Leafless

The only problem is warren is there is no real requirement for 'official bilingualism' in Canada. Quebec really has no use for the ROC as they are basically only interested in Ottawa, where the federal power is. Ontario is not 'officially bilingual' and Ottawa has a bilingual policy, but unlike the discriminatory 'official' federal one it is not official in the sense where it is blueprinted into Ontario provincial law but nevertheless it just as discriminatory as the federal version as it was imposed on residents of Ottawa without any kind of municiple tax payer consent. This is truly amazing for majority English tax payers to have this type of offensive policy imposed on them and not respond by kicking the present mayor and city administrators out of office and the same thing applies to the federal government, just keep kicking the government out of office until they remove their federal 'official bilingual policy' or have it justified by a national referendum.

'Blind, dead, deaf and dumb wrapped up in Maple Leafs." I love it! There must be an alien power of some sorts controlling our politicians thought process and distorting the minds of Canadians to be obedient little wimps while their country crumbles beneath their feet. There is no other resonable explanation.

Warren Green You wrote: "Has the bylaw been passed or not? Or is Ottawa doing all this by decree? What does the law do? Require bilingual services by the civic government? I have brought up two daughters since official bilingualism came into force. I made damn sure both became fluently bilingual. And it's of great value to them. They both have job opportunties they otherwise would not have. I would encourage other parents to do the same. Fight the law if you wish. That's up to you. But with two languages you are that much further ahead of those with only one." Ottawa's bilingual policy bears close resemblence to the federal 'official bilingual policy' and this is why many residents including myself oppose it. As you are probably aware any kind of policy automatically creates to a degree an 'official policy' and this is what Ottawa's bilingualism policy at present is. Bear in mind it has not been rubber stamped as 'officially bilingual' by way of Ontario provincial statute. You make it sound regarding your daughters bilingual fluency that Ottawa is 'offically bilingual' or are you referring specifically to 'official federal bilingualism as you are not being clear. I do not agree with your enthusiasim concerning an 'officially bilingual Ottawa' as Ottawa is a municipality supported by tax paying residents who should be the ones who decide what type of bilingual policy the city of Ottawa should have if any and not city council or the province. I view this policy as highly discriminatory especially as Quebec who is part of the NCC has NO BILINGUAL POLICY of any kind with the French as the 'official language' of that province, the only province in Canada to declare itself a unilingual language. All your doing in effect by insuring your daughters are bilingual is catering to Quebec a province that never even signed Canada's Constitution and a province that treats it's linguistic minorities with language legislation not seen since Nazi Germany and selling out your majority English language rights when in fact you should be supporting and fighting for your rights in the same manner Quebec fights for French linguistic rights. You can check out Ottawa's bilingual policy: http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/bilingualis...y/index_en.html

gerryhatrick You wrote: "I wouldn't agree that "Muslims were trying to conduct an act of terrorism" though, anymore than I would say my neighbours Catholic daughter got pregnant. He's a practicing Catholic, she's just the daughter of a Catholic." Well then what do you call them gerry? You must know were talking about Islamists and their political ideology and the holy war waged on infidels. If you think using the word Muslim's is out of line or of course dosen't include all of them...what exactly is the word you suggest we use? Your harmless Catholic comparison does not compare to the Muslim-Islamists connection as the two go hand in hand and is a matter of how strong your religous Islam convictions are and there is no real way distinguishing who the hard core element really are. This is owed to the failure of Muslims to leave their political garbage at home and failing to intergrate into a modern democratic society.

Charles Anthony You wrote: "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" "How does that compare to the two different final lines of the Canadian anthem? It sounds like it combines both themes of our English and French final lines." Our national anthem makes no mention of a Canadian flag like the the U.S national anthem. To use the line you suggested you would have to include: "O say, does that maple leaf banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free and home of the brave." And you'll never see that version either as a single flag for our divided country wouldn't go over to well.

