Leafless

My expectations do not include minorities pushing English speaking majorities around via linguistic laws. I don't care what language one speaks. This of course does not include linguistic minorities utilizing linguistic language policies thus forcing users of the free flowing majority English language to bow to minority language policies. This is tyranny of the minority and does not reflect very well to the concept of a free and democratic country. The majority has spoken and the English language rules the land as the official language of commerce in Canada. Users of Mandarin like users of the French language in Canada do not have the political clout or military power to freely propagate and influence the people of the world in other ways to use their language.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/b...9c-483b2ff31a44 Enough said. Harper was 'bang on the money' and should not have agreed to demands that cultural funding be restored. It seems Canadian culture ain't to popular in Canada or elsewhere.

Being 'atheist' or 'agnostic' are beliefs and therefore can be catergorized as being the same as being a follower of any current religion on this planet.

If francophones want to play hard ball with imposed language legislation then English speaking residents of Ontario should fight back by demanding that the English language be made the official language of Ontario. Maybe someday Mandarin will be the language of choice for everyone. But until the that time comes, Mandarin must acquire the power and influence to freely propagate that language throughout the world.

In a democracy tyranny of the majority rules. It is the basis of a democracy. The township of Russell is a town and is part of the larger body which is the province of Ontario. Currently,Ontario is a province in Canada that has no language policy relating to Ontario as a whole. If language laws are permitted in towns and cities in the province of Ontario then you have the abnormal, undemocratic situation where the tyranny of the minority rules. This is a complete reversal relating to the basis of a democracy.

Speaking of poor English..... English speaking Canadians are confronted by a dormant French language, propagated by forces of government and not simply by the popularityof the French language. This of course has nothing to do with equality but has a lot to do with dysfunctional totalitarian governments fighting among themselves at the expense of helpless majority English speaking Canadian citizens. Do you want to say that in the English language. No citation again? Well I will give you one. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_...da_speak_French No citation again. Show me evidence to support your statement? Your definition of 'services' is discriminatory and corrupt. If you put it that way, then I am saying French Canadians can only blame themselves by not assimilating like most other Canadians. This has a negative impact relating to the advancement of Canada as a modern country. The French language is not as popular as you believe it to be.

Your in favour of extending existing French language policies inducing forced bilingualism. Why should I not object to preventing forced French language policies as Francophones have rejected the English language spoken by the large majority of Canadians. Why should English speakers of Canada have their status reduced to that of second class citizens by the corrupt application of French language policies spoken by 17% of the population of Canada? Then why do you keep responding that I say "English should be imposed as the sole language of commerce" when the English language is a free flowing language that mostly everyone FREELY chooses? There is no English translation and I am not talking about the miniscule use of French to deliver cadillac French services in Ontario. Surely you know that currently there is NO English official language policy in Ontario that serves specifically FORCES the language of commerce throughout the province of Ontario. And surely you know there are corrupt 'French language policies' in Ontario that overide the linguistic freedoms of English speaking Ontarians. What the federal government is doing (within its jurisdiction) for 17% Francophones in Canada is terribly discriminatory and simply magnifies how dysfunctional the federal political system is. If French speaking numbers cannot warrant free flowing bilingualism, then you cannot blame the federal government or English speaking Canadians, but only blame yourself. What the government did exceeds any kind of definiton under human rights legislation and amounts to nothing more than corrupt dysfunctional politics. I will be more specific, Francophone radicals.

I am a proud Canadian but not proud of what the radicals have done to this country while voiceless Canadian citizens are left at the wayside.

You mean like the nonsense the rest of your post consist of. Ha-ha-ha-ha.... when I try to impose English as a sole official language. I am not trying to impose anything. What I am doing is voicing my opinion. Big difference. Provinces have that right especially in the light of the fact that minority French Quebec has done so with French imposed language laws including French as an official language. There are also French imposed language laws in majority English speaking provinces. I still can't figure out why you are so against the English language since it the language of choice by the great majority of Canadians. I think you are confused by the concept of federal offical languages that they do not legally encompass individual provinces. We already detirmined that federal official bilingualism throughout Canada has FAILED. Maybe you cannot grasp that fact and are detirmined to allow French radicals to employ other corrupt methods of forcing English Canada to include French on an official basis throughout Canada.

Most gatherings I attend family or otherwise always start or end up with politics or religion or both. How else are you going to have a good time. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Bouchard was right. Canada is not a REAL country.

I am glad you now realize how dysfunctional politics is in Canada.

