Leafless

BHS You wrote: "Of course it's discriminatory. Official Bilingualism, as a policy, is designed to benefit the linguistic minority. The majority of Canadians never need to speak a word of French in their daily lives - a bilingual English / French government benefits them not at all. French speakers, on the other hand, are surrounded by English influences. It shouldn't be surprising that a policy making manditory a linguistic regime that is of benefit to only the minority of Canadians is having an effect on other aspects of government, such as hiring policies." Who it is designed for is inconsequential. In the case of the City of Ottawa's 'official bilingual policy' is concerning the 'validity' of this policy and the initial authority who decided this on behalf of the City of Ottawa in the province of 'non-offically bilingual' Ontario.

Warren Green You wrote: "The city, like any employer, is free to set reasonable qualifications for jobs - however, to require all senior positions to be filled by 100% bilingual persons sounds more arbitrary than based on legitimate need. It's difficult to see why ALL such employees need such a level of bilingualism. This requirement would most certainly result in a heavily francophone senior management. I deal with senior federal public servants all the time and I would suggest all of the ones I know have some level of French capability but certainly not all are what I would call 100% fluent." We are not talking about 'official federal bilingualism' which is also discriminatory and could be considered racist. We are talking about 'official bilingualism' apllied and IMPOSED at the municiple level in the province of Ontario, a province that is not 'officially bilingual'. Needless to say this is democratically incorrect and very discriminatory thing to do but nevertheless was FORCED on Ottawans in a dictatorial manner and closely resembles federal style 'federal official bilingualism. It should be rembered language is a provincial responsibility, so how could this offensive policy (Ottawa's bilingual policy) be applied without a provincial referendum or municiple referendum on the issue but nevertheless WAS. And worse still, why does an English language lobby group have to fight for their English rights in a Superior Court that does not reflect the full provincial right to control their language? You can see Ottawa's 'Official Bilingual Policy' below and see how closely it resembles the federal one. http://www.ottawa.ca/city_hall/bilingualis...y/index_en.html

Firstly what is a or what should be a provincial lanuage issue doing under federal politcs? Because this issue is being decided by a Superior court when in my opinion should be a provincial court since language is under provincial jurisdiction. According to an article titled ( Bilingualism ruling not expected for 'months') in the Ottawa Citizen Thurs May 15, 2006, Pg.D5 because Superior Court Justice Monique Metivier says it will take that long to examine the transcripts from the four day trial. ( If it takes that long we can probably assume what the answer will be) The story on this is Languge Fairness took an Ottawa-based lobby group took the City of Ottawa to court over it's 'official bilingual policy' on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and violates anglophones 'freedom of expression' as laid out in the Charter of Rights. The groups lawyer Arthur Cogan said yesterday that the bilingualism policy does not properly reflect the character of the city. Mr. Cogan said 62% of Ottawa's anglophone population is unilingual, while 98% og the city's francophone population is bilingual. Because the ciy's top positons require applicants to be "100% bilingual," he said qualified anglophones are "deterred" from pursuing a career with the city. The lawyer representing the City of Ottawa, Ronald Caza, cited Supreme Court legislation on language and said " The City of Ottawa not only had the power, but the obligation to do what it is doing now." He also said would have the legal authority to pursue it's bilingualism policies for providing services in English and French, with or without a bylaw. Mr. Caza also cited the city employees unions and their mission to protect employees--an argument Mr. Cogan challanged saying "The union does not protect people applying for the job." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally I am disappointed that this matter was not handled through provincial courts and shows what power provinces have over detirmining language matters without the federal authorities getting invovled (Superior Court has federal influence). And what about the majority City of Ottawa English tax payers who have no say in this matter at all but should be entitled to a referendum since Ottawa is Not an officially bilingual province. This case proves federal official bilingualism is being plowed through out of federal jurisdiction into provinces owing to the single fact it went to Superior Court rather than a lower Provincial Court. Is this the type of situation you want to see your province in with no power to control language issues? Quebec gets off scott free with no federal interference to force federal style bilingualism policies on it why shouldn't Ontario who's francophone population is 17%.

sahara You wrote- " Isn't messing around our hydro service an act of terrorism." I would not go that far. What is it I'd say is an 'upheaval'- a violent or sudden change or disruption. There is NO excuse for authorities not to end this nonsense. They are sitting on their thumbs where the sun don't shine waiting for a better day it seems. As far as I know there is only one society in Canada and that is a civilized society and authorties it appears don't want to civilize it ...one word to describe the pansy action of our authorities refusal to end this Native uprising..unbelievable.

