CANADIEN

Hate speech laws can be vague, especially in how they are interpreted. But there is no doubt in my mind that limitation speech that advocate genocide or mass murder is reasonable. The very fact that the Nationalist Party of Canada cannot gain ground has nnothing to do with the state of free speech, but with the fact most Canadians do not like their cr*p. News to you, free speech does not equates having others agree with what is being said, or being protected from contrary opinions. As for the fact the Nationalist Party is not registered - all parties have to follow certaib rules, such as having a permanent structure, submitting annual financial reports and (I believe, having at least x number of members). They don't have that, they need to get harder at getting it.

And many of those same people also think that only an idiot woudl claim that anyone witnessing a sex act from a distance of about 15 to 20 feet risks getting hit by bodily fluids or catching STD's.

Let's go back to two phrases that expose your true agenda (and ignorance) The FACT that majority does not constitute license to deny individual rights is beside the point. French-speakers have more than Quebec. I am not a Quebecer, and the French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec are not either. I have Canada. News to you (it should not be, but you keep not getting that simple fact): French-speaking Canadians, whether in or outside Quebec, do NOT need to assimilate to be Canadians.

Anyone who has a clue would know from what I wrote that I am against laws and policies that go against the rights of Canadians. Only an imbecile would conclude that I am against both French or English-speakers at the same time, or even anyone of these two groups. And I remember that, with most everything, you don't get it. The Quebec Government did not need permission to do what it did. It does not make what they did right. Thanks for proving that you want a referendum only when it suits you. Hypocrite. I do not expect to have it all. I'll settle for the respects of the rights of all Canadians, including the rights of English-speakers in Quebec to a decent level of government services, full access to schooling in their language, being able to have English on their signs without having to measuring, and access to municipal services in English where the municipality rightly determines they should be provided. And yes, that they cannot get it is a HUGE deal. BTW: I fully expect you'll make once again a fool of yourself with your "but the Quebec government will never do it" ducking manoeuvre. Either you are in favour of full language rights in Quebec, and that makes you an hypocrite for not wanting the same in all of Canada, or your hatred of the french language and those who speak it is such that you would rather say nothing in favour of equal rights in Quebec in fear of equal rights elsewhere.

What is sad is your wilful distortion of what other people have said. What part of "the State has no business dictating what women can or can't wear" can;t you understand?

Why stop it? It provides some of the best comedy on the Net.

I have never said a thing about trusting or not trusting politicians. When they come with something right, like the Charter of Rights, the official Languages Act or Ontario's French Language Services Act, I say they're doing something right. When municipal POLITICIANS in Sault Ste. Marie or provincial politicians in Quebec go against equality of all Canadians, I say they're wrong. Excuse me while I chuckle. Admit it, if the Official Language ACt had said something like "English is Canada's only official language and the use of French is prohibited in schools andin government buildings", you would not be complaining about the absence of a referendum. Neither would you if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms consisted of one sentence "All Canadians are free to be Christian and Anglo-Saxons, or assimilated", Or if the country's immigration policy could be summarized in one line "if you are not white and Christian, don't bother". We won't hear a word from you about the fact Sault Ste. Marie's POLITICIANS never held a referendum. If there were a referendum in Quebec tomorrow in favour of their language laws, I doubt you would be applauding it. Everyone knows that the primary motivation behind your constant self-humiating rant is your dislike for people who dare to be different from you and won't accept second class status. As you have made clear time and time again, you would have preferred for French-speaking CANADIANS to just assimilate and vanish for history. Stop the hypocrisy, will you?

I have never taken part in an homosexual sex act, but I do not remember taking part in an hetorosexual sex act where somebody standing 20 feet away or so watching would risk being splashed with bodily fluids. Somehow, I doubt that it is a possibility of that happening duringa gay sex act as well.

The notion of equal rights and parliamentary democracy, amongst others, have been explained often enough on this site that those who have a clue do not need to have them repeated. As for th fact that you are clueles, you've just demonstrated it yourself. Only taking leave from basic logic can someone claim that official bingualism constitute some form of permission or go ahead for official unilingualism.

People being sprayed with sperm and fluids... And you wonder why a growing number of people on thos thread thinkknow you're a moron.

