CANADIEN

Actually, the Ontario separate school system IS in the Constitution, and the UN stated it was discriminatory, not unconstitutional.

Democrats believe that.. yeah right And the Obama administration started the withdrawal when, again? If you believe any statement from Bin Laden in support of that project is a true reflexion of what he actually thinks of it, let's meet and talk about my three acres of Florida swamp land. What a weasel you are. Denouncing an act that is hateful (and stupid) is not an attack on free speech, no matter how you want to make other believe otherwise. And now to my favorite... I don't think that Bin Laden give a hoot about Global warming, but that's besides the point. To use YOUR logic, you and Bin laden must be very close since... You hate Obama, and he hates Obama (along with anything American) He most likely believe that 1 + 1 equals 2, and so do you. (In other words, that you would try to tar Democrats as some sort of evil enemies of everything that is good because Bin Laden denounces Global warming is a joke... and so are you for even writing it. And yes, the 1 +1 reference is absolutely absurd, but then I KNOW it is, unlike you with your rant)

They happen to be right on this one.

The evil of bilingualism, for sure.

Let's see... An employer who requires knowledge of English and French... a Francophone who gets the job... Tells me the Francophone in question has learned English... As for your so-called "breaking the rules of a normal society".. a truely normal society does not treat some of its citizens as second-class members of society on account of their minority status. Your definition of a "normal society" would have been popular in Alabama 50 years ago, particularly amongst men prone to don white robes at night, but unfortunately (for your that is), we are in 2010. Don't despair though. In a normal society, bigoted clueless people are still able to make irresponsible statements like "unilingual anglophoes are living on the street because some jobs require knowledge of two languages" when the FACT is that bilingualism is not a requirement for the vast majority of jobs.

Inferiority complex? BTW, stating that you are clueless may appear to you to be an insult.... To most people who read your rant, it appears as a statement of fact. I will ask again... Have you actually read the JUDGEMENT itself? Nope Less we forget... Less government services available in english than in French, different job requirements... in your mind only, of course. My opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is your opinion... The difference being that your opinion is based on ignorance and prejudice. As for the true linguistic nature of Canada, it includes the true linguistic nature of Russell. Where, whether you like it or not, about half of the population speaks French as its first language and where BOTH English and French were languages of business for more than 150 years until some business owners decided to write off almost half of their clientele. I believe in equal status for all Canadians. You do not, your problem. It is equally your problem (with reality) that you wrongly see equal status as an imposition of anything on anybody. BTW, control of a group over another is the antithesis of equality. I believe in one, or the other, not both at the same time. Don't worry, there is no expectation that you will get it. Now that you have confirmed that you here voices... No inferiority complex on my part. Simply a reminder that I am as much a Canadian as you are.... Don't worry, I know by now you are unable to acknowledge that fact. News to you... I, and my CANADIAN language, are part of this society. As for the "no government linguistic intervention", feel free to ignore laws that banned French form courts, schools, provincial legislature.. Yep, the exact definition of government intervention. No more than most other people. My knowledge of your imaginary theft of jobs is equal to my knowledge of the existence of the Easter bunny... Both are non-existent. News to you... Not all comminications between citizens and governments are done, or can be done through computers. As for the idea of going through Quebec to get ONTARIO provincial government services...That this not even the most absurd idea you have come with illustrates how non-sensical your positions are. This is not about the capacity to lear a language. It is about the right of Canadians to decide which Canadian language they will use. BTW... French-speaking Canadians are not immigrants to this country. Well you are the one who keep whining about the English language being in danger. Actually, public schools and separate Catholic schools (including, once the blatant attempt at FORCED assimilation through the schools was recognized as a failure in the 1920's, FRENCH Catholic schools) were funded through property taxes directed to each school system. At the same time, however, any GOVERNMENT funding to public schools (up to Grade 9, if my memory serves me well)had be matched with equivalent funding for Catholic school. Nowadays, all schools are funded by the Government. You want to go back to the old system? Feel free to push for it, but then realize that it means that French-speaking Ontarians would not be paying for English schools. After all those years, a statement from yours that actually makes sense. How long before you say the opposite?

Politics and wanting to bash the CRC is indeed the reason why RIGHT-wing organizations like the Evangelic Fellowship and the CD Howe Institute have opposed the Governmen`'s decision. It is politics and wanting to bash the CPC that have prompted the vast majority of statisticians in the PRIVATE sector to argue that the government's decision will reasult in unreliable statistics - ironic, considering that they (the statisticians) are likely to be in high demand from all types of organisations as a result of the government's decision. It is politics and wanting to bash the CPC that has motivated the opposition from banks, public health planners, etc. As for the complaint from a Saskatchewan woman... Must be one of the THREE received by the Federal Privcy Commissioner in the past decade. Now, mind you, I did not like filling the long form when I had to do it, and looking at what questions should be asked is a good idea (which is why the Conservatives didn't bother doing it, made too much sense I suppose). And I am not one to favour the Government asking questions ithout a good reason. That being said, the census is a useufl tool both for policy-making and for holding government accountable, and quite frankly, the fear that it represents the big bad government prying into people's life for nefarious purposes is without any merit.

