CANADIEN

No sarcams, just pointing out your double standard. You say that residential schools and policies prohibiting education in French were good things, then you say these policies never existed. whatever

Your own words. As a Canadian, I don't need to assimilate, I don't want to assimilate, and the days of forced assimilation are over. You dpn't like it? Your problem.

Feel free to see the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" as derogatory. I don't.

Language is a private matter, as long as it is English. If not, then they should be laws prohibiting its use in commerce. Whatever. I did, and I still think it.

Which you support as long as the word French is replaced by English. Thank you so very much for confirming yourself what was already evident. You want no other language than English in commerce. No signs with French on them in Hearst, no Chinese on signs in Toronto's Chinatown. No Italian on signs at Italian restaurants in Kitchener. Even the Quebec government had to back down on that one. Call them any name you want. You are no better. Mind you, I am still curious... would Ontario business even be allowed to use languages other than English when communicating with foreign clients? and how about the language of private workplaces?.

For any case of rude, self-righteous, bullying "left-winger" you put, I can produce from my own experience cases at the other end of the spectrum. People, some with university degrees, demonize anyone to the left of the good old Reform Party, believe their opponents are stupid lazy bums, and fuel their sense of self-importance with attacks on the poor, immigrants, gays etc. For any David Suzuki calling for the arrest of people for simply disagreeing with him (quote please?), we have plenty of people, both in the media and on forums, all too willing to call "traitors" anyone who oppose the foreign policy of the current U.S. and Canadian governments. Extremism, demonizing of opponents and self-righteousness are not "right-wing" or "left-wing".

The possibility of a penal colony turning in the long run into a society, or a country, existed in the 19th century. You want that today, go to the Moon.

The main issue is not how and if a convict would escape from a jail on Ellesmere Island, but the fact there are victually no place left today that are nearly as isolated as Australia was (from an European standppoint) 200 years ago.

I am not talking about someone just jumping the wall, but someone organizing an escape with accomplices. And I fully aware that there would be high odds against that resulting in the guy ending up in Winnipeg... better than the 0% chance that someone escaping a prison camp in 1810 Australian would have had of ever see London again.

Thanks for confirming that your definition of "freedom to speak English" includes forcing others to be educated in it. You don't get it, as usual. Children can be educated in a language other than English and still learn enough of it. It is not a coincidence that younger Franco-Ontarians, who are educated in French, speak and write both English and French better than most of their parents and grandparents. Mind you, your statement gives me a great idea. I shoud demand that the government pay me back the three cents from my taxes that were wasted trying to rid YOU of your ignorance.

Because it isn't. I am glad to see once again that you cannot read.

So, the whole point is making English the "sole official language of business", or commerce. A concept created by you, on which you never give details because you hope others won't see what it means. No more. Enough playing the ostrich. Let's see what it really means. Does it mean that English will be mandatory on commercial signs? YES or NO If the answer is yes, will languages other than English will be permitted on commercial signs? YES or NO If they are permitted, will it be mandatory that the English language be predominent? YES or NO Don't worry if you don't answer. I'll keep asking these three questions until you answer them.

And I have met my share of people on the rght end of the spectrum who fit that label as well. And people at the far right end of the spectrum who scream "you violate my freedom of expression" everytime someone dares to take exception to what they say.

Not that I am confortable one bit with the way the U.S. Government is willing to disregard the rights of its citizens because it wrongly believes safety is worth that prize... Or that I am a fan G.W.B. But you are welcome anytime to go tell a Shoa survivor that he is as bad as Hitler. And last time I checked, 1930's German Jews were not terrorists.

Not exactly what I had in mind (starting with the chartering part, or landing on an airstrip), but not nearly as difficult as commandering a vessel of the line was a 3 year prison-break expedition more than half-way around the globe.

Good points. But in 2008, the gang boss you exile to Ellsmere Island can find a way to arrange for help before he escapes back to the hood. In the 1800's, when you exiled the boss of a gang of thieves to Australia, those of his chums that were still free were at the very best 15-months away. "Borrowing" a plane to go get your "brother" who is about to escape from an artic work camp is not simple, but it is a piece of cake compared to commandeering a vessel of His Majesty's for a three years journey. The world is shrinking. And this is why one will never succeed in building a whole new Arctic society on the foundation of penal colonies. It worked in Australia for two reasons - isolation and environment. A man freed after 20 years had the choice between an 18-months or so return to the same bleak existence he had before, or staying in a fertile land, with a climate suitable for Europeans in many areas, where he could money his skills and get a better life than in London or Liverpool. The vast majority decided the best choice for them was to stay. In Ellesmere in 2008, a men freed from prison after 20 years has the choice between living in the same frigid environment for the rest of his life or be in Vancouver by the end of the following week, I believe most people faced with that choice would leave, quick, or at least wouldn't want to retire there.

