# Yet Another Flawed Judge’s Decision



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No wonder we need to elect these idiots:

"Teen whose friends died in rollover acquitted of dangerous driving."

SHERWOOD PARK (AB)- A teenager accused of killing two of his friends in a rollover has been found not guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The 17-year-old, who can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was the driver of a car that rolled over on Sept. 7, 2006. *He was speeding in a red 1988 Grand Am when he tried to pass a truck that changed lanes in front of him on Highway 21. Melissa Melan, 15, and her boyfriend, Levi Dorn, 16, were killed.*

Levi Dorn's aunt, Tammy Davis, left, consoles Levi's mother Angela Nesbitt-Kennett (holding a photo of Levi) after the teen driver accused in her son's death was acquitted.

*Provincial court judge Justina Filice ruled that although the teen was driving at 120 km/h and sped up to at least 143 km/h to pass, this was not a marked departure from what a reasonable driver would have done in those circumstances. "The driving is not to be measured against the benefit of hindsight," she said.*

Keep in mind here the speed limit on that road was 100 kph and the 16 year old had had his drivers license for just ONE WEEK. (RED Emphasis mine.)

Levi's mother, Angela Nesbitt-Kennett, sobbed outside of the court after the verdict.

*"God knows he's guilty," she said
"Our verdict was given last year when our children died."* 

Defence lawyer Bill Tatarchuk had argued that the crash was caused by the truck driver because of the way he changed lanes.

Filice said she said she would not comment on whether the truck driver was at fault.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The judge was completely right in his judgement.

What is it with law and order types?

Is there a secret manual on how to be a conservative troll?
Wait....


> A secret guidebook that details how to unleash chaos while chairing parliamentary committees has been given to select Tory MPs.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a1c7c666-90bc-419d-a71a-808c0bd10934&k=28319

Not even room for debate as everything has to be black or white...


This should make you happy


> The Conservative government's announcement that it will no longer stand up for Canadians who face the death penalty in the United States is drawing fire from the opposition
> The Tories have announced a change in Canada's foreign policy when it comes to Canadians on death row.
> Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has said his government will not plead for the life of Alberta-born Ronald Allen Smith, who faces lethal injection in Montana for the 1982 murder of two men.
> The government also announced that it will not attempt to save other Canadians who were given the death penalty following a fair trial in democratic countries like the U.S.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071101.wdeath1101/BNStory/National/home

Or course the Harpocrite has stated


> Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will "insist" that fugitive Lai Changxing should not face the death penalty if returned to China, a sanction Beijing had declined to rule out.
> "We have insisted, as you know, in discussions with the Chinese government on no death penalty and will continue to insist on that," Harper told reporters in Vancouver where Lai awaited a final court decision on extradition.
> "(Otherwise) the government will not get involved politically in this case," Harper added. Lai had been fighting to stay in Canada since fleeing there in 1999 and claiming refugee status in 2000. His lawyers told AFP he feared certain death if sent home.
> Chinese authorities, who alleged that the former laborer was the mastermind behind a multi-billion dollar smuggling ring, declined to rule out the death penalty if convicted of these crimes.
> ...


http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/200605.php?iddocumento=8320623&mover=0

I wonder how Harper would react if they executed the Dalai Lama?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> No wonder we need to elect these idiots


No wonder we don't. 120 on a 100 road is NOT excessive. When was the last time you were on the 401? You know who the most dangerous drivers are? The ones doing 99 in the middle lane.

Sorry SINC, but you fail this one. Passing judgment based on a newspaper article?

Maybe you can head on over to this thread: http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/57345-power-fear.html

They need your support. Maybe elected judges would be willing to lock up innocent people without just cause.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> No wonder we don't. 120 on a 100 road is NOT excessive. When was the last time you were on the 401? You know who the most dangerous drivers are? The ones doing 99 in the middle lane.


You may want to reread:

*"Provincial court judge Justina Filice ruled that although the teen was driving at 120 km/h and sped up to at least 143 km/h to pass"

*143km is excessive, and I'm sure what he was driving on wasn't anything like the 401.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You may want to reread:
> 
> *"Provincial court judge Justina Filice ruled that although the teen was driving at 120 km/h and sped up to at least 143 km/h to pass"
> 
> *143km is excessive, and I'm sure what he was driving on wasn't anything like the 401.


If the road has a 100kph speed limit, 120 is not excessive.

Yes, 143kph would typically be considered excessive, but he was passing. You go up, then you come back down. That's how you pass.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> If the road has a 100kph speed limit, 120 is not excessive.
> 
> Yes, 143kph would typically be considered excessive, but he was passing. You go up, then you come back down. That's how you pass.


There is no reason to pass someone that is going 120km, unless you want to drive even faster. Had he successfully completed the pass I'm sure he would not have slowed back down to 120km.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

100 kph is a maximum legal speed limit. It is not hard to obey this sensible law that exists for the safety of us all.

However, since this speed limit is woefully under enforced, the judge probably has the right to take the speed most drivers use on that road into account. So if everybody normally (and illegally) drives 120 on that road, then 143, might be seen as the normal passing speed.

I don't necessarily agree with the judge if that is the case. I would say that 100 kph is the maximum speed. Period. If someone is going 100 kph or more, one is not legally entitled to drive faster to pass them. If someone is going 80 or 90, one is legally able to pass them at a maximum of 100 kph. It might be necessary to go faster if the passing situation changes. But remember, one is only allowed to pass when it is safe to attempt to do so.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> The judge was completely right in his judgement.
> 
> What is it with law and order types?
> 
> ...


AS.... Let's make the tone a little more friendly around here please.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I am not sure why people get so concerned about highway speeding. Speed in itself doesn't cause that many highway accidents. Rather it is people driving out of control or beyond their limits (in this case probably true).

Most accidents happen at intersections. I have yet to see police set up enforcement to catch people running red lights, etc.... Meanwhile, I have seen hundreds police set up radar hundreds of times off the freeway.

Look at the Autobahn in Germany. Pretty good safety record there.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

In the article it says he had is drivers license for 1 week. Is that is G1 they are talking about or G2? If it was the G1, doesnt he have had an adult in the car while he was driving? Or did they only mention those who died in the accident.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> There is no reason to pass someone that is going 120km, unless you want to drive even faster. Had he successfully completed the pass I'm sure he would not have slowed back down to 120km.


That may well be, but we can't pass judgment and punishment on people based on what we think they might have done. We can only pass judgment based on what they did do - and in this case, what the kid did do was not unreasonable.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Demosthenes X said:


> That may well be, but we can't pass judgment and punishment on people based on what we think they might have done. We can only pass judgment based on what they did do - and in this case, what the kid did do was not unreasonable.


What? Making an unsafe lane change is reasonable? BS, there is no reason to pass a moving vehicle that is going 120km.


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

SINC said:


> No wonder we need to elect these idiots:


*And of course an idiot has never been elected to office.*


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> What? Making an unsafe lane change is reasonable


The lane change wasn't deemed unsafe.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> The lane change wasn't deemed unsafe.


Legally, but the fact that the car rolled over and people were killed, isn't a safe lane change IMO.

This arrogant, I gotta go faster than you, zoom zoom, places to go, people to see, mentality that people have on our roads needs to stop. Hopefully, the new 50km over the limit, automatic impound law will help some.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

zenith said:


> *And of course an idiot has never been elected to office.*


Yes, but those idiots can be voted out a lot sooner than any judge can.


----------



## LivetrueNeverforget (Nov 2, 2007)

The teen was trying to pass a driver going 105kms! Why speed up to 149kms! YES 149KMS! 149kms by the time the car flipped! That is what the officer said on the stand! I was at these court hearings! All the witnesses and the other driver all said that there was no signs of the teen breaking either! Plus why (on a two lane highway in rush hour traffic) would you pass a vehical in the RIGHT HAND LANE! And nobody here can tell me that he didnt have experiance! He blantinly told the court that he had been racing cars since he was nine.

Look, the judge made her decision. Levi and melissa will never come back to us. But he should have gotten something towards his licience for what happend! There was no need to go that fast!


----------



## zenith (Sep 22, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Yes, but those idiots can be voted out a lot sooner than any judge can.


True, but it hardly diminishes the damage caused by those who are elected.

*coughBrianMulroneycough* *coughGrantDevinecough*


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Legally, but the fact that the car rolled over and people were killed, isn't a safe lane change IMO.
> 
> This arrogant, I gotta go faster than you, zoom zoom, places to go, people to see, mentality that people have on our roads needs to stop. Hopefully, the new 50km over the limit, automatic impound law will help some.


First off, I was not making the argument that we cannot punish him based on what he did. I said we cannot punish someone based on what we think he might have done _later on_. That was in direct response to your statement that he "probably" would have gone on speeding. We cannot punish someone based on what they would "probably" have done.

Second, from the sound of it, the accident was not caused by the driver's speed, but by the _other_ driver changing lanes. It was a safe lane change until someone else made it unsafe. Saying it was an unsafe pass sounds to me the same as calling someone unsafe for crossing a four-way stop and then being blindsided by an idiot out of nowhere: it was safe until someone else did something stupid.

That said, passing at 140km/h in a 100 zone seems a silly call to make, but unless the speed can be directly related to the deaths, the driver is not to blame. If the entire accident had happened at 100km/h we likely would not consider the driver at fault, but chances are those two unfortunate souls would be just as dead.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

I'm used to GTA highway speeds and like some here, the speed by the youth does not seem excessive. I don't think he deserves a criminal record but something else maybe. Can you charge someone with careless driving without charging them for the deaths?


