Tories defend interests of Quebec nationalists: PM

[Leafless]

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

You are the one that should be moving.

It is Francophones who are politically insatiable in an English speaking country.

[M.Dancer]

He doesn't like our British Traditions.....

[Leafless]

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

You must be clueless to understand that was a ' Nazi type command' typical of French Liberals and Quebecers.

[Leafless]

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

The corrupt, discrminatory amended part, know as the Constitution Act, 1982.

[Leafless]

He doesn't like our British Traditions.....

Corruptly amended to 'French traditons'.

[Leafless]

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.

It is beyond the scope of a little man like you to discuss that possibility for the salavation of the English language and its culture.

Unless of course you are another Francophone, teaming up with the immigrants to help topple the English language and its culture with dysfunctional federal (just hoping) blessings.

[M.Dancer]

You must be clueless to understand that was a ' Nazi type command' typical of French Liberals and Quebecers.

There are software out there that can produce what appear to be intelligent answers to real questions. These programmes are called Artificial Intellegince.

I have suspected for awhile now that Leafless is actually one of those programmes but completely opposite to AI....perhaps AS.

[g_bambino]

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.

Oh, that is just too funny! So much so, I had to make it my "personal statement"; just to keep it close to me. The unconsitutional constitution; classic!

Edited September 23, 2008 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

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.

The lawful Constitution gives the government the right, indeed the responsibility to protect and advance the rights of all Canadians, within the parametres set up in the Constitution.

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.

alongside French.

Language is the buisness of Canadian citizens and not government.

So says the guy who wants the Ontario Government to impose English-only on business signs. And yes, what CANADIAN language I use is definetely not any of your business.

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.

You missed the part about the legislatures of nine provinces out of them agreeing to the Charter, including the provisions acknowledging English and French as official languages at the federal level.

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'.

Let me check... the Official Language Act was enacted in 1967, the Constitution was amended in 1982, Meach lake was in 1987 and Charlottetown in 1982. Looks to me like chronology is another of your weak spots.

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.

They knew exactly what the Charter said. Not everyone is clueless.

Canadians never agreed to your version of equality.

Then, we won't mention polls that indicate that a majority of Canadians support the Charter and agree that Canada should have two official languages.

Edited September 24, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

You are the one that should be moving.

Yep... Just a few more thousand dollars and I can buy myself a nice townshouse condo... Hopefully near High Park... You know Toronto right? :lol:

Edited September 23, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

You must be clueless to understand that was a ' Nazi type command' typical of French Liberals and Quebecers.

Indeed, I would have to be really clueless to interpret his comment that way.

[CANADIEN]

It is beyond the scope of a little man like you to discuss that possibility for the salavation of the English language and its culture.

Salvaging something that is not in danger.... Whatever.

Unless of course you are another Francophone, teaming up with the immigrants to help topple the English language and its culture with dysfunctional federal (just hoping) blessings.

And I thought immigrants were choosing English. Make up your mind, will you?

Edited September 23, 2008 by CANADIEN

[Leafless]

Oh, that is just too funny! So much so, I had to make it my "personal statement"; just to keep it close to me. The unconsitutional constitution; classic!

A bad edit is "just to funny".

I guess they are right when they say, 'bad English is the world's most widely spoken language'.

[Leafless]

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0000740

They knew exactly what the Charter said. Not everyone is clueless.

I agree. Trudeau and his henchmen certaintly were not.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0000740

Then, we won't mention polls that indicate that a majority of Canadians support the Charter and agree that Canada should have two official languages.

You have a lot of nerve to even mention polls that can be easily manipulated with no proof of what the question actually was as a replacement for national referendums.

[Leafless]

Indeed, I would have to be really clueless to interpret his comment that way.

You like playing Russian so it should have been easily understood.

[Leafless]

Salvaging something that is not in danger.... Whatever.

You really don't know what your saying in this thread as well as not knowing what you stand for.

And I thought immigrants were choosing English. Make up your mind, will you?

The old immigrants did.

But the new ones it seems are following the cultural example set out by Quebec.

[CANADIEN]

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0000740

They knew exactly what the Charter said. Not everyone is clueless.

I agree. Trudeau and his henchmen certaintly were not.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=A1ARTA0000740

Then, we won't mention polls that indicate that a majority of Canadians support the Charter and agree that Canada should have two official languages.

You have a lot of nerve to even mention polls that can be easily manipulated with no proof of what the question actually was as a replacement for national referendums.

Not a replacement. A clue to the fact that you'd have to manipulate the question big time to win your famous referendum.

Edited September 24, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

You like playing Russian so it should have been easily understood.

And I still don't know what that game is.

[CANADIEN]

You really don't know what your saying in this thread as well as not knowing what you stand for.

Talking to yourself again I see.

The old immigrants did.

But the new ones it seems are following the cultural example set out by Quebec.

It is a known fact that integration or assimilation more often than not occurs with the second generation, the sons and daughters of immigrants. As for them "following the cultural example of Quebec", French-speaking Canadians everywhere in the country are retaining their CANADIAN culture. You're not claiming that the culture of an immigrant freshly landed is canadian, do you?

PS: What is the Constitution that the Constitutional Act of 1982 violating? There must be one, and you must be able to show what section(s) of it was (were) violated, since you claim the 1982 act is unconstitutional.

