Kapitän Rotbart

Nonsense. Jbg understood what I was talking about, and responded accordingly (although Louisiana doesn't quite work in this case because France sold it to the USA... Louisiana never 'chose' assimilation). FIATs are Italian. Using American technology is simply efficient (do you suppose they should opt for European sockets?! No one would do that in North America, no matter how different they considered themselves). French Canadians still have their own food, their own music... most remarkable aspects of culture. These people have not really been assimilated into mainstream culture for the most part. Uh, they reserved the right to do that. Most Canadians are not complaining about having two official languages. Bilingualism is accomodating to all Canadians... that way all Canadians can be served in their prefered domestic language. Wow, this just shows how little you understand about the Charter. The Charter of rights guarantees rights for Canadians in Canada. It is a privilege to be a refugee, not a right. Canadian citizens have full rights in Canada, whereas refugees are on different terms. Of course they won't have the same rights as the Canadian citizens. The statement in the Charter was to guarantee all Canadians equal rights. That makes sense and is anti-discriminatory. Why? Because we don't have the death penalty? I don't know how you interpret this, but when my country guarantees me the right to life, liberty and security, I see that as a good thing. I know they didn't sign, but they still pretty much comply. They comply with their own Charter, and it seems that Québec is complying with the Canadian charter aswell (unless you can quote the Canadian Charter where Québec is doing otherwise). Stop trolling. The seperation issue is at both ends. One end is Québec may want to seperate. The other end is Canada may want to lose Québec. From the feds' end, no one would want to lose a part of one's country. Also, what could the feds do to stop the QC from having a referendum? None of this behavior is surprising, nor was the feds' reaction disappointing. If the majority of Canadians were to agree with you, I'm sure we would know. A revolution would be a possible outcome. At least there would be (violent) protests... at very least. Who are you to judge? Why the hell do you type an apostrophe in "Francophone's" when it's plural and not possessive in this case? I'd score higher than you in English proficiency. I guess your definition also fails to define the Québecers at the time of English colonization. They didn't take refuge in a foreign country (they stayed in their country because they were no longer French at this point), nor were they fleeing from war nor persecution nor natural disaster because none of such things were waiting for them anywhere. Nice try, but you failed to define Québecers as ever having been refugees.

The British would have been stupid to not know 'what to do' with Québec. Find me an example of a people (a group speaking the majority language of the locale, for instance French in QC) voluntarily choosing assimilation. To my knowledge, assimilation has always been forced. Please try to prove me wrong. The feds would advance bilingualism even if it weren't for Canada being "Officially Multicultural". It's just propaganda and worded that way so people don't complain about Canada not including them. Please, stop with the personal attacks. I will have to report you this time. For section 16, advancing the use of official languages does not discriminate anyone nor any race. It is simply increasing the use of bilingualism for communication, which is a good thing. Section 15, equal rights is the most anti-discriminating right we have in our country. You'd be nuts to suggest otherwise. Section 7, right to life, liberty and security, see the comment I made about section 15. Section 23, check section 23 ( 3 ). Where numbers are too small, section 23 is not applicable. The only way I can see this as discrimination is because it does not guarantee the right to study in the locale's minority language if neither of one's parents have studied in that language. It can still be done, but it's tricky. By the way, Québec complies with all this anyway. Can you prove otherwise? The absence of counter-proof is enough proof for that statement (saying something never happend can only be assumed true until proved otherwise). Fortunately the majority of Canadians don't agree with you. Most provinces are a cost to equalization. Québec is like most of the provinces. They have their own charter which does not actually cause any problems. You gave yourself away that you have skewed logic. You state that I am not English speaking, but rather a 'bilingual' Francophone (understood by 'bilingual' that I also speak English) meaning I am not English speaking yet English speaking. Yeah, makes great sense. Thanks for correcting me. It wouldn't be unfamiliar to English speaking Canadians because I learned English as a first language in Canada. Not to mention the tons of mistakes you continuously make differentiating there/their/they're and a few others. I'll make sure to point them out next time I catch them. I could do the same and accuse you of not being a real Anglophone, but I'll save you the trouble and not sink down to your level. Fortunately your standards don't matter to Canada and Canada is wise for not using your standards. French? No, the French had no rights to Canada after that war. They weren't refugees. To teach you some English, refugee means "An exile who flees for safety". The Québecers never fled. The Québecers were the inhabitants of the new colony. Besides, if the English don't do anything with their colony, it's just as good as not having acquired it yet. You should do the right thing, brush up your business knowledge (if need be), learn French and become a consultant for companies in Québec.

