Russell by-law spat sparks bilingual study

[Leafless]

Well, at least you now accept that your own words are nonsensical and meaningless. Finally!

Ramble on bambino!

[Leafless]

What you call democracy is nothing more than tyranny and violation of the rights of other.

Tyranny is all in your head as well as non-existent rights.

You claim that English-speaking Ontarians are being assimilated.

I never claimed that.

Being assimilated means being absorbed into a LARGER body.

What is happening to English speaking Canadians is that they are being made victims or fools of, relating to a corrupt, imposed bilingual policy that specifically caters to Francophone ideologies and their language via corrupt socialist municipal politicians.

[CANADIEN]

Tyranny is all in your head (...)

and in what you propose.

as well as non-existent rights.

Wrong as usual.

never claimed that.

Being assimilated means being absorbed into a LARGER body.

What is happening to English speaking Canadians is that they are being made victims or fools of, relating to a corrupt, imposed bilingual policy that specifically caters to Francophone ideologies and their language via corrupt socialist municipal politicians.

I totally agree with you that FORCED assimilation SHOULD be over, even though it is the minority that is doing the forcing.

Contradicting youself again.

[g_bambino]

We have a federal and provincial governments that are supposed to prevent this kind of situation from occurring initially. Looks like the are incapable of doing their job.

That has nothing to do with what you said. You advocate tit-for-tat actions, like a toddler.

A mature adult that advocates anarchy?

Nope. Try again.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines race as : 1. each of the divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

Read what your own definition says: "each of the divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics." Last I checked, language and cultural habits did not have a physical form.

Looks like you are out to lunch.

Had lunch at home today, actually.

[g_bambino]

Ramble on bambino!

As long as you will, indeed I will. You're just too funny.

[Leafless]

and in what you propose.

I am not proposing anything that Quebec and Ontario Francophones HAVE NOT ALREADY IMPLEMENTED.

Wrong as usual.

You are a sniveling turn coat.

But that is not anything new is it, as the French were also one of the primary causes of the American Revolution.

And it looks like your pushing for the same in Canada.

There are no FULLY NATIONAL or FULLY PROVINCIAL OFFICIAL Francophone language rights.

The only language rights Francophones have are those DICTATED AND IMPLEMENTED BY DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE POLICIES.

Contradicting youself again.

Nope.

Its your dismal comprehension that is responsible for you continually using the word 'contradict'.

[Leafless]

That has nothing to do with what you said. You advocate tit-for-tat actions, like a toddler.

The toddler, moron, (since you want to insult) is inactive federal and provincial governments not attending to their constitutional duties.

As a result, adult Canadians are now democratically voicing their disgust.

Nope. Try again.

Don't leave us in suspense.

SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!

Read what your own definition says: "each of the divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics." Last I checked, language and cultural habits did not have a physical form.

Oh, you forgot to post the other significant definitions.

2. A tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ETHNIC stock.

5. a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.

7. descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).

8. a class of persons etc. with some common feature.

[Leafless]

As long as you will, indeed I will. You're just too funny.

You must be French/French lackey.

[CANADIEN]

I am not proposing anything that Quebec and Ontario Francophones HAVE NOT ALREADY IMPLEMENTED.

Leaving aside the known FACT there are no law, by-law or policy preventing or limiting the use of English in commerce in Ontario...

YOU are proposing it, so stop hiding behind the excuse it has been done elswehere.

You are a sniveling turn coat.

For knowing I am a Canadian. Whatever.

But that is not anything new is it, as the French were also one of the primary causes of the American Revolution.

That were the French more than 200 years ago. We are talking about Canadians in 2008. Once again, you don't and won't get it.

And it looks like your pushing for the same in Canada.

So says the guys that warns of a possible revilution unless the Frenchies just shut up and do so in English.

There are no FULLY NATIONAL or FULLY PROVINCIAL OFFICIAL Francophone language rights.

Go read the Constitution, the Fedreal Official Language Act, and the Ontario French Language Act. And I mean read it, not deciding in advance it does not say what it says and that it says what it does not say, as you do all the time.

Nope.

Its your dismal comprehension that is responsible for you continually using the word 'contradict'.

I will admit it is hard to comprehend how you can have such a dismal memory and understanding of your own posting. The FACT remain that you said there was forced assimilation done by the minority, then said there was no forced assimilation.

[CANADIEN]

You must be French/French lackey.

Really? I thought he was Canadian.

[CANADIEN]

The toddler, moron, (since you want to insult) is inactive federal and provincial governments not attending to their constitutional duties.

The federal government's constitutional duty is to guarantee language rights at the federal level, and it does so. There is nothing in the Constitution that enables or mandates the federal government to overturn provincial legislation. You claim there is something in the Constitution that allows for that, quote it, in the exact words.

