Plains of Abraham re-enactment cancelled

[Peter F]

Canada is the country of people who speak English, people who speak French, and both. All are (or should be Canadians, not Francophones or Anglophones. This was or should have been settled in 1759.

It was settled in 1759. Why do you keep referring to that year as if something wasn't settled?

[Visionseeker]

Maybe English speaking Canadians are but I know French Canadians are not.

Um, Leafless, don't you think that you've crossed a boundary here in suggesting the French Canadians are not civilized?

[Griz]

Your "knowledge" of Canadian history consists of getting a few pieces of the puzzle, putting them in the wrong place, binding them out of shape until they fit, then claiming you solved the puzzle. You haven't.

Isn't that how history was written--one great big lie!! Then it made people like Oleg...What a bunch of morons! WHat about the aboriginal people? They were here well before the boats from Europe and the UK landed? You freakin descendants of boat people are pathetic at best

[WestViking]

Isn't that how history was written--one great big lie!! Then it made people like Oleg...What a bunch of morons! WHat about the aboriginal people? They were here well before the boats from Europe and the UK landed? You freakin descendants of boat people are pathetic at best

Envy will get you nowhere, but hate can consume you.

[jbg]

Isn't that how history was written--one great big lie!! Then it made people like Oleg...What a bunch of morons! WHat about the aboriginal people? They were here well before the boats from Europe and the UK landed? You freakin descendants of boat people are pathetic at best

I detect a fair amount of hatred in an otherwise incoherent post.

I think you need to be calm, cool and collected while posting. It will be alright in the morning. Count sheep, go to sleep.

[g_bambino]

To have pandered to the French was very dishonest - but the British were never known for their sincerity -- It was a mistake and now we have a nation jammed into the centre of another nation...no other country on earth has been so stupid to attempt to have a foriegn object lodged in the core of the national body - with out constant infection and continued rejection taking place - It will be never ending - time to stop talking about it and let the people evolve - into one.

I'm not sure it was so much dishonest as necessary; the British did not want les Canadiens joining in the revolution brewing in the Thirteen Colonies to the south; a revolution aided by France, no less. Ironically, Quebecers owe the British for their "pandering"; had the latter instead pissed off the former by trying to assimilate them, thus causing them to join the Americans in rising against the colonial power, Lower Canada would have become part of the United States and Quebecois culture today would be as diluted and unprotected as the Cajuns of Louisiana now are.

_{[added later]}

Sorry, I forgot to point out other nations with nations lodged inside them: the United Kingdom, Spain, China, Australia, Israel, Belgium, and I'm sure others that I can't think of.

Edited February 22, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Um, Leafless, don't you think that you've crossed a boundary here in suggesting the French Canadians are not civilized?

That's not terribly different to August's flat out statement that Europeans are barbaric. Both comments are, of course, equally silly.

Edited February 22, 2009 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

You freakin descendants of boat people are pathetic at best

And the intelligent contribution continues.

[whowhere]

Lafayettte most certainly was working for the US. George Washington was not fighting for the French.

When he was trying to regain Canada in 1778 without US support, who was he doing it for?

For the most part, 1867, completely on December 11, 1931.

If what you are saying is true why did Canada require the Queen to sign the 1982 Constitution which paved the way for the political - bureacractic abuse and immolation of Canada. Why is Queen still stated as the Sovereign of Canada. Why did the Governor General welcome Barack Obama if Canada is an independent as you allude to.

Obviously you are unaware of the 1864 Quebec Conference where Quebec was represented by George-Étienne Cartier, Jean-Charles Chapais, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Alexander Tilloch Galt, Hector-Louis Langevin and Étienne-Paschal Taché.

How did the US constitution come into Force? How did the European Union Constitution come into force? People had to vote, not politicians, people had to vote for it to come into force. Like the 1982 Constitution, the Quebec people did not vote to join the Dominion of Canada. It was imposed on the Quebec people.

We should recap the Salient points.

The Canada we know did not exist until 1867.

Prior to US declaration of Independence (1776), Canada was mostly populated by the French and Natives.

After independence Canada was divided into what is Ontario and Quebec. To rival Quebec's population increases the British Monarch brought in Millions of people from other commonwealth Countries during the 1800's.

So how is it that you people think you have any entitlment and right to what happened on the Plains of Abraham in 1759? The Canada we know did not exist. You people had no ancestoral connection other than perhaps you are descendents from the English.

Point 1

All you have is your claim Quebec was abondoned by France and left to rot which is a lie and propoganda to elevate your vanity. However, the King of England made a deal with Quebec prior 1776 to allow Quebec to manage its own affairs. Logically that would also include how the plains of Abraham is be to celebrated today. Quebec existed then, you didn't.

