Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[CANADIEN]

Not prejudiced....FACTUAL.

Do something about your delusions, will you?

Language laws and language charters speak for themselves(...)

A good thing too, because we sure can't rely on your reading of them.

(...)commie.

Sooo... commie is the insult word of the week. Before that it was socialist, fascist, Nazi... And of course, if asked to provide a definition of those terms you would as usual make a fool of yourself.

You so totally don't get it. I am an extra-terrestrial on a mission to destroy Canada and use it as a base to conquer the world.

The number of hits on MY thread is what matters and that number is quite impressive.

No surprise there... Your non-sense is after all quite entertaining.

Edited August 4, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I tend to agree with this; businesses should cater to their customers, in order to, well... attract customers. If they don't want to post signs or offer services in French, or English, so be it. But they have to face the economic consequences, whether good or bad. There are plenty of stores in Chinatown here in Toronto that post signs only in Cantonese. Would I shop there? Likely not; I would have too much difficulty knowing everything I was buying. But, obviously these stores attract enough Cantonese speakers to keep sales up. This is the case in pretty much every city I've been to, whether it was a Chinese enclave in Bangkok or an English enclave in Tokyo.

That said, however, I have to admit that I have an issue when these enclaves begin to become almost established colonial outposts of the homeland from which the population came. I don't know what happens in other cities, but in the GTA it seems that the need for first generation children of immigrants to leave the ethnic cloister (along with its associated language and customs) and merge into the mainstream is growing weaker and weaker with each new group of children; now almost entire suburbs belong to one ethnic group, wherein one can live, socialise, marry, establish a business, do business, retire and die without ever having had to conform to the environment outside that area; and the next generation expands the colony. An article in the Star a few months ago (which now seems to be in their paid access archives, and I'm cheap), by the daughter of East Indian immigrants, outlined how parents such as hers, who live in Brampton, pressure their children to stay in the area and live by their imported ways. This presents a conundrum to the children, who don't necessarily want to do this, but may face reprisals if they don't. Some cave, some leave. But isn't this pressure the opposite of what immigrants previously wanted? Did they not used to want their offspring to make it in the new country, which would involve living enough like the new countryers as to not cause friction?

I might be a bit OT here; these occurrences are not caused by any particular laws, and hence spring up on their own accord through the natural dynamics of socio-cultural shifts. It's just that the topic of businesses that can thrive in closed societies demonstrated how well established and self-perpetuating these enclaves can be, which led me to the observation that they now seem to be growing not only under their own power, but also with the aid of a general acquiescence on the part of the surrounding society, which places fewer and fewer demands on either the newcomers or their children. I think this is what Leafless sees, but takes it to the absolute extreme in order to fuel his paranoia of being someday forced to wear a burka when he goes shopping in downtown Sudbury, or wherever he lives. The Star (again) ran a (rational) piece today by Angelo Persichilli in which he says: "The Charter is a document to be proud of and we must defend it, yet it talks about rights and freedoms, but it doesn't address the need for duties and responsibilities... [W]hile the rights of its citizens define a nation, it is the duties that define the citizens... n a time when globalization is pushing economies, cultures and needs together, it's time to define our identity as Canadians, our duties as Canadians toward Canada... We're all happy to "celebrate our differences," but those differences are lately causing us to grow apart..." I sense some interesting times upon us now, where some of the shine has rubbed off of official multiculturalism, and people are beginning to sense that the "me first" attitude that's been fostered isn't actually a good thing. I know Leafless would demand laws that make all new arrivals speak fluent English (even though he can't do so himself) and all wear lumberjack shirts (or is that too Quebecois?), but I hope for the establishment of some kind of balance, brought about by an unwritten, but obvious and common, agreement amongst citizens, as opposed to rigid laws being implemented.

Interesting points.

Immigrants congragating in ethnic "enclaves" is not a new phenomenum. As much as some may want to integrate, even assimilate, wanting to perpetuate one's familiar environment is part of human nature. Today we have East Indian neighbourhood, yesterday it was Jewish, Greek, Italian neighbourhood. One thing that has not changed either is that the children and grand-children of immigrants are more likely to adopt at least some cultural traits of the larger community, leading to tensions between generation.

