Leafless

I am sick and tired of reading constant U.S. bashing. 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? Hypocritical or what.

"Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day. As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin." "[...] Sarkozy, who deployed only policemen in his war, was unable to prevail because he did not have the weapons to win a territorial conflict. After two days of rioting, police officers warned that they did not have the means to win what they (correctly) described as a "civil war." [...] The poor natives who live in the immigrants' neighborhoods know better, however. They know that the generals of Eurabia, the leaders of the "youths," drive BMWs and Mercedes (which no-one dares to set alight), and that they use mobile phones and PCs to instruct their highly mobile troops. The war in France is not about social injustice, but about territory." http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/brussels100806.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems Muslims are learning fast in their quest to establish their territory. Maybe they can call it 'Musbec'. Possibly sooner than realized, will form its own nation within France with French citizens paying the shot.

Its more like $3.5-Billion over the next fifty years. Like I said ---MONEY TALKS! http://www.forestnet.com/archives/July_Aug..._sawmilling.htm It does work out to about 70 million per year. Does anyone know how many Cree their are? Canada nationwide, there are 200,000 Cree. In the immediate James Bay region the Cree population appears to be around 11,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/21-3/e_e.html What does this have to do with bleeding the Canadian taxpayer, who will be unjustifiably accountable for, by creating modern artificial wilderness habitat for aboriginals. This includes everything from hundreds of millions for education to 80,000 modular homes.

He must be talking about the same party that has given special charter rights to troublesome Quebec and Aboriginals. Ha-ha-ha, to late. Canada has been extremely Liberalized to the point Canada spins on doing no harm, only good, according to extreme Liberalism. But the article is correct. Kyoto is NOT Canada's baby, nor invention as Canada's total greenhouse gas contribution is under 2%.

It is astounding how little interest this subject has generated, despite the fact thousands of francophone's employed within Canada's public service, possess the capability to bring Canada to a grinding halt, if they ever choose to support Quebec separatist political ideologies, rather than Canada's political ideologies. Unbelievably this group has been given charter recognition, protection and rights exceeding the countries majority English population. Aboriginals another group given charter protection, protection and rights exceeding those of the majority including their own private educational upgrading costing Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars along with the construction of 80,000 modular homes paid for by Canadian taxpayers. These these two troublesome groups have been treated royally especially by the Liberal extreme left, democratically undesirable. Unbelievable this is happening in Canada.

Its more like $3.5-Billion over the next fifty years. Like I said ---MONEY TALKS! http://www.forestnet.com/archives/July_Aug..._sawmilling.htm

Duceppe was asked what would be the best-case scenario for the sovereigntists -- a federal election first or a provincial campaign. "Two victories, one after another," Duceppe answered in a flash. The two said it is no surprise that the sovereigntists are teaming up again. "Before being Pequistes or Bloquistes, we're sovereigntists," Duceppe said. "I think it's important for us to tell Quebecers there is some cohesion inside the sovereigntist movement," Boisclair added. "That sends a clear message to Quebecers when we see how federalists are divided between Mr. (Stephane) Dion and Mr. (Steven) Harper on what are their views on Quebec. ------------------------------------------------------------ So, what else is new as the separatist parties of Quebec continue to attack Canada. And Canada continues to fund this separatist party---unbelievable! http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...f640d7d&k=16789

I fail to see what your argument is concerning existing great lakes in Ontario, as the lakes produce very little methane compared to the flooding of vast areas of trees and vegetation in Quebec to accommodate the James Bay project. This methane production will continue for centuries. I have not heard of any federal intervention concerning future problems from this massive project. But another problem is the exploitation of the Cree. Flooding of these lands will and has caused hunting, fishing and pollution problems for the Cree. Will the end result with these natives concerning their lifestyles, end up with the responsibilities being shifted to Canadian taxpayers to look after these natives regarding housing and infrastructure and virtually everything else concerning their welfare? Another problem is financing and saddling Quebec taxpayers with this $63-Billion dollar project and the problems that could be encountered. http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCspp...06/11sp06f.html http://www.perc.ca/PEN/1991-12-01/ohanley.html It seems everyone around Quebec suffers consequences from Quebec actions. 1. The exploitation of the Cree by Quebec. 2.-New Brunswick becoming 'officially bilingual' to accommodate francophone's and Quebec. 3. Newfoundland and Churchill falls hydroelectric controversy, cheating Newfoundlanders out of large sums of income. 4. Ottawa, Ontario being taken over linguistically by francophone minority with a language that does NOTHING for society but creates jobs for francophone's. 5. Even on the U.S. side states like Florida, where sections have been taken over by Quebecers and their French language.

