CANADIEN Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) Why can't the Charter possibly not be deemed corrupt or unconstitutional or whatever? You really are that clueless. You can call it anything your bigoted voices tell you to call it, and I can call it whatever I want. You even have the legal right to claim (against all logic) that it is unconstitutional. But let state it again (not that I have any hope you will ever get it). A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT IN LAW BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL If you doubt it, argue in Court that any part of the Constitution is unconstitutional -- if you can find a lawyer to take the case, because I doubt seriously that even first-year law students would want to argue something so fundamentally illogical and stupid, no matter what they think of the language issue. And btw, a finding in law that a text of law is unconstitutional is not the same thing as amending the Constitution. Don't worry, I don't expect you to get it. 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. As usual, your opinions are contradicted by facts. Namely, section 41 of the Constitution Act of 1982, states four areas where unanimous consent of the federal Parliament and the Legislatures of all the Provinces is mandatory for an amendment to the Constitution: - the amendment formula; - the Office of the Queen, the Governor-general, the provinces' Lieutenant-Governors - the right for each Province to a number of members in the House of Commons that is not less than its number of Senators, AND - thue "use" of English and French (in other words, their constitutional status as official languages at the federal level, as well as the education rights -- that being said, a constitutional change affecting language status at the provincial level would only necessitate the consent of the federal parliament and the Legislature of the province in question). In other words, to remove French as an official language at the federal level, or even to change the amending formula, you need a vote from the federal Parliament and the legislatures of ALL the provinces, including... Quebec. :lol: Edited October 2, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) The BNA Act does not state giving Quebec special status or is a distinct society. Neither does the Constitution Act of 1982, including section 16 (official languages). Feel free to show amy section of the 1982 Act that states that Quebec has a special status or is a distinct society... and I mean the exact words. The BNA Act does not state Canada was made up by two distinct cultures or societies. Neither does the Constitutional Act of 1982. Feel free to prove otherwise... with the exact wording. 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? The non-sense that recognizing French as an official language at the federal level equals "special status" for Quebec has been debunked enough, so I will concentrate on the other non-sense. First, there is indeed nothing in the BNA Act about official status for English and French... there is nothing either in the BNA Act about fundamental freedoms such as freedom of the press or freedom of religion (section 2 of the 1982 Act), mobility rights (section 6), legal rights (sections 7 to 14), equality rights (section 15), aboriginal rights (sections 35 and 35.1), or equalizations (section 36). The absence of wording on these issues in the BNA Act does NOT mean that the Constitution could not be amended to include them... unless of course you can find anything in the BNA Act that forbids amending it. SSSSSSSSSTRIKE ONE BTW, others know that the BNA Act was a law of the British Parliament, which like any other Act of the British Parliament, could be amended by the another Act of the British Parliament. In the Statute of Westminster, the British Parliament retained, at the request of the Canadian Government, the right to amend the BNA Act, except (after 1949) in areas of federal jurisdiction. The British Parliament passed in 1982 an Act, called the Canada Act, which enacted constitutional changes agreed upon by the federal Government of Canada and the government of nine provinces, while also terminating the power of the British Parliament to amend our Constitution in the future. (link to the UK Statute law database) In other words, the amendments to the BNA included in the 1982 Act were enected according to the amending procedure that applied at the time to the BNA. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTRIKE TWO. And finally, you claim that the Charter, in particular the sections pertaining to official languages, is the result of unilateral action by the federal government. Not to worry, I do not expect you to get the FACT that the federal government and Parliament, and the governments of ALL PROVINCES EXCEPT ONE (the one you claim got an unexisting special status) agreed to the whole of the 1982 Act, including the Charter. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTIKE THREE. Edited October 2, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) Some label me a radical (...) because you ARE a radical. And I label you clueless because you ARE clueless when currently it is radicals that govern charter interest and NOT the citizens of Canada. Thank you for reminding me that I am not a citizen of my own country. I am a proud citizen of Canada Citizen? Yes. Proud? Of course you are, after all you would never call Canada a foreign enclave, now would you? Edited October 2, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
