Machjo

I'd be curious to know, especially since when two people with totally different core identities enter a debate, they can end up speaking past one another with no fruitful results since their world views are not even compatible.

And the first Europeans integrated nicely, right? Oh, right, you mean 'integrate' in the transitive sense of the verb? Evidence please. What about the following domestic terrorist incidents in Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada#Domestic_terrorism It appears that nearly all, if not all, terrorist incidents in Canada were committed by Canadians of 'European' blood. And add to that that it would appear possibly none were immigrants. How do you reconcile that with your theories? Have you ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Rome tolerated the Greek language and culture, as it did the Hebrew, and the Jewish Faith, etc. as a pragmatic matter necessary to maintain the unity of the Empire. Of course without a common culture (Latin had always been limited to the elite classes), it was doomed to fail sooner or later, but by tolerating those cultures, the Empire managed to survive a little longer than had it tried to oppress them. The British tried the same in India with similar results, as had the US in the Philippines, etc. In fact, in the dark ages, Jews and non-catholic Christians retreated to Muslim Spain for protection, where freedom of religion was guaranteed. Read up on your history. Look up statistics Canada, why don't you. About 9% of Nunavummiut are functional in neither English nor French, and about 57% of Quebecers are not functional in English. Are you suggesting that Nunavut and Quebec are overrun by immigrants now? You really need to learn some Canadian demographics. Simple solution to that. Require them to know the local language of the place they're planning to move to before they move there. Bingo, problem solved. Before you comment on the past and Canada, you need to learn more history and Canadian demographics. Plenty of Canadians whose families have lived here for millennia still know neither official languages. Plenty of Canadians who can trace their origins in what is today Canada back to 400 years ago still cannot function in English. And even as far back as the Roman Empire at least we had multicultural societies. Heck, if you read the Old Testament, even it makes reference to cultural exchanges between various kingdoms, and that book was compiled starting an estimated 3000 years ago. Yes, a common culture is necessary, with a minimum of a common language and knowledge of the predominant religion, customs, etc. This does not mean though that that common language needs be a common mother tongue, nor that knowledge of the predominant religion, mores, etc. mean having to agree with them and convert. All of this can easily be solved by simply requiring potential immigrants to pass a test and prove their ability to integrate via a quality job offer, etc. There is no need to show ethnic, national, religious and other prejudices.

There are some people in Canada who'd vote for the BNP if they were in the UK.

We had slavery in Canada for a short time.

Not to mention that Quebec's compulsory English policy is one of the very reasons it needs bill 101 in the first place.

This last point, by the way, would not be so unique to Quebec. BC and Alberta both grant schools the freedom to choose from among a list of second languages already. In that sense, Quebec would merely be bringing its system more in line with that of some other provinces.

Wo bu chi rou. Ni chi ba.

Same here.

This is even more extreme than Bill 101. Think Concordia and McGill.

While I don't agree with the extreme lengths to which Bill 101 goes to defend the French language, I do agree that some kind of law designed to maintain a common language is needed for the sake of social cohesion throughout the province. Perhaps the following would suffice for Quebec: 1. Make French the official language of government administration. 2. Grant each school the freedom to teach the first or second language of its choice from among any of the world's languages as long as French be made compulsory either as a first or second language. Number 2 above would increase the likelihood that French would increasingly become the only common language across the province, thus strengthening its position while extending rather than curtailing personal freedoms.

Though Bill 101 reveals extreme linguistic prejudices, it does not reveal any racial prejudice at all.

Wei shenme ne?

I would shorten Canadien's list to: 1. Make English the official language of government administration. 2. Make English a compulsory subject in all Ontario schools, either as a first or second language. Granted this last one has been done already, so really the only one left to accomplish is the first. In reality though, seeing that English is already the de-facto language of government administration in the province, all it would really do is ensure that it remain that way. For the most part, its greatest benefit would be more symbolic than practical, though symbolism alone can be a powerful tool in quelling fears about the future demise of the English language in the province of Ontario. As for Bill 101, I agree that it's too extreme, though granted Quebec would need something with more teeth than what is proposed above for Ontario just because of its own unique circumstances.

