Multiculturalism, Trudeau, Quebec & Landry

[August1991]

Last Monday, there was a rally in Montreal celebrating the 30th anniversary of the enacting of the Bill 101. At the rally, Bernard Landry said this about immigrants:

"It is our duty to integrate them and tell them the truth, that Quebec is not multicultural,'' said Landry, who served as PQ premier from March 2001 to April 2003.

"The culture of Viviane Barbot (a Montreal Bloc MP of Haitian origin) and myself are the same. Her ancestors did not come from Ile d'Orleans, but she contributes to the enrichment of Quebec's culture. When we choose to live in Denmark, we know we must be Danish. When our flag flies in front of the United Nations building, when we choose to come to Quebec, we know it will be to become a Quebecer.''

CTV

Indeed, Landry went a litle bit further. He also stated that Quebec is not bilingual. It's unilingual French:

«Le Québec n'est pas bilingue non plus, a poursuivi M. Landry. La langue officielle du Québec, c'est le français. La langue commune du Québec, c'est le français pour tous les gouvernements du Québec.»

La Presse

This provoked (of course) The Gazette. Among other things, it noted that the Quebec government is happy to distribute tax forms in English and French.

As a former minister of revenue he knows very well however unilingual other departments of government become, income-tax forms are easily available in English.

Link

Landry is technically correct. Quebec has French as its official language - at least within the confines of Canada's constitution. And the official policy of the Quebec government is not "multiculturalism" but rather "interculturalism". The Quebec's ministry of immigration describes its vision thus:

Contribuer au développement et à la prospérité du Québec en faisant en sorte que les personnes immigrantes et les membres des communautés culturelles participent pleinement à la société québécoise et que les relations interculturelles soient harmonieuses.

MICC

I suppose that you could probably replace the word "intercultural" by "multicultural" and the text would mean about the same - assuming that anyone knows what either word really means.

My French forum has an ongoing debate on this very topic and it jibes with my own experience. The current view of "interculturalism" in Quebec - at least as people such as Landry imagine it - is nothing more than the old "melting pot" idea in the US. Foreigners come to the New World and assimilate into the existing soup. True, the soup changes a bit but not by much. Overall, Quebec culture remains what it is - and it certainly expresses itself in French.

Now this seems strange. A pequiste Landry agrees with a neo-con Steyn. Here's what Mark Steyn had to say about multiculturalism:

As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures--the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don't want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It's a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.

Some people might argue that if Steyn and Landry are against something, that's reason enough to be in favour of it. Indeed our Charter states explicitly:

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Charter? That means Trudeau, no? Well, did Trudeau create this idea of multiculturalism? And if so, what did he mean?

Let's go to the words of the master himself (in the House of Commons on 8 Oct 1971):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be able to reveal to the House that the government has accepted all those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which are contained in Volume IV of its reports directed to federal departments and agencies. Hon. members will recall that the subject of this volume is "the contribution by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution".

Volume IV examined this whole question of cultural and ethnic pluralism in this country and the status of our various cultures and languages, an area of study given all too little attention in the past by scholars.

It was the view of the royal commission, shared by the government and, I am sure, by all Canadians, that there cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.

...

A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.

...

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the view of the government that a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice.

At this point, I must say that this is how I recall the original policy of multiculturalism. It was a consequence of dealing with the fact that many people in Canada don't speak the same language. If Canada is to remain a federal state, then it cannot have a single cultural policy. Multiculturalism was a creation not of Trudeau but of the Royal Commission but as Trudeau noted, it's the only viable policy if, as many on this forum frequently point out, Canada is not a country of "two founding nations".

----

If we stop and think about this, the Western world itself is both multicultural and multilingual. People live many different ways and they speak many different languages. These constantly evolve. If there is any single principle that should guide the West, it should be the primacy of the individual's freedom to choose.