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

Demosthenes X said:


> That said, passing at 140km/h in a 100 zone seems a silly call to make, but unless the speed can be directly related to the deaths, the driver is not to blame. If the entire accident had happened at 100km/h we likely would not consider the driver at fault, but chances are those two unfortunate souls would be just as dead.


Totally agree. 

I have had Police friends tell me that they don't bother pulling over speeders' that are below 15 km/h over. When passing someone, it is another judgment call. 

Also, trucks have a much bigger blind spot. Their lane change has to be much more gradual. If it was gradual, wouldn't it give 1) the tucker enough time to catch a passer? 2) Enough time for the passer to pass the truck at 149 km/h?


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

In BC, that would fall under "Careless driving" or "Driving without reasonable consideration", both of which are Motor Vehicle Act violations and not Criminal Code of Canada violations. MVA violations carry points and fines. I'm sure Ontario has a similar system.

There are also Criminal Code of Canada charges that carry more weight, such as 249(1)(A) "Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle", 233(4) "Dangerous driving", or even 233(1) "Criminal negligence".

So, to answer your question, yes.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Legally, but the fact that the car rolled over and people were killed, isn't a safe lane change IMO.


By your definition, anybody who is in a car accident with another car is guilty of unsafe driving.

The truck driver caused the accident. If the kid tried passing at a more reasonable speed, most likely the exact same thing would have happened. The speed the kid was going is irrelevant.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I am not sure why people get so concerned about highway speeding. Speed in itself doesn't cause that many highway accidents. Rather it is people driving out of control or beyond their limits (in this case probably true).
> 
> Most accidents happen at intersections. I have yet to see police set up enforcement to catch people running red lights, etc.... Meanwhile, I have seen hundreds police set up radar hundreds of times off the freeway.
> 
> Look at the Autobahn in Germany. Pretty good safety record there.


speeding tickets are far more profitable for the state and the judges and lawyers on both sides, not to mention police who get paid to attend court dates


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

LivetrueNeverforget said:


> The teen was trying to pass a driver going 105kms! Why speed up to 149kms! YES 149KMS! 149kms by the time the car flipped! That is what the officer said on the stand! I was at these court hearings! All the witnesses and the other driver all said that there was no signs of the teen breaking either! Plus why (on a two lane highway in rush hour traffic) would you pass a vehical in the RIGHT HAND LANE! And nobody here can tell me that he didnt have experiance! He blantinly told the court that he had been racing cars since he was nine.
> 
> Look, the judge made her decision. Levi and melissa will never come back to us. But he should have gotten something towards his licience for what happend! There was no need to go that fast!


I'm a bit confused in what you posted.
If this was a two-lane highway and the teen passed the truck on the right (which in itself is illegal), where was the truck? In the left lane facing on-coming traffic?

The only scenario that I can visualize that would make any sense is that the truck had pulled in from a side road and was making a left turn onto that two-lane highway.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> speeding tickets are far more profitable for the state and the judges and lawyers on both sides, not to mention police who get paid to attend court dates


Yes. As a motorbiker this pisses me off to no end.

Statistically, a lot of bikers die at the hands of left turning cars and red light runners within city traffic. I would feel safer riding over 200 km per hour on the freeway on my bike than I would riding at 50 km within the City. Yet, the police will ticket me for going just over the limit on the freeway and do nothing about dangerous drivers in the City.

If people want to get all uppety about traffic laws then please start lobbying the government to outlaw cell phones while driving.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

The unfortunate thing is that traffic laws are obviously much harder to enforce in the city. Collisions at highway speeds also have a greater chance of being fatal because of the speeds involved. Most in-town collisions are (I believe) t-bones and rear-enders, so we're talking about 50km/h crashes here (mostly, I realize some idiots do 70 in 50 zones...). Highway crashes are generally at speeds between 80-140... lots more momentum there.

That said, for a motorcyclist, in-town collisions are extremely dangerous.


----------



## LivetrueNeverforget (Nov 2, 2007)

sorry its a split highway. Two lanes going both ways. no on coming traffic! The truck was passing right turning vehicals. the teen swerved into the right to pass the truck which was going back into the right lane anyway. So if the teen had waited a few mins and used his brakes instead of trying to pass in the slow lane, this tradgedy would have been avoided!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

LivetrueNeverforget said:


> sorry its a split highway. Two lanes going both ways. no on coming traffic! The truck was passing right turning vehicals. the teen swerved into the right to pass the truck which was going back into the right lane anyway. So if the teen had waited a few mins and used his brakes instead of trying to pass in the slow lane, this tradgedy would have been avoided!


Waited a few minutes?

Next time you are on the highway, and you fell the need to pass somebody, do a three-minute count before going. You will find it's not that easy/

It's all very well and easy for back-seat judges to sit in here and pass judgement based on a short news article. None of us were in court. None of us heard the complete testimony. None of us saw all the evidence.

This is one of the reasons we don't need elected judges. Too many people decide guilty or innocent based on a newspaper headline.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

With reference to the title of this thread “flawed judges” I guess that’s what we get when you ”appoint” people to these positions if you elect people to these positions these persons would also be flawed.

Flawed, this *is* the nature of humans.

How’s about titles of threads like “another court decision I disagree with?”


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> Second, from the sound of it, the accident was not caused by the driver's speed, but by the _other_ driver changing lanes. It was a safe lane change until someone else made it unsafe. Saying it was an unsafe pass sounds to me the same as calling someone unsafe for crossing a four-way stop and then being blindsided by an idiot out of nowhere: it was safe until someone else did something stupid.


Was the other driver charged? If not, then someone had to have made the determination that he/she hadn't broken the law. Unsafe lane changes are covered under the law in Ontario.

If I see a truck pull into the left lane to pass vehicles turning right. I automatically assume that truck is going to come back into the right hand lane as soon as possible. But then I'm not 17 and I have driven for a number of years and try to drive prudently. And I believe speed limits are there for a reason. If you don't think 100kph is reasonable, lobby for a change. But until then follow the law as it is written.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

BigDL said:


> With reference to the title of this thread “flawed judges” I guess that’s what we get when you ”appoint” people to these positions if you elect people to these positions these persons would also be flawed.
> 
> Flawed, this *is* the nature of humans.
> 
> How’s about titles of threads like “another court decision I disagree with?”


LOL!

That's exactly it. Elected judges would just suit the whims of whoever actually elected them in. And when political administrations change, do we re-elect judges as well?

Appointed judges are just fine. Some people just get pleasure out of being a back-seat, headline reading judge.

Here's more from the article:


> Crown prosecutor Gordon Hatch acknowledged he was unable to find any Canadian case where driving at a speed of 143 km/h on a double-lane highway was enough to satisfy the test for dangerous driving.


Speeding driver, 17, acquitted


> Not every wrong that leads to a loss of life leads to criminal charges. In our criminal justice system, there is a very high standard of proof.


Well, that just seems....sensible! A high standard of proof required? I want mob rule! Get yer pitchforks!


> Spokesman Don Szarko of the Alberta Motor Association declined to comment on the case, but said that speeding while passing is not uncommon.
> "Every one of us, wherever you are, if you are honest with yourself, knows that you have sped up and exceeded the speed limit in order to safely pass."


You have to speed to SAFELY pass.


> "God knows he is guilty," Angela Nesbitt-Kennett said outside court.


How very Christian of you. Jesus would be proud.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

Voyager said:


> If I see a truck pull into the left lane to pass vehicles turning right. I automatically assume that truck is going to come back into the right hand lane as soon as possible. But then I'm not 17 and I have driven for a number of years and try to drive prudently. And I believe speed limits are there for a reason. If you don't think 100kph is reasonable, lobby for a change. But until then follow the law as it is written.


That doesn't make it the teen's fault: the truck driver had a responsibility to make sure the right lane was clear before moving back into it, even if he only left it for a few moments.

Livetrue, you're confusing passing in the slow lane with passing on the shoulder. Passing in the slow lane is legal - passing on the right refers to passing on the shoulder of the road, which is illegal. Passing in the right lane is not.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Demosthenes X said:


> That doesn't make it the teen's fault: the truck driver had a responsibility to make sure the right lane was clear before moving back into it, even if he only left it for a few moments.
> 
> Livetrue, you're confusing passing in the slow lane with passing on the shoulder. Passing in the slow lane is legal - passing on the right refers to passing on the shoulder of the road, which is illegal. Passing in the right lane is not.


hmmm, info. that SINC seems to have ignored in his zeal for "justice"


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> That doesn't make it the teen's fault: the truck driver had a responsibility to make sure the right lane was clear before moving back into it, even if he only left it for a few moments.


It was the teen who was charged, not the truck driver, so someone thought it was the teen who had done something wrong. When the truck driver started his move back to the right lane, it probably was clear. Remember, the teen was doing between 120-143kph. Trucks can't always manoeuver as quickly as a car once they start something like a lane change.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Waited a few minutes?
> 
> Next time you are on the highway, and you fell the need to pass somebody, do a three-minute count before going. You will find it's not that easy/


Come on GT - 

Four-lane divided highway.
Cars in right lane slow down to turn right.
Truck is moving at 105 kph and moves into the left lane to pass vehicles turning right.
The normal expectation is that the truck would move back to the right lane as soon as possible - no driver I know would have tried to pass the truck on the right knowing it's going to move back to the right any minute.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Demosthenes X said:


> Passing in the slow lane is legal - passing on the right refers to passing on the shoulder of the road, which is illegal. Passing in the right lane is not.