A few things are different. There are more immigrants and their backgrounds are more diverse than before. Whole families immigrate, including older people less likely to integrate (we got to revise the policy of allowing people in their retirement years and second cousins in just because one member of the family qualifies; refugees being of course a different situation). Being Canadian is no longer defined primarily by language, religion or culture (a good thing IMO, since such definition exclude people, but the absence of a new definition of what is a Canadian is the one flaw of multiculturalism as it exists now). Also, we live in an era of global communications, which has both its advantages (people can more freely enter in contacts with other cultures and exchange with them) and its risks (new generations of immigrants can maintain, through the Internet and television, links to their country of origin more easily than before).

One comment about the Chinese community. There is one factor that makes that community different from other community and a bad point of reference for the immigrant experience as a whole -- the large-scale arrival, in the 1990's, of immigrants from Hong Kong with money to invest. Most immigrants arrive here with little.

[g_bambino]

LIES!

The federal government actively promotes and finances the concept of bilingualism within the confines of provincial and municipal governments.

Have you ever actually read the documents that make up part of our constitution? The Constitution Act 1867 clearly spells out what jurisdictions have what power over what. That does not preclude municipalities or provinces asking for funds from the federal government, for whatever reason; the feds may or may not accept. But that has nothing to do with constitutional duties, which is exactly what you said nobody adheres to. Unless, of course, you can find for me the clause that spells out the obligation of the federal government to overturn municipal or provincial laws that enforce bilingualism. Oh, wait... Canadien already asked you for those, and you came up with... ah, yes... nothing.

Morally they are.

Can you point out where the constitution defines morals, please?

When legislative authority overules the desires of the populace, especially relating to their own constitution and de-facto language, makes the government corrupt.

The legislatures are made up of individuals elected by the populace; if they vote in favour of a bill, then the populace has voted in favour of a bill. We live in a representational democracy, like every other democracy, not a direct democracy where every citizen votes on every affair of government. The case you raised was of a municipality pondering the idea of making local government bilingual; the municipality is, by statistics, almost divided in half between Franco- and Anglophones, yet another fact that you conveniently ignored. How, then, is the municipal government subverting the desires of the populace that they govern? Huh?

You say it says "nothing about culture or race" and it is race that is being defined?

Indeed, you caught an error on my part, my apologies for creating misunderstanding. I should have said that your definition of race says nothing about culture or language. All it mentions is physical attributes: ethnic stock, common descent, a common feature.

If race was excluded, language and culture would be meaningless.

Right. As I already said, and you, yet again, pretended was never said: tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman that his race is tied to his culture. Ditto for the Caucasian Jamaican, or the third generation Chinese-Canadian.

[Leafless]

Paul Fromm, leader in the Canadian neo-nazi movement

Raymond Moriyama, one of Canada most proeminent architect, of Japanese descent

Barack Obama, candidate the the Presidency of the United States

Colin Powell, former Secretary of State of the United States

Yep, they are all of the same race. Whatever.

You are now talking hybrids.

But race, language and culture perfectly identifies these hybrids.

Is it my fault it is allowed for different races to intertwine with other races and different cultures.

[Leafless]

Do something about your delusions, will you?

They are not delusions.

The fact is you and I simply have different opinions.

And mine are based on fact.

A good thing too, because we sure can't rely on your reading of them.

Neither can you, unless of course you feel your superior intelligence supercedes the (ahem) good courts of Canada.

Sooo... commie is the insult word of the week. Before that it was socialist, fascist, Nazi... And of course, if asked to provide a definition of those terms you would as usual make a fool of yourself.

Forty years of PM's from Quebec proves my point.

You so totally don't get it. I am an extra-terrestrial on a mission to destroy Canada and use it as a base to conquer the world.

No surprise there... Your non-sense is after all quite entertaining.

You are partly correct.

You are simply an inferior Francophone on a mission to linguistically destroy Canada and use it as a base for your mama country, France.

[Leafless]

Have you ever actually read the documents that make up part of our constitution? The Constitution Act 1867 clearly spells out what jurisdictions have what power over what. That does not preclude municipalities or provinces asking for funds from the federal government, for whatever reason; the feds may or may not accept. But that has nothing to do with constitutional duties, which is exactly what you said nobody adheres to. Unless, of course, you can find for me the clause that spells out the obligation of the federal government to overturn municipal or provincial laws that enforce bilingualism.

Obviously you are playing games.

The federal government has a DUTY to enforce charter rights, BUT DOES NOT.

I am specifically referring to 'Fundamental Freedoms' "2( which reads: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication".

The language law Russell council members have implemented denies users of the majority English language to post signs in WHATEVER language they wish to post business signs in.

This mirrors the action of other small municipalities in Eastern Ontario who have implemented similar discriminatory language laws.