Also a point about religion. Religious demographics are ever changing. At one time the Christian Faith itself did not even exist, and Britain was dominated by pagan beliefs. Some Britons are recorded to have professed Islam as early as 4 centuries ago at least, and Spain was once under Muslim rule. The constant change in religious demographics has ever been changing, and any notion that there ever was a time when religious demographics were not changing is merely rewriting history.

As for comments on race and bloodlines, I have a few points to make: 1. The land now known as Canada comprised many Nations scattered across the continent even before the Europeans came. If one is so concerned about bloodlines, then certainly he must support shipping all non-aboriginal people back. But oh my, what to do about the Metis? Shoot them? And if the white man could come, then why not others after him? Yes, a common nation requires a common set of laws, language, and culture. These are not borne out of blood, but are nurtured through education. Even Britain and France have undergone many changes over the generations. Certainly a few handsome Roman soldiers ended up marrying a few local British ladies and having children with them. Same with the French in Britain, and the roman in France, and the French in Algeria and their colonies. And same with the British and French in Canada with the First Nations and immigrants since. I doubt anyone here has any kind of 'pure' blood line.

Ditto. One or a million, it doesn't matter. If one comes in and he can't integrate, that's one too many. If a million come in and they can all integrate, then I say let more in. Scrap the quotas and make our immigration system completely points-based.

None of the above. If they meet the criteria, they should be allowed in. However, those criteria ought to be skills-based and character-based, and not based on any kind of prejudices, be they racial, ethnic, religious or otherwise.

Really. I haven't noticed. But if true, then too bad he's not in my riding. I'm not saying I'd vote for him necessarily, but if he'd actually understood that the Guergis Affair is a judicial matter and simply continued doing his job as a legislator, then certainly that would at least raise my respect for him.

Has Parliament forgotten a few basic precepts of our country, such as: one is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government are to remain distinct? As for Parliament, it is the legislative branch of government, and as such ought not to intervene in the affairs of the judicial. The PM believed there was an issue and turned it over to the RCMP to determine. Wise move. As for removing Guergis from office, that's a decision for the government to make. So why is the opposition so determined in sticking its nose in judicial affairs that have nothing to do with it? Now as for allegations that the government knew of torture in Afghanistan, that's another matter since it's not the private affair one one individual MP but rather a matter of government policy and oversight. Yet even then, it's up to the judicial branch to make any accusations of criminality and politicians ought to keep their noses out of that. They're job is to focus on what legislation they could introduce to prevent it from happening again. They are after all the legislative and not judicial branch. What is it about the separation of the three branches that MP's don't seem to get? Now to be fair, the Conservatives are just as bad as the opposition on this (remember Dhalla?). So I'm not pointing fingers only at the oppositoin here, but to most MP's. When will they learn to limit themselves to their branch of government and not stick their noses in the affairs of other branches?

You mean we shouldn't be allowed to intimidate and coerce a woman into having an abortion? How evil

Two separate issues. I agree that we ought to respect the will of the Afghan people and not impose our national laws on them.

Thank you for completing my elliptical post above. I'd just taken it for granted that what you'd just typed logically followed what I'd typed. But it's good to make it explicit for those who can't fill in the blanks on their own.

As for the brain drain, as long as English and French remain important world languages, the countries that speak these languages will continue to benefit from the brain drain. Only international agreements restructuring the world's language order could stop that. So let's not blame Canada for what is essentially a world problem. We're not forcing them to learn our languages.

Simple solution to that problem. Cut welfare. If you can't find a job, the government could provide you with the education you need to make you employable. If you have the skills, then the government could put you to work where no one else wants to work. As for immigrants, they ought to be able to prove not only that they have a job, but that they also have plenty of skill making it unlikely that they'll need further government-paid education (with maybe an exception made to those under the age of fifteen) owing to their being highly skilled in a high-paying job. That way, we can be sure that they wont' willingly quit that job for government hard-labour workfare that will make them earn their money. I think we need to scrap the quota system altogether and go 100% to a points system.

As for point number 2 in the OP, I did mean it in a practical sense, such as proof that of a job offer or something proving that his skill was truly in demand. As for number 1, it's not good enough to just know the language for jobs, but also to communicate with police, 911, lawyers, paramedics, candidates in elections, etc. etc. etc. We should not have to spend money on interpreters and translators since they only know enough to do their job at work and that's it. Also, I purposely did not mention which language since obviously it will vary according to locality.