Conseil Scolaire du District Centre Sud Ouest

Leafless · April 6, 2006

Michael Harding

You don't even know what a Quebecer is.

Most Quebec federalist or separatist are Quebec Nationalist and mostly fly their own flag the 'Fleur de Lise' and not Canada's flag the 'Maple Leaf' and being Canadian is second to being a Quebecer.

Your reply to my post is senseless and I believe you can't even read right to where as you are changing the dialogue to suit your own thoughts.

In fact I don't think your even an English Canadian or French Canadian but some kind of 'citizen of the world' with confused politcal thoughts or maybe even some type of lefty crusader.

Have a good day Monsieur Harding!

geoffrey · April 7, 2006

Incorrect. Canadian politicians acting in their self-interest against separatist cause effectively and decisively.
They were not French. They were Canadian. They opposed separatism and their plan has worked so far.

If having 1/4 of the Canadian people not agreeing to the consitution is working, then by all means, keep up the Federalism. It doesn't work, ever wonder why the more centralised our system gets, the more support for separation increases?

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2006

Michael Harding
You don't even know what a Quebecer is.

Someone from Quebec ?

I guess you're going to expect me to defer to your opinion on what a Quebecker is.

Most Quebec federalist or separatist are Quebec Nationalist and mostly fly their own flag the 'Fleur de Lise' and not Canada's flag the 'Maple Leaf' and being Canadian is second to being a Quebecer.

And the only province that thinks of themselves as Canadian first is Ontario, as has been posted here.

Your reply to my post is senseless and I believe you can't even read right to where as you are changing the dialogue to suit your own thoughts.

Sorry, Leaf, but I do know the difference between opinions and facts.

The definitive quote above from you is 'if that's not proof then I don't know what is'. That was posted at the end of a piece void of fact or argument. It might be easier if you just post a list of groups you don't like.

In fact I don't think your even an English Canadian or French Canadian but some kind of 'citizen of the world' with confused politcal thoughts or maybe even some type of lefty crusader.

Watch your spelling when you're deriding my English skills.

I am English Canadian, but stop trying to figure me out and focus on the discussion if you are able.

Have a good day Monsieur Harding!

Merci bien. :lol:

I appreciate the discussion. I am open minded, but I need something to put in there other than your feelings on an issue.

Read the article I linked to, for example, and try to refute it for a start.

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2006

If having 1/4 of the Canadian people not agreeing to the consitution is working, then by all means, keep up the Federalism. It doesn't work, ever wonder why the more centralised our system gets, the more support for separation increases?

Well, MacLuhan would say something about the balkanization of America, I suspect. Separation is a fad that comes and goes, though and so far they haven't gone.

Leafless · April 7, 2006

Hardner and his latest 'FACTS' in his last post.

1- Facts on separation...I suspect separation is a fad that comes and goes.

2- Facts on what a Quebeckers political loyality and ideology is...Someone from Quebec.

3.- Facts further describing a Quebecers political ideoligies... And the only province that thinks themselves as Canadian first is Ontario, as has been posted here.

4. Facts on what constitutes proof concerning the constitution as fraudulent.... Sorry, Leaf but I do know the difference between opinion and facts.

5. Facts concerning Hardners politcal mentality... Watch your spelling when your deriding my English skills.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant and so informative and factual that I can't stop LOL.

Oh, and concerning your 1999 article ..it's outdated.

CTV had a poll Oct.23/2005 with 49% of Quebecers in favour of another referendum and 48% against.

And the last Quebec referendum the results were very close with 85% voter turnout voted 51% against and 49% in favour of separation.

So in fact all is not well relating to the Quebec separation problem.

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2006

Hardner and his latest 'FACTS' in his last post.
1- Facts on separation...I suspect separation is a fad that comes and goes.

Yes, it goes up in down in the polls. When it hits 50%, and the PQ is in office they try a referendum... and fail.

2- Facts on what a Quebeckers political loyality and ideology is...Someone from Quebec.

What is a 'Quebecker' was the question.

The answer - somebody from Quebec. As predicted, you're going to try to change this very obvious definition to something devious.