Warren Green You wrote: "A Roman Catholic bishop calls gays evil and anybody cares? We all know the RCC position on this. I don't think calling something "evil" shows any real evidence of hate, just a statement of religious doctrine." No, I don't think it has anything to do with "religious doctrine" but just the simple fact homosexuality is a perversion and homosexuals are perverts with this fact based on morals and procreation. Here is a link regarding George W. Bush backing 'same sex marriage ban'. http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-gay04.html

Charles Anthony You wrote: "This difference is great. Nevertheless, I doubt either composer was deliberately trying to state a political opinion." Last line of French version= " Will protect our homes and our rights." Last line of English version= " Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee." The last line of the French version could be interpreted as an insult, as Canada being meaningless in comparison to Quebec with the emphasis being on 'Quebec homes' and rights focused soley on 'Quebec rights'. Changing Canada's national anthem makes no sense and shows to this day the unwillingness of mean spirited Quebec to be part of Canada. I to think we have politically over accommodated Quebec and it should be time to call a spade a spade.

Warwick green You wrote: "I read today that 2% of all marraiges are gay. This law therefore effects a very small minority and you wonder why there are people who make such an issue about it." Yes, it makes you wonder initially why gays made this an issue especially when they already knew the doors of marriage were open to all anyways and that they only had to abide by the rules like EVERYONE ELSE.

Black Dog You wrote: "Nonsense. The evidence (including the Downing Street memo and statements from former administration officials) indicates the decision to invade Iraq was made irrespective of weapons inspections. Even if one chooses to disregard this information, weapons inspectors were working in Iraq right up to the final deadline and making progress." No matter what your take is on that aspect Sadam was given the choice to surrender which he refused and the rest is history. I really don't give a damn what anyone says on this issue as the world needs a 'top cop' like the U.S. Only problem is they are bankrupting their own country in taking the 'long way ' to achieve what can be done in a rather rapid manner using alternative methods.

Charles Anthony You wrote: "That is exactly what we have now and it flies directly in the face of marriage. Thus, in all practicality, we DO NOT have a legal definition of marriage anyway regardless of what side of the fence you prefer to sit. Again, we have an illogical law or a legal system for people who want it both ways." The original definition of marriage did not include shackers or gays. Marriage: "The legal union of a man and a women in order to live together and often to have children." It's main purpose is allow couples to legally procreate , give children a legal name and to raise them in a responsible moralistic way. In Canada it has mostly been strongly associated with Christianity and it's churches of various denominations. Marriage needs no legal definiton as it has been used by religions world wide for thousands of years. What we need is a government that respects the religious traditions of the majority and does not destabilize the original concept of marriage like what the Liberals have done here in Canada.

Johnny Utah You wrote: "According to Al Gore Humans are the cause of Global Warming and the clock is ticking to Dooms Day.. " And he could be right as the more humans the more water vapour the #1 greenhouse gas also responsiple for smog retention over major cities as well as contributing to the heating effect.

Warwick Green Regarding what Trade Minister David Emmerson observed: "If it a'int broke..." Many Canadians believe (gay marriage) should never have been implemented and are offended and insulted gays are on the same level as heterosexuals pertaining to 'marriage'. C'mon FALL!

Rue You wrote: "This is why in so many cases, people just quit and never tell anyone." The only problem with that is some people cannot afford to quit. If you quit your not eligible for E.I. unless you prove your case which in many situations like the one described is impossible. Could be best, if you can't quit is get yourself fired.

Argus "They are "homegrown." In other words, they have emerged from within Canada, rather than infiltrating it from abroad. They are insiders, not outsiders like Millennium Bomber Ahmed Ressam, who was behind Canada's last major terrorism scare in 1999." This is not at all surprising when you consider the Canadian cultural volatile cocktail mix that Canada nurtured thriugh it's concept of 'Official Multiculturalism'. You would assume Canada would have learned it's cultural lesson trying to culturally blend the failed English-French cultural experience but rather proceeds into further unchartered volatile cultural waters. This is not surprising, not surprising at all as we have many Islamic supporters right on this site.

