Leafless

I have never seen proof of this. What I have seen is employers refusing to pay a decent wage, that could very well lead to jobs unfilled. We already have this, they are called existing Canadians. What we don't have is employers readily available to make this happen. This brings us back to the decent wage. This is BS and you know it, unless you can supply proof. Which brings about the question, who is responsible for forcing ethnic immigration in Canada and why? Qualifications relating to ethnics mostly are not even recognized in this country. Are you going to employ an ethnic auto mechanic who says he can repair cars with no recognized documentation? Proof again is required as jobs are actually decreasing in U.S/Canada due to outsourcing and foreign manufacturing. Middle class is disappearing. But shareholders still want a good return on their investment and corporate Canada and small business co-operates in part, by hiring ethnics who work for less, day or night, weekends included. They think the conditions in Canada are great compared to the third world countries they come from. I have no respect for ethnics who come to Canada to participate in the destruction of Canadian lifestyles and culture, effectively pulling the rug from under Canadians feet. But this is destroying Canada and is a shame to see Canada go down the tube this way.

What you did is purposely diverted attention off of the topic to conceal the fact multiculturalism has failed in Belgium, (the perfect multicultural model many of you praise) with the French being just as arrogant over in Belgium as here in Canada. Multiculturalism fares no better here in Canada and has only artificially succeeded up to now because our dysfunctional federal government continues to pour hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars into a failed experimental project designed primarily to give Quebec its preferred place in Canada that normally would not even come close to achieving on its own. La Grand Scheme has Failed.

So the pansy opposition parties are threatening to bring down the Conservative government because: (a) Climate change: And how 33-million Canadians are going to save the world. ( Combat mission in Afghanistan: Got to pay the price of FREEDOM boys and girls, it don't come cheap. Are these real opposition parties or dinosaurs left over from the Trudeau era. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...fe-7e9502cad373

I can't help to notice how guyser and M.Dancer always manages to ruin a serious thread with their immature trollish replies. AGAIN I ASK WHERE IS THE MODERATOR OR IS CHARLES ANTHONY COMMUNIST TO?

It seems the EU constitution is in limbo and apparently there is not much in there relating to immigration policy. "European Union Constitution - where is it now?" http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007_04_23/...ion_summary.htm Here is another link relating to the fact Britons want a referendum on EU Constitution: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?...mp;itemID=16904 "Mr Howard further claimed that Britain should take its fair share of the world's "genuine refugees" and said the current asylum system is being abused, and along with it, Britain's generosity." http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_02_07/...tion_pledge.htm

But why are we even acceptng ethnic immigration initially. As 'Stomper' says in a question asked in the 'Daily Express' relating to foreign immigration: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/14636/...+to+immigration

I am tired of your personal insults and cheap talk. This will be my last or any future posting with you. What is a 'Convention'? Just because decision (by the majority) reached by delegates relating to the U.S. Bill of Rights and has not proceeded to a public referendum does not mean it is not 'a direct vote' and equals a plebiscite. You are talking apples and oranges. The lack of democracy in Canada is appalling as compared to the U.S. The Amendments made by Congress were mostly technical by nature, or additional rights for all U.S States. Trudeau's Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms lies in it's very description, as being 'Rights and Freedoms', suggesting all Canadians benefit from these Rights, when it turns out most of the Charter is devoted to Quebec and the Aboriginals in the worst form of undemocratic social engineering I have ever seen in Western society. In the U.S. all States have their own constitution and that is why in 200 years individual States had no real need in amending the federal constitution. The 'Tenth Amendment' reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution For instance here is Missouri's Constitution: NOTE ITEM #3 "1 Source of political power--origin, basis and aim of government. 2 Promotion of general welfare--natural rights of persons--equality under the law--purpose of government. 3 Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government. 4 Independence of Missouri--submission of certain amendments to Constitution of the United States. 5 Religious freedom--liberty of conscience and belief--limitations. 6 Practice and support of religion not compulsory--contracts therefor enforceable. 7 Public aid for religious purposes--preferences and discriminations on religious grounds. 8 Freedom of speech--evidence of truth in defamation actions--province of jury. 9 Rights of peaceable assembly and petition. 10 Due process of law. 11 Imprisonment for debt. 12 Habeas corpus. 13 Ex post facto laws--impairment of contracts--irrevocable privileges. 14 Open courts--certain remedies--justice without sale, denial or delay. 15 Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants. 16 Grand juries--composition--jurisdiction to convene--powers. 17 Indictments and informations in criminal cases--exceptions. 18(a) Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. 18( Depositions in felony cases. 19 Self-incrimination and double jeopardy. 20 Bail guaranteed--exceptions. 21 Excessive bail and fines--cruel and unusual punishment. 22(a) Right of trial by jury--qualification of jurors--two-thirds verdict. 22( Female jurors--optional exemption. 23 Right to keep and bear arms--exception. 24 Subordination of military to civil power--quartering soldiers. 25 Elections and right of suffrage. 26 Compensation for property taken by eminent domain--condemnation juries--payment--railroad property. 27 Acquisition of excess property by eminent domain--disposition under restrictions. 28 Limitation on taking of private property for private use--exceptions --public use a judicial question. 29 Organized labor and collective bargaining. 30 Treason--attainder--corruption of blood and forfeitures--estate of suicides--death by casualty. 31 Fines or imprisonments fixed by administrative agencies. 32 Crime victims' rights. 33 Marriage, validity and recognition.

