CANADIEN

I asked mikedavid how he knew that the man already had mental problems before coming to this country. I don't expect an answer, because it is clear from his postings that what he wants is to exploit a senseless tragedy to engage in widespread attacks on immigrants. So I'll ask you instead... you KNOW that the man already had mental problems before coming to this country?

Here are a few highlights of their beliefs: God laughs every time an American soldier is killed in Iraq, because of the U.S. and George Bush's support of gays and lesbians Everybody except themm will burn in Hell, and God rejoices in that Recruitment into their "Church" should be discouraged, because God wants as many people as possible to go to Hell

There is one fundamental (forgive me the pun) difference between the Phelps clan and the Greyhound wacko. They no perfectly well what tey are doing. As for not recognizing them... wild eyed nuts chanting "God hates Canada" while waiting in line at the border shouldn't be difficult to recognize.

On the contrary, Fred Phelps is a great unifier. Most everyone is united in their revulsion at what he does.

So the guy was already a nutcase when he arrived in Canada? And you know that how? And if he had been a white Canadian born nutcase, would you have served us the same kind of drivel? I doubt it.

The Quebec Act was silent on the issue of language. The unofficial way of doing things was that English was the language of Governor's palace and the higher administration, while French was more often than not the de-facto language in local courts and administration. Shortly after the Constitutional Act of 1791, the British Government decreed that English would be the sole sole official language of Lower Canada, but in practice both French and English were used in the Legislative Assembly and virtually all laws and regulations were translated. Despite occasional efforts by the Executive Council to increase the number of English-speaking judges, most of the court and local administration was in French. The government also tried to use free non-compulsory education as an assimilation tool but most of the population stayed away from those schools. The Act of Union of 1840 made English the sole language official language; however, strong resistence from French-speaking members of the Assembly (who just kept using French) was instrumental in the passing of an other British law that reversed the language dispostions of the Act of Union (1848). After that, English and French became de-facto (but not officically, as no other law was ever voted on the topic) equal in status in the Assembly and all laws were enacted in both languages.

I think they will lose, but hey if they win... at least it will show that your little "English onlin on commercial signs" pet project would also be deemed to violate freedom of expression. In the meantime, thank you for supporting Russell merchants who want to post signage in French only.

Less we forget... You are the one who wants to judge and dictate which language should and should not be used on commercial signs. And English is neither threatened nor "influenced" by any other Canadian language. Others have already replied to that bit of non-sense a lot better than i would. Your drivel shows otherwise. Once again, you don't get it You mean an inferior race, right? :lol: :lol: Your "they force me to do it" routine was funny at first, then pathetic. Now, it's merely pitiful.

Of course, if it was a Liberal government doing this, they would be s***bags trying to sneak a few ones on a Friday night, when there are fewer reporters around, deadlines are tight and opposition strategists are packing up for a week-end at the cottage. Needless to say, this stinks no matter the government in place.

Governments have better things to do than to regulate language on business signs. As I said before, I believe the by-law in question to be unnecessary, and an inadequate response to commercial practices that clearly disrespect a sizeable proportion of the local population. But fascist? Not by any definition of the term. Also, it can hardly be argued that the by-law violates freedom of expression: the opinion of the UN Human Rights Commission in McIntyre vs Canada ( the case on Quebec's signage law)) stated that while prohibition of any language on commercial signs violated freedom of expression, mandating that one or more language be present does not preclude freedom of expression. BTW, here's the definition of fascism from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary

The new by-law in Russell Township mandates both French and English on commercial signs. I can't wait for Leafless to jump to the defense of Francophone store owners whose freedom of expression is violated by the requirement to have English on their signs.

There are safety issue with a burqa that do not exist with a turban or a stetson. A hijab though, is something different.

The fact that Ontario has a law providing for provincial services in French and a law mandating municipal services in English in French has been proven on this thread. Another fallacy of yours. Nothing to do with the Frenchies being inferior... yeah right. The policy enacted by the democratically elected Ottawa city council is entirely justifed by the fact that (a) Ottawa is the capital of a country with two official languages, (b-) the French language has a status of language of provincial services in Ontario, and (c-) the percentage of the population that speaks French is high enough to justify providing at least some services in French. And nobody forces anyone to learn French. You don't want to learn it, do like I do with Spanish or, for that matter, with auto mechanics. I don't learn it, and I don't whine about it when I find it is a legitimate requirement for a certain job. The Constitution recognizes the right of all Canadians to live in any part of the country. BTW are Franco-ONTARIANS stealing Ontario jobs? Mind you, I am all for Ottawa municipal jobs being reserved for citizens of Ottawa... as long of course as they meet legitimate job requirements, linguistic and others.

I would dispute the claim that linguistic rights protections was recognized as early as 1763, but beyond that you got it right.

You almost have a point there... Too bad you keep ignoring the fact that English is not the de-facto language of more than one-fifth of Canadians.. Everyone accepts the reality that French is spoken in Russell, even those who don't like it. Except you apparently, but we already know you're clueless. The fallacy of this argument has been demonstrated often enough, yet you keep proving you don't get it. At least now you are adding yet another spin... Must I conclude that Black English speakingCanadians living in Russell are not discriminated against? :lol: Unless you get your wish to have laws prohibiting signs in languages other than English.

I was almost forgetting... How was the French government not conforming when it supported the American Revolution? Still waiting to hear it from you.

No more than people who warn of revolution unless the Frenchies stay in their place... meaning you Not as much as people who want to prohibit commercial signage in all languages except one... meaning you No more than people who warn of revolution and call people traitors for defending their rights... meaning you Once again, you're the pot calling the kettle black.

Nice to see that you are willing to have a referendum (and be defeated) on a law that would forbid languages other than English on commercial signs. But if we are to overtunr the British system of government, why stop at langugae. There are so many other things that were "forced" without a referendum, that I am sure we can find a few ones that would fit one of your other prejudices. From... non-white immigration to... abolition of the head tax on Chinese immigrants to... the right to vote for Aboriginals to... the Statute of Westminster to... anti-discrimination laws to... women's right to vote to...

Ah OK... I use this thread for entertainment.

And you are not the first either to promote laws that go even further. But you sure are the first one to be so clueless while doing it.

Irrelevant. In this particular case, I was using yours.

Mark the day, you got something. That's not specifically why i used the term racist, but objection to what you call "interwining of races" in inherently racist. I am talking about people of various ancestry and skin colour sharing the same first language. Calling Paul Fromm a hybrid. He sure is, after all he is a known White Supremacist. But feel free to tell to his face that he is a hybrid.

Wrong again. What it needs is (a) a by-law, ( authority or mandate through provincial law to do so. Both exist here. Right, for once Wrong again. They are by-laws Wrong again. Wrong again. The certainly apply to federal services and institution in Ottawa. And a good thing, IMO. Says the one who wants to violate freedom of expression with a one-language-only law. Since language is (according to you) a componant of race, groups who speak different languages cannot be (to floow your "logic") of the same race.

Not to worry. If he calls them hybrids, he;ll be the one able to punch them because their fit of laughter will leave them vulnerable.

What's a "TV"?