Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[Leafless]

What? Hitler was busy today?

How is the little hacker doing to-day?

[CANADIEN]

I am calling you a liar as you still have failed to quote what I actually said and are applying words that are untrue.

Be a man and post what I actually said.

You are drowning in your own horse manure.

Let's see...

That doesn't address what I asked. I stateed: "The fact that those who did the importing, exporting, and transporting were mostly of the whitish skin colour is just a coincidence, not a reason"; to which you responded: "It is not a coincendence. It is all about power and possessing the ability to develop an advanced culture." That statement says you believe the British to have been successful imperialists purely because they were Caucasians. You can either deny or affirm this reading of your words.

There is no sense in denying anything.

The imperialist were in fact White and successful.

So what?

Are you denying some groups posses the ability to be more successful then other groups.

Makes it clear that you believe "white" culture is superior.

[CANADIEN]

Any official policy is already legal.

I suppose the next thing you are going to claim is that Ottawa Francophones had nothing to do with lobbying or demanding the Ontario provincial government to designate Ontario 'officially bilingual' or have Ottawa's bilingual policy provincially enshrined.

Why would I claim that, when I know they indeed lobbied for a municipal language of service policy that is fair and reflects the fact Ottawa is the capital of Canada? They were right to do so, and like any other citizens they had the right to do so. You deal in delusions, I don't.

The Ontario provincial government did not mandate Ottawa's bilingual policy.

The City of Ottawa Act, as amended in 2006, states:

11.1 (1) The city shall adopt a policy respecting the use of the English and French languages in all or specified parts of the administration of the city and in the provision of all or specified municipal services by the city. 2005, c. 3, s. 1.

Scope and content of policy

(2) The scope and content of the policy adopted under subsection (1) shall be as determined by the city. 2005, c. 3, s. 1.

Existing policy

(3) If, before the day this section comes into force, the city has adopted a policy respecting the use of the English and French languages as described in subsection (1) that is lawful, that policy shall be deemed to be a policy adopted under subsection (1). 2005, c. 3, s. 1.

Even if the City if Ottawa had not already adopted a language policy, it would be mandated by law to have one. That's clear enough... to others.

And the method how it was established is deplorable and is comparable to Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe type politics.

A public meeting of a democratically elected body following the full procedures of our representative democracy. That's how it happened. There must be two Robert Mugabe, because the one I know acts differently. :lol: :lol

Edited July 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Let's see...

Makes it clear that you believe "white" culture is superior.

No it does not.

I specifically used the word successful.

And the definition of success, courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary: 1. the accomplishment of an aim; a favourable outcome.

And the definition superior: 1. in a higher position; of a higher rank.

These are two totally different words.

Learn to comprehend simple words.

[CANADIEN]

No it does not.

I specifically used the word successful.

And the definition of success, courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary: 1. the accomplishment of an aim; a favourable outcome.

And the definition superior: 1. in a higher position; of a higher rank.

These are two totally different words.

Learn to comprehend simple words.

Nice try. Your belief is still clear.

You state that some groups of people have a greater ability to become successful, and that Caucasians are more successful because they are Caucasians. In other words, that they are superior.

Edited July 21, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Why would I claim that, when I know they indeed lobbied for a municipal language of service policy that is fair and reflects the fact Ottawa is the capital of Canada?

The city of Ottawa as the capital of Canada is represented more than fairly on a federal level.

Why should the municipality of Ottawa bend over backwards to the demands of arrogant Francophones when they do not reciprocate with similar language policies anywhere in Quebec.

The majority residents of Ottawa are English speaking and culturally speaking owe Francophones nothing.

They were right to do so, and like any other citizens they had the right to do so. You deal in delusions, I don't.

Sorry.

It is NOT the position of city councillors to establish a consensus on what they consider fair relating to forced bilingualism.

If it was fair they would have implemented a municipal referendum to be decided by the residents who pay the taxes.

Even if the City if Ottawa had not already adopted a language policy, it would be mandated by law to have one. That's clear enough... to others.

how can that be clear when Ontario premier Dalton Mc.Guinty refuses to provincially enshrine Ottawa's bilingual policy.

For the province to mandate language without a referendum would be racist.

A public meeting of a democratically elected body following the full procedures of our representative democracy.

Ottawa is a municipality and not a federal government.

Even the federal government racially discriminates against English speaking Canadians with its unilaterally imposed language policies.

[CANADIEN]

Why should the municipality of Ottawa bend over backwards to the demands of arrogant Francophones when they do not reciprocate with similar language policies anywhere in Quebec.

Less we forget, it is arrogant for a Canadian to expect to be treated as a Canadian...

Now, we both know full well that even if the Quebec government had never passed undemocratic and discriminatory laws you would still oppose equal lngiuistic rights in Ottawa, in Ontario and throughout Canada. So be a man and stop hiding your bigotry behind them.

The majority residents of Ottawa are English speaking and culturally speaking owe Francophones nothing.

This is not about culture, this is about equality.

It is NOT the position of city councillors to establish a consensus on what they consider fair relating to forced bilingualism.