Point 2

You people claim Quebec was conquered and should be thankful it has what it has. To rub this fact in, you repeatedly dwell on the treaty of Paris where France ceded Canada to England. Let us pause on that fact, Canada was ceded to England not the Canada created in 1867 but England. Canada is still beholden to the Monarch. The Statue of Westminister had a specific mechanism required for Canada to become independent of the monarch. That mechanism includes 5 commonwealth Countries exacting parliamentary support to make Canada independent. This has not been done so Canada is still Beholden to the Monarch and the British parliament. The 1982 Constitution hasn't changed this fact.

There is nothing stopping the British parliament and the Queen from repealing the Statue of Westminister and the Canada act to bring Canada back under the parliamentary Control of Britain. This can happen at any time and the only recourse Canada will have is to bring the Matter before the International Court of Justice.

However, the Treaty of Paris is explicit. Canada was ceded to England, kind of like the deed to the house I would think.

I see this as a probable reality given the fact Canada's political and bureacratic trash are bent on growing Canada's population and prosperity through it's immigration policies rather than build a strong and innovative Canada through its own power. If this is what it means to be a 1867 Canadian then to hell with you all and I am quite sure that is the fate of your individual future.

On that I say you should read the King James, it's a Good book. It was brought about by the same King who established the United Kingdom - Britain. The book is a backdrop to North America and goes to all your looming fates of non existent obliteration out of the book of life.

Enjoy your Heaven on the backs of immigrates and the immolation of the younger Generations. Eye of the Needle, Eye of the needle..........

[CANADIEN]

When he was trying to regain Canada in 1778 without US support, who was he doing it for?

The U.S.

How did the US constitution come into Force? How did the European Union Constitution come into force? People had to vote.

And what was the result of the 1787 U.S. referendum? State by state please.

We should recap the Salient points.

One salient point; you make no sense.

The Canada we know did not exist until 1867.

Prior to US declaration of Independence (1776), Canada was mostly populated by the French and Natives.

After independence Canada was divided into what is Ontario and Quebec. To rival Quebec's population increases the British Monarch brought in Millions of people from other commonwealth Countries during the 1800's.

Two and half out of three. Pigs do fly after all.

the King of England made a deal with Quebec prior 1776 to allow Quebec to manage its own affairs.

Ever read Quebec Act?It did not grant self-government to the Province of Quebec, as the Governor was appointed by the British Crown and he in turn appointed the Legislative Council.

The Statue of Westminister had a specific mechanism required for Canada to become independent of the monarch. That mechanism includes 5 commonwealth Countries exacting parliamentary support to make Canada independent.

There is nothing stopping the British parliament and the Queen from repealing the Statue of Westminister and the Canada act to bring Canada back under the parliamentary Control of Britain. This can happen at any time and the only recourse Canada will have is to bring the Matter before the International Court of Justice.

:lol: You remind of a moron who has a Web site claiming that the United States is still a British Colony, based on the treaty recognizing U.S. independance.

The Statute of Westminster was very clear on the fact that NO British law passed thereafter would apply to Canada without the consent of Canada. That would include, obviously, the repeal of the Statute itself. As for the notion that consent of any other Country would be needed for Canada to exercise its right as an independant country, suffice to say that, as with most of your stupid ideas, it is shared by you and... you alone.

On that I say you should read the King James, it's a Good book. It was brought about by the same King who established the United Kingdom - Britain. The book is a backdrop to North America and goes to all your looming fates of non existent obliteration out of the book of life.

In less enlightened times, the Catholic Church held that only priests and religious people should be permitted to read the Bible. They must have had you in mind.

Edited February 22, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

That's not terribly different to August's flat out statement that Europeans are barbaric. Both comments are, of course, equally silly.

Now, now... in the realm of silly comments, both are amateurs (pointing to whowhere).

[WestViking]

When he (Lafyayette) was trying to regain Canada in 1778 without US support, who was he doing it for?

Simple - it never happened. Lafayette never tried to regain Canada with or without the Americans.

If what you are saying is true why did Canada require the Queen to sign the 1982 Constitution which paved the way for the political - bureacractic abuse and immolation of Canada. Why is Queen still stated as the Sovereign of Canada. Why did the Governor General welcome Barack Obama if Canada is an independent as you allude to.

Canada had never agreed to a formula to amend the constitution. It seems some idiots preferred to argue ratherthan accept responsibility for themselves. That was resolved in 1982.

How did the US constitution come into Force? How did the European Union Constitution come into force? People had to vote, not politicians, people had to vote for it to come into force. Like the 1982 Constitution, the Quebec people did not vote to join the Dominion of Canada. It was imposed on the Quebec people.