3.- Facts further describing a Quebecers political ideoligies... And the only province that thinks themselves as Canadian first is Ontario, as has been posted here.
4. Facts on what constitutes proof concerning the constitution as fraudulent.... Sorry, Leaf but I do know the difference between opinion and facts.

5. Facts concerning Hardners politcal mentality... Watch your spelling when your deriding my English skills.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant and so informative and factual that I can't stop LOL.

Thank you/Merci.

Oh, and concerning your 1999 article ..it's outdated.
CTV had a poll Oct.23/2005 with 49% of Quebecers in favour of another referendum and 48% against.

Yes. See my previous point.

And the last Quebec referendum the results were very close with 85% voter turnout voted 51% against and 49% in favour of separation.
So in fact all is not well relating to the Quebec separation problem.

What has it been - 34 years since official bilingualism ? The country is still together. I suspect Harper will decentralize government to the satisfaction of Quebeckers, securing the BQ vote in the commons and further unifying the country.

Harper is an Ontarian, and thus sees the value of a united Canada.

I'm glad we're finally in agreement on the other points.

Cheers.

Leafless · April 7, 2006

Canadian provinces are NOT officially bilingual with the excepton of New Brunswick and federal implemented bilingualism under federal entities badly discriminates against the English majority.

You quoted a typo in a single paragraph that should have read 'not officially bilingual' as the same as the preceeding paragraph and quoted in several of my post in this same thread as Canada being 'not officially bilingual'.

In fact I don't agree with you in anything as your replies did not disprove any of my posts with any type of intelligence other than cheap trolling/flaming which is against this websites guidelines.

Michael Hardner · April 7, 2006

Canadian provinces are NOT officially bilingual with the excepton of New Brunswick and federal implemented bilingualism under federal entities badly discriminates against the English majority.

Nonsense. You can't discriminate against English people by offering additional services in French.

That's like saying barbers discriminate against bald people.

You quoted a typo in a single paragraph that should have read 'not officially bilingual' as the same as the preceeding paragraph and quoted in several of my post in this same thread as Canada being 'not officially bilingual'.

I'm sorry but I thought you had posted something upon which we agreed - a building block upon which we could launch a productive discussion.

In fact I don't agree with you in anything as your replies did not disprove any of my posts

As I said, it's difficult to disprove an opinion. So you're right - I didn't disprove anything because you haven't posted enough material that is substantial enough to discuss.

For example, let's examine this quote of yours:

" Who was working to unify the country---French minority politicians acting in the interest of Quebec who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum as it was the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec."

What is there to prove or disprove in your post above ? Let's look at it closely, breaking it down.

1. French politicians were acting in the interest of Quebec.

Well, they were acting in the interest of national unity, which includes all provinces but that isn't what you were getting at, I suspect. In order to prove that they were acting in the interest of Quebec to the exclusion of the rest of Canada you would have to provide some kind of evidence, which you did not.

2. ...who are not in the positon in my opinion to implement anything outside of Quebec without a full parliamentry debate and a national referendum.

As you state yourself in this sentence - it is your opinion only. I'm hardly in the position to disprove an opinion. If you want to show this as a fact, and not an opinion, you would have to cite some reason why a referendum would be required. Then we could discuss it.

3. ...the British who won Canada not the French and Quebec.

Well, this is a fact at least. You are correct, of course, but the relevance to the discussion is unclear.

...with any type of intelligence other than cheap trolling/flaming which is against this websites guidelines.

If you think you have a case here, then report me to the moderator.

I have been fairly begging you to post something other than your personal opinions on the motives of Quebec born politicians. You regard these opinions of yours as "proof" but they are nothing of the sort.

How can I be expected to disprove that ?

Leafless · April 7, 2006

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " Nonsense. you can't discriminate by offering additonal services in French."

I'd be inclined to agree with you if what you say is factual but is not.

Bilingualism within our federal public service is mandatory for the bulk of clerical positons and managers.

The bulk of federal jobs is in the province of Ontario a province that is not 'officially bilingual' along with Quebec a province that is not 'officially bilingual but a province that has declared itself 'officially unilingual French'.