It is the job of city councillor to determine who city services are being delivered. Which is exactly what they did - no more, and no less.

If it was fair they would have implemented a municipal referendum to be decided by the residents who pay the taxes.

It is fair, and they followed the rules of a democratically elected body.

how can that be clear when Ontario premier Dalton Mc.Guinty refuses to provincially enshrine Ottawa's bilingual policy.

It is not clear... to you.

For the province to mandate language without a referendum would be racist.

Let me see... We both know a majority of Ontarians would not go for a policy of mandating English as the sole language of commerce. Which means that it would have to be implemented without a referendum. Which means that, according to your latest "logic", such a policy idea is racist. :lol:

Edited July 21, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Less we forget, it is arrogant for a Canadian to expect to be treated as a Canadian...

The laws of Canada always did apply to all.

Now, we both know full well that even if the Quebec government had never passed undemocratic and discriminatory laws you would still oppose equal lngiuistic rights in Ottawa, in Ontario and throughout Canada. So be a man and stop hiding your bigotry behind them.

That question was not raised in this thread so your insults are not applicable.

Yes, I would be opposed as force feeding minority languages constitutes racial discrimination.

This is not about culture, this is about equality.

Racially discriminating against an existing language/culture is equality?

It is the job of city councillor to determine who city services are being delivered. Which is exactly what they did - no more, and no less.

We all know about the delivery of bilingual French services with the end result of transposing previously English speaking jobs into bilingual jobs.

I would say that is stretching the word 'services' beyond the scope of anyone's imagination, unless you happen to be Francophone.

It is fair, and they followed the rules of a democratically elected body.

You show me the piece of legislation that changes the meaning of the word 'services' into corrupt cultural ideologies that constitute a racist policy.

Show me that racist piece of legislation?

It is not clear... to you.

It is clear to me that if Mc.guinty did provincially enshrine Ottawa's racist bilingual policy, he would never agin be voted back as premier of Ontario.

Let me see... We both a majority of Ontarians would not go for a policy of mandating English as the sole language of commerce.

Which means that it would have to be implemented without a referendum.

Lets have the referendum FIRST before making such an innane comment.

Which means that, according to your latest "logic", such a policy idea is racist.

Protecting the majority language of a province against a minority cultural language assault for the purpose of corrupt job gain is not racist.

It is simply protecting the cultural interest of that province for the benefit of the English speaking tax payers that have created English speaking job securities.

Why try to chisel in on the success of other majority English speaking provinces?

[CANADIEN]

The laws of Canada always did apply to all.

And the days of past, which you remember foundly, they treated French-speaking Canadians living outside of Quebec like second-class citizens.

That question was not raised in this thread so your insults are not applicable.

I'm raising it, and we both know I am right.

Racially discriminating against an existing language/culture is equality?

No, which is why I know your idea of discriminating against non-Anglophones is not equality.

You show me the piece of legislation that changes the meaning of the word 'services' into corrupt cultural ideologies that constitute a racist policy.

Show me that racist piece of legislation?

Actually, YOU do it. You are the one who think that municipal services are no longer services once they are provided in more than one language.

Lets have the referendum FIRST before making such an innane comment.

The only inane idea here is that Ontarians would go for legislation banning languages other than English from commerce.

Protecting the majority language of a province against a minority cultural language assault for the purpose of corrupt job gain is not racist.

Let me check... the majority language of Quebec is French. Which, by your latest "logic", means that Quebec language laws are not racist. Make up your mind, will you? :lol:

It is simply protecting the cultural interest of that province for the benefit of the English speaking tax payers that have created English speaking job securities.

Oh surprise. What you don't like is cultural in nature and therefore evil, what soothes your prejudice is cultural in nature and therefore good...

The English language in Ontario is not threatened by municipal language services in Ottawa, by storekeepers in Toronto's Chinatown speaking to their staff in Mandarin, or by mining executives in Sudbury talking to prospective Brazilian business partners in Portuguese.

Edited July 22, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

And the days of past, which you remember foundly, they treated French-speaking Canadians living outside of Quebec like second-class citizens.

You mean how Quebec currently treats its English speaking population, like second class citizens even though Quebec is a minority culture in Canada.

Hopefully the feds will intervene....someday.

I'm raising it, and we both know I am right.

As a man I answered honestly.

Is this not good enough for you...little boy?

No, which is why I know your idea of discriminating against non-Anglophones is not equality.

Obviously you do not know the definition of discrimination.

Actually, YOU do it. You are the one who think that municipal services are no longer services once they are provided in more than one language.

Don't confuse the issue with your simplistic definition of services when in reality it is all about racial discrimination relating to the converting of English speaking jobs into bilingual jobs.

The only inane idea here is that Ontarians would go for legislation banning languages other than English from commerce.

The U.S. is suffering the same or similar linguistic problems and more and more states in the U.S. are designating English as the official language.

You simply have no respect for the majority English language and don't care about the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars because you are biased against the English language and simply don't like using it.

Let me check... the majority language of Quebec is French. Which, by your latest "logic", means that Quebec language laws are not racist. Make up your mind, will you?

Racist they are.

