Leafless

Army Guy In the begining the justification for bilingualism within the federal public service was to provide federal services in both official languages but over the years now include to work in the official language of your choice. I think there was initially a false impression that federal services meant replying or serving the public in English or French. But it is clear to-day federal services have been dismantled in a way to give minority francophones many other rights that equal rights that have always been socially correct according to the common majority language of the land English. To somehow justify that French is just as important as English outside of Quebec is totally wrong and discriminates since their is NO official legislation for governments to be allowed to do this on their own in basically any province outside of officially bilingual New Brunswick. Back to the Cornwall situation ...the hospital in question is a not a hospital but a publicly funded clinic. I have a more detailed article then the only one I could find on-line and this women went to see her doctor who had just recently moved to this publicly funded clinic. When she walked into the clinic the receptionist started talking French and told her she should not be there because she was speaking English and was told to go elsewhere. Health Minister George Smitherman said there was nothing wrong with the way she was treated because her case wasn't urgent. David Spencer a spokesman for George Smitherman said " This is not a typical clinic or doctor's office and that it is a community organization that offers health care to a specific population that has had difficultiy receiving health services." He also said "This center is focused on the francophone population. without it, access to primary health care would be extremely difficult for most francophones in Cornwall." But Cornwall Coucillor Mark MacDonald questioned that positon. He said he went to that health clinic May 2004 and when he identified himself as a city politician, centre employees told him they treat English speaking patients. He visted that clinic because they were looking for a city grant. Mr. Mc.Donald said he suspects he was not told the truth initially and wants an investigation by the Ministry of Health. This to me sounds like discrimination also and is the direct result of allowing funding that in turn manipulates the linguistc agenda thus forming two rival groups English vs. French. This is not good medicine and I tink if a French group wants that type of control ...do it with your own money.

Seabee You wrote- " If a French ( I take it you mean french -speaking or francophone, as French means being a citizen of France)." French= Having the characteristics attributed to the French people, noun, 1.- The language of France also used in Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and elsewhere. Francophone=French speaking person. So in fact with you replying in English, technically you are not a francophone since you are not replying in French but a bilingual speaking person both French and English but with a French mother tongue. I am officially English only and not bilingual. You also wrote- " And if an English speaking person from Ottawa does not get a bilingual job, it is because this person is not bilingual, i.e. has not spent the time and energy to satisfy the job requirements. No dicrimination here." Let me get this straight. Your saying an English speaking person in a city that is majority English and in a province that is majority English and that is not OFFICIALLY BILINGUAL must take the time and energy to speak French in order to get a job in his or her majority English city and province. If this is not outright dicrimination against English speaking residents of Ontario I don't know what is. I would just like to point out any form of bilingual promotion in Ottawa and throughout Ontario was done above the wishes of the residents of Ontario by mainly the federal Liberals , the premier of Ontario a Liberal supporter , the mayor of Ottawa a loyal Liberal supporter is an undemocratic, totalitarian effort to destroy the majority English influence and presence.

A Cornwall Ont. women has been refused treatment at a public clinic because she couldn't speak French. Although this story made headlines all over there is hardly no mention of it on-line but have got reference to it from a local seaway newspaper. The point in this matter is despite Ontario not being officially bilingual policies are being developed by the federal government and Ontario provincial government and through the French Language Services Act of Ontario, Ontario is slowly becoming officially bilingual while Quebec has no bilingual policies of any kind. This is particuallrry bad in Ottawa where all hospitals are now bilingual with a completely French Montfort hospital but that one is open to English patients also but funded by tax payers of Ontario the same as French school boards in Ontario. Many stores now only hire bilingual help. This of course makes it difficult for the majority English in Ottawa to find work in their own language without being bilingual and allows French residents of Quebec to pour across the border or moving to Ottawa occupying a whole host of bilingual jobs. I find this situation totally unacceptable and discriminatory which was initially spearheaded by the Liberals along with the premier of Ontario who is a Liberal sympathizer. The bottom line is the majority English language of Ontario is not being protected by both federal and provincial politicans who refuse to allow or promote a referendum in Ontario to officially end this outright discrimination aginst the English. http://seawayvalley.com/localnews/localnews.shtml Check out where public funding goes to under the Ontario French Language Services Act. http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/english/FLSA-desig-list.html