Correction... it proves that you do not have a clue. Wrong. Quebec did not ask permission, did not get permission, did not need permission. Nor would the other provinces but so far they've had the good sense not to go that route. (warning: sarcasm starts here) You're not bigoted, you only want to be "free" to discriminate against anyone who is different from you/ I stand corrected.(and of sarcasm) If it's nonsensical to want Quebec to do the right thing, then your crusade to have Ontario do the wrong is beyond non-sensical. Don't worry, I do not expect you to get it. I remember that we are nothing like a dictatorship.

Exactly. It is a reasonable expectation that one has to show his/her face when using certain public services. Otherwise, what a person decides to wear is his/her own business. We have to ask ourselves not only what we want to ban or limit, but also why/ Is it in the name of euqality between men and women? Equality includes free choice which a ban would deny. And if veils are degrading to women (which I think they are, btw). how about clothing inspired by the Bitney Spreas of this world and that show women as little more than sex objects. Aren't they degrading too? Is it in the name of laicity (a concept heard often in Quebec these days). Fine. Let's also deny services to Catholic nuns who wear a cross on their lapel. Or is it, as some of our local bigots have expressed, simply because difference is unacceptable? If that's the case, then I say no to a ban. We claim to the world that we value freedom - freedom includes being free to be different.

Another one unable to make the difference between French and Canadian. that Barack Obama is Mao? He shoudl stick to his career as a second rate musician.

You can quote the exact wording from any Alberta or Saskatchewan law that says "English is the official language of [inserts name of the province]"? Until you do so, your opinion remains nothing more than that, no matter how many opinions you can find. You can follow the links I have posted to get to the laws, read it, and show where IN THE ACTS the words official appear. Find the word "official" in the acts, and you will have convinced me that such status exists. Oh BTW: 1 - The only true insult here is your continuous insult against facts and logic - and anyone who does not share your bigoted delusions. 2 - Still waiting for what you have to say on my statement that Quebec should do for its English-speaking population what Ontario does for its French-language population. Care to comment?

He won't find any who are that disconnected from logic. That's his problem.

Not a discovery, but simply something that anyone reading the Acts would see for themselves. But then, you never bothered reading them... in other words, once again, you do not know what you're talking about. But for the benefit of those who have a clue (that is most people beside you), here we go: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-l-6/latest/rsa-2000-c-l-6.html http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/laws/stat/ss-1988-89-c-l-6.1/latest/ss-1988-89-c-l-6.1.html

There's a little tidbit I wrote rcently that you won't comment about, leafless. Could it be because you can't respond to it without people seeing plainly that your drivel is fueled by just plain francophobia? let me post it again. What is good enough for Ontario is good enough for Quebec. I for one think that Quebec should do for its English-speaking population what Ontario does for its French-speaking population.

Correction: by way of laws that recognizes the rights of all Canadians. The only laws that come close to your description are "one language only" laws like those of quebec and those you want for Ontario. I know it, everyone who has a clue knows it, and you will never know it. I have already admitted that I have a hard time understanding what makes too little sense to be understood, like the drivel you keep posting. What you will never understand is how our parliamentary DEMOCRACY works.

The only way any appearance by Ann Coulter would be worth attending is if she decided to be consistant on her views on women voting and burned her voter registeration card. That woman is a nutcase.

The general idea, which is clear to anyone who can get the definitions of apartheid YOU posted is that you do not know what you are talking about (again). The English and French languages have an equal status at the federal level, they have an equal status in New Brunswick, and they have (mostly) an equal status in Ontario. Equality of status is a form of apartheid only in your prejudiced mind.

Anti-semtism is alive and well. As demonstrated by your wish that Mr. Canada moves to Israel.

Like the type of legislation you are promoting for Ontario. Personal initiative is doing what it takes, and getting the knowledge that is needed, to meet the requirement of the job. Not whining like an hapless baby because the "good old days" when French-speaking CANADIANS were second class citizens are gone. That newspaper is nothing more than a francophobe rag when it comes to language issues. Which is why you like it so much, of course.

Jacques Parizeau would be jealous of you. But at least, i must thank you for (not on purpose I am sure) revelead what you are truely aiming at - having no non-English speaking culture around.

So, as a condition of employment, these people shou;d renounce to a sum of money they are entitled to? If the federal government tried to do this, they'd be sued, and lose.

There is nothing outrageous in an employee get what they have a right to get. As for any behaviour being disgusting and ooutr4ageous. it is YOURS. Raising the threat of murder is irresponsible, hateful and quite frankly brainless.