# Quebecer Urges Al-Qaida To Attack Canada



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, our little multiculturalism experiment spawns such decent human beings, doesn't it?



> A Quebec man has posted messages on the Internet encouraging al-Qaida to attack Canada, the latest in a series of similar sentiments that are worrying counterterrorism officials.
> 
> The author of the messages, who uses the pseudonym Altar, praised terror leader Osama bin Laden and asked why al-Qaida was focusing its efforts only on Europe instead of Canada. "Allah is great and may Allah bless Sheikh bin Laden. That the sword held by the hand of al-Qaida hits not only Europe, but that it hits all our enemies. Wherever they are," he wrote in a Sept. 25 posting.
> 
> ...


Quebecer urges al-Qaida to attack Canada


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, our little multiculturalism experiment spawns such decent human beings, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Quebecer urges al-Qaida to attack Canada


Spawn? No. Our willingness welcome others to immigrate to Canada may draw them, but only religious zealots who twist and distort religion and exploit the weak and disadvantaged spawn such human beings.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

strip him of his citizenship and send him home i say.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Would you agree that the existence of religious lunatics that promote violence in Alberta is proof that Alberta's culture is responsible for these mindless cretins?

The fact that we have a sufficiently pluralistic and liberal society that such fringe elements can survive is a good thing. Indeed, it is the only thing that fundamentally protects us from the growth of these cancers... An open society where people are free to express their views, no matter how distorted, is a society where a rational majority can point out the absurdity of such views. Totalitarian states, even when founded on rational positions, are inevitably corrupted by those most susceptible to the lust for power, and any rational basis for the governance of society is lost.

Rather than being shocked and threatened by the religious lunatics, we can laugh at them (or, preferably, treat their mental illness and help them become productive members of society, rather than wallowing in irrational fear of imaginary supernatural gods).

Cheers


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I love the headline, too. I guess Albertans have a particular slant on how they view Quebec as a whole.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

lets hope that Al-Qaida recognizes Quebec as part of Canada and bombs this guy's house into the next life.

Laterz


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I think the mention of Quebec in the headline is irrelevant and misleading. The fact this man wants attacks on Canada has nothing to do with living in Quebec or being Francophone but linked to his extremist muslim faith. At first glance, the headline makes you think there's a French/English factor involved. 
Headline aside, its scary we have people that think this way.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> I think the mention of Quebec in the headline is irrelevant and misleading.


Agreed. 

This has nothing to do with _multiculturalism_ either.


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

K_OS said:


> lets hope that Al-Qaida recognizes Quebec as part of Canada and bombs this guy's house into the next life.
> 
> Laterz


Let's not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The Doug said:


> Agreed.
> 
> This has nothing to do with _multiculturalism_ either.


Sorry SINC I have to agree with the Doug. Nothing to do with Quebec or multiculturalism. This guy could live anywhere in Canada and he would only hold his views more deeply if forced "integration" into Canadian culture were attempted.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, our little multiculturalism experiment spawns such decent human beings, doesn't it?


Yes, it can, and this isn't one of them.

This is nothing short of treason.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Although I agree it doesn't matter what province he resides in, it seems to me this guy fits the definition to a tee:



> Multiculturalism
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The term multiculturalism generally refers to a state of racial, cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a specified place, usually at the scale of an organization such as a school, business, neighbourhood, city or nation.
> ...


ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

SINC said:


> Although I agree it doesn't matter what province he resides in, it seems to me this guy fits the definition to a tee:
> 
> ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


Ironically, you're arguing against yourself here. This little terrorist and his pals are clearly advocating the domination of Muslims over everyone else in the country. Those same ideals he exploited will be tied around his neck if he's tried in court.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> Ironically, you're arguing against yourself here. This little terrorist and his pals are clearly advocating the domination of Muslims over everyone else in the country. Those same ideals he exploited will be tied around his neck if he's tried in court.


Maybe the dude was irate about something. Perhaps they stuck one of those StuperMailboxes on his lawn, and he got tired waiting for the FLQ to do something about it.

It's pretty bad when this country is so penny ante - that people have to write letters to Al Qaida asking for a bombing because no other terrorists will bother...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Although I agree it doesn't matter what province he resides in, it seems to me this guy fits the definition to a tee:
> 
> 
> 
> ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


Common SINC you surely aren't suggesting that we should be conducting our immigration policy based on racial profiling so that only people of European stock would have access? There are plenty of European terrorists as well.

Remember the Oklahoma bombing in the US was a home spun terrorist. Whackos are found in every race.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So you're advocating discriminating against cultural and religious groups instead?

Isn't that the definition of racism?




SINC said:


> Although I agree it doesn't matter what province he resides in, it seems to me this guy fits the definition to a tee:
> 
> 
> 
> ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


Neither would I.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Touché.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fact of the matter is we have a nutball religious fanatic asking for the demise of most of us.

Explain that and tell me why he is even here???