As for the provincial governments, you are welcome to show where in the Constitution it is said that they can pass legislation affecting the laws of other provinces, by quoting the exact words. And, once again using the exact word, please show where it is said in the Constitution that the government of Ontario cannot do the right thing, which is to pass legislation providing for provincial and municipal services to be provided in both English and French.

As a result, adult Canadians are now democratically voicing their disgust.

And most of adult Canadians who have read the way you express your disgust find it hilarious.

Edited August 3, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Oh, you forgot to post the other significant definitions.

Not a trace of the word culture in there. Must be because it's in English. :lol:

[Leafless]

Leaving aside the known FACT there are no law, by-law or policy preventing or limiting the use of English in commerce in Ontario...

We know that.

And we also know that there are no laws limit the FREE use of the French language.

What we are talking about are corrupt government policies FORCING the use of the French language relating to private buisness and the majority English culture.

YOU are proposing it, so stop hiding behind the excuse it has been done elswehere.

And why shouldn't I propose it when all levels of government have FAILED to act to protect users of the English language against OUTRIGHT LINGUISTIC FRENCH DISCRIMINATION VIA CORRUPT POLICIES.

For knowing I am a Canadian. Whatever.

Oh look, he spelled his nationalistic Quebecois screen name CANADIEN in English.

That were the French more than 200 years ago. We are talking about Canadians in 2008. Once again, you don't and won't get it.

Don't worry, I get it.

The French would NOT conform back then and to this day the French will NOT conform.

So says the guys that warns of a possible revilution unless the Frenchies just shut up and do so in English.

Go read the Constitution, the Fedreal Official Language Act, and the Ontario French Language Act. And I mean read it, not deciding in advance it does not say what it says and that it says what it does not say, as you do all the time.

I know what dysfunctional and certain traitorous governments have concluded and implemented.

French is NOT a de-facto national language and will NEVER be.

No province freely wants it or they would have been designated officially bilingual years ago by REFERENDUM.

will admit it is hard to comprehend how you can have such a dismal memory and understanding of your own posting. The FACT remain that you said there was forced assimilation done by the minority, then said there was no forced assimilation.

I never said assimilation.

Not assimilation but French language policies FORCING French ideologies into the majority English speaking culture.

These policies create the illusion that Canada is officially freely driven by both the English and French language when it fact it is the creation of Nazi type bilingual cultural policies.

So far discriminatory French language policies have been propagated and allowed by all levels of government without any kind of referendum.

This is not assimilation but Nazi type social engineering.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Leafless

[Leafless]

The federal government's constitutional duty is to guarantee language rights at the federal level, and it does so. There is nothing in the Constitution that enables or mandates the federal government to overturn provincial legislation. You claim there is something in the Constitution that allows for that, quote it, in the exact words.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sham created by a French communist inspired PM.

The premiers of this country were hoodwinked by Trudeau and the citizens of this country betrayed by not being included in the decision making process by way of referendum either by the federal or provincial governments.

It is certainly refreshing to know that the personal opinions of a handful of politicians speaks for the tens of millions of Canadian citizen relating to THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION.

As for the provincial governments, you are welcome to show where in the Constitution it is said that they can pass legislation affecting the laws of other provinces, by quoting the exact words.

Are you talking language laws???

If you are SAY SO. Or try to describe what you are talking about.

And, once again using the exact word, please show where it is said in the Constitution that the government of Ontario cannot do the right thing, which is to pass legislation providing for provincial and municipal services to be provided in both English and French.

Corrupt language legislation uses the word SERVICES to create discriminatory language legislation.

And most of adult Canadians who have read the way you express your disgust find it hilarious.

How would you know?

The federal and provincial government do not implement referendums on the issue...commie boy.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Leafless

[CANADIEN]

We know that.

And we also know that there are no laws limit the FREE use of the French language.

What we are talking about are corrupt government policies FORCING the use of the French language relating to private buisness and the majority English culture.

And provincial laws and municipal by-laws providing for public services in English and French your belief that French-speaking Canadians are French, not Canadians, and your misunderstanding and misuse of concepts such as race, racism, discrimination, rights and about anything else you talk about.

And why shouldn't I propose it when all levels of government have FAILED to act to protect users of the English language against OUTRIGHT LINGUISTIC FRENCH DISCRIMINATION VIA CORRUPT POLICIES.

Apart from the well known FACT there is no federal or Ontario by-law discriminating against users of either English or French, and therefore the so-call need for laws "protecting English-language users exists only in our prejudiced mind... Thanks for confirming AGAIN that you propose something that you oppose when done by others. And don't believe for any moment that I buy the "they made me do it" line.

Oh look, he spelled his nationalistic Quebecois screen name CANADIEN in English.

Oh look, you manage yet another way to make a fool of yourself. :lol: :lol:

Don't worry, I get it.

As you demonstrate below, you don't, and you won't.