Riverwind You wrote: "I have to agree with Ralph here even though I agree with the principal. The mechanism for calculating equalization is deeply flawed and too prone to political manipulation and PM PM demonstrated with his deals for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The formula should be simple and unchangable and designed to encourage poorer provinces to live within their means. " This is true, besides what iniative does this provide for a province to do better if all provinces are basically guaranteed the same as a province that accomplishes more.

Warwick Green You wrote: "If the residents of RMOC are that up in arms about the municipalitiy's position on bilingualism they are free to vote Mr Chiarelli out of office." I don't know if it's as easy as you say. Ottawa based 'Language Fairness' is presently fighting this bylaw in court and a city lawyer Ronald Caza said " It is our positon the city can do what it is doing even if it did not pass the bylaw" He said this after citing Supreme Court legislation on language rights. 'Languge Fairness' lawyer Arthur Cogan apears to be fighting this language legislation that it violates anglophones freedom of expression as laid out in the Charter of Rights according to a Ottawa Citizen article pg.-C7, Wed. May 24/2006.

Warwick Green You wrote- "It's hardly surprising that in Ottawa, the national capital, with its significant francophone majority, there is pressure to provide bilingual services. Go a 100 klicks down 417 to Hawkesbury, still in Ontario, and you will find that every business in town provides bilingual service. Nothing to do with official bilingualism, simply the realities of linguistic demographics. On the other hand, go into a store in Peterborough and try to get service in French.... More linguistic realities." Ottawa the National Capital DOES NOT have a significant majority and this is a fabrication and is totally FALSE. The recent City of Ottawa amalgamation has increased the francophone population by including French towns in Eastern Ontario that were previously not part of Ottawa. Even at that, English is 50.9% English and 32.6% French. The province is NOT 'officially bilingual' with the mayor of Ottawa Bob Chirallei a federal Liberal supporter who has created this City of Ottawa's bilingual policy on his own iniative without the consent of the tax payers of Ottawa creating a major discriminatory policy for Ottawa residents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa

Rovik You wrote- " Could this erode support for the Conservatives in Quebec." If I were Mr. Charest I would stay very quite concerning support for Kyoto. Water vaper a greenhouse gas constitutes up to 70% a leader in greenhouse gases. Another gas, carbon dioxide accounts for 9-26% of all greenhouse gases. If I were Mr. Charest I would take his Quebec team of scientist up to James Bay hydro producing facilities and check out the large area of land mass that was flooded for the creation of that project and check out all that rotting submerged vegetation that is omitting unknown quanities of carbon dioxide. For all we know Quebec could be a leader just in this one area of carbon dioxide production.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- "However, federally, one has a choice to conduct business in front of a judge or the taxman in English or French, whether in Quebec City or in Kelowna. If you wished to change that, as I say, you would have to 'take away' one of the official languages." We are talking making English official on a provincial level separate from the federal level...like Quebec has done in their province. Provicial courts operate in the language they choose. If this isn't what you mean, then I'm not sure I follow you.

Warwick Green You wrote- "The Official Languages Act. I am not aware of it applying to the provinces since an Act of Parliament would not be binding in an area where the provinces clearly have jurisdiction, for example, schools or hospitals. And the federal act does not apply to private companies within Parliament's domain, such as banks or radio stations." The 'Official Languages Act" applies to the Charter and in Sec. 16(3) states " Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French." The federal government promotes 'official bilingualism' and in a city like Ottawa, Ontario with francophones in that city , they demand it. The government provides grants in certain areas concerning bilingualism and that is why in the case of Ottawa developed a bilingual policy that not only makes City of Ottawa employees binding to this policy it also makes other areas of service including hospitals in Ottawa bilingual. Private buisness in Ottawa are also catering to this bilingualism policy by making it imperative in many cases for employees of private buisness to be fluently bilingual, so much so that it is hard to find employment in the service orv private sector unless you are bilingual. In other words at this time the City of Ottawa for all practical reasons with a bilingual policy this policy makes the city officially bilingual. The federal bilingual policy has also assisted francophones in the province of Ontario with provincial services steming from 'The French Language Services Act' with French schools, hospitals, clinics etc. paid for by all Ontario tax payers. This in my opinion and the opinion of others is highly discriminatory but at this moment is being fought by a group opposing this City of Ottawa bilingual policy as it almost duplicates federal style official bilingualism. They have tried to make the province of Ontario officially bilingual but failed.

killjoy You wrote- " I would like to finish off, Leafless, with the reaffirmation that I do not respect your opion or intellect. I say this because things like that don't always convey well over the internet what with emotions or bold or italics and all. Well, I did not start off with post #35 and my concerns, at any time, are not directed at the men and women in Canada's military especially concerning competence. My concerns basically were levelled concerning the difference in the value and condition of the military in what can be best described as a rapid transiton in this area concering different governmental views between Conservative and Liberal leadership and the direct application of a more vibrant role. My thoughts have always regarding the safety and well being of Canada's military abroad. Have a nice day.