I have to agree with M.Dancer that students are students until they terminate their studies. Students are eligible for student discounts, even outside school hours. However, the institution cannot enforce its rules off school property. Whether Facebook was accessed on school property or not is irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, the school can control Internet activity on school computers by blocking certain websites on the network or even simply proibiting surfing certain websites. I remember in high school I always had to sign a contract in order to get my user name and password to access the school network for the academic year. The system was a little inefficient but at least the school maintained a certain control (I wish they would of had me sign it once for the years I was there). The only reason the school could punish the kid were if the kid had agreed to a certain code of conduct in terms of Internet activity at school and would have broken one of those rules. Because the kid didn't break the school rules, caeteris paribus, the school cannot justify revoking the privilege of a school trip from that kid.

If the English could have easily assimilated the Québecers, they probably would have. Claiming that assimilation was only a suggestion is like suggesting that raising one's flag upon colonization is just a suggestion... these are normally no-brainers upon acquiring a new colony. Catholics being a minority in the USA made it easier for the English to maintain that in New England. Declaring Canada officially multicultural is just to stop people from complaining about 'what' Canada is. It doesn't actually mean anything, it's just propaganda to make it seem like 'everything's ok'. Whether Canada were officially 'multicultural', 'bicultural', or not labeled by any of this nonsense, we'd still have the two official languages and a bunch of spiteful people. The least you could do is actually quote the Charter and find where exactly to discriminatory stements stand. I read through it and couldn't find anything discriminatory. Please point out where these 'discriminatory statements' are. A PM can hold a national referendum to establish whether or not Canada wishes to retain Quebec in confederation, after he or she as been elected. Quebec holds separation referendums. No politician in the world would ever hold a referendum on whether their country should keep a certain part or reject it from the nation. I guess to you, a good politician has never existed following this logic. You have proven all through this thread that you are the Quebec and bilingual propagandist defender. The reason I care if Quebec attracts more investment is because currently they are a 'have not province' and a excessive burden on Canadian tax payers and refuse to help themselves in the proper manner for fear of jeapordizing their politics and Quebec language which are currently being subsidized by the federal government to a very large degree to allow them to do this. I'm just defending my fellow Canadians. Québecers are just like any other Canadians and tonnes of Anglophones outside Ontario and Alberta are living at the expense of Ontarians and Albertans through equalization aswell. French has survived in Canada so far, and it's not gonna die any time soon so you might as well get used to sharing your country with people of another language. So what makes Quebecers more special than other minority linguistic culture in a ' officially multicultural' Canada? Not Québecers, but rather Francophones in general. They've been here longer than the Anglophones and have never been any less of a Canadian people than the Anglophones. If were are to refer to Québecers, they ran their own services even under the English, so it's not about to change any time soon. The English could not do the proper job as there was no real country, just scattered colonies. Yeah, but weren't all these colonies English at one point? The English could have properly colonized their colonies. They failed with Québec. Check back in the thread and you will see you are the trolling federal bilingual propagandist as well as defending Quebec and replying with controversial replies. Controversial? You go on complaining about bilingual policies, and relating it to the people of one province. Canadian bilingualism is independant of Québec (the institution).

Cartholics are a minority in the USA. http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html I don't see where you're getting at. Canada's official multiculturalism doesn't mean anything. The Charter of Rights is always good... then we have some fundamental rights in print. A Canadian Prime Minister would not try to kick Québec out of Canada once elected because it can't simply be done. A lot of paperwork would have to be done just to allow the possibility at the feds' end. Not gonna happen. Who's "you"? What do you care if Québec attracts more investment? They get much more investment than the maritimes and Newfoundland anyway. Québec never did, the French actually did under "New France". I honnestly don't care about Québec all that much. I've never lived in Québec and I don't agree with their socialism. I also don't really care to defend them, however due to the English's poor job at colonizing Canada we ended up as a country of two languages, so we might as well honor the institution the English have left us with. If you're just gonna whine about Québec on your own thread about bilingual jobs outside of Québec, I'll let you continue trolling on this thread without me.