To bad you cannot comprehend. Mostly it is only French propagadist that are laughing as they are content and pround of what the radicals have done to Canada. Official languages mean nothing to me and I would guess you are in the 17.4% of Canadians who can speak both federally official languages English and French. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualism_in_Canada

Federal governments control what the issue's are in this country. Elections are not the same as referendums relating to important issue's that confront the country. If you notice the serious issue's that confront Canadians are never an election issue. Just like this elction U.S. issues become Canadian issue's right down to the comparison of Elizabeth May to Sara Palin. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail You know if there is a tornado in the U.S. Canadian media articles will dictate that Canada to can have severe tornado's. To late for that as the tone of dysfunctional Canadian politics has been set by all the national federal parties. And that tone is not to be critical of policies, acts, or programs or the charter set by previous federal governments or you will be labelled a redneck or someone who is trying to break apart Canada. Politcs in Canada is like giving candy to a child. Once you give the child candy you will have a very hard time taking it back. And to that I say God bless America because that is all that seems to be politically important in Canada. It appears Canadian politicians are mesmerized with other countries political issues and ignore their own serious issues.

Then I am certain you would approve of a national referendum in this country to see how many other Canadians who are whining about a corrupt charter, corrupt muticuturalism and corrupt immigration. I am talking about change in this country.

I know for a fact the charter is corrupt and that no national federal party will attempt to amend it because of the distinct probability of that party being labelled a party trying to destroy Canada. The fault also lies with the premiers who ratified this piece of garbage and who did not imagine huge future complications imposed by radicals further promoting their idea of Canada while totally ignoring Canadian citizens who certaintly never would approve many of the items now contained in the current charter. It also should have been scrapped due to the fact Quebec did not sign on, the province this charter helper the most. I also know for a fact culture is very volatile and is something this country should never have been allowed to dominate Canadian politics. But happy days are in store at a future time when multiculturism will be eliminated because the day will come when Canada will no longer have the fiscal capability to support the cultural radicals in this country and their multicultural pipe dreams

Then show me where it says that. Do not direct me to the ammending formula. Naturally the new charter would require provincial support. I doubt no PM would do this since he or she would do this and would immediately be blamed with trying to break up Canada. The current ammending formula is long and complicated in which no PM would probably tackle anyways. Nevertheless this leaves Canada with a defective, discriminatory charter.

