Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Perhaps. I dated a gal about 10 years ago from Western Minnesota who pronounced the word about "a-BOOT", just like a Canadian would.

I have a feeling the Canadian provinces west of Quebec share a lot more in common with the American states bordering with them, than most people suspect. I also have a feeling Canadians generally have the best quality of the Americans, while minimizing the nastier aspects of the Americans.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Perhaps. I dated a gal about 10 years ago from Western Minnesota who pronounced the word about "a-BOOT", just like a Canadian would.

I have a feeling the Canadian provinces west of Quebec share a lot more in common with the American states bordering with them, than most people suspect. I also have a feeling Canadians generally have the best quality of the Americans, while minimizing the nastier aspects of the Americans.

I tend to agree. I have a host of Canadian relatives, and even when they're trying to be nasty, they tend to miss the juglar. If it wasn't so damn cold there, I'd move.

Canada is finished

Canada's House of Commons passed a controversial bill yesterday opposed by religious believers and free-speech advocates who say it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

The bill, passed 141-110, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.



"It's been a good week for equality in Canada," said the bill's sponsor, Svend Robinson, an openly homosexual member of Parliament.

The vote came just a day after MPs narrowly defeated a nonbinding motion reaffirming marriage is between a man and woman only.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents fear if Robinson's bill becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

"I was not surprised it passed, because we have a morally bankrupt government which cannot see past its bizarre liberal ideology," Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition, told WorldNetDaily.

The bill now goes to the Senate, which usually rubber stamps the House's legislation. Rushfeldt said he hopes the Senate will at least debate the issue and bring up "inherent dangers" in the bill not discussed in the House, but thinks that is not likely.

The legislation then is signed into law by the governor general, who represents the queen.

Robinson insisted an amendment protects religious expression, but opponents note recent court cases in which judges have favored homosexual rights when they clash with the rights of religious believers.

Some members of Parliament called it a "dangerous" law that muzzles free speech, including Liberal Party member John McKay, who dubbed it a "chill bill."

"Anybody who has views on homosexuality that differ from Svend Robinson's will be exposed rather dramatically to the joys of the Criminal Code," he said, according to the Edmonton Sun.

Rushfeldt contends one of the law's dangers is the term "sexual orientation" is not defined. He noted the American Psychiatric Association lists 24 behaviors under "sexual orientation." They include polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia.

"So if in fact the term does include pedophilia, the law protects it [from 'hate speech']," he said.

Robinson said fears that freedom of speech and religion will suffer are "a mask for homophobia for people who don't want to be honest about the real reason why they don't want to include sexual orientation in the law," according to the Toronto Globe and Mail.

He said he regularly receives hateful e-mails, the Toronto paper said, and his Burnaby, B.C., office was trashed in 1988 when he became Canada's first openly homosexual member of Parliament.

Paul Martin will succeed Chrietien as Liberal leader. If elections still take place in Feb. or March, I say that there is no way that the Tories can unite with the Alliance and make an effective run at the Grits. The timing is just off.

It's official: The Canadian right has been (re)united

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/s...tory/National/

The thing is though, unless Martin royally screws up after Chretien leaves, the new party won't stand a chance due to bad timing. If the Alliance and Tories had joined forces in 2001 or 2002, they would have been better off next year. Instead, their best shot will probably come the election after next (by 2009). Last time I checked, Canada didn't want American-style conservatism. Martin shouldn't call for elections until late 2004 or early 2005 only to be fair to the new party.

The Canadian government is warning its citizens not to appear "boastful" to Americans, who it says suffer from insecurity over the war in Iraq.
.....

"A few express some concern over the U.S.' implied dependence on Canada for energy. ... However, Canada should be careful not to appear "boastful," which could backfire, as Americans do not like to be reminded of any kind of dependence on another country," the report warned, according to the Ottawa paper.




Canada government: Americans insecure
Focus-group report urges citizens
not to boast near 'sensitive' Yanks :shock:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The Canadian government is warning its citizens not to appear "boastful" to Americans, who it says suffer from insecurity over the war in Iraq.
.....

"A few express some concern over the U.S.' implied dependence on Canada for energy. ... However, Canada should be careful not to appear "boastful," which could backfire, as Americans do not like to be reminded of any kind of dependence on another country," the report warned, according to the Ottawa paper.