The U.S. had no choice but to declare 'War on Terror' which was paralizing the globe and brought the air-line industry to a stand still after 9-11. An attack of this magnitude represents an 'Act of War' especially when the terrorist all originate from Arab countries. This basically was an attack on 'capitalism' itself ( twin towers symbol of capitalism's success, according to terrorist) and since this is the way of most of the world must be protected. http://www.slate.com/id/1008290

This thread is going nowhere. CUPE is getting nervous and could be concerning Israeli's political positon also with Canada's militant federal socialistic leanings (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) being not compatiable with Israeli apartheid policies. The Ontario branch of CUPE has 210,000 members ( half of all Canada) with major sector public sector unions with one union that has $40-Billion invested in Israeli bonds and such. The suggested boycotts one targetting university profesors and the other calling for economic divestment. http://www.forward.com/articles/7880

August1991 You wrote: "The federal Liberal Party took advantage of the confusion and played a scam on both sides of the street. As usual, English and French speaking people in northern North America are suspicious of one another." The federal Liberals are like no other national federal part in Canada and has traditonally been the only national party to acquire significant Quebec support simply because it was serving Quebec's nationalistic political self interest. But even the Liberals could not keep abreast of Quebec's appetite for more power and as a result this is clearly reflected in the downward Liberal trend since 2000 with 36 federal seats and 2004 with 21 seats and 2006 with only 13 Quebec federal Liberal seats an almost 50% drop each federal election. You have more faith than I do concerning Canada's salvation by an English PM that basically is now in the positon to top Liberal Quebec patronage which in my view is an absolute impossiabilty.

August1991 You wrote: "The politically correct, ban-tobacco priesthood wants to eliminate all tobacco use." And that's why I said it could be a 'legacy issue' ( concerning especially Mr. Munter) but at the time Mr. Munter and Dr. Cushman focused on different items concerning health issue's including expensive cancer treatment and even up to now regarding the 'second hand smoke issue". You suggested smokers pay for themselves but maybe certain people (lefties) would like to see those funds directed into other areas. But the smoking issue initially could be very well as you suggested a socialistic lefty attempt to get smokers out of public places for no other reason simply because certain lefties don't like cigarette smoke. This is the same bunch that hail 'Official Bilingulism', 'Official Multiculturalism', 'the imposed Charter of Rights ans Freedoms', 'gay marriage', and now smoking legislation as well as a multitude of other socialistic initiatives.

Charles Anthony You wrote: "Does anybody think that bureaucratically and governmentally Canada is too big? that the main source of our federal problems or inefficiency is inherently a result of managing a HUGE land with too many different people with competing interests? Which Canadians would be better off if Confederation was dissolved? Which Canadians would be worse off if Confederation was dissolved?" I for one think Canada has lost it's managing capabilities and is simply a matter of time before the final ramifications concerning 'lack of proper leadership' becomes reality. This of course in my opinion would be owed to the meddling of our original Constitution the BNA Act, to the new '1982 Constitution' which has permantely socialized our country to guarantee never ending feuding. The answers to your questions obviously at this time is unknown and no amount of speculation would justify a truthful or accurate response. We will just simply wait and see!

Riverwind You wrote: "The gov't is right to step in whenever the free market fails to provide services that people want. We could debate why the free market failed in the case of non-smoking establishments." Your wrong as this issue has nothing to do with rights (unless you can supply proof) and is supposedly a health issue. In fact I would go so far as to describe the no smolking issue as a 'legacy issue' concerning the original perpetrators Ottawa cousellor Alex Munter and Ottawa's Chief Medical Officer Dr. Robert Cushman resulting in a smolking ban in Ottawa's public places (a municiple ban). I suspect this was related to high cost treatment of various cancers caused by smolking and was one way to address the issue. Of course we all know the government of this land lacks the real courage simply to ban tobacco products and usage and instead resulted in another social engineering caper spearheaded by Mr. Munter and Dr. Cushman in the same way 'Official Bilingualism' and 'Multiculturalism was imposed on Canadian citizen's remenicent of totally undemocratic police state tactics.

Charles Anthony You wrote: "Is it legal to smoke inside your closed home if your children are present? Is it legal to smoke inside your closed car if your children are present?" Of course it's legal to smoke in your car if your children are present. Your car is not a 'public place' and my children are part of my family. But if the government does not think my car is not my private automobile and my children are in fact part of the state then hopefully the government will start sending me huge monthly cheques to subsidize me in order for me to live the lifestyle recommended by government. Dumb government must think cigarettes are the root of all evil and if they do I will glady debate that subject with them anytime and anyplace they choose.

