CANADIEN

There is, in my opinion, no need for special advanced polling stations on university campus in this election. That being said, there is nothing in such stations would deny or limit ANY other voter's right or capacity to vote. People who claim otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

Nobody forced you to go talk to the MP and ask your questions.

EXCUSE ME? So, until 1965, there was no laws and practices in the southern US states that actually PREVENTED people from voting? You mentioned the infamous literacy tests, which was a way of DENYING the right to vote to African-Americans. And anybody with an actual and honest understanding of the history of that time knowns that it was not merely the same level of access to polling stations that was denied. It was the capacity to vote, period. As well, somebody with an actual and honest knowledge of what took place at the time would know that the argument put forward by white segregationists was not "there is a need to provide more venues for Whites to vote" (by the way, I have clearly stated that I do not believe there is a need for special polling station, not that expect you to have the honesty to admit it). Nor was it "We will make it more difficult for Blacks to vote". It was "No Ni**r shall vote" (this are not actual quotations). Do you actually believe that men in white robes terrorized people at night, or that three volonteers trying to help African-Americans register for voting were murdered in 1964 in Mississppi just so it would be difficult for African-Americans to vote? The intent was clear - that no African-Americans would vote, period. Your intellectual dishonesty in equating that to to setting of a special poll station on a university campus is appalling. Since that's the best you can offer, it's better ignored.

The difference is that Layton is safe. And I am not commenting on his vision for the country. He is safe becuase there is no chance he will become PM.

Let's talk about crazy indeed. The fight in the South was not about access to polling stations, it was about the right to vote itself. Southern state did not merily make it easier for Whites to vote. They passed laws that DENIED African-Americans the right to vote, period. And when that was threatened, violence and intimidation, including arsons, beatings and MURDER, was used to prevent African-Americans from voting. Feel free to prove anytime that the same kind of thing is happening in Canada in 2011. With the specific date and place of the crimes, and information about the victims.

Interesting, isn't it, that you claim your problem is about newcomers to a political party, but then it turns into an anti-immigrant diatribe. I too am not a big fan of groups of people hijacking a nomination process. But, unlike you, I don't get especially agitated on account of what the ethnic origin of the people doing it. And something tells me I am not the only one with the impression that you wouldn't be protesting so much if this was done by people who were anti (I was about to say anti-immigrant, but looks to me that you are anti anything and everything different from you).

AS an alien myself, I feel insulted to be lumped together with MD... or Tony Lanza

Actually, what has been pointed out (twice now) is that no law passed in any province stated "English is the official language". If you know of such a law, feel free to point pout to its exact text. And if you're thinking of coming back with some non-sense like I don't know the history of my country, or that ignore the existence of anti-Francophone legislations, spare yourself the embarassment. I know the history of my country, especially the history of French-speaking populations outside Quebec, in ways you will never know it.

What is being proposed here is not compliance with religious beliefs. There was no amending formula in the Constitution Act of 1867. If you think otherwise, feel free to show where in the text. ¨And then there's New Brunswick, and Nunavut.

(Interesting, the notion that a cultural different, which ultimately doesn't affect any citizen or their rights, is viewed as an insult. That's the same kind of reasoning that lead to anti-Francophone legislation in other provinces. Je ne parlais pas des revendications du Québec. Je parlais plutôt de certains Québécois dont la première réaction quand ils se trouvent face à face à un Francophone d'une autre partie de notre pays est de questionner la qualité de leur langue d'un petit air supérieur.

And which French-speaking cultureS should the judges come from? You know that the Acadian culture is different from the Quebec culture, right?

Why should the first language of a judge be relevant at all?

There is no reason why judges need to be from one part of the county or another, except regional balance. Like it or not, all Canadians are equal. Having three judges who are from Quebec (or more exactly, who have practiced inn Quebec) is justified on a practical point of view, there need to be a certain number of judges familiar with Quebec's Civil law system. Beyond that, I do not care where the Supremes hail from. As for the idea that all judges in the Supreme Court has to be bilingual. The nature of the proceedings in the Supreme Court makes it unneccesary (even though the more can function in both official languages, the better). There is not just one judge, but nine, the translation service is excellant, and the vast majority (not to say almost all) of the arguments in this court are on points of law, or precedents in terms of past judgements. That's the most important point. citizens rarely appear in person in the SCC. All is done by lawyers, and not any lawers, btw, but by lawyers with years of practice. As I said, the arguments rely on precedents and interpretations of laws more than on evidence, and most of that staff has been translated. In any case, most of the research is done by law clercks (if there is a need for a pool of binlingual people, it's there more than with the nine people who sit on the Bench). Not having a knwledge of the language in which the argument has been presented does not have the same effect than at a lower court. When it comes to the Supreme Court, there is no evidence whatsover that not having nine bilingual judges is detrimental to the rights of the persons whose case is brought to the Court either in English or in French. Linguistic rights and linguistic equality is not affected, and is not compromised.

