gc1765

If that's the case, then the CPC weren't a national party until the 2006 election.

I think the delegates must vote for the candidate that they said they would support on the first ballot. After that, they can vote for whoever they like.

Thanks again for your response. I never said english was the official language, I said it was the language of ontario (as in the de facto language of ontario like you pointed out). My point is that most of Ontario is english only. I have never been exposed to french except perhaps a few french classes I had to take in elementary school. Is this what you mean by discrimination, because you had to learn french in school? On the other hand, 90% of my classes were in english, so you could equally say that I had english forced upon me. So I don't see the discrimination there. Link Ottawa Like I mentioned before, private businesses are going to hire the best person for the job, period. In the federal government a person must be bilingual, but that means it works both ways and a french speaker must learn english. I thought this was about the Charter. I provided a link earlier about the Charter trying to prevent unilingualism from happening in quebec. Care to comment on that? I see you made my point for me. So it is the charter trying to prevent this from happening afterall. It's only using the notwithstanding clause that they can get away with this. How exactly are quebecers "flaunting" their language and culture to minorities? Earlier you talked about the majority losing righs to minorities because of the charter. Now you are talking about the majority (french speaking quebecers) intolerant of the minority. Shariah law will never be in place in Canada unless that's what the majority of people want. Even then, it would have a hard time taking hold in Canada thanks to...yep you guessed it, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That's a good point. A minority liberal government with NDP having the balance of power is certainly plausible. Rae is probably much more likely to get the support of the NDP than someone like ignatieff (and much more likely than the NDP supporting a conservative minority). OTOH, how much would Rae 'cave in' to the demands of the NDP? Even better for the liberals would be if Rae could draw some votes away from the NDP and win some ridings where the liberals & conservatives are close. Given our first past the post system, this would be even more effective for the liberals than simply having the support of NDP MPs. And then they would not be 'held hostage' by the NDP for support.

Any MP can be in the cabinet no matter what their party affiliation. They do not need to 'cross the floor' to get a cabinet position if they make a deal with the PM. In practice, any MP that did that would be booted out of their party so MPs that cross the floor to always quit their party. If we put rules in place taht prevented MPs from doing certain things after quiting then you would see that MPs would use that loop hole to do what they want. The ballot box is the only place where floor crossers should be punished if that is what people want to do. I see your point, but there must be some solution. How about if an opposition MP wants to accept a cabinet position, he or she must get permission from their party. Then, they won't get kicked out. If at a later date the party decided they wanted to remove that person, they could either resign the cabinet position or run in a by-election. Ok, so it's not a great solution but it's something. Anyone else have ideas? (sorry if this is off-topic)

I take your ignoring the whole discussion on how this has been blown out of proportion to mean that you agree. I didn't ignore it, I responded to it. You even quoted my post, so obviously you read it. I think it's important when a party doesn't deliver on it's number one priority. Obviously I know there are five priorities. I said accountability was the number one priority. Do you disagree with that?

We have debated this elsewhere but if MPs are to have any independent authority and not merely be trained seals, then they must have the right to change party allegiance.If crossing the floor were forbidden (say, by obliging a byelection), this would simply give more power to the party whips and the party leader. Do you really want such a centralization of power? The real solution here is for voters to choose their MPs more carefully. If party loyalty is important, then vote for a candidate who is obviously loyal to the party. Bob Rae, Winston Churchill, Belinda Stronach, Jack Horner, John Connally, Pierre Trudeau, David Emerson and even Stephen Harper all changed parties at one point or another in their careers. Nevertheless, I feel safe in predicting that Stephen Harper will not join the NDP and Jack Layton will not join the Conservatives. So, what's the lesson? Get to know your candidate and vote accordingly. I agree that MPs should be allowed to cross the floor, but I think the best solution would be to not allow them to take a cabinet position (or even parliamentary secretary) until they run in a general election or a by-election. That would ensure that MPs are crosssing "for the right reason" rather than for personal gain. Emerson would not have crossed if this was the case. Would stronach have crossed? If she did not accept a cabinet position I don't think she would have gotten as much heat. I would have no problem with her switching if a cabinet post was not in the deal.

First off, I would like to say thank you for finally providing an example. English is the language of Ontario, and french is the official language of Quebec. Canada is bilingual, and so is ottawa. So, where's the problem? Private businesses can hire who they like. They are going to hire whoever is best for the job, period. If Quebec is preventing bilingualism, it is not because of the charter as you have stated. In fact, it is the charter which is (trying to) prevent this from happening Link Now, care to back up this statement with an example "official multiculturalism is fanning the flames of bigotry and racism by allowing so called minorities to advance their cultural and religious claims" or "and that is the damaging aspect of multiculturalism in Canada and how it is creating NEW levels of bigotry and racism." or "Official Multiculturalism Policy' is what leads cultures to intolerance." .... if you can.