Leafless Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) In other words, to remove French as an official language at the federal level, or even to change the amending formula, you need a vote from the federal Parliament and the legislatures of ALL the provinces, including... Quebec. :lol: You really don't know what scrap means. Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to totally srap (not partially amend) the existing charter but amend the constitution with a totally new charter and new amending formula with one that is not corrupt? Edited October 2, 2008 by Leafless Quote
guyser Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to totally srap (not partially amend) the existing charter but amend the constitution with a totally new charter and new amending formula with one that is not corrupt? Rhetorical question right? You asked (I will say it in English) to be shown where in the charter does it say the PM can scrap it and replace it with one that is not corrupt. Since the PM cannot declare it corrupt, the answer cant be supplied. But you knew that didnt you.? Quote
Leafless Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) Neither does the Constitution Act of 1982, including section 16 (official languages). Then what exactly does official languages mean? Hint....special status for Quebec as a distinct culture. Ha-ha-ha, as if the English language requires special status. All provinces have to do is make the English language the official language of that province. The English language does not need corrupt federal assistance. Feel free to show amy section of the 1982 Act that states that Quebec has a special status or is a distinct society... and I mean the exact words. There are no words to describe 'corrupt'. The charter sections are there for anyone to connect the corrupt little dots that result in Quebec having special status. Neither does the Constitutional Act of 1982. You are repeating yourself. Feel free to prove otherwise... with the exact wording.The non-sense that recognizing French as an official language at the federal level equals "special status" for Quebec has been debunked enough, so I will concentrate on the other non-sense. Debunked by you and the opinion of radicals. First, there is indeed nothing in the BNA Act about official status for English and French... there is nothing either in the BNA Act about fundamental freedoms such as freedom of the press or freedom of religion (section 2 of the 1982 Act), mobility rights (section 6), legal rights (sections 7 to 14), equality rights (section 15), aboriginal rights (sections 35 and 35.1), or equalizations (section 36). The absence of wording on these issues in the BNA Act does NOT mean that the Constitution could not be amended to include them... unless of course you can find anything in the BNA Act that forbids amending it. SSSSSSSSSTRIKE ONE I don't think amending the constitution by radicals is very democratic. Do you? BTW, others know that the BNA Act was a law of the British Parliament, which like any other Act of the British Parliament, could be amended by the another Act of the British Parliament. In the Statute of Westminster, the British Parliament retained, at the request of the Canadian Government, the right to amend the BNA Act, except (after 1949) in areas of federal jurisdiction. So what. Every country in the commonwealth has the same right to amend the constitution. And only if permitted. The British Parliament passed in 1982 an Act, called the Canada Act, which enacted constitutional changes agreed upon by the federal Government of Canada and the government of nine provinces, while also terminating the power of the British Parliament to amend our Constitution in the future. (link to the UK Statute law database) In other words, the amendments to the BNA included in the 1982 Act were enected according to the amending procedure that applied at the time to the BNA. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTRIKE TWO. So what. Mostly all countries in the Commonwealth have amended their constitution with charter rights. Details Country Independence Constitution Charter of Rights Antigua and Barbuda 1981.11.01 1981.11.01 Chapter II Australia 1901 1901 (as amended) Bahamas 1973.07.10 1973.07.10 Chapter III Bangladesh 1971.03.26 1972.02.04 (Recognition) 1972.12.16 (Secession) 1972.12.16 (as amended) Part II, sect. 11; Part III, sect. 26-47A Barbados 1966.11.30 1966.11.30 (as amended) Chapter III Belize 1981.09.21 1981.09.21 (as amended) Part II Botswana 1966.09.30 (Republic on independence) 1966.09.30 (as amended) Chapter II Brunei Darussalam 1984 1959.09.29 (as amended) Cameroon 1960 1972.06.02 (as amended) No Charter of rights; fundamental human rights are set out in the preamble to the constitution. Canada 1931 1982.04.17 (as amended) Part I Cyprus 1960.08.16 (Republic on independence) 1960.08.16 (as amended) Part II Dominica 1978.11.03 (Republic on independence) 1978.11.03 (as amended) Chapter I Fiji Islands Suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth on December 8th, 2006. 