|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Montreal yes... but go 30 mins outside of it and see how far english gets you.
And officially the provincial government does not operate in english and it does not allow francophones to go to english immersion schools. |
you'll get more English than French in downtown Toronto, let alone the 'burbs.
Quebec govt can deal with its citizens in French, all paperworks are in both languages and if you request you'll get someone who speaks English. As for schools... yeah thats a can of worm. |
|
|
| mr_obvious |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Thats the special interests' favourite tactic to shut down any logical debate.
Just use a few "ism" names and thats the end of that.
Sorry but i dont buy that one.
Some of the most racist and bigotted people ive met are those who are supposed to be champion the cause against such things. |
i said a select few, not everyone
you find it hard to buy that a few people on this board are bigots??? really??? after all the posts on gay marriage and other gay topics you can't think of one person on this board that could be labelled a homophobe??? one person who's agenda goes beyond the simple and oft overused political and religious arguments??? i find that incredible! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
everyone has their opinions and other than a few off colour jokes i have not seen anyone express anti gay sentiments.
And just because some people are anti gay marriage doesnt mean they are anti gay. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
And those churches would be a very small minority. All other Christian denominations, plus religious like Muslim and I think Hindu too consider marriage to be sacred.
As for the person you're quoting, I have no problem with argument, except that it does not refute my argument which is based on religious beliefs.
|
Actually, the United Church is a very large, organized church. If it's about "religious freedom" then all religions should have the right to practice what they preach. No religious group should be 'forced' to perform a same-sex marriage, but at the same time, if they choose to do so, they should have that choice. Remember, it's about affording rights, not denying them.
There are also some sects of the Anglican church in North America who endorse gay marriage.
And in this case, that quote does refute what you say. It says what a Civil Union implies, is that all gays, regardless of religion or religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should never be entitled to enter a formal marriage, whether secular or not. It is discriminatory and impolies that, for the simple fact they are gay, they are not worthy of being called married. |
|
|
| mr_obvious |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
everyone has their opinions and other than a few off colour jokes i have not seen anyone express anti gay sentiments.
And just because some people are anti gay marriage doesnt mean they are anti gay. |
i never said anti gay marriage meant anti gay however there is an ongoing pattern to certain peoples posts that go beyond the basic arguments of personal rights. this is nothing new and has been a common theme with them for a while now. if you don't see it then you don't see it |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Actually truth be known. The English conquered the french on the plains of abraham. The english the allowed the french to keep their culture, heritage and religion instead of forcing assimilation like the americans did to the mississippi corridor of New France(Louisiana to detroit).
Look at the ingrateful response english canada gets now. "je me souviens" .....Yes you should remember that the british didnt force assimilation like the americans did..
Oh sorry that wasnt politically correct history... |
aha. you don't know your history. The British Royal proclamation of 1763 right after the conquest clearly stipulated:
- abolishment of all French laws and customs
- establishment of the anglicane church, the catholic church was barely tolerated (Canadiens were Catholics)
- the Canadiens cannot occupy a position in the govt at that time unless they deny their Catholic Church and become Anglican.
- a project of massive english immigration, helped by huge lands giveaways to members of the British military (ex 5000 acres to Officers)
- Catholic Church could no more collect its tithes (money or sunday basket)
- The British forbid religious persons like priests or nuns to come from France, even to replace dead ones in New France
- All laws and customs were in English
- etc etc etc
their motives were clear, you're smart enough to see that.
But, this never worked out, barely any English came and established in Canada, there was 65000 French for 600 English, no one understood the laws and there was not enough people (english) to apply them.
