CANADIEN

Mark the day. A song by Swing I actually dislike.

Common sense sure paqssed by you and did not stop. Obviously, Canada is not good enough for you unless it espouses your prejudices, so take a hike.

Indeed, he hates everyone equally.

Go say that to all those Montrealers who speak English on the street, get and offer service in English in restaurants, conduct their private lives in English. Then why are you clamoring for laws that would restrict commerce in languages other than English? Nice to know that you do not approve of a municipal by-law of the City of Toronto that regulate the language of commerce by stating that clients have the right to deal with cab drivers able to speak English. Me, I have no problem with it. And dismissed as non-sense. Any language policies that restrict use of any language, or all languages except one, IS discriminatory. But thank you for demonstrating double standard again. Because my English is almost as bad as yours, or because I caught you describing English-speaking Canadians as a minority? Wrong again. Quebec is a Canadian program, a fact you deplore of course. Also, as per the term of Manitoba's terms of entry into Confederation (1871), English and French have equal status in laws and debates of the legislature. As per the terms of the French-Language Services Act (1986), the Government of Ontario provides provincial services in French through most of the provinces, and provincial laws are voted both in English, and French. Under the terms of the Constitutional Act of 1982, education is available (in a limited fashion) in both English and French in all provinces and territories.

I deleted it... repeat.

I knew that I should not read whiule on vacations. Enjoying the joys of a BILINGUAL city (Montreal) and getting a good laugh My aspirations are clear... respect fro rights of all Canadian. Yours, I must admit, is unclear... Is it proving you hate, or proving you are an imbecile And when you do it, it proves your double standard and lack of logic. Like in the following: Not a word on language policy, not a word on cultural policy. And Nazis, last time I checked, where not known for their commitment on multiculturalism. On the contrary, they were known for what they did for the majority. As I said before, learn to read English Which does not preclude municipalities legislating commerce. If an Ontario municipality pased an English only bylaw, you would appalud it. So, you admit you want those, as long as it discriminate against non-anglophoes, that is The may you massacre the English language asside, | thought English-sepaking Canadians were the majority Including passing laws that are wrong when in French, but needed when they're in English.

The first Sikh RCMP officer to wear a turban was raised iin Malaysia, attended high school in BC, and was trained as a police officer at the RCMP. Logic dictates that the police tactics he learned and had applied are those he got druing his RCMP training and career. Most importantly, logic dictates that someone so determined not to sacrifice his religious duties whill uphold his religious duty to act with honour, including honouring his oath and responsibilities as a RCMP officer.

AS he would say... woe to you TRAITOR who favors Quebec's language laws. But I've seen one Japanese chef brandishing a knife menacingly, and more than once... in ads for Halls cough lozanges

I used to have srious probleems with the idea of a kirpan in a school, for safety reason. Until the Supreme court mentioned that there has NEVER been a single case of a schoolkid attacked or injured, even accidentally, with a kirpan anywhere in Canada or the US. Unlike pencils, to take an example. Some might try to argue that the wearing of a turban as opposed to a helmet is a safety threat to the wearer... would be very hard to prove, considering that Sikh soldiers have always worn turban on the battlefield and there does not seem to be evidence tha their rates of casualties were higher as a result. But sure would beat the heck out of "it's contrary to tradition" as a justification to try limiting freedom of religion.

I do believe FARCE is your middle name. I can see why you want to forget that you said Hitler would be proud of me. I haven't, and it will keep me busy laughing all through my vacations. The man was stating his opinion that immigrants are Canada's future. Must be part a part of Quebec's language policies that even escaped the seeparatists Through laws that limit or even suppress uses of certain languages, like Quebec's language laws or... the laws you want for Ontario.

Welcome to the slippery slope... Everyone is free to choose a religion and follow its requirements, therefore they can choose not to follow them, therefore these are not really requirements, therefore these are personal choices, therefore we don't have to respect them. Which is missing the link between a religious faith and personal identity, especially in non-Christian religions. For many Sikhs (to take this example) their faith - and the requirements and symbols attached to it - is no just a part of who they are, it is the most fundamental componant of their identity. The issue is not between what is a requirement and what is a choice. it is between what of essential and what is accessory in a person's identity.

He has also called people Nazis and traitors, and has used fouled language.

So, complain. It won't change the facts. And I would assume that you calling me a Nai would against forum rules... but I'll treat as the idiocy it is. I think Canada is a country. You think it's still a British colony. You mean the baffoon who was once denounced by the Canadian Jewish Congress for calling Quebec separatists a bunch of Nazis?