One needs a reason to revoke a privilege. An event irrelevant to school rules can't be grounds for revoking a privilege. I'll have to agree with Figleaf. Mall security and local police are the authorities in this case. All the school can do is inform local authorities. The school can, however provide a safe place for the pupils on school property (and on commuter buses which can also be considered school property). The "bully" in this example is likely to be a source of problems on school property aswell, and even if it's not the case, the school authorities can increase awareness and share good resources with the pupils and parents. Mall security have no authoority off the mall, and lets face it, the cops aren't going to do much without proof of violence....so it remains the job of the school to ensure a safe learning environemnt. When I was in high school the bully would most leikely be given extra PT time with the gym teacher....or expelled. EOS Safe learning environment can be guaranteed on school premises, not off school property. This is up to other authorities to deal with this situation.

Not Ontario ? Not exactly. Despite tariffs, Alberta could still sell enough oil to fund and provide just about everything to their residents. If there were tariffs between provinces, or even if Québecers stopped consuming tobacco and cars produced in Ontario, I don't know how well we'd be doing. The English did a sappy job colonizing Canada. They did not assimilate 'everyone' in their language, nor in their religion (being the Church of England). If England were really the boss, they wouldn't have to accomodate to anyone. The English failed at properly colonizing Canada. The Québec Act did not cause the American Revolution... Québec could have been fully part of Britain like Newfoundland and it would have been just as nice a place for loyalists to flee to at the time of the American Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act If I may compare, German-occupied France during WWII was not "assimilated" because they were still in war times. Normally assimilation starts when wars end. Britain had won the Plains of Abraham... why didn't they just claim Québec as English soil, raise their flag, bring their currency and establish their language and religion in every school? It's the English we have to blame for doing a sappy job. Don't Ontarians and Albertans pay more into equalization for BC+Saskatchewan+Manitoba+Maritimes+Newfoundland than for Québec? We would have given the maritimes to the USA long ago had it been about liability. Québec doesn't have oil nor does it have nearly as much tobacco cultivation nor automobile production as Ontario does. One can only make so much money on maple syrup. Their financial issues have nothing to do with language. If you kill equalization, Québec and Newfoundland will most likely seperate, and the maritimes will starve. Not gonna happen. If a Prime Minister candidate were to announce that they wanted to "try to kick Quebec out of confederation or force Quebec to accept by policy to accept the English language", they would not get elected. I'm glad Canadian democracy wouldn't support your crazy ideas. No other people have officially ruled Canada nor did they have a high enough concentration in one place. At the time the largest minorities after the Francophones were the Germans and the Italians, neither being large enough in numbers nor powerful enough in governance at the time. Québecers also pay tax. A language can also be considered a majority language in a given region/locale. French is the majority language of Québec. French is the minority language of Canada. Why wouldn't Anglophones not be welcome in Québec? Ok, a majority of Québecers have very poor English language skills, and some are xenophobic, yet there are xenophones in the RoC aswell, and most Anglophones in the RoC have poor French language skills, so it goes both ways. I'd say Anglophones are more "welcome" in Québec than I am anywhere in Canada (Québec+RoC) on the basis that I don't like ice hockey. Why the hell are we still going on about Québec anyway? It's a province like any other (except the fact that the English failed miserably at colonization in the QC). The thread's topic was an increase in bilingual positions in Ottawa. Has nothing to do with Québec; Québecers don't vote in Ottawan municipal elections unless they are Ottawan residents (and that would make them Ontarian).

Sorry I don't see the abuse of power. The kids posted in a public forum and made remarks that may or may not be libelous. They are free to do so. The school has a trip planned and they determine who gets to go. They have decided that these kids can't. Where is the abuse of power? The kid made use of freedom of speech. The school rescinded the kid's privilege to participate in the trip, justifying it as a punishment for an act, despite the fact that no school rules were broken. Going on this trip is indeed a privilege and not a right, but one needs a valid reason to not grant a certain individual this privilege. It was not the school's place to intervene directly; they are not the authority to deal with this.

Québec doesn't have to integrate. They speak one of the official languages, which is all they need. No, silly! Require all schools to use the colonists' language as the language of instruction, (possibly ban homeschooling) and make primary education mandatory. Changing the language used in schools has always been an effective winner used by colonists, including the English, to assimilate the colonized. Shipping Québecers back to France is like shipping Americans to England. Doesn't work (since American independance, USA no longer belongs to England and since the Plains of Abraham, Québec no longer belongs to France). Irrelevant? I beg to differ! Isn't it since the Plains of Abraham that Québec was an English colony? Once acquired, the English did a terrible job in Québec. Sending Anglophones from Europe and not changing the language of instruction only causes frustration, spite and division between the Anglophones and Francophones in the QC. No province in Canada could truly be financially independant except Alberta. If any Canadian province calls closed borders, it will be a case similar to what occured in many Hispanic countries; an effective way to ruin one's economy. Québec doesn't need to integrate, they can do everything in their language in their entire province (Canada's largest province), so there is no need for the greater part of Québec's population to learn English. I'll agree that anyone refusing to learn their second Canadian language is limiting their opportunities, but most Canadians seem to be managing fine knowing only one of the two languages, and because you can't force someone to learn a language, it's more a question of when will you learn that Québec is not going to give up their language anytime soon? Is that your idea of a non-corrupt prime minister? It's not a case of "your own language". Québec is using a Canadian language, therefore it's not an issue. There are plenty of Francophones paying into equalization (almost all of these living in Ontario). "Arrogant"? What, and you're not arrogant?! You mentioned previously that you wouldn't make an effort to speak French if you had to buy something on the other side of the river where French is the majority language.

