CANADIEN

Go ask people who think it is needed, not me. And now a question for YOU. Since there is nothing illegal in the bill, do you have a problem with the notion that Canadians should be able to bring heir legal cases to the Supreme Court in either English or French and have judges who can understand what they say?

And who here has suggested it was OK? Nobody, for one simply reason. Nobody here thinks it is OK. On the other hand, there was no lack of people willing to give the reins of the Canadian Alliance to someone who had taught in a Canadian school where the curriculum included gems like "The Jews are the children of the Devil, true or false?" and the belief that democracy was against God's law.

Interesting. None of the Muslims I know have ever said that to me. Don't worry. I know full feel well that hatred, racism and intolerance come in all colours, and all religious disguises. But don't expect people not to see your fallacy - that all Muslims are by definition hateful and intolerant.

Wice to see we can always count on you to make a fool of yourself. The arrogance is not in choosing flying over driving (although driving is usually more enjoyable). It is in the "We are not responsible for what we do, so who cares if we harm our environment" attitude. And there is nothing self-hating in assuming responsbility for what we do and trying to do things better. On the contrary. BTW: Alife is not more (or less) decent from the angle of material confort because someone chooses to fly to Vermont instead of driving.

Your problem is that the presence of water vapour has remained virtually unchanged as a result of the industrial revolutions, unlike CO2 or N2O. And that it does not have the same harmful effect. Or that it remains in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks, a lot less than CO2 (between 15 and 200 years - plants must have fone on a wordwide diet ) or CF4 (50 years.

Let us know when you have something intelligent to contribute.

Human impact on climate is a bit more that what the deniers claim, and a bit less than what Gore and Co. claim. But guess what? Even without it there is still a lot to worry about the way we treat or environment. One example is mercury. Last time I checked, it is not a greenhouse gas. Yet, it is harmful to human and animal life, and the effect of some industrial practices (such as environment-unfriendly mining)is documented. We also know the effect of asbestos, no name but one other example. There cannot be any doubt that waste and pollution have an effect of the environment we live in.

I wasn't referring to carbon dioxide specifically. But since you mention it... What do you think happen to the carbon dioxide not absorbed by plants? Clue... plants are not humans or domesticated animal, they don't get obese. And when somebody "on the left" says that, you accuse them of being self-hating. Now, if that's not contradiction...

Now that I have stopped laughing (at you)... There is nothing self-hating in acknowledging that there are forces of nature we as humans can do nothing to stop. And there is nothing arrogant in understanding that the less harmful emissions we produce the less harm we cause to our environment. The arrogance (to use your term) is in the belief that we as a species can do anything we want, and in particular that we can waste and pollute with no repercussion whatsoever.

While Bill C-232 is not necessary, nothing in there makes it illegal. Section 14 of the Charter mandates the use of an interpretor if a party or a witness does not understand the language being used. Note, however, that it says nothing as to what is the language that is to be used. In fact, there is plenty of legislation that warrants that court procedures be in the languages of the parties to them. In criminal proceedings, section 530 of the Criminal Code states that Federal Courts: The Official Languages Act states: while sextion 132 of the Constitutional Act of 1867 states that All texts can be found at http://www.canlii.org/en/

Don't worry, I knew you were that delusional. You are, having lost touch of reality a lng time ago. They, unlike you, are imaginary.

Shatner.. Well known, no obvious political connection, bilingual, may bring a lighter touch to the position. And is 79 years old. Next.

Here we go again. Waiting for the proof (that shall never come) that I don't pay taxes. That or screaming nazi... When it comes from you, logic should come between quotation mark, so that people won't confuse it with the real thing. In the real world, Rwanda is barely emerging from the traumatism caused by the geneocide. In the real world, over 1.3 billion Chinese would chuckle at the notion of English as the common language. In the real world, what second language two people with different first language are likely to use when talking with each other has nothing to do with what Canadian languages Canadians have the right to use when dealing with their government.

Tete carre? At least mine is white and not one with a feather sticking out of it. Obviously you do not have an inkling who the real troll is. His and your racist epithets aside, he is indeed off the mark. You are no troll - merely a clueless loser.

(warning: sarcasm follows) Actually, I am an alien... and I mean from another solar system, not another country. And that statement is as true as my alleged hatred of the English language. (end of sarcasm)

What can Isay... seeing people make fools of themselves time and time again amuses me.

A more appropriate question would be when will YOU get out of the stone age and start getting a clue. If you did, you would know that the life of most Rwandans is not gonna get affected very much as a result of the country's government deciding to change what foreign (as in non-Rwandan) language it is gonna use in dealing with the rest of the world. And you would know that this has no bearing of the RIGHTS of Canadians. At least now you've hinted at your real agenda - the disparition fo the French language from Canada. Unfortunately (for you, not the country), you're dreaming in blakc and white (I'd say technicolour, but that's too evolved for you).

So now, the fact I do not believe your myth of rampant sexual assault of young boys during the Pride Parade means that I must think the abuse of children is not really abuse and it is OK? The really reason why I won't treat this as insulting and slanderous is that I know better than to feel insulted by what friggin imbeciles pick of their empty minds.

And you can't come with any proof of that. What anybody with a functioning brain will readily deny is the existence of bodily fluids with wings that fly far enough to hit people standing around as witness to apublic sex act you haven't provided a shred of an evidence of.

Of course, you can't provide a proof of it happening.

If you are talking about English being compulsory in the curriculum, well there are excellent reasons to have it taught as a second lnaguage ib Quebec' French schools. Even Jacques parizeau apparently once said that those who thought otherwise deserved a kick you know where . The tendency of past generation of immigrants yo integrate Quebec English-speaking communities rather than the French-speaking ones, and the economic situation of the linguistic communities hsve a lot more to do with 101 than the teaching of English as a second language.

Each and every Canadian should have the right to choose by themselves to send their children to a publicly founded French or English school. BTW, there are French schools in all provinces, as it should be.

If some in the PQ and BQ had their way, these two and Bishop's would be gone tomorrow.

If you mean internal government administration, it already is. There is no fearto have of a demise of the English language in Ontario as things stand now. What Quebec doesn't need is legislation that treats its English-speaking citizens like second class. Unfortunately, that's what they have right now.

You sure? Because, aside from adding the words colleges and universities, borrowing the term "official language of business", changing re-numbering the paragraphs, and changing the word French to English and Quebec to Ontario, each and every word is taken from Quebec's Charter of the French Languae (aka Bill 101). Now, I have never made a secret that's a law I do not particularly like, to say the least. But I have always thought that many of those who support Bill 101 would recoil in horror if a similar law was enacted in let's say, ontario. And that at least some of those who denounce Bill 101 woulld have no problem if the language and province was different. So what's your problem with my piece of fiction? Is it that I cut some paragraphs short (to keep it short)? Or that it would do to French-speakers in Ontario what is being done to English-speakers in Quebec?