CANADIEN

As discrimination is against the law, a contract that includes discriminatory clauses is legally invalid. The argument that the person signed it willingly (if there was a contract) is meaningless, as the contract is still invalid and signing was compulsory as a condition of employment.

A religious university serves the purpose of propagating the faith and it is normal to expect students as well as teaching and teaching-related staff to adhere to a certain code of conduct. The purpose of a health-care agency is to provide health-care, not to propagate the faith. As you pointed out, there are things that are known about that case. If the employee in question engaged in activities detrimental to the health-care mission of that agency, then dismissal was justified. Not hiding one's sexual orientation does not meet that text. And it is not a matter of whether or not that person made a wise choice of where she wanted to work, but or whether or not she had a right not to be discriminated against. She has that right, and if the only thing they have against her was that she is a lesbian, did not mention it before being hired and did not hide it afterward, then that right was violated.

Nice try sharkman. I fully understand the way you try to justify something that can not be justified. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his/her capacity to provide compassionate and competent care. This is not rocket science. And this is not rocket science to figure out that I am NOT talking about necessary and justifiable checks to ensure the safety of an organization's clients. I am talking about aspects of a person's private life that have nothing to do with how they can perform their duties or the need to protect an organization's clients. And it is not rocket science to know that, no matter how bizarre a person's choice of where they want to work may be, unjustifiable discrimination is still unjustifiable discrimination.

Oh my oh my. We cannot let a lesbian care for elderly people, right? Religious organisations should of course have the right to limit employment to people who subscribe to their philosophy and lifestyle requirements when the job is of a religious nature (ex.: a priest or rabbi) or clearly involves a role in spreading the Word (such as a teacher in a Catholic school or an official spokesperson for a mosque). Otherwise, and as long as a person's private life does not interfere with his/her work, it is none of the employer's business. As for the "she shouldn't have lied" argument - questions about her private life should not have been asked, period. And let me say how impressed I am with the "Christian love" expressed in this forum. Leg breaking and lynching indeed

I will stand corrected. From a statistical point of view, there is a virtual tie (less than 1.5%) between the population of the Township of Russell whose first language is either French or English. Does not change the fact that there is nothing violating anyone's freedom of expression in the by-law of the Township of Russell. No more that there was anything violating freedom of expression in similar by-laws proposed elsewhere in Ontario or in BC that sought to mandate English beside Chinese on commercial signs. Or the existing Toronto by-law that states that taxicab clients have a right to be served in English. What do you think about those, Argus? Now that we have dealt with the one thing I got wrong, let's deal with some misconceptions I believe you have: - that official bilingualism is about taking jobs away from unilingual Anglophones, or Anglophones period: no more that it is taking away jobs from unilingual Francophones. Canadians for Language Fairness (a misnomer if there was ever one) tried that one when attempting to have Ottawa's bilingual services by-law invalidated by the courts. As was revealed during the proceedings, a number of senior management positions were occupied by unilingual Anglophones, even though (according to CLF) they were allegedly closed to unilingual Anglophones; - that there are too many Quebec licence plates in the parking lots of Ottawa hospitals: I thought that only the Quebec separatists whined about how many people came from another province to work in their own (gee, my second misconception of the day). There are all Canadian license plates. - that official bilingualism is about "French pride": First, it is French-Canadians, not French. Second, it is not about pride, it is about the rights of Canadians. - that "enforced bilingualism" is absurd: What is absurd is the notion that Canadians in 2008 should not be able as a matter of fact and rights to have information on the products they buy, or access to federal government services in the Canadian language of their choice.

Let's get to the real issue, Leafless. The Governor-General did NOT speak in favour of that pile of m*nure called Quebec's language laws. The way the BQ foams at the mouth every time she opens hers tells aplenty about it. Her real "crime" is not that. It is that she rightly values the place of French-speaking communities in our great county. And that she is an immigrant whose first language is not English, therefore not Canadian enough in your eyes. At least, you're entertaining

Our consent was not sought either when women got the right to vote, when the Chinese got the right to become Canadian citizens, when it became illegal to refuse to serve Black people in restaurants. Which one hould we reverse first? And of course, we can all see how English is fast disappearing in Canada I'll grant this to you, there is indeed a racist unilingual streak in Quebec. But hey, we are an officially bilingual country, which means that people have a right to be language idiots in French as well as in English.

The same non-sense again. Not that I am big fan of that municipal by-law, but since no language is banned from signage (unlike what we get with that pile of m*nure called Quebec's language laws), the argument that it violates freedom of expression falls flat. This by-law prevents NOONE from having English, or French, or any other language on their commercial signage. Instead of whining about a non-existing violation of freedom of expression, some may want to just tell us what they exactly think about businesses who don't have signage and services in the first language of about 2/3 of the community they are located in (both Russell Township and Prescott-Russell County have a majority French-speaking population). And I would also be curious to see what they thought when municipalities north of Toronto and near Vancouver attempted to pass by-laws in the 90's mandating English alongside Chinese on commercial signage.

