Leafless

Many immigrants do partly or fully assimilate like you. Most governments and citizens really want it no other way. Canada on the other hand has lost its direction in maintaining cultural order, because they cannot control the cultural antics of Quebec, threw up their hands and currently are selling out the country to cultural disorder, to mask their incompetence.

You do not have to thank me as FACTS speak for themselves. In a democratic society, culture is NOT mandated as a policy of any kind. Your arguments consisted of personal opinion and asking questions. English is already the 'de facto' language of Canada. English requires NO official designation. You are confusing the issue with ammending the repatriated constitution that does does require provincial consent. Your question is a nonsensical and offensive one as Canadians were never informed at the time exactly what the Liberals wanted to do with the repatriated constitution. Quebec wants nothing to do with official bilingualism and is another reason official bilingualism and its promotion federally, should be scrapped. To this day there is not an official bilingualism policy in the entire province of Quebec. Why should the rest of Canada or the federal government kiss Quebec's butt? And why not, as the French in quebec were now British citizens. But this was never accomplished as there were not enough British immigrants willing to settle in Quebec and is one of the main reasons the British gave Quebec the Quebec Act. Sorry, English is the chosen language (and still is) before Trudeau doctored the BNA Act without a NATIONAL REFERENDUM and created official languages that are only recognized federally and NOT provincially. BTW- A single long paragraph (story) is not the normal way of posting. Use the quote function and cite proof to back your statements.

This is controversial because Canada does not have a policy relating to assimilation but does have an 'official multicultural' policy, unilaterally imposed by government. This IMO defeats any requirement for an immigrant or even Canadian, to be assimilated into the majority Canadian culture. The country does support integration but this nevertheless allows minorities to overide majority culture, language, customs and traditons legally. Canada has become a cultural haven for cultural diversity and no longer has the foritude to support its own historical Western identity. I think Canada is one of the few countries in the world whereas the citizens of the country do not take to the streets because of this. Unbelievable.

The total lack of MP representation relating to this issue is proof the federal government approves of oppressive state control of culture. So far you have NOT supported any of your arguments with substance or fact and failed to provide proof to support your flawed reasoning. What AGENDA? I said the federal government should have have scrapped the concept of official bilingualism ( and all other rights relating to Quebec) intially when Quebec FAILED to ratify the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an ammendment to our original constitution. Relating to ratifying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal and provincial governments of Canada chose to overide the opinions of Canadians in favour of utilizing their legislative powers to enforce the views of government. This is abusing governments legislative authority in a democratic society. What are your reasons ? A language simply chosen by the large majority to be the language of commerce and everyday use. This English language forms the linguistic backbone to both Canada and the U.S. due to obvious historical reasons, that you and Quebec refuse to acknowledge. Yes, it is the inherited British language from the victors that won this country and gave us our constitution. The only reason Quebecers speak French TO-DAY is because of massive federal support that allow Quebecers to use this obsolete language, that also allow them to DISCRIMINATE against the English language in Quebec. Nobody forces Canadians to speak the English language. The majority of Canadians chose to speak it including for the advancement of the English speaking culture. People use the English language for many reasons including its compatibility with the language of the U.S.A., you know the country that keeps us abreast in every field known to mankind.

So, you are reminding me that not only the federal government failed to support democratic initiatives but that the provincial governments also failed to support democratic initiatives via referendums. On top of this Quebec the province 'official bilingualism' was created for, chose not to support official bilingualism, in which case the whole concept of official bilingualism should have been scrapped. Abusing federal and provincial legislative powers is no way to run a democratic country. English is the free flowing majority language of Canada, it was NEVER dictated. Canadians chose to use it for reasons you and Quebecers do not understand. I suppose your correct if you happen to be communist. It has nothing to do with being fair but has to do with the acceptance of social equality, an area Canadians were never given the opportunity to express whether they accept this FLAWED social concept or rejected this FLAWED social concept. I do not believe in communism and do not support unilateral, dictatorial, discriminatory FLAWED social equality government policies.

The Olympics is corrupt and basically serves no puprpose other than to support big buisness. Who cares if someone beats some another competing athelte by .100 of a second. Olympics to-day boils down to drugs and pure luck. Human achievement in the world of sports has pretty well peaked and has no more to offer.

Sections 16-23 is dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory and undemocratic. Do you not realize that there was never no national consensus (referendum) relating to designating french as an official language. Do you realize that the only de-facto majority language utilized in Canada is the English language. I don't support official bilingualism. And you are supporting the dictatorial, offensive, discriminatory undemocratic propagtion of the french culture/language . Section 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." Obviously this section allows the federal government to do what it feels like doing, relating to advancing the equality of status or use of English and (or) French, which in my book is totally unacceptable, as the emphasis is on the french culture/language and is designed to oppress majority English language domination.

You are making a nonsensical statement. Promoting services in both languages was never the only criteria of official bilingualism. It was establishing all aspects of the french culture throughout federal entities and the federal promotion of this french culture throughout Canada. This is why official bilingualism and its promotion is so discriminatory.

