Tories defend interests of Quebec nationalists: PM

[Leafless]

English translation please?

I am still waiting to see evidence of those mythical "Quebec" charter rights forced upon us by Trudeau.

'Official Languages'-Especially Sec. 16-3..."Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a lagislature to advance the equality of the status or use of English and French".

It was never detirmined that outside of the Trudeau Charter that the french language of Quebec has the right to be propagated in the manner. It has creating for example a French society within our federal government overiding the free flowing national English language.

There are VIRTUALLY no democratic checks and balances to counteract the linguistic corrupt propagtion of the French language in government which as spread to provinces outside of federal jurisdiction.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Leafless

[Leafless]

Expending linguistic rights so that they apply in ALL of Canada is not forcing anything on anyone, except in bigoted ignorant minds such as yours. So the answer is an obvious no.

When was it freely detirmined by referendum that language rights outside of our inherited British English language that foreign languages are a Charter right?

[Leafless]

Less we forget, the right of others is a form of special status in your limited mind.

All Canadians ALWAYS had the same rights.

Blame yourself if you refuse to freely assimilate yourself, like the rest of us did, to our inheirted national English language.

[M.Dancer]

All Canadians ALWAYS had the same rights.

Blame yourself if you refuse to freely assimilate yourself, like the rest of us did, to our inheirted national English language.

"inheirted national english language"?

[Leafless]

Actually, it's as far away from communism as you can get. The point is that most Canadians are not ideological. Do you know what I mean by that? Radical ideas, like the ones you're on about here, are very uncommon. What I want you to understand is that this isn't YOUR country, this is OUR country and unless you can present your ideas in a manner that is digestible for the entire nation, they're never going to work.

"What I want you to understand".

You must be LIBERAL.

[M.Dancer]

When was it freely detirmined by referendum that language rights outside of our inherited British English language that foreign languages are a Charter right?

"British English"?

[Leafless]

All of mine told me to go to Part IV of the Constitutional Act of 1982 (link)

And guess what? leafless is wrong... again.

We are NOT talking about amending the Constitution Act, 1982.

We are talking about TOTALLY SCRAPPING it as being unconstitutional.

Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to do this?

[Leafless]

I'm still chuckling over the idea of The Constitution being Unconstitutional.

That's like saying, "this water is dry."

It is not only Quebecers and their foereign French language that have rights in this country.

[tango]

We are NOT talking about amending the Constitution Act, 1982.

We are talking about TOTALLY SCRAPPING it as being unconstitutional.

Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to do this?

The PM cannot do it himself. It requires full debate in parliament and approval from the Senate. (Look it up.)

Not going to happen.

And btw ... the original 'inherited' languages of Canada are Aboriginal languages.

Then came the French language.

Then came English.

Canada's laws reflect the legal rights, legal traditions and languages of all three founding peoples.

Canada's roots (and laws) are not just 'British', but Aboriginal, French and British.

I suggest you get to know your country better.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[M.Dancer]

Canada's roots (and laws) are not just 'British', but Aboriginal, French and British.

I suggest you get to know your country better.

Which laws have aboriginal roots?

[g_bambino]

We are NOT talking about amending the Constitution Act, 1982.

We are talking about TOTALLY SCRAPPING it as being unconstitutional.

Oops, I think you missed the point about the impossibility of the constitution being unconstitutional! Or, did you ignore it?

Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to do this?

Show us where it does.

[tango]

Which laws have aboriginal roots?

Constitution

Sec 35 "(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Note - This includes all pre-existing aboriginal rights, as well as all of the treaties, etc.

Sec "25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

( a ) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation* of October 7, 1763; and

( b ) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (92)

http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm#2

* Royal Proclamation 1763

The Indian Provisons

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds etc

Also, we have Aboriginal Justice Circles as alternatives to courts, recognition of traditional Indigenous forms of justice that are based on reconciliation, not punishment.

These are a few examples.

In fact, I recently heard a lawyer argue in court that a young man defending land from development was "following his own law, as he is required to do". The court recognized that too.

Quebec:

Under the British Empire

Following France's abandonment of Quebec in favour of Guadaloupe in the Treaty of Paris (1763), Quebec came under British law. However, the seigneurial system of land tenure continued to be applied uniformly throughout the province. In 1774 the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act which restored the former French civil law for private relationships while maintaining the common law for public administration, including the prosecution of crimes. As a result, the colony, later known as the Dominion of Canada, is today one of only a handful of "bijural" countries in the world where two legal systems co-exist.

leafless is on a crusade to 'Brit-ify' Canada, but that is simply not what Canada is about.

leafless needs to learn more about his own country before making such absurd claims.

Edited September 23, 2008 by tango

[M.Dancer]

I suppose you could argue that consitutional rights are laws, but I wouldn't.

[M.Dancer]

Also, we have Aboriginal Justice Circles as alternatives to courts, recognition of traditional Indigenous forms of justice that are based on reconciliation, not punishment.

What? No running of the gauntlet?

[tango]

I suppose you could argue that consitutional rights are laws, but I wouldn't.

The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, the law that must be satisfied before other laws are applied.

The order of precedence is

Treaty Law (nation-to-nation)

Constitutional Law

Common Law

Thus, for example, a criminal charge will be thrown out if the Constitutional rights of the accused have been violated.

Yes, the Constitution most certainly is law.