Since when is a minority culture allowed to implement racist language legislation against the de-facto- majority language of a country outside of dysfunctional Canada?

The feds are not doing there job and should be telling Quebec that the federal government will not be renewing after expiry, which is every five years, the 'Notwithstanding clause' which allows Quebec to discriminate.

Or they can hold back transfer and equalization payment if Quebec does not stop racially discriminating.

There are options the feds can take to stop this discrimination, but to date won't.

The English language in Ontario is not threatened by municipal language services in Ottawa, but storekeepers in Toronto's Chinatown speaking to their staff in Mandarin, or by mining executives in Sudbury talking to prospective Brazilian business partners in Portuguese.

So you are saying the French stealing jobs in Ottawa under a racial discriminatory bilingual policy is on the same level as Chinese shopkeepers speaking to their staff in Mandarin or mining executives talking in Portuguese to their Brazilian business partners.

Bwa-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha....

You are racially twisted.

[CANADIEN]

You mean how Quebec currently treats its English speaking population, like second class citizens even though Quebec is a minority culture in Canada.

They had to learn it somewhere. Now admit it... You miss the good old days when the Frenchies were treated like second class citizen by being forbidden to use their own Canadian languages when obtaining government services or in the classroom.

Obviously you do not know the definition of discrimination.

It's because I know what disrimination is that I know that is what you promote.

Don't confuse the issue with your simplistic definition of services when in reality it is all about racial discrimination relating to the converting of English speaking jobs into bilingual jobs.

Confusing yourself is more than you can take.

You simply have no respect for the majority English language and don't care about the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars because you are biased against the English language and simply don't like using it.

:lol:

Since when is a minority culture allowed to implement racist language legislation against the de-facto- majority language of a country outside of dysfunctional Canada?

You admitted yourself that Francophones are the majority in Quebec. make up your mind, will you?

[CANADIEN]

The feds are not doing there job and should be telling Quebec that the federal government will not be renewing after expiry, which is every five years, the 'Notwithstanding clause' which allows Quebec to discriminate.

Oh surprise, you do not understand how the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution works.

Here's the full text.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Anybody with reading skills will tell you this means only a provincial legislature can use the notwithstanding clause to exempt its laws from certain sections of the Charter, the same way only the federal Parliament can use it regarding federal laws.

In other words, it is the Quebec Legislature, not the Federal parliamanent, that have used the notwithstanding clause to exempt its laws from certain sections of the Charter. Next time, get your facts straight will you?

BTW, I of course wish the Premiers of some English-speaking provinces had never forced Trudeau to add it.

[CANADIEN]

So you are saying the French stealing jobs in Ottawa under a racial discriminatory bilingual policy is on the same level as Chinese shopkeepers speaking to their staff in Mandarin or mining executives talking in Portuguese to their Brazilian business partners.

No, I am saying that uses of languages other than English, either in government or municipal services, in business transactions or in the internal operation of a business do not threaten the english language in Ontario.

Don't forget, we all know you want to end all of it by having English declared the sole official language of business in Ontario.

[Leafless]

They had to learn it somewhere. Now admit it... You miss the good old days when the Frenchies were treated like second class citizen by being forbidden to use their own Canadian languages when obtaining government services or in the classroom.

Oh. okay.

It is now revenge of the Frenchies in 2008 because they were biased against the English de-facto language of Canada and did not want to freely learn it like everyone else.

And you wonder why I advocate majority English provinces to become 'officially English'.

It's because I know what disrimination is that I know that is what you promote.

I oppose discrimination and it appears you do not know the definition of discrimination.

Courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Discrimination: 1. unfavourable treatment based on PREJUDICE esp. regarding race, colour or sex.

Prejudice: 1. preconceived OPINION. 1 b bias or partiality.

So it is definitely apparent various level of government are using a preconceived OPINION to unfavourably treat English speaking Canadians.

Confusing yourself is more than you can take.

Show me the federal or provincial or municipal official definition of what what providing 'services' actually means?

Even in the federal government due to lack of definition of 'services' an entire Francophone society within the federal government was unjustly created.

Francophones to-day think they can apply the same discriminatory twisted federal 'service' logic provincially to linguistically destroy the English language/culture, towns, cities and eventually entire majority English provinces.

You admitted yourself that Francophones are the majority in Quebec. make up your mind, will you?

Being a majority in Quebec means nothing.

If Quebec is part of Canada all provinces must be included in calculating majorities/minorities relating to English speaking Canadians and Francophones.

Then it will be seen Francophones are the minority in Canada.

To treat English speaking Canadians in Quebec as a minority is absolute insanity and could possibly be seen by some as grounds for a legal uprising, protest or whatever.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Oh surprise, you do not understand how the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution works.

Here's the full text.

Anybody with reading skills will tell you this means only a provincial legislature can use the notwithstanding clause to exempt its laws from certain sections of the Charter, the same way only the federal Parliament can use it regarding federal laws.

In other words, it is the Quebec Legislature, not the Federal parliamanent, that have used the notwithstanding clause to exempt its laws from certain sections of the Charter. Next time, get your facts straight will you?

BTW, I of course wish the Premiers of some English-speaking provinces had never forced Trudeau to add it.