I find hard to understand how the word 'respect' relates to the citizens of a country, in this case namely the U.S. To imply being 'disrespectful' towards Americans in general, has no meaning, as it is not directed to an identifiable person. So in effect American Woman, you are in fact trying to silence criticism and by one of the worst ways of doing it via character assassination. If you feel so strongly about any posters behavior...report them.

How else would you call it? Their culture was always stagnant because they refused to progress beyond their oppressive and violent religion. But your right Shakey, there is more to it than "than they hate our freedom". They hate us because primarily of our cultural advancement. I also know another culture who refused to progress beyond their obsolete language and as a result stagnated the cultural advancement of the entire country.

Would you kindly describe what exactly that "side issue" is? IMO, official bilingualism equates to being francophone. The principles of the 'Official Languages Act' is quite clear: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0423-e.htm What is 'Official Bilingualism' defined. http://www.languagefairness.org/Official_B...ism_Defined.php

I would say anyone who submits approx. 15 posts a day like you, would probably seriously consider their opinion extraordinarily important. Wouldn't you say!

Exploiting the emotions of Westerners, via cinema, focused on the horrific consequences of being attacked by an enemy with the theme being in favour of supporting Western ideologies from the onslaught of the attacker, is nothing new. The only thing new, is that the enemy, (or supporters or culture) relating to modern day terrorism are living among us in many countries around the world (who support Western ideologies) including Canada in significant numbers. Currently there is no winning formula to stop the antics of Islamic followers namel Muslims from violently protesting against anything they might consider offensive, outside of a total immigration ban, relating to Muslims from Islamic countries. This of course does not support the concept modern day multiculturalism and has proven modern day multicuturalism should be given a second look, as cultures who bring with them their political baggage and foreign ideologies are creating dysfunctional countries and in turn world.

How can a relationship with an 'have not province' be beneficial to Canada and who says the remaining provinces would not want their own independence in the event of a soverign Quebec? Do you actually think other Canadian provinces would accept catering to a renegade province with the power of a country but is not? Tell them outright there is no mechanism to deal with their traitorous demands and if they unilaterally separate, send in the military. NO, THEY DO NOT. If you are certain of this please prove it. Few other provinces would want to play second fiddle to 'La Belle Province'. But if you certain your statement is correct, prove it? This is why we need referendums in this country, to answer volatile questions that need an answer.

You are making yourself look like a fool without explaining what I fail to comprehend. Anyways, there is nothing to comprehend. Bubber said: There is no further need to include USHaditcoming's name like Bubber did, unless he purposely wished physical harm to USHaditcoming by the actions of terrorist.

Think China and Tibet.

So what are you saying? That the Liberals approve of this proposed immigration bill or they are not in the postion to do anything about it, thus allowing the Conservatives to rule as a de facto majority government.

My reading comprehension is getting worse? This is what you wrote: The implication is clear, relating to wishing harm, to USHaditcoming. Your descriptive writing skills need upgrading as we are not all mind readers. BTW- Canada is not complicit in American foreign policy, as we are an aly and not an instigator or in partnership in wrongdoing. According to you this would also make the U.N. an accomplice. I wouldn't so readily digest everthing BC has to say.

Do you realize how silly you sound. Why only partially fracture Canada with Quebec's absolutely ridiculous traitorous demands. Why not give all provinces the option of becoming their own country and get it over with. If the federal government lacks the fortitude to set Quebec straight , then Canada is lost, regardless.

The Quebec vote on separation was not about breaking clean from Canada, but was about achieving sovereignty in the context of a negotiated relationship with the rest of Canada. Their provincial government, in posing the question of sovereignty on the referendum, wanted a political relationship in which Quebeckers would retain Canadian citizenship, in which Canadian currency would remain the same, and in which the present commercial relationships would be retained. So in fact they don't really want to separate from Canada, they just want all the goodies of an independent country while remaining Canadian. So in fact they were not risking nothing, in their view, with their referendum on separation, but failed to realize they would probably never be successful at that attempt. Their are diiferent kinds of Quebecers and if all were Quebecois, they probably would have been successful, with the referendum and possibly nothing else. That 95' referendum was close anyways with 49.4% voting 'yes' and 50.6% voting 'no', not that it really meant anything.

Dragging in members screen names is not irrefutable proof that they kill people indiscrimately. You have only proven your 'death wish' for certain posters namely 'USHaditcoming'.

Bang on! And here is proof: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...Qja0XzthEOesmPw

Yes, immigrants that the country needs: Its about time an immigration minister is responsible for immigration rather than allow irresponsible immigration.

So you are implying that the Conservatives will use the same Liberal tactics to help the Conservatives East of Manitoba or other parts of the country. I think the Liberals did use third world immigration by catering to that type of immigrant who by far formed the majority of immigrants wanting to come to Canada. I think the Conservative plan is a good and with emphasis on the more educated and skilled type of immigrant, this will not be a problem, as they will adapt and assimilate/integrate easier and will not cater to any particular political party with preferences based on culture.

How would you know that for a fact?