You can pretty well forget about taking it up with the U.N. Canada's gutless feds probably won't have anything to do with it. In 1999 a United Nations tribunal condemned Canada for forcing one of its English speaking citizens in Quebec to take his human rights case to them, when it could have addressed the problem internally. The tribunal said that Canada is taking an UNDEMOCRATIC STANCE on minority language rights in Quebec. The tribunal was perplexed by Canada's lack of concern for HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS after government appointed lawyers showed up at the tribunal and DEFENDED QUEBEC, yet it is a leading advocate of human rights on a global basis. The assault on the principle of 'Freedom of Expression' is another point to note here. UN Hmm. seems like these guys did pretty well HOPEFULLY you are referring to the absence of federal representation. The U.N. wanted nothing to do with Canada's language problems, which is perfectly understandable, especially considering a country that boast leadership in human rights. If Canada can't sort this out, who can, outside of a civil war.

They didn't for phase#1 of the James Bay project. The tracks of land involved are substantial. Phase 31 submerged 10,000 sq. kilometers, followed by a further 83,000 sq. kilometers of stream and lake banks and submerging a further 12,000 sq. kilometers of forest. http://www.american.edu/TED/james.htm

You can pretty well forget about taking it up with the U.N. Canada's gutless feds probably won't have anything to do with it. In 1999 a United Nations tribunal condemned Canada for forcing one of its English speaking citizens in Quebec to take his human rights case to them, when it could have addressed the problem internally. The tribunal said that Canada is taking an UNDEMOCRATIC STANCE on minority language rights in Quebec. The tribunal was perplexed by Canada's lack of concern for HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS after government appointed lawyers showed up at the tribunal and DEFENDED QUEBEC, yet it is a leading advocate of human rights on a global basis. The assault on the principle of 'Freedom of Expression' is another point to note here.

"Quebec Premier Jean Charest on Thursday announced the kick-off of a $5 billion hydroelectric project, the province's largest in a decade. " "In order to build the stations, engineers will have to divert up to 80 per cent of the Rupert River, a feature of the project that has upset environmentalists and some members of the Cree community. "It's very disappointing," Chief Abraham Rupert of Chisasibi, one of three Cree communities opposed to the plan, told The Canadian Press. "We're feeling we haven't been listened to; we haven't been given a chance to speak." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder why the Cree are allowing this? Could it be a deal was made to the tune of $3.5B, over fifty years. Think of all the methane that will be produced by rotting vegetation and the sudden wealth developed for the impoverished Cree. What kind of situation (sudden wealth) will this present to the Cree? Where are our environmental concerned feds in all of this in a project that will no doubt destroy Cree fishing? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...dianrivers.html

Canada WAS built of Christian, liberal democracy and Christian values. But thanks to Canada's anti Christian and anti democratic charter and immigration laws, the countries Christian and linguistic history has been POLITICALLY DELETED except for 'official languages' which is not only discriminatory in an 'officially multicultural' country, but a joke. There is no one to blame for the current democratic deficit, outside of Canadians themselves, who are content to GIVE AWAY their heritage, liberties and beliefs, believing stuffed, corrupt, politicians.

In an 'officially multicultural' society, this is the ONLY way. Canada surrendered its exclusive separate right to schools and language with the advent of 'official multiculturalism' but continues to wrongfully believe, what is good for the goose, is NOT good for the gander.

Yes he was. He ruined the country. I don't know if he ruined it. Destroyed it, would more appropriately describe it. Trudeau, the great French supporter of statism, who catered to politically correct minorities turned Canada into a homosexual haven, backed by a communist type backwater charter. But don't forget he gave us the constitution that entrenched the idea of redistribution and the charter that ignores property rights. And also gave state medicare that wonderful communist type health care program that forbids competition from private insurance and is responsible for the creation of waiting lines and times, only seen in hospitals in third world countries. But what he really did was give us cultural protectionism and nationalism transforming freedom into state wards, all decked out in red amazingly resembling Quebec state-blue nationalist. Yes, Trudeau will always be remembered as the PM who destroyed Canadian LIBERTIES and not to forget the guy who gave us Jean-Chretien.