Where did you find that passing in the right lane is legal?
In Ontario at least, I was told by the OPP that passing in the right lane is only legal if there is bumper to bumper traffic and your lane (being the right one) moves faster than the left lane.
If someone hogs the left lane which happens on the 401 all the time, nobody will give you a ticket if you pass on the right but if that causes an accident, there is no question that you are at fault for passing on the right.

Passing on the shoulder is a totally different situation again.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

krs said:


> Where did you find that passing in the right lane is legal?
> In Ontario at least, I was told by the OPP that passing in the right lane is only legal if there is bumper to bumper traffic and your lane (being the right one) moves faster than the left lane.
> If someone hogs the left lane which happens on the 401 all the time, nobody will give you a ticket if you pass on the right but if that causes an accident, there is no question that you are at fault for passing on the right.
> 
> Passing on the shoulder is a totally different situation again.





> Ontario Highway Traffic Act Section 150:
> 
> The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
> 
> ...


perhaps OPP should refrain from giving legal opinions?

my experience with most police is that they are bullies with a gun who love to give lectures to "civilians"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It is an absurd verdict... The kid was clearly breaking the law, and committed two acts of murder in the course of events. The judge should be impeached for out and out malfeasance, clearly the judge is mentally deranged and has no sense of civic responsibility. And the kid should be hanged for his acts of murder. Clearly he only performed this stunt in order to kill someone, like the hundreds of idiots on the road that attempt to murder other people on a daily basis. This is yet another example of the corrossion of values and the cheapining of the value of life that we have been suffering from for so long under the rule of the liberal democrats - those same people that enjoy turning victims of crime into the guilty parties - and letting the criminals free to live a life of ease and luxury.

The kid was a fool, and he should also be charged with grand theft auto because he was driving a car without permission, in an illegal manner, with poor judgement and under the influence of illicit drugs, and without proper insurance. And for the murder of two innocent victims of his heinous crimes, he should be hanged at dawn with the other scum of the Earth.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> perhaps OPP should refrain from giving legal opinions?


Pretty much what the OPP officer said.

If you pass on the right and nothing happens then obviously the "movement has been made in safety"

If you pass on the right and an accident happens then obviously the "movement has *not* been made in safety"

So, according to the Highway Traffic Act. who do you think is at fault in the situation we are discussing.
The truck driver was not making a left turn, he was also not travelling straight in the left lane although one could argue it was a highway for one-way traffic only.
- not sure what the exact definition is.

If the truck had travvelled in the left lane and then suddenly decided to switch to the right lane without looking, I would agree that he had to take some of the blame, but that wasn't the case. And as far as I know, the truck driver wasn't charged with anything.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

krs said:


> Pretty much what the OPP officer said.
> 
> If you pass on the right and nothing happens then obviously the "movement has been made in safety"
> 
> ...


you said that the OPP officer said;


> In Ontario at least, I was told by the OPP that passing in the right lane is only legal if there is bumper to bumper traffic and your lane (being the right one) moves faster than the left lane.


are you now saying that the rest of the post is what the OPP officer said?


> If someone hogs the left lane which happens on the 401 all the time, nobody will give you a ticket if you pass on the right but if that causes an accident, there is no question that you are at fault for passing on the right.


wouldn't any that makes any sort of lane change that "causes an accident" be charged with an HTA offence like dangerous driving or improper lane change?

did the kid make a bad driving decision? - obviously
did he commit murder? - no
he wasn't racing with another car
he was speeding and should be appropriately fined subject to HTA rules

it's been a long time since i obtained my driver's licence, but aren't new Ontario drivers required to have a fully licenced and sober (i.e. not restricted as most introductory licences are) person in the front seat?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I had this discussion with an OPP officer about 15 years ago, so I'm really paraphrasing.
At the time, the question was really specific to the 401 and drivers hogging the left lane going at the speed limit of a few kilometers above it.
Driving in the left lane permanently and blocking traffic was definitely against the law as far as the OPP officer was concerned. Although I read later in the newspaper that another OPP officer said if the person "hogging" the left lane drove at least at the speed limit, then this was supposedly legal.

But regardless - the question was what happens if you pass somebody lke that on the right - and I mean "pass" in the true sense of the word - not two lanes of traffic moving at different speeds. That's where I got the "information" as to what constitutes legal passing.

Basically, you are supposed to drive on the right and pass on the left.
The way I read the section of the highway act that was quoted, it only allows passing on the right under very specific circumstances, and passing a vehicle on the right after that vehicle moved to the left lane to pass another vehicle that was turning right, wasn't one of them.

Out of curiosity - where the two people who died buckled in?


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

krs said:


> If you pass on the right and nothing happens then obviously the "movement has been made in safety"
> 
> If you pass on the right and an accident happens then obviously the "movement has *not* been made in safety"


This is a ridiculous statement. It comes back to crossing a four-way stop: you look it, it's clear, you go. Someone comes out of nowhere and smashes into you, it's not your fault for "not making the movement safely", it's the other idiot's fault for making the situation unsafe.

The truck driver might not have been charged, but that does not mean he is not at least partially responsible. "The teen should have known the trucker would move back into his lane" does not exculpate the truck driver from all responsibility to make sure his maneuver was safe before retaking the lane - if he was in the left lane for any period of time, he's responsible for making sure the right lane is clear before he moves back into it.

Obviously the kid could/should have planned better, but placing the blame entirely on him because he did not read the truck driver's mind is just stupid. All drivers on the road have a responsibility to drive safely - in this case, two people failed to do so. I imagine the trucker was not charged because he did not directly cause the accident, but it sounds like if the truck hadn't been there, the accident wouldn't have happened either.



> Clearly he only performed this stunt in order to kill someone, like the hundreds of idiots on the road that attempt to murder other people on a daily basis.


 I hope this is a joke, because it's an absolutely ludicrous statement. I'm sure this kid went out for a drive with the sole intention of killing someone... right. No doubt there are some horrible drivers out there, but I doubt any of them get behind the wheel with the intention of kill people. You've got a rather bleak view of humanity, I think...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

You think this is a ridiculous statement but that is exactly how lawyers argue.


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

Well, if laywers say it, it must be true...


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

So I heard this lawyer say that the world is going to end in 3 days because a giant space monster is going to land on earth and eat us all. ALL of us.. in one night. 

The judge made the correct decision. And this is why we SHOULDN'T elect our judges. Kinda hard to elect a judge who is supposed to be unbias and lay down the law equally and fairly when he has to run a political campaign with an agenda to get into office and then uphold this to keep power. Justice isn't just when the minority isn't protected from the majority. 

Kind of backwards argument SINC =) No offense intended.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> Out of curiosity - where the two people who died buckled in?


Yes, both of them.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Elected judges would appeal to mob mentality to ensure re-election. The law would take back seat to popular vote.


----------



## LivetrueNeverforget (Nov 2, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Waited a few minutes?
> 
> Next time you are on the highway, and you fell the need to pass somebody, do a three-minute count before going. You will find it's not that easy/
> 
> ...


But i was in the court room! I saw the evidence, accident recreation, testimonies! I saw and heard it all! 
When i drive that highway i wait when passing. Ive waited its not that hard.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Elected judges would appeal to mob mentality to ensure re-election. The law would take back seat to popular vote.


I really wonder why that seems so hard for some to understand.
Of course, we also have politicians that exploit that....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

LivetrueNeverforget said:


> But i was in the court room! I saw the evidence, accident recreation, testimonies! I saw and heard it all!
> When i drive that highway i wait when passing. Ive waited its not that hard.


Are you a lawyer?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Are you a lawyer?


not only that, but the poster only joined ehmac on nov. 2, only posted in this thread, has no personal info. online, so how I am to know they "saw all the evidence" and "heard it all"?


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

Come on Mac, it's the internet. Nobody ever lies on the internet!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Mmmm....judgey goodness.

Thousands face down Pakistani police - Yahoo! News


> Musharraf, head of Pakistan's army, suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. *He ousted independent-minded judges* and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Mmmm....judgey goodness.
> 
> Thousands face down Pakistani police - Yahoo! News


good for the people of Pakistan and shame on Bush and Amerika for supporting this heinous regime, not to mention the very quiet coalition of the willing

what's going to happen if Pakistan goes "Cuba"?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Mmmm....judgey goodness.
> 
> Thousands face down Pakistani police - Yahoo! News


There is a little more to that story than what you are quoting....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It is an absurd verdict... The kid was clearly breaking the law, and committed two acts of murder in the course of events. The judge should be impeached for out and out malfeasance, clearly the judge is mentally deranged and has no sense of civic responsibility. And the kid should be hanged for his acts of murder. Clearly he only performed this stunt in order to kill someone, like the hundreds of idiots on the road that attempt to murder other people on a daily basis. This is yet another example of the corrossion of values and the cheapining of the value of life that we have been suffering from for so long under the rule of the liberal democrats - those same people that enjoy turning victims of crime into the guilty parties - and letting the criminals free to live a life of ease and luxury.
> 
> The kid was a fool, and he should also be charged with grand theft auto because he was driving a car without permission, in an illegal manner, with poor judgement and under the influence of illicit drugs, and without proper insurance. And for the murder of two innocent victims of his heinous crimes, he should be hanged at dawn with the other scum of the Earth.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 



If there was any reason to take what you write with any amount of seriousness I'd argue that you don't seem to know the difference between manslaughter and murder but since this is just too absurd to properly comment on I'll leave it to the icons.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :clap: :clap: XX) XX) XX) XX) XX)


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

martman said:


> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


martman... Debate the topic, but leave out the personal commentary directed at other members.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dunno. I thought the comment was fairly tame. With all due respect, I'd have reff'ed it differently, Mr. Mayor. Although that flood of emoticons _was_ admittedly pretty barren.

