2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Oneracon]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Isn't Bernier supposed to be one of the sane ones?

I think that depends on your definition. There's no "out there" policies like Leitch and her "Canadian values" but a lot of his policies seem a little... weird... on second look.

That being said, his basic platform thus far has been: Guns good, farms good, trade deals good, taxes bad, UN bad, equalization payments bad.

[Camicon]

My apologies, that should've been 'imply' not 'infer'

Nor did I imply that Conservatives are insane.

You done now?

[The Liberated Territories]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Refreshing for a Canadian politician! Sharing this to my relatives in Canada and everyone I know.

[San Lumen]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Refreshing for a Canadian politician! Sharing this to my relatives in Canada and everyone I know.

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

[Saint Fedski]

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

What's wrong with charges of harassment and assault? Why do aspects of society require special laws? If I punch you in the face because you're a jerk or you're [insert perceived special status here] then it's assault. Why make it a 'hate crime' other than to simply add charges and complexity?

[Camicon]

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

What's wrong with charges of harassment and assault? Why do aspects of society require special laws? If I punch you in the face because you're a jerk or you're [insert perceived special status here] then it's assault. Why make it a 'hate crime' other than to simply add charges and complexity?

Because society has decided that punching someone because you dislike some fundamental aspect of who they are - religion, ethnicity, sex, gender - is more heinous than punching someone because they're being an asshole, and consequently deserves a different response.

[The Liberated Territories]

Refreshing for a Canadian politician! Sharing this to my relatives in Canada and everyone I know.

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

On the contrary, why should some groups be afforded special privileges over others? I believe in the idea of equality under the law, and "hate speech laws" are very much contrary to that.

[Saint Fedski]

What's wrong with charges of harassment and assault? Why do aspects of society require special laws? If I punch you in the face because you're a jerk or you're [insert perceived special status here] then it's assault. Why make it a 'hate crime' other than to simply add charges and complexity?

Because society has decided that punching someone because you dislike some fundamental aspect of who they are - religion, ethnicity, sex, gender - is more heinous than punching someone because they're being an asshole, and consequently deserves a different response.

But it hasn't. The 'society' you refer to is nothing more than a bunch of Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices, who are beyond reproach, pandering to minorities and SJWs.

[Camicon]

Because society has decided that punching someone because you dislike some fundamental aspect of who they are - religion, ethnicity, sex, gender - is more heinous than punching someone because they're being an asshole, and consequently deserves a different response.

But it hasn't. The 'society' you refer to is nothing more than a bunch of Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices, who are beyond reproach, pandering to minorities and SJWs.

The 'society' I refer to is 84% of Canadians, on this issue, and anyone who thinks the fundamental aspects of who a person is deserve particular protections under the law.

If you think that 84% is made up entirely of "Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices", "pandering to minorities and SJWs", then you might need to reassess your perspective on Canadian society.

[Oneracon]

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

What's wrong with charges of harassment and assault? Why do aspects of society require special laws? If I punch you in the face because you're a jerk or you're [insert perceived special status here] then it's assault. Why make it a 'hate crime' other than to simply add charges and complexity?

For the same reason we differentiate between first- and second-degree murder... or why we differentiate between assault, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault. The situation in which a crime occurs is relevant to the prosecution of a crime as much as the crime itself.

---

Why is repealing hate crime protections a good thing?

On the contrary, why should some groups be afforded special privileges over others? I believe in the idea of equality under the law, and "hate speech laws" are very much contrary to that.

Who is getting special privileges? The text of the Canada's hate propaganda laws (s. 318-320 of the Criminal Code of Canada) says that an identifiable group for the purposes of the section is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation". Nowhere in there does it say that the definition is limited to any particular group, or that only minority groups are covered.

[Nation of Quebec]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

and there goes whatever chance Bernier had of potentially winning my vote if he won.

Michael Chong is the only one left I'd consider voting for.

[Oneracon]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

and there goes whatever chance Bernier had of potentially winning my vote if he won.

Michael Chong is the only one left I'd consider voting for.

Chong is the best candidate out of all of them. I'm still leery of his economic and environmental policies, but his democratic reform proposals are impressive:

• requiring parties to release financial disclosures between elections
• making committee membership be set by secret ballot and not the party leadership
• making Trudeau's proposed new National Security and Intelligence Committee report to Parliament and not the PMO
• reforming the Board of Internal Economy
• restoring real enforcement of the "irrelevance and repetition rule" in Question Period
• reigning in powers of prorogation

[Nation of Quebec]

There's a by-election happening in Ottawa-Vanier on April 3, in case anyone lives in the area.