Take a hike guyser. That immigration bit was about NUMBERS and I have proven, Canadian immigration including foreign workers (er, temporary immigrants, ok. with you) exceeds the disputed 330,000 per year to a to a total of about 380,000. It really was all that simple considering no one knows what the Conservative policy is for 2007 concerning immigrant numbers. We will find that out next spring or early summer.

According to the dictionary definition of a country the two countries in question Belgium and Canada are not real countries. Relating to Belgium: "Belgium is an artificial state of 10.5 million inhabitants, which prides itself on being the model for a federal Europe. The country was put together in 1830-31 by the international powers as a political compromise and an experiment in building one state out of two nationalities." Relating to Canada catering to solitudes and paying blackmail tax payers money to achieve the status of a country, makes Canada an artificial country. Currently, we are dealing with two, that are of interest to this thread. I know, but the definition fits real well. Just think what Canada would do without all of that U.S. and foreign investment in Canada. Cease to exist, perhaps.

Artificial relating to the definiton of a country. IMO and I am certain many other Canadians, tis a banana republic and you are a troublesome troll. I am surprised moderator Sir Anthony, as not warned you about your trollish behavior.

In respect to: No one enjoys the prospect of predetermined failure. Canada has been at it since the 1960's with Quebec and the only ingredient that has prevented Canada breaking up or war, is the federal government CONTINUES to throw wads of tax payers money and rights to Quebec. Canada is an artificial country in the same manner Belgium is.

Why then has ethnic immigration been allowed initially? Is the national objective relating to ethnic immigration is to clean toilets? Then if it isn't, jobs must be provided for minorities on the same level as the majority nationality. But of course this is looking for trouble and who is to blame, government itself. If it was not intending to induce outright discrimination against the majority White population that forms the country, government would have only allowed White immigration. Canada is guilty of the same thing and I agree with you that the only rectification in matters like this is a revolution.

Can Canada be seen in the same state of collapse? http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/brussels082007.htm

Then who exactly is the liar? Just wondering.

Dude, I am not your mentor. All amendments in the U.S. Constitution that were unilaterally implemented by Congress, virtually have nothing to do with social engineering or playing with peoples lives. U.S citizens don't take the crap Canadians do. I did give you an example relating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, which resulted in: "A second joint session of the State Legislature meeting in a constitutional convention was held on June 14, 2007. The marriage amendment was defeated by a vote of 151 against to 45 for. At least 50 "for" votes were needed for the measure to move on to a PUBLIC REFERENDUM." How about you hunting down your own evidence to prove me wrong instead of continually asking me for evidence. This is the last time I am doing this as it is obvious as it seems you are oblivious to common knowledge who to damn lazy to do your own research. Here is a link: http://www.languagefairness.com/Inequities...t_of_Canada.php Do you have evidence that Canadians are truly informed about the Charter and don't onlt think it is one big 'Bill of Rights' good for all Canadians. Do you have evidence why? Firstly a 'demand for a change to our constitution by population demand' has to be initiated and in this 'banana republic' no such thing exist and neither do delegates. Well, I am not like you probably as you describe yourself as a libertarian sitting in your mothers basement exercising your computer. I have family obligations and responsibilities and cannot just pack up and leave, although I would love to. But if I was single, I would be out of here 'toute suis'.