[Black Dog]

Good post August. The trouble with any debate about official multicultralism in Canada is that no one (it seems) can quantify how that policy works in practice. Oh sure people are quick to pull out certain examples (like Mounties in turbans, kirpans in schools, sharia tribunals in Ontario) but are seldom able to tie them to official multicultralism. Failing that, multicultralism's foes will (as the Steyn example above illustrates beautifuly) simply invent their own definition of multicultralism to rail against (in debating, such creations are known as "strawmen"). At the end of the day, we're left with little idea as to how our officially multicultural society differs from unofficially multicultural societies such as the U.S. And I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the policy of official multicultralism was designed simply to provide jobs for the civil service.

[Leafless]

If we stop and think about this, the Western world itself is both multicultural and multilingual.

Which really is a meaningless statement, something most everyone knows.

People live many different ways and they speak many different languages.

What does this got to do with Canada?

These constantly evolve. If there is any single principle that should guide the West, it should be the primacy of the individual's freedom to choose.

And these are the beliefs of socialist Mr. Pierre Elliot Trudeau who never did have any business forcing and implementing his cultural aspirations on Canadians and their already established country.

The Royal Commission never did consider initially a multicultural Canadian society but initially only considered a bilingual and bicultural one but was forced to include all cultures making it multicultural. I often wondered how the Liberals (government of the day) influenced this commission as the commission was bent on cultural aspirations and something that Trudeau agreed with, "It was the view of the royal commission, shared by the government", "quoted from the transcript, House of Commons on 8 Oct 1971)"

Facts are, obviously he thought the White English speaking Christian Canadians (both Catholic and Protestant) wielded to much political power, and did not want Quebec to play any type of underdog and decided to do something about it.

Now this to me represents a treachery on the same basis as traitorism.

And like what August stated, "If Canada is to remain a federal state, then it cannot have a single cultural policy"

This of course are the twisted words that still damn Canada and Canadians to-day, outright blackmail.

What bothers me, is that no political action was ever taken to halt this blackmail and it continues to this day with the ROC catering to Quebec costly demands both monetary and political.

[Pliny]

The creation of the department of Multi-culturalism is an excellent demonstration of how individuals of considerable intellect can be blinded by ideology, and Turdeau seemed to have fallen prey to his idealistic visions. I was reading about Tommy Douglas who thoroughly embraced Hitler and his National socialist movement for a time until he visited Germany and saw Hitler's brand of socialism in practice. Why would he support things like Eugenics and sterilization being of such superior intelligence? Perhaps for that exact reason. He loved the power and sway he had over other men too much, I believe. He liked to portray himself as the representative of the common man. Fighting for the little guy, neglecting that the little guy, the individual, is drowned and nullified in the collective. Was it his love of humanity or his love of power that was prime in his political ambition? A display of one's love of power never got anyone ahead but cloaked with a love of humanity lays the world at your door - but there is a lot of competition for power out there. Both Turdeau and Douglas, in my opinion, had a very dim view of the little guy, who was obviously too stupid to help himself and needed great leadership and direction and the help of the State to live the simplest of lives.

Multiculturalism? Mark Steyn has the right idea about it. How can culture be legislated and remain vibrant and alive? Preserved in the formaldehyde of legislation, it stagnates.

[Black Dog]

I was reading about Tommy Douglas who thoroughly embraced Hitler and his National socialist movement for a time until he visited Germany and saw Hitler's brand of socialism in practice.

Proof?

Why would he support things like Eugenics and sterilization being of such superior intelligence?

Surely you are aware that such views were quite commonplace at that time.

[August1991]

At the end of the day, we're left with little idea as to how our officially multicultural society differs from unofficially multicultural societies such as the U.S. And I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the policy of official multicultralism was designed simply to provide jobs for the civil service.

I suppose that multiculturalism, in a federal state, simply means that the central government should not be involved in cultural policies - except maybe to ensure the unity of the federation.

IOW, I'm convinced that we underproduce new ideas. I'm just not sure how governments should get involved in helping to produce them.