Bullshit. If you don't know the history of the Canadian or American constitutions, you are wasting our time.

We should recap the Salient points. The Canada we know did not exist until 1867. Prior to US declaration of Independence (1776), Canada was mostly populated by the French and Natives. After independence Canada was divided into what is Ontario and Quebec. To rival Quebec's population increases the British Monarch brought in Millions of people from other commonwealth Countries during the 1800's.So how is it that you people think you have any entitlment and right to what happened on the Plains of Abraham in 1759? The Canada we know did not exist. You people had no ancestoral connection other than perhaps you are descendents from the English.

• 1775 - American General Montgomery captures Montreal and lays sieige to Quebec City.
  
• 1776 - Quebec under Sit Guy Carlton withstands the American Siege until a British Fleet appears in May. Montgomery withdraws.
  

If it was not for the British, you would be speaking English only and saluting the American flag today. In addition, the French population in Canada could not have survived after 1759 without support from the British. They had no source of immigration to draw on, no source of supplies, and no means of self-defence. Without the British garrison's presence in 1778 the French would have been overwhelmed by Montgomery.

Point 1 - All you have is your claim Quebec was abondoned by France and left to rot which is a lie and propoganda to elevate your vanity. However, the King of England made a deal with Quebec prior 1776 to allow Quebec to manage its own affairs. Logically that would also include how the plains of Abraham is be to celebrated today. Quebec existed then, you didn't.

It is not my claim, it is historical fact. Your refusal to study or accept your own history does not change facts.

Point 2 - You people claim Quebec was conquered and should be thankful it has what it has. To rub this fact in, you repeatedly dwell on the treaty of Paris where France ceded Canada to England. Let us pause on that fact, Canada was ceded to England not the Canada created in 1867 but England. Canada is still beholden to the Monarch. The Statue of Westminister had a specific mechanism required for Canada to become independent of the monarch. That mechanism includes 5 commonwealth Countries exacting parliamentary support to make Canada independent. This has not been done so Canada is still Beholden to the Monarch and the British parliament. The 1982 Constitution hasn't changed this fact.

All 5 commonwealth nations have retained the Queen as Head of state. All of us are constitutional monarchies.

There is nothing stopping the British parliament and the Queen from repealing the Statue of Westminster and the Canada act to bring Canada back under the parliamentary Control of Britain. This can happen at any time and the only recourse Canada will have is to bring the Matter before the International Court of Justice.

Yes there is. We are, by international standards, recognized as a sovereign nation and Britain cannot change that unilaterally.

However, the Treaty of Paris is explicit. Canada was ceded to England, kind of like the deed to the house I would think. I see this as a probable reality given the fact Canada's political and bureacratic trash are bent on growing Canada's population and prosperity through it's immigration policies rather than build a strong and innovative Canada through its own power. If this is what it means to be a 1867 Canadian then to hell with you all and I am quite sure that is the fate of your individual future.

Interesting. Since Quebec does not have a sustainable birth rate, you are in a bit of a box.

On that I say you should read the King James, it's a Good book. It was brought about by the same King who established the United Kingdom - Britain. The book is a backdrop to North America and goes to all your looming fates of non existent obliteration out of the book of life. Enjoy your Heaven on the backs of immigrates and the immolation of the younger Generations. Eye of the Needle, Eye of the needle..........

Your position on Quebec is neither rational not reasonable. You can waste your life pining over a French nation in North America that never materialized or celebrate the accomplishments of the French Province of Quebec. Your choice. I will not join your pity pot. Edited February 22, 2009 by WestViking

[jbg]

When he was trying to regain Canada in 1778 without US support, who was he doing it for?

At that time the "U.S." was a barely functioning rebel Congress whose writ ran nowhere beyond its halls in Philadelphia. France, Spain and maybe the Netherlands (not sure on that one) gave some limited recognition to the U.S. The "U.S." had little money and the expression "worth less than a Continental (dollar)" had currency then. Basically it printed worthless script, and had trouble getting soliders to fight for either no pay or pay in "Continentals". That gradually changed after the British threw in the towel in 1781 after the Battle of Yorktown. Many generals, including Lafayette, pursued or attempted to pursue their own agendas. Their main limits were money and, as Benedict Arnold learned, treason charges. Even those were fickle and unpredictable. In short, Lafayette to some extent did what he wanted to do.

If what you are saying is true why did Canada require the Queen to sign the 1982 Constitution which paved the way for the political - bureacractic abuse and immolation of Canada. Why is Queen still stated as the Sovereign of Canada. Why did the Governor General welcome Barack Obama if Canada is an independent as you allude to.

