Leafless

That is two questions and both answers are simple. Answer1: The rest of Canada can separate from Quebec in the same way as Quebec can separate from Canada. Answer2: No. I think it is a subject for debate and my solution is separation instead of bickering. I think more and more Rest-Of-Canadians should start asking Quebec to separate instead of just bickering. You asked a question. I quote: And I answered. What I hear from the rest of Canada is constant nagging against Quebec but when Quebeckers talk about secession there is continued nagging. That is useless bickering. I do not think that Quebec deserves more or less nor do I think they are better or worse than the rest of Canada. I just think they are different and have the right to conduct their affairs in their own preferred way. I think each province should learn from their example too. 1)- All the ROC can do is vote in a national referendum to see to see if they wish to retain Quebec within confederation any longer. 2)-Let you dictate your ways with no dialogue is advocating Nazism. 3)- You are again confirming your authoritarian view again like Nazism or the Hesbollah. 4)-You do think think Quebec deserves more as demonstrated concerning your reply in this post and your preceding post.

I feel that if you do not like it, then shut up and separate from Quebec. How can you separate form Quebec a province within the country of Canada or do you think they are something more than that? If you feel Quebec's interculturalism policy while the ROC adheres to a multicultural policy is not a subject for debate then advise the moderator...don't tell me your problems or is it is against Quebec's French language Charter not to discuss the affairs of Quebec??? ---which wouldn't surprise me either.

Iran is a fine example of your precious "monoculturalism". (so was Nazi Germany) Don't see too many cultures being flaunted there - gee I wonder why? I prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome. I to prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome but where minority cultures cannot abuse the system to disregard structural assimilation as in Canada and exist in their own sense as with an 'interculturalism' policy. So how do you feel about the fact that Quebec is legally doing this currently and almost equally applies to 'monoculturalism' anyways. So in fact you are living in a country with sub-standard conditions according to your preference "where you prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

That's not what multicultural means. When people talk about multiculturalism, they are usually referring to a specific policy. I can think of very few countries that would not be considered multicultural by your definition. What do you mean by assimilate? They said three generations, not thirty years. What kind of Muslim are you talking about? Sunni? Shiite? Sufi? 1)- The original quote was "France doesn't practise multiculturalism" which is not specific and can or could be interpreted pertaining to the definition of multiculturalism. That is not my definition either of a multicultural POLICY. 2)- Just because Canada has a multicultural policy which basically is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada's Human Rights Act which we have had for many years doesn't mean the Canadian government doesn't want immigrants not to assimilate. In fact they do. It's called 'structural assimilation' and encourage immigrant groups to participate in the larger society, learn the 'official languages ' of the land and enter the labour force. 3) I said thirty years (a generation) as that is the average time children are ready to take the place of their parents usually reckoned at 30 years. So three generations would be a total of 90 years which is a hell of a long time. 4) The kind of Muslim Iam talking about is the Sunni which represents 85% of all world Muslims. Speaking of multiculturalism in Canada it started as bilingualism -biculturalism to accommodate Quebec but was dropped due to complaints and changed to bilingualism-multiculturalism. To-day Quebec (naturally) has there own multicultural policy called 'interculturalism' which I don't really understand why they are permitted to do this. In Europe several European union countries implemented monoculturalism a policy I can see Canada posibly adopting this policy also.

France doesn't practice multiculturalism? Your telling us there is no other culture in France than French? France automatically is multicultural if it harbours cultures other than it's own nationality. Why would any foreign nationality move to a country if they don't plan to assimilate immediately? What's this thirty year bit in order to assimilate? You know as well as I do Muslims can't assimilate and won't because there religion will not allow them to it's a monotheistic religion with it's own political system. I really don't know why any country would want problematic Muslims knowing this.

Well, gee whiz, that is exactly what the world oil market will do. Hence, there is no reason to "fear" so-called "peak oil". I don't agree with you at all. Peak oil will result in a dysfunctional society in COLD countries like Canada where enormous amounts of energy are required to see us through the winter months. Reducing, recycling means nothing compared to the energy Canadians require and PRACTICAL alternative sources of energy are simply not available. You must remember when 'how much is to much' for a litre of oil or gas, leaves Canadians in an uncompromising position compared to what Americans who can afford to pay a lot more for their oil and gas who don't have to worry about a cold Canadian climate. Market conditions will cater to Americans who can pay more, Not Canadians.

Do you see Harper making homsexuality illegal with a majority? This is hard to determine. Aids is a lethal virus in Canadian society and has spread to heterosexuals. In my opinion any responsible government would take some form of action on this one. Whether this is in the form of unilateral action or includes citizens of Canada to make this decision is a tough call. Maybe the Conservatives will simply wait until public pressure demands it or simply ignore it. Who knows Iam not Mr. Harper, but I know what I would do.