The Royal Commission never did consider initially a multicultural Canadian society but initially only considered a bilingual and bicultural one but was forced to include all cultures making it multicultural. I often wondered how the Liberals (government of the day) influenced this commission as the commission was bent on cultural aspirations and something that Trudeau agreed with, "It was the view of the royal commission, shared by the government", "quoted from the transcript, House of Commons on 8 Oct 1971)"

Facts are, obviously he thought the White English speaking Christian Canadians (both Catholic and Protestant) wielded to much political power, and did not want Quebec to play any type of underdog and decided to do something about it.

Now this to me represents a treachery on the same basis as traitorism.

And like what August stated, "If Canada is to remain a federal state, then it cannot have a single cultural policy"

This of course are the twisted words that still damn Canada and Canadians to-day, outright blackmail.

What bothers me, is that no political action was ever taken to halt this blackmail and it continues to this day with the ROC catering to Quebec costly demands both monetary and political.

Blackmail?

Leafless, I have read your post several times and I genuinely don't know what you mean. If the "White English speaking Christian Canadians (both Catholic and Protestant) wielded to much political power", then why would a policy of multiculturalism solve the problem?

Or do you mean that Canada should have a single cultural policy?

Please explain.

Multiculturalism? Mark Steyn has the right idea about it. How can culture be legislated and remain vibrant and alive? Preserved in the formaldehyde of legislation, it stagnates.

Steyn's meanderings into demography - a minefield for anyone unfamiliar with probability - gave me pause. This made me go back and review his rants on multiculturalism.

Simply put, there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. In a civilized society, we must live together and accept that we are different. Many years ago, I recall smoking a cigarette upstairs in a London bus and watching a punk turn to a blue-tint pensioner and politely ask directions. I realized that a civilized society means respect for differences.

Steyn's problem is not with multiculturalism - it's with people who don't respect civilization.

Edited August 31, 2007 by August1991

[Pliny]

Proof?

Surely you are aware that such views were quite commonplace at that time.

Proof? The data is in his university thesis per the Western Standard.

And yes I do know such views were commonplace at that time. I was of course inferring that men considered to be of superior intellect can have wrong ideas. Because the views were commonplace is not a reason for people to have accepted them, especially men considered to be of superior intellect.

[Pliny]

Steyn's meanderings into demography - a minefield for anyone unfamiliar with probability - gave me pause. This made me go back and review his rants on multiculturalism.

Simply put, there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism. In a civilized society, we must live together and accept that we are different. Many years ago, I recall smoking a cigarette upstairs in a London bus and watching a punk turn to a blue-tint pensioner and politely ask directions. I realized that a civilized society means respect for differences.

Steyn's problem is not with multiculturalism - it's with people who don't respect civilization.

There is something wrong with legislating multiculturalism. A society that is inclusive must be multicultural by nature. If it is exclusive it will legislate culture, providing largesse for some cultures and penalizing others. WE find today in Canada All manner of laws to make cultures equal. In a natural evolving society any turn the majority decides to take does not mean minorities are forced to go along. They decide for themselves if they wish to contribute to the majority evolving culture or get left behind like Mennonites, or establish their own communities such as in Toronto. It is a thoroughly divisive process to legislate culture. There will of course be division among cultures naturally but they will eventually blend if they aren't all encouraged to maintain separate identities, and why should that scenario exist in a nation?

Immigration policies contribute to making all manner of cultures equal as well. When in Rome do as the Romans would be a more workable creed. Whatever people in Canada are doing do as they do. If they are all being assimilated by Quebec, or by Natives then so be it. They can preserve their culture dependent upon how important it is to them and not because some do-gooder feels the disappearance of earthen huts built by European settlers on the prairies as part of a culture is a loss society cannot bear and they must be legislated into existence and preserved forever more. Who wants to live in a teepee these days? It's ok as a novelty but when that wears off give me a place with plumbing, heating and electricity. I don't think anyone would be denied the right to live in a tepee if they so desired, go ahead, but what for? Living the simple life would perhaps be the only attraction to that, in my view.

[geoffrey]

Proof?

Surely you are aware that such views were quite commonplace at that time.

Tommy Douglas was quite the anti-semetic guy at times. Beyond that, his university thesis actually was in eugenics. He would make Harper look like a pot smoking hippy in terms of social conservatism!