This would automatically appear to view Quebeckers as unsuitable for federal employment due to the rejection of bilingualism at the federal level and in their own province since they do not believe in any kind of bilingualism policy.

Ontario residents who are majority English are being forced to learn French for employment in the federal public service despite their province not being 'officially bilingual' but always did freely offer bilingualism policies where numbers warrant in the province of Ontario.

This is outright federal discrimination against the English since the governments positon on 'offical bilingualism was never qualified by Canadians at large through some external process.

Now we will go over the facts again concerning Trudeau and his Liberals with significant representation from Quebec within the Liberal party who initially were responsible for the inclusion of the Chater of Rights and Freedoms which benefitted Quebec enormously under federal control and interpretation.

What happened Michael was that new Constitution Act of 1982 was imposed on Canadians without parliamentry debate of any kind and without a national referendum making it totally undemocratic.

This Michael makes this Constitution fraudulent due to the fact no government has the ethical and moral right to do this no matter what the reason as we already had a legal and binding constitution.

And relating to the fact the British won this country is important relating to the BNA ACT and the FACT that the Queen is STILL Head of State and Queen of Canada.

iamcanadian2 · April 8, 2006

The biggest mistake Canada made was not kicking Quebec out of the federation 30 years ago. When Quebec cried that it would leave, the ONLY proper answer was SO LEAVE!

Canada would have been a much better place today without the Bananada the French-Canadians have created with their entittlements to special distinct advantages over the 80% of Canadians who are Non-French Canadians.

geoffrey · April 8, 2006

The biggest mistake Canada made was not kicking Quebec out of the federation 30 years ago. When Quebec cried that it would leave, the ONLY proper answer was SO LEAVE!
Canada would have been a much better place today without the Bananada the French-Canadians have created with their entittlements to special distinct advantages over the 80% of Canadians who are Non-French Canadians.

Canada would also be better without all the advantages to immigrants and ethnic minorities. This is especially true to all the handouts we give to the Indians. Now that is a good place to direct your anger.

iamcanadian2 · April 8, 2006

Canada would also be better without all the advantages to immigrants and ethnic minorities. This is especially true to all the handouts we give to the Indians. Now that is a good place to direct your anger.

How typically French Canadian. You are an ethic foreign minority group when its suits you AND you are the official Canadian language and culture when its suits you.

Sucking and Blowing to have things both ways.

French Canadians are either a minority group equal to the Punjabi or any other foreign group (and can then be treated equally as any other minority; OR you are the encumbant Domestic Canadian Culture that the minority Groups must deal with as such.

Make up your damned minds and stop screwing all Non-French Canadians by flip flopping to gain advantages for your own Minority Group.

Michael Hardner · April 8, 2006

Bilingualism within our federal public service is mandatory for the bulk of clerical positons and managers.
The bulk of federal jobs is in the province of Ontario a province that is not 'officially bilingual' along with Quebec a province that is not 'officially bilingual but a province that has declared itself 'officially unilingual French'.

This would automatically appear to view Quebeckers as unsuitable for federal employment due to the rejection of bilingualism at the federal level and in their own province since they do not believe in any kind of bilingualism policy.

This is twisted logic. Federal services are provided across the nation, and official bilingualism dictates that these services are offered in both languages.

Excluding Quebeckers from federal employment simply because separatism exists in Quebec would be grossly unfair, obviously.

Ontario residents who are majority English are being forced to learn French for employment in the federal public service despite their province not being 'officially bilingual' but always did freely offer bilingualism policies where numbers warrant in the province of Ontario.
This is outright federal discrimination against the English since the governments positon on 'offical bilingualism was never qualified by Canadians at large through some external process.

Now we will go over the facts again concerning Trudeau and his Liberals with significant representation from Quebec within the Liberal party who initially were responsible for the inclusion of the Chater of Rights and Freedoms which benefitted Quebec enormously under federal control and interpretation.

What happened Michael was that new Constitution Act of 1982 was imposed on Canadians without parliamentry debate of any kind and without a national referendum making it totally undemocratic.

This Michael makes this Constitution fraudulent due to the fact no government has the ethical and moral right to do this no matter what the reason as we already had a legal and binding constitution.