The French would NOT conform back then (...)

I wonder what it is the French Crown was not conforming to. Please please tell us...

and to this day the French will NOT conform.

Those darn Frenchies, they refuse to just shut up and to do it in English. Whatever.

French is NOT a de-facto national language and will NEVER be.

French is a Canadian language. It is spoken by more than 1 Canadian in 5. It is a de-facto language of commerce in Quebec and in parts of other provinces, and laws are not even needed for that. National enough for me. And of course, you don't and won't get it.

No province freely wants it (...)

Let's see...

The duly elected legislature of New Brunswick freely requested that both French and English be recognized as official languages at the provincial level in that province. Provisions for government services in French have been freely enacted through laws or policies by the duly constituted legislatures and governments of every province except Newfoundland and Labrador and British Culumbia. Duly elected city councils in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the North-West Territories have freely adopted by-laws providing for municipal services to be available in French, and no law in these provinces and territories forbids it.

There's also Quebec, but it's not a Canadian province...

I never said assimilation.

I totally agree with you that FORCED assimilation SHOULD be over, even though it is the minority that is doing the forcing.

Your exact words. I rest my case.

Edited August 3, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

The toddler, moron, (since you want to insult) is inactive federal and provincial governments not attending to their constitutional duties.

Ah, there's that I'll-do-to-you-what-you-do-to-me attitude shining brightly through, even when nobody did anything to you other than point out what level of development usually comes up with such a solution. Thank you for providing yet another example.

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. Within the provincial and municipal jurisdictions, as Canadien already correctly pointed out, no law has been passed that denies anyone the use of the English language as their mode of communication. Thus, the Charter, which is also a part of the constitution, has not been breached, and thus, neither the provincial nor municipal governments of Canada have acted unconstitutionally. So, you're wrong, again, about them no government "attending to their constitutional duties."

SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!

I'm starting to wonder now if you know what English is... I am speaking it, after all, but you don't seem aware of that.

Oh, you forgot to post the other significant definitions.

Every one of them speaks of physical, biological features; nothing about culture or race.

[CANADIEN]

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a sham created by a French communist inspired PM.

The premiers of this country were hoodwinked by Trudeau and the citizens of this country betrayed by not being included in the decision making process by way of referendum either by the federal or provincial governments.

It is certainly refreshing to know that the personal opinions of a handful of politicians speaks for the tens of millions of Canadian citizen relating to THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION.

Thank you for confirming at the same time that you are prejudiced and that you cannot prove the existence of constitutional duties you accuse governments of not assuming.

Are you talking language laws???

If you are SAY SO. Or try to describe what you are talking about.

Here's what I wrote, word for word.

As for the provincial governments, you are welcome to show where in the Constitution it is said that they can pass legislation affecting the laws of other provinces, by quoting the exact words.

The meaning is clear enough, and if I had wanted to limit it to language laws I would have done so. You don't understand what you mean when you write it. I understand what I mean when I right it... except for errors of style and typos of course

Corrupt language legislation uses the word SERVICES to create discriminatory language legislation.

Legislation providing for French language services uses the word services because it is about services.

How would you know?

Because almost everyone who reads your drivel and comments on it says so in one way or another.

Edited August 3, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

What we are talking about are corrupt government policies FORCING the use of the French language relating to private buisness and the majority English culture.

Do you have any evidence that Russell Township has a majority of English speakers? StatsCan shows the division between Anglo- and Francophones to be pretty much even. Care to prove StatsCan wrong?

Edited August 3, 2008 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Do you have any evidence that Russell Township has a majority of English speakers? StatsCan shows the division between Ango- and Francophones to be pretty much even. Care to prove StatsCan wrong?

Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the original topic...

Does the by-law in question forces French on anyone? No more and no less than municipal by-laws mandating the inclusion of English in commercial signs in BC.

Do those by-laws (the ones in Russell and those in BC) violate freedom of expression and other human rights? No. The UN Human Right Tribunals concluded that although a prohibition on use of a language on commercial signs (what Leafless wants to do to languages other than English) violates freedom of expression, mandating that a certain language be present on commercial signs does not.

Are these by-laws undemocratic? They were voted by duly elected city councils and do not violate any rights, so the answer is no.

Were the city councils in question acting beyond their powers? No, unless there was provincial legislation preventing them from doing it.

Should have they been passed? I believe they are not necessary, that they are not a solution to the issue, and they should not have been passed. That being said, a business that will not provide at least some level of services in the language spoken by almost 50% of its clientele shows plainly that it lacks business sense and respect towards its clients.

Edited August 3, 2008 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Should have they been passed? I believe they are not necessary, that they are not a solution to the issue, and they should not have been passed. That being said, a business that will not provide at least some level of services in the language spoken by almost 50% of its clientele shows plainly that it lacks business sense and respect towards its clients.

