Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now thats just funny. Youre telling me that barring people from wearing what they want, because you deem it "retrograde behavior" is liberal? Perhaps you need a few English lessons? Feel free to review the definition of the word, below:
liberal
ˈlɪb(ə)r(ə)l/|adjective willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
The irony is further proliferated when you decided that "soft drugs" are part of a greater good, while an individual's right to wear certain clothing/accessories is somehow "retrograde behavior."
I don't recall describing "soft drugs" (or any of the other examples of things tolerated or supported by people with liberal attitudes) as being good or bad.
Nor did I qualify what I meant by retrograde behaviour or indicate that it was in any way related to clothing.
You're just associating something you heard about on the news with my comments when I established no such relationship.
I don't recall describing "soft drugs" (or any of the other examples of things tolerated or supported by people with liberal attitudes) as being good or bad.
Nor did I qualify what I meant by retrograde behaviour or indicate that it was in any way related to clothing.
You're just associating something you heard about on the news with my comments when I established no such relationship.
I guess that should be expected from someone who views the limitation of individual rights as "liberal." No matter how you want to spin it, liberalism is about acceptance/tolrance of opinions, even despite your personal convictions/opposition, not forcing people to do things your way, because theirs is "retrograde behavior."
You better be careful; I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec limited people's ability to use English privately (including online, in forums such as this one) for the sake of protecting their identity (i.e. your definition of liberalism - ) in the near future.
Last edited by Rozenn; 11-06-2013 at 04:44 AM..
Reason: Unnecessary
I have always had that impression that Quebec as a whole is more socially and politically progressive than other Canadian provinces because of that French influence.
Maybe that is the case only if you make an effort to speak French and integrate into their society?
While other provinces emphasize on tolerance and the right to retain one's own cultural heritage, Quebec seems to prefer integrating immigrants into their society.
While other provinces emphasize on tolerance and the right to retain one's own cultural heritage, Quebec seems to prefer integrating immigrants into their society.
That's the dictionary definition of conservative, so it certainly isn't liberal (quite the opposite). As for progressive, I'd argue that any society that makes assimilation a priority is one that doesn't value natural evolution, and is therefore reactionary. Opposing change is very conservative. It's funny how people like Acajack will argue for Quebec's supposed liberalism.
What a pathetic deflection. I guess that should be expected from someone who views the limitation of individual rights as "liberal." No matter how you want to spin it, liberalism is about acceptance/tolrance of opinions, even despite your personal convictions/opposition, not forcing people to do things your way, because theirs is "retrograde behavior."
You better be careful; I wouldn't be surprised if Quebec limited people's ability to use English privately (including online, in forums such as this one) for the sake of protecting their identity (i.e. your definition of liberalism - ) in the near future.
I have always had that impression that Quebec as a whole is more socially and politically progressive than other Canadian provinces because of that French influence.
Maybe that is the case only if you make an effort to speak French and integrate into their society?
While other provinces emphasize on tolerance and the right to retain one's own cultural heritage, Quebec seems to prefer integrating immigrants into their society.
Quebec is no different than any other place really.
It is a popular Canadian myth that somehow all of the provinces except Quebec are a diverse free-for-all devoid of any coercion to even learn English or conform to at least some type of mainstream culture.
This is not true at all, unless I somehow missed the existence of publicly-funded Italian and Punjabi schools in Toronto or Vancouver - and that's just giving one example.
This is not true at all, unless I somehow missed the existence of publicly-funded Italian and Punjabi schools in Toronto or Vancouver - and that's just giving one example.
So you equate to mandatory French education - literally forcing immigrants to take their children to French schools - with publicly funded minority-specialized schools?
Last time I checked, kids weren't being forced into those Italian/Punjabi schools. They're free to enrol in any school they want, whether it is English/French/Italian/Punjabi/etc.
So you equate to mandatory French education - literally forcing immigrants to take their children to French schools - with publicly funded minority-specialized schools?
Last time I checked, kids weren't being forced into those Italian/Punjabi schools. They're free to enrol in any school they want, whether it is English/French/Italian/Punjabi/etc.
Having free access to school in English all day funded by taxpayer money is not a universal human right and 90-95% of the countries in the world do not offer this.
Also, it's odd that in this day and age someone would willingly and knowingly immigrate to a place like Quebec and then complain about French. Sort of like choosing to move to Texas and then complaining bitterly about lax gun laws.
But the real point being missed here is that there is no cross-Canada constitutionally-guaranteed access to minority language to anyone who simply wants to make that choice. The right to minority language education rights (in a language other than the main one of the province) is framed by the Canadian Constitution, and is generally limited to citizens and people who are native francophones or anglophones. It is also subject to a "where numbers warrant" provision which depending on where you are can be a determining factor.
In the case of Quebec, it is the ministry of education that decides who gets in to minority schools and who doesn't. In Ontario that authority has been delegated by the province to the French school boards themselves.
The result in Ontario is that some French school boards (where francophones are not numerous) are fairly open to accepting anyone, whereas in places like Ottawa the boards are very tight about who they let in and often keep immigrants and non-francophones out of their schools.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
