CANADIEN

Except to those who have a clue. The facts that French-Canadians are not immigrants and their language is a national aside, how do you explain that most provinces outside Quebec had at one point or another in their history language POLICIES forbidding the teaching of French, a Canadian language? How do you explain that Native children were taken by force from their families and beaten if they dared speak their own Canadian languages? After all, according to you, such measures were not necessary. Mind writing in ENGLISH once in a while? Of course, since French IS one of our two national languages.

Yep. I am the one who first mentioned it when you were denying the existance of laws or policies regarding languages in Ontario... remember? (likely not) Correction. That delusion of yours has already be debunked. Not that anyone expects you to ever get that. As was already demonstrated, French is a regional language in Gavelbourg, St-Boniface, Hearst, Vanier, Maskinongé, Tracadie, Chéticamps, Port-au-Port among others. Regional in so many places it is in fact national. To you, not to people with a clue.

Only 15% of the population voted for him? Too bad for those who didn't bother to vote.

What goes completely over YOUR head is that there are CANADIANS right now whose skin is not white and are showing through their military service more loyalty towards this great country of ours that you will show in three life times. Considering that the only person here using the word destruction is you, it's very easy to figure out whose argument is insane. Yeah right... Having enough common sense not to care about the color of a person's skin is a form of prejudice. Indead, the Chinese workers imported in BC in the 19th century as well as the Black Loyalists were all white. And according to StatsCan, more than 2/3 of the Canadian population will still be white-skinned. Quite the destruction, eh?

Actually, your actual words were: WE both stand corrected.

And to you it's embracing subjucation of women. It's not to me because... guess what, it's not. sensationalism from the Post aside, once again nothing like embracing subjucation of women. Some women (a very small number, actually) dress that way, but then how they dress is their business, and is no more yours or mine that it is their husband's or father's. As for the issue of testifying while wearing a veil, while it is incompatible with the notion that the accuse should know who his/her accuser is, the court's decision to let judges balance freedom of religion with basic rules of a trial on a case by case basis is NOT embracing subjucation of women (Iand I am not a big fan of that ruling by the way). You want to prove that the subjucation of women is embraced by proponents of multiculturalism? Come with proof. Statements that it is OK to treat a woman like an inferior because HEY that,s what you did in the old country. Or changes to civil or criminal laws to accommodate practices that run contrary to the principle of equality of men and women before the law.

Should have phrased my comment better. I meant a lot of people on this site have prejudices based on other people's skin colour of origin.

Nope. Check the writings of Cartier and Champlain, for example. So, it was not Peter Loughead? More seriously, before he turned rebel and later nutcase, Louis Riel's movement started in reaction against (central) Canada trying to impose its rule on the local population of Manitoba. And that would be a number of people here.

I would like to see examples of people here suggesting we embrace the subjucation of women.

Whether or not the Armed forces feel they need to target minorities for recruitment (they don't - you see, unlike you, I do not feel the need to judge people according to the color of their skin) does not change the fact that there are people proving everyday a loyalty to this great country of ours that is not tainted by prejudice. you mean whites, right?are the founding people of this country. Let's forget about the First Nations that litterally saved the lives of most of the first Europeans coming here, the Métis who were the first to stand up for the rights of Western Canadians, the Chinese workers of the Transcontinental railway, Black Loyalists who settled in Newfoundland, etc., etc. Has there been any proposal for Chinese, Japonese, Swahili to replace them or for them to be added to the mix? Nope. There are proposal afloat for a system more akin to the American one, but do you seriously believe in the possibility of a system not based on democracy (direct or representative) being implemented any time during our life or the life of our children and grandchildren? You probably do... I don't, but then I deal into what actually makes sense, not prejudice-based fears. and civil code law in Quebec, in case you've forgotten. And you will most likely bring the example of some immigrants who would prefer the law systems they've been used to. Thing is - they're not the first, they won't the last, they or their children will one day ask themselves why they even bothered in the first place. And the skin-colour of an individual matters only to those who cannot shake their illogical prejudices. You are devoted to a narrow, "idealized" vision of a Canada that is more myth than reality. And what I have with it is not a problem, but rather a chuckle.

Non-sense such as yours makes a mockery of nationalism, and would deserve my contempt, if it were not a free alternative to YukYuk. Right now, CANADIANS of non-Western descent are among those fighting in our armed forces in Afghanistan. Their loyalty to this country is being proven each and every minute of their tour of duty. The only loyalty you show is to your own prejudice. If I were forced to decide between keep them or you in this country, I would chose them. And no, it is not because of the colour of their skin or yours.