We'll see what sort of AIDs policy that the government will come up with. Perhaps it will be one that addresses the health issues involved. At some point, they will have to say something and they can be judged on that. The only reason AIDS is on the map in North America is because of the gay community lobbyist. Other than that AIDS is no big deal in Canada and nothing more outside of Charter changes making homosexuality illegal is all that is required. AIDS takes care of the dumb and careless. Hopefully Harper won't bite and save the tax payers their hard earned dollars.

The National Council on Canada Arab Relations organized a delegation of a week long tour of Lebanon including Etobicoke Liberal MP Borys Wizesnewsky who said among other things when ask if he was in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list he said: " Yes I would be." New Democrat Peggy Nash who represents the riding of Parkdale-High Park, said her discussions in Lebanon led her to believe " that it is not helpful to label them a terrorist organization." These responses are unacceptable as it was at the time Liberal leader Paul Martin who initially labelled and rightfully so Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Where is and what has Bill Graham have to say about these presumabley anti-Liberal outburst concerning Hezbollah being labelled in Canada an ill-legal terrorist organization.??? And Bloc Quebec Maria Mourani was also a member of this delegation and when ask about her opinion, Ms. Mourani replied: " According to the government of Canada Hezbollah is a terrorist organization." It seems the influx pertaining to the WRONG type of immigration and questionable Charter rights is steering Canada away from traditional western values IMO totally unsettling. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...bae&k=80710

Muslim communities are generally tight knit communities paying strict adherence to Islam a monotheistic religion that contains a political system. Muslim countries that harbour many Muslim terrorist organizations have failed to contain or prevent the actions of radical Muslims with their ideologies exported throughout world countries causing great harm. How can you possibly suggest that Muslims who are shrouded within a veil of secrecy within their own communities and with their own source countries unable to deal with the problem shift the emphasis to local Canadian police departments to solve the problem no one from Muslim land wants to contend with. It is very condescending of you to suggest that actions of radical Muslims are on the same level as common crime or criminal acts in Canada and it is up to police departments to simply treat Muslim radicals the same way as common Canadian criminals. This of course in many cases is time consuming and uses a tremendous amount of police resources to obtain a conviction if that is even possible in certain cases. This is a Muslim problem that Muslims themselves are not addressing and I think it's time our politicians take direct action of one sort or another to combat criminal actions imported from other lands.

From your link... But I didn't see any indication that dentists spread HIV. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print Contaminated blood getting from the host to the victim that's the concern. How about department store door handles or escalator railings or public toilet seats or handles with tiny droplets of HIV contaminated blood you put your hand on and then unintentionally stick your finger on a bleeding cold sore or a small abrasion in your nose or mouth or hand or arm or leg. There are many different scenario's.

Why would it be the responsibility of Muslims to do the job of the police? Or are the authorities only expected to deal with Christian crazies? Your suggestion is vigilante action, which can go really bad, really fast. Iam not putting the emphasis on individual Muslims outside of publicly denouncing all Muslim terrorist organizations but also reporting to Canadian authorities terrorist suspects within your own community. This is why Muslims have a bad name everywhere they cannot even among themselves in their own communities determine who the troublemakers are or are unwilling to report them. In all the Arab countries these Muslim terrorist come from there is no serious sense of Arab governments to hunt down and destroy the many Muslim terrorist organizations and you want Liberty over SECURITY. If this is the case in Muslim land you do what you do with an uncontrollable contagious disease you quarantine all of them or send them back to the country of origin. This is a Muslims problem. What's your practical answer.

Then you should be in support of same sex marriage between healthy males. Is marriage the moral issue that you are talking about? I don't support same sex marriage for the basic reason that homosexuality in itself is immoral considering my personal standards and beliefs. In fact everything a homosexual does outside of the basic recognition of being homosexual could be considered immoral by someone who does not share the same set of standards.

How is your health threatened if you are monogamous? There are many ways HIV can be transmitted other than sexual relations with promiscuous partners even through your dentist. http://www.avert.org/prevent-hiv.htm

Mainstream Muslims would make the same argument about terrorists. Then have your Muslim society do something with your Islamic terrorist groups like what U.S. authorities did Koresh's armed cult.

You assume that every Muslim knows who is involved in plotting terrorism. Why should they be held responsible for the actions of the lunatic fringe among them? It would be like saying every Christian in Texas is responsible for David Kordesh and the Waco standoff - why didn't those Texas Christians turn him over? Since they didn't, we can assume they were protecting him and sympathized with his cause. Of course that sounds ridiculous when put into that context, but it is the same thing. It doesn't only sound ridiculous it IS totally ridiculous. David Koresh led an armed cult, a schism of the Seven Day Adventists making a mockery of main Christian religious groups and really had nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.

You are evading the question again. Your stats do not apply to lesbians therefore you should have no problems with female homosexuals. So which is it:1) Will you admit that there is no public health issue with lesbians or 2) Will you admit that you are not really concerned about public health - you just don't like homosexuals and are trying to justify gov't sponsered persecution of homsexuals. 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals. 2) My concerns are public health including my own health and I harbour concerns regarding the decay of morals and quality of life in Canada arising from the application of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and the federal governments authority to interpret meanings without the input of the citizen's of Canada.