Indeed, ceasar. ypu yopur

Argus, Above, quoted from Bro, is the exact text of the opening message on this thread. Now, if you have no better thing to do than to tell me what arguments I should address and how, let me know. That way, I'll be able to find better things to do with my time.

Thank you Argus and Bro foir demonstrating one of the of the problems with our education system: looks like it doen't teach reading skills. I can't see how using Ontario as an example of the dangers of tax cuts becomes either a denial it haooened elsewhere or a blame on Harris for liberal shortomings.

We NEED an attack on Quebec and Toronto? Quebecers are gays? I don't like the Liberals. Those of us who died on September 11, 1981, deserve an official recognition today. And Carolyn Parrish should learn to think before she speaks. But as you prove, she is not the only one.

That will be my only intervention on this thread for the moment (one thread only for me), but what is surprising as that people would think Quebec is Catholic dominant. Yes, most Quebcers are baptized in the Catholic church, but baptism is more a cultural thing than a religious one. Churches are empty. Bishops are at best ignored. Most couples don't marry. Public opinions on abortion and gay rights is at odds big way with that of the church hierarchy. Religious instruction is no longer provided in public schools. I am not surprised at all by that move, Caesar. I am surprised it did not happen earlier.

Argus, As I am an Ontarian, I commented on the situation as I lived it in Ontario, under a Conservative government. There is no doubt that cuts in public investments to the point of destroying public infrastructure is not a monopoly of governments labelled conservative. Look at BC under the current Liberal government. Look at New Zealand as a result of the destructive policies initiated under a Labour government. Cut taxes beyond what is needed to sustain public infrastructure and they collapse. BTW, Argus, do you actually believe any reasonably talented high school graduate could be a teacher? Yeah right. Most people who complain about teachers could not last one week doing their job. I was lucky, I lasted two months. Teacher's dedication is not, in too many cases, what it used to be. Bizarre, but the decline started when our society stopped valuying a teacher's job. As for a teacher's salary... Considering the responsibilities imparted upon them (teach to kids who would rather not be there, maintain discipline, negociate conflicts) and what society brings into the class (the effects of child abuse, spousal violence, poverty, immigrants' problems, conflicts and tensions of all kind), I consider 40 or 50 thousand dollars a year cheap labour. Why anybody with what it takes to be a teacher would go in that line of work instead of getting a job that will be less stressful, better paid and above all appreciated is beyond me.

You can't find many people who voted Liberal, Bro? Me neither. But if you travel throughout the country, you will find even less people who voted Conservative, or NDP, or Bloc. You want to know why the Liberal got more seats? Try that. That our electoral system can result in a party with less than half of the votes getting a majority of seats is a problem, of course. But no matter how you change the system, the likely result will still be that the party with 36% of the votes gets more seats than the party with 30% of the votes.

Bro, Your argument about taxes is indeed, as you said yourself. Which is not the same as being simple. Are we witnessing here the results of a public education system strapped for cash? The argument that the lower taxes there are the better things are sounds fine on paper, but it is an oversimplification that fails to take into account a very simple fact: there is a point when public institutions will crumble if they are not properly funded. Look, for example, at Ontario during the Harris years. As a result of massive tax cuts, and despite more money being put in them (apparently), the public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads, public transit) is crumbling around us. Cuts in the investment in the government's monitoring role was a contributing factor in the Walkerton tragedy, in the opinion of the Tory-appointed commissioner who looked into it. The Tory-appointed envrionment ombudsman (hope I get the title right) blasted the government for cutting environment stadards and inspection. Oh, but some will say, look at how we cut welfare rolls and increased the number of jobs, thanks to the cuts. Indeed it happened. But it is not the only thing that happened. Most of the jobs created are low-end jobs that barely provide enough money for the necessities of life. Not surprising, given that the government relaxed employment standards, a natural complement to its tax-cutting. The biggest increase in the number of food bank users come from... people with jobs. Cuts in university funding and the resulting increase in tuition fees have been so big that we now have food banks in our universities. As for the cuts in welfare rolls. They occured, but how many got jobs that lifted them out of poverty, and how many didn't get one at all? A professor of mine used this equation: "before Harris, the average lenght of stay on welfare rolls was 18 months. Now, it is one year and a half". And, there's the deficit Harris left behind.

Instead of saying which parties lie the most, I'll tell which parties lie the less in my opinion. Simple... those that don't have power and/or have no change of ever getting power. Power, it is said, corrups absolutely; it also makes liars of people who have or seek it. It's in the very nature of power. People will lie and cheat to get or keep power if they feel they have to. Sometimes, it's for the sake of power itself. Or it is rationalize on the grounds it is necessary to achieve a greater goal. Or the liar does it because he knows the truth won't be accepted. In the last election campaign, the only politicians close to be truthful were the newbies, the idealistics and those from fringe parties. After all, you can afford to be honest when you'll lose anyway. Of the four main parties, I would say the least disohonest (not based on voting preference) where the NDP and the Bloc. The NDP could afford to be so because they knew they are far from power and will be for a long time. The Bloc could afford it because they don't want power. No worries, both still served us a good heaping of lies. Incidently, I am still surpirsed at the numbers of colleagues of mine (English-speakers in Toronto, no less) who told me they would vote for Duceppe if they could, based to his demeanor at the debates. Proof that image has become more important than substance.