Edited September 24, 2008 by CANADIEN

[cybercoma]

There's a grocery store somewhere running out of tin foil.

[g_bambino]

A bad edit is "just to funny".

I guess they are right when they say, 'bad English is the world's most widely spoken language'.

And you're certainly a master of that popular language. Not to try and impede on your destruction of proper English, but when one is trying to say that something is more than enough, the word is spelled "too", like "Too bad you can't speak English." "To" is what one says when telling someone where to go, like: "Go to Hell."

Edited September 24, 2008 by g_bambino

[Leafless]

And you're certainly a master of that popular language. Not to try and impede on your destruction of proper English, but when one is trying to say that something is more than enough, the word is spelled "too", like "Too bad you can't speak English." "To" is what one says when telling someone where to go, like: "Go to Hell."

Ultimately your goal is to censure free speech.

I suspect you (and other cultural misfits) are a disgruntled socialist, are trying to censure free speech because some Canadians have an opposing view objecting to dictated, legislated official type language policies, assimilation, wrong type immigration policies along with other important issues detrimentally affecting our country Canada.

It is obvious you cannot tolerate the fact that the majority English speaking, Christian Canadians and their culture and traditons dominate cultural in Canada.

You most likely would like to see English speaking, Christian Canadians totally controlled by legislated government policies similar to what they employ by way of language policies in Quebec and cities and towns primarily in Ontario.

You attacking me personally relating to spelling errors makes no sense, is totally unwarranted since there is NO prerequiste demanding the use of FORMAL, CORRECT use of the English language on MLF.

See Greg and you have any further concerns relating to the correct use of the English language on MLF.

Maybe Greg can implement some sort of 'official language policy'.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

[g_bambino]

Ultimately your goal is to censure free speech.

I suspect you (and other cultural misfits) are a disgruntled socialist, are trying to censure free speech because some Canadians have an opposing view objecting to dictated, legislated official type language policies, assimilation, wrong type immigration policies along with other important issues detrimentally affecting our country Canada.

It is obvious you cannot tolerate the fact that the majority English speaking, Christian Canadians and their culture and traditons dominate cultural in Canada.

You most likely would like to see English speaking, Christian Canadians totally controlled by legislated government policies similar to what they employ by way of language policies in Quebec and cities and towns primarily in Ontario.

You attacking me personally relating to spelling errors makes no sense, is totally unwarranted since there is NO prerequiste demanding the use of FORMAL, CORRECT use of the English language on MLF.

My goal is to criticise free speech? Wouldn't that be somewhat of an oxymoron? Unless you mean that I want to censor free speech. If that's the case, let's look at this little comparison: the number of times I have promoted the idea of laws that demand all subjects speak one language: 0; the number of times you have promoted the idea of laws that demand all subjects speak one language: 263. You, therefore, are a hypocrite in more ways than one; you call others communist oppressors of free speech while you demand free speech be curtailed, you criticise the government of Quebec for imposing language laws while demanding language laws for Ontario, you call immigrants indolent leeches while saying they're too hard working to gel with Canadian society, and you defend the English language while destroying it with your horrendous grammar and spelling.

The response from you to this will, of course, be something to do with Commies, corruption, Frenchies, and/or unconstitutional constitutions.

[CANADIEN]

Ultimately your goal is to censure free speech.

I suspect you (and other cultural misfits) are a disgruntled socialist, are trying to censure free speech because some Canadians have an opposing view objecting to dictated, legislated official type language policies, assimilation, wrong type immigration policies along with other important issues detrimentally affecting our country Canada.

It is obvious you cannot tolerate the fact that the majority English speaking, Christian Canadians and their culture and traditons dominate cultural in Canada.

You most likely would like to see English speaking, Christian Canadians totally controlled by legislated government policies similar to what they employ by way of language policies in Quebec and cities and towns primarily in Ontario.

You attacking me personally relating to spelling errors makes no sense, is totally unwarranted since there is NO prerequiste demanding the use of FORMAL, CORRECT use of the English language on MLF.

See Greg and you have any further concerns relating to the correct use of the English language on MLF.

Maybe Greg can implement some sort of 'official language policy'.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

New definition of what constitute an attack on free speech: when people point out instances of your butchering of the language you want to impose upon others. :lol:

Edited September 26, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

My goal is to criticise free speech? Wouldn't that be somewhat of an oxymoron? Unless you mean that I want to censor free speech. If that's the case, let's look at this little comparison: the number of times I have promoted the idea of laws that demand all subjects speak one language: 0; the number of times you have promoted the idea of laws that demand all subjects speak one language: 263. You, therefore, are a hypocrite in more ways than one; you call others communist oppressors of free speech while you demand free speech be curtailed, you criticise the government of Quebec for imposing language laws while demanding language laws for Ontario, you call immigrants indolent leeches while saying they're too hard working to gel with Canadian society, and you defend the English language while destroying it with your horrendous grammar and spelling.

The response from you to this will, of course, be something to do with Commies, corruption, Frenchies, and/or unconstitutional constitutions.

Are you sure it wasn't 262 or 264? Because you will be denounced as a liar if you do not quote word by word each and every statement he has made advocating for laws imposing the use of English. And of course each statement will be taken out of context.