bbice

Double Post.

If they wanted to be on par with the rest of Canadians in terms of equality of rights, they would have signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The fact that they are the sole province in the country that is allowed to only provide service in one language is, imo, a form of higher status and far from equality of rights. I understand their meaning behind it, but there is always a balance. The Aboriginal People of Canada, were defeated in the sense that they lost the high ground in negotiations. I believe that in a scenario where you sign a document that effectively seals your fate, I would count that as still a defeat. For example, the Munich Accord back in the 30's with Nazi Germany. Chamberlain was defeated in the long run, mainly because he signed a document that effectively commited the world to a global conflict. Obviously, this is more an extreme example, but it was more context.

This is one of the unfortunate problems concerning this beautiful country. We seem to be the only country that was born out of colonialism to have not fogiven and forgotten. People make mistakes, even the government (tongue in cheek). I just hope theres sometime on our horizon where a Canadian is a Canadian, and only a Canadian. The truth is, the natives were defeated (regardless of the methods used) and so were the French. And yet both groups are still looking for higher status because they were defeated. What happened to, "life isn't fair".

Now, if that little tidbit of information been available in our less noble time, then that would have avoided alot of problems. However, I don't entirely agree with giving Natives such a higher status. I am well aware that they are one of the most impoverished groups in Canada (note I said "one of"). Their history is alot longer here, but then again, the only way for us to truly end things like this level of segregation that still exists, is to treat every Canadian like a Canadian. It should not matter what your heritage is. After all, my family is French-Canadian, does that mean that I should have the right to not serve anyone in English (I only speak English fluently, just making a point). The only way for us to move on is to forgive the past and learn from it. I even read in an article the other day that the RCMP makes exceptions for Aboriginals by lowering the entrance standards. There is a difference between encouraging diversity and racism. Cheers, bbice

Hello, first post on the forum, figured might as well get my start on this topic. I am wondering, why would you give money to a representative of a political party, in this case the Liberals, when at the moment (as they have for a while now), they are scattered all over the place. They really do have no real strong leader figure, or atleast, not one that can bring the party itself together. The thing I have noticed with the Liberals is that there are many schisms within the party itself, mostly due to the fact that if you are more right-wing inclined, you vote for Conservative, and if you are a unionist/more socialist, you vote for NDP. This has led to the Liberal Party becoming more or less a dumping ground for those who do not fit those aforementioned groups. I personally wouldnt give money to a party that was as broken up, especially with no real sign of someone who is able to bring the party together on the horizon. Just my personal opinion, but in the end, it's your money. On the other hand, I guess that from a realistic standpoint, if a candidate is running against a member of the opposite party that you do not really agree with, power to you in terms of giving your candidate the most amount of support possible. I was more looking at the bigger picture, not necessarily the candidate himself. Also, I apologize for derailing the current part of the topic pertaining to Fantino, figured I should just start from the top, especially since I dont really have an opinion on Fantino himself. Cheers, bbice