Killjoy You wrote- " What's your point " My point is pertaining to Canada's involvement which seems to be nothing more at this time that to stand in line 'for a piece of the pie' as demonstrated by Canada employing or sending over Canada Development Corp. at this early stage in this divided war torn country. The same thing in fact could have been accomplished (contracts concerning rebuilding) by participating in the Iraq conflict which in my view is a more legitimate war in the sense it was directly associated with the 'War on Terrorism' in which Sadam Hussein was given the oppurtunity to surrender intially which he refused. But if Canada did go into that war initially obviously it would not have been as peacekeepers and Canada unfortunately is improperly equipped to handle this kind of warfare. Canada's role as peacekeepers in Afghanistan was interupted with an increase in violence which at that point they should have left Afghanistan and possibly return at a later time when things have been neutralized to a more acceptable less violent condition. The issue we are debating here is your view and my view of how Canada's role can change so drastically while employed as lower profile peacekeepers. It's common knowledge Canada's military has been underfunded for years basically by Liberal mismangement and to rebuild it to the point necessary to provide a more functional military will take years of upgrading. I think until that time has come Canada should maintain a low profile in peacekeepin has you never know what a possible set of circumstances can bring about in the way of Canada not being able to maintain an active role in what it is presently trying to do which could introduce adverse conditons risking or taking many lives or causing embarrassment to Canada as a country unable to maintain it's active military role. Of course this as nothing to do with the men and women who serve in Canada's military.

KrustyKidd If you READ under examples of 'BELIGERENT MILITARY OCCUPATIONS', the last one reads " OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN BY THE U.S. AND NATO." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations You must think Afghanistan is one democratic country. How many civilians were killed by bombs trying to show what democracy is all about.

KrustyKidd You wrote- " Good point. Hence it is only an occupation only in the minds and rhetoric with those of other agenda. And those to stupid to know they are 'useful idiots'. Afghanistan is an occupied country defined under the title a 'beligerent military occupation'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States..._of_Afghanistan http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/AfghanWarlords

killjoy You wrote- " Well we can make a semantic argument over the word occupation" By all sense of the word Afghanistan is occupied probably will be fo a long time. See links below. You also wrote- " We can't force tham to choose our democracy or laws." Mr. Harper said in a previous link- " We do believe we're making progress." " It's all part of taking a country that was run by probably one of the most evil regimes in the world and turn it into a modern, democratic society." http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do...ge=../index.cfm http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...22-5-2006_pg3_1

killjoy You seem to be adamant in your views that Afghanistan is not occupied as you wrote-" were not trying to occupy them" and " the last thing anyone in Nato wants to do is occupy." Well by definition Afghanistan is 'occupied' under the title "Beligerant Military Occupations". I have included a list of different types of occupations and a written protest from MAWO a Vancouver anti-war coaliton, Mobilization against War and Occupation. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:aAv7MI...ca&ct=clnk&cd=5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

killjoy You wrote- " How about the part were not forcing our value system on them with democracy." I am a strong supporter of the U.S and I believe we should have been in Iraq initially as this war was more legitimate I think than what the Canadian military is now participating in Afghanistan. Originally our mission there was peacekeeping and advanced (due to an increase in hostility caused by the Iraq effort) to the stage of actual military engagement in pursuit of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I have a basic problem with Afghanistan and that is American interest in the oil pipeline that you detailed in another post. Is it fair for Canada to participate in something that could be seen as soley an American interest issue? Has Canada's image been damaged as peacekeepers who now shoot bullets rather than build bridges? Now I know you discounted installing democracy in Afghanistan but it seems Mr. Harper says otherwise-see story: http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=144310

Riverwind You wrote- " I don't believe so- Italion culture will change is not necessarily bad or good -it's just different." I don't know how anyone can pass the 'absense of genuine genic culture' as easily as you can, which tells me you have little or no loyality and dedication concerning your home country of your nationality and residece. The last thing I want to see is our Canadian culture (including the genitic aspect) sold out to a pile of foreigners who refuse to leave their own culture at home and change the cultural fabric of our country to accommodae theirs. This is all the result of a federal government not applying enough resources or control to encourage (in our case) Canadians to have more children so our genetics, customs, traditons and interest remain Canadian. Our federal government has sold out Canadian families by exploiting them to accomplish a cheaper version of reproduction 'new immigration' (rather than support Canadian family aspirations) and even worse under the title 'official multiculturalism' which is only a stop gap solution and will present many new complex problems in the future with the type of immigration Canada is resorting to. The excuse this country must grow to accomodate pensions etc. is false as Canadians if forced to can resort to private plans of one sort or another to subzidize existing social government plans. The government wants this country to grow to accommodate their rich friends and NOT to accommodate the citizen's of Canada. The Pope to a point is correct that secularism shifts the onus off of family to incorporate greed to accomplish a more materialistic ( to some sexual lifestyle) that focus on individual satisfaction rather than the pleasures of simple family life.