In 1924, Douglas attended Brandon College to study for the ministry. While there, Douglas was influenced by the social gospel movement, which combined Christian principles with social reform. He graduated from Brandon College in 1930, and completed his Master's degree (MA) in Sociology from McMaster University in 1933. His thesis entitled The Problems of the Subnormal Family was on eugenics, a way to "solve the problems of the Subnormal Family" by sterilizing mentally and physically disabled Canadians, and sending them to camps.[2] He later rejected this theory after a trip to Nazi Germany in 1938. He rarely mentioned his thesis later in his life, and his government never enacted eugenics policies (it may be noted that two Canadian provinces, Alberta and British Columbia, had eugenics legislation in the 1930s, and that the philosophy was not discredited in North America prior to World War II).

I hate to do it, but I just quoted Wiki.

By the way, my personal experience is that nothing good ever comes from sociology majors... Douglas or Dion.

Edited August 31, 2007 by geoffrey

[Argus]

Good post August. The trouble with any debate about official multicultralism in Canada is that no one (it seems) can quantify how that policy works in practice. Oh sure people are quick to pull out certain examples (like Mounties in turbans, kirpans in schools, sharia tribunals in Ontario) but are seldom able to tie them to official multicultralism. Failing that, multicultralism's foes will (as the Steyn example above illustrates beautifuly) simply invent their own definition of multicultralism to rail against (in debating, such creations are known as "strawmen"). At the end of the day, we're left with little idea as to how our officially multicultural society differs from unofficially multicultural societies such as the U.S. And I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the policy of official multicultralism was designed simply to provide jobs for the civil service.

I would say that the policy of multiculturalism, in practice, has governments encouraging people to cling to old ways, to rejoice and take pride in their existing culture and value system, and actively discourages them from abandoning it and embracing the culture of their new homeland. It involves grants and moneys for ethnic festivals and cultural centres, for ethnic language training, and for tailoring government programs to minority ethnic cultures. It involves "respect" to the extent of playing down, or even actively supressing what might be called "local culture" and traditions which might offend the sensibilities of those of foreign cultures, and accepting the offensive practices and customs of foreign cultures without complaint or criticism.

This policy went furthest in the United Kingdom, a total embracing of multiculturalism and respect for all foreign cultures and lack of respect for their own. Unsurprisingly, this has led to a situation where ethnic newcomers and even ethnic members born in the UK feel more kindship with foreign countries than with their fellow citizens, and often feel contempt and revulsion for the native British culture.

[Leafless]

Blackmail?

Leafless, I have read your post several times and I genuinely don't know what you mean. If the "White English speaking Christian Canadians (both Catholic and Protestant) wielded to much political power", then why would a policy of multiculturalism solve the problem?

Or do you mean that Canada should have a single cultural policy?

Please explain.

What I said was:

Facts are, obviously he thought the White English speaking Christian Canadians (both Catholic and Protestant) wielded to much political power, and did not want Quebec to play any type of underdog and decided to do something about it.

Fact are 'he', I was referring to Trudeau.

And the rest of what I said:

"Now this to me represents a treachery on the same basis as traitorism."

And like what August stated, "If Canada is to remain a federal state, then it cannot have a single cultural policy"

And I said:

"This of course are the twisted words that still damn Canada and Canadians to-day, outright blackmail."

Well, it is blackmail by threatening (bottom line separation) if Canada is to remain a federal state IT CANNOT HAVE A SINGLE CULTURAL POLICY.

You wrote: "then why would a policy of multiculturalism solve the problem?"

I never said it would.

What I said was: "The Royal Commission never did consider initially a multicultural Canadian society but initially only considered a bilingual and bicultural one but was forced to include all cultures making it multicultural.''

I included this as your Trudeau quote: "Mr. Speaker, I am happy this morning to be able to reveal to the House that the government has accepted all those recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism " simply because bilingualism and biculturalism was never a reality to base anything on and was changed by pressure from the provinces to multiculturalism.