The only problem with the "Harper is right not to bring this debate during an election" line is that the Brits have been talking about his for about a year now,. As for the line about "the first in line is a man, the second in line is a man"... After Chuck, there will be Willy, then his children... that is his sons first, then his daughters, unless that anaachronism is removed.

Great suggestion. The Rhinoceros Party is short on out-of-Quebec candidates.

The electoral process is corruption. Yeah right. Well. If they are elected official, they have run already. Sharing political leanings with you would be pretty upsetting, indeed. revealing typo? And where in this great country of ours do you live? In the city I live, I have no difficulty wahtsoever hearing people talking in English. Perhaps you should try moving here. It's called Toronto.

Nice misrepresentation of my position. I have never, and would not, argue that there should be no provincial government, or municipal government, or school boards. What I hace said is that members of the federal legislature should be elected in proprotion to population. Clearly different fro saying there should be no provincial or municipal governments. I have dealt with. You don't agree with what I say. Huge difference. The only thing that is oversimplistic is this gross misrepresentation of my postion. by you And I haven't said, and wouldn't say otherwise. That role is a sufficient balance to the risk of a violation of individual rights.

Canada is not a French country. Nor an English country. It is Canadian.

And when was the last time you did? Nice to see by the way, that what languages civil service managers can speak is not relevant to you. Me, well... I don't see any reason why you would have to deal with unilingual French-speaking civil servants.

Canada is a Canadian country. And any claim of yours that it is english-speaking only is disproven day in and day out. This is 2011. Time to join the 21st century.

Except for the FACTS that new Canadians need to learn either English or French to integrate in our society. On contrary. as your next paragraph examplifies. I am sure that English-speaking Canadians do not meet with the same level of prejudicide and ingorance coming from you. Except immigrants, of course. The bigotry is eveidently yours. Not English-speaking Canadians, yours. I for one have better things to do than to consider myself better, or worse, than other people on account of their language.

Nice try. The capacity to be able to serve the public in a way compatible with to the citizens' rights, including its lingusitic rights, are part of the skills needed in our civil service.

And I am not sure how anyone can say that it is alright that some citiznes have less of a voice because of where they happen to live. The woeful simplification is yours, in stating that I seem to believe that citizens don't have multiple interests. The appropriate way to serve both the national and provincial interests of citizens is in the separation of powers between the respective level of gouernments. Not in reducing the influence of the individual citizens on the federal institutions. The problem is not with the idea of a bicameral legislature, but with the inherent departure of the principle of one person one voice that is a feature of the Upper chambers in Canada or the United States. That principle trumps any other consideration when determining the composition of the legislative body. . Not so. The state or provincial GOVERNEMTNS still have their own jurisidction, and spheres of responsibilities. The citizens of each province or state are still represented in the fedral legislature and in the state or provincial legislatures. Except that experience has proven that the sober second thought rarely occurs. When elected, the members of the Upper House are as likely to be influenced by political considerations. when non-elected, they can do about whatever they want, no matter what the citizens think of it. As for being a better representative of state, or provincial interests, i has ceased to be the case a long time ago. And it lasted only a few years. It didn't work. Mostly because the members were not elected, each state had an equal vote, and the federal state was essentially the creature of the states, instead of being a separate level of government. Until the same party control both Houses. I'd trust an independent judiciary first. And you'll notice, by the way, that the citizens in each idinvidual have an equal vote in stat senatatorial election.

And I have made clear, that's not what I advocate. Nice try. . BTo take your argument, the expressed democratic will of a majority of Canadians would be at Oh really? Then, why is not happening right now? Because the current members of the Senate are beholded to their ideology, and to the party that selected them. Like it or not, somebody who is appointed is not accountable to the citizens. At least, with elected people, we, the citizens, can toss them out if we don't like what they do. You seems to believe that's wrong, and that's certainly not perfect. But that`s way better than appointment.