Any arbitration mechanism that contradicts Canadian law has, and should have, no standing in this country. How anyone does their banking, as long as they do not violate Canadian law, is indeed the individual's own business. Religious-based arbitration is contrary to the letter and the spirit of our laws, and has no business here.

The one you are clueless about. Nope. He didn't have standing because he didn't operate a business in Russell. Not the same thing, but of course you are clueless about that. The fact I do not believe the French-speaking community in Russell to be vulnerable aside, the fact that you mistake linguistic equality for a form of welfare says a lot about how clueless you are. In a community where Anglophones and Francophones are in virtually equal number, any business owner who does not have at least some bilingual staff is a fool, by-law or not. An appeal has been filed... and will be lost. Here's what you said, and I quote from YOU: The fact that anyone who can read what I have written and get a clue will laugh at that posting of yours aisde, here's yet another proof that you don't even know what you write. New to you... Jobs do not belong to linguistic groups, ethnic groups, or religious groups - they belong to the individuals who can do the job the way the employer wants it to be done. No job is being stolen to anybody, because the jobs belong to the people who meet the employer's requirement. Period. Like it or not, I am your equal as a Canadian - I can and will communicate in French with the government of my country. I am your equal as an Ontarian, and I can and will communicate in French with the Government of my Province. If I were a resident of Ottawa, I would be your equal as a resident of Ottawa. The fact that some federal, provincial or municipal jobs rquire knowledge of both English and French is no more discriminatory against anyone that the requirement to have a MD in order to practice medecine. To argue otherwise is to claim that French-speaking Canadians should not have the same rights as other Canadians. Which we all know is exactly what you want. Want me to prove a negative... how clueless of you. Mind you, the fact that Acadians have survived deportation and discrimination, that there were still Franco-Manitobans after more than 90 years of the Constitution being blatantly violated, and that Franco-Ontarians fought for close to a century for their RIGHT as ONTARIANS to a full Franch-language school system and WON are not what I would call signs of inferiority. So, why don't YOU provide us with so-called proof of my inferiority as an Ontarian? And when you do, try not making a fool of yourself by using stuff that PROVES that I am your equal - like equal access to government programs and services. Better yet, feel free to explain how English-speaking culture is so vulnerable that the very thought of French-language schools founded through taxes paid by Franco-Ontarians, a bilingual sign at post office or a consersation in French between a citizen and a public library employee puts it in danger. It's obvious you believe it to be the case, while I know English-speaking cultures in this great country of ours are in no danger.

Thank you for proving that you are clueless (once again). The claim that was made in court was NOT that the by-law was Nazi-like (a claim that only clueless individuals would make anyways) - it was that it was invalid. They failed to prove their point. That`s how the court works, and yes, it is relevant to those who have a clue. I will ask again, have you even bothered reading it¬ The sheer stupidity (for lack of a better word) of that claim of yours that I am pursing an imaginary "French domination" has been debunked so often that laughing at you for making a fool of yourself AGAIN would be cruel.... Oh well... I doubt that business owners who post in French (which, as you know half of the time then deny in your usual clueless fashion, is a Canadian language) or in non-Canadian languages would agree to your "English as the official language of business" ambition. I meant there would be no complain fro YOU. After all, we all know that for you freedom of expression exists as long as it is in English. Question: why do you think people who have a clue know that you are a deluded bigoted clueless little man who see Nazi-like stuff where there is none, has deluded himself in thinking that French-speaking CANADIANS are inferior, and believes against evidence to the contrary that French is a dead language? Answer: Because you keep posting stuff like the above. French has been spoken in russell for over 150 years, and is still spoken even despite being once banned from the school. I call that success. As you would remember if you had a clue, I do not believe in the necessity (or even the wisdom) of a local by-law regulating languages on signs, as opposed to just boycotting business who has proven they are not interested in having close to 50% of the population as their clients). That does not change the fact that there is nothing Nazi-like, dictatorial, discriminatory or illegal in the said by-law. What it proves (again) is that YOU do not want any French in the public sphere.

dup deleted

Woe to me.

Good. Now he can help making that a reality by resigning.

To be added to the long list of things you are clueless about... how courts work. Have you even bothered to READ the court decision. Not that you would get it, but at least you would sound slightly less clueless. How generous of you to allow business owners to make their own decision until the day there's a law that takes that decision away from them. Needless to say, I doubt very much we would hear screams of "Nazi-like", "discriminatory", "treasonous" and the like if the Russell by-law mandated the exlusive use of English on signs. Any business owner who will not include French on business signs in an area where French has been spoken for over 150 years and where close to half of the population is French-speaking does not have much business sense, wouldn't you agree?