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, our little multiculturalism experiment spawns such decent human beings, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Quebecer urges al-Qaida to attack Canada


What the hell does the fact that he lives in Quebec have to do with anything?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Fact of the matter is we have a nutball religious fanatic asking for the demise of most of us.
> 
> Explain that and tell me why he is even here???


Spoken like a true Albertan. Please excuse my little friend here from St. Albert; he is not feeling well and certainly does not reflect the views of those of us who reside in Sherwood Park. Most St. Albert residents are obviously whack jobs.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

cap10subtext said:


> This is nothing short of treason.


Sorry - how is this treason and trying to break up the country isn't?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

krs said:


> Sorry - how is this treason and trying to break up the country isn't?


Don't you mean separate from Canada? Because "breaking up" the country is an entirely different thing... and clearly, people have no clue what the word treason means. Here's another word: secession.

You and Evan have very twisted notions of what Canada should be and I fail to see why you both care to keep Quebec in Canada if you have absolutely no tolerance for their people or language.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Fact of the matter is we have a nutball religious fanatic asking for the demise of most of us.
> 
> Explain that and tell me why he is even here???


There are a lot of nutball fanatics (some religious, some not, some immigrants, some not) out there who are asking for the demise of most of us. 

This is just one that's getting media attention.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> tell me why he is even here???


Because Canada welcomes people from all over the world with all sorts of backgrounds, and occasionally some scum takes advantage of us.

This is like being pissed off that the guy you gave a quarter to who claimed to need it to call his wife wound up using it to fix on heroin. It's his life that's sh*t. You can't be blamed for trying to help someone out.

Cheers


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Spoken like a true Albertan. Please excuse my little friend here from St. Albert; he is not feeling well and certainly does not reflect the views of those of us who reside in Sherwood Park. Most St. Albert residents are obviously whack jobs.


Hey cool, a name calling thread.

Okay so, you didn't fill out your geographic location in your user prefs, so you're a Mr. Poopypants!

Take that!

:lmao:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sorry. Sherwood Park. And Vansterdamians are all smarmy.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry. Sherwood Park. And Vansterdamians are all smarmy.


I know, I wish I could afford to move.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Spoken like a true Albertan. Please excuse my little friend here from St. Albert; he is not feeling well and certainly does not reflect the views of those of us who reside in Sherwood Park. Most St. Albert residents are obviously whack jobs.


When one has nothing to add to the debate, a personal attack shows a certain level of maturity, especially from the resident of a hamlet.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> nothing to add to the debate


This is a debate? It feels more like xenophobia and thinly veiled racism to me.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> You and Evan have very twisted notions of what Canada should be and I fail to see why you both care to keep Quebec in Canada if you have absolutely no tolerance for their people or language.


I have tolerance for all peoples and cultures, but I too wish Quebec would just go away.

They play the political game to well, and Ottawa let's them get away with it. Federal money heaped on Quebec returns 50 Bloc MP's. What sense it that??

But now you will say "You don't love me anymore!! :-( "

Bull****. I just tire of your lying on the floor, kicking and screaming, like a petulant child.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

This sums it up in a nutshell

_Since 1993, the largest number of francophone Quebeckers apparently has wanted no part of federal parties, and therefore of the government or governance of Canada. 

*Canada is no longer a country they wish to participate in governing, but one from which they wish to withdraw cash, like an automated teller machine.*_


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> This is a debate? It feels more like xenophobia and thinly veiled racism to me.


Well said.

I'm rather disappointed. I thought we were a better bunch here.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

titans88 said:


> Well said.
> 
> I'm rather disappointed. I thought we were a better bunch here.


I am too disappointed with the level of ignorance here on ehMac.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> When one has nothing to add to the debate, a personal attack shows a certain level of maturity, especially from the resident of a hamlet.


Ooh, that hurts. Hamlet could have been a great king if he hadn't procrastinated. :-(


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iJohnHenry said:


> I have tolerance for all peoples and cultures, but I too wish Quebec would just go away.
> 
> They play the political game to well, and Ottawa let's them get away with it. Federal money heaped on Quebec returns 50 Bloc MP's. What sense it that??
> 
> ...


Remember the WCC? Western Canada Concept? Or the later incarnation, the Reform Party? Both were federal political parties that could give a damn about anything but the interests of Alberta. How is that any different from the Bloc? There is nothing illegal or immoral about creating a party that serves the interest of a particular group, even if that group is identified with a geographical region rather than a particular economic philosophy. It's common practice in Canada.

Quebec has no interest in separating. It would be too much work. They just want their interests represented nationally, and I can't blame them. The Bloc can never become the ruling government since they only represent a quarter (*give or take*) of Canada's population, but they make a damn fine opposition party. Who won the election? Actually, the Bloc did, I believe, as well as the artists they represented. President Harper needs a short leash in order to govern effectively and the Bloc provided him with one. All the power to them. Not eveybody who votes is necessarily voting for who they want to govern; they can vote strategically for any number of reasons. That's what Quebecers did.

