CANADIEN

Thank you. I'll remember this next time someone tells me to speak Canadian. Deluding yourself in thinking your prejudice is some sort of good judgement, I see.

One thing is sure, YOU are a child. Whining that equality of rights is some sort of special treatment, whining about immigrants.

Because readiing him is cheapest than going to Yuk Yuk

English translation: human rights legislation is OK as long as it is toothless and can easily be overturned. :lol: Now, anything to say about the topic of the thread, or you feel (for once) that you have made enough of a fool of yourself when you repeated the c*ap you found on some anti-semitic garbage site?

Thanks for confirming that (1) "cultural injection" is a term in the leafless-ish language, not the English language; (2) you hate the idea of human rights, and (3) you are clueless. Now back to the topic of the First Nation leader found not-guilty of inciting hatred. He did not break the law, but he still a low-life.

He's beyond that.

Up to about 1758, the British troops (colonial and imperial) were getting their ass handed back to them on a regular basis. Apparently the governor of New York even considered declaring neutrality after Carillon. Massive influx of imperial troops, and most importantly the Royal Navy turned the tide. Left to themselves without British help, the 13 colonies could not have won.

The key with whowere is to remember he is an idiot.

And has anyone here said that France does not exist. Keep reading Jupiter word in the Bible and leave the real with people with a brain, will you?

Yeah right... They're lauching a full scale attack with two bombers... That little game has been played for decades... They test our (Canada and U.S.) defense, get inside our airspace just long enough for our fighters to show up, then turn back. And we do the same.

As usual, the topic has moved away from what it was originally. French-speaking Canadians are Canadians because of the battle and things that have happened since. As for us enjoying full rights now, it can easily be argued that it has occured despite the battle, or more exactly despite the attitutde that we should be treated as conquered people and be assimilated. There will be some who will "but if it has not been for the British, Quebec would today be part of the United States and be a second Lousiana." The problem with this statement is not that it is an impossible scenario, but that it's presented as the only one. There are many other scenarios, equally plausible. For examole; Right from the start, the continued presence of New France after 1763 would have given pause to those considering a break-up of the 13 colonies from Great Britain. They remembered full well how, during the last war, frontier settlements were attacked at will by Canadian and Aboriginal raiders, annd that they had needed british regular troops. Not to say of course that the United States would have never existed, but I doubt if would have occured less than 20 years of the the treaty of 1763. And if you change that as well, you change a lot of thigs after that too.

You mean, they'll we were idiots for even bothering to respond to your stupid non-sense.

Now. At one point, things were that bad

Ever heard of the Official Language Act, or the Constitutional Act, 1982. Furthermore, logic dictates that, since French and English are Canadian languages, limitations to the right of Canadians to use them is a limitation of their rights as Canadians.

Actually, English is not banned. It is severely, wrongly, and with no proper reason, limited. Which is why I think of Quebec language laws as horse manure. As for Ontario, my province, I'll give it to its government. It took until 1982 before it accepted land transaction records or wills written in French, but accept them it did.

The BNA Act does not mention the Quebec Act, but that's a moot point. The BNA Act did not properly protect the linguistic rights of Canadians, something that was thankfully corrected by the Official Language Act then by the Constitutional Act, 1982.. Note that things are not perfect, since the Givernment of Quebec is still able to treat English-speakers as second class inhabitant of their own province. And as you know, I don't like that one bit. On the other hand, if I were to accept your logic, I would have to point out that the issue of language of education and language of commerce was not covered by the BNA. There were other things in ways in which the BNA failed to ensure the equality of Canadians. For example, it had no anti-discrimination provision. According to the British jurisprudence at the time, women were not persons from a legal point of view. Asian immigrants could not vote. This has changed. It's called evolution.

Except that who proposes them does not make a difference. If it's a bad idea, it's still a bad idea.

Doo't worry, I am giving my head a huge shake seeing how big of a hole you are digging for yourself. Feel free to whine about how equal language rights is an "imposition" of a Canadian language in Canada. I am fully Canadian, my language is fully Canadian and if you cannot accept that FACT, feel free to steer your drakkar back to the 18th century.

Actually, Canada, and therefore Quebec, was still a Britsh colony until 1931.

Indeed. Which means that Quebecers are Canadians. With full rights, linguistic and others, as Canadians. End of story.

Actually I didn't, and if I missed it my apologies.

Except that some had a problem when businesses did not include English on their signs, enough that they wanted to mandate its presence. Which looks a lot like Quebec current language laws.

Thank you for correcting me and reminding me that French language is imposed when it is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver. That the Acadians, the descendants of the people who settled in the Windsor area in 1749 or the French-speaking Métis of Manitoba are in fact Quebecers. That Quebecers do not live outside Quebec, but just roam. That being permitted to use French is not a right, but only a privilege granted by the Conqueror and that the Conqueror can remove at any time. In other words, thanks for showing that ignorance and bigotry have not disappeared in 2009. Now, welcome to the REAL world, and the REAL 2009. Where French is used in a post office in Caraquet, in a public library in Sudbury, or as the medium of instruction in a school in Vancouver, as it should be. Where my full right as a CANADIAN are recognized in law. And when comments like yours are becoming the relic of the past that they should be. Remember that on September 13, 2009, around 10 in the morning. Believe me, I will.

Actually, about 10 years ago if my fainting memory of it serves me well. And in one of the northern suburbs of Toronto too in the early 1990's.. What was actually funny is that many of the people who scream "bad, bad Quebec, they want French to be mandatory of business signs" were strangely silent on that one.

Here is exactly what it looked like: So I stand (partly) corrected. You did not ignore what I was writing. You just ignored why I was writing. Which was to point out that the degree of importance given to that battle 250 years sometimes vary by the postings.