It's one of the safest Liberal ridings in the country, so I fully expect it to stay the same.

and there goes whatever chance Bernier had of potentially winning my vote if he won.

Michael Chong is the only one left I'd consider voting for.

Chong is the best candidate out of all of them. I'm still leery of his economic and environmental policies, but his democratic reform proposals are impressive:

• requiring parties to release financial disclosures between elections
• making committee membership be set by secret ballot and not the party leadership
• making Trudeau's proposed new National Security and Intelligence Committee report to Parliament and not the PMO
• reforming the Board of Internal Economy
• restoring real enforcement of the "irrelevance and repetition rule" in Question Period
• reigning in powers of prorogation

He is by far the best candidate they have running, and by all accounts is a decent guy respected across both sides of the aisle. I like his democratic reform proposals as well and hope they get implemented.

Sadly, it looks like it'll be between O'Leary, Leitch, or Bernier.

[Union of Despotistan]

But it hasn't. The 'society' you refer to is nothing more than a bunch of Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices, who are beyond reproach, pandering to minorities and SJWs.

The 'society' I refer to is 84% of Canadians, on this issue, and anyone who thinks the fundamental aspects of who a person is deserve particular protections under the law.

If you think that 84% is made up entirely of "Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices", "pandering to minorities and SJWs", then you might need to reassess your perspective on Canadian society.

Angus Reid is pretty left leaning socially. Let me doubt those numbers. Polls are less and less reliable than before. Especially Canadians polls, since it's mainly propaganda since the 70's.

[Union of Despotistan]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Damn I like Bernier !

Those anti free speech laws made by the Liberals should put everyone to shame. Everyone who believe inf freedom that is. Bill C-16 and the other very recent bill passed last week are amongst the biggest setbacks of freedom this nation had since its creation.

Bernier will solve this problem and many more. He has my vote.
Let the rule of minorities and islamists stop here.

[Oneracon]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Damn I like Bernier !

Those anti free speech laws made by the Liberals should put everyone to shame. Everyone who believe inf freedom that is. Bill C-16 and the other very recent bill passed last week are amongst the biggest setbacks of freedom this nation had since its creation.

Bernier will solve this problem and many more. He has my vote.
Let the rule of minorities and islamists stop here.

So have you actually read the text of M-103? Or do you just listen to what Ezra's blog tells you?

[Camicon]

The 'society' I refer to is 84% of Canadians, on this issue, and anyone who thinks the fundamental aspects of who a person is deserve particular protections under the law.

If you think that 84% is made up entirely of "Liberal politicians and Supreme Court Justices", "pandering to minorities and SJWs", then you might need to reassess your perspective on Canadian society.

Angus Reid is pretty left leaning socially. Let me doubt those numbers. Polls are less and less reliable than before. Especially Canadians polls, since it's mainly propaganda since the 70's.

Go ahead and dissect the poll, show everyone where the bias is. Far be it from you to talk out your ass because you don't actually have a way to discredit a poll that shows you are wrong, beyond any shadow of any doubt. Right? Surely you're not just some right-wing ideologue that will deny reality before reevaluating your currently held beliefs, are you?

[Union of Despotistan]

Damn I like Bernier !

Those anti free speech laws made by the Liberals should put everyone to shame. Everyone who believe inf freedom that is. Bill C-16 and the other very recent bill passed last week are amongst the biggest setbacks of freedom this nation had since its creation.

Bernier will solve this problem and many more. He has my vote.
Let the rule of minorities and islamists stop here.

So have you actually read the text of M-103? Or do you just listen to what Ezra's blog tells you?

Well, indeed, since I dont get my information from jews like Ezra.

This bill will bend freedom of speech in a very un-Canadian way. Trying to generate problems where there are none.

It wants to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” which is almost non-existent. Islamic threat is a bigger threat than the opposite.
All theses nice sounding sentences like : “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.” are just fancy words that tells you that you wont have the freedom to say what you want anymore. Controversial things should not be banned from being said.

I agree I made one mistake, M-103 is not a bill, but a motion. Important difference. But theses are often the firsts stones laid before an actual law being made.

If anything, we should make more pressure on newcomers to integrate better. Tolerance of all forms of religions will doom us all.

[Oneracon]

Man... you're really far gone aren't you?

So have you actually read the text of M-103? Or do you just listen to what Ezra's blog tells you?

Well, indeed, since I dont get my information from jews like Ezra.

This bill will bend freedom of speech in a very un-Canadian way. Trying to generate problems where there are none.