And for the record, my point about being from Sherwood Park and casting a blanket aspersion about my learned friend from St. Albert and all of his ilk was simply to underscore the problem with Discriminating against all members of a region because one of them may be an idiot. The suspected terrorist sounds dangerous, maybe not as dangerous as the current bomber in Alberta wants to be, but the fact that he is from Quebec has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the rest of the population there. Nuff said.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> And for the record, my point about being from Sherwood Park and casting a blanket aspersion about my learned friend from St. Albert and all of his ilk was simply to underscore the problem with Discriminating against all members of a region because one of them may be an idiot. The suspected terrorist sounds dangerous, maybe not as dangerous as the current bomber in Alberta wants to be, but the fact that he is from Quebec has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the rest of the population there. Nuff said.


The "current bomber" referred to is doing damage to pipeline sites in British Columbia, not Alberta.

And as I mentioned earlier, the province of residence of the subject of the thread is immaterial. On that we agree.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

krs said:


> Sorry - how is this treason and trying to break up the country isn't?


Separation is only treasonous if it occurs because a power has overthrown the democratically elected government to do so. Changing the borders of a country isn't treason and there are many ways to go about it. What these people are advocating is nothing short of genocide and religious persecution (wiping non-muslims off the map).

Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < there's a section on Canada.



SINC said:


> Explain that and tell me why he is even here???


Do me a favour and tell me where exactly in that article it says that the perpetrator is an immigrant from another country? Or that his/her parents are? Or that his/her skin color is different from yours? Fact is, if a radical group makes a government change it's policies then they'll attract supporters of all kinds including the scariest ones of all, home grown terrorists. Instead of focusing specifically on immigration we might want to re-examine our internal security policies, how we respond to these threats within our communities (our e-laws should really by front an centre to this issue), and while we're at it Canada's foreign relations.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> I have tolerance for all peoples and cultures, but I too wish Quebec would just go away.
> 
> They play the political game to well, and Ottawa let's them get away with it. Federal money heaped on Quebec returns 50 Bloc MP's. What sense it that??
> 
> ...


LOL. Some tolerance. 

Don't blame the players--blame the game. If Quebec didn't play "the game" they'd be goose-stepping anglos singing kumbaya. They fight because--let's face it, as this and many other threads have shown--a great deal of Canada is a bunch of bigoted anglos carrying the torch of a centuries long battle between England and France who would rather let them rot in hell.

If it's not the French, it's the Atlantic Provinces. If it's not the Atlantic, it's the natives. If it's not the natives, it's the immigrants. If it's not the immigrants, it's the religious... etc. It's all the same $hit, just different piles.

People trumpet "their Canada", but fail to include the caveat.

_* Note: My Canada includes English speaking people of caucasian decent that do not believe their nation should be bilingual for any other reason. Furthermore, Quebec should be wiped off the map because they are nothing but a bunch of no-good thieves who promote apartheid and spread hate in a plot to divide Canada. And they're thieves. Yup. An unruly bunch, they are._


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. Some tolerance.
> 
> Don't blame the players--blame the game. If Quebec didn't play "the game" they'd be goose-stepping anglos singing kumbaya. They fight because--let's face it, as this and many other threads have shown--a great deal of Canada is a bunch of bigoted anglos carrying the torch of a centuries long battle between England and France who would rather let them rot in hell.
> 
> ...


Yeah. What he said.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I have no problem with "separate, but equal".

To bad the equal is missing though.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. Some tolerance.
> 
> Don't blame the players--blame the game. If Quebec didn't play "the game" they'd be goose-stepping anglos singing kumbaya. They fight because--let's face it, as this and many other threads have shown--a great deal of Canada is a bunch of bigoted anglos carrying the torch of a centuries long battle between England and France who would rather let them rot in hell.
> 
> ...


I love it Manny P!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. Some tolerance.
> 
> Don't blame the players--blame the game. If Quebec didn't play "the game" they'd be goose-stepping anglos singing kumbaya. They fight because--let's face it, as this and many other threads have shown--a great deal of Canada is a bunch of bigoted anglos carrying the torch of a centuries long battle between England and France who would rather let them rot in hell.
> 
> ...


Excellent post Manny.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> LOL. Some tolerance.
> 
> Don't blame the players--blame the game. If Quebec didn't play "the game" they'd be goose-stepping anglos singing kumbaya. They fight because--let's face it, as this and many other threads have shown--a great deal of Canada is a bunch of bigoted anglos carrying the torch of a centuries long battle between England and France who would rather let them rot in hell.
> 
> ...


Good post. I call for solidarity of the tolerant and understanding!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> Don't you mean separate from Canada? Because "breaking up" the country is an entirely different thing... and clearly, people have no clue what the word treason means. Here's another word: secession.
> 
> You and Evan have very twisted notions of what Canada should be and I fail to see why you both care to keep Quebec in Canada if you have absolutely no tolerance for their people or language.