And relating to the fact the British won this country is important relating to the BNA ACT and the FACT that the Queen is STILL Head of State and Queen of Canada.

Your concerns are noted, but how can you on one hand demand that the federal government surrender its jurisdiction in the provinces, then on the other hand claim the federal government (who received endorsement for the constitution from the provinces) was outside its jurisdiction in that case ?

Given that you think these people are evil, it seems to me that you will use whatever logic suits the scenario to undermine the authority of the federal government.

Leafless · April 8, 2006

Michael Harding

You wrote- " This is twisted logic. Federal services are provided across the nation, and official bilingualism dictates these services are offered in both languages."

You are correct when you refer to official bilingualism in the federal governement since outside of New Brunswick that is the only place bilingualism is official.

With that being said again you refer to 'federal services' as the medium pertaining to 'official federal bilingualism' when of course this is not the only factor.

The other important criteria (discriminates against the common majority English language) concerning the 'purpose of offical bilingualism' in the federal government is to

(1) Provide the right of employees to work in the language of their choice.

(2) Provide the participation of English AND French speaking Canadians in federal institutions.

This is immoral and unethical concerning the imposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Canadians in provinces that ARE NOT officially bilingual and clearly shows the federal contempt againt provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected 'official bilingualism'.

You wrote- " Excluding Quebecers from federal employment simply because separatism exist in Quebec would be grossly unfair, obviously."

Why, they reject all forms of any kind of bilingualism policy in Quebec.

And what does separatism got to do with it ....They never signed the 1982 Constitution so that means THEY NEVER REALLY JOINED.

You wrote- " But how can you demand on one hand surrender it's jurisdiction in the provinces, then on the other hand claim the federal government ( who received endorsement for the constitution from the provinces) was outside it's jurisdiction in that case."

Something as important as our Constitution should have absolutely have been be left in the hands citizen's of Canada to agree to and not left to the whims of provincial premiers to ratify.

The British and the Queen over a war gave us our original BNA Act along federal and separate provincial rule.

In 1982 Trudeau and the Liberals with Quebec political aspirations and the premiers gave us a linguistically doctored constitution WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITIZEN'S of the country.

Michael Hardner · April 8, 2006

You wrote- " This is twisted logic. Federal services are provided across the nation, and official bilingualism dictates these services are offered in both languages."
You are correct when you refer to official bilingualism in the federal governement since outside of New Brunswick that is the only place bilingualism is official.

With that being said again you refer to 'federal services' as the medium pertaining to 'official federal bilingualism' when of course this is not the only factor.

The other important criteria (discriminates against the common majority English language) concerning the 'purpose of offical bilingualism' in the federal government is to

(1) Provide the right of employees to work in the language of their choice.

(2) Provide the participation of English AND French speaking Canadians in federal institutions.

This is immoral and unethical concerning the imposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms on Canadians in provinces that ARE NOT officially bilingual and clearly shows the federal contempt againt provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected 'official bilingualism'.

I think it's wrong to say that provinces have rejected official bilingualism. Most provinces west of Ontario don't have enough French people to offer services in French.

You wrote- " Excluding Quebecers from federal employment simply because separatism exist in Quebec would be grossly unfair, obviously."
Why, they reject all forms of any kind of bilingualism policy in Quebec.

And according to you, they 'reject' bilingualism in Alberta too. So should Albertans and Quebeckers be banned from public service ?

And what does separatism got to do with it ....They never signed the 1982 Constitution so that means THEY NEVER REALLY JOINED.

That was my summation of your viewpoint as far as I could make it out.

You wrote- " But how can you demand on one hand surrender it's jurisdiction in the provinces, then on the other hand claim the federal government ( who received endorsement for the constitution from the provinces) was outside it's jurisdiction in that case."
Something as important as our Constitution should have absolutely have been be left in the hands citizen's of Canada to agree to and not left to the whims of provincial premiers to ratify.

The British and the Queen over a war gave us our original BNA Act along federal and separate provincial rule.

In 1982 Trudeau and the Liberals with Quebec political aspirations and the premiers gave us a linguistically doctored constitution WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CITIZEN'S of the country.