Then what exactly does official languages mean? Hint....special status for Quebec as a distinct culture. Ha-ha-ha, as if the English language requires special status. All provinces have to do is make the English language the official language of that province. The English language does not need corrupt federal assistance. There are no words to describe 'corrupt'. The charter sections are there for anyone to connect the corrupt little dots that result in Quebec having special status. You are repeating yourself. Debunked by you and the opinion of radicals. I don't think amending the constitution by radicals is very democratic. Do you? So what. Every country in the commonwealth has the same right to amend the constitution. And only if permitted. Details Country Independence Constitution Charter of Rights Antigua and Barbuda 1981.11.01 1981.11.01 Chapter II Australia 1901 1901 (as amended) Bahamas 1973.07.10 1973.07.10 Chapter III Bangladesh 1971.03.26 1972.02.04 (Recognition) 1972.12.16 (Secession) 1972.12.16 (as amended) Part II, sect. 11; Part III, sect. 26-47A Barbados 1966.11.30 1966.11.30 (as amended) Chapter III Belize 1981.09.21 1981.09.21 (as amended) Part II Botswana 1966.09.30 (Republic on independence) 1966.09.30 (as amended) Chapter II Brunei Darussalam 1984 1959.09.29 (as amended) Cameroon 1960 1972.06.02 (as amended) No Charter of rights; fundamental human rights are set out in the preamble to the constitution. Canada 1931 1982.04.17 (as amended) Part I Cyprus 1960.08.16 (Republic on independence) 1960.08.16 (as amended) Part II Dominica 1978.11.03 (Republic on independence) 1978.11.03 (as amended) Chapter I Fiji Islands Suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth on December 8th, 2006. 1970.10.10 1998.07.25 Chapter 4 Gambia (The) 1965.02.18 1970.04.24 (Republic) 1997.01.16 Chapter IV Ghana 1957.03.06 1960.07.01 (Republic) 1993.01.07 (as amended) Chapter 5 Grenada 1974.02.07 1974.02.07 (as amended) Chapter I Guyana 1966.05.26 1970.02.23 (Republic) 1980.10.06 (as amended) Chapter III India 1947.08.15 1950.01.26 (Republic) 1950.01.26 (as amended) Part III Jamaïca 1962.08.06 1962.08.06 (as amended) Chapter III Kenya 1963.12.12 1964.12.12 (Republic) 1963.12.12 (as amended) Chapter V Kiribati 1979.07.12 (Republic on independence) 1979.07.12 (as amended) Chapter II Lesotho 1966.10.04 1993.04.02 Chapter II Malawi 1964.07.06 1966.07.06 (Republic) 1994.05.18 (as amended) Chapter IV Malaysia 1957.08.31 1963.09.16 (Federation) 1957.08.31 (as amended) Part II Maldives 1965.07.26 1998 Chapter II Malta 1964.09.21 1974.12.13 (Republic) 1964.09.21 (as amended) Chapter IV Mauritius 1968.03.12 1968.03.12 (as amended) Chapter II Mozambique 1975.06.25 1990.11.30 Part II Namibia 1990.03.21 1990.03.21 Chapter 3 Nauru Declared a Special Member as of January 9, 2006. 1968.01.31 (Republic on independence) 1968.01.31 Part II New Zealand 1907.09.26 1987 (as amended) Bill of Rights, 1990 Nigeria 1960.10.01 1963.10.01 (Republic) 1999.05.29 Chapter IV Pakistan Suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth on November 22nd, 2007. 1947.08.14 1973.04.12 (as amended) Part II Papua New Guinea 1975.09.16 1975.09.16 (as amended) Part III, Division 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983.09.19 1983.09.19 Chapter II Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979.10.27 1979.10.27 Chapter I Samoa 1962 1962 (as amended) Part II Seychelles 1976.06.29 (Republic on independence) 1979.03.26 (One party state) 1993.06.18 (as amended) Chapter III, Part I Sierra Leone 1961.04.27 1971.04.13 (Republic) 1978.06.14 (One party state) 1991.09.24 (as amended) Chapter II Singapore 1965.08.09 (Republic on independence) 1963.09.16 (as amended) Part IV Solomon Islands 1978.07.07 1978.07.07 (as amended) Chapter II South Africa 1910.05.31 1997.02.04 Chapter 2 Sri Lanka 1948.02.04 1972.05.22 (Republic) 1978.02.01 (French presidential-parliamentary system) 1978.09.07 (as amended) Chapter III St. Lucia 1979.02.22 1979.02.22 Chapter I Swaziland 1968.09.06 1978.10.13 (as amended) Chapter II Tanzania 1964.04.26 (as United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar) 1964.10.28 (became Tanzania) 1965.07.05 (One party state) 1965.07.05 (as Tanzania) 1977.04.25 (as amended) Section Three Tonga 1970.06.04 1875.11.04 (as amended) Part I Trinidad and Tobago 1962.08.31 1976.08.01 (Republic) 1976.08.01 (as amended) Chapter 1 Tuvalu 1978.10.01 1986.10.01 Part II Uganda 1962.09.08 (Republic) 1962.10.09 1971.01.25 (Republic) 1995.10.08 Chapter 4 United Kingdom 1801 (Established) (unwritten) Vanuatu 1980.07.30 1980.07.30 (as amended) Chapter 2 Zambia 1964.10.24 (Republic on independence) 1973.08.25 (One party state) 1991.08.29 (as amended) Part III Yes. Mr. Trudeau knew what is best for Quebec. Certain rights relating to the mushrooming of the French language ( which has resulted to the next best thing to official bilingualism in Canada) could NOT have possibly been forseen by the provincial premiers who ratified the charter. Relatively simple democratic checks and balances are ABSENT in the charter. I think this makes the charter it a corrupt document.

You really don't know what scrap means. Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to totally srap (not partially amend) the existing charter but amend the constitution with a totally new charter and new amending formula with one that is not corrupt?

Why can't the Charter possibly not be deemed corrupt or unconstitutional or whatever? The process to scrap the charter (an amendment to the BNA Act) would be IMO to simply add another amendment to the constitution with a newly rewritten charter that would overide the old (Trudeau's) charter. We were talking 'official languages' as the prime offending part. The BNA Act does not state giving Quebec special status or is a distinct society. The BNA Act does not state Canada was made up by two distinct cultures or societies. So why all the UNILATERAL federal governments pretentious nonsense giving Quebec special status by way of making French an 'official language' with all the associated linguistic spins when there is nothing in the BNA Act that says this? BTW- Some label me a radical when currently it is radicals that govern charter interest and NOT the citizens of Canada. I am a proud citizen of Canada....one of the remaining few.

Parts of the Charter could be viewed as corrupt relating to 'official languages'. These parts can be bounced of of other parts of the Charter supporting an initial corrupt right to support another right. This makes the entire Charter an unconstitutional document.

Like I said elsewhere, artificial inteligence relating to Canada as being a 'social engineered country' is YOUR bag and NOT mine. Believe in fairy tales if you wish.

That is okay. I am simply verifying the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not constitute Canada's constitution and is ONLY an amendment. I have actually met people (Canadians) who THINK the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is Canada's entire constitution.

Not on an official basis throughout the province like Quebec. Hopefully though I hope it will be implemented throughout the entire province of Ontario as the official language of Ontario. Unfortunately, this is true but ONLY where numbers WARRANT according to the idiots who ever thought of that one. The French Languages Act has got to be the most repulsive undemocratic piece of legislation in Canada outside of the Charter of rights and Freedoms. It belongs in the trash bin along with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another believer in artificial inteligence propagated by those who believe in a social engineered Canada.