It is the federal government who decides if the province can continue to use the notwithstanding clause after a five year time limit has expired.

The federal government is allowing Quebec to continue to racially discriminate by continually renewing the notwithstanding clause, after its five year time lapse, thus allowing minority Quebec to continue discriminating against English speaking Canadians.

The federal government itself is contributing to discrimination against English speaking Canadians by NOT refusing to renew Quebecs notwithstanding clause.

It has the power to do so but it is apparent the federal government prefers to contribute to racial discrimination.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Leafless

[CANADIEN]

Oh. okay.

Thanks for admitting it.

It is now revenge of the Frenchies in 2008 because they were biased against the English de-facto language of Canada and did not want to freely learn it like everyone else.

I forgot, to you freedom to learn a languages maens that people are denied the right to choose which of the languages of their country.

And you wonder why I advocate majority English provinces to become 'officially English'.

Don't worry. Everyone knows you are motivated by ignorance and bigotry.

Courtesy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Discrimination: 1. unfavourable treatment based on PREJUDICE esp. regarding race, colour or sex.

Prejudice: 1. preconceived OPINION. 1 b bias or partiality.

Thanks for proving that I am right when I describe your little pet prejudiced project.

So it is definitely apparent various level of government are using a preconceived OPINION to unfavourably treat English speaking Canadians.

Apparent to you only of course. But YOUR pre-conceived hate-based opinions are apparent.

Show me the federal or provincial or municipal official definition of what what providing 'services' actually means?

Providing services is... providing services. Duh.

(...)linguistically destroy the English language/culture, towns, cities and eventually entire majority English provinces.

And I have heard some people argue that English words on signs or pronounced in government offices are "linguistically destroying" the French language in Quebec. I believe that opinion is idiotic. Guess what I think of yours?

Being a majority in Quebec means nothing.

It means there are more Francophones than Anglophones in Quebec. Period. And the facts that Anglophones are a majority in Ontario means there are more Anglophones than Frencophones in Ontario. Period. A mathematical observation serves as an excuse for discriminating and violating peoples' rights in your mind (when it suits you) and in the mind of the proponents of Quebec's language laws. It doesn't in mine. Edited July 23, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

It is the federal government who decides if the province can continue to use the notwithstanding clause after a five year time limit has expired.

It is not.

The federal government is allowing Quebec to continue to racially discriminate by continually renewing the notwithstanding clausel

As clearly indicated in the Constitution, the Federal PARLIAMENT can invoke the notwithstanding clause to shield FEDERAL laws, while the provincial LEGISLATURE can invoke it to shield PROVINCIAL laws. Not the governments.

Here's a document from the Parliamentary library that contains FACTS (something you know nothing about) that are plainly evident:

- the Quebec legislature invoked the clause on all provincial laws between 1982 and 1985, and has invoked it occasionnally since. On lnaguage issue, the one major case since 1985 was its invocation of the clause in 1988 to prohibit languages other than French on commercial signs (keep that in mind, the Ontario legislature would have to invoke the clause to prohibit languages other than English); when they decided in 1993 that mandating predominance of the French language was enough m*nure, they didn't invoke the clause.

- there has been three documented cases (by 2005) of the clause being invoked by other provincial legislatures

- there is NO documented case of the clause being invoked by the federal Parliament.

Once again, you do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you have any EVIDENCE contradicting the FACTS, please show it. You won't, because you can't.

[Leafless]

Thanks for admitting it.

It would be advantageous to everyone if you included the full statement so everyone who reads your drivel can reflect on WTF you are talking about.

I forgot, to you freedom to learn a languages maens that people are denied the right to choose which of the languages of their country.

No Canadian is denied the freedom to choose the language of his or her choice.

Just respect the freedom to freely choose that language and respect Canadians who have made that language the de-facto language of Canada.

Don't worry. Everyone knows you are motivated by ignorance and bigotry.

Another personal attack by the unintelligent.

Learn the rules of this forum.

Thanks for proving that I am right when I describe your little pet prejudiced project.

I am simply proving what words mean so you can properly comprehend.

Apparent to you only of course. But YOUR pre-conceived hate-based opinions are apparent.

Another personal attack by the unintelligent.

Providing services is... providing services. Duh.

Ha-ha-ha-ha.

Great informative response.

And I have heard some people argue that English words on signs or pronounced in government offices are "linguistically destroying" the French language in Quebec. I believe that opinion is idiotic. Guess what I think of yours?

Another unintelligent personal attack.

It means there are more Francophones than Anglophones in Quebec. Period. And the facts that Anglophones are a majority in Ontario means there are more Anglophones than Frencophones in Ontario. Period. A mathematical observation serves as an excuse for discriminating and violating peoples' rights in your mind (when it suits you) and in the mind of the proponents of Quebec's language laws. It doesn't in mine.

Understand the fact that the freely propagated English language is the majority language of Canada and it automatically and freely assumes an authoritative position as compared to the minority obsolete French language.

This means users of the English language have the right to protect the functioning of their de-facto language of Canada relating to jobs and the common function of buisnesses, institutions etc.