Have you already forgotten or perhaps never have known, what U.S. interest ARE and including what Canadian interest are, which are primarily a healthy U.S.

This article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, Tues, Jan.9, 2007. It is a short article, not on the net, so I will write the whole article. " The federal government made good on a promise yesterday and gave the City of Ottawa $500,000 to support French language services. The funding is a one year extension of as $2.5 million five year agreement signed in 2001. Last June Josee Verner, the federal minister of francophone affairs, said the federal government was prepared to extend the funding arrangement for a longer period if the province contributed to French services in Ottawa, but it refused to. City Hall spends $1.75 million per year providing services in French. This includes recreation programs, document translation, and having people available to answer all questions in both official languages." ---------------------------------------------------- The City of Ottawa has a bilingual policy chosen by its own free will, WITHOUT the consent of Ottawa taxpayers. Why then is the federal government along with potential provincial government intervention, providing more funding to a municipality NOT under federal jurisdiction. Why is the federal government of Canada forcing Canadian tax payers to fund a private municipality 'bilingual policy' that is discriminating against the possible will (since there has never been a referendum) against the tax payers of Ottawa and their right to their majority English language in their city? There is no forced federal linguistic intervention in Quebec so why is the federal government trying to and continuing to discriminate against the English language?

As usual Drea, you are misrepresenting facts. French and English are NOT the official languages of Canada, they are the official languages of our federal government. On a more important provincial basis, they are only official in a single province, that being New Brunswick. I can't believe that I'm getting myself into this mess at this late stage, but someone needs to tune you in a bit Leafless... You keep telling others to read the Charter but I seriously doubt that you have ever done so yourself. Otherwise you likely wouldn't have made the whole argument that English and French are not official languages of Canada based on your ill-founded Federal / Provincial distinction. Even you have to agree that the 1982 constitutional amendments were not unilaterally imposed by the Feds. Section 16(1) of the Charter reads as follows: Other than Quebec can you tell me which provinces you suggest have not signed off on this characterization of English and French as the official languages of Canada? FTA English and French are the official languages of Canada under FEDERAL CONTROL not PROVINCIAL CONTROL. If provinces have the right to language control in their respective provinces, how then can it be said English and French are Canada's official languages when the country consist of TEN INDEPENDENT PROVINCES independent of federal language control. If the official languages of Canada are English and French, Canadian provinces then would be 'officially bilingual', which they are not outside of New Brunswick, who VOLUNTARY legally provincially designated themselves 'officially bilingual' and not by the workings of the federal government. This makes it a clear case of federal linguistic discrimination against the majority English language when it has no majority public mandate to force its bilingual desires on the country of Canada utilizing public tax money. This can be seen as especially true since the country is designated 'officially multicultural' as well.

I may not have expressed myself clearly. I think having any language designated as "official" is a very serious mistake. While I am virulently opposed to multi-culturalism, and espouse a strong Anglosphere alliance, I believe that the language policy and use should be driven by demand. In New York City, the urban center I am most familiar with, parts have signage in English and Chinese, parts in English and Spanish, and parts English only. I prefer for the decision as to which language to print such governmental attributes as signage and government forms to be driven by people's need to cope with government, and government's needs to serve its citizens. I am against the kind of politicization that the Official Languages Act, and parellel Charter provisions, have generated. You are right. It is presenting a fraudulent situation for federal linguistic rights to overide provincial language rights and for the federal government to ignore its bilingual obligations in Quebec while promoting it in provinces outside of Quebec. I have checked with the office of the premier of Ontario and although English is one of Canada's official federal languages used in Ontario by the majority, it is not the language used to designate Ontario as a provincial UNILINGUAL OFFICIALLY English ONLY province. Quebec on the other hand has UNILATERALLY provincially declared itself provincially OFFICIALLY FRENCH making it the only LEGAL language of commerce in Quebec. In other words there is no legal emphasis (in Quebec) to cater to the English language if the province or Quebec companies choose not to do so. I only WISH ENGLISH would be, the unilingual language of Ontario, including all other provinces in Canada that incorporate that language as the majority language.