[Geez, was that a personal comment?]


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Goes to show the lack of decorum in these parts. It seems that if someone does not agree with some stand on an issue or topic - the personal attacks are unleashed. My opinion is just that, my opinion; and it is posted in order to add a different perspective to the debate.

Never once did I stoop to personal insults - and I do not expect to be insulted in return in such debates. If I wanted insults, I'd join a War Board where that is the raison d'etre.

In this case, the judge rendered a legal verdict that did not serve justice to the situation. From the perspective of justice, this was an act of premeditated murder simply because the kid engaged in a wreckless activity that took the lives of two innocent victims. The car was not 'possessed' and just happened to be going way over the speed limit for some demonic reason. In fact it was the kid who, while in control of the car, turned it into a weapon. He did this by his own choice, and it is by his own choice that he murdered two people. And not only that, I am sure that the accident scene left many hundreds or thousands of people delayed in a traffic jam, detracting from the liberties of leading their own lives.

Driving a car is not only a skill, it is a responsibility, and that each time a driver gets behind the wheel, they need to be in full control of that vehicle. When they make a decision to act in a wreckless manner without regard to those who share the road, they become responsible for the consequences of their own actions. So if they kill, that means they are murderers and should be punished by the full volition of justice. And if that means leaving the legal system behind in order to seek the purity of justice, then so be it.

The kid is guilty of murder and should be executed for the slayings - and the judge is guilty of malfeasance and should be impeached. And that is what justice is, punishing the transgressors who attack civilized society.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I disagree with your position, which in this last post you represent as being identical to "the perspective of justice." I suspect that it is in fact nowhere near as iron-clad as you so forthrightly claim. You speak of justice as if it were something you understand objectively, as something immutable and inviolate, something miraculously not subject to the vagaries of human reasoning. Perhaps that is so, although I must say I doubt it; but still - you are going to have to demonstrate for my sake how and why your own opinion so neatly ties in with the alleged dictates of "justice." Because otherwise I can only conclude that you do not speak for justice at all, but instead for your own desires.

By the way, I believe the term is "reckless." If it were indeed "wreckless," there probably not have been mangled cars... nor mangled flesh.

I am also intrigued by your notion of "leaving the legal system behind." You know, I do believe that is what crooks and vandals do, on a daily basis. This amounts to a fascinating recommendation. In order to defeat criminals and transgressors, we need to be like them - only better, purer, maybe? Do explain. Or do you mean that, if the state fails at punishment, it naturally falls to the truly responsible citizen to administer justice in whatever manner he or she deems fittest?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> I disagree with your position, which in this last post you represent as being identical to "the perspective of justice." I suspect that it is in fact nowhere near as iron-clad as you so forthrightly claim.


In that justice was not served, in this case, by the legal system - and a criminal is set free without paying for the crimes that were committed. In this country we have a legal system, a system which has acted beligerently against the victims of crime and the rights of society at large. From the "perspective of justice', justice was not served because the verdict did not place a punishment against the criminal element. If those facts that are self evident - that the perpetrator of the crime broke the laws of the land on many counts, and that the breaking of the laws lead to the untimely death of others. Justice would dictate that the criminal be punished, while the perversion of the legal system has instead lead to his attainment of freedom without punishment.

If this is not iron-clad, then it is in the interpretation of those facts that are self evident. The car was uninsured and driven without permission - which is theft. That he was under the influence of illicit drugs - which is against the laws of the land. That he broke the manifold regulations of the motor vehicle acts of the province - laws that by his own application for a license he agreed to follow. And that he alone made those decisions to murder other people for his own perverted thrills. The judge simply did not look at those facts that were self-evident, clinging to the fact that no where in the corpus of legal jurisprudence was it ever proven that someone driving at almost 100 MPH who crashes into another car willfully would legally result in the death of others. The judge propagates those crimes committed by the murderer out of the will to see that justice is not to be served, and that the judgement be passed that life is indeed cheap. In fact, this case is a demonstration that correct driving behaviours and driving in the correct lane is, in fact, illegal!



> You speak of justice as if it were something you understand objectively, as something immutable and inviolate, something miraculously not subject to the vagaries of human reasoning.


Justice is that which corrects an attack on the social system and those benefactors of the social system. Murder is such a transgression, and it is in this country that we have been eroded and weakened by thoughts of liberality - by which we as a society have equated to the cheapening of the value of life. We can not indulge in notions of liberality when it is that liberality that removes us from the benefits of the liberties that are guaranteed to us by our inclusion within the social system. It is as of the legal system, given a life of its own, has turned itself as the enemy of justice, instead of the guarantor of fair and equal justice for all citizens.



> Perhaps that is so, although I must say I doubt it; but still - you are going to have to demonstrate for my sake how and why your own opinion so neatly ties in with the alleged dictates of "justice."


To set free a murderer is to reward that person for the removal of the rights of the victim to exist. By our own liberality we do a disservice because we place upon the gift of life a price, a discounted price that cheapens each and every one of us; while granting to a murderer those powers of decision over life and death. Justice is that which protects a society, and those members of which that society is composed. Without justice, we have a hollow codex of rules that are open for all to break as they see fit. Hence, without justice we have nothing but savagery, regulated by our own impulses.



> Because otherwise I can only conclude that you do not speak for justice at all, but instead for your own desires.


I have no desires next to seeing that perhaps through a collective effort, that our social system be placed back upon the path to truth and justice.



> By the way, I believe the term is "reckless." If it were indeed "wreckless,"


I stand corrected - typo on my part.



> I am also intrigued by your notion of "leaving the legal system behind."


I did not make my comment clear... Perhaps I shuld have said that we should leave the perversions of our legal system behind; while placing the sanctity of the corpus of our laws and our rights as guaranteed by our Constitutional Instrument back upon the pedestal of justice where it belongs. In our daydreams of liberality, we have allowed the standards to slip, and we have indeed allowed our legal system to become mired in the minute details rather than in the administration of true justice.



> This amounts to a fascinating recommendation. In order to defeat criminals and transgressors, we need to be like them - only better, purer, maybe? Do explain. Or do you mean that, if the state fails at punishment, it naturally falls to the truly responsible citizen to administer justice in whatever manner he or she deems fittest?


Perhaps what it really does mean is that: our system is broken and we have no way to indict corrupt judges; that our punishments are not scaled to the crimes and hence, victims of crimes are given very few rights; that as individuals, we have abdicated those responsibilities that are attached to the exercise of our rights and freedoms; and that as electors, we have abdicated our responsibilities to ensure that our government and institutions are not infiltrated by the corrupt and the special interests. As citizens, we have walked in the daydream of liberality stripped of responsibility and thinking, and have allowed our society to become overwhelmed with acts of carnage and sin. Liberality had placed a price tag on life, and that price is little more than some light shopping at the Dollar Store. Law without justice is little more than ink wasted upon the paper on which law is written upon.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's late, and I must retire... but is "liberality" even a word? I ask because you keep resorting to it, and it's obvious it's an important concept to you; you use the term as if it equated to the scourge of our times. This to me is a gross over-simplification of our many problems. As for your vaunted "truth and justice," be that as it may, much of the folly of man can ironically be traced back to lofty pursuits of those same ostensibly bedrock items... yes, age after age, war after war - lousy with incidence of raping and pillaging, rabble-led barbarism and, yes, of course! - that very corruption you rail against.

History seems to suggest that that the more stridently we call for justice, the more vulnerable we are to its polar opposite.

I'll have to check back on this thread tomorrow, but many thanks for providing a long and detailed response at this late hour.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Perhaps what it really does mean is that: our system is broken and we have no way to indict corrupt judges; that our punishments are not scaled to the crimes and hence, victims of crimes are given very few rights; that as individuals, we have abdicated those responsibilities that are attached to the exercise of our rights and freedoms; and that as electors, we have abdicated our responsibilities to ensure that our government and institutions are not infiltrated by the corrupt and the special interests. As citizens, we have walked in the daydream of liberality stripped of responsibility and thinking, and have allowed our society to become overwhelmed with acts of carnage and sin. Liberality had placed a price tag on life, and that price is little more than some light shopping at the Dollar Store. Law without justice is little more than ink wasted upon the paper on which law is written upon.


Okay, I can agree that we have abdicated many of our personal responsibilities, perhaps most glaringly in the gradual and steady decline of voters who actually bother to vote one way or another. Sometimes I think we have permitted our attention spans to shrink to the size of a gnat; we await instead the stray tinkling twitches of satisfaction which come with the media jolts we endlessly crave... snippets of info and opinion which convey little meaning in and of themselves but possess nonetheless some small drama all their own. Our collective imagination is under sedation and it seems that we can only feed parasitically on the media stream... it's not about acting in our age, it's about scanning and blogging and buying identities, ones which we can wear or discard at the slightest whim. Politics as fashion; identity as temporary garb, worn with precious little consideration for consequences.

But these are massive generalities and I only really believe that when I'm having a bad day and it strikes me that humans are the vainest, most incompetent creatures a planet has ever seen. Most of the time I try to see the good stuff. Thankfully I interact with some great inspirational people - folk whose positive attitude shames me into thinking and acting on a higher level.