In 1774 the British had no choice but to return to French laws and customs... with the Grand Act of French Canada (loose translation). |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by mr_obvious
i never said anti gay marriage meant anti gay however there is an ongoing pattern to certain peoples posts that go beyond the basic arguments of personal rights. this is nothing new and has been a common theme with them for a while now. if you don't see it then you don't see it |
"I don't mind gays, just as long as they don't touch me... marriage." :D
Just kidding, btw. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
aha. you don't know your history. The British Royal proclamation of 1763 right after the conquest clearly stipulated:
- abolishment of all French laws and customs
- establishment of the anglicane church, the catholic church was barely tolerated (Canadiens were Catholics)
- the Canadiens cannot occupy a position in the govt at that time unless they deny their Catholic Church and become Anglican.
- a project of massive english immigration, helped by huge lands giveaways to members of the British military (ex 5000 acres to Officers)
- Catholic Church could no more collect its tithes (money or sunday basket)
- The British forbid religious persons like priests or nuns to come from France, even to replace dead ones in New France
- All laws and customs were in English
- etc etc etc
their motives were clear, you're smart enough to see that.
But, this never worked out, barely any English came and established in Canada, there was 65000 French for 600 English, no one understood the laws and there was not enough people (english) to apply them.
In 1774 the British had no choice but to return to French laws and customs... with the Grand Act of French Canada (loose translation). |
Um, you do realise that Britain had just defeated France in a war of conquest right?:rolleyes: I think it's bloody remarkable the British just didn't turf all the French out. (maybe they should have...we'd have less problems and bickering today, that's for sure).
And the two nations had been warring for centuries...numerous French Catholic plots to overthrow and assasinate protestant monarchs...they had good reason to outlaw Popery and Catholicism. Let's not forget that Britain had, a mere 30 years later, to defend the world against French aggression yet again in the form of the Revolution and Napoleon, plus the French stuck their noses into the American Revolution. I'd have to say that for the British to even TOLERATE the French population in Quebec was amazing.
And the Quebec Act of 1774 was remarkable precedent in of itself. Put yourself in the British position in the 1760s...you had Natives complaining about land, Anglo colonists bitching even more about their rights, taxes, protection from natives on the frontier, land...and then you had the French population in Quebec whining as well. How do you serve all three interests at once? History shows the British didn't do a bad job of it. By giving the French their religion back, their land, their municpal governments and by keeping out Anglo businessmen from the colony (thereby protecting French local businesses) they ensured French loyalty only to FURTHER anger the colonists in the 13 Colonies, which was certainly a big factor in the Revolution, though you'll rarely hear the Yanks even mention it.
The fact that Britain was giving so much protection and BASIC RIGHTS to people who were, at the time, enemies to the crown for obvious reasons is stunning. Try to name any other country that was doing anything remotely this democratic at the time? And just so you know, who did the French in Quebec side with when George Washington came calling in 1778? Definitely not the Americans.
You DO know your history, but your conclusions and judgements are one-sided and clouded. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
Um, you do realise that Britain had just defeated France in a war of conquest right?:rolleyes: I think it's bloody remarkable the British just didn't turf all the French out. (maybe they should have...we'd have less problems and bickering today, that's for sure).
And the two nations had been warring for centuries...numerous French Catholic plots to overthrow and assasinate protestant monarchs...they had good reason to outlaw Popery and Catholicism. Let's not forget that Britain had, a mere 30 years later, to defend the world against French aggression yet again in the form of the Revolution and Napoleon, plus the French stuck their noses into the American Revolution. I'd have to say that for the British to even TOLERATE the French population in Quebec was amazing.
And the Quebec Act of 1774 was remarkable precedent in of itself. Put yourself in the British position in the 1760s...you had Natives complaining about land, Anglo colonists bitching even more about their rights, taxes, protection from natives on the frontier, land...and then you had the French population in Quebec whining as well. How do you serve all three interests at once? History shows the British didn't do a bad job of it. By giving the French their religion back, their land, their municpal governments and by keeping out Anglo businessmen from the colony (thereby protecting French local businesses) they ensured French loyalty only to FURTHER anger the colonists in the 13 Colonies, which was certainly a big factor in the Revolution, though you'll rarely hear the Yanks even mention it.