Twenty five years ago, Trudeau attempted to bring Canada into the twentieth century, to unify this country and have our own constitution. It's now the twenty first century and you want us to behave as if it's nineteenth.

My advice to you is to let it go. You have a much bigger concern coming up as local services start to get added in Cantonese, Mandarin, Hindi and a host of languages that were heard in the colonies as you would call them.

Leafless · April 8, 2006

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " I think it's wrong to say the provinces have rejected official bilingualism. Most provinces west of Ontario don't have enough French people to offer services in French."

All Canadian citizens did not have the opportunity to to participate in a process to accept or reject the Constitution of 1982 and it's volatile changes which included federal undemocratic advancement of offical bilingualism.

You wrote- " And according to you, they reject bilingualism in alberta. So should albertans and quebecers be banned from the public service."

Where did I say Alberta rejects bilingualism ? Where did I say Alberta has no bilingual policies or programs????

You wrote- " This was my summation of your viewpoint as far as I could make out."

This is not my viewpoint ...This is FACT.

You wrote- " Twenty-five years ago Trudeau attempted to bring Canada into the twentieth century to unify this country and have our own constitution . It is now the twenty first century and you want us to behave as if it's the nineteenth."

Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1953 was barred from the U.S. because of his communist affiliations?

Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1956 led a communist delegation to Peking for a Red Victory celebration???

The constitution was patriated from Britain to make amendments if required.

AMENDMENT= " a minor improvement in a document (esp. a legal or statutory one).

What Mr. Trudeau did (again) was without the permission of the citizens of Canada included as an amendment The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which included sections containing discriminatory and undemocratic legislation in esp. sec. 16 -(1-3) esp.(3) and 16.1 which in fact undemocratically changed the face of this country concerning the promotion and advancement of a minority culture directly imparing the rights of others in a free and democratic society.

This was No amendment ---This was rewriting the Constitution of Canada in a very discriminatory and undemocratic manner almost as if the Liberal government coupled with Quebec political aspirations initiated a rebellion against English Canadians free and democratic established society and WON.

You also wrote- " My advice to you is to let go . You have a much bigger concern as local services start to get added in Cantonese, Mandarin, hindi and a host of other languages that were heard in the colonies as you would call them".

I'am not worried as the tiny percentage this represents means nothing officially speaking.

My advice to you is to stop acting as an arbitrator and debate properly or don't participate.

Michael Hardner · April 8, 2006

Michael Hardner
You wrote- " I think it's wrong to say the provinces have rejected official bilingualism. Most provinces west of Ontario don't have enough French people to offer services in French."

All Canadian citizens did not have the opportunity to to participate in a process to accept or reject the Constitution of 1982 and it's volatile changes which included federal undemocratic advancement of offical bilingualism.

The government isn't obliged to put everything to a referrendum.

There have been several governments in place since then, and none of them moved to dismantle the constitution. The Conservative government of Mulroney even attempted to bring Quebec in with the Meech Lake accord.

You wrote- " And according to you, they reject bilingualism in alberta. So should albertans and quebecers be banned from the public service."
Where did I say Alberta rejects bilingualism ? Where did I say Alberta has no bilingual policies or programs????

Here:

"and clearly shows the federal contempt againt provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected 'official bilingualism'."

What provinces rejected official bilingualism then ? I'm using your terminology so please explain.

This is not my viewpoint ...This is FACT.

No, it's your viewpoint as you still haven't given any evidence.

You write of provinces that "reject bilingualism" then get up in arms when I say the same thing. You state that Quebeckers should be banned from public service - it's not fact but opinion.

You wrote- " Twenty-five years ago Trudeau attempted to bring Canada into the twentieth century to unify this country and have our own constitution . It is now the twenty first century and you want us to behave as if it's the nineteenth."
Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1953 was barred from the U.S. because of his communist affiliations?

Maybe he was. I don't know. I guess that means that he didn't repatriate the constitution ? Maybe he wasn't Prime Minister either ?

Is this the same Pierre Trudeau that in 1956 led a communist delegation to Peking for a Red Victory celebration???

Perhaps it was. I haven't heard that. If that's true, does that mean that the constitution never happened ?