1970.10.10 1998.07.25 Chapter 4 Gambia (The) 1965.02.18 1970.04.24 (Republic) 1997.01.16 Chapter IV Ghana 1957.03.06 1960.07.01 (Republic) 1993.01.07 (as amended) Chapter 5 Grenada 1974.02.07 1974.02.07 (as amended) Chapter I Guyana 1966.05.26 1970.02.23 (Republic) 1980.10.06 (as amended) Chapter III India 1947.08.15 1950.01.26 (Republic) 1950.01.26 (as amended) Part III Jamaïca 1962.08.06 1962.08.06 (as amended) Chapter III Kenya 1963.12.12 1964.12.12 (Republic) 1963.12.12 (as amended) Chapter V Kiribati 1979.07.12 (Republic on independence) 1979.07.12 (as amended) Chapter II Lesotho 1966.10.04 1993.04.02 Chapter II Malawi 1964.07.06 1966.07.06 (Republic) 1994.05.18 (as amended) Chapter IV Malaysia 1957.08.31 1963.09.16 (Federation) 1957.08.31 (as amended) Part II Maldives 1965.07.26 1998 Chapter II Malta 1964.09.21 1974.12.13 (Republic) 1964.09.21 (as amended) Chapter IV Mauritius 1968.03.12 1968.03.12 (as amended) Chapter II Mozambique 1975.06.25 1990.11.30 Part II Namibia 1990.03.21 1990.03.21 Chapter 3 Nauru Declared a Special Member as of January 9, 2006. 1968.01.31 (Republic on independence) 1968.01.31 Part II New Zealand 1907.09.26 1987 (as amended) Bill of Rights, 1990 Nigeria 1960.10.01 1963.10.01 (Republic) 1999.05.29 Chapter IV Pakistan Suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth on November 22nd, 2007. 1947.08.14 1973.04.12 (as amended) Part II Papua New Guinea 1975.09.16 1975.09.16 (as amended) Part III, Division 3 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983.09.19 1983.09.19 Chapter II Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1979.10.27 1979.10.27 Chapter I Samoa 1962 1962 (as amended) Part II Seychelles 1976.06.29 (Republic on independence) 1979.03.26 (One party state) 1993.06.18 (as amended) Chapter III, Part I Sierra Leone 1961.04.27 1971.04.13 (Republic) 1978.06.14 (One party state) 1991.09.24 (as amended) Chapter II Singapore 1965.08.09 (Republic on independence) 1963.09.16 (as amended) Part IV Solomon Islands 1978.07.07 1978.07.07 (as amended) Chapter II South Africa 1910.05.31 1997.02.04 Chapter 2 Sri Lanka 1948.02.04 1972.05.22 (Republic) 1978.02.01 (French presidential-parliamentary system) 1978.09.07 (as amended) Chapter III St. Lucia 1979.02.22 1979.02.22 Chapter I Swaziland 1968.09.06 1978.10.13 (as amended) Chapter II Tanzania 1964.04.26 (as United Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar) 1964.10.28 (became Tanzania) 1965.07.05 (One party state) 1965.07.05 (as Tanzania) 1977.04.25 (as amended) Section Three Tonga 1970.06.04 1875.11.04 (as amended) Part I Trinidad and Tobago 1962.08.31 1976.08.01 (Republic) 1976.08.01 (as amended) Chapter 1 Tuvalu 1978.10.01 1986.10.01 Part II Uganda 1962.09.08 (Republic) 1962.10.09 1971.01.25 (Republic) 1995.10.08 Chapter 4 United Kingdom 1801 (Established) (unwritten) Vanuatu 1980.07.30 1980.07.30 (as amended) Chapter 2 Zambia 1964.10.24 (Republic on independence) 1973.08.25 (One party state) 1991.08.29 (as amended) Part III And finally, you claim that the Charter, in particular the sections pertaining to official languages, is the result of unilateral action by the federal government. Yes. Mr. Trudeau knew what is best for Quebec. Not to worry, I do not expect you to get the FACT that the federal government and Parliament, and the governments of ALL PROVINCES EXCEPT ONE (the one you claim got an unexisting special status) agreed to the whole of the 1982 Act, including the Charter. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTIKE THREE. Certain rights relating to the mushrooming of the French language ( which has resulted to the next best thing to official bilingualism in Canada) could NOT have possibly been forseen by the provincial premiers who ratified the charter. Relatively simple democratic checks and balances are ABSENT in the charter. I think this makes the charter it a corrupt document. Edited October 2, 2008 by Leafless Quote
Leafless Posted October 2, 2008 Author Report Posted October 2, 2008 Rhetorical question right?You asked (I will say it in English) to be shown where in the charter does it say the PM can scrap it and replace it with one that is not corrupt. Since the PM cannot declare it corrupt, the answer cant be supplied. But you knew that didnt you.? Then show me where it says that. Do not direct me to the ammending formula. Naturally the new charter would require provincial support. I doubt no PM would do this since he or she would do this and would immediately be blamed with trying to break up Canada. The current ammending formula is long and complicated in which no PM would probably tackle anyways. Nevertheless this leaves Canada with a defective, discriminatory charter. Quote
