Leafless

The U.S has their legalities just like we have ours. All I am saying about the U.S. system is that it provides a higher level of personal rights for most individual Americans to help maintain their majority interest, mostly from a state perspective.

N0, MP's are voted by the people, you don't vote for the PM in this country. The party with the most MP'S elected, their leader becomes prime minister. I think your still in primary school and won't admit it.

Then why do we need courts and parliament to interpret rights relating to our ironed out Charter? The Charter is a socialistic instrument designed to feed the minds and pocket books of power grabbing socialist who continue to rip off majority interest.

All the more justification for mini-referendums every federal election on important issues that affect ALL Canadians. In turn this would provide the ground work for federal parties platform relating to the serious issues of the day. I don't rant. I seriously debate and you have absolutely no proof to back your self-righteous statements unless you think manipulated telephone polls form legal proof. Just because you can identify and agree certain issues in various party platforms could certainly mean that the more serious volatile problems that affect this country have been convenietly omitted. It only shows once again Canadians have been played off as gullible suckers. You make it sound like we have dozens of choices. Smell the coffee friend. In reality in Canada we have only two federal parties that matter, Conservatives and the Liberals, just like our Southern cousins, having two choices. You must be one twisted little puppy to think minority interest must be equal to majority interest! I simply mentioned religion to impress the fact it is part of culture, period

Hyped up control freaks don't stand a chance when zapped with a taser, they have already worn their bodies down to nothing in their fit of rage. Its not the taser but the character or nature of these control freaks that kills them dead. I have witnessed this several times, when a loser refuses to lose in an altercation.

There is no possible way due to unknown factors or the ambiguity relating to the Charter, could the premiers know at that time, what they were actually ratifying. I am not quite sure how accurate your description is and if you would care to elaborate, but in Canada our prime minister is basically appointed by members of parliament.

We cannot allow majority interest to be beaten down by unacceptable sexual interest potentially harmful to mainstream society, that's why. Let adults allow for themselves or establish whatever their sexual interest are, but leave the children of mainstream society alone and allow them to mature according to majority interest of society.

Forget about the once again bit. My political interest are NOT being represented by my MP, it is as simple as that, on top of the fact MP's generally tow the party line. This is ignoring citizens of Canada and is totalitarian by nature. Shams they are. Unless you have proof your political interest are being represented. Well, all we have to look at is the recent Ontario provincial election where the main issue ( funding for faith based schools) overshadowed and dominated the real issue's that affect the daily lives of Ontarians. This election was a sham as the system failed to address the important issues. Fault lies mainly with Mc.Guinty and the press who did not want the Conservatives in power and had created a corrupt totalititarian power grab. The same tactics are used by the federal parties to divert attention from the real problems that plaque Canada. I think one would have to be very shortsighted not to understand the Charter was written for the benefit of Quebec while trying to impress the fact other groups are important, even Aboriginals but not a mention of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadian who is not even mentioned in the Charter. This is blatant discrimination. Obviously all Canadians are equal and included in Sections 1-15(2) and separate legislation should have been incorporated relating to the province of Quebec and Aboriginals identifying them in need of special treatment for whatever reason. Bur then again this would even be more discriminating The Charter discriminates on the basis of culture by granting rights on the basis of culture specifically to the French culture. Language, religion are components of culture as is religion.

A rare event indeed, with next to impossible conditions to be met relating to the passage of MMP, set by Mc.Guinty. The U.S. has Canada democratically beat hands down, to protect their majority interest.

I am saying we are ruled by a totalititarian government and kept oppressed with improper proof. You are saying the opposite. So where is your 'offical proof', or 'official document' to back your statements? Just because the Charter does not mention 'White Canadians' or Aboriginals skin colour or the French language being part of Francophone's culture does not mean that the Charter does not discriminate on the basis of colour, language, culture or even religion. It does as it divides Canadians into distinct groups with different rights or implies this. Aboriginals are a specific group of people and they are not 'White'. French is a minority foreign language and is part of Francophones culture. White English speaking Christian Canadians are the majority culture. I hate to disappoint you but this country was founded by the British and you know, all the things you hate along with it, God Save the Queen, the Queen, constitutional monarchy, majority English language, Don Cherry, English only movies etc. You know it is not about providing services in both languages, as that is the easy part, even computers can do alone, for the most part. You know it is providing a Francophone culture throughout its own province Quebec and trying to further propagate it to the provinces with varying levels of success, including the entire federal public service of Canada, all at the expense of the English sucker tax payers of Canada. If you don't call that discrimination then I don't know what is.

