iamcanadian2

Most People are Unilingual in thatt they speak one language better than any other and a second language they can pass by with. There are very few people that can speak two languages perfectly equally well. Canada is a Unilingual Country like every other with Two Official Languages that are spoken in different parts of the Country. Our problem is that we force people to learn and use one of the official languages even if they don't want to, which is ignorant and stupid and has turned the French Language in Canada to MERDE for many people.

There is a big difference between French Emersion (something provided by regular school boards in Ontario to attract Non-french Canadians to study French by total emersion) and the Conseil Scoliare du District Centre Sud Ouest that are Separatist Isolationists Public School Boards in Ontario to congreagate the Children of French Canadian Families like they are a Religious Cult to keep all Non-French aways from them and avoid contaminatinig their pristeen utopian culture. http://www.csdcso.on.ca This whole public school board does everything only in French. There are no English documents, english translations or any effort whatsoever to be open serving Non-french Canadians for using their services, like what is the model for French Emergence. They don't want Non-French Canadian Children attending their schools and do everything to avoid becoming accessible anyone who does not already speak French. Though they may deny it becaus it is illegal to refuse to provide education to anyone regardless of race creade or culture, they simply don't make themselves available and treat anyone Non-French they do deal with, like MERDE. Shutting obviously abusive organizations liek this down should be democratically possible if Non-French Canadians gather together and stand up against these public abuses.

Appart from the fact that the Conseil Scolaire du District Centre Sud Ouest is corrupt and steals money from the Provincial Government for their personal whims and facies to use for other that delivering education; their whole school system is also sucking aways from regular public education funding. Whereas the regular public schools (who BTW also have French Immersion for our Non-french Canadians who are so inclined to attend so they avoid contaminating their distinct culture) have high density classes and their schools spilling over into portables, the Conseil Scolaire has half empty schools with class sizes half the average of the rest. Their students get bussed from 50 Km away each day free of charge and at incredible expense. Their funding is applied to speeratists ideals of goals and they are as a government there to serve only French Speaking Taxpayers and anyone else is ignored.

This is the whole problem.... It is not a choice. French is shoved down the Non-French Canadian throuts. There are too many people here that are already bilingual (probably the majority of Canadians are bilingual, only NOT with French. Those people are discriminated against and the rights trampled upon by the French bilingual Canadians. I move for abolishing mandatory French from the Ontario school curiculum and making French Only Language Schools private schools NOT funded by our tax dollars.

This whole issue of "forcing" children to learn French at all is criminal. My children speak English and my mother tounge as their second language. When they went to elementary school I met with the principal specifically to try and get my kids not to take French. A parent canno do this in Canada and is FORCED to send their kids to be Indotrinated in the French Language so they can be brainwashed into believing that French is a more important language than it is and advaance the French that is a foreign language to 95% of the people OUtside of Quenbec and even 20% inside Quebec. Furthermore since EVERY SINGLE French speaking Canadian speaks English perfectly, there is no need for the public to pay to teach that language any more or differently than they do with every other foreign language in Canada. French is a foreign language to 95% of Canadians living outside of Quebec and it should be treated as any other second language of Canadians. A good start is to demiocratically disband organizations like Conseil Scolire du District Centre Sud Ouest or at least make the efforts to convince people that send their children to Isolationist Separatists schools that it is socially unaceptable to take advantage of your fellow citizens that are paying taxes even though they are not French Speaking Taxpayers.

I have no issues with other cultures or languages for the educational aspects of the language as a second languagem if someone enjoys learning extra languages. What I am refering to is the parent who intentionally retards their own children by sending them to a French Only Language school in Ontario to learn the French Language as a First Language with all their subjects in French and then learn English as a second language. That is the most stupid thing any parent can do to their child because English will be more important to their child when they grow up because the French Language will continues to die its natural unavoidable death like many other redundant languages. Our government paying for this with our public tax dollars is even more stupid. If parents want to harm their childrens education, the government should not help them do it for the childrens sake. If parents want to spend their own personal money for this special education then no one can stop them.

I don't know why anyone would want to retard their children by sending them to a french only language school. French will be a dead language in 30 years and everyone who speaks French in Canada already also speaks English even everywhere in Quebec. What a waste of education time they could spend leaning something usefull.