Hicksey You wrote- " We needn't restrict people. Iam a car guy. I want a hot rod someday. Your saying I can't have one? That doesn't work for me. I work hard and contribute my fair share, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to do so." I am a car guy to. I used to bomb around in a 69' Ford Mustang, 428c.i. Cobra-jet, that put out around if I remember right 400 H.P and 330 lbs of torque and that was my hot rod, a real mover, 0-60 mi per hr. 5.5 sec. Even if you wanted to you can't run these cars anymore as highways are to congested. But parts became hard to find and expensive on top of high gas cost and insurance. Nobody I know has has a high performance older vehicle anymore. Even hot rods as acquiring an older vehicle and modifying them and running them at the local drag strip is a day gone by. Back to the point. I don't advocate or support Kyoto period. What I was suggesting if anyone really wanted to put a dent in pollution would be to start "limit one vehicle per household with more reliable public transprtation." But you reacted as I said further that you would have "people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms."

cybercoma Pollution is proportional to population. The more people the more heat. The more heat, the more water vapour which is one one of the largest gases contributing to the greenhouse effest. Unless we halt manufacturing, stop heating our homes and or generating large quanities of BTU,s and driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels, stop polluting our rivers then we can talk Kyoto. I don't see that time coming soon and until we can fiqure out how to exist without polluting ( in a meaningful way) then forget it and accept the fact pollution is part of the makeup that allows our existence on this planet. Ironially the greenhouse effect with the warmer temperatures in Canada could result with fewer emmissions from heating sources due to milder winters. I say the most practical way to begin is to limit a single vehicle per household with more reliable public transportation. But even this will run into immense resistance and doubt anything like this could ever be implemented as it would probably melt down the economy with people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms.

arif You wrote- " Democracy is the highest form of government, yet why is it failing all over the world." Your statements are incoherent and you are not properly identfying what exactly your talking about but generalizing thoughts pertaining to your own frame of mind.

newbie You wrote- " What the hell is he thinking" What George Bush is trying to do is sell democracy through foreign policy "we'll treat you fairly". Dubai is an ally of America it runs ports in New York, Baltimore, New Jersey, New Orleans, and Philadelphia. I think Mr. Bush is right on target and is doing the right thing until proven otherwise.

Wilber You wrote- " It's the first time I have heard shorter wait times could be a bad thing." Private clinics are still fully or partially publically funded concerning procedures covered under the Canada Health Act so are not really fully private. The point is shorter wait times could be only perceived as shorter wait times but do not really exist as the burden is simply transferred to to another area of health care in public facilities. Where do private clinics get their doctors and nurses? Do doctors fully opt out of the fully public system or do they perform procedures as a part time occupation in clinics such and perform surgeries or other procedures part time at a public hospital or facility? Full time doctors both private and public means a much higher cost to the tax payer and does not guarantee full time employment to the doctor in private clinics as a lot of his workload depends on the backlog of patients in the public system concerning specialized procedures. Private clinics charge an extra fee for procedures for those who want to pay for those services,but we are talking private clinics in this case pertaining to guaranteed shorter wait times if a backlog exist for certain procedures that the public won't have to pay any extra. I think all this is more smoke and mirrors and could create shorter wait times for some lucky patients and lengthen waiting times for other procedures and doctors are the big winners.

margrace You wrote- " If you believe Democracy or Religion has anything to do with what's going on to-day you are welcome to that belief. The Ayattollas and Bush are going head to head over the control of peoples minds, and the wealth and power that goes with it." I already addressed that albeit not in great detail but said " Self interest are conditions that come first mostly on everyone's agenda." You know of course democracy and capitalism is a system that served the world for many years and is a system that shares power and wealth. Countries have been developed and most have a requirement for another countries resources and the need could get greater for many commodities as time progressess. You would be very naive to think the world could or would exist in a peaceful manner with no universal system of commerce in place and that ever country would be just fine. Do you actually think Arab countries are in the positon to introduce a brand new system that could peacefully include most countries to benefit and implement the huge infrastructure covering all aspects of modern society to do this?