Then tell me what a delegate is? Yes it does. Congress would never unilaterally rubber stamp a contentious piece of social engineering legislation such as Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms amendment to their constitution. You would have riots in the streets. If they did it by convention individual States would never ratify that racist, discriminatory, biased piece of legislation. Plenty was spent , primarily on Quebec prior to the Charter. But only more so after the Charter was implemented with unearned, undemocratic, rights and privileges applicable to certain groups that cannot be granted in a unilateral fashion when it affects all Canadians, but was nevertheless. So undemocratic and arrogant. Obviously that is not possible. Why was there not a mass outcry, not only over the Charter that neglected to protect property rights but the rest of the Charter to alter or change rights whenever the 'government of the day' decides to and to declare special rights to certain groups. It is like provincial human rights legislation, it varies province to province with no controls. Governments never offered Canadians to be part of establishing human rights legislation or a 'Bill of Rights', it would interfere with their social engineering. Dream on Canada is not the U.S. and we are a banana republic.

I agree. Mr. Harper looked totally unprofessional and looked to laid back as if totally uninterested as compared to George Bush and Felipe Calderon. Maybe Mr. Harper should take acting lessons like the rest of them.

This is a horrible thing to say relating to the goodness of our country. No one ever in Canada has imposed the race and culture of the WECC on the minority. But I can use reverse analogy and ask you, 'do ethnic immigrants intend to challenge or try to topple WECC by segregating and not integrating with Canadian society and WECC as their numbers increase? You are the one with the continual racist ideologies, not I. Of course it matters what race you are, as you are giving the impression you are a non-biased Mr. Clean. I consider myself reasonably tolerant and a good person, but not to the degree to be continually taken advantage of. Sometimes threads are driven in this direction by dwelling to long on a certain issue and other concerns that drive it that way. If you feel you don't want to be bothered by this type of situation, simply stop replying and taking the initiative yourself to capitalize on the situation and open threads related to what we are currently discussing. I see this happening all the time.

And what political process did the individual States use to ratify the constitution? Quebec did not sign the Charter because: "Nevertheless, Quebec did not support the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), with "conflicting interpretations" as to why. The opposition could have owed to the Parti Québécois leadership being allegedly uncooperative, because it was more committed to gaining sovereignty for Quebec. It could have owed to Quebec leaders being excluded from the negotiation of the Kitchen Accord, which they saw as being too centralist. It could have owed to provincial leaders' objections to the Accord's provisions relating to the process of future constitutional amendment.[10] They also opposed the inclusion of mobility rights and minority language education rights.[11] The Charter is still applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the Constitution. However, Quebec's opposition to the 1982 patriation package has led to two failed attempts to amend the Constitution (the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord) which were designed primarily to obtain Quebec's political approval of the Canadian constitutional order. Ironically, the only Non-Quebecer to sign the Charter into law was Queen Elizabeth II." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Char...ts_and_Freedoms This was simply Quebec asking for more but has nothing to do with other contents in the Charter that put Quebec in a very favourable positon. Practically all amendments outside of the 'Bill of Rights' were minor amendments in nature and totally unlike supremacist Trudeau and his Charter (of major social engineering) that reeked of racism and discrimination. BTW- Individual U.S. States have the power to propose amendments to their constitution by' demand of the population' by referendum. Here is a case for example relating Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...n_Massachusetts For starters, how about the financial obligations relating to the support of three separate societies, ROC, Quebec, Aboriginals. You wrote, "what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority? What property rights are you talking about as the charter does NOT protect property rights? We did have a 'Bill of Rights' since 1960 that even protected property rights, which we could swing back to that in the event of scrapping the Charter. Also we had provincial human rights legislation that varies from province to province.