Mall security and local police are the authorities in this case. All the school can do is inform local authorities. The school can, however provide a safe place for the pupils on school property (and on commuter buses which can also be considered school property). The "bully" in this example is likely to be a source of problems on school property aswell, and even if it's not the case, the school authorities can increase awareness and share good resources with the pupils and parents.

I disagree. There are very few things that are best taught in school which can NOT be taught elsewhere. One of those things -- albeit, indirectly -- is social power, consequences and the most bitter truth of all: life is not fair. This is an issue of freedom of speech and many people do not realize that exercising their free speech has repercussions. These kids learned repercussions. If their parents do not like it, too bad. They should send their younger kids to a different school or keep them at home. Outside of their parents' home, kids are no longer the king of the castle. I'll agree that kids have to learn that life is not fair. I am for justice yet agaisnt fairness. It's unjust to be punished if none of the rules were disobeyed. It was not the school's place to punish the kid. The authorities in this case who 'could' punish the kid are the people working at Facebook.

Nonsense. People integrate for their own good, no people willfully 'choose' assimilation. What do you know about what everyone wants? Nonsense again. Why wouldn't England want to colonize Québec? Considering the natural resources, there are huge incentives for colonization. "not know what to do with them"? Doesn't make any sense... the English, who had good experience in colonization would be the first to know what to do once they acquire a colony. Here's a good read when you've got the time: http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory...History_000.htm. I learned this from a video from CBC about Canadian English. I don't think you could find resources claiming otherwise. Québec was the only case where the English did a terrible job in terms of colonization. Where else would the USA acquire it from? Most people will keep their language and culture alive provided the feasibility and the community supporting it. The Basks in France and Spain still make a big deal about language, despite not having recognition in the two countries. Are you suggesting that Anglophone prime ministers were less corrupt? Job opportunities, travel within Canada and abroad, bursaries for studies... you are blind to the opportunities that come with learning a language since you refuse to consider acquiring such a skill. Your loss. Whatever that means. They didn't have to be voted on by the Canadian population. Canadians vote for politicians. Politicians make decisions which essentially reflect the interests of Canadians. If the Anglophone majority were really afraid of the government imposing language policies to which they would disagree, they wouldn't vote for any politician having a French name.