Canada is a "constitutional monarchy". By tradition, even in Britain the Queen almost never involves herself in day-to-day affairs. But I think you know that and are trying to stir the pot.

How did the US constitution come into Force? How did the European Union Constitution come into force? People had to vote, not politicians, people had to vote for it to come into force. Like the 1982 Constitution, the Quebec people did not vote to join the Dominion of Canada. It was imposed on the Quebec people.

The U.S. constitution was ratified by the legislatures of the States. It took nine of the states, by its terms, to come into force. Connecticut was the ninth state, earning it the nickname the "Constitution State". No state, to my knowledge, posted the Constitution up for popular referendum.

We should recap the Salient points.

The Canada we know did not exist until 1867.

Upper and Lower Canada did though.

Prior to US declaration of Independence (1776), Canada was mostly populated by the French and Natives.

Did Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island not exist?

After independence Canada was divided into what is Ontario and Quebec.

Did Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island not exist?

To rival Quebec's population increases the British Monarch brought in Millions of people from other commonwealth Countries during the 1800's.

What about the UEL's that came to Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island prior to 1867? And what "Commonwealth countries" had "millions" of people from which to bring those people, except United Kingdom entities themselves. These entities were sewers of human misery because of poverty and overcrowding, not yet relieved by the Industrial Revolution and many left of their own accord for Canada and yes, the U.S. Australia of course got different Britishers, the ones that used to be headed for Georgia until that became unavailable.

So how is it that you people think you have any entitlment and right to what happened on the Plains of Abraham in 1759? The Canada we know did not exist. You people had no ancestoral connection other than perhaps you are descendents from the English.

Because 75% of the people speak English and presumably want it that way.

Point 1

All you have is your claim Quebec was abondoned by France and left to rot which is a lie and propoganda to elevate your vanity.

Yes, evidently they considered the Caribbean Islands more vital. Also, maybe France understood that with Britain occupying 13 colonies to the South, and Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island holding New France might have been easier said than done.

However, the King of England made a deal with Quebec prior 1776 to allow Quebec to manage its own affairs. Logically that would also include how the plains of Abraham is be to celebrated today.

I'm sure if they asked for the celebration to add a segment on the Quebec Act it would have been obliged. Instead of civilized negotiations they chose threats of violence.

Quebec existed then, you didn't.

Neither did you.

Point 2

You people claim Quebec was conquered and should be thankful it has what it has. To rub this fact in, you repeatedly dwell on the treaty of Paris where France ceded Canada to England. Let us pause on that fact, Canada was ceded to England not the Canada created in 1867 but England. Canada is still beholden to the Monarch. The Statue of Westminister had a specific mechanism required for Canada to become independent of the monarch. That mechanism includes 5 commonwealth Countries exacting parliamentary support to make Canada independent. This has not been done so Canada is still Beholden to the Monarch and the British parliament. The 1982 Constitution hasn't changed this fact. There is nothing stopping the British parliament and the Queen from repealing the Statue of Westminister and the Canada act to bring Canada back under the parliamentary Control of Britain. This can happen at any time and the only recourse Canada will have is to bring the Matter before the International Court of Justice.

You confuse highly abstract theory with practice. That is as likely as the Queen of England changing the time allowed for parking at a London parking meter.

However, the Treaty of Paris is explicit. Canada was ceded to England, kind of like the deed to the house I would think.

No, more like your mortgage. If your mortgage is sold from Toronto Dominion to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce you must still pay it.

I see this as a probable reality given the fact Canada's political and bureacratic trash are bent on growing Canada's population and prosperity through it's immigration policies rather than build a strong and innovative Canada through its own power. If this is what it means to be a 1867 Canadian then to hell with you all and I am quite sure that is the fate of your individual future.

I agree that immigration should be controlled so that people that want to contribute to rather than leach from Canada are invited. Given your hatred of Jews and love of Muslims expressed, I believe, elsewhere I doubt that is what you have in mind.

On that I say you should read the King James, it's a Good book. It was brought about by the same King who established the United Kingdom - Britain. The book is a backdrop to North America and goes to all your looming fates of non existent obliteration out of the book of life.

Enjoy your Heaven on the backs of immigrates and the immolation of the younger Generations. Eye of the Needle, Eye of the needle..........

You are lapsing into some kind of mystical incoherence here. Help me with what you're trying to say. Edited February 22, 2009 by jbg

[whowhere]

The U.S.

And what was the result of the 1787 U.S. referendum? State by state please.

One salient point; you make no sense.

Two and half out of three. Pigs do fly after all.