BTW- I do favour a unified Canada but not based on culture per say but what the majority of Canadians feel what is important in the way of common objectives. i.e. religion, marriage, schools, Canadian traditons, etc.

Quebec should have left years ago.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Leafless

[August1991]

And like what August stated, "If Canada is to remain a federal state, then it cannot have a single cultural policy"

And I said:

"This of course are the twisted words that still damn Canada and Canadians to-day, outright blackmail."

Well, it is blackmail by threatening (bottom line separation) if Canada is to remain a federal state IT CANNOT HAVE A SINGLE CULTURAL POLICY.

Leafless, Canada has two official languages because many people living in Canada can only speak one language. These people do not want to learn a new language because they and their parents and grand parents have lived here speaking this language. Canada is not a bilingual country.

Canada's language policy is distinct from its "cultural" policy. Should the State even have a "cultural" policy? Bureaucrats must speak to us in a language but should the State prefer a "culture"? The Americans, with smart origins in the 18th century, separated Church and State. Trudeau, in the quote above, separated Culture and State. He called this separation Pluralism or Multiculturalism. The State can discriminate according to language but nor according to "culture".

Trudeau quoted in OP:

For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.

I'll only add that Trudeau's use of the word "fairly" is remarkable. "Fair" is a complicated English word of no easy translation. I suspect that Trudeau used it as his mother and father did.

I would say that the policy of multiculturalism, in practice, has governments encouraging people to cling to old ways, to rejoice and take pride in their existing culture and value system, and actively discourages them from abandoning it and embracing the culture of their new homeland.

God knows what the Liberal appartachiks have done with this idea, and what Trudeau condoned to make the federal State bilingual.

In truth though, multiculturalism is simply the idea that there is no State cultural. In cultural matters, we are on our own.

And I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the policy of official multicultralism was designed simply to provide jobs for the civil service.

It involves grants and moneys for ethnic festivals and cultural centres, for ethnic language training, and for tailoring government programs to minority ethnic cultures.

For once, BD and Argus and I seem to agree. Trudeau's idea of multiculturalism, once in the hands of Liberal hacks, became a way to buy certain voters in a "good" cause.

Was Trudeau wrong to let the politicals turn multiculturalism into a vote winner?

First, Trudeau (like Putin) wanted to preserve the status of a central government in a diverse territory. Trudeau compromised many times to keep Canada together since this was Trudeau's priority.

Second, when confronted with the issue of culture and language, Trudeau wisely chose language over culture. Go back to the OP and read Landry's statement. Quebec now defines itself primarily by language, not culture.

Third, Trudeau was an individualist. His first writings were about an individual's freedom in a just society. Trudeau admired the idea of a government encouraging cultural activities but he would have found abhorent the idea of an "official" culture, or even a "bi-cultural" state.

It is sad that Pierre Trudeau and Mark Steyn never had the chance to debate. I have no doubt that Trudeau would have won any argument. Steyn is a lightweight. Yet, they both have similar beliefs: The individual's right to live freely.

Edited December 13, 2007 by August1991

[mikedavid00]

I'm left with the sneaking suspicion that the policy of official multicultralism was designed simply to provide jobs for the civil service.

I agree.

Every job in ottawa it seemed required French. It was impossible for me to get a job. Even here in Toronto you'd be very suprised how many jobs want French. That's funny when all the Quebecers can speak English.

Culture is at its best when everyone brings it together.

Regardless of gov't policy, if you let in too many people from other worlds in a border too fast, you will get segregation and ghettoisation no matter what gov't policy you have.

[mikedavid00]

Or do you mean that Canada should have a single cultural policy?

The gov't should not be in the business of legislating culture.

Why do you feel you need the gov't to tell you what to do?

The gov't should have declare an official language and that's it.

[Brain Candy]

I was of course inferring that men considered to be of superior intellect can have wrong ideas. Because the views were commonplace is not a reason for people to have accepted them, especially men considered to be of superior intellect.

Of course smart people can be wrong, but why especially? Wouldn't the average to lower class opinions be easier to sway through propaganda and the like?