I can easily say the same thing that Quebecers if they were smart, would have dropped French years ago and learn the English language, the only language that matters as far as Canada is concerned in North America. After being ignored by France after the British win on the 'Plains of Abraham', one would assume, French Quebec would only be to willing to allow themselves to be assimilated linguistically. This only proves French Quebec is after political power and (not the unity of Canada) have succeeded to a point with the help of French prime ministers who's loyalties to Canada are flawed in favour of promoting a group with a culture alien to that of other Canadians. Selling your English majority identity to the standards of a minority French society within our federal public service is like admitting France won on the 'Plains of Abraham'. Smart English speaking Canadians would not go near the federal public service when it is saturated with Francophone's with cultural preferences of a foreign country. You have virtually nothing legal to backup traitorous Liberal language policies, including what is written in the Charter, that have allowed French nationalist and French who believe 'Quebec comes first' to work in our most politically sensitive federal institutions (federal public service) that could place the security of all Canadians at risk, if push ever comes to shove, relating to relations between majority English provinces of Canada and the French province of Quebec. If you were smart, you'd know that no people have 'chosen' assimilation; it was forced upon them. England was to blame for doing such a terrible job at colonizing the QC. The best way to assimilate people into another language is to change the language of instruction in every school. The English, who did this in other countries, somehow didn't assimilate the Quebecers, instead they tried populating the QC with Euro-Anglophones. This was possibly the stupidest thing the English have done in North American history. The obvious result is spite. If anyone is smart, they won't drop their language (they may gain another language, but they shouldn't lose their own). Who's English majority identity? Though English is probably the largest ethnicity in Canada (like German is the largest ethnicity in the USA... almost 50 million Americans have German ancestry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American), there are many Canadians who only speak English yet they are of Dutch, Greek, Ukrainian, Chinese, etc. ancestry. Would it be terrible for a Dutch Canadian who only speaks English to learn French? By the way, your logic is flawed. Learning a language does not mean that one admits false historical facts. Is a Texan compromizing his or her identity by learning Spanish and 'therefore' admitting that the Mexicans won the battle of Alamo in San Antonio? Seems like nonsense. Smart Anglophones will learn French because it increases their possibilities in their own country. 7 million voters back up policies supporting the French language. I don't have to back it. It's debateable whether one really has it better in Canada. One has it best where one is happiest (the grass may not be greener, but it may have greater appeal to certain individuals). However, I'll agree that anyone not liking Canada should leave willfully. Seperatists cannot take Quebec with them if they leave Canada, so they might as well give up their dream of seperating. Even if French were only spoken in one large, metropolitan city in North America and the rest of the continent spoke only English, the majority of people living in this city would still not speak English because they could do everything in their locale in French. Anyone wanting to travel, work or study abroad or benefit from incentives in terms of job opportunities or bursaries for studies should know English, however even few Anglophone Canadians don't really benefit from the fact that they speak the international language as their own considering few take advantage of opportunities for travel, studying or working abroad.

Cancer is mostly unpreventable, heart disease on the other hand is almost always preventable. I think that people with cancer, MS, other stuff like that that aren't to blame for themselves, should be treated for free. In fact, I think that people with likely environmental cancers should be able to sue the government for negligence in cleaning up the environment that we live in. If I fall and break my leg biking, I'd have no problem paying for that as I've assumed the risk in that activity. People should the same when they sit down with their Lays and beer and watch TV all night. Then again, my physical activity should be compensated (or my lack of risk factors should factor into my premium amounts). Bottom line, higher risk people should pay higher premiums. That can only work if we privatize health care. We can semi-privatize it though. The gov't could reimburse those paying into private insurance, (where only the young and healthy would come out ahead). I think doctors should be allowed to insist that fat people go on weight loss programs and if they refuse, then should be given the same treatment as smokers... they'll have to wait in the longer queue.

Kids still have freedom of speech. If an adult or anyone not attending that school were to post such nonsense, it would go unpunished. Kids are people too. However, I'm dissapointed that Facebook wouldn't censor the nonsense. I checked Facebooks terms of use: Basically Facebook reserves the right to remove whatever they want from their network at their discretion. I think Facebook offers the possibility of reporting users. The kid should have been reported, and Facebook should have terminated their account (and ban the user's e.mail account). That would have been the "right thing to do", but alas it didn't work out that way. Unless the kid broke any of the rules in the code of conduct, (s)he is not to be punished. However, if there is a rule relevant to this case in the code of conduct, then the school should enforce their rules (for instance if there is such of rule of not disrespecting school authorities on and off school property, then it should be inforced, otherwise the school is not respecting the kid's right to freedom of speech). The situation had to be dealt with, but things which happen on school property are to stay off school property (the school or teacher could have brought the kid to court, for instance).

YOU HAVE NO BUISNESS ASSUMING ANYTHING WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OR CIRCUMSTANCES!!!! YOU ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL REPRESENTATVE OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IN FACT WHAT YOU ARE, IS A LITTLE NOBODY!! I made my assumption based on the information you gave, which seemed sufficient to come to such conclusions. No, I don't represent our government, and I gather that neither do you. I'm no less of a person/Canadian/Ottawan/Ontarian... etc. than you are. At least I practice my right to vote, so I count for more than you do at this point. By the way, when I clicked to respond, I noticed you used multiple exclamation marks. There's no use in yelling, my web browser eliminates superfluous exclamation marks thanks to scripts, so it doesn't affect me, but to others it looks like you're arguing on the Internet (and we all know what that means): http://static.flickr.com/75/195983063_e380efd610.jpg Sounds like bureaucracy. Bureaucracy happens in every country, and language policies also risk inciting bureaucracy (like anything else in any government). Just because a few people do unfortunate things doesn't mean the system is draconian. It just means there are some people using the system to act at the expense of others. Out of all possible terrible things which can go wrong, siting at one's desk having nothing to do and getting paid public sector salary for it is nothing to complain about. If enough Anglophones learn French and get government jobs, the current situation could be tamed. Not learning French, complaining and writing letters, however, will not have much of an effect.