This is unlike users of an obsolete minority language who try to forcibly mimic the same importance attached to their minority language by way of racist language policies.

[Leafless]

Once again, you do not have a clue what you're talking about. If you have any EVIDENCE contradicting the FACTS, please show it. You won't, because you can't.

The facts are Quebec continues to discriminate and the feds are reluctant to do anything about it.

The Canadian Constitution and the Schools

Canadian civil-rights lawyer Brent Tyler is standing in the right foreground of the photo above, in front of some of the parents he represented before the Supreme Court of Canada in the "French Parents Case." These French-speaking parents wanted enroll their own French-speaking children in English schools, because the quality of English-language instruction in Quebec's French-language public schools varies from mediocre to bad to nonexistent. Middle-class or working-class French parents, who can't afford to send their children to the private schools that Quebec businessmen, cabinet ministers and politicians send their children to, wanted at least some of their children's publicly-funded education to be in English. They didn't get what they wanted. The Supreme Court ruled against their argument that the Quebec government discriminated against them by depriving them of freedom of choice in education. The Supreme Court upheld Quebec's hereditary rights law that restricts the right to be educated in English in Quebec to the children of parents educated in English in Quebec (and those few children who were educated in English or whose parents were educated in English elsewhere in Canada, who happen to live in Quebec).

Canada's constitution gives English and French- speaking parents the right to send their children to English or French-language schools, as long as there are enough children in the area to make a school practical. But even that limited right is true everywhere else in Canada except Quebec. In Quebec, the only children who can go to English schools are the children of Canadian citizens whose mother tongue is English. So if you're an immigrant to Quebec from the US or from England, for example, your kids can't go to an English public school. If you're a French-speaking parent from anywhere, you can't send your kid to an English public school (see above).

Private Schools

What about private schools? The fact is that many well-to-do French-speaking parents send their kids to expensive French private schools (expensive because they don't have a government subsidy) where English is taught well as a second language. Why? Because they know that to be successful in North America, and increasingly in Europe, you have to read, write and speak English, which is now the world's second language. The children lucky enough to get into English public schools learn both French and English well -- because the English public school administrators also know that their bilingual graduates will be able to find good jobs in Quebec or anywhere else in the world. And they do.

One section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms) (23.1.a) gives any citizen whose first language was English or French the right to send their children to school in their own mother tongue. When the Charter was adopted in 1982 this section had to be ratified separately by Quebec. It never was.

If section (23.1.a) had been ratified by Quebec, then an immigrant from England who became a Canadian citizen could educate his or her children in English in Quebec. Right now, all immigrant children regardless of their parent's first language have to go to French public schools in Quebec. Or their parents can send them to entirely private schools in either language, so long as those schools receive no cash support from the province. That makes those schools very expensive.

A second section (23.1. gives parents who were educated in primary school in French or English in Canada, and who happen to live in a province where their language is in the minority, the right to send their children to school in that language.

Another section, (23.2) is worth quoting in full:

"Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language."

Under Section 23.2, a Canadian citizen living in Saskatchewan whose child has already started school in English has the right to send that child and all his or her siblings to school to the English public school system in Quebec. But an immigrant parent who was educated in English in England, and who first moves to Saskatchewan and then moves to Quebec, can't send his or her children to public school in English in Quebec – unless, as specified under section 23.2 of the Charter, that parent has already become a citizen and the child had already received some English education in Saskatchewan.

Now let’s say that you are a hard-working and frugal immigrant parent living in Quebec. You apply for Canadian citizenship and you enroll your first child in an unsubsidized English private school in Quebec with tuition that could be as high as $15,000 a year. As soon as you become a citizen, you avail yourself of section 23.2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to enroll your other children (or even this child, now that you are a citizen), in the tax-supported English public school system. Since you are a citizen, and since your child "has received or is receiving" primary school education in English, according to section 23.2, that child and all your other children should be eligible to enroll in the English-language public school system in Quebec.

In other words, if an immigrant living in Quebec is willing and able to spend as much as fifteen thousand dollars a year to educate one of his or her children privately in English for as many years (usually three) that it takes to become a Canadian citizen, then that child and all of his or her siblings can join the tax-supported English public school system. An expensive entry fee, but nevertheless a way to bring immigrant children into the English-language education system in Quebec.

Quebec's Anti-Constitutional Law

But not according to the government of Quebec. In 2002 the government passed an amendment to the Charter of the French Language. In rough translation, it reads: "English education in a private academy that is not subsidized by the Quebec government does not count towards establishing eligibility for the English public school system, either for the child in question or for his or her siblings." And just to make certain that every entry into the English system is thoroughly blocked, an afterthought paragraph denies the right to English education for the siblings of any child who received a so-called "special certificate" which allowed them into English school because they were really incapable, either emotionally or educationally, of dealing with the French public school system.