SSM was not recognized under the old 1960 'Bill of Rights'. Svend Robertson was basically responsible for the passage of Bill C-38 making SSM legal under Sec.15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Countries gone to pots and proves Schwarzenegger is a liar and hypocrite. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/221

Quebec will never separate, forget it. That is residents of Quebec hate the English monarchy. Quebec politicians know the constitutional monarchy has served Quebec well. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/pe...narchy_00-e.htm

There are I believe 35 U.S. states that have their own constitution and use referendum on a regular basis including SSM. http://www.nationalcoalition.org/legal/statebystate.html And on the federal level: The third principle of American democracy is the system of checks and balances. The three branches of government—the legislative, the executive, and the judicial—restrain and stabilize one another through their separated functions. The legislative branch, represented by Congress, must pass bills before they can become law. The executive branch—namely, the president—can veto bills passed by Congress, thus preventing them from becoming law. In turn, by a two-thirds vote, Congress can override the president’s veto. The Supreme Court may invalidate acts of Congress by declaring them contrary to the Constitution of the United States, but Congress can change the Constitution through the amendment process.

The old 'Bill of rights' was protected federally as well as each individual province having their own human rights legislation.

This is the nature of a totalitarian country, to only advocate the view of the government. Obviously, the federal government will never allow a legally binding national referendum on the issue. Thje Charter was not ratified by Canadians but rather politicians and it will be politicians that eventually scrap it. Most Canadians do not know the Charter from a hole in the ground. They are mostly like you who think it is all about the old 1960's 'Bill of Rights'. Goes to show you, Quebec will never be happy until the federal government designates them a country. It divides and racially discriminates and categorizes Canadians on the basis of language and culture into three basic societies, majority White English speaking Canadian, The French Canadian, and the Aboriginals. To put society on equal footing is not the business of government. Quebecers were never discriminated upon. They refused to assimilate into the majority. Whose fault is this, White English speaking Canadians? Why make French problems a problem of society for all to pay when all they have to do is separate if they don't like it. For instance Charter Item 16(1) states: "English and French are the official languages of Canada's and have EQUAL rights and privledges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada." Why then mandatory 'official bilingualism' under all entities under federal control? Why then under Charter Item 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". And we know the fed's are not talking about the status of majority English but are concerned about the further promotion of minority French, like in Ottawa where they provided incentives for that city to adopt an 'official bilingual policy' to an already Liberal friendly mayor who complied, even changing English street signs to FRENCH via a federal grant.

Did they? No, they did NOT. They used the Charter. Where is your proof to back your ridiculous statement. It seems you are happy with a 'Banana Republic' type government. Good for you.

I really don't know what the main reason is for heavy, mainly foreign third world immigration. Canadian birth rate for 2002 was 328,802 births which represents a decrease of -1.5% or a decrease of 4,942 births. This certainly does not justify bringing in close to 400,000 total immigrants to Canada per year, a country that earns its keep by the export of natural resources and does not require a heavy manufacturing population or an unskilled labour population. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040419/d040419b.htm http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/

The only people Chretien seems to be critical of are English speaking, being, Paul Martin, Conrad Black, Queen Elizabeth are the main targets according to the article. Glad to see Chretien's Francophone friends are all good honest Liberals.

Harper's in the process of normalizing Canada to the status of a real country from the mess the Liberals left it in. I think revitalizing the country is a top priority and Canadians think that is important judging from the polls.

On what 'official basis' are you basing your twisted rhetoric... a manipulative TELEPHONE POLL? Please state your official source. You know very well, that after many years of federal Liberal rule any national federal political party favouring elimination of the Charter would be political suicide, with most of the objection coming from 'La belle Province'. I fully believe the Charter will be eventually scrapped as dysfunctional politics is destroying the country. Canadians are currently not served by functional federal or provincial representation but rather by federal and provincial self interest. Smell the coffee, friend. I know more telephone polls or at least quote your official democratic source. Well it is. It was written by the Liberals and racially discriminates (again) on the basis of language and culture and if extended to the Aboriginals, skin colour is included. Many different kinds of Canadians, isn't there? That part is from our old 1960 Bill of Rights.

This is what makes it totalititarian and DANGEROUS. Yes it does. As, for instance, with the case of SSM. In Canada, justices are highly partisan and loyal to the federal party and PM, that put them in their position. This could very well make the courts corrupt. Regardless, any important issue that could detrimentally affect the lives of Canadians, should be by all democratic rights be decided by Canadians by national referendum.

Which nullifies your point about the Queen.

How True. I might add, the Queen holds no citizenship British or Canadian. In fact she bestows citizenship for ALL countries she is head of state. You could very well say that the Queen is more Canadian than 'no queenslave'.

Can you prove Quebec politicians really want to ditch the Queen and our constitutional monarchy? Canada has been a constitutional monarchy, since 1534, when the King of France claimed possession of what is now Canada. Obviously Quebec wants a constitutional monarchy.