Sure....call it secession to make it more palatable.
What do you think will happen if Quebec separates from Canada? That leaves the Maritimes separated from the other provinces, so they might as well try to join the US if they will have them - probably with open arms because of their off-shore resources; BC has talked about separating on and off - this will give them the incentive and Alberta as well.
I would call that breaking up the country.
All these politicians have their own little agenda...to be the head of a sovereign state no matter how small and inconsequential on the world stage.
Look at Europe and the EU. Nations that have different languages and cultures have put their differences aside and created an economic powerhouse that has surpassed the US in most aspects and we are talking about breaking Canada up into little pieces.

BTW - you are dead wrong with your last statementat least as far as I am concerned.
Many of my best friends in Quebec are French-Canadians, so is a large part of my family - that's why I'm in Montreal quite often.
But they don't exhibit the hatred of the English that I see in Quebec so often in stores, restaurants and public places.
You have that backwards - it's the French Separatists in Quebec who have no tolerance for the English speaking people and their language.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I just read the last few pages of this thread.
Some of these posts don't mke any sense.

Let's try to get some facts straight:

About separation - Does the Quebec government want to separate from Canada or does the rest of Canada want Quebec to separate?

In fact, take that one step further - does the Quebec government want to separate or do the Quebec people want to separate?

About French and English getting along in Quebec - When did that change? I lived in Montreal for 15 years and it was the greatest place on earth - mostly because of the french influence. French and English got along fabulously. Politics changed all that - aspirations by polititians who wanted to be head of a "country".

BTW: These are rhetorical questions - everyone should know the answer.

About French and English being equal in Quebec - true bilingualism - That existed for the 15 years I was there (and before) - but then Quebec became unilingual French and the Quebec government drove many large corporations to Ontario, further West or even to the US. People in Quebec lost their jobs - but did the government care? No they tried their damdest several times to create a new nation where they would be "king".

And of course - if you don't succeed - try, try again.

These are some of the facts, now back to opinions and emotions.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

krs said:


> Sure....call it secession to make it more palatable.
> What do you think will happen if Quebec separates from Canada? That leaves the Maritimes separated from the other provinces, so they might as well try to join the US if they will have them - probably with open arms because of their off-shore resources; BC has talked about separating on and off - this will give them the incentive and Alberta as well.
> I would call that breaking up the country.
> All these politicians have their own little agenda...to be the head of a sovereign state no matter how small and inconsequential on the world stage.
> Look at Europe and the EU. Nations that have different languages and cultures have put their differences aside and created an economic powerhouse that has surpassed the US in most aspects and we are talking about breaking Canada up into little pieces.


You're making a lot of broad assumptions--none of which can be determined to be true if it did happen. I can tell you a great deal of Atlantic Canadians would rather die than become a part of the U.S. What would likely happen is the Atlantic provinces, or at the very least the Maritimes, would unite and form their own territory.



> BTW - you are dead wrong with your last statementat least as far as I am concerned.
> Many of my best friends in Quebec are French-Canadians, so is a large part of my family - that's why I'm in Montreal quite often.
> But they don't exhibit the hatred of the English that I see in Quebec so often in stores, restaurants and public places.
> You have that backwards - it's the French Separatists in Quebec who have no tolerance for the English speaking people and their language.


_Dead_ wrong? Surely you jest. So because of the separatists, it's okay to make blanket statements about Quebec as a whole? You're not the only one with family in Quebec--my mother's side of the family has DEEP roots in France and Quebec's history: la verendrye de varennes (or Devarennes.) I've lived in Quebec for almost 10 years and have yet to come across this apparent public display of contempt of Anglos you appear to have witnessed. 

The only people who want to see Quebec leave are the separatists and France... France would love the opportunity to get their greazy little fingers on a piece of the New World.

The breakdown of a country collapsing is of no use to anybody else. There's no profit in it.

As far as the powerhouse overseas... why is it that Quebec continues to do business to this day? If they are as *intolerant* as you claim them to be... why would ANYBODY outside of Canada want to do business in Quebec? The European Union is NOT a country. They do not adhere to the same governing body, and have their own languages, laws and culture. You could say the EU is a model of what a dissolved Canada could possibly look like.  

Look, there are always a$$holes to be found--anywhere--not just Quebec. They tend to be the vocal minority, thankfully. Harper's little "nation within a nation" was the biggest mistake he could have made... all it served was to give the separatists fuel for their cause. The Bloc grew in power because the Liberals--the party that Quebecers have been known to support in the past--was weak.

And don't for a minute believe that a vote for the Bloc means a vote for separation. If Harper had only left the arts funding alone.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> You and Evan have very twisted notions of what Canada should be and I fail to see why you both care to keep Quebec in Canada if you have absolutely no tolerance for their people or language.


