Elizabeth May wants to fight against Québec

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Benz said:

It is difficult to evaluate from here, but the media tend to picture english canada like a whole monolitic block that thinks like her. I kind have a serious doubt about it. A certain majority at best.

The English Canadian media, politicians and academics ARE a monolithic block on virtually every subject. Certainly they are on the subjects of immigration, multiculturalism and diversity (there can NEVER be too much of any of these). But polls consistently show this is wildly out of touch with most Canadians. Two thirds of Canadians tell pollsters immigrants aren't integrating fast enough. You'll not find a single English Canadian politician, federal, provincial or municipal who will agree. Likewise 61% of Canadians want immigration lowered, but there are NO politicians, not even one, who agrees.

They get away with this (the politicians) because while most Canadians want less immigration and multiculturalism those are not anywhere near their primary motivations in voting. And because the media is ferociously hostile to any voice which even suggests it and continually spews soothing streams of feel-good stories about immigration, refugees and diversity.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

Once again it comes back to monarchy v republicanism.

The British Crown allows for the Two Solitudes, Quebec in its own solitude from the rest of Canada

The rest of Canada however has become fully Americanized like Lizzy May, English Canadians are de facto republicans now.

Americanized republican Canada will bring Confederation down, by trying overthrow Les Deux Solitudes, resulting in the overthrow of Canada itself.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Quebec is enforcing the absence of a religious dress code.

There are barriers to entry in government.

Not everyone can serve in the military.  Not everyone can pass a security clearance check.  Not everyone can be a public servant by default.

Not everyone can work for the Government of Quebec.

Entirely within Quebec's rights, Quebec is not subject to the Charter, as Quebec has not signed the Canada Act.

Those who must have a religious dress code, are free to seek work elsewhere, in English Canada, or America perhaps.

To be honest, I’m hoping to not be a part of the same country as Quebec some day soon, one way or another, so there’s not much point in me debating that.  

Hopefully Quebec separates, or Alberta separates and I’ll move there. It’s not exactly a long shot at this point.

 

 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

To be honest, I’m hoping to not be a part of the same country as Quebec some day soon, one way or another, so there’s not much point in me debating that.  

Hopefully Quebec separates, or Alberta separates and I’ll move there. It’s not exactly a long shot at this point.

Entirely constitutional, so long as it is by peaceful democratic self determination.

Remember that "Canada" is not a nation, "Canada" is Confederation, Confederation is a federation, a federation is simply an agreement.

Also realize that the sky would not fall, Canada would simply revert to its original form, which was the Canada's.

The Canada's will be independent  Dominions with the same relationship to one another as Australia and New Zealand do.

Plus one Republic de Quebec.

Business will carry on, in fact it will carry on better, because Confederation actually grinds things to a halt, without Confederation the Dominions would not be afriad to negotiate, because without the Confederation which has no national interests, the Dominions could for once negotiate based on their own interests.

Edited September 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[-1=e^ipi]

7 hours ago, Benz said:

 I understand that the english canadians beleive that the Queen is chosen by God and the whole monarchy structure relies on the faith the people have in the religion.

Je suis suprisé que tu pense cela. Le grande majorité des canadiens anglais ne le pense pas. Même les canadiens qui soutiennent le monarchie donnent une autre justification comme "c'est la tradition" où "c'est un bonne institution." Par exemple, en Australie il'y avait beaucoup de référendums proche de la monarchie et aussi beaucoup de premiers ministres républicains.

[Dougie93]

Les Canadiens anglais ne croient plus en leur monarchie.

Ils sont républicains américains de facto.

Mais ils ne peuvent pas échapper au fait que le Canada est toujours la Couronne britannique, que cela leur plaise ou non.

 

[Dougie93]

Je suis Canadien Britannique

Je suis la Couronne Britannique

Je suis Anglais

Je suis Français

Seule la Couronne Britannique défend le droit de se séparer de la Confédération

Une république du Canada ne le permettrait jamais

Je suis monarchiste

Je suis pequiste

Dieu sauve la reine, Je me souviens

[Rue]

7 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Votre position et votre Français vous honorent Dougie.

Les ex-Montréalais comme moi sont des gens formidables.

That said, does anyone  In  Quebec really care what Elizabeth May thinks about Quebec, really?

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by Rue

[Dougie93]

N'oublions pas que le Québec n'a jamais été gouverné par la République Française

Québec était Bourbon.  House of Bourbon. 