arif You wrote- " Please join me in that fight, not include me as part of the enemy." And it is commendable to hear you say that, but hopefully we will be hearing that same voice from Muzlims in groups in this country and around the world to help participate to end this conflict.

cybercoma You wrote- " Would you use a private clinic that offers subpar services?" Of course not. But in Canada we really don't know for sure what kind of service we are getting anywhere as public hospitals do not compete concerning competent medical procedures and neither do clinics as they to are partially or fully publically funded and are all treated equally. But guaranteed shorter wait times involving private clinics in or out of Canada basically only complicates our medicare system and again puts the emphasis on private rather than public practices with no mention or information to help steer Canadians towards competent superior services obtained from existing private clinics other than possibly shorter wait times.

geoffrey You wrote- " Private clinics do things more efficiently (therefore cheaper) to increase profit." Says WHO??? Mixed delivery may bleed resources away from the public system into the private one. Doctors and nurses can't be in two places at the same time, so it is possible the more care they provide in the for-profit sector the less they can do in the public division. Waiting times are longer for cataract surgery for public/private surgeons than those who work in the public system only. For profit clinics exist to provide care but the individuals who own and operate these ventures also need to make money. These goals can collide. Profit motives are the same everywhere. We should keep medicare public- http://www.keepmedicarepublic.ca/medicare/why.shtml

Guaranteed shorter wait times for hip-knee-cataract surgeries utilizing private clinics...sounds good or is it? Although there is no mention of user fees private clinics do not do things out of the goodness of their hearts. Sounds like two tier health care to me. And speaking of private clinics ---where do the doctors come from --out of public funded system? This almost seems guaranteed to create a shortage of doctors in the public system guaranteeing higher enumeration for what could be the same doctor that now is in private clinics. Why are doctors allowed to leave the public system initially to work for possibly more money in private clinics all ? Does this sound confusing to you? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0221?hub=Canada

Black Dog You wrote- " The issue is you are singling out an entire group for judgement based on a very select and (in some cases) inaccurate reading of current events." I am amazed whenever I hear denial to the murderous and violent actions of Muslims around the world someone always appears and removes the blame from the majority of Muzlims to the actions of a few. Strange thing to that there is no outcry of condemnation to acts of murder and violence upheaval and rioting from Canadian Muzlims as a group safely snuggled away in the depths of Canadian society. There are over 30 Islamic terrorist organizations. Islam is a lot more thean a religion including 'the laws of Islam' including jihad that to many Muzlims are more important than the laws of the land. There are radical Muslims, terrorist, insurgents, extremist Muzlims, moderate Muzlims but why are so many still attached to a volatile religion like Islam in places like Canada, countries in Europe. Where is the moderate ARAB? And why are Canadians driven in circles by to decipher what Muzlims are all about when all we read and hear is more violent actions from even more Muslims around the globe. I draw a line in order to preserve my own sanity and Muzlims have not proven to me that they the harmless group they say they are. You also wrote- " But I am not about to question anyone's patronage based on their personal beliefs because I have confidence in the bedrock principles of democracy." So do I...I guess we'll just have to wait it out and see what transpires. You also wrote-" But you haven't done a particullary good job why this one group above all others deserves such scrunity." Thats not really my job but I think the media has done a wonderful job on keeping those who wish to be informed ...informed concerning actions of that particular group.

Black Dog You wrote- " The crux of the matter though, is that labelling this group or that group as un-Canadian smacks of nativism." And why shouldn't it smack of nativism as the country was built on Canadian cultures and traditions of native Canadians. If you are born in Canada you become a native Canadian contributing to Canadianism or it's culture and traditons. You make it sound like Canada is a country of nobody's, void of any identity---keep dreaming. You seem to think it appears immigrants come to this country to implement or ply their religion and politics into mainstream Canada. Most religions are not problamatic but I and many other Canadians say Islam coupled with it's politics is an aggressive religion and if followed by the book clashes with Canadian culture like it does in many countries throughout the world. Sorry immigrants are invited to this country with hopes and guidence to be assimilated to Canadian culture and traditions becoming part of what is best described as normal Canadian domesticated activities. They are not invited here to the best of my knowledge to throw a monkey wrench into the system causing political and religious unrest.

