CANADIEN

More than one Canadian in 5. And you are the one talking about reality. Equal rights for all Canadians benefit all Canadians. As for me knowing that I should be treated as the Canadian I am, including the right to use my Canadian language... yep, I am entitled to that. What makes me a Canadian is a special status? Communicating with my government in my Canadian language is a priviledge? You say I am a Canadian, but I should not be treated as one...Fortunately for Canada, and unfortunately for you, the linguistic rights of Canadians are not fading away.

I am Canadian, but my Canadian language is not Canadian enough. what kind of an answer is that? This coming form someone who use the non-sensical "I do not think any language other than English should be recognized as official, but I'll ask why not other language anyway".Official status for French is based on a simple fact. French is a Canadian language. Meaning that cultures unique to Canada have developed in this country using the French language. also, since even before Confederation, French has had an official status. The English and French languages are part of our national fabric, in a way Mandarin (to use your example) is not and has never been. As I said before - primarily, the right of each and every Canadian to use either English or French when communicating with the Government of their country. Official status goes hand in had with the rights I just mentioned. Oh well, official bilingualism is bad because, as a result of more Francophones being bilingual, there will be more Francophines in the ppublic service, so better have one official language and in essence force all Francophones to become bilingual - do I get it right? I never thought there would come a day when I say something like this, but even the most bigoted Francophobic poaters had something more relevant to offer against official bilingualism than "it's bad because most Francophones tend to be leftists". Frankly...

dup

What I said, and nothing else, is that there are a lot of polling stations in churches and schools on voting day. The only way you can infer that I said something that is not true is by reading uin my posting something that is not there. The argument that having a special polling station in, let's say, a university campus compromises equal access or 7unduly favours certain voters or certain candidates those voters may be most likely to choose is an non-starter. Everyone gets on opportunity to vote. While it could be argued (reasonably), that a special polling station on a university campus is not needed, the only argument should be whether or not there is a need for it.

A large number of polling stations on election day will be located in schools, and churches. The claim that advance or special polls in certain locations are wrong because those locations are too "politically charged" is only valid to the extent that there is no proper scrutiny by the returning officers. Which was not the case here.

The argument can be turned around. If they can vote at any time, why not having a special polling station on the campus?

Indeed, learning about other religion is not the same as being thought a religion.

It is indeed a cheap publicity stunt. But had Harper decided to visit the family, do you doubt for one second he would have done the same?

Hang on a second indeed. While I admire the hyppocrisy of the /no to French, so let's say why not yes to all other languages" stance. Like it or not, French IS a Canadian language, and French-speaking Canadien cultures are Canadian. Feel free to demonstate that the same claim can be made of languages other than English, Innuktul or First Nation languages... that is if the "why not other languages" line to be taken at face value... The issue is very simple... either I fully Canadian, with my canadian languages and my linguistic rights, or I am not. That I know I am fully Canadian is well known (so don't serve me the "but Quebecers are separatists" line, since am I am an Ontarian anyway). Am I a Canadian, yes or no?

If you don't have the capacity to understand the fact that having French,, or English, or any other language for that matter is something different than speaking two or more language, yes indeed you are clueless. As for this being an insult. Feel free to think of it as such. The same way I feel your drivel to be an insult to me, my rights and identity as a Canadian, and my country.

Even simplier yet. Just tell me to my face I am not Canadian.

Then don't learn it. Just don't come whining if me and other French-speaking CANADIANS being recognized as such (official binlingualism) means that a few public service jobs are less accessible to you.

I am well aware of the fact that there are more people speaking English than French in Canada. But that's mathematics. what this is about is the right of Canadians to choose the Canadian language,English or French, that they use when communicating with the Government of this country; and whether or not French-speakings Canadians are fully Canadians, or not. Period. And if the kind of conceding you expect from me is to accept anything less than my full rights as a Canadian, find yourself a good couch and a pillow, because you gonna wait, and wait, and wait. It is those who oppose my linguistic rights. BTW, when I identify myself as a French-Canadians (or, to be more accurate a French-speaking Canadian), I identify myself as a CANADIAN. Feel free anytime to pay a vist to postings by another poster by the name of Leafless, or to search for information about groups like the "Alliance for the Preservqation of English in Canada" and the "Confederation of Regions Party". You will find quickly that some of the people who say there should be one Canadian identity mean that the identity in question should be English-speaking, and that those whose first language is French need to assimilate in order to be fully Canadian.As for the idea of a distinct french-Canadian (or Quebecois) nationhood or distinct identity, I consider its existence or non-existence to be a secondary issue when it comes to the rights of Canadians (although the fact there are differences between Quebec and the rest of the country is self-evident). That being said, if there is one identity in this country, then it involves me, my Canadian language, and my Canadian culture. Anybody who states otherwise is in fact stating that I am not a Canadian, and that my identity is separate from the Canadian identity.

And I didn't say that's what YOU meant. That being said, there is no shortage of people who believe exactly that. How about an unilingual English-speaking judge? No more and no less ridiculous, if English and French have the same status in this country. The fact you miss on some of the pearls some of them use to describe French-speaking Canadians aside (my personal favorite is to have been compared to a cancer)... opposition to equal status for french and English in Cabnada is opposition to the rights of french-speaking Canadians and to their identity as Canadians... call it whatever you want, but when someone is opposed to my rights and to my identity, they're opposed to me.

Nothing strange in it. Elections Canada made it clear that the one problem they had with the polling station was that they had not authorized it in advance. They also made it clear that other special polling stations in university settings would not be allowed, and why (to quote the chief election officer, "Initiatives of this nature are expected to be planned well ahead of the election"). Finally, and most importantly, they found that the votes were cast in a manner that respected the Elections Act. What is strange is the refusal by some to acknowledge that the votes were valid and that Elections Canada found nothing against the election rules.

No doubt about that. Which is why I get a chuckle when some of them hide behind the "it's about getting the best judges" arguments instead of just saying upfront that French-speaking Canadians shouldn't have the same access to the SC.

Yes. A little honesty. Like in acknowledging the FACT that elections Canada considered those votes to be valid.

Actually, scientists have provided the answers that scientific knowledge can provide at this point in time. And has scientific knoweldge expend, there will be more responses. Only those who have decided in advance that sicence is invalid unless it provides the answers that they want see otherwise. You keep expecting that scientific knowledge will lead to a scientific proof of the existence of God. That's why you believe that creationism and intelligent design are science, when they are most certainly not. YOUR problem is that knowledge of the existence of God comes faith. Those who know that God is known through faith do not need to wait for science to confirm the existence of God... they knw that's not its role.

Political theft... :lol:

Some of those "some folks" include some Albertans, who act like if everyone should adopt their vision of the country because, well, they are from Alberta and not agreeing with them is some form of anti-Alberta feeling. I for one have been listening to Reform and its political child the Conservative party for 20 years, and I still believe they are wrong. Nothing to do with where the party was born, and wher they get most of their support from.

The only one digging a hole here is you, calling our parliamentary democracy a dictatorship.

Mind you, the quality of the translators at the Supreme Court is more than pretty good. One reason why the law in question was not necessary... That being said, it is interesting to see that most of those who denounced the legislation in question had nothing to say or propose in terms of the need to ensure that people coming before the SC have the same access in both official languages.

there would be no problem finding enough of them. And I still think the piece of legislation in question was not needed. to you. Not to those with a clue.

Eve n if one was to accept the absurdist notion that we do not live in a democracy because we have a Monarch, let's not be fooled there. What the Conservatives have done over the past few years is to avoid facing the elected House of Commons every time the heat became too much to bear. Heroes of democracy against an evil Monarchy they are not.

In our parliamentary democracy, the Government is to assume responsibility for its actions before the elected representatives of the people. Period. If the Conservatives have a problem with that, then they are not worthy of forming the Government. BTW, there was no law mandating 5that all Supreme Court judges be french, or even French-speaking Canadians. There was a law mandating that all SC judges be bilingual. Not the same thing.