CANADIEN

Yep, languages are specific to one race and culture. Whatever.

The more he reads them, the more he misunderstands them.

i am still looking for the section of the Charter that reads: "the Federal governments shall invalidate any law it considers to be contrary to the disposition of this Act [the Charter]". You won't find it, because it is not there. Finding that a provincial law or municipal by-law is unconstitutional is the responsibility of the courts, not the federal government or the Parliament. The FACT that nothing in these by-laws prevents the use of English or any other languages has been proven. There is nothing in them that violates section 2 of the Charter. But you're welcome to argue otherwise in court... and lose. The FACT that the Ontario Legislature voted a law mandating the City of Ottawa Council to enact a by-law providing for municipal services to be delivered in English and French has been proven. It is a FACT that provincial and federal public institutions, including hospitals, are not municipal services. It is also a FACT a regularly constituted provincial court found that the Ottawa City Council had the power to enact that by-law, and that it was not discriminatory. What is unacceptable is the way you pile untruths long after they have been debunked. In other words, by not having the Ontario legislature vote laws prohibiting the use of languages other than English on business signs. Laws that, according to your own reading of the Charter, would violate the Constitution and which the federal government would be duty-bound to invalidate. I understand it has not happened, should not happen and will not happen. If I were you, I wouldn't be talking about morality after writing this:

Then, you must be very good at writing things you don't believe, because finding facts in your drivel is like findding postings by me without typos - virtually impossible. I actually consider myself to be of pretty average intelligence, thank you very much. We already know that you cannot find in the Constitution any of the duties you claim the federal government is not fulfilling. Now we all shall wait for you not to find them in court judgements either. You still don't get it. My mother country is C-A-N-A-D-A. But thank you oh thank for confirming what has been pretty evident for a long time - you consider Francophones to be inferiors.

I do not think "interwining" of different cultures and skin colours is anybody's "fault", and these are human beings we are talking about , you racist. Anyway, same language, different skin colour. I rest my case. PS: You are quite welcome to go tell Paul Fromm that he is the hybrid product of "interwining" between races. :lol:

Two comments... First, I can see the point in companies one does business with being excluded, (they should get your informed and free consent first though) as well as poll companies. Charities can sollicit me through mail, and that gives me a better opportunity to make an informed decision. Second, I found the perfect way to end unsollicitated calls very quickly. They always mispronounce my name, so I just tell them there's nobody by that name in the house and I hang up. :lol:

The unsollicitated phone calls you get after the registration has expired will act as a reminder.

Interesting points. Immigrants congragating in ethnic "enclaves" is not a new phenomenum. As much as some may want to integrate, even assimilate, wanting to perpetuate one's familiar environment is part of human nature. Today we have East Indian neighbourhood, yesterday it was Jewish, Greek, Italian neighbourhood. One thing that has not changed either is that the children and grand-children of immigrants are more likely to adopt at least some cultural traits of the larger community, leading to tensions between generation. A few things are different. There are more immigrants and their backgrounds are more diverse than before. Whole families immigrate, including older people less likely to integrate (we got to revise the policy of allowing people in their retirement years and second cousins in just because one member of the family qualifies; refugees being of course a different situation). Being Canadian is no longer defined primarily by language, religion or culture (a good thing IMO, since such definition exclude people, but the absence of a new definition of what is a Canadian is the one flaw of multiculturalism as it exists now). Also, we live in an era of global communications, which has both its advantages (people can more freely enter in contacts with other cultures and exchange with them) and its risks (new generations of immigrants can maintain, through the Internet and television, links to their country of origin more easily than before). One comment about the Chinese community. There is one factor that makes that community different from other community and a bad point of reference for the immigrant experience as a whole -- the large-scale arrival, in the 1990's, of immigrants from Hong Kong with money to invest. Most immigrants arrive here with little.

Do something about your delusions, will you? A good thing too, because we sure can't rely on your reading of them. Sooo... commie is the insult word of the week. Before that it was socialist, fascist, Nazi... And of course, if asked to provide a definition of those terms you would as usual make a fool of yourself. You so totally don't get it. I am an extra-terrestrial on a mission to destroy Canada and use it as a base to conquer the world. No surprise there... Your non-sense is after all quite entertaining.

Paul Fromm, leader in the Canadian neo-nazi movement Raymond Moriyama, one of Canada most proeminent architect, of Japanese descent Barack Obama, candidate the the Presidency of the United States Colin Powell, former Secretary of State of the United States Yep, they are all of the same race. Whatever.

The provincial governments and the city councils are still the ones making the decisions. This distinction is something that you don't get, like anyone else. Thank you for mentioning the word morality. Governments have a moral responsibility to protect the rights of all and to be fair to all. In this case, that means providing public services both in English and French. The resulting requirement that SOME federal, provincial and municipal employees be able to use those two languages is no more discriminatory or a violation of anyone's right than requirements to hold certain degrees or to have certain physical abilities for some jobs. I noticed that one too, and I chose not to mention it. Because I have demonstrated that I am in not much of a position to give him English lessons. You have proven that you are even less in a position. In this case, you are clearly the pot calling the kettle black. Denial of government services to Canadians in the Canadian language of their choice limits the enjoyment and exercise on equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Laws that prohibit or limits the use of all languages except one in commerce gravely impairs the exercise of these rights and freedoms. What the Quebec government does, which is also what you propose, is discrimination pure and simple.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the original topic... Does the by-law in question forces French on anyone? No more and no less than municipal by-laws mandating the inclusion of English in commercial signs in BC. Do those by-laws (the ones in Russell and those in BC) violate freedom of expression and other human rights? No. The UN Human Right Tribunals concluded that although a prohibition on use of a language on commercial signs (what Leafless wants to do to languages other than English) violates freedom of expression, mandating that a certain language be present on commercial signs does not. Are these by-laws undemocratic? They were voted by duly elected city councils and do not violate any rights, so the answer is no. Were the city councils in question acting beyond their powers? No, unless there was provincial legislation preventing them from doing it. Should have they been passed? I believe they are not necessary, that they are not a solution to the issue, and they should not have been passed. That being said, a business that will not provide at least some level of services in the language spoken by almost 50% of its clientele shows plainly that it lacks business sense and respect towards its clients.