Bourbon livra le Québec à Hanovre en 1763.   House of Hanover.

Hanovre est la Couronne Britannique.   Became Saxe, Coburg & Gotha when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.   George V changed the family name to Windsor.

Le Québec n'a jamais été qu'une monarchie

D'abord la monarchie française, puis la monarchie britannique

Le Québec n'a jamais été une république.

[Dougie93]

La Couronne Britannique est l'arme la plus importante des Pequistes

La Couronne Britannique est le moyen de sortir de la Confédération.

L'Amérique a mené une guerre pour mettre fin à la sécession.

En vertu de sa propre loi, la Couronne Britannique doit laisser partir le Québec.

[Dougie93]

Ironically, as English Canada has become fully Americanized now, Ville de Quebec is the most British place left in all of Canada.

The Royal 22nd Regiment is the most British regiment in all of Canada.

The Citadel is the last British fortress in North America.

Dieu sauve la reine

Vive la Canadienne

Je me souviens

La prière en famille

[QuebecOverCanada]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Les ex-Montréalais comme moi sont des gens formidables.

That said, does anyone  In  Quebec really care what Elizabeth May thinks about Quebec, really?

 

Remember the Orange Wave in 2011? It was particularly strong in Québec. Why? Because the Québecers have had enough of the Conservatives and the Corrupt Libs from the late 90s- mid 2ks. So they opted for the NDP, with Jack Layton being a charismatic character with his bike and his mustache.

Another scenario in which Québecers may have voted for another party than the traditional ones could be for the Greens who are at about 10%. 

If Liberals and Cons are neck to neck in a Québec county, the deciding factor to win might be which party had its voter base the less split up by other parties.

So Liberals may win if the Greens don't get enough of their votes.

[Zeitgeist]

I met Jack Layton back when, interestingly, I was a member of the Libs.  We all loved him.  The Conservatives loved Jack.  Heartbreakingly sincere.  We all miss him.  

[Dougie93]

I knew Jack Layton pretty well. 

He was a useless dingbat, just because he was a nice guy doesn't mean he wasn't a complete f*ckwit and leftist ass pandering clown show.

He was basically a religious crusader run amok, purity spiraling 19th century Temperance Lady

Good riddance. <spits tobacco juice>

Edited September 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Benz said:

 

 

I think I agree with Westcanman as well, This subject of religious items / clothing if I'm not mistaken is already law, and covered under the Canadian Human Rights act. as stated below . I'm not a lawyer and I am not an expert, but I pretty sure that one can not fire/ dismiss  a person because they refuse to not to wear religious clothing, at work...such as the turban or Kirpan, or even a burka. This is not about Quebec's decision to create their own law, but rather upholding a federal laws and human rights already in place...

Not smoking at work was done for health reasons, and it is not the same thing, Smoking is not a right, or is it covered in our constitution, as far as I know. In some religions they don't have a chioce of wearing certain articles, Such as the Sikh's wearing turbans, or Kirpans (knifes) or head scarfs for instance, you don't care because for you , you have nothing in the game, so who cares right, but to others where religion guides most of, if  not all their lives your asking a lot for them to choose religion or moving to find work outside of Quebec.. Would you think it would be ok if New Brunswick banned speaking French and moved out all the Acadians because they refused to only speak English...Im mean if you refused to speak only English then the problem is you and not bill 21.

Most Canadians are not that religious,  ya we may go to church on Sundays, get married in a church, but we are not going to go to some holy war over it....nor are we going to let it run our entire lives....for the most part I think a majority of Canadians are over religion...but that is not the case in all religions, or races….Hence why we have made some accommodations

The matter of royalty and all that goes with that is not just an English thing, I believe the French have a long history of it as well. "Let them all eat cake" ring a bell. any ways France did away with all that we have not caught up, not that we like Royalty , but as a nation it would be to expensive to change our entire system or dependence on our for of government plus we are not that motivated to change  ,we are  lazy .

I don't think your going to hear anything on this topic until after the federal election, no one wants to be make waves in Quebec before the election....Well except for May but she has nothing really to lose does she...Justin on the other hand.... 

