CANADIEN

Gee, I forget that you don't get it when I mock you.

Indeed, I, and most people, cannot comprehend how you can be so clueless as to post that type of non-sense time and time and time and time again. Except when you try to impose English as sole official language.

OK, now where did I put my Leafless-ish/English dictionary? Translation someone please.

Scrap the "Quebec-friendly" Charter because the quebec Government did not sign it. :lol:

Hear! Hear!

And that so called fact comes from the same source as the other "facts" you have entertained us with over the past few months, such as: - the federal government has invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield Quebec laws - French judges, not Canadian judges, sit on some of Canada's courts; - part of the Constitution is unconstitutional; - scrapping part of the Constitution is not amending the Constitution, so the PM can do it by himself Thanks for the laughs. And French will still be one of our official languages :lol:

Let's not fool ourselves here. Politicians NEVER answer the question asked to them. :lol: I'll give Palin points for at least admitting it.

If Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton were neo-conservative politicians, neo-conservatives would portrait their family affluence and their own past academic career as a ggood thing. Being born i a rich family is always a good thing to neo-conservatives, unless the person "fails" to adopt neo-conservative ideas.

From the part I saw before I fell asleep... Biden won, but not byy a wide margin. Except when she got nervous and started coming back to the the energy policy every time she opened her much, Palin had a better than decent performance.

Why? Because it proves you don't know what you are talking about?

recognition of the language(s) as the one(s) use in the conduct of government business, in laws, in the court system, etc. etc. Period.Other people knows what it means. Really? YOU are the bigoted radical who dreams of having the Constitution amended by scrapping parts of it. Thank you very much for be so clueless that you unwittingly proved my point, which is that the Constution was amended in 1982 according to the legal amendment process existing at that time. Don't tell me, tell Quebec provincial politicians of all stripes, who have been saying for 26 years now that the Charter was bad for Quebec. :lol: And I don't know about Leafless-ish, but in English agreements with nine provincial governments out of ten does not meet the definition of unilateral. Translation from Leafless-ish into English: there is not enough bigotry and discrimination in the Charter.

I know what scrap means in English. I don't know what it means is Leafless-ish. The Constitution, more precisely the Constitutional Act of 1982, is very clear as to the ONLY LEGAL WAY the Constitutioon can be changed, and yes, including scrapping parts of it. The PM does NOT have the LEGAL power to scrap the Charter or any part of the Constitution. Don't worry, I know others will get something as simple as that. Mind you, the PM could get up in the House of Commons and say "the Charter is corrupt, so I am scrapping it". Problem (for you) is, such a statement would have no legal weight, since an unilateral decision by the PM is not the legal process for scrapping any part of the Constitution.

And I thought making loads of money was your definition of success. Whatever.

You are almost speechless? So am I by what he wrote and I am pro-life.

because you ARE a radical. And I label you clueless because you ARE clueless Thank you for reminding me that I am not a citizen of my own country. Citizen? Yes. Proud? Of course you are, after all you would never call Canada a foreign enclave, now would you?

Neither does the Constitution Act of 1982, including section 16 (official languages). Feel free to show amy section of the 1982 Act that states that Quebec has a special status or is a distinct society... and I mean the exact words. Neither does the Constitutional Act of 1982. Feel free to prove otherwise... with the exact wording. The non-sense that recognizing French as an official language at the federal level equals "special status" for Quebec has been debunked enough, so I will concentrate on the other non-sense. First, there is indeed nothing in the BNA Act about official status for English and French... there is nothing either in the BNA Act about fundamental freedoms such as freedom of the press or freedom of religion (section 2 of the 1982 Act), mobility rights (section 6), legal rights (sections 7 to 14), equality rights (section 15), aboriginal rights (sections 35 and 35.1), or equalizations (section 36). The absence of wording on these issues in the BNA Act does NOT mean that the Constitution could not be amended to include them... unless of course you can find anything in the BNA Act that forbids amending it. SSSSSSSSSTRIKE ONE BTW, others know that the BNA Act was a law of the British Parliament, which like any other Act of the British Parliament, could be amended by the another Act of the British Parliament. In the Statute of Westminster, the British Parliament retained, at the request of the Canadian Government, the right to amend the BNA Act, except (after 1949) in areas of federal jurisdiction. The British Parliament passed in 1982 an Act, called the Canada Act, which enacted constitutional changes agreed upon by the federal Government of Canada and the government of nine provinces, while also terminating the power of the British Parliament to amend our Constitution in the future. (link to the UK Statute law database) In other words, the amendments to the BNA included in the 1982 Act were enected according to the amending procedure that applied at the time to the BNA. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTRIKE TWO. And finally, you claim that the Charter, in particular the sections pertaining to official languages, is the result of unilateral action by the federal government. Not to worry, I do not expect you to get the FACT that the federal government and Parliament, and the governments of ALL PROVINCES EXCEPT ONE (the one you claim got an unexisting special status) agreed to the whole of the 1982 Act, including the Charter. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTIKE THREE.