Obviously, the role and job of a judge is another thing you have no clue about. Yhe judge has not dictated anything. She was asked to determine if the Russell by-law violated freedom of expression - in other words, to determine if the by-law is constitutional or not. Of course, nobody expects you to get the difference. Or the contradiction between your cries of "language should be lft to the business owner" and your often-made call for laws that would make English the official language of business in Ontario. BTW: We are now September 25. Happy Franco-Ontarian Day

Parents should be able to know if a convicted child molester lives in their area. That being said, I doubt it would hav a lot of impact nthe number of sexual assaults on children. As it has pointed by others, most of these crimes are committed by people the child knows, not stangers. Well, in Mr. Canada's books, that comment must mean I support child molesters.

Oh surprise, my opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is your opinion. What we have here is a judge failing to apply a fundamental principal of Western law system, that ignorance of the law (or in this case, acting under another set of laws) is no excuse or explanation for acting illegally. We could debate for weeks abut whether or not there have been or will be other judges who will take similar leave of their judicial senses; until there is evidence that we are witnessing more of one (or a few) isolated cases of judges not understanding the law properly, there is non proof that the laws are they are (instead of individual judges) are the problem. As for saying that it's the judges, it is not a dismissal of what happened to this New Jersey woman, it's saying that it,s the judge. My opinion that an anti-sharia law is not needed is based on the fact that ignorance of the law (or the claim one was following another set lf law) is not an excuse or a justification for crime. Furthermore, sharia law is already not recognized as the system of law (except in some limited civil law applications). The only thing an anti-Sharia law would add is "we are talking about this particular set of religious law". Now, you are welcome to bring as often as you want the "but the judge did render a bad judgement anyway" argument. I find it unconvincing, as it does not prove the point for or against an anti-Sharia law. Simply put, there is nothing to prove that a judge (or judges) would not make the same error. After all, the judge in this case did not say that Sharia law made what the husband did legal, or anything of the sort; it looks to me (and yes, it is my OPINION) that the judge did not apply the law correctly. And that the Appeal Court corrected it. I am not convinced that a new law in the books is necessary to do what existing laws already do when applied properly - that is, establish the primacy of the laws of the land. You will have to come with a far better argument than "but the judge ignored the law" to convince me otherwise.

One court decision(that was overturned) does not make a threat. The judge should has used his brains and the law, instead of excusing the crime becuase the accused thought he had the right to do so. But we are hardfly witnessing the beginning of the imposition of sharia law in the United States. As for the Oklahoma proposed law, it is a waste of voters' time. As the Appeal Court in the New Jersey made it clear, the law of the land already supercedes religious-based codes of confuct.

171 pages and counting, and nothing new or relevant being added... Enough time wasted on this.... I will only say what I have said along along. 1) Te Cordoba Project is a worthwhile initiative 2) Unfortunately, it's promoters dhould renounce their project, because it is not achieving its goal 3) The primary reason for this is that a tiny minority of Islamophobes have hijacked the opposition to the project 4) Neither the vast majority of the opponents nor the promoters of the project bear responsibility for the failure 5)And they are a (very tiny) majority of people who while claiming that they don't blame all Muslims and that they want to build brisges and yada and yada and yadda yadda (and actually believe yhemselves) rarely miss an occasion to blame the promters of the Project for its failure, cast doubts on their intentions and play (without even realizinf it) the guit game. I do not buy those people's defense that no, that's not what tey're doing. 6) I would have to be a complete idiot to argue, or claim, or say, or insinuate that anyone who does not share my position 100% is a bigot or an Islamophobe... Those who believe I did that do not have a clue, and that particular drivel have come from laughable to just plain boring Someone please let me kknow when there is somwthing new on thread. I have said what I have to say oin the topic, and I have no reason, need or intend to keep repeating myself.

yawn

Quite frankly, the "all opponents hae Muslims" rhetoric is getting as tiresome than the "Muslim are terrorist suspects until proven otherwise" school of thought.

The problem is that the Conservatives have already hinted at funding.... They don't go ahead with it, they are asking for trouble in those ridings. The vote for any party is not a monolithic non-changing block. Enough people may be pissed up to switch party. Add to that that the Quebec City mayor is very popular, has a lot of clout locally, and doesn't easily take no as an answer. What the Conservatives faced when they messed with the Newfoundland and Labrador Government may repeat itself again. They would have been better to stay away from the whole thing from the get go.

With the exception of the last post ... and even then... You are not even closed to the beginning of a hint of a distinct possibility of a proof of anti-American bigotry... Better luck next time.

Once again, well put. Most certainly, the point of not letting the crazies take all the place is not to be confused with them... It is to make sure that one's message is the one being heard. On another point... When I say I don't believe someone, it is not because of what somebody else says... It is because I do not believe what THEY say. Period.

Actually, I would ask if they remember the source, and if they didn't i would leave it at that. That is, whether or not I give credence to the claim would be based on whether or not I think it makes sense. One thing I would not do is go around saying "you made it all up" just because I don't like the claim being made As to whether or not you believe when I say this, ask me if I care about your opinion of me. No, it can't be... You cannot be failing to see that I DELIBARATELY EXXAGERATED things to mock Shady.