  

Quote

Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide reasonable accommodation to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.^[63] In 2017 the Santo Daime Church Céu do Montréal received religious exemption to use Ayahuasca as a sacrament in their rituals.^[64]

Quote

 

In a 1985 court case involving an employee of the Canadian National Railway, K.S. Bhinder, a Sikh whose religion required that he wear a turban, lost his challenge of the CNR policy that required him to wear a hard hat.^[38] In the 1990 case of Central Alberta Dairy Pool, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the 1985 Bhinder decision, saying: "An employer that has not adopted a policy with respect to accommodation and cannot otherwise satisfy the trier of fact that individual accommodation would result in undue hardship will be required to justify his conduct with respect to the individual complainant. Even then the employer can invoke the BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) defence." ^[39] In the 1991 case of Peel Board of Education v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, an Ontario school board's "zero tolerance" for weapons in its schools had an adverse impact on Khalsa Sikh men who are required by their religion to carry a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger. A Khalsa Sikh teacher brought a complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code and was successful. The school board challenged this to the Ontario Divisional Court on the basis that there was a threat to public safety. The Divisional Court ruled that the threat to public safety from Sikhs was minimal and the discriminatory impact of the ruling on this religious group was significant. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys that Sikh children can wear a kirpan to school based on freedom of religion.

In 1995, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the exemption for Sikhs from wearing the "Mountie hat" as part of the RCMP dress requirements.

 

 

[Dougie93]

Point of order, Marie Antoinette never actually said "let them eat cake", that's a myth. 

She was a spoiled rich girl,  but that's not why the French hated her, they hated her because she was a spoiled Austrian rich girl.

Also the House of Bourbon was not overthrown by spontaneous revolt of the masses due to poverty, also a myth.

The House of Bourbon was overthrown by a cabal of power hungry elites called the Jacobins.

The mistake the House of Bourbon made was backing the Americans against the British.

This was what inspired the French that a crown could be overthrown by rebellion.

The House of Bourbon funded the very Shot Heard Round The World that went around the world and brought them down as a consequence.

 

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Point of order, Marie Antoinette never actually said "let them eat cake", that's a myth. 

She was a spoiled rich girl,  but that's not why the French hated her, they hated her because she was a spoiled Austrian rich girl.

Also the House of Bourbon was not overthrown by spontaneous revolt of the masses due to poverty, also a myth.

The House of Bourbon was overthrown by a cabal of power hungry elites called the Jacobins.

The mistake the House of Bourbon made was backing the Americans against the British.

This was what inspired the French that a crown could be overthrown by rebellion.

The House of Bourbon funded the very Shot Heard Round The World that went around the world and brought them down as a consequence.

 

Yes Dougie my bad , French history is not my bag of tea, however you got my drift, our French Canadians comrades  to my north are tied to France and it's Royal History. or atleast as much as our ties to England and the English Royalty.

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes Dougie my bad , French history is not my bag of tea, however you got my drift, our French Canadians comrades  to my north are tied to France and it's Royal History. or atleast as much as our ties to England and the English Royalty.

I said earlier that they were the House of Bourbon which handed them over to the House of Hanover in 1763 and that Quebec has always been a monarchy and never has been a republic, and i fact the only reason they could secede is because Canada is a monarchy and if Canada was a republic, Quebec would not be permitted to leave, without a civil war at least.

But I said most of that in French, so I guess you missed it.

Mind you a point of order is not a criticism of you, merely a clarification of the true nature of the French Revolution which you invoked as analogy.

[Dougie93]

Understand what the stark difference is between Les Deux Solitudes;

In Quebec they are connected to the central narrative of their history

Which is a French ethnonationalist state, which can only exist in a monarchy where they can be separate and protected from the rest by the Queen who is above Confederation.

In English Canada the Liberals erased British Canada and the central narrative of Canadian history

So now the Anglos are all American republicans by default, awash in the American Hurly Burly which knows no borders.

These two societies are now incompatible, without the British Crown as the Referee to keep them apart, the fur is gonna fly.

Republics is res publica.  Public rule.  There is no zone where you can be a distinct society in a republic; republics demand that you conform to the public rule.

Anybody who does not conform? The Greeks called them barbaros; barbarians

So now republican Canada is reactionary to Bill 21 as being barbaric by the standards of their de facto if not de jure res publica

Monarchist Quebec is telling them to go f*ck themselves. And Quebec has the Queen behind them if need be; Notwithstanding Clause and Clarity Act.

You could not have a Notwithstanding Clause and a Clarity act in a republican constitution. 

Those sorts of paradoxes require a monarch who rules by God and their right.  Special deal for Quebec by order of the Queen in the name of God.

The power that Quebec wields in the face of Canada is the power of the British Crown turned back against the British who have become Americanized over time,

The whole point of the special deal for Quebec by order of the Queen in the name of God;  is to prevent a civil war. 