Canada government: Americans insecure
Focus-group report urges citizens
not to boast near 'sensitive' Yanks :shock:

Oh, my god! This means that, here in Seattle which is so very close to the Empire of Canada, there could very well be unidentified Canadian agents all over our very streets. If they are not wearing their Maple Leaf armbands we would never know (unless they speak, especially if they say "aboot" instead of "about", always a dead giveaway).
Actually last week in the Seattle Times there was an editorial about Canada, how they are relatively unchurched and liberal and tolerant about things such as gay marriage and medical marijuana, and even just plain old marijuana smoking. Then the editorial asked "So when did Seattle take over Canada?"

Former Tory supporters recently saw their worst fears come true when ex-Alliance Stephen Harper was elected as the Conservatives' leader

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years. This is the latest example, of which you can make what you will.

Canada Considers Permitting Limited Sharia Implementation

The following is quoted for discussion and illustration only without intention of profit or infringement.


Canada's Sharia Option

By Val MacQueen
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 10, 2004

"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Suad Almad at her women?s group in Toronto. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law.? The speaker, a Somalian, was admitted to Canada as a refugee, thanks to the generosity of the citizenry of Canada, twelve years ago. But that wasn?t enough. Now she has decided that Canada?s tradition of one law applied equally to everyone isn?t to her taste.

According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, up piped another woman at the same meeting, who also thinks Muslims should be judged according to their own beliefs. ?No stealing, no drugs, no sex without marriage. No pork. This is our law. A man may take a second or third wife if he is able to support them financially. Yes, there is jealousy, but it is allowed under Sharia. We are Somali and we are Muslim. When we go to court, the judge understands the secular system, but doesn't understand Sharia law.?


So after 12 years in the country, they apparently haven?t had the will to commit themselves to Canadian citizenship, although they do have the impudence to suggest that Canada amend its laws to suit them.



Well, we all thought the Netherlands or France would be the first to adopt some form of Sharia law as the thin end of the wedge of catering to Muslim immigrants who universally appear unable to fit in with their host societies. Yet the Netherlands has just put a four-year moratorium on all immigration, including ?asylum seekers?, has stopped schooling Muslim children in the home language of their parents/grandparents, and has closed down many of its Muslim community centers. And France is banning the headscarf on school property and is shoveling undesirable imams out of the country at a rate of knots.



So Canada has become the first country in the West to kowtow to immigrant Islamic demands that they not only have a right to settle in the country and be free to practice their religion unhindered, but also the right to bring their own laws with them.



Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, began lobbying for a Sharia court around two years ago. He claims that the tribunals would allow Muslims to practice freedom of religion, as though they couldn?t before. ?Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries like Canada are like wandering Bedouins.



?Although they are free to live according to the Divine Law to practice their faith unhindered in their homes and mosques, they have practically no say in the making of the laws of the land and governmental institutions do not cater to their needs.? This, of course, is because we in the West have people we call ?elected representatives? to formulate laws, after proper debate. If you can?t get elected, you are not a lawmaker.



At the moment, the Sharia tribunals will be only for settling civil disputes between Muslims.



Human Rights Announcements notes: ?Firstly, this is an issue of law and not religion per se.

Secondly, the scope of such a court is only in the sphere of personal family law so do not entertain thoughts on the criminal law aspects of the Sharia.? Yet. Point number three begs the question, where have we heard that one before? ?Third, there are legal safeguards in place to ensure abuses of power do not occur.? ?Fourth, there is already legal precedent for this such as the Sentencing Circles of Canadian Aboriginal peoples.?



World News Net, however, does not take such a sunny view, saying, ?Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery.? This may sound a little panicky right now, but how many people 20 years ago would have believed that a civilized Western country would one day tack a Koran-dictated law into its system? How many people 20 years ago had even heard of the Koran?



Among other Canadians who have retained their sanity, there are some Muslim women concerned that they will not be treated fairly in civil disputes with males. Under Sharia, ?a woman's testimony ... counts only as half that of a man. So in straight disagreements between husband and wife, the husband?s testimony will normally prevail. In questions of inheritance, whilst under Canadian law sons and daughters would be treated equally, under the Sharia daughters receive only half the portion of sons. If the Institute were to have jurisdiction in custody cases, the man will automatically be awarded custody once the children have reached an age of between seven and nine years.?



Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general, said a 1991 Ontario arbitration law permits such arbitration according to religious principles, just as rabbis in Jewish communities and priests in Christian communities help to resolve civil disputes.



?People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable. If they decide to resolve disputes using principles of Sharia and using an imam as an arbitrator, that is perfectly acceptable under the arbitration act.? He added that both parties to a dispute had to enter into arbitration on a voluntary basis.



The system with rabbis as arbitrators to which Crawley refers is the Beit Din, which can settle civil disputes between Jews (and, as it happens, anyone else who asks for its help). As these courts have been contributing to the peaceful settlement of civil disputes in Toronto, for example, for a couple of hundred years, they are regarded as benign and highly respectable. In fact, there are instances of gentiles asking for their help and agreeing to be bound on decisions based on Jewish law. Sharia tribunals are being ushered in camouflaged by the well-earned respectability of Beit Din.



Among Canada?s 600,000 Muslims, however, not everyone welcomes this move and fears that Muslim women, who only count as half a man under Sharia, have been addressed by nothing but platitudes of the ?trust us? variety. One of these is to train some Muslim women as arbitrators, although, given the above beliefs, it follows that a Muslim man would presumably be able to dispute a decision arrived at by a female arbitrator as her decision would only count for half as much as a decision from a male arbitrator.



There is disquiet about this move within Ontario?s Muslim community itself. According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, Alia Hogben, a board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she opposes the religious tribunals. ?It is difficult to speak up because we don't want to feed into anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic stuff that is developing now. We are religious Muslim women. We don't want to come across as anti-Muslim. On the other hand, we cannot be quiet about something that worries us.?



The same Syed Mumtaz Ali quoted above quickly moved to play the multiculti card, saying, ?It offers not only a variety of choices, but shows the real spirit of our multicultural society.? But blogger Instapundit notes, there is no free choice being offered Muslims. Once these sharia courts exist, a Muslim cannot simply opt to go to a normal arbitration tribunal instead. ?On religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out ? would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract ? and this would be tantamount to blasphemy or apostasy.? As Instapundit adds, ?You are aware that blasphemy and apostasy are among the worst crimes in Islam, in many countries punishable by death.?



Canada has a rational, just, internationally respected legal system, put in place by elected representatives over the course of 200 years with the consent of its citizenry. The introduction of a primitive form of law based not on justice, but on superstition, must be regarded by everyone outside the country as important proof that Canada has lost its moorings. Airy protests to the contrary, they have handed Muslim immigrants the thin end of the wedge. If we know anything about the attitudes of Islamic immigrants to the West, this will evolve over the ensuing years, under the banner of ?religious freedom? (which they deny to everyone but themselves), into a full scale parallel legal system for Muslims within Canada. And how long after that until, like an aggressive virus, it begins to eat into the body of its host?



Who would have guessed the first Western country to set its feet on the path of dhimmitude would be in the New World and not the old?



Dhimmi Watch defines dhimmitude as: ?The status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, ?protected people?, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they ?feel themselves subdued? (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race. The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.'

Oh, Canada!

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years. This is the latest example, of which you can make what you will.

Canada Considers Permitting Limited Sharia Implementation

The following is quoted for discussion and illustration only without intention of profit or infringement.


Canada's Sharia Option

By Val MacQueen
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 10, 2004

"It's something nobody can change and we must follow," said Suad Almad at her women?s group in Toronto. "We come to Canada and we become lost . . . We need our own court and we need our own law.? The speaker, a Somalian, was admitted to Canada as a refugee, thanks to the generosity of the citizenry of Canada, twelve years ago. But that wasn?t enough. Now she has decided that Canada?s tradition of one law applied equally to everyone isn?t to her taste.

According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, up piped another woman at the same meeting, who also thinks Muslims should be judged according to their own beliefs. ?No stealing, no drugs, no sex without marriage. No pork. This is our law. A man may take a second or third wife if he is able to support them financially. Yes, there is jealousy, but it is allowed under Sharia. We are Somali and we are Muslim. When we go to court, the judge understands the secular system, but doesn't understand Sharia law.?