[CANADIEN]

'Official Languages'-Especially Sec. 16-3..."Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a lagislature to advance the equality of the status or use of English and French".

Sounds pretty clear to me that that's where the governments' authority to advance EQUALITY of linguistic rights comes from.

It was never detirmined that outside of the Trudeau Charter that the french language of Quebec has the right to be propagated in the manner. It has creating for example a French society within our federal government overiding the free flowing national English language.

English translation please.

[CANADIEN]

When was it freely detirmined by referendum that language rights outside of our inherited British English language that foreign languages are a Charter right?

In the same referendum that determined that women were persons, that Blacks had the right to eat in any restaurant, and that Chinese could migrate to Canada.

All those measures were voted by our freely and democratically elected representatives. You don't like the BRITISH parliamentary system, move.

[CANADIEN]

All Canadians ALWAYS had the same rights.

Are you telling us that French-speaking Ontarians always had the right to be educated in their CANADIAN language? That Franco-Manitobans always had the right to use their CANADIAN language in the Legislature? That French and English have always had an equal status in New Brunswick? That speaking a First Nations was never a ground for a good beat-up in a residential school?

Having the right to be educated in only one of this country's languages and to use only one of this country's languages is NOT having the same rights.

Blame yourself if you refuse to freely assimilate yourself, like the rest of us did, to our inheirted national English language.

Oh, but I have been assimilated, so to speak, from my younger age, in a national language of Canada, which I and more than one Canadian in five have inherited from about 15 generations of Canadians... the language in French.

Logically, I have no need to blame myself for anything.

Edited September 23, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

"What I want you to understand".

You must be LIBERAL.

Don't worry, most Conservatives have the capacity to understand a lot of things. Not everyone is as clueless as you are.

[Leafless]

Oops, I think you missed the point about the impossibility of the constitution being unconstitutional! Or, did you ignore it?

You said:

"No surprise there. He also seems to be unaware that one part of the constitution can't be used to declare another part as unconstitutional. "

I am not claiming that a PM can simply declare any one part as being unconstitutional but the entire constitution itself as a corrupt and unconstitutional document.

Show us where it does.

I never made that claim.

I simply said I have heard by way of (political discussions) that a PM can do this.

And obviously you can not show me anywhere that a PM cannot do this.

[CANADIEN]

We are NOT talking about amending the Constitution Act, 1982.

We are talking about TOTALLY SCRAPPING it as being unconstitutional.

Show me where it says a PM does not have the power to do this?

You can of course show us the part of the British North America Act (BNA) that gives the PM the right to declare any law to be unconstitutional.

And failing that (and of course you will fail again), you can of course show what is the section in the BNA that can be used to prove the Constitutional Act of 1982 is unconstitutional.

Because you know of course that the BNA is our original Constitution, and that for a law to be invalidated as unconstitutional it has to run contrary to the Constitution.

[CANADIEN]

It is not only Quebecers and their foereign French language that have rights in this country.

It is also all Canadians, whatever their CANADIAN language is. You, on the other hand, have made abuntantly clear that only the speakers of only of the Canadian languages should have rights.

[CANADIEN]

You said:

"No surprise there. He also seems to be unaware that one part of the constitution can't be used to declare another part as unconstitutional. "

I am not claiming that a PM can simply declare any one part as being unconstitutional but the entire constitution itself as a corrupt and unconstitutional document.

I never made that claim.

I simply said I have heard by way of (political discussions) that a PM can do this.

And obviously you can not show me anywhere that a PM cannot do this.

Here's leafless doing his usual "what I said is actually not what I said" dog-and-pony show.

With a bonus... now the CONSTITUTION is unconstitutional. :lol:

[g_bambino]

I am not claiming that a PM can simply declare any one part as being unconstitutional.

We are NOT talking about amending the Constitution Act, 1982. We are talking about TOTALLY SCRAPPING it as being unconstitutional.

I have heard that a PM (with courage) has the power and can simply label the Constitution Act 1982 as being UNCONSTITUTONAL and simply scrap it.

And obviously you can not show me anywhere that a PM cannot do this.

My showing you your inability to show us how a PM can declare a part of the constitution unconstitutional is exactly what satisfies your request.

[Leafless]

Sounds pretty clear to me that that's where the governments' authority to advance EQUALITY of linguistic rights comes from.

I don't think a government has the right to advance equality of linguistic rights simply because French Quebec refused to assimilate utilizing the national English language of Canada.

It was a federal scam to begin with as the English language never had to be made an 'official language' as it was already Canada's national language.

Language is the buisness of Canadian citizens and not government.

Only one province in Canada (New Brunswick) accepted the federal notion and promotion that provinces be 'officially bilingual'.

This means 'government propagated bilingualism and the French language should have ended at that point as a FAILURE, because no province wanted it.

But that is not the case due to dysfunctional politics basically by a national federal party, the Liberals, being dominated with Quebec MP's and Quebec PM,s pursued further linguistic attemps trying to force Quebec ideologies and the French language on the ROC.

Despite TWO further FAILED federal attempts to force Quebec to be labelled officially a 'distinct society' or or a province with 'special status' federal linguistic meddling continued.

Then Trudeau came along with a Charter forcing Canadians to accept French as an 'official language'.

Although this charter was ratified by provincial premiers I doubt they knew what they were signing at the time nor did not know what the corrupt ramifications would be in the future.

This is why the charter should be scrapped.

Canadians never agreed to your version of equality.