seabee

But first he will have to deliver on his promises, and on what Charest believes is "fair" federalism. That is in the range of $5 billion. And then Harper will be accused of pandering to "whining" Québec. Otherwise, considering the very low support popular support for Charest, the PQ will win the next provincial elections. Ready for another Québec referendum?

One should keep in mind that there will be a provincial election in Québec no later than in 2008, probably in 2007. This might even coincide with another federal election if the present minority federal government is toppled. Harper's and Charest's careers are, to a certain extent, intermingled. Also, Charest's popularity is very low in the polls; an election held now would give a clear win for the PQ. It is not possible, in this Charest-Harper thread, to consider only the federal, or only the provincial stakes; both are intertwined in a terribly complex manner. The next year, politically, is going to be very entertaining.

What about deniers of the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis! Though I don't believe they are right, I have been unable to se their case, as denial of the Holocaust is seen as a crime.

If you were to move to Québec, and a french-speaking Québécois were to refuse to rent you an appartement, or a grocer, to sell you food, etc., on the grounds that you are English-speaking, would you simply say; "Oh well! That is his right. I will not ask the Government to interfere?

Renting a hall is a business practice, not a religious one. When doing business a religious group, or even a person, is no longer protected on the basis of their religious beliefs. Can a Muslim or Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to someone on the basis this someone is catholic or atheist?

There were as many gays then as now. It is only that back then, you could be fired from your job on the simple suspicion you were gay. Or thrown out of your appartment. Or harassed by cops. Ever heard of gay bashing? You could even murder a gay person and get acquitted if you claimed that the (dead) gay guy made a pass at you. Miss the "good old days"?

Sorry but YES THEY DO... Were all born as God made us, Straight!!! Adam and Eve!!! get the point??? We all have Fathers and Mothers, not fathers and fathers, or mothers and mothers. Every year there are hundreds of gay teenagers who commit suicide because they want to be straight but can't. NO THEY DON'T. If you are born Adam and Eve, you are a hermaphrodite. Copulate with thyself.

Traditional marriage was "for better and for worse", "till death do us part". Should SSM be banned, to allow only mixed-sex marriage, it would only be logical that divorce be again illegal.

If Québec is not part of Canada, it no longer pays income tax to Canada. This amount of money can then be paid to the Assemblée Nationale as income tax to the new Republic of Québec. This applies to other federal levies, such as Employment Insurance, GST, etc.

Why do I get the impression that Parizeau's remark on the "ethnic vote" is now a preoccupation within English-speaking Canada?

FYI In Montréal, this case has made the news for quite a while. It is a complex case. During the supper-time news, both TVA (french-speaking; daily viewer ship, well over a million people) and CTV (english-speaking) ran a phone in poll, both with roughly the same question: Do you agree with the judges sentence. On TVA, the yes side was over 90%; on CTV, 75%. The judgement is 32 pages long; it is available at: jugement

Try anglo-supremacist. The Canadian federal Dominion is indeed in big trouble.

The federal Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the Government of the Province of Québec to ask for all commercial signs to be written in French; other languages could also be used, provided that French be predominant, hence the 2/3 size rule. It is impossible to set a cut-off point to history before which we act as if nothing happened. Acadia, after its last conquest by the English, was re-named Nova Scotia, which was later partitioned into present day Nova Scotia and New-Brunswick, both of which are provinces of present-day Canada. Fact is Enland has always claimed just about the whole world and never hesitated to resort to violence against civilians to impose its supremacist claims.

The federal Supreme Court of Canada has ruled time and again that you are wrong. Then the matter should have been settled in Europe. The genocides of the Acadians in 1755-1763 and of the Canadiens in 1759-1760 were absolutely unjustified; they were supremacist acts.

There is a serious possibility that Mr. Harper is just another Mr. Mulroney in waiting. He is possibly more on a tightrope than is generally believed. Time will tell. But he has not that much time; he must deliver not only good will but cash to Québec before the next elections in Québec, due normally about a year from now, at most in two years. If he gives too much to Québec, his Western supporters might stop supporting him.

No one ever questionned the right for all people to speak French in what is now called the Province of Québec (it was then called "le Canada") until its violent conquest by the British in 1760. The fact that what is now called Canada has any anglophone population is the result of British violence, many aspects of which can be considered as crimes against humanity.

Just a question of historical details, but before Law 101 (as a Bill is called after being signed by the Lieutenant-Governor) was Law 22, passed by the Liberal government under Robert Bourassa, and which became effective on Jully 31, 1974, a few years before the Parti Québécois first came to power. Bourassa's intent was apparently to placate independentist arguments about the protection of the french language. However, some of it's article were ambiguous, and both sides protested, claiming the new law was thus written to favor the other side. The law so infuritated the anglophone community that several anglophone MNAs in the liberal party, including one or two ministers resigned. At the time of the 1976 elections, the anglophones refused to vote liberal, many opting for the newly formed Equality Party, and thus opened the gate for a PQ government. Law 101, a very long and technical law, though respecting the intentions of Law 22, was essentially a rather successful attempt at removing the ambiguities.

TVA has just done the same as the SRC: a CPC minority government.

Radio-Canada has just declared the CPP winning a minority government, "si la tendance se maintient".

Cell phones are becoming a problem for pollsters; they are not available in directories. So people who are now commnicating only with cellphones are not contacted by pollsters; and these people represent one particular group. That alone changes the reliability of polls. Even with people who have both landlines and cellphones, this affects reliability of polls; if the pollsters phone daytime, there may be no-one to answer to the phone, as these people, during working hours, rely on cellphones. This may have more of an effect in urban areas than in rural ones, and in the cities, more on high-income people than low-income people. Polls may be interesting entertainment, with some value, but are taken with more than a bit of salt.

Mr. Frum makes very good points. However, he does not look at the alternative. Should the CPC form the next federal Government, with little if any deputation from Québec, then it will not only be "separatists" vs federalists, but English- vs. French-Canada. And the two solitudes will be further apart than ever. In Québec, the church and religion are completely out of the political field, whereas the CPC are viewed as Bible-thumper. Gay marriage and abortion are not even issues in Québec, and reopening these issues will be seen as a serious erosion of rights. Québécois are pacifist; they certainly would disagree with reinforcing the military, never mind taking side with Bush. "Militaries in the cities" has been seen as a permanent War Measures Act. The CPC wants to be tough on crime; in Québec, rehabillitation is the thing. The CPC is seen as "gun-slingers". In Québec, Jean Charest has publicly admited to having smoked pot. The media barely mentionned it; the majority believes it should not only be decriminalized, but legalized, a far cry from the CPC. The CPC would not be in a position to call for "Canadian unity", considering such irreconciliable differences. One party or the other, the independantists don't lose.

Why the bogus website? www.drive-votes-to-the-block.com

An interesting article (in French) on the decline of canadian pride in Canada's symbols. L'Actualité Very revealing comparisons between Québec and Canada as a whole. Any thoughts.

Mario Dumont, once a very promising politician. has made too many wrong choices. He is now a "has been", though he is not even 40. Boisclair, around 40, now leader of the PQ, is much more attatcve to the ADQ's supporters. I've just watched the TVA news (viewship over 1 million, the most watched TV news in Québec, and they didn' even talk about it in one hour. The Mecqua disasater was more important. As I write, even CTV is not making a headline out of it.

Right now, RDI is broadcasting live a speech by Mario Dumont, leader of the ADQ, saying that he will vote for Harper on the 23rd, and accuses the BQ of being useless.