City of Ottawa council members voted in favour of a language law via a bilingualism act or policy.

It was allowed by the premier Ontario, Liberal Dalton Mc.Guinty but the premier did not make it official by provincially enshrining that bilingual policy.

Ottawa's bilingual policy discriminates against the majority English population by denying the majority English speaking population from freely working in the natural dominant English language for the City of Ottawa or its public institutions hospitals etc. and has spread to private businesses.

This type of racial discrimination is unacceptable.

It is obvious the premier of the province is a French lackey with no respect for the Charter and fails to protect the majority English speaking residents of Ontario by NOT implementing English as Ontario's official language.

The Francophone population in Ontario is approx. 4% of Ontario's population and is totally unjustifiable for the premier to allow minority language laws to rule the majority English language of Ontario.

Oh, wait... Canadien already asked you for those, and you came up with... ah, yes... nothing.

Can you point out where the constitution defines morals, please?

Without morals the country is lost.

Corruption and dysfunctional governments rule.

The legislatures are made up of individuals elected by the populace; if they vote in favour of a bill, then the populace has voted in favour of a bill. We live in a representational democracy, like every other democracy, not a direct democracy where every citizen votes on every affair of government.

We already know Canadian democracy is corrupt and dysfunctional.

Do you understand Quebec should have been kicked out of confederation years ago.

As I already said, and you, yet again, pretended was never said: tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman that his race is tied to his culture. Ditto for the Caucasian Jamaican, or the third generation Chinese-Canadian.

Again you are relating to hybrids and refuse to admit race, culture/language are components of one another and one component can not exist without the other components.

[CANADIEN]

You are now talking hybrids.

But race, language and culture perfectly identifies these hybrids

Is it my fault it is allowed for different races to intertwine with other races and different cultures..

I do not think "interwining" of different cultures and skin colours is anybody's "fault", and these are human beings we are talking about , you racist.

Anyway, same language, different skin colour. I rest my case.

PS: You are quite welcome to go tell Paul Fromm that he is the hybrid product of "interwining" between races. :lol:

Edited August 5, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

They are not delusions.

The fact is you and I simply have different opinions.

And mine are based on fact.

Then, you must be very good at writing things you don't believe, because finding facts in your drivel is like findding postings by me without typos - virtually impossible.

Neither can you, unless of course you feel your superior intelligence supercedes the (ahem) good courts of Canada.

I actually consider myself to be of pretty average intelligence, thank you very much.

We already know that you cannot find in the Constitution any of the duties you claim the federal government is not fulfilling. Now we all shall wait for you not to find them in court judgements either.

You are simply an inferior Francophone on a mission to linguistically destroy Canada and use it as a base for your mama country, France.

You still don't get it. My mother country is C-A-N-A-D-A. But thank you oh thank for confirming what has been pretty evident for a long time - you consider Francophones to be inferiors.

Edited August 5, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Obviously you are playing games.

The federal government has a DUTY to enforce charter rights, BUT DOES NOT.

I am specifically referring to 'Fundamental Freedoms' "2( which reads: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication"

i am still looking for the section of the Charter that reads: "the Federal governments shall invalidate any law it considers to be contrary to the disposition of this Act [the Charter]". You won't find it, because it is not there.

Finding that a provincial law or municipal by-law is unconstitutional is the responsibility of the courts, not the federal government or the Parliament.

The language law Russell council members have implemented denies users of the majority English language to post signs in WHATEVER language they wish to post business signs in.

This mirrors the action of other small municipalities in Eastern Ontario who have implemented similar discriminatory language laws.

The FACT that nothing in these by-laws prevents the use of English or any other languages has been proven. There is nothing in them that violates section 2 of the Charter.

But you're welcome to argue otherwise in court... and lose.

City of Ottawa council members voted in favour of a language law via a bilingualism act or policy.

It was allowed by the premier Ontario, Liberal Dalton Mc.Guinty but the premier did not make it official by provincially enshrining that bilingual policy.

The FACT that the Ontario Legislature voted a law mandating the City of Ottawa Council to enact a by-law providing for municipal services to be delivered in English and French has been proven.

Ottawa's bilingual policy discriminates against the majority English population by denying the majority English speaking population from freely working in the natural dominant English language for the City of Ottawa or its public institutions hospitals etc. and has spread to private businesses.

It is a FACT that provincial and federal public institutions, including hospitals, are not municipal services. It is also a FACT a regularly constituted provincial court found that the Ottawa City Council had the power to enact that by-law, and that it was not discriminatory.