You really are that clueless. You can call it anything your bigoted voices tell you to call it, and I can call it whatever I want. You even have the legal right to claim (against all logic) that it is unconstitutional. But let state it again (not that I have any hope you will ever get it). A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT IN LAW BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL If you doubt it, argue in Court that any part of the Constitution is unconstitutional -- if you can find a lawyer to take the case, because I doubt seriously that even first-year law students would want to argue something so fundamentally illogical and stupid, no matter what they think of the language issue. And btw, a finding in law that a text of law is unconstitutional is not the same thing as amending the Constitution. Don't worry, I don't expect you to get it. As usual, your opinions are contradicted by facts. Namely, section 41 of the Constitution Act of 1982, states four areas where unanimous consent of the federal Parliament and the Legislatures of all the Provinces is mandatory for an amendment to the Constitution: - the amendment formula; - the Office of the Queen, the Governor-general, the provinces' Lieutenant-Governors - the right for each Province to a number of members in the House of Commons that is not less than its number of Senators, AND - thue "use" of English and French (in other words, their constitutional status as official languages at the federal level, as well as the education rights -- that being said, a constitutional change affecting language status at the provincial level would only necessitate the consent of the federal parliament and the Legislature of the province in question). In other words, to remove French as an official language at the federal level, or even to change the amending formula, you need a vote from the federal Parliament and the legislatures of ALL the provinces, including... Quebec. :lol:

Each Province has its own Human Rights legislation; interistingly enough, the Federal Government still has two(!) (the Bills of Rights and the Human Rights Code), separate from the Charter. Although in the case of Quebec the difference between the provincial law and the federal Charter is due in part to the fact the Quebec legal system founded on civil law as opposed to coomon law, the main difference is not there. Prrovincial and federal laws cover areas not covered by rhe Charter. For example, the federal Bill of Rights still protects property rights at the federal level, even though they are not mentioned in the Charter. Also, the Charter applies to the actions of GOVERNMENTS ONLY, not individuals, unlike the federal and provincial laws; for example, if a condo developer in Ontario refuses to sell a unit to a gay couple, that action is not unconstitutional, but the couple could still sue under the province's Human Rights Code.

Five out of 31 in the last Cabinet... which is less in percentage that Quebec's percentage of the country's population with 23% of the vote? How dare we learn English instead of just assimilate?

Hear Hear

And of course, those who vote BQ are just Frenchmen, not canadians, right? Which would make them traitors to a country that's nnot theirs. Whatever.

Careful, bricks might sue you for libel.

And I think the opinion and vote of ALL law-abiding citizens matters equaly, no matter where they were born and how long they have been here. And yes, it even includes xenophobes, homophobes and pro-slavery types.

Every time I think you can't get even more clueless, you manage to prove me wrong. Let's forget for one moment that the corruption you mention in your postings exists only in your bigoted clueles mind... Your opinion that part of the Charter is corrupt, and my opinion that the Charter is an important and good document are exactly that... OPINIONS. Whether or not any Act of Parliament is constitutional or unconstitutional is a matter of LAW, that is looking at the Constitution and interpreting it to see if the Act violated any part of the Constitution.. As it has been pointed time and time again, the Charter is PART of the Constitution, and therefore CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Even if it were not part of the Constitution, show what other part of the Constitution is violated by it. No worry, I know full well you will not get it. Others will.

Not since 1967, and their history since has been one of bad management, bad teams... and sellout crowds at each and every game. When people write that immigrants should assimilate by, among other things, becoming hockey fans, I think that it means assimilation means hating the Leafs.