This is why we know you are a troll, most likely a French nationalist. You are expressing Quebec sentiments and ideologies. This is an example of you using personal attacks. I couldn't care less about Québec, it's just like any other Canadian province only it's unfortunately a little heavy on socialism. You keep making the same ridiculous statement, " non-separatist who outnumber the separatist". How do you know that when both Quebec referendums were around the 50% mark. Do you know the number of minorities that voted AGAINST Quebec separation? If you don't, you cannot assume separatist are not the majority among Francophone Quebecers. I don't think separatist are true Canadians but are simply taking advantage of the Canadian identity to pursue their objective relating to a separate Quebec. You can troll by yourself as I am out of here , with you anyways...game time is over. A lot of minorities have also supported seperation. Seperatists are just as Canadian as Anglo Canadians who couldn't care less about Canada. The only difference is that seperatists share an erroneous dream of an alternative reality for Canada. I went to the Met's game last night at Shea Stadium. As we left the parking lot, on our roughly 3 km drive back to the superhighway, most of the signs were in Chinese.I won't say I felt "stressed out". I would say I believe that people who come, at least to my country, say they're coming for a better life, to be part of a free society. Coming to a country, wanting equal rights in a country, and at the same repelling that country's people by failing to learn the language and by use of signage is, at best, working at cross purposes. At worst, it's working towards a slow destruction of what makes, at least the US, great. In Canada, French is a strong and important second language. The French, however, are both insisting on equal rights, i.e. provision of services throughout the country, and dual-language signs, in the ROC, and resisting reciprocal rights for long-established Anglophones in Quebec. Something is deeply hypocritical, disturbing and wrong. The immigrant communities in the US or in any country do not have to learn the national language provided they can sustain in their language. It's always favorable to learn the national language (and most preferable), but if someone can live their whole life in suburban El Paso or in Miami only speaking Spanish and not feeling limited, then there's no problem (provided there be someone who could fill their tax forms in the working language provided the minority's language is not available for contacting the gov't). I still think anyone wanting to move to the USA should learn English, though no one is forced to learn any given language. Dual-language signs in the RoC are not a bad thing (and are normally limited to very bilingual areas anyway). Essentially, one should be able to contact their federal government in any part of their country in their prefered official language if need be. Québec and the federal gov't are two very distinct entities. The feds want to increase bilingualism sea to sea through policy enforcement and educational opportunities, whereas Québec and most other provinces have no interest in bilingualism. It's probably just as difficult for Anglophones in Québec as for Francophones in Manitoba (where there is a significant, well-established Franco-Manitoban community).

Your the one making that statement up, I've never said any such thing. Never said you did say that. Your posts reflect your spite. My position was stated very clearly. Being held hostage to learn an obsolete language by discriminatory undemocratic federal policy in order to gain federal employment, shows and unacceptable level of disdain on behalf of the federal government towards the countries majority English speaking population. Regardless of who holds a majority, if one wants to work for a government of a country of two languages, it makes sense that both languages be required for the job. Besides, no one is forced to learn a second language, but those who do achieve bilingualism can benefit from more opportunities. Yes you did. Read your own post #297. Nop, never accused you of saying that. I'll quote myself: Did I accuse you of saying anything in that statement? Sounds like you're wasting my time trolling. I'll explain how I came to this assumption: 1. You stated "I was a previous a federal public service employee (years ago) who lost employment with the federal government, owing fully to the incredible playful antics of 'official bilingualism' (but with deadly consequences) in the federal government." 2. You later stated "No one person forced me to leave my position. It was the linguistic atmosphere that was poisoned by artificial French dominance that destroyed the department I was employed in." 3. I assume because you chose to resign, and the linguistic atmosphere motivated you to make this decision, that you were becoming frustrated by the fact that people were now speaking French around you at work. I never accused you of stating anything, I simply made an assumption based on the given information. You don't seem to be arguing against this assumption, you're only arguing the fact that you didn't state it, which we all know. By the way, I didn't even put my assumption in quotation marks, so I really can't understand how you accuse me of accusing you of making that statement. I have never given you or anyone else personal details surrounding why I resigned and I don't intend to. Your statement is totally fabricated and is a lie. Your brain is totally engulped with French propaganda and hate towards English speaking people. I think I've covered this. You may not have given "personal details", but you were giving the impression of frustration working in a different language atmosphere. I don't need personal information beyond what you stated. I'm sure I know enough about why you quit your job and I'm not particularly interested in further details either. It's accurate. 'tis not. You claim people who feel a stronger sense of belonging to Québec than to Canada as foreigners... it doesn't fit the definition of foreigner (especially considering seperatists are likely to be Canadian for more generations than you or me). I know many people who admire their city or home town, but none have ever expressed a desire to be loyal to their city or home town. Virtually all desire to be loyal to their country, Canada. Many Canadians couldn't care less about Canada. There are also a lot of Anglophone Canadians who hate Canada (I know some) and would much rather live in another country.