As for your talk of sin, corruption and carnage, that's a little too sternly biblical and oratorical for me to digest. It may warm some hearts but it makes mine despair. Because if we're going to talk about "sin" we're going to have to define it and drag "morality" into that mess, too. And it's a fine subject, one which has been discussed over the breadth of history. Apparently it's still a juicy enough topic to kindle raging debates and spark ugly, bloody wars. But as far as resolving it's concerned, that's an open question. I'll leave talk of sin to the priests who administer to their flocks. I'd rather we just got our society in order. The trouble begins when we each draw up a list of what we think an ordered society must entail. That is, for those of us who aren't too busy watching Judge Judy or ESPN or YouTube.

I realize I'm not answering anything, of course. I don't know how to offer up an answer that would satisfy any of us. Nor can I advocate returning to 'the good old days;' that's a quaint, folksy construct, one usually trotted out by people eager to buy votes. But I do I think that our species is endlessly fascinating... we're capable of such intense passions, we make terrific messes.... there's just so much to examine.

You also mentioned those government institutions "infiltrated by the corrupt and special interests..." well, there's a phrase for you. Seems that "special interests" is a kind of code for "they might have interests but they're not my interests, so I'll just refer to them in a snide, demeaning manner and hope _my_ special interest message sinks in that way." The history of democratic rule in this one country alone suggests that those politicians who, while in opposition, rail on most about outrageous special interest elements are the very same ones who are most likely to help themselves to that delicious, intoxicating special status once they get into power... and proceed to further curry favour with their wealthy patrons while ignoring the calls of malfeasance and partisanship coming from somewhere below. In other words, it's an old story of exchanging roles. I think some governments actually can be seen to be one with the majority of people, but those moments are truly fleeting. Most of the time we get a kind of government over the Inept, by the Inept.

Gotta get going here. Cheers.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> It's late, and I must retire... but is "liberality" even a word? I ask because you keep resorting to it, and it's obvious it's an important concept to you; you use the term as if it equated to the scourge of our times.


Liberality is indeed a word - but do not equate it to the word liberal. A ruler may indulge in liberality in order to curry support among the people, especially in a time of crisis when the provision of liberality is so very important. But an excess amount of liberality leads to a corrosion of the moral fibers of a society. This concept is treate in great detail by Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. In essence, rulers gained acceptance by the provision of gifts to the people; relief after major fires, the provision of a corn dole and free bread for the poor, free admission to the games at the Colosseum. But some rulers proved to be inept, and hence, had to engage in the practice of excess liberality in order to keep their power. Cluadius did this when he paid off the army, a tradition that became quite a drain on the Imperial treasury. Gibbon points repeatedly that it is the excesses of liberality that lead to the moral corruption of the Romans, and in the end, caused the death of the Empire.

In today's world we have seen a similar movement. When one complains about expensive political promises - one speaks directly about the abuses of liberality. No one will say that it is wrong to help the poor during hard times; but does it really do any good when a government sees fit to bring in policies of welfare that only have the goal of keeping people on the dole? Perhaps it is those words of Gibbon that bring a degree of reason, that those in power know from the example of the Eternal City that liberality is a two bladed knife.

In our nation, the process of the excesses of liberality can be traced to the Diefenbaker Administration; and accelerated through the years of Pearson and Trudeau. It cost the nation a great deal of money, and the liberality fed upon itself as a disease. Money was being spent - but it was not solving the problems that it had set out to solve. Over the past fifteen years, the Government has worked at reining in the excesses; while still being able to provide adequate relief in times of crisis. Which, in essence, is the primary reason for liberality in the first place.



> This to me is a gross over-simplification of our many problems.


Many of our 'problems' can indeed be traced back to the abuses of liberality that occur - for a myriad of reasons. Canada is a difficult nation to govern because there is no 'majority' of any sort; and some people view the provision of liberality to be the key in the acquision of power. It is a form of corruption that corrodes the will of the people, making them ever so much more complacent. And the liberality feeds upon itself, ever growing and ever changing. It takes men of great virtue to step forward and remove the excesses - while at the same time not damaging those portions that are actually good and needed by the society at large. For instance, no one would begrudge welfare for someone that is in a terrible position of poverty; but no one would think it just that there are families that for three generations have lived off of the dole without making some kind of contribution to society. And it is that many of our problems are caused by selecting leaders based on their stands on the various "issues"; without even examining that which is truly important, their virtues.



> History seems to suggest that that the more stridently we call for justice, the more vulnerable we are to its polar opposite.


Never in the course of history has a civilization partaken in the feasts of liberal democracy! I do not think that crime threatens our "system" as much as it threatens the man on the street. We do live in a fairly safe country, but it is those miscarriages of the legal system and our inability to solve those problems, that lead is down the road to crisis. I feel much safer here than in Detroit, but it could be so much better. Without the supreme penalty - we have an arbitrary system that is open to abuses. It is a system that we had and it worked well, however, governments have been distracted by the dole of favours and cash and have not concentrated on those things that are truly important in the lives of our legislators - and that is the creation of legislation. These abuses all to win some votes.

If this nation was not hypocritical, they would charge Marois with propagation of hate literature, just like they hectored Zundel (who, by the way, ran for the leadership of the Liberals in '67). In order to "buy votes", they will do nothing about her, and allow the corrosion of liberality to once again take just that bit away from the Canadian experience.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> If this nation was not hypocritical, they *would charge Marois with propagation of hate literature*, just like they hectored Zundel (who, by the way, ran for the leadership of the Liberals in '67). In order to "buy votes", they will do nothing about her, and allow the corrosion of liberality to once again take just that bit away from the Canadian experience.


Pray tell, what was hate literature from her?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> Okay, I can agree that we have abdicated many of our personal responsibilities, perhaps most glaringly in the gradual and steady decline of voters who actually bother to vote one way or another. Sometimes I think we have permitted our attention spans to shrink to the size of a gnat; we await instead the stray tinkling twitches of satisfaction which come with the media jolts we endlessly crave


As Gibbon pointed out, this happened to the Romans, and in fact, happened so dramatically that the Empire would pass from the control of the Romans to that of the "barbarians", like the Severii and Diocletian. Rome itself would be moved to the old town of Byzantium by no other than Constantine, which would be the seat of the Empire until 1453. And it did so because the people immeasurably gave up what was theirs, one right and priviledge at a time. The rule of the "Mob", that is, the vast population of Romans who were on the corn dole (or in our terms, welfare), made the real decisions, and were quite pleased so long as the Games were exciting and bloody. They gave up on thoughts of politics, and when a series of crises ensued, the Empire began to unravel. Left without talent and ambition, the citizen could see no real advantage in remaining under the rule of a military dictatorship; when that was compared to that of the rule of outsiders who were happy to leave them alone so long as they paid tribute.

Canadians have sunk under the weight of the realization that, no matter what the people want, their rulers will never bow to the will of the people. The rulers will, in face, bend the laws into any shape in order to engage in the corpulence of corruption, to curry favours to any of the special interests, because we let them. With ever decision that goes against the will of the people, the people become ever so much more encumbered under the weight of those acts of class warfare that are waged against us. With every defeat, the people give up an iota of their meaning; and thus, we walk down the same road of the decline of our nation. Low voter turnout shows the ruling class that we are "really happy" with what they "do", so they continue to "do it" to us.

In the decline of out nation, we turn away from the pursuit of justice and equality through our embrace of the font of liberality that is our reason for decline. We abdicate not only our responsibility to vote, but abdicate our reason to opinion and action as full members of the society that we engage in under the articles of our Consititutional Instrument. In place of justice we crown those magistrates with the administration of legal pretence, our judges no longer engage in the pursuit of justice but in the convenience of satisfying those laws created imperfectly by man. Justice is a virtue, lofty in all regards as the crowning achievement of our rights and freedoms given to us by the covenant of our Constitution. But innumerably, those rights are removed, one by one, until the Constitution becomes the absurdity of justice. When we, as a people are left without the lofty virtue of justice, we will have witnessed the angst of our decline.

To murder, by whatever means, is when the right to live as a free citizen is removed without regard to the laws of the nation. Not to exact the supreme punishment is to besmirch that which we should value the most - and that is the preservation of the life and freedom of each and every law abiding member of our society. In the annals of the legal world, we have witnessed the erosion of our own rights and freedoms that shall not be regained until the people, each and every one of us, stands up and rejects the turgid liberality that is foisted upon us through the myriad acts of class warfare, and instead, embraces those virtues that set us apart as a people.



> Our collective imagination is under sedation and it seems that we can only feed parasitically on the media stream...


So very much the opinion of McLuhan. He warned us about the passage from the "modern world" to that of the "global village", and what may happen if we do not create the appropriate rules so that we do not decend back into tribalism.



> Politics as fashion; identity as temporary garb, worn with precious little consideration for consequences.


Political slogans on the walls of Pompeii that ring true today!



> a bad day and it strikes me that humans are the vainest, most incompetent creatures a planet has ever seen.


Most animals are entirely self centered - while humans walk the unmapped road to being a vast, organized social being. Imperfect, yes - but we are entirely and utterly able to learn and adapt through our own volition. We just need to recognize that in our own nation.



> despair. Because if we're going to talk about "sin" we're going to have to define it and drag "morality" into that mess, too.


Sin and morality are all an integral part of the human existence. Without reference to religion - sin is simply those acts that are done to do harm to others. So we can talk about sin and its opposite, morality, without dragging out religious texts. It is one thing to make a mistake, but yet another to perform an act that does grevious harm to another.