 The Notwithstanding Clause and Clarity Act are safety valves to keep the shit from hitting the fan.

Americans don't care.   Once you are Americanized, you no longer respect the orders of the Queen in the name of God, and then, again, the fur will fly.

Lizzy May?  Not even Americanized, an actual American from Hartford Connecticut and Democrat Party carpetbagging protege of Hillary Clinton.

No surprise she's throwing hand grenades at Les Deux Solitudes,  she's either reckless or clueless, or in fact she's both.

Not that I mind, bring it on, Lizzy, you clueless dingbat, Molon Labe, Vive le Quebec libre, Yanqui.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

12 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Remember the Orange Wave in 2011? It was particularly strong in Québec. Why? Because the Québecers have had enough of the Conservatives and the Corrupt Libs from the late 90s- mid 2ks. So they opted for the NDP, with Jack Layton being a charismatic character with his bike and his mustache.

The orange wave happened because people were fed up with the BQ, and because there were no other Frenchmen available to vote for. Now that they've got a French guy heading the Liberals, Quebecers will go back to them.

[QuebecOverCanada]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

The orange wave happened because people were fed up with the BQ, and because there were no other Frenchmen available to vote for. Now that they've got a French guy heading the Liberals, Quebecers will go back to them.

Yet the collapse of the Bloc didn't provide any gains for the Liberals who were almost wiped out of Canada, and the Conservatives didn't do well neither in Québec. 

[Dougie93]

The CAQ are Pequistes, they are simply right wing reactionary Pequistes.   People got fed up with the socialist lefty Pequites and formed a new Pequiste party,

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Yet the collapse of the Bloc didn't provide any gains for the Liberals who were almost wiped out of Canada, and the Conservatives didn't do well neither in Québec. 

They didn't have French leaders. And they were known quantities. The people who fled the BQ were looking for something new and fresh - and left wing.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Argus

[Dougie93]

The BQ is starting to make a comeback down in Oka.

Things are heating up again between la Belle Province and the Iroquois Six Nations Confederacy led by their military Hegemon the Mohawks

The Federalists are favouring the Mohawks, this is inciting the Quebecois to summon the Pequistes in the face of an Ottawa-Iroquois alliance against Quebec libre.

And notice the recklessly inconsistent Federalist policy;  Identity politics, virtue signalling, French white people bad, poor little Indians good.

On the one hand they oppose Quebec ethnonationalism while on the other they are enforcing Mohawk ethnonationalism.

Paradox; fur is gonna fly.  The Federalists are both republican and loonie left wing Progressive.  

That is a witches brew when it comes to national unity,  Confederation is highly unstable, very bad governance will have momentous consequences.

Edited September 7, 2019 by Dougie93

[taxme]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I hate E May, I think it’s a total insult to this country that she’s still the leader of a federal party. 

That being said, I have her back on this one. 

It has already been established that Sikhs can ride motorbikes without a helmet, and that’s a bigger deal than walking through a hallway with a piece of religious headwear. 

Bottom line is that Canada is a place that tolerates religions, and the last thing that I want to see is us starting to resemble a middle-eastern style country that’s enforcing a religious dress code. 

I draw an extremely hard line on people in a position of power over our children talking about their religious beliefs in public schools though. 

IMO they can wear what they want but if they tell the kids anything that resembles “this is what you can or can’t do because of my religion” or “this is what’s inferior about your belief system/country” that’s grounds for immediate dismissal.

There are schools where they can indoctrinate young, impressionable kids with their parents’ approval, but there’s not one square inch of a public school for that. 

 

Oh the joys of multiculturalism and diversity. What better way to cause chaos and havoc in a country and create animosity towards one another than to force the host people of a country to have to accept the rest of the world's religions, traditions and cultures and place them on par with the host countries religion, traditions and culture. A recipe for a racial and religious disaster. It will happen. All is needed is a little more time to see the results of what happens when a country tries to force several different religions and traditions and cultures together.

A prime example of this is with the Islamic/Muslim religion. They think all Canadians are infidels and they need to be treated as such. In BC there are private Sikh schools. Does this look like Sikhs want to become a part of the Canadian culture? I don't think so. It looks to me like they want to have their own Sikh nation in Canada. And as you said above? Sikhs can ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. That is racism short, sweet and simple against other motorcycle riders in BC. Canada is fast becoming a very dumb looking country. Aw well.