Leafless

schoop You wrote- " So you really should have started a thread on why you want Quebec to leave Canada." You are implying that not I or not in this thread anyways. But you have made yourself clear that you support federal government involvement in maintaining the OLA and 'official bilingualism' in federal government despite it's total failure both in a democratic sense and a practical sense. I don't share your sense of fear regarding Quebec separation and only hope someday proper federal leadership will recognize language is a provincial responsibility not federal like Quebec has proven over and over and dismantle the existing undemocratic and discriminating web of 'official bilingualism' that the previous Liberal government so wrongly imposed on Canadians.

shoop You wrote- " So your saying it is better not to get a bilingual positon, than to get one and have to work in a majority francophone office." If you read the post I said if you were a bilingual anglophone, yes a multitude of problems could arise in a majority francophone office basically concerning your qualifications as being qualified in the French language and not being a true francophone. It sounds to me as if you never heard of any one experiencing these problems and are quite naive if you didn't. My only suggestion to you is many English federal public servants have walked away from their federal jobs due to the intolerable working conditons concerning discrimination of this type which is very difficult to prove. You also wrote- " I don't want Quebec to separate. Seems that you are willing to accept that over the continuation of the OLA" Yes and so do millions of other Canadians. It basically boils down to what you consider your Canadian citizenship to be worth and I consider it to be worth a lot more than to see my country over taken by a group not loyal to Canada with political interest of a foreign country that seen their better days on the Plains of Abraham.

shoop You wrote- " I can't really see how working on my French would work 'against me'." Maybe I'm one step ahead of you and assumed you were lucky and became successful learning French and won some type of bilingual postion. In a perfect world this would not be problamatic but unfortunately this is not the case. Say your new position took you into an office where the majority is francophone and your mother tongue is English with an English last name. If you think this senario would not produce a multitude of problems many unresolvable, I suggest you would be wise to think again. This is the type of scenario that could work against you that would have a direct impact on your well being and possibly result with no federal employment period. You also wrote- " Politics is all about compromise. This is an issue francophone Canadians clearly won't compromise on and any attemps of appealing the OLA won't help the separtist forces cause, Is that trade off worth it to you? It isn't to me." You are right when you say this is an issue francophone Canadians clearly won't compromise on especially after Quebec, the only province in Canada to declare French the offical working language of Quebec. It would also be fair to say the separatist cause has always been well supported in Quebec and in fact so much so the Bloc ( a separtist party) represents Quebec on a federal level. This is not a question of trade off but one requiring strong leadership which I feel Canada has been 'sold down the drain' to a province that has no intention of ever having strong attachments to Canadian federalism nor Canadian nationalism. The federal government has been taking advantage of English Canadians by abusing English the language of commerce of Canada by selling out English Canadians to incorporate the whims of an undeserving province and it's language to cover 'the lack of federal leadership' to properly correct this problem once and for all. There is no way I would sell MY services to the federal government under existing conditions concerning the OLA.

shoop You wrote- " Official bilingualism is a fact of life." Of course you must make clear when you say this you are talking about 'federal official bilingualism' and not official throughout Canada except as you know the province of New Brunswick which is an 'officially bilingual provincial province.' You also wrote- " I'm working on my French in the hopes it will prove beneficial to my career in the future" This could work for someone or work against someone depending on circumstances which in my opinion makes this policy such a failure and has nothing to do with the skills associated with the positon and only adds multiple levels of frustration with rigged competitons and pitting one linguistic group against another. I know many previous English federal public servants who have left their jobs in complete disgust when confronted with the undesireable aspects of federal government bilngualism and others who were forced out one way or another to accomodate francophones and newly reorganized departments. The 'Offical Languages Act' did nothing for the English language and basically is all about creating employment at any cost for francophones in a federal government that is suppose to represent 'all of Canada' and it's various minorities and not cater to the whims of any one province based soley on language.

shoop You wrote- " The Commissioner of Offical Languages really said this." What you quoted is my take not what she said. I'am just in agreement with what Ms. Adams said Mr. Harper said that bilingualism is the "god that failed." The question I asked was pertaining to the validity of retaining 'offical bilingualism' in the federal public service despite it's failure of creating what federal 'official bilingualism' was initially meant to accomplish rather than what has turned out to be a discriminatory imposed set of linguistic rules and regulations that question the democratic values most Canadians harbour concerning employment in their own federal government.

