CANADIEN

Or more exactly, it has to do with your willingness to take as fact the rantings of known anti-Semites.

No. I must confessed that I am surprised.. I would have never thought that your delusions included mistaking for facts the ravinfs of the lunatic Barnes Review. Hitler's hatred towards Jews existed and was a documented fact long before 1933.

Still not getting it, I see. You mean as opposed to being isolated because most of its population is treated as second-class citizens. So, immigrants are more likely to live in enclaves in Montreal than let's sayToronto and Vancouver. Care to back that one up with factual information? Mugabe and Castro would be so proud of you. I'd be curious, BTW, to see what eaxactly you hate the most about the preamble you quoted. I wonder if that's the fact it states the majority of the population of Qquebec speaks French, or the recognition of First NATIONS, or that it does not have the customary "Frenchies are not real Canadians" bit at the heart of your delusion.

Nice summary of the fact that the British parliament is the supreme legislative body for the U.K. and its territories. Canada is NOT a British territory, but an independant country with the same Queen is the U.K. BTW, you have (not surprisingly) forgot to read something else in the text you quoted. it reads: Don't worry, I do not expect you to get it.

You got it... this time, unless your last posting in which you said, and I quote: And thank you for reminding us of something already well known, which is thatit took more than 50 yeears after the Statute of Westminster for us to patriate the Constitution, and why. BTW, If you look at the actual text of the Constitutional Act, 1982, you will notice that ALL amendments require the signature of the GOVERNOR GENERAL. Not the Queen, even though the Governor General could reserve the matter to her. Most certainly not the British Parliament.

Interesting hypothesis. Too bad that Louis XV had died of smallpox in 1774... and that France knew her interests were better served by the U.S. and the U.K. staring at each other in North America than by a French garrison in Quebec City.

Constitutional Act, 1982 In other words, the amendments to the Constitutions are quoted where eneacted under a procedure set out in the Constutition. You don't get section 2 of the Canada Act voted by the British Parliament in 1982, which clearly states that it has no longer any legislative authority of Canada. Do you? And you have yet to quote the exact section in our Constitution that states that its consent is needed for any constitutional change. Not surprising, since such section does not exist. The amending formula makes it virtualy impossible to abolish the Monarchy, or the Governor General position. But if unanimity between the provincial and federal government were achieved, there is nothing the British Parliament could say or do about it. The Consttiution Act of 1982 had to be ratified by the British Parliament because the Constitution had not be patriated YET. Little to do with the lack of unanimity. In fact, the Supreme Court had stated in a 1981 decision that consent from the provincial governments was not required for constitutional changes. As already pointed out, the Brtish Parliament surrendered in 1982 any right to be involved in the constitutional proces.

Interesting indeed. Considering that for years the National Posts have hosted columns like those by Diane Francis against linguistic rights for French-speaking Canadians. And that this same editorial views the CCCharter as a failure.

Nope. The Governor General's signature is sufficient.

This is an insult towards the patients at Clarke.

Canada is not a corporation, thank you very much. As for the crown sovereignty, it is indeed the crown of CANADA that exercises it.

The Statute of Westminster and the Canada Act passed by the British Parliament in 1982 are not clear enough as to the FACT the British Parliament no longer exercises any legal or constitutional authority in Canada? Them you'll probably be clueless (again), on what the Constitutional Act, 1982 says about amending the Constitution: Feel free to show me where in the amending formula it is said that consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is needed to amend our Constitution. The Constitution has been amended eight times, since 1982: 1) 1983 (Aborignal rights) 2) 1987 (extension of school rights in Newfoundland to Pentecostal Assemblies) 3) 1993 (equality of New Brunswick English and French-speaking communities) 4) 1994 (end of the mandated federal funding for a ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the Continent) 5) 1997 (replacing Quebec's denominational school system with a linguistic one) 6) 1997 (allowing Newfoundland to create a secular school system) 7) 1998 (allowing Newfoundland to abolish confessional school system) 8) 2001 (change of Newfoundland's name to Newfoundland and Labrador) None of these amendments went through the British Parliament. You are of course welcome to show any legal document that says otherwise.

Let me check. No other country can pass laws applicable in Canada. No other country can make a Canadian law unapplicable in Canada. We share the same Head of State as 16 other countires, but that can be changed through a Constitutional amendment, and there is no legal mechanism under which any other country would be able to prevent that from happening. Sounds like being pretty much sovereign to me.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppps. sorry all. Here it is. Believe me, it is almost as hilarious as some of the stuff posted here. And I have corrected my earlier posting. Are you by any chance dooubting whowhere and the King James Bible? Unlike you, I have seen the light, so I ask whowhere to reveal to me the results of the 1787 referendum. Beware the wrath of Jupiter.

Here's the full text of the Treaty of Paris (1783), by which Great Britain recognised the independance of the United States. The word France does not even appear in that treaty. Not the same as the Treaty of Paris (1763) by which France ceaded in North American posessions to Great Britain. BTW, there was a re-enactment of the 1775 battle of Quebec in 1975.

As usual, you do not get it. Statute of Westminster Canada Act (1982), voted by the Britsh Parliament at the request of the Governments of Canada and nine provinces. Clear enough?

On behalf of all egotistic individuals, I must protest against your characterisation of whowere.

And what part of me pointing out that you are a moron do you not get? Go visit that site. The fact you make even less sense than the idiot who wrote that says a lot... about you. And i still want the state by state result of the 1787 US referendum on the Constitution.

Now, now... in the realm of silly comments, both are amateurs (pointing to whowhere).

The U.S. And what was the result of the 1787 U.S. referendum? State by state please. One salient point; you make no sense. Two and half out of three. Pigs do fly after all. Ever read Quebec Act?It did not grant self-government to the Province of Quebec, as the Governor was appointed by the British Crown and he in turn appointed the Legislative Council. :lol: You remind of a moron who has a Web site claiming that the United States is still a British Colony, based on the treaty recognizing U.S. independance. The Statute of Westminster was very clear on the fact that NO British law passed thereafter would apply to Canada without the consent of Canada. That would include, obviously, the repeal of the Statute itself. As for the notion that consent of any other Country would be needed for Canada to exercise its right as an independant country, suffice to say that, as with most of your stupid ideas, it is shared by you and... you alone. In less enlightened times, the Catholic Church held that only priests and religious people should be permitted to read the Bible. They must have had you in mind.

:lol: Good one.

At the core of separatism is the misguided notion that the people who have told French-speaking Canadians for over two centuries this was not their country were right.

Your "knowledge" of Canadian history consists of getting a few pieces of the puzzle, putting them in the wrong place, binding them out of shape until they fit, then claiming you solved the puzzle. You haven't.

Mind you, the biggest insult in his posting is towards facts.

Nope, and if you had a brain you'd get it. And the language you are writing in is...? The year being?