This is because French Canadians everywhere relly on extra benefits and live off the government jobs and services, so they don't work as hard and are too busy having a good time. French Canadians because of their Distinct Culture which all Canadians especially the 95% of Non-French Canadians living everywhere outside of Quebec, pay to preserve for them, work a hell of a lot less than Non-French Canadians who have a less relaxed cultire than the French-Canadians. I doubt the Non-French Canadians in Quebec got anything by whining for it like the French do. Non-french Canadians in Quebec are treated like second class citizens under their apparthied systems. The reason the French Canadians gave the Non-French Canadians separate schools was to segragate them, like the US did in the South with their blacks before the 60's to keep them away from contaminating their Distinct Culture. French Canadians don't want the Non-French Canadians mixing with them and that is why they force them to have separate Non-French School Systems in Quebec.

Conseil Scolaire du District Centre Sud Ouest http://www.csdcso.on.ca This is the biggest of a set of French Canadian "Separatist" Public School Boards in Ontario paid for by Ontario Provincial Education Money collected from all Ontario Taxpayers equally. They blanket the whole Province of Ontario. They serve communities by bussing children to their schools at the publics expense for 50 miles or more and each child is bussed from great distances that other Public School Board will not and cannot afford to do, everyday. This daily bussing operation is done to maintain themselves separate from the rest of the population, like some RELIGIOUS SECT to avoid socializing with Non-French Canadians like as if the rest of us have the plague. They are spearheaded by our French-speaking Canadian Public Servants and exists to exclusively serve and advance French Canadians Only over all others that live in the Province of Ontario. They have no elected representatives with all individuals to Board elected posts being aclaimed to their public offices, some being also their Chief Brreaucrats the work within the organization itself. The separatist schools operating in Ontario are built and paid to hold twice the number students they actually have. They enjoy things like bussing students free of charge from far off distances to congregrate them together and at the Ontario taxpayer's expense. With half the students per teacher than the other public school systems that are instead crowded and splilling over into portables everywhere. Why do Non-French Canadians in Ontario continue to stand by and let their tax dollars be abused this way by a minority group in Ontario that is less than 5% of the population to let them enjoy all these extra benefits and specifically designed extra public services that also divides our citizens. French Canadians generally work less, produce less, yet get to enjoy more benefits in government services and get it in more exclusive ways than the 95% that are Non-French Canadians. The Non-French Canadians must stand up for their rights as the majority and stop letting French Canadians walk all over them. French Canadians in Ontario are less important as a monirity group than the Punjabi or most of the other newer and more numerous immigrants than the decendants of the few French Canadians in this province.