You can NOT create racist, discriminatory laws embedded in our constitution (or should not be able to) because of certain groups being 'disadvantaged' according to what supremacist Trudeau promotes. There are millions of disadvantaged Canadians, in a thousand different ways and the Charter offers no help for them. Doing this definitely DOES imply 'supremacy' due to Trudeau's selectivity of these groups. To advance groups on the basis of language and culture discriminates against millions of other disadvantaged Canadians and discriminates against the majority of Canadians who have made the English language and Christian religion successful and a vibrant part of Canadian culture and tradition. This is totally untrue. Name me a province outside of Quebec that is as nationalistic as Quebec and where where approx. 50% of the population wants to destroy Canada by separating. Quebec has been discriminating against the ROC much to long and especially ignoring the fact it lives off of the proceeds from the ROC and in my opinion it is payback time, via a national referendum to determine if the ROC wants to retain Quebec as a province in Canada any longer.

A supremacist by definition from Concise Oxford Dictionary is, "an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group." And relating to Trudeau's Charter, that is what the man is. And your previous allegation was, "Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particularly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestry." Like Quebec whereas many in Quebec consider Quebec comes first and Canada second. They never really did join any other group. Quebec in fact forced other groups to pay, to support Quebec nationalistic ideologies.

I did not include the link to Trudeau in the above post, so here it is: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060613.html

Trudeau was a French nationalist, holding their views and he fought for long term benefits for Quebec: What does that have to do with being a 'White French supremacist'? Trudeau's goal was to keep Quebec in Canada as a distinct French nationalistic society and he accomplished this goal with his Charter. Americans vote via referendums relating to proposed amendments to their constitution. Fundamental rights in Canada have been transformed, totally unrealistically by an undemocratic Charter that places no barriers on the horrendus cost of doing this. This type of legislated artificially enhanced social engineering is totally unacceptable in any kind of democratic society. In a democratic system everyone gets to vote including all so called minorities on important issues relating to the constitution. This does happen in Canada since Canada badly lacks democratic initiatives. Not really. I question positively discriminatory and intolerant actions including racism built into our constitution. The real White supremacist in Canada are of the French variety, who have implemented traitorous, costly, racist legislation into our constitution. Before I can accuse you of being racist you will have to be honest and tell the truth, because it seems the only people in Canada that can be racist are 'Whites'. Are you or are you not a visible minority? If you are not this would make you White. Then I would have to ask you on what legal basis allows you to allege I am a bigot or racist???

Traitorous actions based on language and culture speaks for itself. That is the whole problem, everyones rights are all constitutionally protected , embedded in our constitution, with ongoing expansion of these rights as determined case by case by the Supreme Court of Canada. Do you not see and understand how undemocratic and racist the Charter really is and is emulating legislation originating from some cheap little banana republic. I am simply defending your 'White supremacist allegations'. Your allegations are becoming more and more comical. We know who the real 'White supremacist are' in Canada.

I know how surveillance works. Outside of wire tapping one would have to be really dumb not to know one is under surveillance. I served jury duty and it was a riot to hear the punks explain, in this certain case, how obvious it was they were being followed and kept under surveillance. Yes I do. Yes, because there is no evidence that Arar's investigation was over at the point the U.S. detained and deported Arar. It is obvious that U.S. actions in deporting Arar, blew the case relating to any further investigation. But who's fault is this? If Arar only had a single Canadian citizenship, he would have been deported to CANADA and in all likelihood the U.S/RCMP/CSIS investigation would have certainly continued and perhaps more solid incriminating evidence could have been acquired to bring Arar to trial. It is obvious these two ingredients, Arar's dual citizenship and U.S. decision to deport Arar to his native homeland as a Syrian, left Canada holding the bag by implementing a VOLUNTARY inquiry and IMO, this should never have happened in order to preserve the integrity of Canada's national security. Arar's lawyers should have been told to take a walk. Arar's decission to fly in a time of terrorism especially being a dual citizen was plain dumb.