Leafless

Good idea.....why not start hitting the local malls begging for spare change to pay for it. Any cost will be a bargain compared to the money spent supporting Quebec over years.

So your calling the Liberals 'historians' who rewrite history, historical revisionist, yeah sure. What Britain gave us was the country CANADA and this resulted eventually after the 'Act of Union' failed and what Quebec wanted badly to protect it's interest was basically 'federalism' and this was achieved through confederation. How times change for little Quebec who every once in a while throws it's separatist fits and referendums and basically wants to be republic and now wants back to federalism with neat little federal ties but with the power of a country. Now that I know and realize that you are incapable of reading in between the lines we will be more explicit.

I disagree. Now while some on the extreme would want a full and complete divorce, by far most Quebecers want to stay as part of Canada, but like the 9 other premiers, want more control. Even within the PQ, the spectrum on what the goal is ranges from a new federalism to sovereignty association to the extreme....but for the average jean....a final divorce is not the goal. Why don't we have a referendum with the ROC do verify if we want to keep Quebec as part of Canada since they are the ROOT CAUSE of political animosity in Canada regarding basic hate towards federalism.

I'm not sure what "liberal history" is. I'm not sure if you know either, considering that the original provinces were Quebec, Ontario Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. You might also be unaware as to who the leading personages were. It was covered in High School. Liberal history is rewriting history to remove the emphasis off of Britain as the paramount force that gave us our constitution and country rather than the Liberal way dictating that 'founding nations are responsible for Canada as a country'. Yeah, we know how Canada was peacefully founded by natives,explorers, France, Britain, everyone has a piece of Canada. This is the Liberal socialist way. And look at the problems it is causing to-day!!!

I suggest you bone up on ol' firewall Harper The only province in Canada that is firewalled is Quebec along with harbouring and applying discriminating racist language policies.

What makes me laugh is your inability to comprehend what I wrote and insert your own narrow view. Har! there I laughed. I suggest you bone up on ol' firewall Harper I'm not sure what "liberal history" is. I'm not sure if you know either, considering that the original provinces were Quebec, Ontario Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. You might also be unaware as to who the leading personages were. It was covered in High School. Population: 1861 Quebec 1,191,516 Ontaio 1,620,851 Nova Scotia 387,800 New Brunswick 285,594 So sue me for not being an accountant......and I'll sue you for putting words in my mouth. This is where I laugh again. Obviously you have one of them new fangled computers that puts words in where there are none. Please revert to the original and show in my post where I said anything about seperation. As to the rest about the plains of abraham yadda yadda yadda.....thge plain of abraham ws a battel fought between two forien powers and has nothing to do with either confederation or the evolution of provincial power in Canada.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has called on the country's Muslims to fully integrate into society. Mr. Howard said: " Muslim migrants had to learn to speak English and adopt "fair and equal" treatment of women. Great move by Mr. Howard to stand up and support Australian values. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060901/wl_as...nislammigration

M.Dancer I don't know why you want to drag Alberta into this when the premier of Alberta never expressed or demanded a desire to separate. In fact Alberta's hostility towards the federal government is due to a large part by the feds continually pandering to Quebec and basically being politically ignored. Your analysis of Quebec being a being 'a founding member' is Liberal history and discredits Britain and does not reflect the true political situation concerning the British win of Canada on 'The Plains of Abraham'. What you say about Quebec having half the population of the Dominion simply isn't true. The only time Quebec's numbers were almost equal was when Lord Durham passed the Act of Union joining upper and lower Canada and which at that time Canada was not yet a Dominion. Quebec initially was allowed concessions from Britain which included the right to their own language (not official), their Catholic religion and own civil law. Quebec's role regarding consular missions in foreign countries is limited. Quebec is not in the position to shape it's future as it is a 'have not province' dependent on the federal government and other provinces in Canada concerning it's present viability as a functioning province. It makes me laugh when you suggest in the event of Quebec separation Canada would continue dealing with Quebec. Their are a million issues that must be resolved before that would ever happen including animosity from other provinces that just might want to do the same thing if Quebec gets away with it. It is a nightmare scenario.