The Age of Elitism and Enlightenment Posted on: 27/11/2005 10:19:22 AM Ed Broadbent: Born March 21, 1936 in Oshawa, Ontario BA - Philosophy - University of Toronto MA - Philosophy of Law - University of Toronto London School of Economics PhD - Political Science - University of Toronto Political scientist and professor President of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal 1990-96 Paul Martin: Born August 28, 1938 in Windsor, Ontario BA - philosophy and history - University of Toronto LL.B. - University of Toronto Executive, Power Corporation of Canada Chairman and CEO, Canada Steamship Lines Gilles Duceppe: Born July 22, 1947 in Montreal, Quebec Studies in political science - Université de Montréal BA - Collège Mont-Saint-Louis Union organizer Jack Layton Born July 18, 1950 in Montreal, Quebec. BA - McGill University MA - York University Ph.D. - York University Professor - Ryerson Polytechnic University Founder - Green Catalyst Group Inc. Stephen Harper Born April 20, 1959 in Toronto, Ontario BA - University of Calgary 1985 MA - University of Calgary 1991 Economist President, National Citizens Coalition 1998 Belinda Stronach: Born May 2, 1966 in Newmarket, Ontario Attended York University in Toronto for one year. Elected to Magna Board of Directors 1988 Named CEO of Magna International 2001 President as well as CEO of Magna International Inc. 2002 Resigned as Magna CEO and President and from Board of Directors to run for Conservative leadership 2004 Founding member of Canadian Automotive Partnership Council Member of Ontario Task Force on Productivity, Competitiveness and Economic Progress Director of Yves Landry Technological Endowment Fund Member of Board of Directors of U.S. Chamber of Commerce Replies: Replied on: 27/11/2005 1:41:51 PM I didn't realize Paul Martin got his law degree at the UofT. That’s the hardest law school in the country to get into. Guess that means he’s smarter than Stephen Harper. I’m kidding. All of them have pretty impressive educational credentials (except Stronach) Replied on: 27/11/2005 2:27:00 PM The fact that he got a law degree at all should be seen as a very negative thing for a politician. The fact that he got one from a more prestigious school makes this negative thing even worse. Lawyers are trained to lie and cheat professionally. We need less liars and cheaters representing the public. Replied on: 27/11/2005 2:30:30 PM Oh great. More anti-Lawyer nonsense. Lawyers are trained to interpret the law and represent their clients. I know you would rather live in a world where "what Iam says goes", but in this country everyone has the right to be represented by counsel. Lawyers are WELL EQUIPPED for careers in government because they actually understand what’s going on. I'd say the fact that Stephen Harper is an economist is more troubling. Every economist I have ever met relies on problematic assumptions that render all of their analysis flawed. Replied on: 27/11/2005 2:46:13 PM I disagree. Economists are in the realm of science. They apply models and logical theories to truths that apply to real world events. Lawyers are in the realm of actors and magicians that use slight of hand (or slight of tongue) to generate conclusions out of facts that are not founded on reality backed by evidence and truth. The better Economist represents the reality better. The better Lawyer misrepresents reality better. Who do you want leading the public interest in government? Most people do not share your benevolent view of Lawyers or their general function as a profession. Replied on: 27/11/2005 3:01:22 PM HAHAHAHAHAHAH Have you ever taken economics? They apply models and logical theories (which themselves are based on assumptions). I would hardly call economics a "science". Economics was one of my best subjects in undergrad solely because I could spew back everything my prof said to me and not anger him by pointing out the glaring flaws and holes in the logic. Au contraire. Lawyers often have to prove facts "backed by evidence and truth" Not when they are funded by far right think tanks and advocacy groups like the Fraser Institute or the NCC. Either or. Both can be good or bad. Most people seem to have been fooled into thinking that all Liberal are crooks, which they aren’t. Most people aren’t very smart. Furthermore, I think people's dislike of lawyers stems more from their high bills than anything else. As a final point, I should note that it is a hell of a lot harder to get into law at the UofT than the economics grad program at the UofC. It could be irrelevant, but there it is. Replied on: 27/11/2005 3:17:16 PM That he may have been a good law student or not, he did not practice law with the skills. So he using the skill lawyers use when managing and representing facts to do other things with it. Not a good thing I am afraid. People's dislike of lawyers comes from two directions. If you have dealt one and won, the legal fees (because they are the only ones that gain anything from their work). If you dealt with one and lost, then it's the lying and cheating over the truth of the facts and the fees. I know of no one that speaks highly of lawyers unless they never dealt with one. Replied on: 27/11/2005 3:24:22 PM People don’t work for free. People don’t go to school for 7 years for nothing. ... or maybe you just have no case and no lawyer in the world can save you. Replied on: 27/11/2005 6:01:30 PM ...or maybe the ethics of lawyers is a general problem. Those who are advancing by sacrificing personal ethics rather than relying on personal integrity and being competent when dealing with the truth of the facts. Replied on: 27/11/2005 6:07:01 PM Lawyers are required by law not to lie to the court. When they do they are violating their duty, NOT upholding it as you would have us believe. Lawyers are the people who society loves to hate. They are an easy scapegoat for people whose situation is simply not on the side of the law. IAM you have no credibility. You are an absolute cynic. Replied on: 27/11/2005 Spoken like a true lawyer. And, yes what lawyers do is incredible and beyond belief for non-lawyers. Most people don't have a clue about lawyers beyond what they see on TV. Lawyer’s tend to mislead the Court to the advantage of first themselves and then their clients whenever possible. The more unethical the lawyer the better, especially in Canada where lawyer's ethics are not regulated by the State as they are in most other countries. Judges work to preserve the myth about lawyers having integrity in Court or out of it. Most of the better lawyer's out there know better and use this about the courts to their