Murder is just that kind of sin, done without any reference to morality. In this case, a kid decided to murder innocents because he believed that he was above all reproach. That he could indeed steal a car while under the influence of drugs and go onto a highway and do as he pleases for his own thrill. Unfortunately two innocent people had to suffer. Then the real sin is that he did not have the integrity to simply stand up in the court of justice and say that he is sorry and that he is guilty. The miscarriage of justice was not his, he lied to save his own skin. No, the realm miscarriage is that a judge, who is supposed to be educated in such matters, finds the two dead victims of his crime guilty by saying that "there is no case history". A case which could be referred to if say, one would invent a new kind of weapon that had never been used to kill anyone before, and using it would not be murder because "there is no case history".

And that is what the miscarriage of justice is about; and yet another erosion of our rights as free citizens under a Constitutional Instrument that, once again, proves itself unable to protect the rights of the citizens of this nation.



> The trouble begins when we each draw up a list of what we think an ordered society must entail.


And that is what the legal code is in the first place! The trouble with society is that we have a society, and because we can not get along, we have to draw up an agreement and a set of regulations to make that society function. And then the carpetbaggers and scalawags of society look for ways to circumvent those rules, leading to legislators who discover the comforts provided by corruption. And then we all rejoice when Attila comes along and ruins the system of class warfare...



> Nor can I advocate returning to 'the good old days;' that's a quaint, folksy construct, one usually trotted out by people eager to buy votes.


A little of the "tar and feathers" did wonders at keeping domestic disputes at a minimum! Our system was never perfect, but it is now being perverted by those who should know better. The papers list a hundred examples of these travesties every week.



> The history of democratic rule in this one country alone suggests that those politicians who, while in opposition, rail on most about outrageous special interest elements are the very same ones who are most likely to help themselves to that delicious, intoxicating special status once they get into power...


Beyond that... We do need to seek those who not only pledge, but will actually address those problems that we face with the legal system, so that the laws on the books more accurately reflect the values of the justice system that we wish to have in this nation.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ArtistSeries said:


> Pray tell, what was hate literature from her?


The bill she tabled in the National Assembly last week that would ban immigrants from Quebec based upon their inability to speak French. If a person can not speak perfectly fluent French, they would not be allowed to live in the province. That law reads no differently than any of the Jim Crow legislation that allowed for segregation in the south; except for the fact that even under Jim Crow, blacks were allowed to live in their allotted areas and sit on the back of the bus - while under her hatefilled legislation - segregation would be banned and those that can not speak perfect and fluent French would not be welcome (even at the back of the bus, which is French only as well). I am sure that the writers of Apartheid would have warmed to her words, if only translated into Dutch. By all measures, she is no different from Ernst Zundel, Jerry Keegstra, and Wolfgang Droege; except she speaks French instead of White.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> The bill she tabled in the National Assembly last week that would ban immigrants from Quebec based upon their inability to speak French. If a person can not speak perfectly fluent French, they would not be allowed to live in the province. That law reads no differently than any of the Jim Crow legislation that allowed for segregation in the south; except for the fact that even under Jim Crow, blacks were allowed to live in their allotted areas and sit on the back of the bus - while under her hatefilled legislation - segregation would be banned and those that can not speak perfect and fluent French would not be welcome (even at the back of the bus, which is French only as well). I am sure that the writers of Apartheid would have warmed to her words, if only translated into Dutch. By all measures, she is no different from Ernst Zundel, Jerry Keegstra, and Wolfgang Droege; except she speaks French instead of White.


While I don't agree with the Bill she tried to have debated in the National Assembly, Bill 195 is not as you describe it.
It's an attempt to have immigrants learn French within 3 years of arriving in Quebec or lose the ability to vote, hold public office, raising money for political parties or participating in the National Assembly. 
Dumont and Marois are quite the pair but let's not forget that a sitting PM has said that Quebec is now a nation...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Three simple steps to solving all the idocy within the borders of Quebec.

1) Withdraw all our military from Quebec.

2) Allow Quebec to seperate and form their own country.

3) Attack Quebec, and overthrow their government. Seize all their land. Take them over, and force them to be part of Canada.

Done! What's the problem?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> While I don't agree with the Bill she tried to have debated in the National Assembly, Bill 195 is not as you describe it.
> It's an attempt to have immigrants learn French within 3 years of arriving in Quebec or lose the ability to vote, hold public office, raising money for political parties or participating in the National Assembly.
> Dumont and Marois are quite the pair but let's not forget that a sitting PM has said that Quebec is now a nation...


If the rest of Canada applied those types of rules to Quebecers who move to another province, the likes of Dion and Chretien might never be accepted, given their slaying of English. As it is, there are hundreds of thousands of immigrants living outside of Quebec who arrive in this country, climb in to their little family cocoons and live out their lives with nary a word of English.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ArtistSeries said:


> While I don't agree with the Bill she tried to have debated in the National Assembly, Bill 195 is not as you describe it.
> It's an attempt to have immigrants learn French within 3 years of arriving in Quebec or lose the ability to vote, hold public office, raising money for political parties or participating in the National Assembly.


Alas, it is not as I described at all! If they don't know French, they will be denied their basic rights as citizens of a democratic nation! Learn French, otherwise you will be stripped of the right to vote, to participate, to speak, and to be represented in the ranks of government. Sounds so much like Jim Crow, except for the fact that her hatefilled legislation does not even have the basic dignity of the policy of segregation that Jim Crow legislation and Apartheid both have.

Hatred does not end there. They will next be seeking legislation to deport anyone that does not fit their ideals of racial purity; and perhaps they will hold a conference to decide on the "final solution to the Anglo problem". Perhaps the anglo-kulaks will be "interned" in "reeducation camps" for the benefit of the (Franco-aryan nation).

Our entire legal system as based on our Constitution is null and void if she is not charged with the propagation of hate literature.



> Dumont and Marois are quite the pair but let's not forget that a sitting PM has said that Quebec is now a nation...


And he should be charged and convicted with high treason and sedition for those very acts that continue to profane the nation, along with all of the other slanderous carpetbaggers who continue to peddle their peculiar brand of elitism, hatred and anglo-baiting.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Three simple steps to solving all the idocy within the borders of Quebec.
> 
> 1) Withdraw all our military from Quebec.
> 2) Allow Quebec to seperate and form their own country.
> ...


I see no problem with that. It's like instead of being stupid wusses like after the Plains of Abraham; we do it right after the Second Plains of Abraham. Their own mother nation abandoned them, and it was Britain who, through their careful policies and great tolerance allowed them to continue in their lives in peace and plenty. The next time, most of Quebec should be given back to the First Nations; and the separatists turned over to them as slaves in perpetuity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> If the rest of Canada applied those types of rules to Quebecers who move to another province, the likes of Dion and Chretien might never be accepted, given their slaying of English. As it is, there are hundreds of thousands of immigrants living outside of Quebec who arrive in this country, climb in to their little family cocoons and live out their lives with nary a word of English.


You always forget that Canada is bilingual. 
Should I talk about the slaying of the other official language by Harper?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Alas, it is not as I described at all! If they don't know French, they will be denied their basic rights as citizens of a democratic nation! Learn French, otherwise you will be stripped of the right to vote, to participate, to speak, and to be represented in the ranks of government. Sounds so much like Jim Crow, except for the fact that her hatefilled legislation does not even have the basic dignity of the policy of segregation that Jim Crow legislation and Apartheid both have.


Is there not a citizenship test in the U.S.? Is there not one for Canada?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ArtistSeries said:


> Is there not a citizenship test in the U.S.? Is there not one for Canada?


There are tests, and you are allowed to bring a translator. Some people do this, but many do actually learn English, seeing that it is a pretty important language to learn in the world of international business these days.

However, I do not understand the connection that you infer between a citizenship test (of basic Canadian knowledge) vis a vis the passage of Jim Crow Apartheid style laws in this country. Nothing on the citizenship test provokes hatred and prejudice; while everything that is spouted out of the mouth of Marois is plagurized from the speeches of Joseph Goebbels. She of course replaces the word Jew with the word Anglo - it is the same gutteral hatred and intolerance that courses through her rancid racist bones. She would fit right in to a Neo-Nazi Rally, where she would be cheered on by her spite filled peers in much the same way they cheered Herr Hitler at Nurnburg.

None of her opinions should have any more gravitas than that of those opinions spouted by David Irving and Ernst Zundel, and we do have anti-hatred laws on the books just for these cases.

The policy of official bilingualism was never tabled for a vote by the citizens of this country; rather, it was ramrodded through Parliament in the same manner as all other disasterous policies, like official metric (which never did become official) and Free Trade/NAFTA. They will do this with the whole concept of Quebec being a nation - ramrod it and tell the Patriots that they are all to be ashamed because of their love of the country. I say put it to a binding referendum, simply because it is hypocritical to be multicultural but only be bilingual, except in Quebec where the policy is speak French or else.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> I see no problem with that. It's like instead of being stupid wusses like after the Plains of Abraham; we do it right after the Second Plains of Abraham. Their own mother nation abandoned them, and it was Britain who, through their careful policies and great tolerance allowed them to continue in their lives in peace and plenty. The next time, most of Quebec should be given back to the First Nations; and the separatists turned over to them as slaves in perpetuity.


Now there's something I never thought I'd read on ehMac. Bravo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> You always forget that Canada is bilingual.


Not really correct. I agree that some parts of Canada may be truly bilingual. But the reality is, in the case of many westerners at least, we never hear the French language spoken anywhere in public except for politicians on TV.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Not really correct. I agree that some parts of Canada may be truly bilingual. But the reality is, in the case of many westerners at least, we never hear the French language spoken anywhere in public except for politicians on TV.


