CANADIEN

A rare event, you got something right. Here are the next steps. 1) A job doesn't speak. 2) A job belongs to the person who has the skills the employer wants Don't worry. I know you won't get it.

The "attack" (better known as a reality check in English) is "against" you, personally. I can see the scene like if I had been witnesing it... 1673, near Georgian Bay. Coureur des bois says to Ojibway woman "Let's scr** the English". Ojibway woman says to Coureur des bois "I love it when you talk dirty". :lol:

I have known that about them for a long time.

Yep, that's your objective... I believe that as much as I believe in flying pigs. Where numbers warrant... It's exactly what it happens with French. You don't get it. :lol: I was about to remind you that YOU have advocated English being the sole language of business, but you gave me something even better (once I translated your sentence into English). What does "not inerfering with the English language" means in English? That businesses should have English on their signs? Perhaps even that English should be proeminent on the signs? Sounds a lot like Quebec language laws to me. A legislation that mandates the use of English and French maybe a lot of things, but discriminatory against any of these two languages it is not. You don't get it. Come back to me on the day I no longer have to pay for English-language schools in Ontario through my taxes. Your own personal ideology includes the separation of Quebec. Yet you support English-speaking Canadians being more equal, and discrimination against French-speeaking Canadians. You still don't get it.

You still don't get it, and jobs still don't speak.

Won't work unless there are some French-Canadian genes in the mix.

Let's compare things, shall we? Quebec Language laws: aim to make the province unilingual French You: aim to make Ontario unilingual English Me: would like nothing better that seeing the rights of English and French-speakers respected in both provinces Quebec language laws: limit access to government services in English You: want no government services in French in Ontario Me:think that government services in English and French should be widely available in both provinces Quebec language laws: make it near impossible for municipalities to offer services in English You: don't want Ontario municipalities to offer any service in French Me: think it should be done where the number warrants it, and most certainly in Ottawa and Montreal Quebec language laws: impose French as the main language on business signs You: have made it clear you want English to be the sole language of business, including signs Me: am no big fan a signage legislation, even though I have made it clear they don't necessarily violate freedom of expression Quebec language laws: limit access to education in English You: probably don't want any public education in French Me: know it's up to each individual Canadian to decide the Canadian language in which their children will be educated Quebec language laws: were written by people who want Quebec out of canada You: want Quebec out of Canada Me: know that Quebec is part of Canadian identity Quebec language law: are trempling on people's rights as Canadian You: deny people's rights as Canadians Me: will not loose my rights as a Canadian So tell me, who is the twisted one who wants to impose in Ontario the same type of law that exist in Quebec?

Feel free to flee that place you call Canada anytime. I'll settle for the real one. :lol: And all those years, I thought the aim of Quebec's langauge laws was to make that province UNILINGUAL French, not bilingual.... And you keep proving me right.

Multiculturalism is eugenics? :lol:

What do you have against Homer Simpson and Quebec?

Oh the wonderful logic. Calling for Ontario to adopt the same kind of language legislation existing in Quebec in order to prevent... the adoption of the same kind of language legislation existing in Quebec. :lol: :lol:

This comingfrom the guy who has compared me to Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe (missing anyone here?), called me a communist, a radical, etc. etc., etc., for the only reason that I know that I am as much a Canadian and an Ontarian as he is. Hi Pot, my name is kettle. In the REAL world, prpoer representation means someone elected in a true and democratic election, not someone who shares your opinions, or mine for that matter. Obviously, you don't get it... again. The only oppressive language legislation in Ontario is the one you propose. You still don't get it.

Congratulations. You have just managed to make even less sense than usual.

So now, rights are something that are earned? Apart from the rights attached to citizenship (such as the right to vote). and the loss of certain rights as a result of criminal acts, you have managed something I thought impossible... to be even more wrong than usual. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: I know, I know... you won't get it.

Of course. The Aboriginals are not Canadian enough and intelligent enough to FREELY make their own decisions, right? I was wondering about the root cause of the U.S. economic crisis. Thanks to you, I nnow found out: the U.S. has not adopted English as its official language, and French is on the curriculum in Louisiana schools.

