Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[CANADIEN]

As far as I know the English language has always been classified as the English language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

And the French language is classified as the... French language. Your point is?

[CANADIEN]

French is a minority foreign language in Canada even if it is spoken in Canada.

I will say it again, French is the national language of France not Canada.

And I will say it again, along with everybody who has written on this thread. YOU ARE CLUELESS.

Edited September 24, 2008 by CANADIEN

[M.Dancer]

Ask Mr. Dion he is a French citizen currently running for PM of this country.

Could you rephrase that in either of the two official languages?

[g_bambino]

Canada is part of the commonwealth and is basically an extension of the U.K with the Queen as Head of State and a British Constitution it can't really ammend without the Queens permission.

None of your points support your claim.

[g_bambino]

As far as I know the English language has always been classified as the English language.

Irrelevant. English deviaties according to region as French does, and your argument still makes English a foreign language in Canada.

[Leafless]

Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and it is it's own Country, with its own Constitution. As for the Queen, we are talking about the same one who SIGNED the Charter IN PERSON, therefore consenting to it, right?

The Queen signed the newly formed constitution Act 1982 commonly known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is nothing new though as Canada previously enjoyed human rights albeit not written into the constitution.

The rest and the main part of the constitution (BNA Act) remained intact.

As I said, nobody on this site. You are welcome to prove me wrong by showing all the postings on this thread by people other than you who claim French is a foreign language.

Basically the only other person interested in this thread is YOU and a few other cultural misfits.

[M.Dancer]

Basically the only other person interested in this thread is YOU and a few other cultural misfits.

You mean this thread you started? I guess that makes you the cultural misfit and in that, I finally agree with you.

Edited September 24, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Leafless]

Could you rephrase that in either of the two official languages?

Only if Canadien does relating to post #502.

[CANADIEN]

The Queen signed the newly formed constitution Act 1982 commonly known as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is nothing new though as Canada previously enjoyed human rights albeit not written into the constitution.

The rest and the main part of the constitution (BNA Act) remained intact.

And nobody on this thread has said otherwise. Including, to my great surprise, you.

Edited September 24, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Only if Canadien does relating to post #502.

With great pleasure. I have corrected my typo. And you still are clueless.

[Leafless]

And nobody on this thread has said otherwise. Including, to my great surprise, you.

That is okay.

I am simply verifying the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not constitute Canada's constitution and is ONLY an amendment.

I have actually met people (Canadians) who THINK the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is Canada's entire constitution.

[Leafless]

With great pleasure. I have corrected my typo. And you still are clueless.

Like I said elsewhere, artificial inteligence relating to Canada as being a 'social engineered country' is YOUR bag and NOT mine.

Believe in fairy tales if you wish.

[CANADIEN]

That is okay.

I am simply verifying the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not constitute Canada's constitution and is ONLY an amendment.

I have actually met people (Canadians) who THINK the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is Canada's entire constitution.

Nice for you to admit it is an amendment to the Constitution. Which means it is part of the Constitution. Which means it is NOT unconstitutional.

[CANADIEN]

DELETED

Edited September 27, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Like I said elsewhere, artificial inteligence relating to Canada as being a 'social engineered country' is YOUR bag and NOT mine.

Believe in fairy tales if you wish.

Thanks for confirming again that you have no clue.

[g_bambino]

I am simply verifying the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not constitute Canada's constitution and is ONLY an amendment. I have actually met people (Canadians) who THINK the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is Canada's entire constitution.

Of course the Charter is not the constitution. However, neither are the Constitution Acts, the Statute of Westminster, the Act of Settlement, or any other singular document. In fact, all those documents combined still don't make up the constitution in its entirety; much of it is unwritten convention. Yes, there are people who've been brainwashed into thinking that the Charter is the constitution of Canada, but so what? As a part of the constitution the Charter cannot be unconstitutional.

Edited September 27, 2008 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Of course the Charter is not the constitution. However, neither are the Constitution Acts, the Statute of Westminster, the Act of Settlement, or any other singular document. In fact, all those documents combined still don't make up the constitution in its entirety; much of it is unwritten convention. Yes, there are people who've been brainwashed into thinking that the Charter is the constitution of Canada, but so what? As a part of the constitution the Charter cannot be unconstitutional.