The constitution was patriated from Britain to make amendments if required.
AMENDMENT= " a minor improvement in a document (esp. a legal or statutory one).

What Mr. Trudeau did (again) was without the permission of the citizens of Canada included as an amendment The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which included sections containing discriminatory and undemocratic legislation in esp. sec. 16 -(1-3) esp.(3) and 16.1 which in fact undemocratically changed the face of this country concerning the promotion and advancement of a minority culture directly imparing the rights of others in a free and democratic society.

Said "promotion and advancement" is based on skills, not on birthright. If you had the volition to learn another language then you would have the same chance as anybody else to get a bilingual job, all other things being equal.

So the discrimination that you're harping about doesn't exist.

This was No amendment ---This was rewriting the Constitution of Canada in a very discriminatory and undemocratic manner almost as if the Liberal government coupled with Quebec political aspirations initiated a rebellion against English Canadians free and democratic established society and WON.

I can't believe you said 'almost' there. I know you think the whole thing was a conspiracy but, again, you only have your prejudices to back you up.

You also wrote- " My advice to you is to let go . You have a much bigger concern as local services start to get added in Cantonese, Mandarin, hindi and a host of other languages that were heard in the colonies as you would call them".
I'am not worried as the tiny percentage this represents means nothing officially speaking.

I think it's 50% and counting in Toronto. If you weren't so focussed on the nineteenth century, I imagine you'd be horrified by what's going on there in the twenty first. You can get city services in Vietnamese, Spanish and many other languages.

My advice to you is to stop acting as an arbitrator and debate properly or don't participate.

Well, I'm talking about facts at least.

The gist of your argument is "There's a conspiracy there which I know to be true." Well, pardon me but it seems more to me that you have an axe to grind than a legitimate complaint. Yes, Quebeckers speak English better and they end up with a better chance at bilingual government jobs.

To me, working for the government would be more of a punishment than a benefit, but maybe you aspire to different things. If you want to work for the government so badly then take a summer course and go to it.

Maybe it would work better if we just discussed other failings of bilingualism.

iamcanadian2 · April 9, 2006

Canada would also be better without all the advantages to immigrants and ethnic minorities. This is especially true to all the handouts we give to the Indians. Now that is a good place to direct your anger.

How typically French Canadian. You are an ethic foreign minority group when its suits you AND you are the official Canadian language and culture when its suits you.

Sucking and Blowing to have things both ways.

French Canadians are either a minority group equal to the Punjabi or any other foreign group (and can then be treated equally as any other minority; OR you are the encumbant Domestic Canadian Culture that the minority Groups must deal with as such.

Make up your damned minds and stop screwing all Non-French Canadians by flip flopping to gain advantages for your own Minority Group.

iamcanadian2 · April 9, 2006

I am inclined to agree that restricting second language education to French is unreasonable, however, French is still a good choice in many communities.

This is the whole problem.... It is not a choice. French is shoved down the Non-French Canadian throuts.

There are too many people here that are already bilingual (probably the majority of Canadians are bilingual, only NOT with French. Those people are discriminated against and the rights trampled upon by the French bilingual Canadians.

I move for abolishing mandatory French from the Ontario school curiculum and making French Only Language Schools private schools NOT funded by our tax dollars.

iamcanadian2 · April 9, 2006

Conseil Scolaire du District Centre Sud Ouest

http://www.csdcso.on.ca

This is the biggest of a set of French Canadian "Separatist" Public School Boards in Ontario paid for by Ontario Provincial Education Money collected from all Ontario Taxpayers equally.

They blanket the whole Province of Ontario. They serve communities by bussing children to their schools at the publics expense for 50 miles or more and each child is bussed from great distances that other Public School Board will not and cannot afford to do, everyday.

This daily bussing operation is done to maintain themselves separate from the rest of the population, like some RELIGIOUS SECT to avoid socializing with Non-French Canadians like as if the rest of us have the plague.

They are spearheaded by our French-speaking Canadian Public Servants and exists to exclusively serve and advance French Canadians Only over all others that live in the Province of Ontario.

They have no elected representatives with all individuals to Board elected posts being aclaimed to their public offices, some being also their Chief Brreaucrats the work within the organization itself.