Article: Ottawa Citizen, Wednesday, May 10, 2006, Pg.A3. Titled: Tories language policy a 'concern'. Dyane Adams says Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to start taking the country's bilingual nature seriously. " What I want is leadership and this is a call for action for this government to say publicly where they stand" said Ms. Adam as she released the final annual report of her seven year stint. She said the concept of bilingualism was nearly invisible in the governments throne speech and absent from it's first budget and even quoted Mr. Harper and Tory MP Scott Reid calling bilingualism " the god that failed". She also had concern about Public Works, RCMP, still getting failing grades when it comes to offering a bilingual work enviroment and services to the public and suggested the government also move quickly on adapting legislation to protect the bilingual nature of Air Canada. A spokesman for the prime minister said Ms. Adams concern about Tories are unfounded. The party supported a law toughening the 'Official Languages Act' that passed while the Conservatives were still in oppositon said spokesman Dimitris Soudas. " We believe the linguistic duality is one of the foudations of Canadian society," he said. " We are committed to enforcing the "Official Languages Act." I also think official bilingualism has failed and is discriminatory, racist and serves no purpose other than to give francophones federal jobs on the basis of being bilingual and to contribute further problems by trying to create an official bilingual workplace when either is justified since 85% of Canadians speak English. I will ask you the question... Are you in favour of the Conservatives supporting 'Official Bilingualism' in government and propagating or supporting it in majority English provinces at public expense?

Lack of diversities, poverity, coupled with lack of education is the main cause of unwanted pregnancies. Just look around at the poorer countries in the world and it's the same story all over...unwanted pregnancies. When there is nothing to do but have sex, you know what the predicable outcome will be.

theloniusfleabag I fail to see the purpose of your post. It is common knowledge that unless oil is not over approx. $25.00 barrel then it does not pay to extract oil from the tar sands. Am I missing something here?

August1991 This could in my opinion set a dangerous precident. You could be implicated for a crime you have had nothing to do with if you were as unfortunate for instance as spitting at a crime scene prior to a murder. With your DNA being on record could implicate you with possible very serious consequences. I think DNA serves it's purpose in crime solving but should be left as a last resort and associated with real suspects and not a blob of some one elses saliva who,s DNA could be on record.

seabe You wrote- " The implication is that Quebec must be kept dependent and then being blamed for being dependent. But it could also mean Quebec must be kept in a state of submission." You must think Quebec really is a country. You are confusing the two states of dependency relating to UNESCO. Quebec is not independent financially and depends on Canada concerning equalization payments for it's continuing existence to the standards federalism creates for all provinces within the country of Canada. But to say "Quebec must be kept in a state of submission" is pure folly as all provinces are dependent on the authority and control of the federal government with Quebec being no different. I agree with Shakeyhands this whole Quebec UNESCO fiasco is breeding grounds for further constitutional unrest and could come back biting Harper on the ass.

geoffrey You wrote- " Doesn't change the fact Canadians sing anthems with completley different meanings." And you said " We didn't have an official English one until over 100 years after our nation was formed." I guess being official does not have much meaning in Quebec. So if Quebecers sing their own version of 'Oh Canada' with a different words and meaning then officially Canada does not have an 'official' national anthem. This suggest that Quebec is a country separate from Canada. This does not say much for national unity despite Canada trying hard to appease Quebec by abolishing 'God Save the Queen' in favour of 'Oh Canada'.