This type of racial discrimination is unacceptable.

What is unacceptable is the way you pile untruths long after they have been debunked.

It is obvious the premier of the province is a French lackey with no respect for the Charter and fails to protect the majority English speaking residents of Ontario by NOT implementing English as Ontario's official language.

In other words, by not having the Ontario legislature vote laws prohibiting the use of languages other than English on business signs. Laws that, according to your own reading of the Charter, would violate the Constitution and which the federal government would be duty-bound to invalidate.

Do you understand Quebec should have been kicked out of confederation years ago.

I understand it has not happened, should not happen and will not happen.

Without morals the country is lost.

If I were you, I wouldn't be talking about morality after writing this:

Again you are relating to hybrids

Edited August 5, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Have you ever actually read the documents that make up part of our constitution?

The more he reads them, the more he misunderstands them.

[CANADIEN]

race, culture/language are components of one another and one component can not exist without the other components.

Yep, languages are specific to one race and culture. Whatever.

Edited August 5, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Obviously you are playing games.

The federal government has a DUTY to enforce charter rights, BUT DOES NOT.

I am specifically referring to 'Fundamental Freedoms' "2( which reads: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication".

The language law Russell council members have implemented denies users of the majority English language to post signs in WHATEVER language they wish to post business signs in.

I am? In case you weren't reading my posts (which, more and more, I doubt you do), I said already that I believe language is something that dominates or wanes naturally, and hence need not be too strictly directed by law. Obviously, though, like every other aspect of human culture, we need some regulation in order to prevent chaos. So, I don't believe laws dictating what language private signs should be in are necessary - both Canadien and I agreed earlier that if a business in a bilingual community is going to offer services in only one language then its owner has bad business sense and would probably suffer financially - but what language(s) government operates in is a different matter, all-together.

Still, that isn't even the real focus of your rants; you keep claiming that some majority is being repressed by a minority. In order to do this, though, you have to maintain complete and utter ignorance in regard to some key points: 1) this is a municipal by-law; 2) the municipality has an equal Anglo- and Francophone population; and 3) nobody is being denied their right to think, believe, opine and express freely, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." As acknowledging these facts takes all the wind right out of the sails of your "arguments," in a cowardly fashion hidden behind a veneer of bombast and insult, you don't acknowledge them. You just bumble along and scream about froggy this and commie that, and never actually do anything about what bothers you. Maybe you never take action, and only rant on internet message boards from the dingy confines of your mom's basement, because you know, somewhere inside, that all the conspiracy and corruption is just a figment of your irrational imagination. Why else aren't you out front of Queen's Park with placards, on the CBC, or in court fighting for the freedom of the Canadian Anglophone? To afraid of having your hypocrisies pointed out publicly?

Without morals the country is lost.

Perhaps. But that has zero to do with constitutional law. Did you forget that you said the governments were acting "morally unconstitutionally"?

We already know Canadian democracy is corrupt and dysfunctional.

Dysfunctional? Maybe. What politic isn't dysfunctional? Corrupt? Hardly. The law operates quite well in this country. Is there one you can point to that's better?

Again you are relating to hybrids and refuse to admit race, culture/language are components of one another and one component can not exist without the other components.

Of course I'm going to deny that culture and language are a part of race! Because they're not! Please... go tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman, the Caucasian born in Jamaica who speaks like a Jamaican, or the person of Asian descent who lives in Canada and speaks like a Canadian, that they are a "racial hybrid." We'll see how many you talk to before you get a punch in the face for calling them half-breeds.

Edited August 5, 2008 by g_bambino

[Leafless]

I do not think "interwining" of different cultures and skin colours is anybody's "fault", and these are human beings we are talking about , you racist.

Human beings, oh you mean people.

Ones personal views concerning objections to intertwining of races does not constitute racism.

Oh yes, you are university educated....that was the University of '0', right.

Anyway, same language, different skin colour. I rest my case.

You don't have any case because we are talking 'racial discrimination' from the same 'White' race but different culture/language.

PS: You are quite welcome to go tell Paul Fromm that he is the hybrid product of "interwining" between races.

Why would I do that?

I am certain he is aware of his ethnicity.

[Leafless]

Yep, languages are specific to one race and culture. Whatever.

What kind of twisted logic do you possess?

[g_bambino]

We are talking 'racial discrimination' from the same 'White' race but different culture/language.

You surely can't realise how ridiculous you sound! A race racially discriminating against itself!? Too much!