It's very simple actually - it is because we conqured the French scum in 1760. Quebecers only have "freedom" because the British chose not to enslave them. Quebec is our land, and if the Quebecois don't like it, they can return to their motherland. Then they will see what real hatred and segregation is like, because the French would hate them just like they hate Algerians.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> It's very simple actually - it is because we conqured the French scum in 1760. Quebecers only have "freedom" because the British chose not to enslave them. Quebec is our land, and if the Quebecois don't like it, they can return to their motherland. Then they will see what real hatred and segregation is like, because the French would hate them just like they hate Algerians.


French scum?! You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> You're making a lot of broad assumptions--none of which can be determined to be true if it did happen. I can tell you a great deal of Atlantic Canadians would rather die than become a part of the U.S. What would likely happen is the Atlantic provinces, or at the very least the Maritimes, would unite and form their own territory.
> 
> _Dead_ wrong? Surely you jest. So because of the separatists, it's okay to make blanket statements about Quebec as a whole? You're not the only one with family in Quebec--my mother's side of the family has DEEP roots in France and Quebec's history: la verendrye de varennes (or Devarennes.) I've lived in Quebec for almost 10 years and have yet to come across this apparent public display of contempt of Anglos you appear to have witnessed.
> 
> ...



Sorry Manny but....



> Standing beside Prime Minister Stephen Harper inside the Governor General's residence at the historic Citadelle fortress, Sarkozy said the relationship between France and Quebec is more like that of "brothers" while with Canada it is between "friends."


TheStar.com | Canada | Sarkozy clear on Canadian unity


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> It's very simple actually - it is because we conqured the French scum in 1760. Quebecers only have "freedom" because the British chose not to enslave them. Quebec is our land, and if the Quebecois don't like it, they can return to their motherland. Then they will see what real hatred and segregation is like, because the French would hate them just like they hate Algerians.


Talk about going overboard. I can't believe anyone could write something like that.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC said:


> Talk about going overboard. I can't believe anyone could write something like that.



Evan always says ignorant comments like that. Maybe you were offended this time. He has seriously offended me several times, to the extent that if it was to my face I may have tuned him up  . Thank god the space the internet gives us between people. 

I say ehMax or the mods have to step in here and NOT erase what they have said but reprimand their words and the asses who spoke it.

Evan,

History has taught humans so little - I hope the one thing that does perforate our thickness is that we are all humans. There is no French or Americans or Russians or Indians. We are simply humans. When we forget that is when people die.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Sorry, but when you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

Hard for the rest of Canada to just look the other way, while they are raped by the balance of payments between provinces.

And I agree with one thing. France absolutely wants "in".


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

This thread is officially...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

titans88 said:


> French scum?! You've got to be kidding me.


There is no doubt - the French were entirely responsible for the murders of millions of people because of the games they played. How many times did they attack their neighbours in order to score riches, tribute, or to slay common folk. They even attacked Russia, a nation that had no axe to grind whatsoever with France. The French attacked many nations in their pursuit - and they deserved all of the punishment that was heaped upon them.

France only exists today because the British Empire bailed them out big time twice. Quebec was not conquered because of the British, but rather, because the French saw fit to attack all of their neighbours in order to score some fast cash so that they King could live a decadent and degenerate lifestyle. The British saved Quebec from an ultimate fate. Quebec has been far better off, with rights, freedoms and liberties far beyond anything that could have been dreamed about in France. Quebecers have a high standard of living, progressive minded social programs, and all of the benefits of modern life.

In return, they heap upon people a system of hatefilled legislation that leads to regressive measures and apartheid. This is what they do in thanks for what the British did and that Canada continues to do. Without Canada, Quebec would be joining the fourth world, nothing much better than a Mugabe-Paradise...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> I say ehMax or the mods have to step in here and NOT erase what they have said but reprimand their words and the asses who spoke it.


So what you are saying is that if someone does not tow some kind of party line, or write messages that are completely politically correct - then they deserve to be "reprimanded"? Sounds like the same kinds of policies that they currently have in Quebec - where all policies are some kind of expression of an inner hatred...



> History has taught humans so little - I hope the one thing that does perforate our thickness is that we are all humans. There is no French or Americans or Russians or Indians.


This is perhaps something that you should write to the seditionists and racist hatemongers of Quebec. I for one believe in true freedoms, and that would include the abolition of all Jim Crow Laws that are in force in Quebec. People should be allowed their education, should be allowed to foster their own culture, follow their own religion. These are things that are strictly verboten in Quebec. A person does not have the right to educate their children in any language except for French in that province. The First Nations also have to turn in their children, so that they can be interned in residential schools, where they are not allowed to learn their native tongue.

It comes down to this. I, as a Canadian, would be allowed to live anywhere in this nation, be it in BC, the Prairies, Ontario, up North or in the Maritimes - where ever. That is freedom at it's finest. But I would not be allowed to live in Quebec. I would not be able to have books that are in English, or in German, or whatever language. I would not be allowed to send my kids to school where they could learn a practical language - no English, no German, no Japanese, no Chinese - nothing except for the official French that is legislated. Nor would I be allowed to follow the customs of my religion, since that would also have to be entirely in French. Nor would I be entitled to know what I am purchasing in a store because practical languages are banned.