geoffrey You wrote- " In one thread you complain about how the French got schools in English Canada, saying they should be shut down. And now you complain about that the Quebecois are doing that to English speakers in Quebec." I don't know what post your making reference to but you are comparing two separate issue's. What the Quebec provincial government is doing to English school boards in Quebec is linguistically obliterating them by incorporating LINQUISTIC CONDITIONS that make it near impossible to properly create the numbers of English students necessary to keep English schools functionable pertaining to enrolement numbers. In other words they have created an hostile English enviroment not only for English schools but English employment which is reflected in the numbers of younger anglophones that leave Quebec. You also wrote- " We just closed a French emmersion school, consolidating resources...and this is a city with a growing number of French immersion students. So by your logic, this is a massive attack on the rights of the French population." You are saying this not I. French immersion students are normally English. I don't understand your logic by saying I would consider this "a massive attack on the rights of the French population." You also wrote- " I'am all for closing down non-viable schools, no need to protect them French or English. Buy tour hypocracy here is beyond all known bounds." This is a typical response by a 'French sympathizer' who refuses to acknowledge outright discrimination when it is presented before you in a straight forward manner in the form of a legitimate media article. Just remember you can make any school non-viable by the employing the proper un-democratic and discriminatory conditions.

Article- Ottawa Citizen-Wed. May 3/2006, Page C3, titled 'Anglophones face 'linguistic cleansing' The propossed closing of two English language schools in the Outaouais is another sign of "linguistic cleansing of anglophones", the director of Regional Association of West Quebecers said yesterday. Brian Gibb, said Quebec's language law means English language schools , especially those in rural areas, are hit harder by declining enrolement, forcing some of them to close. Under Quebec's Charter of the French Language, children can attend English-language schools if one parent has had most of his or her education in English somewhere in Canada. Immigrants and children whose parents can't prove they are legally entitled to an English language education MUST attend French language schools. Enrolement is low in English schools due to a loe birthrate, limited access to English schools and a lack of proper FUNDING. " People have stsrted sending their children to French schools because they can offer more choices to students. The members of the English speaking community are being treated as third class citizens. Mr. Gibb said after 30 years of the adaption of Bill-101, there as been a 50% decline in enrolement in English -language schools also based on the fact francophone schoolboards in the Outaouais can obtain higher government grants based on enrolement because they can DEPEND on an influx of immigrant students. " We are looking at linguistic cleansing of anglophones in the rural regions of West Quebec. If you are ouside of the commuying distance from Ottawa, English schools are no longer workable. The ability of anglophone communities to continue once their schools close. This is more proof I think that any kind of forced bilingual funding for French services outside of Quebec is a waste of time and effort when it is clear Quebec will continue to discriminate against English people and communities in Quebec. Majority English provinces should do what Quebec does and declare their provinces offically English with similar restrictions like Quebec to protect the English language, English financial resources and English jobs.

geoffrey You wrote- " and we didn't have an official English one until over 100 years after our nation was formed." We did have an official national anthem for all of Canada called "God Save the Queen" until 1966 when Lester Pearson introduced the first official version of ' Oh Canada'. This was already posted in this same thread several post back.

SamStranger You wrote- " TheGST is a horrible tax" The GST was introduced in the 90's when the country was in a deep recession and replaced the hidded FST and included many more items including most ready to eat foods. The GST is a multi-level tax with manufacturers at different levels ending up not paying a cent of GST with the consumer bearing the cost of the whole GST. According to government we are no longer in a deep recession so the GST should be scrapped all together or returned to the way it was before incoporating the FST.

The GST as always been a method of subsidizing manufacturers and government. When combined with the PST results in a .85 cent dollar. Get rid of both taxes completely. The country cannot afford the current trend of subsidizing EVERTHING in this country.

Betsy You wrote- " How do we know those were the "Dark Ages"? For all we know were just entering one." Excellent observation. I to think we could be on the 'Edge', never again experiencing life as we know it to-day. Society could be on the verge of 'burning out'.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " We should be proud of a language we ripped off from another country?" In the case of the U.S the original yanks were previously British, no rip off there with the U.S proudly using the English language ever since.. In the case of Canada the language was bestowed upon us by Britain since the win on the Plains of Abraham, no rip of there with the Queen of England still Head of State.

Betsy You wrote " We are doing something gravely wrong here. And unless we face it and acknowledge it ...and do something about it, we are on a downward spriral." I think the two main causes are liberalism and consumerism. There is no real answer as society progresses (if you want ot call it progression) so do the problems your talking about.