The amendment directly contradicts section 23.2 of the Charter, which makes no distinction between privately funded and publicly funded education. The Quebec government is twisting the Charter to suit its own goals, which is to emasculate the English-language public education system in Quebec. This recent attack by Quebec on the Charter is again being fought by Maître Tyler. The case was argued before the Quebec Court of Appeal in June 2006. On August 22, 2002 the court rendered its judgment -- against Bill 104 and for access to the English public school system through the unsubsidized private schools. The Quebec government immediately said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canda, and has succeeded in quashing the decision until the Supreme Court has made its ruling -- which will take at least three years more, and hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Needless to say, the 27 couples who fought this case on behalf of their children do not have several hundred thousand spare dollars among them, but the Government of Quebec has deep pockets and will not lack resources to prepare and present a case to the Supreme Court.

At this point the government lost a legal battle but nevertheless kept its unconstitutional school law intact. And unless an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada can be funded, the battle will be lost for lack of resources to go on. Governments have time and money on their side; private citizens have neither. Children grow older, parents’ bank accounts grow smaller, and unlike the government's lawyers, parents’ lawyers are not paid by their own tax dollars. The final outcome of this case is undecided but the purpose of Bill 104 is clear, and it is succeeding. It is an attack by Quebec on the Canadian constitution, an attack on the uniformity of law throughout Canada, an attack on the English community in Quebec, and in particular, it is a threat to the survival of the English public primary and secondary school system in Quebec.

The Sign Law and the Courts

There are 80 such "sign law" cases now before the Courts in Quebec. The government is prosecuting outside signs, inside signs, invoices, purchase orders, menus and web sites where French and English are equally prominent. The defendants are small businessmen or tradesmen and they include English-speaking Canadians, French-speaking Canadians and immigrant Canadians, mostly from Montreal, but also from Quebec's rural regions: the Eastern Townships, southwestern Quebec, the Ottawa valley, and Quebec City. All the cases are being defended by Maître Brent Tyler, a Canadian civil-rights lawyer.

To understand the context of these prosecutions, we continue with Gwen and Wally's story. They challenged the validity of the sign law on the grounds that it infringed the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality, both of which are guaranteed under various articles of the Canadian and Quebec constitutions.

The Trial

At Gwen and Wally's trial, the government argued that Quebec could suppress the right to equality and freedom of expression because there is an "escape clause" in the Canadian constitution which says that these rights can be suppressed within "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In an earlier case decided in 1988 (the Ford case), the Supreme Court of Canada found that the French language was "vulnerable" in Quebec, and so allowed Quebec to impose "marked predominance" of French in commercial advertising even though it violated the right of freedom of expression and of equality. Against Gwen and Wally, the Quebec government argued that if the Supreme Court told them they could suppress language rights in 1988, they could certainly suppress them again in 1998.

The trial judge disagreed with the government. She wrote that she could not conclude, in 1998, that the French language was still vulnerable to the point that it justified the infringement of Charter rights that had been allowed by the Supreme Court. Gwen and Wally won their trial before the lower Court in Quebec.

The government’s lawyers appealed the decision. A higher Quebec court overturned the trial judge's decision, found Gwen and Wally guilty, and fined them $500 plus court costs. The Canadian Supreme Court refused to review this decision. Gwen and Wally have still not paid the fine. The next step is up to Quebec. Quebec can send in the bailiffs and sell some of Gwen and Wally's property to collect the fine. If they do, Gwen and Wally's supporters will be there to buy it and give it back to them.

The UN and Language Rights

In October 2003, Gwen and Wally filed a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In July 2005, their complaint was declared inadmissible on the grounds that the issue of the vulnerability of the French language had not been settled in the Canadian courts, and therefore their domestic remedies had not been exhausted.

However, the same UN Committee in the case of Gordon McIntyre and others had declared in 1993 that the requirement of the exclusive use of French in the initial version of Bill 101 was a violation of the right to freedom of expression under the International Covenant. Within two months, the Quebec government was forced to back off and replaced the requirement for exclusive use of French by the requirement of marked predominance of French, but with a complete ban on other languages on billboards and in public transit advertising.

The legal argument in the pending prosecutions is straight-forward. In The Lyon & The Wallrus case, it was decided that the accused has the burden of proof to show that the situation of the French language is not so vulnerable as to justify the infringement of the rights and freedoms of people who speak another language.

Maître Tyler, defending sign owners against the government, had this comment: “Fine, if we have the burden, we will meet that burden.”

Maître Tyler will argue that the imposition of any language in any area of private commercial activity is a violation of Charter rights, a violation that is unreasonable and unjustified in a free and democratic society.

In November 2004, Maître Tyler filed an expert’s report by Jacques Henripin, Quebec’s most distinguished demographer, to the effect that the French language in Quebec is not vulnerable, and another report by demographer Calvin Veltman to the same effect.

Maître Tyler will argue that these reports show conclusively that the evidence before the Supreme Court in Ford in 1988 was out-dated, incomplete and in many respects, simply erroneous.

The French language is not vulnerable in Quebec. Eighty-two percent of the population of Quebec speak French as their mother tongue. This percentage has not changed, give or take a percentage point, for fifty years. During the same period, the number of mother tongue French-speaking Quebecers has increased by 2.4 million. With evidence like this, it is not possible to assert with any scientific credibility that the French language is vulnerable in Quebec. There is neither legal nor cultural justification for the Quebec government's restrictive language policy.