Ever read Quebec Act?It did not grant self-government to the Province of Quebec, as the Governor was appointed by the British Crown and he in turn appointed the Legislative Council.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

Legal system:

based on English common law, except in Quebec, where civil law system based on French law prevails; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations

Oh really, if Quebec did not manage its own affairs then how is it they have a civil law system based on French Law. Hmm, people elected in quebec and drafted laws reflecting that dynamic. Looks like Quebec democracy and management of its affairs at work.

:lol: You remind of a moron who has a Web site claiming that the United States is still a British Colony, based on the treaty recognizing U.S. independance.

What part of 1776 do you not understand. What part of the treaty of paris do you not understand. What is it about the Statutues of Liberty in the US and France you don't get. The US is an independent Country thanks to France and Spain and they are governed by a constitution which was constructed and voted on by the people of the United States in a act of democracy.

The Statute of Westminster was very clear on the fact that NO British law passed thereafter would apply to Canada without the consent of Canada. That would include, obviously, the repeal of the Statute itself.

ROTFLOL.......Really?? So I guess the 1982 constitution by your admission is null and void. Sorry, bud the English Common Law is one of precedents. The 1982 constitution established that the British Parliament and the Queen Can establish Laws that impact Canada and that would also include repealing them. Canada did not meet the conditions of the Statue of westminister to become independent. Repealing the Statue of Westminister before Canada succeeds in meeting the requirements is valid and in Line with English Common Law.

Your post is one of a defeated and emotional ranter. You are in denial of the facts.

As for the notion that consent of any other Country would be needed for Canada to exercise its right as an independant country, suffice to say that, as with most of your stupid ideas, it is shared by you and... you alone.

Perhaps but it will only be a matter of time before questions start surfacing as to how Britain fought to gain Canada in 1759, Fought to defend Canada in 1812, and populated Canada outside of Quebec in the 1800's but is somehow is not entitled to its property as outlined in the Treaty of Paris. Canada was ceded to England, Not ceded to 1867 Canada which in reality is still beholden to the British Monarch contrary to what trash politicians, bureacrats, and the media spin.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

Executive branch:

chief of state: Queen ELIZABETH II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General

Michaelle JEAN (since 27 September 2005)

What do you make of that Canadien??

In less enlightened times, the Catholic Church held that only priests and religious people should be permitted to read the Bible. They must have had you in mind.

Coming from a church who insisted the world was flat and using a Roman Language of a people that could care less about Christians doesn't carry much weight. The Romans believed in the God of Jupiter not Jesus. And the God of Jupiter is more valid than Jesus. Jesus was a good man. He preached the keys of heaven but in fact delivered the mechanism and gateway to hell. The fact, Christians are responsible for the burning of countless books from the Roman Era in turn burying the truth of the day is contemptous. As God of Jacob says, eye for eye. If Christians wanted to destroy the God of Jupiter, it is only fair for the God of Jupiter to destroy Christians.

Jupiter says get your own alphabet. Jupiter is about Law and Social Order, not christian lies and dementia.

[whowhere]

You can waste your life pining over a French nation in North America that never materialized or celebrate the accomplishments of the French Province of Quebec. Your choice. I will not join your pity pot.

Rather moronic statement coming from someone who trying to impose themselves on a history that is not theirs.

[SocDem]

Coming from a church who insisted the world was flat and using a Roman Language of a people that could care less about Christians doesn't carry much weight. The Romans believed in the God of Jupiter not Jesus. And the God of Jupiter is more valid than Jesus. Jesus was a good man. He preached the keys of heaven but in fact delivered the mechanism and gateway to hell. The fact, Christians are responsible for the burning of countless books from the Roman Era in turn burying the truth of the day is contemptous. As God of Jacob says, eye for eye. If Christians wanted to destroy the God of Jupiter, it is only fair for the God of Jupiter to destroy Christians.

Jupiter says get your own alphabet. Jupiter is about Law and Social Order, not christian lies and dementia.

I wouldn't say Romans didn't care about Christianity....They kind of eventually spread it over the entire Roman Empire, but I think I get the jist of what you are trying to say, so I will let that one slide.

Jesus was a good man. To the poor. He didnt really like the rich too much, but who does?

Eye for an Eye? I thought Christianity was about turning the other cheek!

PS:

The Roman "religion" before Christ was Polytheistic, meaning they didnt just worship Jupiter. I know, I know, you were just trying to make I point. A very illogical point. But a point nonetheless.