Why would a French person speak their native tongue to somebody who speaks English?

Regardless, a great deal of people in Canada speak both languages. And in the instance of Quebec and the Atlantic Canada, some speak just French.

Maybe the predominance of American television has a role to play with that?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Maybe the predominance of American television has a role to play with that?


Unlikely, rather I think it is a predominance of English only speaking Canadians in western Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Unlikely, rather I think it is a predominance of English only speaking Canadians in western Canada.


I agree with you, somewhat. But what about places like Vancouver where there is a heavy concentration of Asian people?

What do you believe to be the answer? Let communities dictate which language is the official language? Why should English be the default language? There are quite a few regions in Canada that are not English-speaking majority. The Prairie provinces have a prominent Ukrainian population. Where does one draw the line? Do we fragment Canada even further?

Frankly, I'm kind of shocked at the attitudes that some people appear to have towards Quebec. I'm surprised this bigotry is considered fine on ehMac.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Three simple steps to solving all the idocy within the borders of Quebec.
> 
> 1) Withdraw all our military from Quebec.
> 
> ...


Hey GT, have you ever noticed the fact that a very significant proportion of our soldiers are francophones, especially in the upper echelons.

This idea may work better than you think, but in reverse.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> I agree with you, somewhat. But what about places like Vancouver where there is a heavy concentration of Asian people?
> 
> What do you believe to be the answer? Let communities dictate which language is the official language? Why should English be the default language? There are quite a few regions in Canada that are not English-speaking majority. The Prairie provinces have a prominent Ukrainian population. Where does one draw the line? Do we fragment Canada even further?
> 
> Frankly, I'm kind of shocked at the attitudes that some people appear to have towards Quebec. I'm surprised this bigotry is considered fine on ehMac.


First let me say what you call bigotry is not, in any way shape or form from my perspective.

Let's look at Canada's official bilingual policy and how it works across the land.

In Atlantic Canada, and since I have never been there, this is speculation on my part, from what I have read there appears to be a good mix of both French and English spoken in many communities. I assume bilingualism works fine for the residents there.

In Quebec, and again, I have never been there except to Hull in the 70s, there appears to be a French only attitude pressed upon residents including language and sign police to enforce that notion.

In middle Canada, anywhere I lived the predominant language was certainly English.

On the prairies, which I know intimately, while you may recognize a large Ukrainian population, the predominant language used is English. As I mentioned earlier, we simply never hear French other than when used by politicians on TV. Nor do we hear Ukrainian, or Chinese, or Vietnamese nor any other ethnics groups language in everyday life. The one exception might be in Chinatown or in an ethnic restaurant among owners and employees. But in everyday life, the working language is English as is all signage.

While BC may have a large Asian population, again you will hear languages other than English being used in "pockets" here and there, but 99% of daily business or social events are solely in English.

So when English only speaking Canadians, and ethnic Canadians of other than French lineage see the policies of the federal government, they are at a loss to understand why official bilingualism is the law of the land when 75% of residents never use French.

We also wonder how the government of a single province, that being Quebec, can force the French language upon their residents. Seems to us that flies in the face of the spirit of bilingualism and does nothing to enhance our opinions of such policies.

Again I state that in our minds, this is not bigotry. It is simply the questioning of an official federal policy that does not apply in our part of the country. As for Quebec's language laws, it simply is beyond our understanding how they, and they alone, can impose a language on Canadians within their borders. It certainly brings into question the term "freedom of expression" in Canada.

I've tried to be as honest as possible in outlining the above and I hope it is taken in the same spirit it is given, as debate on a government policy and no more.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

English is unofficially the official language of the world. Make it so and problems solved (not because I prefer it over any other as if it were my choice, based on pure audio aesthetics and interesting history, spanish or french would be my pick). 

Kinda harsh tone towards our french speaking citizens here. Don't fight ignorance with ignorance.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> First let me say what you call bigotry is not, in any way shape or form from my perspective.


It wasn't my intention to include your posts as being bigoted. The posts below struck me as very disturbing to say the least in spite of the fact that I'm sure they were in jest.



guytoronto said:


> Three simple steps to solving all the idocy within the borders of Quebec.
> 
> 1) Withdraw all our military from Quebec.
> 
> ...





MasterBlaster said:


> Don't forget to make English the *REQUIRED* official language. Force them to be educated from kindergarten to Ph. D *English Only. *All government jobs and government represenetatives require fluent English. Want service in French? Pay extra!
> 
> Merci!


~

SINC, you embrace the overall idea that Canada as a whole should be English-only because, generally, English is the most widely spoken language.

I don't disagree with that.

But there are inherent flaws with that way of thinking. What will happen (and it will be, sooner than you think) when the English language is not the most widely spoken language in Canada. So what do we do then?

Geographically, Quebec is the largest province in Canada.
Economically, (I'm sure) Alberta is Canada's richest province.
Ontario has the largest population.

So who gets to decide what and when? A lot of the decisions we, as a country, make do not follow the will of the largest common denominator in spite of the belief that we are a democracy.

Personally, I don't believe languages should be dictated on such a large scale. It should be considered locally, IMHO. However you can't please everybody. There's always someone who is either going to be put off because they don't feel they need to speak French (or English), or left out because they speak Cantonese or Ukrainian. There has to be some concession made.

As far as I'm aware nobody is forcing Western Canadians speak French, with the exception of working in the Federal Government. And for as long as I've lived in Quebec (8 years as of October), I've never been forced to speak French, which is good seeing as I barely know a lick of French. All the services that I use in Quebec have been available to me in English with the exception of signage.

However if, for some reason, the French-speaking population dwindles to a minute few I'm sure the government will reconsider their stand on Canada's official languages.

But until then...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> And for as long as I've lived in Quebec (8 years as of October), I've never been forced to speak French, which is good seeing as I barely know a lick of French. All the services that I use in Quebec have been available to me in English with the exception of signage.


I take it you no longer work.
French is mandatory in the workplace even if there is not a single Francophone employed and all the company dealings are in English.
Why do you think thousands of companies which had their head office in Montreal moved out of the province - including mine?
I'm in Montreal often and I really like the French influence and atmosphere, but the insistance that everything be in French has already destroyed what could have been a great province and a great city.
Somehow Quebeckers in general have been so brainwashed that they don't see this - partially because many many Francophones I have spoken to have never left La Belle Province their whole life.
Taxes are among the highest in Canada if not the highest, services and the Quebec infrastructure should be top notch based on Government revenues, but their not and the infrastructure is literally crumbling - overpasses are closed because there is a concern they may collapse, street are full of huge pot holes.
I spent over $2000.- last year to fix my car from damage due to pot holes that sometimes are just unavoidable. To top it off, the City of Montreal passed some by-law which prevents people from suing them for pot hole related incidents.

Ever talk to Montreal's finest? You'd be surprised how many pretend they don't speak any English.
Lots of sales people as well, but there I have the option to just walk out which is what I do - not an option with a police officer.
I went to school in Montreal and graduated from McGill University; not being fluent in French was never a problem until the Separatists arrived on the scene.
Ever since hen they have been trying to break up the country - in other countries that is considered high treason and is punished accordingly, but in Canada that seems to be acceptable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> I take it you no longer work.
> *French is mandatory in the workplace even if there is not a single Francophone *employed and all the company dealings are in English.
> Why do you think thousands of companies which had their head office in Montreal moved out of the province - including mine?


So I've been illegal in Quebec for the last 10 years?
The only time this has been an issue for me is when a company was near 100 employees and one complained. We bought XP in French and it was settled...

While there are many problems (even some that you alluded to), lets not go overboard. You are touching many subjects...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

krs said:


> I take it you no longer work.
> French is mandatory in the workplace even if there is not a single Francophone employed and all the company dealings are in English. Why do you think thousands of companies which had their head office in Montreal moved out of the province - including mine?


I've never worked in Quebec and probably never will. But perhaps the reasons why they moved head office are not language related? Have you thought of that? There are a lot of businesses moving their corporate headquarters to Toronto for no other reason than being Toronto.



> I'm in Montreal often and I really like the French influence and atmosphere, but the insistance that everything be in French has already destroyed what could have been a great province and a great city.


That's one person's opinion. I guess the same could be said of Paris.



> Somehow Quebeckers in general have been so brainwashed that they don't see this - partially because many many Francophones I have spoken to have never left La Belle Province their whole life.


Brainwashed? You're kidding, right? There are a lot of people who've never lived outside of their native province. Does that give them any less right to live according to their beliefs or culture?



> Taxes are among the highest in Canada if not the highest, services and the Quebec infrastructure should be top notch based on Government revenues, but their not and the infrastructure is literally crumbling - overpasses are closed because there is a concern they may collapse, street are full of huge pot holes.


Yes, but Quebec also have subsidized daycare, as well as benefits like 5-week paternity leave that NOBODY in Canada has.

As far as the infrastructure--language has nothing to do with it. Did the bridge in Minnesota collapse because it was French? Perhaps the taxes were too high? Too old? Bad planning? Or maybe shoddily made?



> I spent over $2000.- last year to fix my car from damage due to pot holes that sometimes are just unavoidable. To top it off, the City of Montreal passed some by-law which prevents people from suing them for pot hole related incidents.


So take public transit. and take it up with city hall. What happens in Montreal is not reflective of all Quebec anymore than what Toronto is for Ontario.



> Ever talk to Montreal's finest? You'd be surprised how many pretend they don't speak any English.


I've talked to various offices in Quebec. Every one of them were nice enough to talk to me (or at least try) in my native tongue. Sounds like Montréal is the issue with you, and not necessarily Québec.