Warrick Green You wrote- " The federal statute obliges only the public service." What federal statute are you talking about, 'official languages' or 'official bilingualism'?? These work hand in hand and extend in certain areas into provinces ACTUALLY outside of federal jurisdiction and extends discriminatory rights into the Charter.

killjoy What aspect concerning the 'war on terrorism' or 'occupation of Iraq-Afghanistan' or the advancement of 'U.S. world domination' as top cop are you promoting in the way of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to encourage some form of intelligent debate? Or is it simply what you wrote is your general take and you really expect no reply.

Warwick Green You wrote- " The federal Official Languages Act merely provides for services in French and English by the federal government." It does a lot more than that. It promotes official bilingualism into provincial provinces by encouraging them to become officially bilingual and promotes French culture. It has created thousands of federal public service jobs for francophones and transfomed these work places so francophones can work in their own language so much so, that French it seems has taked over our federal public service with bilingual postions and transforming previous senior English mangement positons to include hard to obtain a high level of French proficiency usually only francophones can achieve. It has a serious impact on Charter rights that promote the French culture for instance Sec. 16-(3) states " Nothing in this charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality status or use of English or french." And we know their not talking about English advancement. Services covers a lot of territory including providing French schools, clinics, hospitals and is paid for by the general population and not only francophone tax payers. You also wrote- " On the other hand Bill-101 resticts the private sector signs and language of work" And this is what the English provinces should do is the same as Quebec as done, make English the official working language in English majority provinces and using the notwithstanding clause implement the same type of language restrictions Quebec has employed to protect the English language from federal attack and to preserve it as the majority language free of any bilingual interference.

theloniusfleabag The CIA World Factbook uses information supplied by our federal government. Canada's federal official languages are just that, federally invented official languages to accomodate at a federal level Quebec and federal offical bilingualism and to give Quebec added federal weight pertaining to Charter issues. I suppose that's why many Canadians consider federal official languages outright discrimination. The 'official' aspect has nothing to do with these languages being official province to province or on a provincial level across Canada which in my estimation is a misrepresentation of the federal government using the word 'official' as if to imply these languages are official and legally used across Canada. I agree with you Canada does have have 'official federal languages' ( and that's the way it should read officially) but really means nothing pertaining to it's usage outside of the confines of limited federal jurisdiction.

scriblett You wrote- " Does anyone else find this scary, giving the U.N. that kind of money" I don't know about scary but it does sound ridiculous. Sounds like it's time to withdraw from the U.N.

scriblett You wrote- " Another example of liberal arrogance and anti U.S. bias." This further illustrates another example of how undivided politically this country is concering fraternal relationships with it's friends and allies. Fraternal relationships Liberal style mean countries like France who they seem not to have any problem with. This unacceptable Liberal rejection of Mr. Howard's address shows how politically low class the Liberals really are and should be remembered by Canadian's next election as Canada is not as 'fully soverign' as the Liberals would like Canadian's to believe.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " No, most everyone knows Canada has two official languages" Sorry, Canada does NOT have two 'offical languages.' The two 'official languages' your talking about are applicable on a federal level only and basically what that means is anything that falls and is controlled under federal authority is it permissable to use these two 'official federal languages.' These two languages are NOT official across Canada on a provincial level or throughout Canada's provinces except for New Brunswick that is 'officially bilingual' meaning it incorporates both federally designated official languages by it's own choice. Language in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction and to date QUEBEC is the only province to declare itself 'officially French' on a provincial basis. So, this means Quebec is officially French on a federal level and officially French on a provincial level leaving all other majority English provinces (except New Brunswick) stifled by 'federal official languages pertaining to federal bilingualism' and stifled by Quebec's provincial self proclaimed official French language status. I would say the majority English provinces should move quickly to perserve it's English majority status in Canada. You also wrote- " English (offical)59.3%, French (offical)23.2%, other 17.5%." Federal language numbers do not reflect the reality of the actually language used in everyday use. I would say they are fraudulent and do not apply to real life conditons pertaining to usage across Canada and if real usage was applied to obtain such a fiqure English would be a lot more dominant just like in the federal governments own census results in which 85% of Canadians use the English language.