[whowhere]

At that time the "U.S." was a barely functioning rebel Congress whose writ ran nowhere beyond its halls in Philadelphia. France, Spain and maybe the Netherlands (not sure on that one) gave some limited recognition to the U.S. The "U.S." had little money and the expression "worth less than a Continental (dollar)" had currency then. Basically it printed worthless script, and had trouble getting soliders to fight for either no pay or pay in "Continentals". That gradually changed after the British threw in the towel in 1781 after the Battle of Yorktown. Many generals, including Lafayette, pursued or attempted to pursue their own agendas. Their main limits were money and, as Benedict Arnold learned, treason charges. Even those were fickle and unpredictable. In short, Lafayette to some extent did what he wanted to do.

Fact is Lafayette tried to regain Canada and it is documented. France Tried to defend Canada during the seven year war but was blocked from doing so.

Canada is a "constitutional monarchy". By tradition, even in Britain the Queen almost never involves herself in day-to-day affairs. But I think you know that and are trying to stir the pot.

Maybe the Queen has taken on a ceremonial role but the reality is she has power via the British Parliament to move on Canada.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

The Queen is the head of state.

Upper and Lower Canada did though.

Quebec was divided into two after American Independence to make way for American Freedom Traitors. Upper Canada was mostly an empty field prior to American Independence.

Did Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island not exist?Did Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island not exist?

Are you for you real? Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were Acadia of New France and the residents were deported to Lousianna.

Yes, evidently they considered the Caribbean Islands more vital. Also, maybe France understood that with Britain occupying 13 colonies to the South, and Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island holding New France might have been easier said than done.

I'm sure if they asked for the celebration to add a segment on the Quebec Act it would have been obliged. Instead of civilized negotiations they chose threats of violence.

Neither did you.

You confuse highly abstract theory with practice. That is as likely as the Queen of England changing the time allowed for parking at a London parking meter.

Coming From Someone who is cofused as to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick being Acadia need I comment here.

No, more like your mortgage. If your mortgage is sold from Toronto Dominion to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce you must still pay it.

Canada was ceded to England not 1867 Canada. No event has changed that fact.

I agree that immigration should be controlled so that people that want to contribute to rather than leach from Canada are invited. Given your hatred of Jews and love of Muslims expressed, I believe, elsewhere I doubt that is what you have in mind.

You are lapsing into some kind of mystical incoherence here. Help me with what you're trying to say.

I hate Jews?? You should re read my posts and you would see if there was hate it would be at Christians and muslims and not jews. I would hardly call it hate. I merely point out the obvious. Jesus was likely brainwashed by his family and was led to believe Angel Gabriel appeared unto Joseph who told Joseph to not go in unto Mary until God did his business on Mary. So you have the so called immaculate conception of God defiling himself by having sex with a woman to beget Jesus. Yeah right......to funny. In a furtherance you have mohammed who sees Angel Gabriel in the Desert and is Given the Koran. Hey whynot God himself?

Fact Jesus dies at 33 (supposedly he resurrected but no one knows where he is at??). Mohammed at 40. If you want short lives you will be Christian and or Muslims. Noah built the ark at 500 years old and died when he 900 years old.

Incoherence? I say alot of things, mostly not in line with the revisionist agenda.

[Leafless]

That's not terribly different to August's flat out statement that Europeans are barbaric. Both comments are, of course, equally silly.

Isn't what this thread is about, Canadians being denied one of their basic Charter rights 'Freedom of Expression' by way of threats of violence originating from Quebec.

This is from an arrogant, self-righteous province that never signed the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 but is a province that has benefitted the most from it.

From the days of the FLQ to to-day violence and anti-Canadian sentiments appears to pay off big time in Canada.

[WestViking]

Rather moronic statement coming from someone who trying to impose themselves on a history that is not theirs.

Only an imbecile would try to claim a history as 'his'. History is a record of events. I am a Canadian and proud enough of my nation to study its beginnings and developments. In a democratic nation of equals, no person or group can announce that they have some separate history that they "own" and thus are unique and superior to others. Yours is the philosophy of easily bruised egos, of replacing positive construction of a society with indignation, with taking offence rather than seeking solutions, of blaming other because history did not work out as you would have liked, and disparaging countrymen who fought and died for your freedoms and rights because they will not dig out the kneepads when you grace us with your presence. The rotten corpse you carry so proudly is remarkable only for its stench. Edited February 22, 2009 by WestViking

[jbg]

Fact is Lafayette tried to regain Canada and it is documented. France Tried to defend Canada during the seven year war but was blocked from doing so.

France lost its effort to defend New Franch. It was not "blocked from doing so".

Maybe the Queen has taken on a ceremonial role but the reality is she has power via the British Parliament to move on Canada.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/ca.html

The Queen is the head of state.

Again I ask. What would happen if the Queen tried to assert any real governing role? The answer is that people would look at her as if she was crazy.