> Lots of sales people as well, but there I have the option to just walk out which is what I do - not an option with a police officer.


I take it you get into a lot of trouble.



> I went to school in Montreal and graduated from McGill University; not being fluent in French was never a problem until the Separatists arrived on the scene.


The separatists have always been there. And they're not specific to Quebec, either.



> Ever since hen they have been trying to break up the country - in other countries that is considered high treason and is punished accordingly, but in Canada that seems to be acceptable.


I got news for you--Quebec was what it was before it became a part of Canada. Some people seem to have the very American attitude that you should speak English or die.

After reading your post, it's clear you have nothing to say about the language issue, but more about how displeased you are with living in Montréal. You should come to Gatineau. The roads are nice, the air is clean and it is cheaper than living in Ottawa.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Manny, for what it's worth - good, level-headed response.

And, as an aside, the Gatineau area rocks... as do the whole Laurentians... my SO's parents and sister have cottages near St. Jerome. Amazing country, much closer to the city than the Muskokas are to Toronto.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Max said:


> Manny, for what it's worth - good, level-headed response.
> 
> And, as an aside, the Gatineau area rocks... as do the whole Laurentians... my SO's parents and sister have cottages near St. Jerome. Amazing country, much closer to the city than the Muskokas are to Toronto.


Thanks, I try.

We LOVE area. We originally moved to Hull in '99 only because it was the most affordable apartments to live at the time (Ottawa had a crazy renters market at the time that had almost had zero percent availability).

How lucky we were to find an amazing area within walking distance of Gatineau Park. We ended up buying a house down the road.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MasterBlaster said:


> Of course it was in Jest,
> 
> Sort of


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So I've been illegal in Quebec for the last 10 years?
> The only time this has been an issue for me is when a company was near 100 employees and one complained. We bought XP in French and it was settled...


Does this now only apply to companies with 100 employees or more?
Anyway - the company that was forced to move had over 40 000 employees at the time - not all in Quebec of course - so the 100 employee exception wouldn't have made any difference.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> After reading your post, it's clear you have nothing to say about the language issue, but more about how displeased you are with living in Montréal. You should come to Gatineau. The roads are nice, the air is clean and it is cheaper than living in Ottawa.


I figured since the current discussion is already totally removed from the original topic, I can expand on the language issue a bit more.

As to your comments - I don't really want to go through them one by one, but

.......when Sunlife and other large companies moved out of Quebec, it was the language issue and nothing else.

.......I've been to Paris numerous times, the French don't have this hatred for the English that you see in Quebec

.......the reason 'infastructure' and 'brainwashed' came up is that Quebec should be one of the "have" provinces, not one of the "have nots" that receive equalization payments from Ottawa. The reason (IMHO of course) has an awful lot to do with the language and businesses therefore leaving. Even with a higher tax base Quebec can't manage. Pretty bad if subsidized daycare and 5-week paternity leave is what you need to point out as the plus points.

.......Separatists there all along? Maybe, but when I moved there in 1958, they weren't visible. For years, the English and French got along famously, but when the Separatist party came to power that all changed and Quebec has never been the same since.

As far as the language issue is concerned - simple - each country should have only one official language otherwise the nation is not only divided but there also tends to be a lot of conflict.
You can see that in Belgium and Switzerland, two countries that come to mind.
It doesn't really matter what the language is, it would be one element to unite Canadians. Quebeckers (and of course there are exceptions) tend to be Quebeckers first and Canadians second.

Sort of ironic - Europeans try to put their differences aside and unite with the results that they are now a huge power house, larger in population than the US and with a much more stable currency, and in Canada some of the provinces, not just Quebec, are always thinking about separation.

Where do you think Quebec would sit as a separate country? No subsidy from Ottawa, their own currency, their own army, navy and airforce, etc. etc.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> .......Separatists there all along? Maybe, but when I moved there in 1958, they weren't visible. For years, the English and French got along famously, but when the Separatist party came to power that all changed and Quebec has never been the same since.


You mean when the English acted as a majority?
58', before la "revolution tranquille"?....

I don't agree with most (all) of the separatists. Honestly I think that much of the problems here have to do with the fact that the economy is basically around Montreal but the government is in Quebec. 
I'm annoyed that the French here don't have enough confidence in their own culture and feel compelled to enforce it with draconian laws. 
At least some Anglos are fighting back http://www.oqla.org/about.php


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> As far as the language issue is concerned - simple - each country should have only one official language otherwise the nation is not only divided but there also tends to be a lot of conflict.
> You can see that in Belgium and Switzerland, two countries that come to mind.
> It doesn't really matter what the language is, it would be one element to unite Canadians. Quebeckers (and of course there are exceptions) tend to be Quebeckers first and Canadians second.


It's funny how most (if not all Europeans) that I know speak more than one language. 
As for the US, a little Spanish will help you go a long way...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's funny how most (if not all Europeans) that I know speak more than one language.


That is true and I fully support that.
I was born in Europe and speak three languages; but I still think there should only be one *official* language in any one country.

Interesting news article about the French language in Quebec on CTV tonight:
CTV.ca | Que. language activists target phone menu system

Note the part where English-speaking Quebeckers are classified as second class citizens.

One other comment - the "French" that is spoken in Quebec should not be called French because it isn't modern French. To me it's a French dialect from 300 years ago intermixed with many English terms with a "French" accent especially when it comes to technical terms.
I have had visitors here from France and also from the French part of Switzerland and neither one of them could understand much of what was being said to them by Quebeckers in "Quebec-French". Even if the word itself was French, the pronunciation was quite different than in France or Switzerland.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Sadly so many of your friends have failed basic linguistics.

The French spoken in Québec follows the inflections of French from several hundred years ago, in a provincial sense.

The same is true for the United States: the language in the originating country changed while the provincials stayed more aligned with the sound of the language from several centuries prior.






MasterBlaster said:


> So many of my friends from France told me they would ask people from Quebec if they could speak English because they could not understand the French they spoke.
> 
> *Quebec French seems to be unique among French speakers of the world. If they are so adamant about their French culture and language, why don't they first learn the language correctly?
> 
> *Even people in France think Quebecers are just making asses of themselves and have done so for centuries. So just what point are they trying to make?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Who would have thought so many had such fierce views on Quebec? And I was being tactful in expressing my views so as not to offend. Go figure.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Who would have thought so many had such fierce views on Quebec? And I was being tactful in expressing my views so as not to offend. Go figure.


Better fierce than indifferent, right?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> Interesting news article about the French language in Quebec on CTV tonight:
> CTV.ca | Que. language activists target phone menu system
> 
> Note the part where English-speaking Quebeckers are classified as second class citizens.


Are Anglophones second class? Sadly, I'd have to agree. 





krs said:


> One other comment - the "French" that is spoken in Quebec should not be called French because it isn't modern French. To me it's a French dialect from 300 years ago intermixed with many English terms with a "French" accent especially when it comes to technical terms.
> I have had visitors here from France and also from the French part of Switzerland and neither one of them could understand much of what was being said to them by Quebeckers in "Quebec-French". Even if the word itself was French, the pronunciation was quite different than in France or Switzerland.


So in Canada, do we speak English or Canadian? 
As for the French (the ones in France), they use so many English terms that's I wonder why some even bother calling it French. For example "Shopping" and "Stop" are widely used in France. 
You talk about "accents" but inside of France, Paris speak very distinctly from Marseilles.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Is American considered English? What with all the dropping of the excessive vowels and such.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> But perhaps the reasons why they moved head office are not language related? Have you thought of that? There are a lot of businesses moving their corporate headquarters to Toronto for no other reason than being Toronto.


Montreal was traditionally the hub of high finance on Canada; with the players of the St. James Club casting a long shadow across the business of the nation. Sir John A. did not go to Toronto to find financial help in his quest for the National Railway - he went to Montreal. All of the players lived in Montreal, Hugh Allan, John Redpath, William MacDonald and all of the other men of cash and influence. All of the banks had either their headquarters or very important offices in Montreal - Toronto was treated to branch offices. Perhaps Toronto was only know for being the seat for the stock exchange - a exchange that dealt in minerals and resources - not the font of financial progress as it is now.

The move to Toronto was abetted by the move of Redpath Sugar because of the opening of the Seaway. And in it's wake, the untimely death of Sauve lead to the Quiet Revolution of Lesage that set the groundwork for the move of almost all of the major corporates away from Montreal to Toronto. It was not only language, though that factored into many decisions, but the change in attitude in Quebec. Corporates became afraid, very afraid, because what they feared as a result of the nationalization of HydroQuebec - a fear promulgated by the very losses that the corporate world had experienced in Cuba. Once Redpath moved lock stock and barrel, the floodgates opened and literally millions left Quebec for the greener pastures of Hog Town. The Toronto Club, not the St. James, became the capital of the Establishment, and Bud MacDougall and his Argus Corporation had engineered the blueprint for the foibles that are now inherent in Quebec.



> As far as the infrastructure--language has nothing to do with it. Did the bridge in Minnesota collapse because it was French? Perhaps the taxes were too high? Too old? Bad planning? Or maybe shoddily made?


Infrastructure has suffered because of the movement of industry and business from Quebec which stretch the taxbase. The fact that the old racist attitudes are continued to be promulgated does not look attractive to outside investors who perhaps rather speak Japanese or Korean. And it goes without saying that official corruption and bribery continues to sap away what money there is. All of these factors pile up to destroy the works that are needed to maintain a viable city.


----------