It is a sad state of affairs, when intolerance and Jim Crow are looked upon as "fostering culture" - while the want of genuine freedoms and liberties for all citizens is somehow looked upon as being intolerant and hatefilled.

I find it funny that somehow, people can look upon those who say that it is good to have multiculturalism, that it is good to have heritage languages, to have freedoms of religion and expression, and to have laws that treat all citizens as equals deserving of protection under the law, and say to those who embrace such freedoms as being non-deserving of anything.

Quebec is a living example of what life is like with segregation - nothing more than a French speaking Klan-Paradise...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> So what you are saying is that if someone does not tow some kind of party line, or write messages that are completely politically correct - then they deserve to be "reprimanded"? Sounds like the same kinds of policies that they currently have in Quebec - where all policies are some kind of expression of an inner hatred...



No, I am saying that arguing reasonable, well grounded arguments and logically and linguistically sound is fine whatever your stance. Read AJP Taylor's _The Origins of the Second World War _ and then I will send you my thesis manuscript that I am writing for my masters degree. I support what his thesis that Hitler was not the cause of the second world war in any significant capacity and studies of the causes of the second world war are far too emotionally clouded. Of course I am writing this within the context of 1960s and 1970s critical rhetoric of Taylor's thesis led by A.L. Rowse et al. Nonetheless, many would find his and my arguments quite disturbing but they are logically and historically well grounded.

You on the other hand have grossly generalised a people, culture and perverted history. You are far too deterministic and you are on your own little ideological crusade of ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Referring to anyone or thing as 'scum' is hateful, pure and simple.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Adrian. said:


> Sorry Manny but....
> 
> TheStar.com | Canada | Sarkozy clear on Canadian unity


That's great for Sarkozy, but not long ago Jacques Chirac was poking his nose where it didn't belong.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> There is no doubt - the French were entirely responsible for the murders of millions of people because of the games they played. How many times did they attack their neighbours in order to score riches, tribute, or to slay common folk. They even attacked Russia, a nation that had no axe to grind whatsoever with France. The French attacked many nations in their pursuit - and they deserved all of the punishment that was heaped upon them.


Wow. I guess the British were a group of beatniks that toured the world for a century promoting peace and love. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> Sorry, but when you lay down with dogs, you get fleas.
> 
> Hard for the rest of Canada to just look the other way, while they are raped by the balance of payments between provinces.


So how is it Quebec's fault that other provinces couldn't get a better share of balance payments, again? :lmao:

Blame the politicians, not Quebec.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> So how is it Quebec's fault that other provinces couldn't get a better share of balance payments, again? :lmao:
> 
> Blame the politicians, not Quebec.


And there it is.  

The attitude the rest of Canada loves so dearly.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

I am begging a moderator to reprimand EvanPitts for his comments. I'm utterly disgusted.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

titans88 said:


> I am begging a moderator to reprimand EvanPitts for his comments. I'm utterly disgusted.


Or what??

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, provided no laws are broken.

Have you booked his spot at an unnamed re-education camp yet??


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

iJohnHenry said:


> Or what??
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, provided no laws are broken.
> 
> Have you booked his spot at an unnamed re-education camp yet??


Or i'll be disappointed.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Ever hear of an "agent provocateur" ? This guy, if he exists at all, would fall into that category. He certainly seems to have provoked a lot of people on this board! I'd say his superiors should give him a big "Mission Accomplished!"


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> What goes around comes around.
> 
> Karma


Earl: How was your first day of school?
Randy: Great! I really enjoyed science class. Did you know that before we were humans we were monkeys?
Earl: Really? What were we before monkeys?
Randy: I don't know. I can't even remember being a monkey.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> And there it is.
> 
> The attitude the rest of Canada loves so dearly.


Right. So explain how an expatriate from New Brunswick (who is English speaking only) living in Quebec has anything to do with Quebec's apparent "attitude"?
:lmao:

I'll give you a hint: It's not Quebec that has an attitude problem.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

You seem to be benefiting from the Federal largesse, so I guess that would give you fleas.

And as for the Ottawa member, the jury is still out. You may also have your snout in the trough.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> You seem to be benefiting from the Federal largesse, so I guess that would give you fleas.
> 
> And as for the Ottawa member, the jury is still out. You may also have your snout in the trough.


Tell me something, if a colleague negotiates a better salary than you, do you blame them or yourself?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

When they are taking money out of *my* pocket, I blame them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> When they are taking money out of *my* pocket, I blame them.


Well since Canada is a collective, it's out of their pockets, too.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Hey, where did the terrorist living in Quebec thread go?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mikeinmontreal said:


> Hey, where did the terrorist living in Quebec thread go?


It was less interesting than those who would rather slap their back in congratulations because they think it is absolutely amazing that Quebec has been "saved" by the body of Jim Crow Apartheid legislation that, nonwithstanding, suspends the rights and freedoms of the people.