Yet another bold statement (that because of the charter quebec discriminates against english speaking canadians) with no argument to back it up. See how you've given me nothing to debate here? You're going to have to be A LOT more specific than that if you expect a debate. What does quebec terrorism have to do with the charter? By the way, the october crisis was in 1970, the charter of rights and freedoms was in 1982. I don't understand why you can't give me one solid example or argument. Your statements are vague, eg "Without the charter quebec would not be in the position to discriminate against english speaking Canadians" , "Sec. 15.(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the source of all the problems related to discrimination" and "Quebecers themselves have become intolerant to others as a resulted of their artificial elevated positon afforded to them by Charter rights." just to name a few. Where is the argument? You've been unable to come up with an argument HOW and WHY those statements you made are true, despite me asking you several times to do so. I cant understand your argument if there is no argument to understand.

One forum for "off-topic" is not a bad idea in my opinion. Anything that doesn't really fit in the other categories.

I didn't distort anything you've said. The reason why I don't understand what you are saying is because you are not backing up your statements with arguments. You make statements like "Sec. 15.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the source of all the problems related to discrimination..." but you fail to explain specifically HOW? Give me some specific examples, and perhaps I'll have something to debate. If you make statements without some sort of argument and/or examples, it's pretty hard to have a debate. So, I will reiterate, how is sec 15.1 of the charter the source of all problems related to discrimination?

I would agree with you, except that the Conservatives said they handed them over already. If it was a simple matter of needing more time, they should have said so, instead of claiming that they were handed over. That I could understand. But you're right, hopefully we'll know the whole story soon.

Of course there is. There's lots of moderate muslims. Get out and meet some, you might make some new friends.

Wasn't the conservatives number one priority accountability & ethics? So why aren't they being more accountable by opening up their books? Unless they got lost in the mail, I don't see many other explanations for why they haven't been handed over.

But I thought immigrants were the ones with elevated status over native quebecers? So why would quebecers be intolerant of someone who is supposedly elevated above them? But this article was about quebecers being intolerant of immigrants, not the other way around. I know that's what you're saying, but you haven't backed up your claim by saying HOW it's increasing intolerance. Why, because there are more of them? You don't mention how it discriminates against white, english-speaking majority. You are making another claim without backing it up. Right here: 15. (1) "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Uhh, it was 13 years ago and *nobody* is supporting the Chretien face ads. The Liberal ads were from the last election. Uhh, I never said it wasn't from 13 years ago. Someone said the liberal ads from last election were worse than the chretien face ads, and I disagreed. Read the post that I was quoting and you'll understand my response.

So, do you think that this intolerance on the part of Quebecers (the topic post) is a result of immigrants having "elevated recognition" above (or "having the same benefits" as) native quebecers? I don't think it's so much the fact the quebecers don't like the fact that immigrants have the same rights as they do, I think it's more that they just don't like those who are different from them (if in fact quebecers are actually intolerant of immigrants). That is usually what intolerance is about. In the U.S. prior to the 60's/70's, there was a huge amount of intolerance towards blacks, and they had LESS rights. So how does your idea of people hating immigrants because they have equal rights work in that scenario? Secondly, how does official multiculturalism give immigrants more benefits than the "winner" (which I assume you mean native quebecers, though I don't understand how they've "won" anything)? The whole point of the charter of rights and freedoms is to give equal rights to everyone, not to give more rights to some people than others.

The liberal ads were bad, no doubt about that. But they weren't nearly as bad as the ad making fun of chretien. At least the liberal ads attacked conservative policy, not the way the conservatives looked. There is a lot to attack chretien for, but attacking someone's looks is in extremely bad taste.

Kids are going to be able to get pot whether it's legal or not. It's illegal now, but it's not that hard for kids to get (sometimes easier, especially if you live in vancouver ). I thought the point you were trying to make is that drug dealers are pressuring kids to buy? There will still be peer pressure yes, but I don't think there's any way to get around that. Why can't we give moral justification to pot smoking when we give moral justification to smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol?

I think the difference here is that alcohol is not usually sold by "drug dealers". It is usually acquired through older siblings, or friends' older siblings. Back when I was in high school, I don't remember anyone coming around selling alcohol to minors or pushing them to buy it. I guess all schools are different. If pot was legalized and made available only to those over 19 (or 18 in alberta etc. ) I imagine the scenario would be similar. If there are drug dealers preying on junior high school students (which I never saw at my school), I doubt there will be as much of that if it were legal. Most minors would get pot through siblings etc. leaving a much smaller 'market' for drug dealers to prey on.

Multiculturalism itself does not necessarily lead to intolerance. But it is a fact in many countries do not welcome outsiders and are subjected to discrimination. 'Official Multiculturalism Policy' is what leads cultures to intolerance. It encourages bigotry and racism. Ok, then how does mutliculturalism "fan the flames of bigotry and racism" as you put it earlier? And how does 'Official Multiculturalism Policy' lead to intolerance? How does it encourage bigotry and racism?

Another Source (Washington Post)

And how does multiculturalism lead to intolerance?

There is no law, but there is a convention: Link

I agree with you there. I think most polls show general results but are not very accurate. For example, before the 2006 election, the polls predicted the conservatives would win. But, some polls had support as high as 41 or 42 percent for the conservatives, when they only got 36 percent. Not extremely accurate in my opinion (though, to their credit SES poll was extremely accurate in their prediction...heck they're still bragging about it on their website).