The fact that Britain was giving so much protection and BASIC RIGHTS to people who were, at the time, enemies to the crown for obvious reasons is stunning. Try to name any other country that was doing anything remotely this democratic at the time? And just so you know, who did the French in Quebec side with when George Washington came calling in 1778? Definitely not the Americans.
You DO know your history, but your conclusions and judgements are one-sided and clouded. |
let me get this right:
1-exterminate all french
2-the 13 colonies revolted because of the French.
wow, weren't you banned? you are beyond stupid and twist history beyond any credibility. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
1)turfing is not exterminating...it is removal. The British certaily could have deported 65,000 Quebecers within a year or two but did not.
2)The Quebec Act of 1774 was a major tension point between the British Government and the American colonists. They figured, having defeated the French, that the colonist merchants should be able to "invade" Quebec, take everything (ie business and land) and dictate to them. The British government, however, never allowed this to happen despite what was set out in the Royal Proclamation. The colonists were already becoming more and more aggressive against British taxes (which ironically enough, were imposed to pay for the war the colonists wanted against the French in the first place). They could not afford to lose French loyalty at the same time as having a much larger American population revolting against centralised rule. Then there was also the Native factor.
The American Revolution is not a simple matter of "unjust" taxes ...it goes far beyond that, stemming from the Royal Proclamation which gave all land to Natives west of the Appalachian Mountains in effect stunting American expansion, lack of direct political representation in London, British army militia garrisoning in colonists houses, confiscation of colonists weapons amid growing tensions, a series of taxes and finally, the Quebec Act which to the colonists, looked like the British were siding with their former French enemies instead of English speaking settlers. Then of course there was the Boston Massacre, in which three people were killed by British soldiers when rocks were hurled at them.
Your problem is that you are looking at the Quebec Act without factoring in all the necessary background. It played a part in a much larger issue. Withdraw yourself and stop looking at isolated events with a 21st Century viewpoint. That will get you absolutely nowhere in an historigraphical sense.
Did you ever take Canadian history or did you sleep through it? |
|
|
| malek |
asking me if I slept thru it when clearly you show signs of ignorance.
There was no such term as Quebecers, it was Canadiens, being Canadiens designed those who lived in the French Colony called Canada and them being French Catholic. Later on, it designated those who lived North of the US and wanted to stay loyal to the King. Quebecers is a relaitvely new term.
The 13 colonies already had tensions with the UK, but it was clear that after the conquest of all enemies in North America, that paying taxes for "protection" was out of the question. The 13 colonies decided to rise against the British. It was British greed that did it, not those 65000 Canadiens :rolleyes:
I can continue about the Loyalists moving north and asking for harsher policies against French and the return of assimilation politics, but its useless to lower myself to your unidimensional view of things.
After posting what you did early it serves no purpose, you're still an idiot even after all those years. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| With regard to the Quebec Act's influance on the US revolution.... While those that supported US cecession from Britain did cite this as part of their greivences and did use it to rally support it really was inconsequential in the final decision. Revolutionary rhetoric and even meetings had existed long before the Quebec Act was proclaimed. Furthermore, the 13 colonies had origionally planned for 15 colonies. The additional two colonies were Quebec and Nova Scotia. Both of these colonies refused to join in the revolution because they believed they would benefit from association with Britain more so then with the colonies. Following the revolution representitives from the Continental Congress again approaced Quebec (Lower Canada at the time) and Nova Scotia to join, again both rejected the offer. Lower Canada was actually approached a thrid time (prior to the onset of hostilities in 1812) with an invitation to join the US. Certainly, if the US were really infuriated with the existance of a French culture in North America they would not have wished to allow that culture into their own state. This idea that the Quebec Act was a catalyst to the US revolution is a historical inacuracy that is a product of the propaganda of the time rather then fact. |
|
|
|
|