Pocket Rocket You wrote- " Qeue up at the liquer store, folks. Get drunk and take an early retirement." Actually I think this is really a problem. The whole situation is really a problem of all society. Binge eaters who suffer heart attacks, smolkers who come down with cancer, gamblers who put there family out on the street, even any kind of risk taking activities involving sports. All of these can put people out of commission and dependent on the system. Most of us I think, can handle activities that require self control and moderation. But obviously many can't, in many areas, and that is really no ones fault but the system itself.

rouge state You wrote- " why do anglosaxon countries about lack of workers (slaves.)" Actually we are all slaves as (most of us) are bound to some absolute form of obedience to our employer in order to continue with the life style we choose. Pertaining to the shortage of workers is not an accurate statement as perhaps the real problem is that there are to many companies that pay marginal wages or provide temporary or seasonal work that create the illusion there is a shortage of work. In reality though many workers for one reason or another believe these marginal wages to be insufficient to provide the lifestyle they are seeking considering just plain low wages or tempoary or seasonal work that drastically reduces their yearly income. Alberta for instance has many good paying jobs but everthing else is high resulting in basically the same problem.

Warwick Green You wrote: "With 35% of the population francophone the City is clearly entitled to provide services in French which could include establishing some bilingual positions. I would doubt anyone would object to that. " You are misrepresenting the facts wrongly. The fact is there is no democratic system in place to establish 'official bilingualism' in a municipality.' Everyone I know OBJECTS to any kind of 'official languages policy', federal or municiple. Again you dwell on the 'services bit' when you know very well it involves giving jobs to francophones for nothing more than being able to speak two languages a technique they acquired to obtain English speaking jobs initially which the english don't have to do obviously unless they go and work in official (provincially)French Quebec. Surely you must be aware it is very hard to gain employment in Ottawa unless you are bilingual which is the direct result from Ottawa's bilingual policy that private buisness also adopted. You also wrote: "And just because Ontario is not officially bilingual does not mean that the City of Ottawa is probibited from having a bilingualism policy." Well Ottawa is prohibited from having a bilingual policy as it requires provincial authorization and if Mr. Mc.Quinty does that I predict he will not do so well in the next provincial election. I may be wrong but I think I read that he will approve this but it will be only 'symbolic' but symbolic or not the approval of a written policy is 'official.' Any bilingual policy is 'OFFICIAL' as that exactly what a policy does it creates an 'official document' with legal meaning. You also wrote: "And are the steps it has taken excessive within the context of what it is hoping to achieve? I suspect, however, that unless the policy is clealry illegal it will be upheld by the courts." What makes you think the steps taken so far are within the context "of what is hoping to achieve." Who is in the capacity to detirmine even the direction of a bilingual policy in Ottawa without a mandate from the citizen's of Ottawa. Certaintly NOT City Council, certaintly not the federal government in a province out of their jurisdiction, certaintly not the 'Language Commissionaire' who acts under the direction of the federal government. I think the policy is illegal and racist.

Warwick Green You wrote: "Leafless, I don't how this was determined. Was it a vote of Council which would legitimize it? If it wasn't then taxpayers are free to argue that it is improper and unreasonable and challenge it in court. As they seem to be." I believe this was a City of Ottawa Council decission but how can the city rule in this type of offensive policy as they are not the federal government but act in the same type of belligerent undemocratic manner and requires provincial approval. Dyane Adams promoted this policy with actual federal funding to the City of Ottawa. Here are some links: http://www.uni.ca/livreouvert/ottawa_bilinguale.html http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/archives/ar_ra/2...2-chap6-1_e.htm http://www.languagefairness.ca/Source_file...Bill1172004.htm Only trouble with the court challenge is there could be some bias involved with a francophone Superior Court Justice who will decide the outcome of this case. I think only an international body should be involved with the legal proceedings in a case like this which in my estimation could make a mockery out of justice as this bilingual policy involves outright discrimination with racial concerns.