Quebec was divided into two after American Independence to make way for American Freedom Traitors. Upper Canada was mostly an empty field prior to American Independence.

I am an American and on the American side. The "American Freedom Traitors" were at the time British citizens, having not renounced their British citizenship or their loyalty to the King. The victors of the American Revolutionary War remained and became citizens of a new country. I would hardly call the Loyalists "traitors". Maybe people who were scared to entrust themselves to a new, not totally formed country. They are as much traitors as English-speaking residents of Montreal who want their rights as Canadians guaranteed, and do not want some new and arbitrary set of "rights" granted by Quebec City to define their lives.

Are you for you real? Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were Acadia of New France and the residents were deported to Lousianna. Coming From Someone who is cofused as to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick being Acadia need I comment here.

Clearly I mean modern-day Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick. The land was hardly empty after the expulsion of the "Acadians".

Canada was ceded to England not 1867 Canada. No event has changed that fact.

Answered adequately already.

I hate Jews?? You should re read my posts and you would see if there was hate it would be at Christians and muslims and not jews. I would hardly call it hate. I merely point out the obvious. Jesus was likely brainwashed by his family and was led to believe Angel Gabriel appeared unto Joseph who told Joseph to not go in unto Mary until God did his business on Mary. So you have the so called immaculate conception of God defiling himself by having sex with a woman to beget Jesus. Yeah right......to funny. In a furtherance you have mohammed who sees Angel Gabriel in the Desert and is Given the Koran. Hey whynot God himself?

Fact Jesus dies at 33 (supposedly he resurrected but no one knows where he is at??). Mohammed at 40. If you want short lives you will be Christian and or Muslims. Noah built the ark at 500 years old and died when he 900 years old.

Incoherence? I say alot of things, mostly not in line with the revisionist agenda.

I still don't understand your thoughts. Maybe too complex for my weak intellect to comprehend. I know I must either be stupid or very very stupid.

[whowhere]

Only an imbecile would try to claim a history as 'his'. History is a record of events. I am a Canadian and proud enough of my nation to study its beginnings and developments. In a democratic nation of equals, no person or group can announce that they have some separate history that they "own" and thus are unique and superior to others. Yours is the philosophy of easily bruised egos, of replacing positive construction of a society with indignation, with taking offence rather than seeking solutions, of blaming other because history did not work out as you would have liked, and disparaging countrymen who fought and died for your freedoms and rights because they will not dig out the kneepads when you grace us with your presence. The rotten corpse you carry so proudly is remarkable only for its stench.

Buddy I am not the world's whore. 1867 Canada's politicians and bureacrats have driven Canada into cultural immolation. They hate Canada and those of Canada so much they have stripped Canada of the Quality of Life The boomer's parents enjoyed and took for granted but the younger generations can only dream about.

The king of England made a deal with Quebec to manage its own affairs and culture. The plains of Abraham is Quebec's heritage not 1867 Canada's heritage. Until you people recognize 1759 and 1812 is British History there is nothing further to say. History is what it is and the plains of Abraham is not 1867 Canada history but History between France, Quebec and Britain.

[jbg]

Buddy I am not the world's whore. 1867 Canada's politicians and bureacrats have driven Canada into cultural immolation. They hate Canada and those of Canada so much they have stripped Canada of the Quality of Life The boomer's parents enjoyed and took for granted but the younger generations can only dream about.

The king of England made a deal with Quebec to manage its own affairs and culture. The plains of Abraham is Quebec's heritage not 1867 Canada's heritage. Until you people recognize 1759 and 1812 is British History there is nothing further to say. History is what it is and the plains of Abraham is not 1867 Canada history but History between France, Quebec and Britain.

Once again, the problem with that argument is that the "deal" was made after Britain defeated France at the Plains of Abraham. The "deal" was still subject to overall British rule. The fact is that the representatives of Lower Canada participated extremely actively at Charlottetown in the negotiations leading up to 1867.

[whowhere]

Once again, the problem with that argument is that the "deal" was made after Britain defeated France at the Plains of Abraham. The "deal" was still subject to overall British rule. The fact is that the representatives of Lower Canada participated extremely actively at Charlottetown in the negotiations leading up to 1867.

What's your point? The deal was made between the British Monarch and Quebec. The British Monarch still exists and Quebec still exists. Britain didn't defeat anyone. They captured a poorly defended colony. France was blocked from sending its battleships. 20 years later France empowered and established an Independent United States. Part of the conscessions to establish an Independent United States was the ceding of canada to England.