So after 12 years in the country, they apparently haven?t had the will to commit themselves to Canadian citizenship, although they do have the impudence to suggest that Canada amend its laws to suit them.



Well, we all thought the Netherlands or France would be the first to adopt some form of Sharia law as the thin end of the wedge of catering to Muslim immigrants who universally appear unable to fit in with their host societies. Yet the Netherlands has just put a four-year moratorium on all immigration, including ?asylum seekers?, has stopped schooling Muslim children in the home language of their parents/grandparents, and has closed down many of its Muslim community centers. And France is banning the headscarf on school property and is shoveling undesirable imams out of the country at a rate of knots.



So Canada has become the first country in the West to kowtow to immigrant Islamic demands that they not only have a right to settle in the country and be free to practice their religion unhindered, but also the right to bring their own laws with them.



Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, began lobbying for a Sharia court around two years ago. He claims that the tribunals would allow Muslims to practice freedom of religion, as though they couldn?t before. ?Muslim minorities living in non-Muslim countries like Canada are like wandering Bedouins.



?Although they are free to live according to the Divine Law to practice their faith unhindered in their homes and mosques, they have practically no say in the making of the laws of the land and governmental institutions do not cater to their needs.? This, of course, is because we in the West have people we call ?elected representatives? to formulate laws, after proper debate. If you can?t get elected, you are not a lawmaker.



At the moment, the Sharia tribunals will be only for settling civil disputes between Muslims.



Human Rights Announcements notes: ?Firstly, this is an issue of law and not religion per se.

Secondly, the scope of such a court is only in the sphere of personal family law so do not entertain thoughts on the criminal law aspects of the Sharia.? Yet. Point number three begs the question, where have we heard that one before? ?Third, there are legal safeguards in place to ensure abuses of power do not occur.? ?Fourth, there is already legal precedent for this such as the Sentencing Circles of Canadian Aboriginal peoples.?



World News Net, however, does not take such a sunny view, saying, ?Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law, or Sharia, in disputes between Muslims, possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery.? This may sound a little panicky right now, but how many people 20 years ago would have believed that a civilized Western country would one day tack a Koran-dictated law into its system? How many people 20 years ago had even heard of the Koran?



Among other Canadians who have retained their sanity, there are some Muslim women concerned that they will not be treated fairly in civil disputes with males. Under Sharia, ?a woman's testimony ... counts only as half that of a man. So in straight disagreements between husband and wife, the husband?s testimony will normally prevail. In questions of inheritance, whilst under Canadian law sons and daughters would be treated equally, under the Sharia daughters receive only half the portion of sons. If the Institute were to have jurisdiction in custody cases, the man will automatically be awarded custody once the children have reached an age of between seven and nine years.?



Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ontario attorney general, said a 1991 Ontario arbitration law permits such arbitration according to religious principles, just as rabbis in Jewish communities and priests in Christian communities help to resolve civil disputes.



?People can agree to resolve disputes any way acceptable. If they decide to resolve disputes using principles of Sharia and using an imam as an arbitrator, that is perfectly acceptable under the arbitration act.? He added that both parties to a dispute had to enter into arbitration on a voluntary basis.



The system with rabbis as arbitrators to which Crawley refers is the Beit Din, which can settle civil disputes between Jews (and, as it happens, anyone else who asks for its help). As these courts have been contributing to the peaceful settlement of civil disputes in Toronto, for example, for a couple of hundred years, they are regarded as benign and highly respectable. In fact, there are instances of gentiles asking for their help and agreeing to be bound on decisions based on Jewish law. Sharia tribunals are being ushered in camouflaged by the well-earned respectability of Beit Din.



Among Canada?s 600,000 Muslims, however, not everyone welcomes this move and fears that Muslim women, who only count as half a man under Sharia, have been addressed by nothing but platitudes of the ?trust us? variety. One of these is to train some Muslim women as arbitrators, although, given the above beliefs, it follows that a Muslim man would presumably be able to dispute a decision arrived at by a female arbitrator as her decision would only count for half as much as a decision from a male arbitrator.



There is disquiet about this move within Ontario?s Muslim community itself. According to the Washington Post Foreign Service, Alia Hogben, a board member of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, said she opposes the religious tribunals. ?It is difficult to speak up because we don't want to feed into anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic stuff that is developing now. We are religious Muslim women. We don't want to come across as anti-Muslim. On the other hand, we cannot be quiet about something that worries us.?