Black Dog You wrote- " I went over Howards comments and it's pretty clear from his quotes he's talking about a "fragment" of the Muslim population and not the whole shebang." The fragment he is talking about are the Muslim extremist who "rave on about" jihad. Prime Minister howard expressed concern that some aspects of Muslim's life were incompatiable with Australian culture and traditons. You also wrote - " Are Canadian Muslims big on jihad? Are Canadian Muslims rioting?No? So what the hell are y'all taking about?" Canada does have Muslim it's share of "incidents" involving Muslims including a firebombing in Montreal, an attempt to implement "shariah law", Muslim unacceptance of traditonal Christianity in public schools even affecting our Christian Christmas and yes Muslims have protested upholding violent actions related to the "Cartoon dispute". But the again I suspect you will never see in Canada the type of Muslim violence associated with so many other countries due to the fact having the U.S.A. on our doorstep.

Hicksey You wrote- " I don't think Muslims are anti-Canadian is the right thing to say- or rather the right way to say it." I did not say Muslims are "anti- Canadian", what I said was un-Canadian. There is a difference and some could very well be anti-Canadian now that you mentioned it. By un-Canadian I am implying they are more self absorbed with Islam and jihad than they are with activities based on Canadian culture simply known as the NORM.

margrace You wrote- " It isn't religion, it isn't democracy it is greed for control that runs the worls." Self interest are conditons that come first on mostly anyone's agenda. No system is perfect. But in saying this I would have to say democracy combined with capitalism is about as close to a perfect system as you are EVER going to see. Religion is NOT a forerunner concerning world progression and without progression there is no way the world would have evolved to the standards concerning a multitude of advancements that have benefitted mankind.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard suggested Muslims simply don't fit in and Australia does not have similar problems with other cultures. Is the jihad the root of Muslim aggression? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4731878.stm http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990

moderateamerican You wrote- " I believe the day is coming when people get sick of this on both sides, and the new crusades will begin, world war 3: Muslims and friends vs. the rest of the world." I think your world war has already started but is not recognized as such since no Arab country has officially declared war on any country but nevertheless certain groups are pursued right into there own countries concerning terrorist associated attacks. Arab countries are a breeding ground for terrorist organizations and there are more than 30 of them and have struck in different countries all over the world. So there are actually three groups of Muslims terrorist, radical or fanatical Muslims and moderate muslims all expressing a certain anti-American, Christian, Jew sentiments ranging from mild to extreme. These attacks are totally unacceptable and how long this smouldering conditon will be allowed to continue I suppose is anyones guess before all hell breaks loose.

theloniusfleabag You wrote- " It seems freedom of speech can get one into a lot of trouble" I guess it depends on HOW you deny the Holocaust and if the country your in has laws pertaining to this event. The Holocaust cannot be compared to religious believes an area, that laws of the land do not protect.

These are serious happenings. But there was another $1-million dollar (some say $3-million dollar) bounty put out by Ayatolla Khomeini for the life of Salmon Rushdie concerning his novel 'The Satanic Verses'. But the disturbing part to-day is the intensity of these violent protest and killings which seem to concentrate on the fact to many Muslim's that there is no other religion and only one god their god. It is disturbing to see these Muslim fanatics are all over the globe in different countries and that in many cases they are unable to abide the law of the land in that country and are supported by so called moderate Muslims who use civil liberties to protest in a non violent way. This of course is not productive as it only encourages the radicals and moderate Muslims SHOULD know better. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/1410204

Betsy Maybe I am not reading you right but this as got nothing to do with Bell hijacking your modem. You could be the one to blame by allowing unauthorized financial transactions by surfing unknown web sites and thus becoming victim to fraud. Learn how to protect yourself.

Correction- should read- " anyone who killed danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad."

In Pakistan in the town of Maiduguri Muslim fanatics burned Christian churches and killed Christian worshippers beating them to death. In the Pakistan city of Peshawar a muslim cleric offered rewards up to $1-million dollars for anyone who killed Danish cartoonist of the Prophet Mohammad. This is well beyond the scope of protest and is beginning to resemble a Muslim type Christian cleansing in an effort to elminate Christianity and civil liberties and install Islam utilizing acts of terror. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...60220?hub=World http://www.metronews.ca/reuters_international.asp?id=130899