advantage. Replied on: 27/11/2005 7:54:11 PM Spoken like a true cynic. Hey if you want you can as an individual always deal with the justice system without counsel. That’s your prerogative. Give it a shot. People hire lawyer for a reason. They understand a system that most people don’t. Unless you propose that we do away with a complex legal system (and it is complex precisely because justice is complicated) you have no way to do away with the necessity of lawyers. Lawyer’s ethics may not be directly regulated by the state but the law societies in the various provinces typically require a high standard of ethical behavior. There are many widely held misperceptions that are false. One of them is that most lawyers are unethical. Replied on: 27/11/2005 8:38:32 PM People hire lawyers because they have to. No one does so out of choice. The rules that are designed to prevent non-lawyer from delivering their own case are incredible. You would think that in this day and age of literacy for all, the Courts would have been updated so that people could do without lawyers.. But alas the legal industry protects itself by rules to force people to use lawyers so that justice is only affordable to the very rich or very poor, and with most people getting screwed by their own lawyer regardless of the issues or rights in any case. It is not a myth that most GOOD lawyer are unethical. The ones that aren't don't do so well. Replied on: 27/11/2005 8:54:52 PM hahahah Ok buddy. Let’s let anarchy reign. Legal regimes are complex precisely because the world is complex. Democratic societies governed by the rule of law require lawyers. Clearly you are of the irrational lawyer hating variety. I choose to no longer respond to your ridiculous posts. Replied on: 27/11/2005 9:25:20 PM No, I think the law of the land would be very easy to deal with simply if the rules to protect the legal industry where relaxed. Most of the complexity is artificial to force people to hire lawyers. A hundred years ago when rules of civil procedures where necessary most people where not educated. Today we are, and much of the rules complicating legal work are no longer relevant to the concept of justice and only serve to make work for the legal professions. Replied on: 27/11/2005 9:36:04 PM I think you are right. I think lawyers make themselves more necessary than should be necessary. Accountants do the same thing with our income tax forms. It used to be much simpler. The United States is much worse however, on both fronts. Their income tax forms are a nightmare. KC4Justice doesn't see it yet because he is still young, but when he is older he will see it differently. All professionals tend to be too ideological when they are young, but develop a more rounded ironic understanding as they grow older. A lot of the problem is that we are only taught one way to do anything, all the way through to the end of our post-secondary education. Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Teachers, Social Workers, all the same each in their own way. Replied on: 28/11/2005 07:55:43 AM You make this sound like a racial thing. People hate lawyers because they tend to sacrifice their personal ethics for money. Law school class "misrepresentation and misdirection" 101?. When the facts are against you, attack the credibility of the witness. The best reason not to vote for someone is when its a lawyer. People trained in "misrepresenting and misdirecting" the truth of facts should not be advanced over those who are from more ethical professions. Replied on: 28/11/2005 08:16:29 AM Do any pro-lawyer people here know any lawyers? They don't think in the normal way (most of them) of their clients. Contracts/IP lawyers -- I've known many -- are always into making things difficult. All they ever think about are roadblocks, effective people think about solutions. One lawyer exists only because other lawyers exist. They're nice people, but their minds don't work the same as a common person. Replied on: 28/11/2005 08:18:56 AM You guys are a bunch of moronic cranky old *******s. When you don’t have a leg to stand on in an argument, you attack the age of the person you are arguing with. I have seen this before. The most intelligent and enlightened people (Bluegrit, WHD) on this board tend to be among its youngest. It’s most ignorant and uninformed (WB, Iam, Bellringer) are a bit older. Only a bigoted old fart could dismiss an entire profession as crooked. This is a ridiculous sweeping statement. Its falseness speaks for itself. I hope that next time you have troubles with the legal system every lawyer refuses to represent you. Then you can see what life without lawyers is like. You truly are stupid. Replied on: 28/11/2005 08:48:22 AM Wow you really think highly of yourself, just because you are a lawyer. I said "Lawyers tend to sacrifice their personal ethics for money". This is part of what the profession does. "Defend criminals", "Take advantage of people for their clients benefit", "Misdirect and misrepresent facts and evidence", "attack the credibility of people when the truth and the facts are against you", etc.. and they get paid very well for doing these things. The better they do this the more they get paid. These are the kinds of things that the "profession" is required to do. This requires that people sacrifice their personal ethics. You don't accept this then you are not a good lawyer. Facts are the fact, and a proof is a proof when its proven. It is my view that lawyers should be excluded from politics and from political systems. The profession should regulate themselves out of influencing political matters and let regular people be the ones making decisions. Lawyers are not well trained to make decisions. Their professional roles are designed to be advisors to decision makers and not the makers of decisions. They trained to be ADVOCATES and SOLICITORS of other people’s decisions. This is one of the worst problems with Canada that is not shared by other societies, where lawyers are recognized more as being a necessary evil, which is not the same as being a good thing. We need more enlightenment and less elitism.

Anyone here aware of the seriousness of the problem with our Regional Government Corporations in Ontario? Some of them are the biggest corporations in Canada operating in every way like private corporations but only above all laws and furthermore with incredible political power above and beyond what money can buy. Ontario Municipal Structural Problems Public discussion forum info blog to advancing Single Tier Municipalities in Ontario for Smaller Municipal Democratic Structures http://www.expose-ontario.org/