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.

[Leafless]

Now, by the constitution, provincial and municipal affairs are not a part of the federal sphere.

LIES!

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

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.

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

Majority English speaking Ontarians have been denied, morally right and fair treatment, relating to referendums both federally and at the provincial and municipal level.

Within the provincial and municipal jurisdictions, as Canadien already correctly pointed out, no law has been passed that denies anyone the use of the English language as their mode of communication. Thus, the Charter, which is also a part of the constitution, has not been breached, and thus, neither the provincial nor municipal governments of Canada have acted unconstitutionally. So, you're wrong, again, about them no government "attending to their constitutional duties."

The federal, provincial and municipal government have passed or condoned language laws that specifically use bilingualism as the carrier that forces French as the second language.

These language laws have CRIPPLED the NATURAL free flowing dominating characteristics of the English language especially in cities like Ottawa, Ontario and have forced majority English speaking Ontarians to become bilingual if they want employment in jobs that were previously English speaking ONLY.

Ontarian's must be linguistically politically protected against corrupt, discriminatory language policies propagated by corrupt dysfunctional government at various levels.

I'm starting to wonder now if you know what English is... I am speaking it, after all, but you don't seem aware of that.

I don't give a damn what you wonder....commie boy.

Every one of them speaks of physical, biological features; nothing about culture or race.

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

And you say you are speaking English?

When one speaks race on a level relating to society and not science, it automatically implies and suggest colour, culture, language.

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

Anyways racial discrimination is what we are talking about:

Legal

The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, religion,descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '[1]

This definition does not make any difference between prosecutions based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[2] According to British law, racial group means "any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin".[3]

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

An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry.[1][2] Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits.[1][4]

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

[Leafless]

Thank you for confirming at the same time that you are prejudiced and that you cannot prove the existence of constitutional duties you accuse governments of not assuming.

Not prejudiced....FACTUAL.

Language laws and language charters speak for themselves...commie.

Legislation providing for French language services uses the word services because it is about services.

To establish that FRADULENT statement requires a referendum and not the opinion of traitors.

Because almost everyone who reads your drivel and comments on it says so in one way or another.

I really don't give a damn about you and your and your three or four extreme socialist nut cases.

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

English speaking Canadians are tired of being played for fools by retarded, socialist, misfit politicians bent on culture and dysfunctional incompetent governments.

[Leafless]

Thank you for confirming at the same time that you are prejudiced and that you cannot prove the existence of constitutional duties you accuse governments of not assuming.

Not prejudiced....FACTUAL.

Language laws and language charters speak for themselves...commie.

Legislation providing for French language services uses the word services because it is about services.

To establish that FRADULENT statement requires a referendum and not the opinion of traitors.

Because almost everyone who reads your drivel and comments on it says so in one way or another.

I really don't give a damn about you and your and your three or four extreme socialist nut cases.

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

English speaking Canadians are tired of being played for fools by retarded, socialist, misfit politicians bent on culture and dysfunctional incompetent governments.

[CANADIEN]

LIES!

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

The provincial governments and the city councils are still the ones making the decisions. This distinction is something that you don't get, like anyone else.

Morally they are.

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

Majority English speaking Ontarians have been denied, morally right and fair treatment, relating to referendums both federally and at the provincial and municipal level.

The federal, provincial and municipal government have passed or condoned language laws that specifically use bilingualism as the carrier that forces French as the second language.

These language laws have CRIPPLED the NATURAL free flowing dominating characteristics of the English language especially in cities like Ottawa, Ontario and have forced majority English speaking Ontarians to become bilingual if they want employment in jobs that were previously English speaking ONLY.

Ontarian's must be linguistically politically protected against corrupt, discriminatory language policies propagated by corrupt dysfunctional government at various levels.

Thank you for mentioning the word morality. Governments have a moral responsibility to protect the rights of all and to be fair to all. In this case, that means providing public services both in English and French. The resulting requirement that SOME federal, provincial and municipal employees be able to use those two languages is no more discriminatory or a violation of anyone's right than requirements to hold certain degrees or to have certain physical abilities for some jobs.

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

And you say you are speaking English?

I noticed that one too, and I chose not to mention it. Because I have demonstrated that I am in not much of a position to give him English lessons. You have proven that you are even less in a position. In this case, you are clearly the pot calling the kettle black.

Anyways racial discrimination is what we are talking about

The UN does not define "racism", however it does define "racial discrimination": according to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, religion,descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. '

Denial of government services to Canadians in the Canadian language of their choice limits the enjoyment and exercise on equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Laws that prohibit or limits the use of all languages except one in commerce gravely impairs the exercise of these rights and freedoms. What the Quebec government does, which is also what you propose, is discrimination pure and simple.

Edited August 4, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

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

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.

Edited August 4, 2008 by CANADIEN