The same Syed Mumtaz Ali quoted above quickly moved to play the multiculti card, saying, ?It offers not only a variety of choices, but shows the real spirit of our multicultural society.? But blogger Instapundit notes, there is no free choice being offered Muslims. Once these sharia courts exist, a Muslim cannot simply opt to go to a normal arbitration tribunal instead. ?On religious grounds, a Muslim who would choose to opt out ? would be guilty of a far greater crime than a mere breach of contract ? and this would be tantamount to blasphemy or apostasy.? As Instapundit adds, ?You are aware that blasphemy and apostasy are among the worst crimes in Islam, in many countries punishable by death.?



Canada has a rational, just, internationally respected legal system, put in place by elected representatives over the course of 200 years with the consent of its citizenry. The introduction of a primitive form of law based not on justice, but on superstition, must be regarded by everyone outside the country as important proof that Canada has lost its moorings. Airy protests to the contrary, they have handed Muslim immigrants the thin end of the wedge. If we know anything about the attitudes of Islamic immigrants to the West, this will evolve over the ensuing years, under the banner of ?religious freedom? (which they deny to everyone but themselves), into a full scale parallel legal system for Muslims within Canada. And how long after that until, like an aggressive virus, it begins to eat into the body of its host?



Who would have guessed the first Western country to set its feet on the path of dhimmitude would be in the New World and not the old?



Dhimmi Watch defines dhimmitude as: ?The status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, ?protected people?, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they ?feel themselves subdued? (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race. The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.'

Oh, Canada!

Is Praetor sure he wants to annex these guys? :wink:

Is Praetor sure he wants to annex these guys? :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years.

As someone who dates a "landed immigrant" (permanent resident) of Canada and travels there every month, I can tell you that the Canadians are beginning to have that same opinion--about the US!

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years.

As someone who dates a "landed immigrant" (permanent resident) of Canada and travels there every month, I can tell you that the Canadians are beginning to have that same opinion--about the US!

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

As someone who dates a "landed immigrant" (permanent resident) of Canada and travels there every month, I can tell you that the Canadians are beginning to have that same opinion--about the US!

Vince,
Lot of Australians who observe America, feel that something desperately wrong has been going on in America in recent years.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

As someone who dates a "landed immigrant" (permanent resident) of Canada and travels there every month, I can tell you that the Canadians are beginning to have that same opinion--about the US!

Vince,
Lot of Australians who observe America, feel that something desperately wrong has been going on in America in recent years.

Here's a weird one. For your information and amusement (oh, and standard disclaimers apply).

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/17/pizza040517

Canada acts to halt U.S. pizza dumping
Last Updated Mon, 17 May 2004 18:00:21
OTTAWA - After wheat, softwood lumber and cattle, Canada is battling the United States over pizza.

The Canadian Border Services Agency on Monday imposed a temporary duty on frozen self-rising pizza from south of the border, in an attempt to get tough on alleged American pizza dumping.

The agency said U.S. producers were selling their pizzas 39.4 per cent cheaper in Canada than at home.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal had said in March that pizza dumping was damaging Canadian producers.

The preliminary finding followed a complaint in January from New Brunswick-based McCain Foods.


FROM JANUARY 2, 2004: McCain Foods complains fast-rising pizza imports are costing it dough

McCain claims that the unfair trade practice of dumping had harmed the Canadian industry by causing price erosion and lost sales in 2003.
The complaint by the company that last year announced a $29 million expansion of its Grand Falls, N.B. pizza plant, led authorities to investigate two U.S. pizzamakers and four Canadian importers, according to the Canadian Press.

The U.S. companies were said to be Kraft Foods Inc. of Chicago and Palermo Villa Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The border agency will decide whether to make the duties permanent by August 16, while the tribunal is expected to produce a final ruling in the case by September 14.

In another development, the Border Services Agency has concluded that wood venetian blinds and slats from Mexico and China were dumped into Canada at below-cost prices.

Provisional duties were imposed in February and public hearings this week will focus on whether Canadian producers were harmed.

>Generation that won't grow up
>Alanna Mitchell, Globe and Mail, 05/11/2004

>Call it the generation with the longest adolescence in Canadian history. >So far.