guyser Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 Then show me where it says that. You arent reading your own words correctly. Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 2, 2008 Report Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) You really don't know what scrap means. Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to totally srap (not partially amend) the existing charter but amend the constitution with a totally new charter and new amending formula with one that is not corrupt? I know what scrap means in English. I don't know what it means is Leafless-ish. The Constitution, more precisely the Constitutional Act of 1982, is very clear as to the ONLY LEGAL WAY the Constitutioon can be changed, and yes, including scrapping parts of it. The PM does NOT have the LEGAL power to scrap the Charter or any part of the Constitution. Don't worry, I know others will get something as simple as that. Mind you, the PM could get up in the House of Commons and say "the Charter is corrupt, so I am scrapping it". Problem (for you) is, such a statement would have no legal weight, since an unilateral decision by the PM is not the legal process for scrapping any part of the Constitution. Edited October 3, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) Then what exactly does official languages mean? Hint.... recognition of the language(s) as the one(s) use in the conduct of government business, in laws, in the court system, etc. etc. Period.Other people knows what it means. I don't think amending the constitution by radicals is very democratic. Really? YOU are the bigoted radical who dreams of having the Constitution amended by scrapping parts of it. Every country in the commonwealth has the same right to amend the constitution. And only if permitted. Thank you very much for be so clueless that you unwittingly proved my point, which is that the Constution was amended in 1982 according to the legal amendment process existing at that time. Mr. Trudeau knew what is best for Quebec. Don't tell me, tell Quebec provincial politicians of all stripes, who have been saying for 26 years now that the Charter was bad for Quebec. :lol: And I don't know about Leafless-ish, but in English agreements with nine provincial governments out of ten does not meet the definition of unilateral. Relatively simple democratic checks and balances are ABSENT in the charter. Translation from Leafless-ish into English: there is not enough bigotry and discrimination in the Charter. Edited October 3, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 Do not direct me to the ammending formula. Why? Because it proves you don't know what you are talking about? Quote
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 Why can't the Charter possibly not be deemed corrupt or unconstitutional or whatever? Corrupt, unconstitutional, or whatever? You don't even know what to call the Charter, except random negative adjectives! That is, I suppose, on par for you: random and negative. No wonder you can't keep your own points in a straight line. he 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. Who cares? Quote
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to totally srap (not partially amend) the existing charter but amend the constitution with a totally new charter and new amending formula with one that is not corrupt? Oh, dear god. Here: Consitution Act 1867: IV.55 Where a Bill passed by the Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen's Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he withholds the Queen's Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen's Pleasure. Canada Act 1982: 5.38.1 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and ( resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. Canada Act 1982: 5.41 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province: (e) an amendment to this Part. Royal Assent is required for a bill to become law. Only the Governor General can give Royal Assent. Ergo: the Prime Minister cannot alter a law, constitutional or otherwise. The approval of the federal parliament as well as two thirds of the provincial legislatures and Royal Assent from the Governor General is requred to amend the constitution. Ergo: a Prime Minister cannot alter the constitution. The approval of the federal parliament, all provincial legislatures, and Royal Assent from the Governor General is required to amend the amending formula for the constitution. Ergo, the Prime Minister cannot alter the amending formula. I trust that is completely unclear to you and I will be declared by you as a socialist and corrupt frenchie who has been brainwashed by the corrupt and communist establishment. Edited October 3, 2008 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) Do not direct me to the ammending formula. Why? Because it proves you don't know what you are talking about? The current ammending formula is long and complicated in which no PM would probably tackle anyways. Which is exactly why it is long and complicated! You rant about democracy facing against the corruption of politicians, yet seem to advocate a system wherein one man alone has the power to pull the constitution apart on a whim. Imagine the ease with which a PM in your world could abolish elections, remove rights, dissolve parliament... No, there would be no corruption in that reality! I've said this before, and I'll say it again: you are just a bitter, selfish and lazy person who whines about things not being his way and then whines some more because it's too hard to change them. You do, though, provide us with some pretty laughable stuff; I have to at least offer my thanks for that! Edited October 3, 2008 by g_bambino Quote