[cybercoma]

I think he means bigotry, not racial discrimination.

[Leafless]

I am? In case you weren't reading my posts (which, more and more, I doubt you do), I said already that I believe language is something that dominates or wanes naturally, and hence need not be too strictly directed by law. Obviously, though, like every other aspect of human culture, we need some regulation in order to prevent chaos. So, I don't believe laws dictating what language private signs should be in are necessary - both Canadien and I agreed earlier that if a business in a bilingual community is going to offer services in only one language then its owner has bad business sense and would probably suffer financially

There is no such thing as a "bilingual community" in Ontario as Ontario is NOT officially bilingual.

You can describe the community as being multi-cultural.

- but what language(s) government operates in is a different matter, all-together.

For a municipality to legislate language rights such as designating a city bilingual requires a charter.

Municipal governments are not federal governments but and get around dictating or legislating language laws in a fraudulent manner using the word 'SERVICES'.

Still, that isn't even the real focus of your rants; you keep claiming that some majority is being repressed by a minority.

ABSOLUTELY via LANGUAGE LAWS.

In order to do this, though, you have to maintain complete and utter ignorance in regard to some key points: 1) this is a municipal by-law; 2) the municipality has an equal Anglo- and Francophone population;

This is totally irrelevant as Ontario is not officially bilingual. This makes Anglo-Francophone populations, linguistically speaking non-existent.

Again, federal language laws are not applicable in Ottawa, Ontario. Federal linguistic laws are being emulated and implemented fraudulently under the word SERVICES in Ottawa and smaller Eastern Ontario municipalities.

and 3) nobody is being denied their right to think, believe, opine and express freely, "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Dictated imposed language laws CANNOT be viewed as justified, under ANY circumstances, in any free, democratic society without the consent of the populace via REFERENDUM.

As acknowledging these facts takes all the wind right out of the sails of your "arguments," in a cowardly fashion hidden behind a veneer of bombast and insult, you don't acknowledge them.

Your facts are FRAUDULENT FACTS and propagated in the same fashion as the charter was, commie style.

You just bumble along and scream about froggy this and commie that, and never actually do anything about what bothers you. Maybe you never take action, and only rant on internet message boards from the dingy confines of your mom's basement,

I own the house and probably am old enough to be your father.

because you know, somewhere inside, that all the conspiracy and corruption is just a figment of your irrational imagination.

It appears you possess the qualifications of a dictator.

Why else aren't you out front of Queen's Park with placards, on the CBC, or in court fighting for the freedom of the Canadian Anglophone? To afraid of having your hypocrisies pointed out publicly?

Queen's Park, CBC, or courts are corrupted with socialist and minority French ideologies.

Perhaps. But that has zero to do with constitutional law. Did you forget that you said the governments were acting "morally unconstitutionally"?

Use the quote function so you cannot alter what I said.

The constitution is useless if politicians are not devoted to and choose to ignore majority cultural realities.

Dysfunctional? Maybe. What politic isn't dysfunctional? Corrupt? Hardly. The law operates quite well in this country.

There is no other country in the entire WORLD to compare it to.

Of course I'm going to deny that culture and language are a part of race! Because they're not!

Well, if they are not, then how do you describe members of the same 'White' race discriminating against other members of that White race on grounds of culture/language, without using the words 'racially discriminating'?

Please... go tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman, the Caucasian born in Jamaica who speaks like a Jamaican, or the person of Asian descent who lives in Canada and speaks like a Canadian, that they are a "racial hybrid." We'll see how many you talk to before you get a punch in the face for calling them half-breeds.

Are you advocating violence on this website?

Are you trying to curtail free speech by trying to instill a level of fear?

Are you a F#$%#^**$ commie.

BTW..you are on the Internet all day it seems so the least you can do is spell it correctly.

[Leafless]

I think he means bigotry, not racial discrimination.

Nope, 'racial discriminating' is what I mean.

How else do you describe members of the same 'White race' discriminating against other members of the same 'White race' via culture/language laws.

I am not the first one to describe Quebec language laws as being racist.

[g_bambino]

There is no such thing as a "bilingual community" in Ontario as Ontario is NOT officially bilingual.

You obviously didn't look at my StatsCan link - the one that shows the population of Russell Township to be split almost exactly 50/50 between Anglo- and Francophone inhabitants. That would make the community bilingual, whether or not it's officially so. Do you need everything to be official in order for it to be real?