daddyhominum A private religion is one an individual adheres to, with it's standards not forced on society at large. The 'turban' is an example of government catering to the demands of a religion to force society to accept that religion's standards. I said IOW, as far as Iam concerned I will not allow myself to be dictated to by the federal government concerning the standards of a religion to accept a ruling that dictates as in the case of the turban that I must accept it's users dress code especially relating to cases of employment. The turban should be the responsibility of the user of that religion and not forced on to society to accept it's standards like the Muslims forced the Christians to do concerning a small prayer in public schools which resulted in a ban of that prayer along with Christmas festivities a Christian traditon. I wonder where feds were then to stand up for the religion the country was built on. For instance there are a hundred ways I could get around from being forced to hire someone who wears a turban without being charged with discrimination.

Quebec has said many things in the past and you have chosen this as to what Quebec wants out of national federal parties to acquire votes. This is difficult to understand as Quebec is simply one out of ten provinces and as far as I know there simply isn't any political mechanism to allow this to happen with Quebec or any other province in Canada. If this is the case I would suggest Quebec severe it's apron strings it has attached to the federal government and other provinces in Canada concerning it's viability and simply leave if it has the courage to do that.

Now you are being fastidious. You are not racial profiling a religious group but in fact profiling individuals of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent BECAUSE of their ethnicity and RELIGION.

You got to be kidding! http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

We are also sliding down that slippery slope. The decay of middle class America has spread to Canada but not by way of illegal immigration but simply by to much LEGAL immigration although this is only an opinion as the Canadian public has no way for certain to establish this as fact at the present time but lifestyles are certainly deteriorating.

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling. Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation. Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states. The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain. Again you are dictating your private view concerning YOUR private religion. The turban is YOUR problem not Canadian societies problem.

No you are wrong. Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents. So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist. You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable. I probably am wrong but nothing in your statement establishes that. I infer that your argument is that Shariah Law is a 'custom' or 'practice' of Muslims so refusing to enable it was a political act of prejudice. To establish the error in your statement I only have to demonstrate that a single political entity consisting of Muslims , such as a nation claiming to be Muslim, does not require Sharia law. That is the essence of the null hypothesis to a any generalization(induction). If you believe that all Muslims require Sharia law and some are observed not to do so, then your premise is wrong. So Ontario did not act with prejudice against Muslims but against some Muslims who wanted to use Sharia law. Further, I observe that the Premier of Ontario cannot enable any law to supercede Canadian law. I also observe that objections to the proposal were voiced primarily by Muslims, especially women of the Muslim faith. So, while I am no doubt illogical and unreasonable, your argument fails to establish that as true. Your argument falls within the confines of a private religion and flows into society forcing your religious complex views on Canadians that they do not have to accept or even respond to. Why should Canadians have to accept rulings such as the 'turban issue' when the federal government stays clear of concerns of followers of Canada's major religion Christianity in favour of 'for example' homosexual concerns involving gay marriage. One religion is no more deserving of federal attention than the other but the courts appear to pay attention to Islam while ignoring concerns of it's own major Christian religion. So what the courts are doing is promoting a racist society one that is not equal. I for one will never adhere to any court ruling forcing the Canadian public to accept the standards of ANY private religion.

The RCMP reflect Canadianism throughout the world in which most countries instantly recognize the unique uniform worn by the RCMP. The RCMP in Canada under federal responsibility impress along with their unique dress code a symbol of law and order recognized and admired by most throughout Canada. The RCMP is NOT a religious organization nor does it require it's members to belong to any particular faith. This alone has the potential to steer away many young recruits who don't want to identify their membership being attached by other members that reflect their strict religion rather than the forces identity. To see a member of the RCMP wearing a turban rather than a stetson removes the unique characteristics of this respected law enforcement agency. This partially dilutes the importance of this law enforcement agency in the eyes of many by allowing a turban to interfere with the traditional dress code that traditionally identified this unique Canadian law enforcement agency by allowing religion to supersede dress code characteristics. It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling.