And what seems ridiculous to me is the notion that people can't recognize a RCMP agent in a ceremonial dress if he wears a turban. The India Air Force adopted the helmet solution because of a security need (you can not fly a combat jet safely without a helmet). I am still waiting for someone to show me the security reason that would warrant wearing of helmet as part of the ceremonial dress of a RCMP agent. And if there is actually a security reason, why makes a Stetson so safe that those wearing it do not need to wear an helmet with it?

Hear hear. From my experience, bullying is neither a right wing nor a left wing phenomenum. It is a non-discrimanting character flaw.

You still don't get it, do you? The federal Parliament can use the notwithstanding clause only to protect its own laws. A federal plebiscite or referendum has no effect on provincial laws. Actually, I don't view language issues as being race issues, but since YOU chose discribe them as such, I'm happy to use your terminology. And, contrary to what you claim, equality of linguistic rights is not discriminatory. Parts of the Constitution that acknowledge French and English as official languages at the federal level and in New Brunswick are not discriminatory. Provincial laws and municipal by-laws that guarantees services in both English and French are not discriminatory. The only laws in this country that discriminate on language matters are those of the Quebec government, because they make services in English nearly impossible to obtain and they limit the use of languages other than French in commerce and the workplace. Laws similar to those that would make one language "the sole official language of business". I didn't know Canadians moving freely within Canada were some kind of foreign invaders. . I am not the only one who sees you are contradicting yourself. From the 1860's to the 1980's, the federal government imposed on First Nations the residential school progams, whose primary objective was to force their children to learn English and abandon their own Canadian languages. Before the educational rights of Canadians were recognized in 1982, most provincial government had at one point or another laws specifically forbidding the use of French as the medium of education in schools in French-speaking communities. Do you think that was a good thing? Apart from changing the "racist language laws and policies" to "language laws and policies that violate the rights of Canadians:, this sentence describes very well what I think of your opinion. And thanks for confirming that for you I have no rights.

For examples, laws that would make English the "sole official language of business", discriminating against those who choose to conduct business in another language. We know, we know. Whatever. And why should I have a problem with the absence of laws denying people their rights? You mean English, or English-speaking Canadians. We know the drill... Bilingualism is racist, unilingualism is not (as long as it is in English). What a non-sense.

And they wear a turban as part of their ceremonial dress. Legitimate requirements associated with an occupation or an activity trumps other considerations, including freedom of religion. It is normal to expect, as a safety measure, that a hard hat be worn on construction sites and that helmets be worn when riding a motorcycle. I still have to see proof that a turban is less secure than a stetson.

Paul McCartney hails his Quebec City concert on his Website (story) Hear hear.

Some form of hard work for convicts is a bit different from slavery, and not a bad idea. As for exile in the Arctic... Deporting criminals from England to Australia, or European Russia to Siberia, worked because there was virtually no chance of them ever coming back unless a pardon was granted. Even if they escaped Sydney to the outback, they never stole a penny in the streets of London again. In 2008, they escape even from an Arctic jail and if they are resourcesful enough to escape capture (and have some friends to help, mind you), they can be in Toronto or on their way to Brazil in a matter of days. sorry, but the planet has shrunk too much... On the other hand, there is always the Moon

And how many non-Sikh RCMP offers (or officers in any police department) are being forced to wear a turban? True democratic rule is more than just the tyranny of the majority; it also includes respect for fundamental rights. Claim to explain how respect for freedom of religion is immoral. And that new world has at least one good feature... It is more difficult to deny individuals their rights, even in the name of the majority.

Are you claiming you know what I desire? what I think? The same way some claim I hate the English language? Whatever. Please let me know when you have something to say about the topic at hand. I mean, beyond not being able to make the difference between French and Canadian and holding a grudge because I didn't like one of your postings.