The government of Russell Township has the authority to govern the area of Russell Township; that includes in what languages the government operates, and, apparently, signage. If and when the township government passes a law that makes the government operate in both French and English, they are not denying any Anglophone of his or her right to speak or be served in English. Hence, the Charter has not been breached! Ditto for a law that dictates store signs to be made in both French and English; the store owner is not being denied his or her right to speak, serve, or have a sign in English. Hence, the Charter has not been breached! The Charter does not say that laws cannot be made; it says that certain rights cannot be taken away; and, in this case, nobody's rights have been taken away. The township government hasn't even acted unreasonably, given that the population they govern is bilingual.

Use the quote function so you cannot alter what I said

Okay; obviously you did forget. So, here it is for you again:

Now, by the constitution, provincial and municipal affairs are not a part of the federal sphere. Thus, by not involving themselves in these linguistic issues, the federal government is following every letter of the law. So you cannot claim they are acting unconstitutionally.

Morally they are.

One cannot act "morally unconstitutionally." Acting unconstitutionally may be immoral, but immorality and unconstitutionality are still two separate concepts. As the constitution is a combination of written documents and centuries old conventions, it does not perceptibly morph along with transient societal values; it is law, it is constant, and so it cannot be overridden by an individual for the sake of the present day "cultural realities." One can try and change the law to suit the morals, but one cannot break the law because they think it to be immoral. So, really, in this case it comes down to whether or not the politicians are acting unconstitutionally or not; morality really has nothing to do with it.

Your facts are FRAUDULENT FACTS and propagated in the same fashion as the charter was, commie style.

It appears you possess the qualifications of a dictator.

Queen's Park, CBC, or courts are corrupted with socialist and minority French ideologies.

Are you trying to curtail free speech by trying to instill a level of fear?

Are you a F#$%#^**$ commie.

Well, if they are not, then how do you describe members of the same 'White' race discriminating against other members of that White race on grounds of culture/language, without using the words 'racially discriminating'?

Cultural and linguistic bigots. Pretty simple, really.

You can describe the community as being multi-cultural.

Don't you mean "multi-racial"?

[guyser]

Don't worry, I get it.

Quote of the week.

Buttercup, you havent "got" anything since the advent of colour TV .

[CANADIEN]

Quote of the week.

Buttercup, you havent "got" anything since the advent of colour TV .

What's a "TV"?

[CANADIEN]

Please... go tell the man of African descent who was born in Scotland and speaks like a Scotsman, the Caucasian born in Jamaica who speaks like a Jamaican, or the person of Asian descent who lives in Canada and speaks like a Canadian, that they are a "racial hybrid." We'll see how many you talk to before you get a punch in the face for calling them half-breeds.

Not to worry. If he calls them hybrids, he;ll be the one able to punch them because their fit of laughter will leave them vulnerable.

[CANADIEN]

For a municipality to legislate language rights such as designating a city bilingual requires a charter.

Wrong again. What it needs is (a) a by-law, ( authority or mandate through provincial law to do so. Both exist here.

Municipal governments are not federal governments (...)

Right, for once

(...)but and get around dictating or legislating language laws(...)

Wrong again. They are by-laws

(...)in a fraudulent manner using the word 'SERVICES'.

Wrong again.

Again, federal language laws are not applicable in Ottawa, Ontario.

Wrong again. The certainly apply to federal services and institution in Ottawa.

Federal linguistic laws are being emulated

And a good thing, IMO.

It appears you possess the qualifications of a dictator.

Says the one who wants to violate freedom of expression with a one-language-only law.

Well, if they are not, then how do you describe members of the same 'White' race discriminating against other members of that White race on grounds of culture/language, without using the words 'racially discriminating'?

Since language is (according to you) a componant of race, groups who speak different languages cannot be (to floow your "logic") of the same race.

Edited August 5, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Human beings, oh you mean people.

Mark the day, you got something.

Ones personal views concerning objections to intertwining of races does not constitute racism.

That's not specifically why i used the term racist, but objection to what you call "interwining of races" in inherently racist.

You don't have any case because we are talking 'racial discrimination' from the same 'White' race but different culture/language.

I am talking about people of various ancestry and skin colour sharing the same first language.

Why would I do that?

Calling Paul Fromm a hybrid.

I am certain he is aware of his ethnicity.

He sure is, after all he is a known White Supremacist. But feel free to tell to his face that he is a hybrid.

[CANADIEN]

What kind of twisted logic do you possess?

Irrelevant. In this particular case, I was using yours.