Stoker, As I said before, it is not about culture, it is about the individual rights of each Canadians. That is, in this case: - access to publicly-funded education (an universal right, we agree on this, don't we) in the Canadian language of their choice (the absolute rights of Canadians, but which the Quebec government violates and you want to disappear); - access to government services (now, would anyone dispute that everyone should have access to those) in the Canadian language of their choice. Now, you are free to use your wallet as the only measure of whether or not the rights of Canadians should be respected. I'll go with using the rights of Canadians as the primary measure of what our government should and should not do. And on this note, folks, I am switching to another thread. I have said all that needs to be said on this topic.

Bakunin, Whether they are right or wrong, it is not people who would like government funded Maori schools in Saint-Jovite I have a problem with. After all, whether they are right or wrong, their demand does not violate the rights of any Canadians. My problem is with those who believe that is was a mistake in the first place to acknowledge and protect the linguistic rights of Canadians.

Bro, I have said what I think of the linguistic rights of Quebecers and their violation by the Quebec government. As for the policies by some governments to open some jobs to some minority groups (which are more likly to be visible minorities and women, btw), they have outlived their usefulness.

Stoker, Societal issues, like what government should or should not do, are far too complex to be reduced to a question of dollars and cents. Besides, experience has shown me that, when people say "I don't want the government to do it because it would cost too much", they often mean "I don't want the government to do it, therefore it would cost too much". Money is rarely the sole reason. So tell me Stoker, what is your other reason?

Of course Bakunin. Things would be a lot easier if have turned Anglophone. In fact, things would have turned a lot easier if the Franco had all assimilated a long time ago. Or is it if the Agnlos in Quebec just shut up and did it in French. But let's stop there. Things would be a lot easirer for gays in they remained in the closet. For Jews if they converted. For Afro-Americans if they had stayed in their place. For immigrants if they stayed home. Yes indeed, things would be a lot easier for everyone if they did what the bigots, racists, religious zealots expect from them. Or, since life is difficult anyway, perhaps people should decide for themselves who they are ans what they do, exercise the full extent of their rights where, when and how they see fit, and tell those who don't like it to get lost.

Bakunin, Canada may be an artificial society to you. To me and to most Canadians, it is a country. The kind of societies you seem to envision looks to me like nation-states. Looks very fine, but when the nation is defined in ethnic, racial, linguistic or religious terms, the result is too often the marginalization of those who do not or cannot fit the model. Never a good thing. BTW, the problem with the idea the the rights of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec should have never been acknowledged is that they might not have been acknowledged for those in Quebec either.

stoker, Superiority, if one looks at the Oxford Dictionary, is the character of what is better. Now, we can say anything we want about how certain languages are spoken more than others, and how better the economical porspects of an individual may become by learning a given language. That does not make any language better - in other words superior - to another. And there is no inherent superiority in any language that explains why it is spoken more than another. As for the fact I don't care about the personal choices others make regarding languages, it's based on a very simple notion. It's their choice, not mine. The money thing is a secondary factor in determining how this personal choice is to be reflected (or not) in publicly-funded education and programs. Far far more important questions are: - would not providing those services in a given language affect individual rights negatively; - would doing it affect anybody's rights negatively; - would doing it (in the case of schools) facilitate kids learning (there is a whole school of thought in education that education in one's mother tongue provides better learning results, even in the teaching of other languages; I don't know enough to say it is true or not); - what would be the conseuqences (if any) of doing it on social peace; or what would they be if it wasn't done. That's what I think the primary factors to consider are. The "how much will it cost?" argument is never the primary factor I use when deciding if governments should do a certain thing or not. And the "we are the one who will pay for it" is not even the beginning of a valid argument. So, if you want to convince me that there should not be government services in French and English and First Nation languages everywhere in this country there are enough people asking for them, try something else.

eureka, I suspected it was about Quebec's law, and I believe Trudeau made a mistake. He should have acted with the full force of the powers greanted by the Constitution to the Federal government, in Quebec, as in Manitoba and everywhere it was needed. As for First Nation languages, the application of a status as national languages is likely to be more local than country-wide in scope. Unlike French and English, after all, most of these languages are likely to be spoken in specific areas instead than throughout the country. I think many will agree that the right to a given service in a given language can't be exercise where it's unlikely someone would exercise it. As for official language status, one might want to look into the "national language" designation given in some countries to minority languages. In Switzerland, for example, French, German and Italian are official languages, while Romansh is called a national language, a lesser status in terms of the languages of law, for example, but with similar rights in regards to services and education.