CANADIEN

The Constitution recognizes French and English as the two official languages of Canada. Yet you wrote that only the federal government and its entities recognized French as having an official status. But do not worry, we are all used to you contradicting yourself. And prey tell what would those problems be? Labour relations (except for federally regulated business) and intra-provincial commerce are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Why am I not surprised? You started the the thread by whining about a court judgement, and you don't even know what it was about. The Court invalidated two Alberta laws, the Language Act and the Traffic Safety Act, as well as the Use of Highways and Rules of The Road Regulations.

And your conclusion that I didn't say whether or not I am pro-life is based on... quoting a posting of mine where I say I support Governor Palin's pro-life position. Prime study in citing people out of context. First I did it. I have misinterpreted past comments by WIP has meaning he thought the decision to abort was a strictly to a private matter. Hence my response to him. Then you did it. There is nothing in my posting that inferes that Governor Palin's decision not to have an abortion is a private one. In fact, the protection of human life is a very public matter.

Sorry, it does. I was not aware that the Governments of Quebec and New Brunswick were entities of the federal Government. The Government of Alberta is bound by the Constitution and a Provincial Court recently invalidated two of its laws. I would be curious to know which 1988 decision of the Supreme Court CBC Edmonton bases its ocnlusions on. I took a quick look, and could not find it.

Thank you for reminding us that there are government services in Ontario that are available in French but not in English. Yeah right. Every time things don't go your way, you whine that it doesn't work. Let me check ... Yep, those PMs were Canadians, and rhey were the leader of the party winning the most votes in elections all adult Canadian citizens were allowed to vote in I wonder how one could change that... passing a law denying Frenchies the right to vote or to run? It's up to the duly elected representatives of the population. And guess what, that's exactly who did it. (...) ALL Canadians, by respecting their rights and the Constitution. Don't worry. I'll let you keep your monopoly.

I finally gave myself the time to look at the court judgement. The issue, actually, is not the ticket, but Alberta's Language Act, which stipulates that the Province's laws are to be in English only. The Court accepted the defense's argument that the law is unconstitutional because: a) both English and French were used equally in public administration and courts in what is now Alberta before it was acquired by Canada in 1868; the equal status of both English and French was maintained, according to the wishes of the majority of the local population, in the Royal Proclamation of 1869 on the annexation of the North-West territories, the law of 1870 creating the Province of Manitoba, and the federal law of 1875 regarding the North-West Territory; c) the Proclamation of 1869 and the 1870 Manitoba Act are to be considered part of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be overridden by an Alberta law promulgated after 1982, therefore that law is unconstitutional I will admit I find part C of the argument a bit far fetched, but the law is the law. As for some of the arguments aadvanced here: 1) "They can speak English anyway": French-speaking Albertans are full-fledged and equal inhabitants of that Province. Either English and French have full equal status, or they don't. If they do, then all Albertans have the right to use one of these languages when dealing with the provincial government, regardless of how well they can speak the other language 2) "The rights of Alberta's English-speakers are under attack". Nonsense. Nobody is denying the right of any Albertan to use English.

Looks to me like she made a choice. She chose to consider that human life begins at conception - her only position I agree with. I would find it difficult to question the judgement of a woman who opts for her own life instead of that of her child if a pregnancy threatens her life, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with the judgement of a woman willing to sacrifice herself for another human being.

The question should be: is that the best YOU can come with? Governor Palin's decision to become pregnant and to give birth to her child is no more and no less your business than another's woman decision to have an abortion is the business of any strangers. You cannot have it both ways. And in case you are tempted to serve that line on me... I consider Foxnews and Rush Limbaughs and al to be demagogic fools.

People who get call them laws and regulations that treat the English and French languages, as opposed to Quebec-style laws and regulations that treat one language and its speakers as having more rights than speakers of other languages. Now, who on this site is constantly promoting the second type of legislation and regulation? YOU. You still don't get how a representative democracy like ours works? You don't like those laws, run in an election on a program to have them changed. They are offensive to you, because they hurt your prejudiced feelings. They were voted on by elected bodies with the legal authority to vote them (or not), and since English and French are treated equally, the claim that anyone is being discriminated against is a joke, not even funny enough for the Just for Laughs Festival. For once we agree on something. The opinion of anyone who is French is irrelevant. When someone who is French, as opposed to a Canadian like me, write anything on this thread, let me know. Since there is no totalitarian government in Canada, I wonder what is that foreign totalitarian government that exercises so much power in our country?

This, coming from someone (you) who spends half of his time spewing the same prejudiced drivel and the other hald contradicting and denying his own postings. You will never get it.

I so needed a good Sunday morning laugh. And we shall ignore that 1/8 of U.S. residents are foreign born and 1/20 of U.S. residents are illegal ECONOMIC migrants. Don't tell people on this thread thst the Bloc and the PQ stand against the breaking-up of Canada. Tell them. For 40 years now they have acted under the false belief that their aim was to break-up Canada. First the Bible was proof that First Nations didn't have languages. Now, welcoming foreigners is contrary to principles set in the Bible, including the passage in Matthew where Jesus says that everything we do to others (including welcoming foreigners) is done to him? Whatever The role of the International Court of Justice is to decide legal disputes between countries or to provide advice on legal issues brought forward by the UN or its agencies. Only COUNTRIES can take their legal disputes with other countries to the Court. I wonder what countries are willing to step to the plate and claim that they are in dispute with Canada over its immigration policies, or that said policies violate international law, any treaty signed by Canada, or the Statute of Westminster. And there is of course the little matter that the ICJ would say that an issue that is strictly internal is outside its jurisdiction. You also try the International Criminal Court. Of course you would have to convince the prosecutor's office, then the court, that Canada's immigration policy constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. In the very improbable case you succeed, you would then have to convince the Court that it is not sufficient to punish the individuals guilty of such a crime, that indeed the entire country should no longer be allowed to exist. And there's the United Nation's Human Rights Tribunal. You would have of course to prove that Canada's immigration policies violate human rights. But feel free to try. I think it should go on TV - they'll need a replacement for "This hour has 22 minutes".

For once, you said something that makes sense... almost. You don't know much about anything.

Sending a kid packing because he is too strong is wrong. On the other hand, if he such a dominant players than other teams will forfeit the game instead of facing him, perhaps it would be better for him to play with another age group and another level, where he would face actual competition.

So now only English is a Canadian language? The only senseless assault is the one committed by you against common sense. Stick to your usual islamophobia.

Prey tell, what is the relationship between the absence of prejudice and the composition of the work force? You asked if honour killing was OK with me, and I said no. I suppose the only appropriate answer is one that reflects your islamophobia. For once, you have a productive idea. I should indeed learn to curb my typo-prone ways. While I do that, why don't you learn to curb your prejudiced ways?

Call it police-hating if that make you you feel better. If the club sells alcohol after hours, it breaks the law. Regardless of who owns it, and whom it servces.

Fine by me.

You mean like the fourth-generation Irish-Americans who were providing support doe the IRA in the 1970's, or Canadian-born supporters of Meir Kahane, or white supremacists? We shall not talk about THOSE bad apples, because it may detract from the "if you are not exactly like me (complete with the same prejudice), you're not good enough" chant. I have chosen a Canada that is not governed by prejudice. Unlike the one you want. Now that I finished laughing... I am not a rabid islamophobe, so murder (for any reason) must be fine with me, right? It is not. But I glad that you are so at lost foir an argument that you have to resort to such a crappy accusation. I was tempted to ask if you would be OK with the use of violence to prevent a Christian girl from dating a Muslim boy, but I have enough self-respect not to sink that low. By treating those who broke the law according to their crimes. Treating purveyors of prejudice with the scorn they richly deserve would help too... In other words, move to my neighbourhood and spout your m*nure and don't expect me to make you feel welcomed.

I have seen plenty of people from different cultures getting along just fine. Let's not forget that we have little of the culture or religion related violence of Asian or European countries. It is one thing to expect that all will abide by the same basic rules. But far too many people reject out of hands some of the basic tenets of the society they claim to be upholding. Freedom of opinion, freedom of religion, the equality of all before the law are cornerstones of our society, yet some would deny those to others. People who applaud when fundamentalist pastors claim that a woman's place is in the house scream bloody murder when a woman dons a hijab. People who use religious freedom and freedom of opinion and expression as a defense for homophobic statements have no problem saying that immigrants should be denied that the same freedom of religion and expression. If we are to insist that newcomers respect basic rules and freedoms, we must do the same. And if we are to insist that newcomers speak "flawless" English before they even get on the plane, be Christians and love either hockey or the Leafs *the two being mutually exclusive ), then let's not pat ourselves on the back about how tolerant and "advanced" we are.

Believe me, it is not because of your skin colour that I hold that opinion about you.

Let me check. You do not believe in the "white is good, other skin colours are bad" crap spouted by some, so you say nothing about it. But if someone takes them to task for what they write, then it's "How do you dare mentioning it, I don't share that opinion?" I for one don't feel the target of attacks directed at others.

I have read the news... and there are churches in India. And I am not blaming the World's problems on you. I am blaming your xenophobia on you. But feel free to fail to see the difference.

Wild Bill is most certainly welcome to consider the issue is about culture. I won't ignore the fact that others engage in the "white is better" crap just because you don't like to be reminded it exists. And nice try by the way... If I thought everyone (or most everyone, or a substantial pertage of people) who has a problem with multiculturalism was a racist, I would say so.

So let's not talk about Buzz the misfit son of the accountant down the street, the one who sports a new swastika tattoo every time he shows up and says the neighbourhood is going down the hill because of Wendell, the teacher from the Bahamas who doubles as a baseball coach and triples as choir member at his church. I suppose Buzz is Black and Wendell is white, right?

Go say that to the guy who say that his new neighbourhood is nicer and more white.

There are churches in India. But thanks for using the oldest stale excuse in the book: "I dislike foreigners because THEY dislike me".