Drea You wrote- " What difference does it make any country's anthem is sung in." Well, why don't you try pulling that off in France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy etc. I have a hard time understanding your type of rational especially pertaining to the U.S. and Canada as if they belong to countries of the world. Why don't you get your act together and show a little respect for English the defacto language of the U.S. and Canada with some U.S states with English language legislation. Both these countries are not devoid of a history and both are proud of our English language and traditions and culture just as cother countries are proud of theirs.

geoffrey You wrote- " Most enviromentalist encourages higher prices as it reduces consumption. So maybe we can see this as a good thing." I have seen no evidence of this related to the automobile. Prople continue to drive as fast or even faster in the city and highway with no regard for miles per kilometer per litre. I think the way the U.S. and Canada is set up with suburbia type lifestyles and privacy the automobile provides coupled with savings in time and convenience makes the automobile almost an equal to the human being and an indispensable product and oil companies know this. I think the only time were gong to see any type of reduction pertaining to high energy costs is when society begins to crumble and the rate plastic is being used these days reflects that reality or is becoming dangerously close. Obviously a new formula will have to worked out concerning a countries real need for gas and oil both privately and at the manufacturing level at a realistic price and in Canada's case we should be near the top of the list.

Riverwind You wrote- " Being gay does not hurt anybody. Unlike smolking it is not a health risk in itself ( health risk are created by promiscuity are a problem for gays and straight people and cannot be described as a gay problem." My comparison to smoking was the detirmination it takes to quit smolking as to the detirmination it could take some homosexuals to realign themselves to heterosexuality, nothing to do with health risk. But now that yopu mention it the killer disease AIDS is a homosexual problem. It can be spread by heterosexuals who have been infected previously by bi-sexuals and infected needles (drug use) and kills far more, I believe homosexuals, than heterosexuals. I don't really want to get into statistics as I have seen them all before and don't really want to open this argument again. Just giving you my two cents worth on the intial topic.

Riverwind You wrote- " Canadians have been dealing with a powerful linguistic minority for 140 years. Our experience is relevant to Americans." How is this linguistic minority powerful? Canadians have not been dealing with this linguistic minority as it was the primarily the federal Liberals a federal party with heavy Quebec infiltration. Seventy-five seats federal seats don't really have to count for NOTHING if the country choses. I only wish we had the leadership in Canada as they do in the U.S.

Michael hardner You wrote- " There is a wealth of study on this in the academic world, but you have made up your mind all on your own it seems." I'am not saying there is some sort of genetic imbalance that exist but in the majority of cases this could be overcome. Are you saying there is not a similar inbalance that controls our thoughts, personal preferences even criminal actions that makes it easier for some people to steal, murder, rape etc. most people can realign these thoughts to reality and steer clear of abnormal tendencies albeit there is no real definiton of 'normal'. But yet their is no official society for murders, rapists etc. No, of course not, these people are sent to prison to learn the proper way to sucumb to the rules of society as homosexuals were once to as perverts. I know personally this lesbian women who became lesbian primarily because she could not achieve what her preferences were in her heterosexual marriage and as a result developed a hatred towards all men and turned to her own sex. Are you telling me there are not NOT MANY reasons why a male could turn to another male for a multitude of reasons especially??? Nevertheless Michael I have not researched this topic exclusively to any great depth but have come to the conclusion most of the tendencies relating to homosexual behavior are a product of the mind and in many cases could be heterosexually adjusted just with the same enthuasim it takes to 'quit smoking'.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " If people could be convinced that sexuality is a choice than it is easier to form a basis for discrimination, legally." Sexuality is a choice. Sexuality is something learned and taught mainly by society and your parents. Girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks. Being raised in an effiminate manner from childhood would contribute greatly contribute to homosexuality or being left alone without guidence to detirmine your preference concerning your own personal sexuality This is what separates us from animals is the ability to be raised and taught from childbirth. That's why many dads raise their sons in what can be best described as macho to impress what the male role is in society.