It's all about inconsistency - they love the language police because it "protects kultur" - but will not recognize Jim Crow.

It comes down to the fact that it is the official policy of the government of Quebec to engage in acts of genocide against the First Nations through the forced removal of children from the family home in order to indoctrinate them in residential schools, where the First Nations are stripped of their rights of having their culture protected under the law. It is also the law that children shall not be allowed education in any language other than French (unless their parents attended an English language school in Quebec prior to 1976) - while children elsewhere in Canada are allowed to learn whatever heritage language that they wish, so long as there are enough students to support the minimum class size.

Terrorism just isn't as interesting as having a swarm of people defend their beloved segregationalist ideals, ideals embodied in the Jim Crow legislation that Quebec peddles, notwithstanding.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Wow. 

Stay in Hamilton, SVP.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I believe he has every intention of at least staying out of Quebec.

Do you refute his statements, and if so, how??


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

That's good news then. Are you planning to stay out of Quebec as well? More good news.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

iJohnHenry said:


> I believe he has every intention of at least staying out of Quebec.
> 
> Do you refute his statements, and if so, how??


Refute? Anglos in many other provinces have also been guilty of crimes against natives. But somehow Quebec is worse. Talk about tunnel vision.

Go figure.


----------



## titans88 (Oct 3, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Refute? Anglos in many other provinces have also been guilty of crimes against natives. But somehow Quebec is worse. Talk about tunnel vision.
> 
> Go figure.


Don't even bother. They don't get it.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

titans88 said:


> Don't even bother. They don't get it.


Its cause they are smarter than you! Because they are anglo saxon and of course white.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Refute? Anglos in many other provinces have also been guilty of crimes against natives. But somehow Quebec is worse. Talk about tunnel vision.
> 
> Go figure.


Except for the fact that it has ended in the other provinces, and a compensation fund is in place - while it is occurring right now in Quebec. And sadly, the cultural genocide is occurring in Quebec not under the xenophobic racist regime of the PQ, but under the regime of Charest, who was nominally a federalist and was second place in the race to become Prime Minister. 

Charest has done not even one thing to end the policies of segregation, hatred, racism, genocide and Jim Crow in his own province. It looks as if we were fortunate that he didn't succeed, because who knows what kind of policies would take hold in Canada, notwithstanding.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

titans88 said:


> Don't even bother. They don't get it.


You are wrong - Canadians do get it. They know Jim Crow when they see it in action in Quebec, and they are disgusted. It is a stain on Canada, a country that is supposed to have universal rights and freedoms for all citizens - to have those rights and freedoms entirely suspended by a set of Jim Crow laws and gestapo-style police used to enforce Jim Crow.

How can other nations even consider looking to Canada as a place that has human rights - then has a quarter of the population using Notwithstanding to remove those human rights so they can get their cheap thrills with their Klanish Jim Crow laws?

Canadians do get it - they are just to polite to discuss such things. But it is high time that people organize and demand their full civil rights as citizens and end Jim Crow Apartheid in this nation.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> You are wrong - Canadians do get it. They know Jim Crow when they see it in action in Quebec, and they are disgusted. It is a stain on Canada, a country that is supposed to have universal rights and freedoms for all citizens - to have those rights and freedoms entirely suspended by a set of Jim Crow laws and gestapo-style police used to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> How can other nations even consider looking to Canada as a place that has human rights - then has a quarter of the population using Notwithstanding to remove those human rights so they can get their cheap thrills with their Klanish Jim Crow laws?
> 
> Canadians do get it - they are just to polite to discuss such things. But it is high time that people organize and demand their full civil rights as citizens and end Jim Crow Apartheid in this nation.


You shouldn't use the word nation as a political entity. It is not, that is a state or a country.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> Except for the fact that it has ended in the other provinces, and a compensation fund is in place - while it is occurring right now in Quebec. And sadly, the cultural genocide is occurring in Quebec not under the xenophobic racist regime of the PQ, but under the regime of Charest, who was nominally a federalist and was second place in the race to become Prime Minister.
> 
> Charest has done not even one thing to end the policies of segregation, hatred, racism, genocide and Jim Crow in his own province. It looks as if we were fortunate that he didn't succeed, because who knows what kind of policies would take hold in Canada, notwithstanding.


Really, has it REALLY ended? Or are you blind up to a certain provincial border?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> You shouldn't use the word nation as a political entity. It is not, that is a state or a country.


I was referring to Nations, not to States, Provinces, Counties, Principalities, Duchies, Khanates, Protectorates, Territories, Countries, or whatever. The Nations of the world, including those who are involved in an organization that is actually called the United Nations, is what I speak of. My meaning is entirely clear, consise and correct - I speak of the Nations of the world.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Really, has it REALLY ended? Or are you blind up to a certain provincial border?


As far as I know, Residential Schools have been abolished in all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec, which used the notwithstanding clause.