Bizarre, my cultural identity has not changed as a result of non-white immigartion, not one bit. And there is still no proof of INTENT. No surprise there, since the premise - that "white culture is being destroyed" is a non-sense to start with. BTW, care to provide statistics about white-skinned people`s flight from Canada, the USA, Europe, Australia or New Zealand? More importantly, where are they going? And no, no relying on South African numbers. After all, the majority of south Africans have always been black-skinned. Which, in your "to each race its own countries" would make white flight from that country .a good thing, to be emulated here through a mass exodus out Canada of all non-whites.

Your point is that "Liberals" do it. That characteristic is not confined to one end or spot on the political spectrum.

I don't particularly care about what things will be like 10000 years from now. That being said, the rights of the individuals are paramount, and that does not change because the majority, or those who wield power, ignore it. If that's arrogance, so be it. Beats claiming there is no moral and ethical absolute But since you want to play the "there is no absolute morals or ethics when claiming that the only acceptable modes of governance are those that reflect the will of the people.

men who see themselves as women... "No wonder Lépine did what he did". What a load of complete non-sense.

All this to boil down to one point. You want public decision making to be decided through direct democracy even when the decisions violate individual rights, but when shown an hypothetical case when it could turn against you come with some non-sense like "there can be no binding refererendum". There is no point in a referendum if it not binding on the ligslatures. BTW, funny how you define me as a "Liberal"; you obviously don't know me. As for debating for something, yes I will do it for as long as I want, and feel totally free to do as well. If anything, you will provide some entertainment.

What most of the show openings that have been mentioned have in coomon is the musicévisual combo. One exception... Law and Order... No music at the start, no stunning visual, just a short text. and yet, it is one of the best openings in recent years.

Empahsis on destruction. You claim that the white race is being destroyed. It is not, no matter the amount of paranoia you want to instill because the white population may be at some point less than 50% or (oh the horror) SOME (emphasis on SOME) couples may be multiracial. But since you insist on the definition, here's the definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Here it goes : Do you have PROOF of White being killed by the Canadian government because they'rewhites, or subjected to physical or emotional harm, that white-skinned people in this country are subjected to living conditions designed for the purpose of bring the destruction of the white population, that there are policies in place to actually PREVENT white-skinned people from having children, that White children are being taken from their families and focibly put into non-white family in an effort to destroy the white population? Most importantly, do you have proof of an INTENT on behalf of ANYONE in a position of power to destroy the white population in whole or in part? And no, repeating 1000 times "white counties for all", or pointing out that most immigrants are non-white is not proof of genocide. You might as well claim that the Earth is flatbecause Australians don't fall off it.

Not if, what he says is factual. .Aas for the return to institutional bingualism under Trudeau, not only it is NOT racist, but as has been demonstrated , it has its pre-Confederation precedents. The number of bilingual Canadians is not the issue here. It is the right of Canadians, which you oppose, to speak and use the Canadian language of their choice when communicating with their government.

Actually, the might has usually come in the form of who has the most weaponry. But if you so strongly believe that might makes right, feel free to put it to the test anytime. How about a binding referendum on whether or not you should be allowed to retain the right to vote and to even express an opinion. I am sure you would respect the might of the majority and shut up if you lost, right

My argument is not against democracy. It is against using the tools of democracy (either representative or direct democracy) to trample on or negate people's rights. As for the rest of your posting, I would tend to disagree as to your interpretation of the role of government. But that's another debate.

You twisted what I said to imply that I am in favour of dictatorships and against democracy, when it is clear that my argument is against the use of democaracy to deny people's rights. Better luck next time. Actually, it is not, no matter how you want to put it otherwise. Unless you want to argue that the right to vote, or the right to equality under the law, are not basic rights? My ideology is that basic rights trumps other considerations, except in very limited cases. Feel free of course to point out to any example you want to muster of minorities trampling on the rights of the people. Will simply add to my point that the right of the individual are paramount.

(warning... I am clearly mocking Leafless' claim, and he will probably not get it) Are you sure? After all, the BNA CLEARLY gave equal status to the english and french languages in the federal parliament and Courts. The Official Languages Act, the Constitutional Act of 1982 and policies that stem from them are nothing more (or less) than the logical extension of this into other aspects of the federal government`s activities and role. So, either the clauses in the BNA about the status of English and French were not racist, which prooves that all your rambling about "racist policies" is non-sense, or there were racist dispositions in the BNA in regard to languages. In either case, you are (as usual) wrong.

Indeed. Then, why do you clamour in favour of language policies that, by YOUR OWN definition, would be considered racist?

Typical Leafless. In one posting, official status in all province is needed as proof that a language is a national language. In the next posting, it is sufficient that you deem it to be the de facto language. Love the contradiction. BTW, I .and over 22% of Canadians prove every day that English is not the de facto language of all of Canada.