I agree that the government should'nt regulate culture, especially through affirmative action.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Brain Candy

[mikedavid00]

The State can discriminate according to language but nor according to "culture".

Lol..

The state has given our money to 'cultural groups' and spends $5B a year in 'culture'.

Where is this seperation of the two? There is a most definite mix of culture and state.

[guyser]

Lol..

The state has given our money to 'cultural groups' and spends $5B a year in 'culture'.

I bet you hate when facts get in the way of an arguement. It does kind of ruin it for you doesnt it?

If $5B =$3.5B then okay. Otherwise...BS !

And cultural spending includes, broadcast film ($1.6B) and video, book publishing, sound recording.Museum, parks, historic sites (those would be Canadian-oh gosh!!) to the tune of $937Million.

Do the math, any ethinic festivals getting money from the feds are getting a mere pittance .

So in other words, not way off , but rather so far off you would need a map to find the original map.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051031/d051031b.htm

[Kapitän Rotbart]

IMHO, multiculturalism is a phenomenon and not a value.

I'd be quite willing to abolish all cultural funding in Canada... we should pull the plug on public funding towards the CBC, aspiring Canadian artists, etc. and most certainly abolish the Canadian Content media law. If Canadians cannot produce culture/art without subsidies, then Canada is not worthy of having its own distinct culture.

Subsidized culture is not genuine IMHO.

If Québec wants to celebrate their own culture, that's fine by me. I don't live there, and it is not their responsibility to identify nor to celebrate foreign culture. If minority groups want to celebrate their culture, they should be free to do so.

Why does anyone care to value and/or measure multiculturalism? Official multiculturalism (in Canada, Australia and Sweden) is a cute title to make us sound pretty, however at the end of the day, official multiculturalism means nothing, because we must learn to integrate into the mainstream society of our locale, live with those in our communities regardless of nationality/ethnicity and we ought to have the freedom to celebrate our culture if we choose to do so.

Discrimination based on nationality is bigotry. Discrimination based on language may or may not be bigotry. If it's a required skill, it's understandable that one would discriminate against those who are not bilingual where bilingualism is required. If it's a question of first language, that could be considered as discrimination based on nationality/ethnicity, and that is grounds for filing a complaint.

[mikedavid00]

Subsidized culture is not genuine IMHO.

I agree. Great post.

[MontyBurns]

Here is my opinion on this:

Multiculturalism = junk

Trudeau = idiot, traitor

Landry = traitor

Bill 101 = junk

[jbg]

Here is my opinion on this:

Multiculturalism = junk

Trudeau = idiot, traitor

Landry = traitor

Bill 101 = junk

Great synposis. Why didn't Trudeau, and especially Landry, hang?

[Borg]

Last Monday, there was a rally in Montreal celebrating the 30th anniversary of the enacting of the Bill 101. At the rally, Bernard Landry said this about immigrants:CTV

Multiculturalism: Equtes to politically engineered racism.

Trudeau - piss on his grave in a heartbeat.

Landry - another separatist that loves sucking on the taxpayers tit.

Nothing good has come from it.

The socially re-engineered canuckleheaded citizen is now afraid to stand for anything - less the human rights folks and theit taxpayer supported kangaroo courts cause them legal and financial grief.

If you are from kebec you can be a racist and get away with it because you are protecting kebec culture.

Borg

[Borg]

Great synposis. Why didn't Trudeau, and especially Landry, hang?

Because it would have caused civil war.

Borg

[M.Dancer]

Great synposis. Why didn't Trudeau, and especially Landry, hang?

..the rumour, supported by the numerous feathers in Pierre's hat was that as a swordsman he was quite adept and indeed, remarkably hung.

[jbg]

Because it would have caused civil war.

Borg

Our country emerged the stronger for it. And I read a few quotes from Dion's anniversary (of Bill 101) remarks. Rank treason, from the alleged Captain Canada.

As far as that kind of war, the Plains of Abraham worked out just fine for English Canada. I thought it was all settled there.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jbg