As far as the court cases, most of them have been settled, and the Federal Government has issued an official apology. Any cases that have not been settled are in due process in the courts.

And I speak not only of Residential Schools, but of the fact that in Quebec and in Quebec alone, it is illegal for parents to send their children to a school of their choice, to learn a language of their choice, unless one or both of the parents had attended an English language school prior to 1976. In every other province, parents can send their children to any school that they wish, and can learn any language that they wish while in that school - something that is entirely verboten in Quebec, with the exception of children of parents who had attended English language schools prior to 1976.

Also, unlike the situation in every other province - it is entirely illegal to display anything that is non-French within a business establishment. I couldn't imagine such a policy say, in Toronto. What would Chinatown be like without the Chinese, Koreatown without Koreans, Little Portugal without the Portuguese, the Danforth without the Greeks, etc. Everything that is in those places is strictly illegal in Quebec - and people do not have their basic civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. notwithstanding.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

SINC said:


> Although I agree it doesn't matter what province he resides in, it seems to me this guy fits the definition to a tee:
> 
> ie: If Canada were not multicultural in its immigration policy, he would not be in this country.


You sound like your assuming he's an Arab Muslim. There are other Muslims as well, some of which are white or asian. 

Hell, this guy could be a white guy whose family has lived in Canada for several generations.

As well there are many white terrorists.

I don't think we should be putting down Canada's multiculturalism, I think we should celebrate it like Winnipeg does with their multiple festivals. It's nice to see the different foods, dances, and culture. Ottawa celebrates their multiculturalism too, it just seems they do in an individual way, you have your Greek Festival, your Italian Festival, Chinese New Year's, etc....


----------



## GlassOnion (Mar 22, 2004)

I know the vast majority of the non-quebecers members here on this forum will understand that the french language here in Québec had to be protected. I’m 56 years old and I remember when I was young in Montreal It was almost impossible to have services in french in a town where the large majority of the citizens were francophones. French quebecers workers had to work using english language. Business manuals and writings were all in english, etc, etc. Just imagine that situation happening in Toronto if there was a french minority there and all would be in french ? 
The french community in Quebec is surrounded by 300 billions english speaking peoples. Who’s gonna protect our language and culture if we don’t do it ourself. Canadians peoples from other provinces ? I doubt about it. And what’s happening to the french speaking canadians out of Quebec ? Who’s protecting their language against assimilation? 

Nobody wants to banish the english culture from Quebec. All we want is the french predominance and that’s normal. Don’t you think ? Mr. EvanPitts, I think you’re wrong in your description of the english situation in Quebec right now. Everything can be bilingual here but predominance will always be for the french language. English minority has access at all the services, schools, 2 english universities (McGill, Concordia), english hospitals, etc, etc.
Ah, and there’s no gestapo here. I’d like a comment from a Hamilton ON french speaking resident to know more about the french services provided to the french community there if there’s still existing one.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> As far as I know, Residential Schools have been abolished in all provinces and territories with the exception of Quebec, which used the notwithstanding clause.


Wikipedia awaits your edits. 

First, this list must be incomplete:

List of Canadian residential schools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* Amos Indian Residential School (St. Marc’s Indian Residential School) Amos; opened 1948; closed 1965 (RC)
* Fort George Anglican Indian Residential School (St. Phillip’s Indian Residential School); Fort George; opened 1934; closed 1979 (AN)
* Fort George Catholic Indian Residential School; Fort George; opened 1936; closed 1952 (RC)
* La Tuque Indian Residential School; La Tuque; opened 1962; closed 1978 (AN)
* Pointe Bleue Indian Residential School; Pointe Bleue; opened 1960; closed 1980 (RC)
* Sept-Îles Indian Residential School; Sept-Îles; opened 1952; closed 1971 (RC)

And this must be incomplete too:

Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> it is entirely illegal to display anything that is non-French within a business establishment.


So *false* it's not funny. 

By the letter of the law, 

- retailers' signs are not supposed to be exclusively in languages other than French, and where other languages are present, French is supposed to be more prominent than other languages. 

- companies with a presence in Quebec and wanting to sell to the Quebec public must make marketing materials (including websites) available in French (but not exclusively in French).

- serving the public? you're supposed to be able to provide service in French.

In practice, 

- plenty of non-English/non-French signs are posted without any complaints or prosecutions. Chinese restaurants have specials in Chinese-only posted on the walls, etc. etc.

- there are increasing numbers of complaints these days about French service becoming less common in retail environments.

- In practice, the law has been (ab)used mainly to target English-only signs, websites, etc. Hey! What's this? Something real to object to *without making stuff up.*

As for non-retail business establishments, French is mandated as the primary language of business above a certain threshold number of employees (50 last time I checked, but that may have changed). Even so, you can bet that there's plenty of English used within companies over the threshold, especially multinationals. 

Dump on Quebec all you want if it makes you happy, but is it too much to ask that you keep your facts straight as you do so?


----------