Only one sect of Sikhism views turbans as non-mandatory. For the vast majority of Sikhs, it is an essential and mandatory requirement of their faiths. You are right in assuming that some Sikhs wear a smaller head covering (called a patka). This is worn by Sikh boys and young men. As Sikh males are required never to cut their hair, the patka will do as long as it is big enough to cover the whole hair; at one point they have to graduate to a full turban as the patka no longer suffices. I am not sure about the RAF and Indian Air Forces (although I saw a picture of a WWII Sikh Air pilot cimbing on his plane wearing a turban and no helmet), but Sikh soliders served with distinction in both World Wars in land units wearing their helmets. Now, some Sikhs do decide, for whatever personal reasons (including desire to fit in or avoid discrimination) to forgo the turban. That personal choice should not be taken as justification for denying the freedom of religion of other Sikhs.

I am part of the majority. So tell me... which of my rights and freedom is denied because a few Mounties wear turbans, as mandated by their faith? Here's our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Feel free to quote me which of my rights are being violated. I'll be away for 11 days starting tomorrow, so you'll have plenty of time to try.

Last time I checked, buddhist monks (Tibetan or otherwise) do not seek to join armies or police forces... because of their vows to their monasteries.

If that's the best you can come with... Freedom of religion

Get back to us when you have one example of a religion that mandates the wearing o robes at all time and it all circumstances.

One of the tenet of the western hare Krishna movement is non-violence and pacifism. By definition, they would not want to join the army or the police. Better luck next time.... As for me, between the hat and religious freedom, I consider religious freedom to be a more important Canadian icon and tradition. And getting the right people for the jobs is the most important thing, way before any tradition. The point is that the prayer of a specific religious used to be mandatory, and most people who favour the return of prayer in schools want that one, not a free choice. Besides, religious neutrality of public institutions does not violate freedom of religion, and schoolchildren are still able to pray on their own time and at their own pace. YOU are kidding me, right. Teachers in a a public school have no business telling kids to pray, or not to pray for that manner. And what are atheist kids (a growing number in our wonderful country) supposed to do? That's right, pray to Britney Spears... Allowing a moment for silent reflection at the start of the day would be one thing (and a good thing in my own opinion), and the kids are then free to use it to pray if they wish so, but it should stay at that. Nice to see that when you pick and choose which traditions to be upheld by the RCMP racism and sexism are discarted. When I pick and choose, I pick freedom of religion. Indeed, I'll pick human rights before the form of the head covering any time.

Traditionally, RCMP officers have been white and male. Are these traditions to be maintained too, or is freedom of religion the only human right you have a problem with?

A Canadian soldier is not less of a soldier or a Canadian because he's wearing a turban. Same with cops. The head covering does not make the soldier or the cop. Let's talk about the context indeed. The prayer at the start of the day was mandatory, usually no exception, and was the Our Father, a CHRISTIAN prayer. Like it or not, non-Christian schoochildren had to either participate in a Christian prayer, or be marginalized. Freedom of religion exists in this country. Are non-Muslim schoolchildren in the countries you mention forced into take part in the morning prayer to Allah. If so, it is a violation of the universal right to freedom of religion, and one more reason why I prefer to live in a country where that right is respected.

You're only 20 years behind on that one. You're catching up. How would I know? I am Canadian , And you wonder why most people know you are a racist and a joke. As usual, you don't get it when I mock your nonsense. You REALLY don't get it when I mock your nonsnese. And you hate the Charter, we know, we know... I have made my position clear. You don't get it, others will. Now, be a man and admit that, according to YOUR own definition of imposed sign laws, the type of sign law you want to impose (English only) is racially discriminatory. One more reason for you to learn it. :lol:

Newcomers to Canada should be expected to abide by the following rules: - live according to the rule of law - respect our democratic institutions - respect that our laws are founded on respect for the rights of all citizens, including minority rights and equality between men and women - respect that there is a separation between organized religion and the State - respect that we have a Monarchy, and that this ever changes it will be through the democratic process - make at least a reasonable effort to learn one of our two official languages (or even both) They should expect that Christian symbols and traditions are behind some of these country most important holidays, but also that one does not have to be Christian to be Canadian. For the rest... While newcomers would be missing good opportunities to expend their horizons by note getting acquinted with some of this country's tradition, whether they do it or not is their own business. What language they sspeak at home, or with their friends, or in internal communications on their workplace, is their own business. Who they love is their own business. The form in which they worship G-d is their own business. The food they eat, the entertainment theu prefer, the sports they like and or/play is their own business.

Please be patient with us. We are just starting to realize that the Earth is flat.

though the French Language Act, that was voted on by the democratically elected Legislative Assembly Yeah right, English-language jobs are disappearing, right. No. By agreeing with a UN right panel that that type of by-law does not constitute a violation of human rights, while saying it's not a good idea anyway. You got me right there Most actually do. You should learn it too. :lol: