CANADIEN

I think that what he calls bs is the notion of pur-laine, not the veracity of your friends comments. Any person who has ancestors who was living in New France has a more than 50% chance of having a First Nation ancestor. And more than a few pur-laine families have Irish blood from the 19th century. Those who were tormenting your friends thought they were pur-laine, but if by that they meant a ahem pure French ancestry, they were wrong.

Interesting question. Let's clarify first what this is NOT about. This is not about jobs. Nor the language spoken by a convenience store clerck. And it is most certainly not about guilt. It is about identity. And, in this case, the role of language and culture in it. My French language and the unique culture that goes with it is part of what makes me a Canadian. The same way the English language and her culture is what of what makes an English-speaker in the Eastern Townships a Québécois (and a Canadian). Because of that, this important component of my and her identity, our languages, ought to be recognized and acknowledge. That means ful access, to anyone, and ful individual choice, to education in either English or French -without this, the language is marginalized. It means equal status for both languages at the federal level, and a wide recognition at the provincial level. It means no laws, regulations, policies that relegates speakers of one language to a second-class status (the ruler rule). Anything short of that tells me that I need to change to be a Canadian, that she needs to change to be a Québécois. I don't. and she doesn't. Thankfully, a lot has been done at the federal level, and in many provinces. And call me naive and optimist, but I think it will happen in Quebec too.

So, that's the reality according to you? That Canada is NOT my homeland? You know the ramifications of your statement, do you? it means that I am not a Canadian unless I abandon the French language for English. Than me, and over 1 million Canadians outside of Quebec who speak French and have kept our language and our cultures alive, need to abandon them to considered Canadians. Congratulations. This is the same argument that some English-speaking Canadians have been repeating for generations and which, thankfully, is now falling into the dustbin of history. And of course, you don't even realize how insulting you are to me and other French-speaking Canadians. :angry: :angry: :angry: And then we have a statement that stands amongst the most moronic ever posted on mapleleafweb. I will spare you a full expression of the contempt and disgust I feel towards you right now. Not because the words I'd choose would have me banned. Just because there are no words either in English or French that would fit the bill. Don't bother responding. You're on ignore.

When I use the word racism, if indeed I use the word racism, your little condescending non-sense will have some basis. Until then, you demonstrate you see words that are not there. Let's substitute the word English and the word French, and we get the argument repeated ad nauseam by those who think that there should not be Franch schools in Ontario. "This occurs at the expense of taxpayers... Pay yourself for your French schools... If you don't like it, go back to Quebec". Nice to see you use the same argument as them (back letter on the language of education). And guess what. We won... with not that much help from the Péquistes and the Bloquistes, as usual. In the meantime, I ca nput a business sign with French on it without having to wait for an inspector to come with a measuring tape to make sure the English is appropriately bigger than the French. And if I sign a contract in French, I don't have to add a clause stating that the two parties consent to the contract being in French. Among other things. What I understand is that they were Québécois, and that the constitution was, and is, as much the business of the federal government as of the provincial governments. And the PQ has made it clear for year that to them the borders of a sovereign Quebec would be the same as they are now... Never mind the wishes of the first Nations regarding their homselands. Feel free to keep ignoring it. Those rules ARE NOT against the english. It's to make it clear that here it is a french society FIRST and english people are allowed to use english as well. You know... sometimes I think about it and wonder if it is the right time to let english people have the right to keep same size letters as french. Then I come in a forum like this one or just see on news that alot of anglos use english signs only and it is pretty obvious that those rules are still necessary. Lost soul, stupid, unbalanced... heard that one before... where was that? Oh yes, it was an english-language rage calling for defenders of the Montfort Hospital to have their head examined.You can muse all you want about the fact that "we only want preponderence". The objective is clear... that English should be heard as little as possible and seen as little as possible. Let's not forget that the rule about prepoderence in signage came after a UN panel ahd determined that the previous disppositions violated freedom of expression - at time, in case you have forgotten, use of languages other than English was allowed only INSIDE stores; originally, it was not permitted at all. There may be a difference in the methods advocated or employed, but the objective is not much different than that of those who complain about French on their cerela box, at the post office or in the school. As little of the offending language as possible. Care to show me where I stated that Quebec having a say in the Constitution is a bad idea? The exact words. I dare you. Go ahead, make my day. Do you actually read what you write before posting it? I thought I was bad in that regard, typos and all. But frankly... There has been postings after postings by me over the years on this site stating loud and proud that my identity as a French-speaking Canadian is different and that I will not accept anything less than the rights that go with it, and that means that I consider myself no different than the others, that I have no consideration for my culture, that I have accepted that I am insignificant? :lol:

The point is not, and has never been, whether or not French-speaking Canadians should be able to speak English.

The gratitude speech. always so heart-warming to any French-speaking Canadian, beginning with the Acadiens... What I especially love is that 9 times (and more) out of 10 the speech comes just before, just after or right in a middle of comments that give the reader the distinct impression that gratitude means "shut up and do it in English". Will you enlighten us in such a fashion? Just asking.

Let's get to the point indeed. The Act of Union was a blatant attempt, and not an individual initiative, at assimilating Québec. It failed because the intended targets just plain said non. As for full-hearted attempts at assimilating French-speaking Canadians ourside Québec... three generations of Franco-Manitobains had no illusion at how full-hearted the attempts at erasing their identity was. As for asking the Acadiens... Indeed go ask them they'll tell you how they survived even being expelled from their land.

Tell me... Is it also unacceptable that in some of the other provinces road signs and driver's licences are in English only? Was it unacceptable not that long ago that French-speaking parents in most provinces did have any problem sending their kids to local French-language schools... because there were none? Just asking.

I kept two very remarkable ahem pearls for a separate post. Just want to make sure I understand you here. Canada outside Québec is Anglo land? It is their homeland? Does this mean it is not MY homeland too as a Franco-Ontarian? Not an homeland to the Acadiens, the Métis, the Franco-Ténois? That I should accept the same kind of second class status you want for non-French-speaking Québécois? Because if this is the case... there are a few people here who can tell you I have not, do not, and will not take that non-sense from anyone. Not when it is said in English. not when it is said in English with a French accent, not when it is said in the French language. . I could do better, but why bother to rise above your level? Look above and tell me you believe I consider myself inferior to anyone because of my language or my identitiy. Ask people who have been here for more than one of two years if they believe I consider English-speakers to be my masters. Feel free to believe such non-sense. I will keep KNOWING that I will not accept second-class status for non-French speakers in Québec when I don't accept it for myself in Ontario and in Canada.

In case you haven't figured it out yet,profanity of this kind is against the rules of this forum. No matter the language And in any language, that’s the last defence of those who have no argument. I am sure there are still a few people in the West Island who don't consider themselves Québécois. But don't be surprised if I get the impression that for you it is a sign of self-exclusion when someone in Quebec thinks (rightly) that there is diffrence between mandating that French be on commercial signs and demanding that rules be used to make surethat "offending languages" have as little a place as possible or, when they think (righly) that each and every Québécois should be able to decide by themselves in which language (French or English)their children will receive their education (just too example). If that's what you think, it wouldn't be different than when someone tells me I am excluding myself because I think that, as a Franco-Ontarian I am excluding myself because I won't consider my language to be inferior or that I will not accept anything less than the respects of my rights when I obtain government services. In that case, either you are right and they are right, or they are wrong and you are wrong. Tell me, am I excluding myself from my fellow Ontarians? Fine, then you show me what rights you, as a Québécois, lost in 1982. Not Québec, you, as an individual. Less we forget. It works what ever way the Péquistes decide it should work. You got it wrong. Quebec belongs to Québécois - all of them. And Canada belongs to Canadians - all of us. People do not belong to a nation or a country. Last time I checked, those backbenchers from Québec were part of the Québec people too. Stop talking to yourself Rules denying expression of religions that are not contrary to the safety of the public are a violation of basic human rights. I do not agree with them whether they exist is Tehran, Ottawa or Quebec City. I will be more than happy to explain it to them... the second I start beleving it, in other words never. I suspect here you didn't get my point. My point is that to the Péquiste ideology Québec as a nation has right to form it's own country separate from Canada but the Innu NATION, the Cree NATION, the Abenaki NATION (I won't name them all, you know where I am going with this) don't have a right to form their own country separate from Québec. Sorry, doesn't quite work that way. If you can say Québec is OUR homeland, a Wyendat, an Inuit, a Naskapi can say the exact same thing about the land they inhabit. You can leave Canada, they can leave Québec. Perhaps you know the English expression... what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Seriously, how many people in Québec these days want to go back to the day when it was all fine to have no French in a commercial sign. There is a difference between saying "the language of the majority must appear on commercial signs", which is legitimate, and running around with rulers to make sure the offending languages are not more than a certain size on a sign (which is treating speakers of that language like second class citizens, and I'll spare you less flattering epithets about it). Actually, the predominance argument is not that different from the argument of those who think English, and only English, is acceptable in Canada outside Quebec. Do you think they're right? They must have been deleted.

It is also two historical facts.

Benz, Benz, Benz... I was tempted to respond to your diatribes in French, but I want other readers to understand my point... and share in the fun. WE want to be our own country. Noever mind that a majority of US don't even want a referendum on it. WE are all Quebecers... the We excluding anybody who is not French-speaking, pure-laine or is not Catholic, according to you and the PQ propaganda. The Constitution Act of 1982, that gave Quebecers (yes Quebecers... interesting we often hear about Quebec rights, but not that often about the rights of Quebecers) as well as other Canadians more rights that was ever recognized to them, that enshrined the equality of status of the French and English languages at the federal, and acknowledged a right to education in French to virtually all French-speaking Canadians, and that won the approval of all QUEBEC members of the House of Commons, elected by Quebecers, except one, that Constitution is a betrayal. Freedom of religion is not to be respected. WE are a Nation, so we can do anything we want with our land. First Nations are nations, so they cannot do what they want with their land. The Anglos have equal rights... in French. DIEU MERCI JE SUIS FRANCO-ONTARIEN.

You obviously need to learn some history, Signal Cpl There have been attempts at assimilation of the French-speaking population in what is now Quebec. And the horse man*re known as Quebec language laws are well matched by some of the stuff that has occured over the years in other provinces. Let,s start with... In 1801, the first law governing education in Lower Canada attempted to implement a system of "public schols" dominated by the Anglican herarchy, aimed at making the population protestant and English speaking. In 1841, the Act of Union clearly stated that English would be the only language of the laws snd the Legislative Assembly. Thankfully, it didn't work. Assimilation was tried. It didn't work, but it was tried. AS for after Confederation... A few examples: In 1891, the Legislature of Manitoba passed an Official Language Act (name sou nds familiar) banning the French language from the Legislature, the laws and the Court of the Province - in direct contravention of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which is part of the Constitution. In the same decade, legislation was passed effectively forbidding instruction in French in the public schools of the Province. (You know of course, that, despite the violation of the right of Quebecers to choose French or English as their language of instruction, English schools have never been outlawed in Quebec). In Ontario, instruction in French was forbidden in public schools under Regulation 17, from 1912 to the late 1920's (was still in the books to the 1940's). One of the first acts of the Legislature of Alberta and Saskatchewan after 1905 was to nullify the clauses of the North-West Territories Act that gave equal status to English and French. Except for criminal procedures, most provinces still only recognize a limited (to non-existent) right to the use of the French language in provincial court proceedings (you know of course, that section 133 of the Constution Act, 1867, guarantees the right to use either English or french in any Quebec court). Thankfully, this is 2012 and the good old days when French-speaking Canadians had no right outside of Quebec are that, old days. And my use of the words horse and man*re to describe Quebec language laws should not lead to any ambiguity about what I think of them. But let,s not pretend that things that have happened didn't happen, shall we?

Quick one... Won't be here for a while, too bad because you raise an interesting question. God instituted marriage to be between one man and one woman. Not uniquely between one Christian man and one Christain woman.

Mind if I postpoine that one until after vacations?

I wonder what is the most astounding. Your bigotry, your fanatism, your hypocrisy (dear brother, really? ) or the fact you are oblivious to all of these. Now, in case you didn't figure it out, what people have been talking about here is SSM, not homosexual act. But then, while God stretches the Universe, you keep stretching facts. As it suits you. At least now we know that for you it is not just about "marriage belonging to us", or "feeling bullied" - it is about your, to put mildly, dislike of homesexuals. I have not said one word about what I think of homosexual acts. Not surprisingly, that has not prevented you from making a fool of yourself AGAIN but putting opinions in my brains. Now - this is what I think of homosexual acts. They are sinful (cue to a number of people calling me all kinds of things for that). But we are all sinners, all of us. And I have seen sins far worse than that one - prejudice, hatred, envy, warmongering, contempt for the poor, the hungry, the stranger, to name a few. Since I am not as clueless as you, not only do I get a sense of what people in a committed same-sex relationship do in bed besides sleeping, but I know that is more to a long, loving relationship than sex. A lot more. Being there for one another, rejoicing in what ever good there is in the other, celebrating with that person, mourning with that person, supporting each other in hard times. And whatever I can think of any sin people in a loving, caring relationship may be committing, I say good for them if they have somebody they care for and who cares for them, in which they have found good to rejoice in and who have found what is good in them, whom they celebrate with, whom they mourn with, whom they support and who supports them in hard time. Wanting THAT for other people is called loving others like one-self.

Actually, to choose YOUR anology, you are the one who is arguing that a "dog" is a "table".

Steven Harper is all for knowledge if there is a propaganda potential inn it. War of 1812... let's use it to boost the military. Franklin... good way to boost our claims to the Artic. But we do not need to gather information through the long-form census. it is dangerous to allow public service scientists - people's employees - to talk to the press about their research. We do not need research to be done at National Research Council, Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Searchers and the public alike do not need to be able to access historical resources held at Library and Archives Canada. Right?

An oppressive jerk? As much as you are a bully, I guess L. If that's your opinion, so be it. Let's just be clear on one thing , shall we? If two people of the same gender want be happy and grow old together, good for them. They want to make their union official, they can go for it. It is not a marriage.

To clarify. I do not think SSM is marriage, or that it should be considered one. Had there been a vote on this issue, my vote would have reflected that. Now, I know some people believe my opinion is wrong. I think the same about them.

Obviously, stating that anything other than the union between one man and one woman is NOT a marriage is a clear enough indication of my opinion about SSM for about everyone... you being one notable exception. What part of "If it's not between one man and woman it is not a marriage" do you have a problem understanding?

Actually, I have no problem attacking other people if I feel the need orI feel like it (thanks for the compliment, though). In this particular case, it's just that to me the issue is simple - is SSM marriage, or not? And that I don't feel bullied or threatened or whatever just because people who think differently from me think I am wrong and should change my opinion (how they do it, of course, being a different matter).

Oh surprise (not). You are actually clueless to the point of not realizing that ahem confession is my way of making fun of you. Correction. The fact that you claim that I support SSM based on what I write proves how dismal your reading - and logical thinking - skills are. In other words... I am responsible for the fact that your interpretation of what I write defies logic. Me: 1+1 =2 You: There is someone out there who says 1+1=6 Me: He's wrong. You: He thinks you are wrong. He wants you to change your mind. He's a bully who wants to share your equation. Me: Uh? That,s not bullying, and 1+1 = 2 You: But he says that... Me: Whatever he says, 1+1 =2 You: Evidently, you agree with him.

On the contrary, I have read it. The "nannies should just butt out" bit does not work with me, no matter how you want to put it. What is consent or not consent does not change because there is an ongoing sexual relationship. Being in a relationship is not a licence for any of the partners to do whatever they want without asking first. As far the argument that "the freedom to decide what consent is in these situations is no different than the freedom to decide what sex your partner is" - the freedom is actually that of the person to determine what he/she consents to. Not the same thing. Let's go back to that one. So, this is just a decision by nannies? Really? Care to explain to me how a person who is asleep can be aware of, and therefore give consent to anything?

Sex without consent is rape. Simple. Period. And if one partner in a relationship feels she (usually, it's a she) has been raped and goes to the police, it is the State's DUTY to investigate, and if the accusions ppear to be or are true, prosecute. Interesting that you use the word consenting. Rape is the absence of consent. The "it,s a private matter and none of the business of the Nanny state" argument does not wash up here.