Leafless Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Posted October 3, 2008 Why? Because it proves you don't know what you are talking about? I know for a fact the charter is corrupt and that no national federal party will attempt to amend it because of the distinct probability of that party being labelled a party trying to destroy Canada. The fault also lies with the premiers who ratified this piece of garbage and who did not imagine huge future complications imposed by radicals further promoting their idea of Canada while totally ignoring Canadian citizens who certaintly never would approve many of the items now contained in the current charter. It also should have been scrapped due to the fact Quebec did not sign on, the province this charter helper the most. I also know for a fact culture is very volatile and is something this country should never have been allowed to dominate Canadian politics. But happy days are in store at a future time when multiculturism will be eliminated because the day will come when Canada will no longer have the fiscal capability to support the cultural radicals in this country and their multicultural pipe dreams Quote
Leafless Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Posted October 3, 2008 I've said this before, and I'll say it again: you are just a bitter, selfish and lazy person who whines about things not being his way and then whines some more because it's too hard to change them. You do, though, provide us with some pretty laughable stuff; I have to at least offer my thanks for that! Then I am certain you would approve of a national referendum in this country to see how many other Canadians who are whining about a corrupt charter, corrupt muticuturalism and corrupt immigration. I am talking about change in this country. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 Then I am certain you would approve of a national referendum in this country to see how many other Canadians who are whining about a corrupt charter, corrupt muticuturalism and corrupt immigration.I am talking about change in this country. We have referendums on these matters already: they're called elections. The problem, for you, is that the Charter, multiculturalism and immigration are never ballot issues, most likely because not enough Canadians find them to be problems, and thus the politicians don't bother making them part of their campaign. Maybe that will change in the future; who knows? If you, though, are so convinced that the Charter is a corrupt document (whatever that means), then you should have no trouble convincing the rest of the populace to bring it forward as a problem to be fixed. Don't just sit there and complain because nobody is fixing things for you, get out and do it yourself. Go on! Quote
Leafless Posted October 3, 2008 Author Report Posted October 3, 2008 We have referendums on these matters already: they're called elections. Federal governments control what the issue's are in this country. Elections are not the same as referendums relating to important issue's that confront the country. The problem, for you, is that the Charter, multiculturalism and immigration are never ballot issues, most likely because not enough Canadians find them to be problems, and thus the politicians don't bother making them part of their campaign. Maybe that will change in the future; who knows? If you notice the serious issue's that confront Canadians are never an election issue. Just like this elction U.S. issues become Canadian issue's right down to the comparison of Elizabeth May to Sara Palin. “I think a political star was born last night,” Mr. Bricker said Friday. “They [respondents] didn't really know what she was going to do. Her first impression was really strong.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail You know if there is a tornado in the U.S. Canadian media articles will dictate that Canada to can have severe tornado's. If you, though, are so convinced that the Charter is a corrupt document (whatever that means), then you should have no trouble convincing the rest of the populace to bring it forward as a problem to be fixed. Don't just sit there and complain because nobody is fixing things for you, get out and do it yourself. Go on! To late for that as the tone of dysfunctional Canadian politics has been set by all the national federal parties. And that tone is not to be critical of policies, acts, or programs or the charter set by previous federal governments or you will be labelled a redneck or someone who is trying to break apart Canada. Politcs in Canada is like giving candy to a child. Once you give the child candy you will have a very hard time taking it back. And to that I say God bless America because that is all that seems to be politically important in Canada. It appears Canadian politicians are mesmerized with other countries political issues and ignore their own serious issues. Quote