What's Happening Now

Experts have to be paid, court costs have to be met, and lawyers, like everyone else, have to live. A donation to CIT-CAN goes directly and without overhead into financial support for the publicity and the legal cases that seek to restore language rights in Quebec.

Canada ratified most of the world's human rights treaties, which are international agreements that guarantee minimum standards for human civic, social and economic rights, educational rights and the protection of children. But Canada's signature on these treaties is a hypocritical pretense because Quebec's language laws ignore them.

Read it all:

http://citcan.ca/Canadas%20treaties.htm

[CANADIEN]

The facts are Quebec continues to discriminate and the feds are reluctant to do anything about it.

Read it all:

http://citcan.ca/Canadas%20treaties.htm

I'ts because I already know it that I consider those laws to be pile of m*nure.

Let's not forget, YOU want laws that would basically prohibit commerce in any language except one. And I stronly suspect that, while Quebec's laws limit access to English school, you would like a ban on non-English schools. What you promote is even worse than those laws, and we both know it.

And I am still waiting for proof the federal government has used the notwithstanding clause.

Edited July 25, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

I'ts because I already know it that I consider those laws to be pile of m*nure.

Then for starters how about changing your screen name to CANADIAN.

Let's not forget, YOU want laws that you basically prohibit commerce in any language except one. And I stronly suspect that, whie Quebec's laws limit access to English school, you would like a ban on non-English schools. You are no better than those who promote those laws, and we both know it.

The difference between a majority de-facto English language of Canada and a provincially official minority language of a province, is that the users of the majority language are in the position to protect their majority language for many legitimate reasons (including costs).

A province that implements laws based on a minority language is seen as being discriminatory as that language overrides the authority of the majority de-facto language of the country. This is besides the fact both English and French are official federal languages.

And I am still waiting for proof the federal government has used the notwithstanding clause.

I said the federal government after the five year time period (can through the courts) review the notwithstanding clause and if conditons permit, have the clause struck down (by the courts).

But if it isn't struck down by the courts can continue to be used with no limit on how many times the clause can be used.

Anyways the point is whether Quebec uses the clause or does not use the clause, still has discriminatory policies that have not been attended to or addressed by the federal government in the past or right up to the present time.

This IMO means the Charter does not have constitutional supremacy and should be either rewritten or preferably scrapped.

[CANADIEN]

Then for starters how about changing your screen name to CANADIAN.

So now people can not even decide which Canadian language they can use to express their Canadian identity? :lol:

A province that implements laws based on a minority language is seen as being discriminatory as that language overrides the authority of the majority de-facto language of the country.

Languages have authority? Whatever.

I said the federal government after the five year time period (can through the courts) review the notwithstanding clause and if conditons permit, have the clause struck down (by the courts).

But if it isn't struck down by the courts can continue to be used with no limit on how many times the clause can be used.

Anyways the point is whether Quebec uses the clause or does not use the clause, still has discriminatory policies that have not been attended to or addressed by the federal government in the past or right up to the present time.

This IMO means the Charter does not have constitutional supremacy and should be either rewritten or preferably scrapped.

We all know that for you the Charter should be reduced to 10 words... Leafless' language, culture, religion, sexual orientation good, everything else forbidden.

And you obviously do not know what you're talking about (as usual). The very reason why Premiers of provinces other than Quebec wanted the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution is that it can be used to protect laws from being struck down by the courts, or override court decisions, for as long as it is invoked for that particular law. The courts do NOT get to review the law after five years (unless the clause is not invoked again); nobody can ask or direct a law unless the clause is not renewed.

Feel free to show the exact text of the clause in the Constitution that supports your non-sense. You won't, because you can't.

And btw, I wouldn't diss the notwinthstanding clause too fast if I were you. That could be the only way you could protect your pile of m*nure if it became law - not that has a chance of ever happening, mind you.

[Leafless]

So now people can not even decide which Canadian language they can use to express their Canadian identity?

You just said, again that Quebec language laws are a pile of horse manure and now you want to continue associating your screen name 'CANADIEN' relating to the Quebecois and Quebec nationalistic ideologies.

English Canadian, meaning "someone whose family has been in Canada for multiple generations", and the French Canadien, used to refer to descendants of the original settlers of New France in the 17th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French-Canadian

And you obviously do not know what you're talking about (as usual). The very reason why Premiers of provinces other than Quebec wanted the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution is that it can be used to protect laws from being struck down by the courts, or override court decisions, for as long as it is invoked for that particular law. The courts do NOT get to review the law after five years (unless the clause is not invoked again); nobody can ask or direct a law unless the clause is not renewed.

Feel free to show the exact text of the clause in the Constitution that supports your non-sense. You won't, because you can't.

And btw, I wouldn't diss the notwinthstanding clause too fast if I were you. That could be the only way you could protect your pile of m*nure if it became law - not that has a chance of ever happening, mind you.

When the Supreme Court of Canada found Quebec's original sign laws unconstitutional Quebec quickly withdrew the Notwithstanding clause.