It wants to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” which is almost non-existent. Islamic threat is a bigger threat than the opposite.

I think you just proved the motion's own point right there, bud.

All theses nice sounding sentences like : “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.” are just fancy words that tells you that you wont have the freedom to say what you want anymore. Controversial things should not be banned from being said.

No, they're fancy ways of asking the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to write a report.

I agree I made one mistake, M-103 is not a bill, but a motion. Important difference. But theses are often the firsts stones laid before an actual law being made.

If anything, we should make more pressure on newcomers to integrate better. Tolerance of all forms of religions will doom us all.

Newcomers are under plenty of pressure to integrate already by being immersed in Canadian society, through both positive and negative ways. That's how it worked when my grandparents came to this country (they had people throwing rocks at them as they walked down the street and siccing dogs on their kids for being "filthy Wops").

Please try again when you have an understanding of how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Criminal Code, and parliamentary motions actually work... I'd recommend a civics class or, even better, the citizenship test manual.

[Camicon]

So have you actually read the text of M-103? Or do you just listen to what Ezra's blog tells you?

Well, indeed, since I dont get my information from jews like Ezra.

This bill will bend freedom of speech in a very un-Canadian way. Trying to generate problems where there are none.

It wants to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” which is almost non-existent. Islamic threat is a bigger threat than the opposite.
All theses nice sounding sentences like : “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.” are just fancy words that tells you that you wont have the freedom to say what you want anymore. Controversial things should not be banned from being said.

I agree I made one mistake, M-103 is not a bill, but a motion. Important difference. But theses are often the firsts stones laid before an actual law being made.

If anything, we should make more pressure on newcomers to integrate better. Tolerance of all forms of religions will doom us all.

You seem to be confusing Canada for the USA.

You do not have the freedom to say whatever you want in Canada, we have hate speech legislation that says otherwise. And Canada has officially adopted a policy of multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Now take your xenophobic, anti-Semitic shit somewhere else. My country doesn't need that.

[Union of Despotistan]

Well, indeed, since I dont get my information from jews like Ezra.

This bill will bend freedom of speech in a very un-Canadian way. Trying to generate problems where there are none.

It wants to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” which is almost non-existent. Islamic threat is a bigger threat than the opposite.
All theses nice sounding sentences like : “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.” are just fancy words that tells you that you wont have the freedom to say what you want anymore. Controversial things should not be banned from being said.

I agree I made one mistake, M-103 is not a bill, but a motion. Important difference. But theses are often the firsts stones laid before an actual law being made.

If anything, we should make more pressure on newcomers to integrate better. Tolerance of all forms of religions will doom us all.

You seem to be confusing Canada for the USA.

You do not have the freedom to say whatever you want in Canada, we have hate speech legislation that says otherwise. And Canada has officially adopted a policy of multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Now take your xenophobic, anti-Semitic shit somewhere else. My country doesn't need that.

I know all this. But I will always fight against the concept of State Multiculturalism as I deem it to be amongst the biggest mistake our nation ever did. I support Bernier for the very reason our freedom of speech is curtailed like you so eloquently said in your post. The stigma toward anything repotely nationalist or right wing here is insufferable. On top of that, the only tolerated "right wing-ism" is the retarded globalist neoconservative view which is without doubt the most retarded way to apply right wing policies.

As a Canadian and a Quebecois, I find t absolutely primordial to defend our culture, nation and language. Multiculturalism is a direct threat to all of that. This imposed State Multiculturalism is recent in Canadian history. It was imposed by Trudeau father after he won in the 70's. It was imposed upon the population without their will. An only recently, after decades of State propaganda, the population is starting to support multiculturalism. Fortunately Quebec, outside Montreal, is still resisting.

I have as much reason to tell you to stop destroying my country as you to say you dont need me in my own nation.

[Camicon]

You seem to be confusing Canada for the USA.

You do not have the freedom to say whatever you want in Canada, we have hate speech legislation that says otherwise. And Canada has officially adopted a policy of multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Now take your xenophobic, anti-Semitic shit somewhere else. My country doesn't need that.

I know all this. But I will always fight against the concept of State Multiculturalism as I deem it to be amongst the biggest mistake our nation ever did. I support Bernier for the very reason our freedom of speech is curtailed like you so eloquently said in your post. The stigma toward anything repotely nationalist or right wing here is insufferable. On top of that, the only tolerated "right wing-ism" is the retarded globalist neoconservative view which is without doubt the most retarded way to apply right wing policies.