Wait a second??? Something is not adding up?? Why would France need to cede Canada to Britain in the Treaty of Paris when Canada was already under British Occupation since 1759?? wasn't Canada already in British Possession? Ceding an already possessed Canada (?????) in the Treaty of Paris goes to establish a fact that France indeed supported American Independence for the reason of getting Canada back.

Really??? Think about that, if you people can think. Canada/Quebec was already a possession of Britian so why would France need to cede Canada in the Treaty of Paris unless it was clear to Britain as to why France supported American Independence: They wanted Canada and the US fought 4 years to gain Canada. The treaty was designed to establish an Independent United States. At least that was accomplished. France honored its agreement, the United States didn't.

The Contintental Congress fought four years to gain Canada. Why not reenact that fight? Why does everyone dwell on 1759 and 1812. What about 1774 -1778 when the US why trying to gain Quebec?

How about re-enacting that?

[WestViking]

Buddy I am not the world's whore. 1867 Canada's politicians and bureacrats have driven Canada into cultural immolation. They hate Canada and those of Canada so much they have stripped Canada of the Quality of Life The boomer's parents enjoyed and took for granted but the younger generations can only dream about.

The king of England made a deal with Quebec to manage its own affairs and culture. The plains of Abraham is Quebec's heritage not 1867 Canada's heritage. Until you people recognize 1759 and 1812 is British History there is nothing further to say. History is what it is and the plains of Abraham is not 1867 Canada history but History between France, Quebec and Britain.

You are aiming for a record as Canada's premier pretentious poseur though.

[Wilber]

What's your point? The deal was made between the British Monarch and Quebec. The British Monarch still exists and Quebec still exists. Britain didn't defeat anyone. They captured a poorly defended colony. France was blocked from sending its battleships. 20 years later France empowered and established an Independent United States. Part of the conscessions to establish an Independent United States was the ceding of canada to England.

Wait a second??? Something is not adding up?? Why would France need to cede Canada to Britain in the Treaty of Paris when Canada was already under British Occupation since 1759?? wasn't Canada already in British Possession? Ceding an already possessed Canada (?????) in the Treaty of Paris goes to establish a fact that France indeed supported American Independence for the reason of getting Canada back.

Really??? Think about that, if you people can think. Canada/Quebec was already a possession of Britian so why would France need to cede Canada in the Treaty of Paris unless it was clear to Britain as to why France supported American Independence: They wanted Canada and the US fought 4 years to gain Canada. The treaty was designed to establish an Independent United States. At least that was accomplished. France honored its agreement, the United States didn't.

The Contintental Congress fought four years to gain Canada. Why not reenact that fight? Why does everyone dwell on 1759 and 1812. What about 1774 -1778 when the US why trying to gain Quebec?

How about re-enacting that?

So you are maintaining that if the Continental army had been able to drive the British out, the US would have returned Canada to France? I've thought about it and think not.

The side deal signed by France and Britain in 1783 was a redistribution of territories seized in previous wars. France either didn't want Canada back or the British weren't willing to give it back. They got Tobago, Senegal and Newfoundland fishing rights instead. There was no need for France to cede Canada to Britain in 1783 as they had already done so in 1763.

From the Treaty of Paris 1763:

IV: His Most Christian Majesty renounces all pretensions which he has heretofore formed or might have formed to Nova Scotia or Acadia in all its parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with all its dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: Moreover, his Most Christian Majesty cedes and guaranties to his said Britannick Majesty, in full right, Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands and coasts in the gulph and river of St. Lawrence, and in general, every thing that depends on the said countries, lands, islands, and coasts, with the sovereignty, property, possession, and all rights acquired by treaty, or otherwise, which the Most Christian King and the Crown of France have had till now over the said countries, lands, islands, places, coasts, and their inhabitants, so that the Most Christian King cedes and makes over the whole to the said King, and to the Crown of Great Britain, and that in the most ample manner and form, without restriction, and without any liberty to depart from the said cession and guaranty under any pretence, or to disturb Great Britain in the possessions above mentioned. His Britannick Majesty, on his side, agrees to grant the liberty of the Catholick religion to the inhabitants of Canada: he will, in consequence, give the most precise and most effectual orders, that his new Roman Catholic subjects may profess the worship of their religion according to the rites of the Romish church, as far as the laws of Great Britain permit. His Britannick Majesty farther agrees, that the French inhabitants, or others who had been subjects of the Most Christian King in Canada, may retire with all safety and freedom wherever they shall think proper, and may sell their estates, provided it be to the subjects of his Britannick Majesty, and bring away their effects as well as their persons, without being restrained in their emigration, under any pretence whatsoever, except that of debts or of criminal prosecutions: The term limited for this emigration shall be fixed to the space of eighteen months, to be computed from the day of the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.