Oh, I'm sure. People who are involved in companies like Total (link to article about fresh scandals) either personally, through kinship, employment or friendship certainly recognize they have a good thing going by keeping Quebec in Canada. How else to have huge subsidies funneled into the province in return for??? More threats obviously. As mentioned earlier, I don't agree with Québec's socialism. I briefly read the article you linked and there's no apparent link between that story and modern Québec-RoC relations. You have a lot of nerve alleging I have a dislike for Francophone's without proof and failing to post the offending post. I really don't know what complaints (driven by spite), your talking about, another unproven most serious allegation of a personal nature, you know nothing about, which constitutes a serious personal attack against a fellow poster. You have proven you are both, a bigot and a racist and an outright liar. You said in post #297: " People speaking French around you stresses you out? That's a sign of xenophobia." Let us be reminded, what you said: "People speaking around you stresses you out", is something I never said. Your imagination is working overtime. It seems you are psychotic as well as being a bigot, racist and outright liar. The only reason I agreed with xenophobia claim is because I agree that nationalist Quebecers who think Quebec comes before Canada are in reality 'foreigners', loyal to a foreign nationality and therefore are not Canadians loyal to Canada. I fear all foreigners who are intent on breaking up Canada, especially those who's volatile actions are amazingly condoned, by our own federal government. I am both a bigot, racist and outright liar? That makes me two of three things. I don't see the justification for this personal attack you throw at me twice (nor for calling me psychotic once). Why I say driven by spite? You got angry about offices filling up with people of a certain group, and then you rant about how such terrible policies favor them over the stubborn people like you who won't learn their second Canadian language. I never accused you of saying "People speaking French around you stress you out". Because you didn't lose your job as a public servant and quit by your own free will due to the changing work atmosphere, it seems that you "couldn't stand the heat" of "people speaking French around you". You now admit that you fear a certain group of people. However the way you define foreigners isn't accurate. You've just demonstrated your little understanding of "sense of belonginng". (Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_community.) Feeling a stronger sense of belonging to one's province than one's country is no grounds for an accusation of nationalism nor seperatism. Few Canadians from any province feel strongest sense of belonging to their country. There may be a higher rate of people feeling that they belong first to their province in Québec, but a majority of Canadians from the RoC will still feel a strongest sense of belonging to their province/city or town/region/continent or even the world as a whole as opposed to their nation. I feel a stronger sense of belonging to Ottawa than to Canada, yet this doesn't make me a nationalist (I also wish Ottawa were a city-state like Washington DC, Mexico City or Berlin, but that doesn't make me any less of a Canadian). Those holding Canadian citizenship may be a minority in their own country, but could never be foreigners to Canada. I don't like seperatists either. They're still Canadians though and they (amongst non-seperatists who outnumber these seperatists) create the need for service in French in this country of two languages.

Separation is supported in Quebec by Francophone's and and the very close results indicate that. The only reason Quebec separatist failed in winning the referendum was because of the efforts of immigrants and minorities who all voted AGAINST separation. Actually, a lot of minorities in Québec also show their support for seperation (propably mainly from the huge Haitian population who has been living in Québec for quite a while now, for instance our Governer General Michaëlle Jean). The highest rate of seperatists in Québec is probably still amongst Francophones, but like in every democracy, people like you don't vote so we could never truly know (and the fact that votes are anonymous... we'd have to do polls but that would create a bit of turmoil). We can still figure that there is a more than significant group of non-seperatist Francophones in Québec (I've met plenty of them). I never learn French for reasons listed previously. My complaints are not directed specifically against ANY Francophone, but rather against the federal government, that allows undemocratic discriminatory advancement of a culture, through traitorous implementation of policies including the Charter, under federal control by corrupt prime ministers from Quebec. You have montioned that you have a dislike for Francophones. Your complaints are most likely exclusively driven by spite. So much for Quebec as a ' HAVE NOT PROVINCE'. More BS. A province of phony BIG SHOTS supported by Canadians, while many REAL Canadians only can afford to shiver in the snow. And you said it, not I. I was simply agreeing with YOUR statement. To your first response: red herring. Plenty of non-Québecers are also snow birds, but many prefer to go to places other than Florida (sure many Ontarians go to Florida, but Ontarians go to many places) including the West Indies and California for the Westerners. Most Québecers shiver in the snow every winter, again your statement is absurd. Second response: I know what I said, silly. I recall you being quick to report me, yet you, to my surprise, actually agreed with my statement. Like always the first step is admiting that you have a problem. There's help for xenophobes http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/xenophobia-treatment.html.