As a Canadian and a Quebecois, I find t absolutely primordial to defend our culture, nation and language. Multiculturalism is a direct threat to all of that. This imposed State Multiculturalism is recent in Canadian history. It was imposed by Trudeau father after he won in the 70's. It was imposed upon the population without their will. An only recently, after decades of State propaganda, the population is starting to support multiculturalism. Fortunately Quebec, outside Montreal, is still resisting.

I have as much reason to tell you to stop destroying my country as you to say you dont need me in my own nation.

Ah. Now it makes sense.

Of course it would be the Quebecois nationalist that thinks it's perfectly reasonable to claim that his perception of the country is the "real one", despite the overwhelming majority of people currently agreeing on a different perception.

[Oneracon]

You seem to be confusing Canada for the USA.

You do not have the freedom to say whatever you want in Canada, we have hate speech legislation that says otherwise. And Canada has officially adopted a policy of multiculturalism, not assimilation.

Now take your xenophobic, anti-Semitic shit somewhere else. My country doesn't need that.

I know all this. But I will always fight against the concept of State Multiculturalism as I deem it to be amongst the biggest mistake our nation ever did. I support Bernier for the very reason our freedom of speech is curtailed like you so eloquently said in your post. The stigma toward anything repotely nationalist or right wing here is insufferable. On top of that, the only tolerated "right wing-ism" is the retarded globalist neoconservative view which is without doubt the most retarded way to apply right wing policies.

Canadian nationalism has been a key part of Canada's politics since the 19th century. Pierre Trudeau was a nationalist, John Diefenbaker was a nationalist, Sir John A. MacDonald was a nationalist, Joe Clark is a nationalist, Maude Barlow is a nationalist.

It's trying to impose a cultural nationalism, rather than a civic nationalism, that makes Canadian wary. Given the variety of cultures that were already represented in Canada prior to the 1960s it is impossible to develop a truly cultural nationalism.

As a Canadian and a Quebecois, I find t absolutely primordial to defend our culture, nation and language. Multiculturalism is a direct threat to all of that. This imposed State Multiculturalism is recent in Canadian history. It was imposed by Trudeau father after he won in the 70's. It was imposed upon the population without their will. An only recently, after decades of State propaganda, the population is starting to support multiculturalism. Fortunately Quebec, outside Montreal, is still resisting.

Last time I checked, Quebec was doing a pretty good job at defending the Quebecois culture and use of the French language. I mean, you guys even have your own language police to make sure people are expressing themselves only in the government-approved way. Oh wait...

I have as much reason to tell you to stop destroying my country as you to say you dont need me in my own nation.

Given that this country was built on successive waves of immigration, which is necessary for its continued survival, yes... we don't need you.

[Union of Despotistan]

Pierre Trudeau was a nationalist

Pierre Trudeau was a Quebecois hating traitor.
His main goal with multiculturalism was to reduce the influence of Quebec within Canada. I should not even have to mention that.

Canadian nationalism has been a key part of Canada's politics since the 19th century.

Which is also false.
Canada was accepting lots of migrants, yes. But never under any phony multicultural policy. Canada at this time was a nation state, and like the USA, the nation had severe restrictions on who could come in. Lots of provinces had anti jew and anti blacks laws up to the WW2 era. Not anyone could actually make it here.
Multiculturalism as a matter of fact that people from multiple ethnicity coexist in the same place and the concept of State Multiculturalism is highly different. I do not oppose the 1st one.

But I dont expect anything else but that revisionist propaganda since it's what its teached in schools. I lived tru the transition period. I remember the religion class when I was young, and the gradual changes afterwards. Always toward more multicultural propaganda.

Quebec was doing a pretty good job at defending the Quebecois culture and use of the French language.

Quebec always had to fight for every inch of what we have. It's true, the UK allowed us to keep our language and religion, but that's it. It's mainly because they didn't wanted to invest all the money and soldiers that would have been needed to fight the revolts. Only after WW2 did the highest paying jobs and boss jobs opened to french Canadian.
We do not do a good job defending our culture and language because our education system is bad and french is badly teached, like lots of other classes.
We have a pro multicultural Liberal party in power in the province and it is the biggest danger to our culture. They keep wining because of the fracture of the vote between left wing nationalist from the PQ and right-wing nationalist from CAQ and nothing will change anytime soon.

As for the thought police, having the choice between only the 2, I will always chose an antidemocratic system that work for the people, than one who works against; flooding it with hordes of foreigners that keeps low paying wages down and disrupt the peace.

[Camicon]

*snip*

Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aidé.

So you support a general policy of "[X country] for [X people]", correct?