Brainwashed may be a misnomer. Many people love going for the simpliest explanation possible, even when the most complex fact is available.

[g_bambino]

Brainwashed may be a misnomer. Many people love going for the simpliest explanation possible, even when the most complex fact is available.

Well, true. But they probably go for that document over any other for a reason; I wonder what the count would be if someone tallied up the number of times the Charter has been mentioned in media since its ratification.

[craiger]

Try Alberta I had a warrant out for a dog license I was arrested. I went to court and provide documents that I had a license and they threw it out of court. Yet I was told I could not sue or charge the city of Edmonton for harassment.

[Leafless]

Of course the Charter is not the constitution. However, neither are the Constitution Acts, the Statute of Westminster, the Act of Settlement, or any other singular document. In fact, all those documents combined still don't make up the constitution in its entirety; much of it is unwritten convention. Yes, there are people who've been brainwashed into thinking that the Charter is the constitution of Canada, but so what? As a part of the constitution the Charter cannot be unconstitutional.

Parts of the Charter could be viewed as corrupt relating to 'official languages'.

These parts can be bounced of of other parts of the Charter supporting an initial corrupt right to support another right.

This makes the entire Charter an unconstitutional document.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Leafless

[CANADIEN]

Parts of the Charter could be viewed as corrupt relating to 'official languages'.

These parts can be bounced of of other parts of the Charter supporting an initial corrupt right to support another right.

This makes the entire Charter an unconstitutional document.

Every time I think you can't get even more clueless, you manage to prove me wrong.

Let's forget for one moment that the corruption you mention in your postings exists only in your bigoted clueles mind...

Your opinion that part of the Charter is corrupt, and my opinion that the Charter is an important and good document are exactly that... OPINIONS.

Whether or not any Act of Parliament is constitutional or unconstitutional is a matter of LAW, that is looking at the Constitution and interpreting it to see if the Act violated any part of the Constitution..

As it has been pointed time and time again, the Charter is PART of the Constitution, and therefore CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Even if it were not part of the Constitution, show what other part of the Constitution is violated by it.

No worry, I know full well you will not get it. Others will.

Edited September 28, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Parts of the Charter could be viewed as corrupt relating to 'official languages'.

You can view parts of the Charter as being corrupt. But, here's an important fact: you're not a constitutional lawyer (obviously), so what you think ultimately doesn't matter.

This makes the entire Charter an unconstitutional document.

Wow; it's like trying to communicate with a brick. One more time: a constitutional document cannot be unconstitutional.

[CANADIEN]

You can view parts of the Charter as being corrupt. But, here's an important fact: you're not a constitutional lawyer (obviously), so what you think ultimately doesn't matter.

Wow; it's like trying to communicate with a brick. One more time: a constitutional document cannot be unconstitutional.

Careful, bricks might sue you for libel.

[g_bambino]

Careful, bricks might sue you for libel.

Only commie French bricks, of course.

[Leafless]

As it has been pointed time and time again, the Charter is PART of the Constitution, and therefore CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Why can't the Charter possibly not be deemed corrupt or unconstitutional or whatever?

The process to scrap the charter (an amendment to the BNA Act) would be IMO to simply add another amendment to the constitution with a newly rewritten charter that would overide the old (Trudeau's) charter.

Even if it were not part of the Constitution, show what other part of the Constitution is violated by it.

We were talking 'official languages' as the prime offending part.

The BNA Act does not state giving Quebec special status or is a distinct society.

The BNA Act does not state Canada was made up by two distinct cultures or societies.

So why all the UNILATERAL federal governments pretentious nonsense giving Quebec special status by way of making French an 'official language' with all the associated linguistic spins when there is nothing in the BNA Act that says this?

BTW- Some label me a radical when currently it is radicals that govern charter interest and NOT the citizens of Canada.

I am a proud citizen of Canada....one of the remaining few.