No you are wrong. Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents. So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist. You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable.

So back to the topic: What does Quebec want out of it's Canadian national political parties to appease it's sub-conscious nature to avoid Quebecers voting voting for a separatist party? Or is this as Rue suggest as being totally unattainable due to the frivolous, irresponsible nature of Quebecers and their political leaders.

Leafless, the US Civil War was a fight between white Southern plantation owners and white Northern Yankees. The South initially wanted to be an independent nation that's why there was a civil war. The two groups Iam referring to to-day in relationship to a political class struggle are in comparison between Quebec and U.S. Blacks. How about using links August to confirm what what you say is fact. http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

The parallel is the same as both groups are looking for political recognition. In Canada Quebec came out much further ahead than U.S. Blacks in which the type of 'political catering' Quebec receives in Canada would not be tolerated in the U.S. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/...ing_recogni.php What does this have to do with Quebec? Are you suggesting Quebec's situation is on the same political level as the Czech Republic or Slovakia?

I don't know what it is possibly you don't understand. Racism= a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. Racism is only a belief but coupled with prejudice COULD translate into racial discrimination in which Canada has laws covering this type of discrimination. http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-18.7/text.html?no_cookie

FLQ strategist Pierre Vallieres made a direct connection between Quebec and the U.S. South. In fact it was not only Vallieres but the provinces teachers, civil servants, journalist, business people and professionals that were buying into Quebec separatism and were largely responsible for the emergence of the Parti Quebecois in 1968. http://mediasphere.onf.ca/E/history/conten...rendum_1980.epl

The latest Ipsos Reid poll indicates Quebec's marriage with the Conservatives is already over. Here are the results: "The poll finds Quebecers hold different views than the country at large: - 57 per cent of Canadians overall think the government has Canada on the "right track" (just 45 per cent think this way in Quebec); - 67 per cent of Canadians approve of the government's "making major expenditures to equip our Armed Forces" (versus just 47 per cent in Quebec); - 48 per cent of Canadians approve of the government's "extending Canada's military commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan" (38 per cent of Quebecers approve); - 45 per cent of Canadians approve of the government "supporting Israel in the latest Mideast conflict" (only 29 per cent of those in Quebec approve of this). - 49 per cent of Canadians approve of the way the government has formed a "closer relationship with the American administration" (37 per cent feel this way in Quebec);" If Quebec thinks this differently from other provinces in Canada then why is Quebec included in polls concerning other Canadian provinces especially when it reserves the right to autonomy especially concerning Charter rights and it's official language right's and harbouring it's own separatist party? What will it take to bring Quebec on side with other Canadian provinces a feat which I think is IMPOSSIBLE for any federal national politcal party unless we all CONFORM to the political ideologies of Quebec. Why do we continue to waste our time politically with a province that is the cause for a dysfunctional federal government? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...k=44245&p=1

daddyhominum: You wrote: "If you were as specific in your statements about groups as I have been about your charges that might be desirable. However, because I don't ask for charges to be lain against all hate-mongers does not mean that I must ignore them." Quit playing dumb as you know we are talking terrorism and terroist Muslims who murder civilians worldwide in senseless attacks against the masses. Citizens of Canada or any country have a right to be suspicious of particulary Arab Muslims who might act suspiciously or even disassociate themselves totally from that group in a way that does not prescribe hate but rather disgust at how low certain members of this group operates in it's destructive manner relating to acts of terrorism.

She is implying that by buying carbon offsets to cancel out your carbon emissions would make you 'carbon neutral'. But this is still pipe dreaming as the whole world would have to prescribe to this project to make it viable. This appears to be another 'Kyoto'.