Is this the equivalent of "Generation X" in the United States?

>Today's young people are so slow to reach so many of the traditional >rites of adulthood that demographers have begun to label even those >as old as 35 "adolescents" and "youths . . ."

This claim is rather hard to believe.

>Barbara Pennock, 26, is still living rent-free with her parents, four >years after she finished a diploma in aviation management. She's >worked full-time at the Greater Toronto Airport Authority since she >graduated, but she doesn't know when she might strike out on her own.
>She estimates that 80 to 90 per cent of her friends also live with their >parents. "It's almost like everyone's starting adulthood older," . . .

Is this pattern found mainly in urban areas, like Toronto, or is it widespread across much of Canada?

URL:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...ational/Canada

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po...29_084430_5072

Originally Posted by Kevin Michael Grace

As well it might
be. The Conservatives refuse to understand the critical
importance of race and the
National Question in Canadian elections. Unless they
do, it could be another hundred years?or longer?until
they win.
The results:

Liberals 135

Conservatives 99

Bloc Quebecois [Quebec separatists] 54

New Democratic Party [labor union social democrats] 19

Independents 1



...Yet Canada is
governed as if whites were in the minority?they are
oppressed by
massive immigration, quotas and
hate laws. No party speaks for them.

The Conservatives could?and should?be that party.

But unless they stop drinking multicultural Kool-Aid, they are doomed to suicide.
And no-one need mourn.

Canada's Harper Rejects Sailer Strategy?And Loses

It's my opinion that Canada is experiencing their own version of party regionalism, partisanship, and polarization. The party maps are very similar to the red-blue divide (but in reverse) in the U.S.-the Liberals dominate Ontario, the North, and the Atlantic; the Conservatives, the West; and the BQ in Quebec. With the minority government, Canadians may now be entering a time where partisan politics is the law of the land.

The end result could be ugly:
1) Quebec may seceede
2) the western provinces may leave, or
3) the Maritimes could be annexed by the U.S. if 1) occurs

Another problem: While the Conservatives have the bulk of their power in the mostly rural West, their regions are not as populated as the Republican-leaning Plains states. The end result is that the western provinces, with the possible exception of BC, always get shortchanged. Fortunately for Canadians, House of Commons seat apportionment is not zero-sum, so the worst outcome for a province is that it fails to receive a single seat for ten years instead of losing seats.

My suggestion to those up north who are tired of the Grits: move west. If enough people leave Ontario and/or Quebec, the leaders in the HOC will be forced to listen to the Prairies.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po...8_170023_5056#

http://205.150.121.181/pub-doc/webspecials/enr2004.pdf

Quoting Matthew Elmslie:

"A Crisis such as Brian described happened in Canada about the time of the Civil War. I call it the Confederation Crisis, and I've written more about it in the Canada thread in 'Beyond America.'

"It wasn't completely without violence-there were the Fenian raids, the bank robbery in Vermont, D'Arcy McGee's assassination, and the Red River Rebellion, but they were pretty minor league. In general, the boys pasted seven (or eight, depending on how you're counting) widely separate and disparate provinces together into a whole new country without any real wars. That suit you okay?"

From print out derived from paleo 4T site, Civil War Anomaly thread, Apr 30 '99 post.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years. This is the latest example, of which you can make what you will.

Canada Considers Permitting Limited Sharia Implementation

Not all is well in the land of liberal dreams come true.

How Canadian Tolerance Became Intolerance

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Something has been going desperately wrong in Canada in recent years. This is the latest example, of which you can make what you will.

Canada Considers Permitting Limited Sharia Implementation

Not all is well in the land of liberal dreams come true.

How Canadian Tolerance Became Intolerance

This is a prime example of how the premodern and the postmodern team up on modernity and at first celebrate their common non-moderness, if you will. But eventually the former, if not also the latter, realize they are actually further apart than their supposedly common foe.

William Jennings Bryan wrote:

This is a prime example of how the premodern and the postmodern team up on modernity and at first celebrate their common non-moderness, if you will. But eventually the former, if not also the latter, realize they are actually further apart than their supposedly common foe.

Looks to me like the host should be telling some of his guests to get out of his house if he doesn't like his rules. :x

Stanley '61