Public stigma hasn't curtailed homosexuality throughout history; it has just driven it underground. Are you suggesting that homosexual and lesbian numbers have not increased since the advent of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' along with associated and more open displays of sexual homosexual conduct and displays of homosexual affection?

You're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer Not really. I was referring to sexual diseases arising from heterosexual sex within monogamous a relationship. The one you quoted (cervical cancer) is usually dependent on: 1.-having sex at an early age 2.- having many sexual partners 3.-having sex with uncircumcised males Doctors believe women must have been infected by 'Human papillomavirus or HPV' before they develop cervical cancer. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/...8.asp?sitearea=

If the federal government did make it illegal, what do you forsee the punishment as being? This has been several times ( for what entertainment value) you have included the dramatic and degrading word "punishment" to accompany "illegal" pertaining to possible federal intervention. I think if it was made illegal no type of penalty would be required as basic public stigma would probably curtail homosexual activity.

Homosexuals include lesbians who are the lowest risk group for HIV infections. Your public health arguments only apply to male homosexuals. Furthermore, your arguments only apply to male homosexuals that engage in anal sex. So if you are really making a public health argument then you should be satisfied with a public health campaign that focuses on reducing or eliminating all risky sexual activity which includes anal sex but also includes activities which heterosexuals engage in.However, I suspect your interest in public health is a smoke screen - you are really just trying to use the public health issue to justify your anti-homosexual views. There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners. I don't have a smoke screen but health issue's that result in death if contracted by no fault of the victim are a concern along with the exceptionally high cost of drugs to keep AIDS victims alive as long as possible. But I admit Iam not looking forward to a problematic set of third sex values that clash with heterosexual ideologies and lifestyles.

According to your stats, AIDS caused 93 deaths in 2003 and you describe it as a "killer disease"? How do you characterize cancer or heart disease?I'm with Riverview. Leafless, you just don't like homosexuals and you're using AIDS to make your point. You're like the Left that doesn't like the USA and uses Hizballah to make its point. Are you suggesting your views are in line with the RIGHT? It amazes me how dangerous the LEFT has become and can longer distinguish fact from fiction and are a contributing factor to the decline of a relatively well organized, well functioning Canadian society. AIDS is a killer disease spread by a VIRUS like the FLU unlike CANCER and HEART disease which in many cases is brought on by society itself who continually keep promoting unhealthy foods that if abused in sufficient quantities could result in certain cancers and contribute to heart disease. Make no mistake AIDS is a KILLER DISEASE and our federal government is not doing anything to eliminate the source or root cause regarding the spread of this horrible disease. Being in the category of a virus spread killer disease it deserves top priority to rid it out of Canada and if left unchecked HIV could possibly mutate into something even worse. Is this what your wish is for Canadians rather than 93 transformed into 93,000 or 5 million etc.?

The statistics also show that lesbians are the least likely to either get HIV or transmit it to others. If I follow your logic then we should actively encourage women to become lesbians in the name of "public health". No that's not my logic that's your logic. My logic dictates there were 12,080 male deaths out of 13,010 victims from 1980 to 2003 mainly consisting of a homosexual minority that represents approx. 2% of the population of Canada with an unknown number of Canadians walking around with HIV undiagnosed. AIDS death statistics in Canada: 93 deaths in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 13,010 deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 12,080 male deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 926 female deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 13,010 deaths in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 92.9% of deaths occur in men in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 7.1% of deaths occur in women in Canada 1980-2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) 83 deaths annually in Canada 2003 (HIV and AIDS in Canada: Surveillance Report, Health Canada, 2003) All Iam saying is the federal government has an obligation to protect the heterosexual majority from unchecked killer diseases and they are not addressing the root problem.

gc1765 If you want to protect homosexuals concerning the spread of HIV and compare other diseases such as cancer and heart disease on heterosexual lifestyles on some sort of equal footing is your prerogative but does not compare. It's like justifying the use of drugs simply because alcohol is already a legal commodity or cigarettes being classified as a drug. This is not about blaming or punishing homosexuals for the spread of HIV but rather controlling or eliminating this killer disease which cannot be compared to any other transmitted sexual disease. So how do you accomplish this when homosexuals are the root cause regarding the transmission of this disease? I suspect your answer is to treat HIV just the same as any other disease that causes death. Unfortunately the spread of killer HIV is in the same category as say a killer flu but only worse. But even up to now these deadly flu's respond and can be controlled and eliminated with antibiotics something HIV cannot be. Personally I think we would not have this disease in Canada to-day on the levels we have to-day if it was not for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and think homosexuality once again should be banned.

What is the purpose of your post when you don't know the details of Canada's contract with Boeing? Boeing is no 'hole in the wall' aircraft manufacturer and is the worlds largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners, military aircraft, business jets, amphibious aircraft as well as being the worlds largest aerospace company. Boeing like auto manufactures will produce parts for years to come with associated service which in any event will probably be handled by Canadian firms anyways. Sounds to me you have simply have it in for the U.S.