Thank you for confirming at the same time that you are prejudiced and that you cannot prove the existence of constitutional duties you accuse governments of not assuming. Here's what I wrote, word for word. The meaning is clear enough, and if I had wanted to limit it to language laws I would have done so. You don't understand what you mean when you write it. I understand what I mean when I right it... except for errors of style and typos of course Legislation providing for French language services uses the word services because it is about services. Because almost everyone who reads your drivel and comments on it says so in one way or another.

And provincial laws and municipal by-laws providing for public services in English and French your belief that French-speaking Canadians are French, not Canadians, and your misunderstanding and misuse of concepts such as race, racism, discrimination, rights and about anything else you talk about. Apart from the well known FACT there is no federal or Ontario by-law discriminating against users of either English or French, and therefore the so-call need for laws "protecting English-language users exists only in our prejudiced mind... Thanks for confirming AGAIN that you propose something that you oppose when done by others. And don't believe for any moment that I buy the "they made me do it" line. Oh look, you manage yet another way to make a fool of yourself. :lol: :lol: As you demonstrate below, you don't, and you won't. I wonder what it is the French Crown was not conforming to. Please please tell us... Those darn Frenchies, they refuse to just shut up and to do it in English. Whatever. French is a Canadian language. It is spoken by more than 1 Canadian in 5. It is a de-facto language of commerce in Quebec and in parts of other provinces, and laws are not even needed for that. National enough for me. And of course, you don't and won't get it. Let's see... The duly elected legislature of New Brunswick freely requested that both French and English be recognized as official languages at the provincial level in that province. Provisions for government services in French have been freely enacted through laws or policies by the duly constituted legislatures and governments of every province except Newfoundland and Labrador and British Culumbia. Duly elected city councils in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the North-West Territories have freely adopted by-laws providing for municipal services to be available in French, and no law in these provinces and territories forbids it. There's also Quebec, but it's not a Canadian province... Your exact words. I rest my case.

The issue would be... is 10 times in 3 years above average. If that's the case, then the police ought to figure out why, and how to deal with it.

Too often we hear the argument... "You don't like Guantanamo Bay, you oppose the war in Irak and you think Bush is a fool, you're anti-American" "You oppose some policies of the government of Israel, you are an anti-Semite" "You say the Chinese government violates human rights, you show anti-Chinese prejudice" "You don't like the Liberal government, your opinion is not that of a true Canadian" (that was a few years ago, I know) Even in a democracy, a government does not equates a population as a whole. This is not to say that none of those who dislike Bush hate the U.S.; that view would be as simplistic as the "you dislike him, you hate America" line. But too often this is used to deflect and ignore facts and opinions people don't want to hear.

Not a trace of the word culture in there. Must be because it's in English. :lol:

The federal government's constitutional duty is to guarantee language rights at the federal level, and it does so. There is nothing in the Constitution that enables or mandates the federal government to overturn provincial legislation. You claim there is something in the Constitution that allows for that, quote it, in the exact words. As for the provincial governments, you are welcome to show where in the Constitution it is said that they can pass legislation affecting the laws of other provinces, by quoting the exact words. And, once again using the exact word, please show where it is said in the Constitution that the government of Ontario cannot do the right thing, which is to pass legislation providing for provincial and municipal services to be provided in both English and French. And most of adult Canadians who have read the way you express your disgust find it hilarious.

Really? I thought he was Canadian.

Leaving aside the known FACT there are no law, by-law or policy preventing or limiting the use of English in commerce in Ontario... YOU are proposing it, so stop hiding behind the excuse it has been done elswehere. For knowing I am a Canadian. Whatever. That were the French more than 200 years ago. We are talking about Canadians in 2008. Once again, you don't and won't get it. So says the guys that warns of a possible revilution unless the Frenchies just shut up and do so in English. Go read the Constitution, the Fedreal Official Language Act, and the Ontario French Language Act. And I mean read it, not deciding in advance it does not say what it says and that it says what it does not say, as you do all the time. I will admit it is hard to comprehend how you can have such a dismal memory and understanding of your own posting. The FACT remain that you said there was forced assimilation done by the minority, then said there was no forced assimilation.

It is one thing to portray Obama as a celebrity and point to his lack of political experience. It is another thing to compare him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and the McCain campaign is the one that will suffer the most if they go down that ridiculous route.

and in what you propose. Wrong as usual. Contradicting youself again.

Usual leafless. Confronted with what you say, you find a way to deny it. Won't work. What you call democracy is nothing more than tyranny and violation of the rights of other. Less we forget, the rights of others are a form of rebellion... Whatever. You claim that English-speaking Ontarians are being assimilated. Assimilation is one abandoning his language or culture for another one. So, you have an idea of how many English-speaking Ontarians have switched to French, or as usual you don't have a clue what you're whining about?

I have no doubt about that one second. Does n't change the fact that the world has shrunk, Tha'ts my main point. the rest is a side issue.

They're your words. So forced assimliation (residential schools, closing of French-language schools outside Quebec was a good thing, but it should be over now... Make up your mind. I am waiting to know the number of English-speaking Ontarians who abandon English for french every year.