There is no such thing as the provincial right of language control. Making up rights does not prove your argument. The provinces choose their official language(s) for themselves. The federal government chooses Canada's official languages. Your "fact" about Quebec and the World Wars has nothing to do with anything in this topic. The examples I gave indicate that your logic was flawed. National policies are set without having every province set the same policy. This includes the existence of the Canadian military, international treaties, etc. This is at least the third time I have had to correct your assumption that there are no provinces in Canada that are officially English only. Here is one example (Ontario): Once again you have avoided my question about how the Charter has given Aboriginal people an advantage. Please feel free to answer that question at any time. (a) The provincial right of language is what you are describing that the province itself can declare a language for that particular province, that is a 'provincially officially language' SEPARATE from the FEDERAL OFFICAL LANGUAGES being ENGLISH and FRENCH which is only applicable under federal ENTITIES. ( National policies are national policies and if Quebec wishes to default not much can be done. this of course if government chooses to hold a referendum on whether or not to retain provinces that do not abide by national policies. What's the sense of being part of country when a certain province thinks its a country. © Ontario is not a PROVINCIALLY designated a 'officially English province' like Quebec designated itself provincially 'officially French'. I am surprised though that the website you linked to that says " English is Ontario's official language" is extremely DECEIVING and Premier Dalton Mc.Guinty should be held accountable for the publishing of this FALSE information. Ontario uses one of Canada's federal 'official languages' as the majority language but is NOT provincially designated as 'provincially officially English', it has NO official provincial language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario (d) The aboriginal issue like the Quebec issue benefits from charter equalization and regional disparities and bouncing charter rights of one or another forming a minority power hold over Canadian society at large. Canada is presently supporting the country of Canada and two independent solitudes depriving the country of needed financial resources. IMO 'The Charter of Rights and Freedoms' or more specifically parts covering 'official multiculturalism', Quebec and the Aboriginals are a weapon against Canadian society aimed at the destruction of English Canada by ways of a corrupt transfer of power utilizing this initially Liberal invented charter. Just look at the 'official bilingualism' policy in the federal government and how it has been expanded since its initiation to present times and continues to dominate the federal public service outside of French Quebec, with no limits or control over the federal powers it utilizes to accomplish this.

No, not really. What I am doing though is following the example of the creators of the charter, and that is to take ADVANTAGE of Canadian society, utilizing the charter. Why Not?? All Canadians should be treated ROYALLY, not only a select few.

Sexuality shouldn't be an issue in a workplace; what business is it of anyone's coworkers what their sexual orientation is? Your view of homosexuality is irrelevant in this environment. If you made an issue of it (and I suspect you might), you should be concerned about your job security. Homosexuality is a very important issue in society. I view the homosexuality as an enemy to the heterosexual family and to organized society in general. Tolerating homosexuals is creating an amoral climate opposite to my heterosexual views especially concerning the family and separates sex and procreation. Considering the foundations of human society being economic, moral and enviromental. Working with a homosexual could threaten my tolerance to the point where I could have to leave my place of employment creating in turn, possible economic hardship for my family, thus placing an unecessary burden and strain on society. The least organized society can do for its citizens, is to primarily allow moral sustainabilty for society not to allow an attack on its moral foundations, pertaining to the basic building blocks of society, heterosexuals and their families.

Food for all Canadians incapable of providing their own, should be the SOLE responsibility of the federal government and no one else. If the federal government fails to acknowledge that full employment is NOT a fundamental right, applicable to all Canadians, then they should or must assume responsibility, to ensure ALL Canadians are properly nourished and fed. The 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' Sec.-15 (1), "Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to equal protection without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability." If you are unfortunate enough to not be able to find employment, or are working but cannot put sufficient food on the table, the federal government should be in the position to ensure you are fed properly, similar to all other Canadians or you are being discriminated against, by the SYSTEM which disallows you from doing so.

This thread isn't dumb but only CONFUSES the real problem. What's REALLY DUMB is OFFICIAL MULTICULTURALISM.

"So of course you assume God is not bi-sexual or gay. Can you show me where in the Bible or in your learned teachings it says God is NOT gay or bi-sexual? God is neither heterosexual, bi-sexual or gay. God is a spirit which the majority of Canadians BELIEVE in, pertaining to Christianity.