on its own two feet. If the FLQ were ever that brazen and arrogant enough to pull something like this off it could certainly be acknowledged 'as the straw that broke the camels back'...GOODBYE QUEBEC AND GOOD RIDDENCE.

Some people bash, some people priase the US. Our Liberals bash Conservatives and vice versa. Some love Europe, others don't. We discuss domestic social-issues, as well as economic ones. I'm not sure if you're only seeing what you want to see, but there is a lot more going on on these boards than US bashing. I am not sure you understand. The U.S. has political interest and this is mostly reflected in their foreign policy, consisting of: "Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United States and abroad; Protecting allied nations of the United States from attack or invasion and creating mutually beneficial international defense arrangements and partnerships to ensure this; Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy in all regions of the world; Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of U.S. products to international consumers who desire them; and Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need. " *Excerpts from Wikipedia* What country or especially Canadian individual, in their right mind, could possibly object to this type of foreign policy? What foreign policy does Canada pursue to further its national interest? Why are all Canadian national federal parties not in TOTAL agreement in regards to U.S. foreign policy a country that is the lifeblood of Canada?

That is a matter of opinion if Iraq was a threat to U.S. interest. The U.S invasion in Iraq left the U.S. in a position as a force responsible for law and order and left to implement a system naturally desirable to U.S. interest, beginning with the installation of a democratic government, which they are currently trying to accomplish.

Just for the sake of discussion I wonder what is the difference of how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam and then since Saddam. As far as Iraqis killing Iraqis this wouldn't be happening without the invasion by Bush. I don't see how you can decry responsibility for these deaths. I don't see how you can decry holding Saddam responsible for the crimes he commited. He wasn't about to be served wtih a warrant and surrender peacefully. President G.W. Bush did serve Saddam with an ultimatum: "Bush has given Saddam and his sons until 4 am (1am Irish time Thursday) to leave Iraq or face war. Saddam rejected the 48 hour ultimatum on Tuesday." http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/0.../story92311.asp

They claim that they do, I wish they would prove it. Whether one plays the role of 'good cop' or 'bad cop', they still remain 'cops', which would ultimately be a good thing. However, the US often plays both roles of 'cops and robbers'. I think the only time they try to instill a democratic government is when they are threatened or attacked and are forced to go in as what is proven with Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't consider this a bad thing.

Not sure what you mean by this...."U.S. Black pop culture" can mean many different things and is quite diverse. If you mean hip-hop, it is far from being self segregating even if it wanted to be, as mainstream media and culture embrace it for sales and market share. For instance, 1980's MTV wouldn't go near rap or hip-hop but had no problem with heavy metal or punk "sub-cultures". Such is quite different today. The US also didn't practice colonialism in the way that France did (Algeria). Payback is a bitch. Just reiterating one of the articles where as it was suggested France's Muslim youth have embraced and are emulating characteristics of Black youth and you are correct relating to hip-hop. BTW- No longer in cyberspace---this is a great site!

Every large city in Canada has sections of housing reserved for Canada's disadvantaged. And I am certain many of these Canadians consider themselves marginalized and could indeed be true victims of society. But the situation in France does not appear to be the same pertaining to its Muslim population. The problem is with the second generation of Muslim youth who have also taken on the characteristics of U.S. Black pop culture. Are these problems self induced by refusing to properly integrate? Are they self induced by refusing to separate themselves from their homeland identity and their strong attachment to their Islamic religion? This problem is also aggravated by lack of public funding in areas of concern. But their birth rate appears to be vibrant and healthy aggravating the existing situation. The labelling of Muslims throughout the world relating to terrorism is I think is a major contributing factor along with their questionable stringent religion and again reflects in a negative sense on countries who accept these people as immigrants initially, especially in troubled times. http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Artic...r2005Feder.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-02...urope-csm_x.htm http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Silverstein_Tetreault/

Black Dog I don't how you can justify the use of 'illicit drugs' such as the case as with the Bronx in the 60's as somehow being justifiable concerning any degree of anarchy or uprising to meet unjustifiable demands. Low wage earners in any country make the world spin and is simply a fact of life. You do not see the majority of Whitey native citizens as low wage earners participate in the type of uprising (civil war) as you see in France. I have strong suspicions that it is easier for for certain races to become involved in violent barbaric actions than their White counterparts sorry to say. This is something countries should strongly consider regarding immigration policies.

Not sure what you mean here, what exactly are the 'political and material benefits' that we have that come at the expense of the US? What I am talking about is Canada's development as a country, which was basically solely developed at the hands of the U.S. Yes, Canada was exploited and we did not fight it , we allowed it to happen. We have allowed and welcomed U.S. domination and all the trimmings. But in the long run I for one am thankful we have basically a U.S. type society in Canada and would not want it any other way despite the efforts of certain Canadian political parties who's primary aim is to try to destroy a freer U.S. type society in Canada and replace it with a more dictatorial type government more common with oppressed countries.

Are you suggesting the U.S. unilaterally play 'good cops' to the world? You know this is not the case and if the U.S. did intervene, every other country in the world would be at their doorstep to bail them out in the event of a conflict.

The definition of 'civil war'= ' A war between citizens of the same country'.

There is a slight difference with this one, as it zero's in on territorial concerns rather than social injustices as the cause for this primitive civil war. It appears though this is no job for the police as they are not equipped for the type of larger scale violence that is occurring. If you consider this gang violence maybe you can supply a link that compares countries elsewhere that equals the amount of destruction caused by these African Muslims in relation to out of control property destruction and injuries to local police. I would also label this a civil war.

I am referring to members of this board. But back to the question to those who are critical especially of U.S foreign policy. "Does Canada not have any political interest worth fighting for? Or are political and material benefits at the expense of the U.S. while labelling them such horrible names as terrorist the Canadian norm?"