They flood federal offices only after a francophone manager takes over a department and start classifying as many jobs as possible bilingual. Regardless, they wouldn't be flooding federal offices had more bilingual candidates having English as a first language competing for these positions.

A North American union would be favorable, that way there would truly be a free flow of goods and people between the two countries. It would be a little tricky in terms of immigration though (foreign residents crossing the boarder) and Canada would probably find it more difficult to not show support when the USA wants to set up galactic missile launchers aiming at different countries from outer-space (not like this matters, Canada can't really stop the American gov't from doing anything anyway). It would do wonders for the economy. Honnestly though, I'd be more concerned about Mexico than Quebexico relating to this topic. Bavaria (the Nazi state) in Germany has a large number of seperatists and the EU has had little or no impact on the desire of a large number of Bavarians to seperate from the rest of Germany. Even if a NAU takes full effect, Québec will remain unchanged in terms of seperation, sovereignty-association and any other sentiments of nationalism. If anything, a well established NAU would make it more difficult for Québec to seperate.

That is a joke. By and large, Canadians have little or no interest in Canada. Most Canadians will vacation outside of Canada before exploring their own country. I think you should learn French or stop complaining about French in Canada. In my bold opinion, the best way to learn is by picking up a few Belgian comic books. They have a lot of variety. Amen to that! There are more folks from Québec in Florida than all other Canadians combined I'd figure... It's "Le petit Québec" where you'll see their provincial flags, satelite dishes to receive Québecer TV, Jean Coutu pharmacies and Le Droit and Le Devoir newspapers. Check this out: List of states where language is a political issue - Wikipedia. Canada's probably the only English-speaking country where language has reached such a serious level of being a political issue. No mention of language in that quote. Québecers aren't necessarily censored, they simply have to make sure that their message be provided in French, along with any other language they choose. Isn't Québec obliged to providing education and other provincial services in English? They're not very good at it, but monolingual and spiteful Anglo Québecers still fight for their 'language rights'. They still manage to do everything in English in a French-speaking province, meaning Québec still conforms to the use of Canada's official languages. More trolling? "Incompetent poster" is a pretty obvious example of a personal attack. Obey the rules before you quote them. The prairies intended on assimilating Francophone communities prior to the feds obliging them to comply with certain federal language policies. The relocation was due to His Satanic Majesty Jean Chrétien. They flood federal offices because spiteful monolingual Anglophones like you will not learn French and therefore have trouble competing for federal positions. You talking about French blilingual- and English bilingual- nonsense doesn't make sense. Wow, I didn't get reported for suggesting that you might be xenophobic! Incredible. Having a dislike for any group of people is a symptom of bigotry, by the way.

Masturbation could also be considered a disorder... it's usually a manifestation of a psychological addiction. Birth control is not really a disorder in terms of behavior, but many forms of birth control could also be considered abortion (if conception actually does happen) and most forms of birth control are found to be harmful to one's health. I didn't intent on posting about masturbation nor birth control, those are big topics which should be saved for another post. Posting on a forum does not significantly change one's behavior/lifestyle/etc. Could cause an Internet addiction, but so could many websites, so that comment was more of a red herring. I don't know how popular my idea would be if proposed by the gov't of abolishing marriage recognition and leaving it up to the institutions/individuals to consider couples however they choose. It wouldn't really be 'getting rid of marriage', it would just be lowering the gov't's level of bureaucracy and leaving it up to the institutions/individuals to manage marriages by their own definitions. A heterosexual couple could be a host for procreation whereas a homosexual couple could never be a host for natural procreation between the two partners. A heterosexual couple unable to procreate should still be allowed to adopt, caeteris paribus, because they have not chosen a family status which would necessarily block off this possibility.

Be careful what you wish for!! Canadians may have to learn a third language. English?I gather the two official languages now are Canadian and French. That, or America's de facto language is American.