The separatist schools operating in Ontario are built and paid to hold twice the number students they actually have. They enjoy things like bussing students free of charge from far off distances to congregrate them together and at the Ontario taxpayer's expense. With half the students per teacher than the other public school systems that are instead crowded and splilling over into portables everywhere.

Why do Non-French Canadians in Ontario continue to stand by and let their tax dollars be abused this way by a minority group in Ontario that is less than 5% of the population to let them enjoy all these extra benefits and specifically designed extra public services that also divides our citizens.

French Canadians generally work less, produce less, yet get to enjoy more benefits in government services and get it in more exclusive ways than the 95% that are Non-French Canadians.

The Non-French Canadians must stand up for their rights as the majority and stop letting French Canadians walk all over them.

French Canadians in Ontario are less important as a monirity group than the Punjabi or most of the other newer and more numerous immigrants than the decendants of the few French Canadians in this province.

Leafless · April 9, 2006

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " The government isn't obliged to put everthing to a referendum."

And that's why I say the constitution is fraudulent and not worth the paper it's written on as well as being an immoral and undemocratic move on the part of the Liberal government.

This Liberal doctored constitution overides the one given to us by the victors of this country and represents 'a slap in the face' to the British, the Queen, democracy and it's values and I would go so far to say it borders on treason.

The Mulroney Conservatives would not touch the constitution with a ten foot pole with Mulroney himself being a Quebecer. All other governments in power any length of time, it's leaders were from Quebec. and I think Canadians will never again trust anyone from Quebec.

You wrote-from my post " and clearly shows the federal contempt against provinces and English speaking Canadians that rejected official bilingualism".

This was relating to imposing the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' relating to any or all English speaking Canadians from any province who opposed this Charter without the liberals knowing for certain without a national referendum that this would be the accepted thing to do.

The Liberal clearly imposed the Charter not caring what Canadians thought.

You wrote- " Perhaps it was. I have not heard that. If that's true does that mean the constitution never happened."

No, it means or strongly suggest Trudeau had adverse thoughts about democracy and as far as Iam concerned explains his imposing the Charter without a referendum. He was off in da-da land- everthing fair and equal=communism

It's obvious you do not agree with my post and oppose a free democratic country and agree with Trudeau, Quebec, and immigrants ...one I trust you are.

You and I are on a completley different wavelengths so I suggest you not waste my time any further and I from now on will ignore anything you might post anywhere in this forum as you are biased against a free and democratic country.

I will continue to fight for my democratic English majority rights as a loyal Canadian and hope Mr. Harper will proceed with changes to our constitution to unravel the damage the Liberals have done to this country.

Michael Hardner · April 9, 2006

It's obvious you do not agree with my post and oppose a free democratic country and agree with Trudeau, Quebec, and immigrants ...one I trust you are.

Your statement is proof of two things.

You use a defense mechanism known as psychological projection. This is "unconsciously assuming that others have the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions on any given subject as oneself." You only argue from the point of view of self-interest, and project this trait onto others.

Secondly, your instincts are off. I'm not an immigrant.

It's not surprising to me that you have bad instincts, having read your fantasies of star-chamber plotting by Quebeckers to ruin the country but perhaps you can learn something about yourself from this episode.

You and I are on a completley different wavelengths so I suggest you not waste my time any further and I from now on will ignore anything you might post anywhere in this forum as you are biased against a free and democratic country.

I would submit that what you believe in is tyranny of the majority. Let's see if you still feel that way when English speaking Canadians of British heritage are far in the minority.

I believe that the US and Canadian constitutions are solid, if flawed documents.

I will continue to fight for my democratic English majority rights as a loyal Canadian and hope Mr. Harper will proceed with changes to our constitution to unravel the damage the Liberals have done to this country.

Mr. Harper won't attempt anything as exclusionary and biased as banning Quebeckers from public service, if that's what you're hoping for.

The Canada you're hoping for just can't happen anymore (thank God) because immigrants are the only people who are growing this country right now. Do you think Mr. Harper is going to stop immigration ? I certainly don't.

iamcanadian2 · April 9, 2006