So contrary to what you say it seems Canadian courts have ruled forcing Quebec to withdraw the Notwithstanding clause.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Leafless

[g_bambino]

Makes it clear that you believe "white" culture is superior.

More than just "white culture," it's the Caucasian race that he believes to be superior. Let's trace back the conversation:

Canada's primary culture is White.

What is "white culture"?

Glad you are enjoying the lefts ant like collective.

What is "white culture"?

White culture defines who you are. White culture is part of the Anglosphere which includes the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia and have common sociopolitical heritage and goals.

This includes judging values and behaviors and is why Whites sometimes, could be labelled racist and bigots.

This is because Whites only understand success and cannot understand why some individuals of other races choose detrimental lifestyles and actions and customs that are not considered the norm.

I see. Why, then, are there more countries outside of the Anglosphere than in it with a majority Caucasian population?

Basically because they do not share the same heritage/language and shared values relating to the historical relationship between Great Britain and the U.S. and other English speaking countries.

You have basically said that nations like Norway, Germany, Sweden or Holland do not have a 'White Culture'....

The English language is an important part of the White, English speaking, Christian culture based on British history.

The countries you mentioned are of the White race but not part of the Anglosphere an important component of the culture associated with the U.S./British White culture I am talking about.

Obviously, there are different White cultures.

For clarification purposes we will name the form of White culture Canada is associated with as the 'White culture of the Anglosphere'.

While I could not find a reference to "white culture of the Anglosphere" in the link you so graciously provided for my amusement, I did find in the definition of anglosphere this: "The educated English-speaking populations of the Caribbean, Oceania, Africa and India pertain to the Anglosphere to various degrees."

Please feel free to comment on the white culture of the Anglosphere of Jamaica and India...

You don't have to be of the White race to be part of and enjoy the benefits of the White Anglosphere culture. And you will not find a definition of the 'White culture of the Anglosphere' as I used that terminology to differentiate it from other White cultures.

Jamaica is a colony of Britain, is mainly Christian and has some British traditions.

India is a former colony of Britain but more importantly was welcomed into the Anglosphere by George W. Bush.

So, let me get this straight: it's no longer "White Culture," it's "White Anglosphere Culture." That, Lefless, still presumes that there is such a thing as a "White Culture" that supersedes all the sub-cultures within various predominantly Caucasian populated countries. I think that you're making an attempt at drawing a connection between culture and race; as though Caucasians developed a culture purely because they are, well, Caucasian. However, as everyone knows, correlation does not always equal causation; hence, Caucasians have many different cultures amongst them. There is no one "White Culture." Anglosphere countries themselves do not even have a common culture. Though they do share similarities, that's because their present cultures are built on the Scots/Irish/Anglo-Saxon cultures that were imported, exported, and transported amongst the colonies of the Empire. The fact that those who did the importing, exporting, and transporting were mostly of the whitish skin colour is just a coincidence, not a reason.

It is not a coincendence.

It is all about power and possessing the ability to develop an advanced culture.

So, you then believe that Caucasians possess a greater ability to develop an advanced culture?

They developed the tools to accomplish this great feat.

That doesn't address what I asked. I stateed: "The fact that those who did the importing, exporting, and transporting were mostly of the whitish skin colour is just a coincidence, not a reason"; to which you responded: "It is not a coincendence. It is all about power and possessing the ability to develop an advanced culture." That statement says you believe the British to have been successful imperialists purely because they were Caucasians. You can either deny or affirm this reading of your words.

There is no sense in denying anything.

The imperialist were in fact White and successful.

Are you denying some groups posses the ability to be more successful then other groups.

Indeed, so nobody is denying anything, except you, it seems, when it comes to the question actually put to you: Do you then believe that Caucasians possess a greater ability to develop an advanced culture? I will take it, though, from your above statement that you do. Interesting, when one considers what "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" defines.

I believe Whites posses the ability and perseverance to achieve important linked objectives.

Name me an advanced country/race that has achieved the same level of success as the White race.

No one has developed this type of society other than the White race who then educated and shared their success with the less fortunate.

I repeat myself: interesting, when one considers what "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" defines.

And he went deathly silent on the topic after that. But, before we go, let's not forget this little gem:

Gold jerry Gold!

Quote of the week!

All whites are good and perfect....

Finally you have posted something of significance.

[Leafless]

More than just "white culture," it's the Caucasian race that he believes to be superior. Let's trace back the conversation:

I clearly explained myself despite your BEST efforts to label me racist

And he went deathly silent on the topic after that.

Unlike you, I said everything I had to say.

This is a political forum and NOT not a deranged leftest world court.

But, before we go, let's not forget this little gem:

This was simply a reply on July 9 /08, ( early in the debate ) to a bigoted individual.

QUOTE(guyser @ Jul 9 2008, 01:35 PM)

Gold jerry Gold!

Quote of the week!

All whites are good and perfect....

QUOTE(Leafless @ Jul 9 2008, 02:09 PM)

Finally you have posted something of significance.

Tit for tat!

Don't quote a July 9/08 post as if it was the latest post in this thread with guyser having the last reply because it was not.

The last post by myself as quoted by you was July 17/08, a lapse of 7 days with no further reply from guyser.