And YOU want the same kind of language laws in Ontario.

You are wasting your time on this forum a gem like that belongs in a comedy club. Speaking of English.... English translation please? In other words, parliamentary democracy is not democratic, since it does not fit your prejudice. A communist would not have said it better. Sound principle... that all tinpot dictotors should adopt all around the words. Think about what a Robert Mugabe, to name just one example, could do with this. "Can't have elections, we are too poor a country". "Uuversal right to education? Sorry, there is no money in the coffers". "Fair trials? Nope, it's more economical to just shoot opponents in the back of the head". Who said it was dominant, or that it should be? Not me. As usual, you dpn't get it. That's exactly what's happening. Clueless again, you are. News to you again. Retail outlets are NOT part of government. And you are the one who wants Quebec-style language laws, the kind that would dictate what language retail outlets serve their clients in. And there still isn't.

So let's see Leafless. Once again, you have proven you have no clue about the linguistic rights of Canadians, how a parliamentary DEMOCRACY works, or the Charter. And this time it came with clueless notions like jobs that speak. Let me know when you find another way to embarass yourself. In the meantime, I'll sit back and enjoy my rights as a Canadian while you talk to yourself.

You cannot prove that the French-speaking population of Ontario gets services, programs, privileges, that are not available to the English-speaking population. Here's a clue to you. Jobs DON'T speak any language. And they do not belong to any group or person, except the individuals who can do them. In the case of some municipal and government jobs, it includes some positions needed to provide services in English and French. You don't like what DULY ELECTED politicians do? Vote them out. And there should be. Don't you agree? Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting government services in English os not a priviledge, in Ontario. It is a right. It is also a right to get them in French, for two reasons you would understand if you had a clue; French is a Canadian language, and each and every French-speaking Ontarian is as much of an Ontarian, no more and no less, than each and every English-speaking Ontarian. :lol: They do, that's why you make a fool of tourself, after all. Neither is English. You won't see me argue that government services should not be offered in English. There is nothing amazing in government services being offered in English in Ontario.

And the legal definition of treason includes non-violent acts. Another thing you don't get. In other words, you're not the only one who doesn't bave a clue.

In other words, you cannot prove that the French-speaking population of Ontario gets services, programs, priviledges, that are not available to the English-speaking population. And there are English-only clinics, etc. Once again, you cannot prove that the French-speaking population of Ontario gets services, programs, priviledges, that are not available to the English-speaking population. You will never get it. They are representative of the whole of Ontario, a province where equal language rights exist. Unlike Quebec - remember, the province whose model you want to imitate? Which is why government services in Ontario are widely avaialble in English, while laws are written in English, etc. As it should be. Didn't you just make a reference to the French Lanaguage Services Act? And how about the Charter.? They exist - after all, YOU spend your time misunderstanding them. 250 years of surviving attempts at assimilation, and still there. Not what I call a failure. My expectation, or more exactly what I GET, is being treated as an equal Ontarian under the law. You don't like it, not MY problem.

Talk about being clueless indeed. In the English language, traitor and treason are related words, one describing the person committing the act, the other one the act itself. I am sure that this is not the case in Leafless-ish, though. BTW, make up your mind. How could I be a traitor (that is, commit treason) against a country which, as you made clear time and time again, is nnot mine? :lol:

Let's me rephrase it to match REALITY... There is no forced assimilation NOW. But there has been attempts at forced assimilation in the past. You keep showing how clueless you are by calling that freedom. English translation, please. Let me see if I get that one straight. The ancestors of today's French-speaking Canadians did NOT come from a Western culture? :lol: :lol: ... becomes a monocultural society. You don't get it. Because Quebec's language legislation is for the most part a pile of m*nure. You want to use it as model. Says a lot... about you.

Amen to that.

There is no doubt that a complete return to the old ways is not feasable. But the future of Aboriginal nations lies not in assimilation, but in rediscovering themselves and engaging the world as Aboriginals, not second-grade whites.