g_bambino Posted October 3, 2008 Report Posted October 3, 2008 Federal governments control what the issue's are in this country... the tone of dysfunctional Canadian politics has been set by all the national federal parties. And that tone is not to be critical of policies, acts, or programs or the charter set by previous federal governments or you will be labelled a redneck or someone who is trying to break apart Canada. Oh, of course. The "buh... buh... but I can't do anything about it; it's too haaarrd" argument. Good luck with your internet bitching, then. Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) I know for a fact the charter is corrupt and that no national federal party will attempt to amend it because of the distinct probability of that party being labelled a party trying to destroy Canada. And that so called fact comes from the same source as the other "facts" you have entertained us with over the past few months, such as: - the federal government has invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield Quebec laws - French judges, not Canadian judges, sit on some of Canada's courts; - part of the Constitution is unconstitutional; - scrapping part of the Constitution is not amending the Constitution, so the PM can do it by himself Thanks for the laughs. But happy days are in store at a future time when multiculturism will be eliminated because the day will come when Canada will no longer have the fiscal capability to support the cultural radicals in this country and their multicultural pipe dreams And French will still be one of our official languages :lol: Edited October 4, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 Which is exactly why it is long and complicated! You rant about democracy facing against the corruption of politicians, yet seem to advocate a system wherein one man alone has the power to pull the constitution apart on a whim. Imagine the ease with which a PM in your world could abolish elections, remove rights, dissolve parliament... No, there would be no corruption in that reality! Hear! Hear! Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 It also should have been scrapped due to the fact Quebec did not sign on, the province this charter helper the most. Scrap the "Quebec-friendly" Charter because the quebec Government did not sign it. :lol: Quote
CANADIEN Posted October 4, 2008 Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Federal governments control what the issue's are in this country. Elections are not the same as referendums relating to important issue's that confront the country. If you notice the serious issue's that confront Canadians are never an election issue. Just like this elction U.S. issues become Canadian issue's right down to the comparison of Elizabeth May to Sara Palin. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostemail You know if there is a tornado in the U.S. Canadian media articles will dictate that Canada to can have severe tornado's. To late for that as the tone of dysfunctional Canadian politics has been set by all the national federal parties. And that tone is not to be critical of policies, acts, or programs or the charter set by previous federal governments or you will be labelled a redneck or someone who is trying to break apart Canada. Politcs in Canada is like giving candy to a child. Once you give the child candy you will have a very hard time taking it back. And to that I say God bless America because that is all that seems to be politically important in Canada. It appears Canadian politicians are mesmerized with other countries political issues and ignore their own serious issues. OK, now where did I put my Leafless-ish/English dictionary? Translation someone please. Edited October 4, 2008 by CANADIEN Quote
Leafless Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) And that so called fact comes from the same source as the other "facts" you have entertained us with over the past few months, such as:- the federal government has invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield Quebec laws - French judges, not Canadian judges, sit on some of Canada's courts; - part of the Constitution is unconstitutional; - scrapping part of the Constitution is not amending the Constitution, so the PM can do it by himself To bad you cannot comprehend. Thanks for the laughs. Mostly it is only French propagadist that are laughing as they are content and pround of what the radicals have done to Canada. And French will still be one of our official languages Official languages mean nothing to me and I would guess you are in the 17.4% of Canadians who can speak both federally official languages English and French. Personal bilingualism and multilingualism is a significant feature of Canadian society: at least 35% of Canadians speak more than one language. Of these multilingual Canadians, somewhat less than half (5,448,850 persons, or 17.4% of the Canadian population) are able to speak both the official languages.[1] However, in Canada the terms "bilingual" and "unilingual" are normally used to refer to bilingualism in English and French. In this sense, nearly 83% of Canadians are "unilingual", even though fewer than 2% of Canadians cannot speak at least one official language.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualism_in_Canada Edited October 4, 2008 by Leafless Quote
Leafless Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Posted October 4, 2008 Scrap the "Quebec-friendly" Charter because the quebec Government did not sign it. I am glad you now realize how dysfunctional politics is in Canada. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.