Monday, June 23, 2008

2010 Male Bodybuilders Models

Day Canada Day is coming, dear voters!

Dear friends , allies and fellow , some of you have asked me how they pouveulent celebrate the National Day their provincial territory, while true patriots of Canada and Canadian .

For Day Canada Day, what better than Kraft Dinner deluxe with Molson Canadian "light" , and a big cake with Crisco frosting in the shape of maple leaf flag (with a glass of skim milk Ontario , of course)? If you do not have cold feet and want to make a patriotic gesture, what better than a good hamburger beef angus Alberta guaranteed without prion (Mad Cow Free ) by Stockwell Day himself and tested by the firm of Biochemistry former spouse Maxime Bernier . The

traditional barbecue, which this year will be the colors of the national festival of the founding of our nation, Canada's Quebec 's 400th b-day will be served by a troop of scouts multicultural " almost bilingual" in shorts of Sarnia, Ontario . These revelers circle the largest country in the world ethanol buses and train to promote national unity, while playing curling to the music of our friendly poet National Gordon Lightfoot .

Celebrate well all the world together, my colleagues, regardless of your language mother, and remember that we must remain united , regardless of our differences by voting Conservative Reformista . Go Canada Havez and fun in your party . Remember to practice our sport national !

Signed: The Honorable S. Harper , on Behalf of the Queen & Her Princess Jean

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Male Brazilian Wax In Madison

From the Canadian constitution ...

This short text provides answers to a question I hear often. Many Quebecers are confused and do not understand what the real consequences of the decision of Trudeau repatriated the Constitution (Constitutional Act of 1982) without the consent Quebec (then represented by Rene Levesque). Consequences real or symbolic? And why no Quebec government has dared to sign the constitution as it applies de facto on our province and its laws?


Q: The Canadian Constitution does it apply in Quebec?

A: I have asked this question to an expert in constitutional politics and he said, in essence, yes. The constitution applies to the entire Canadian territory, even in jurisdictions that have not signed the paper. The signature is a formality, laden with meaning and symbolism very important - but this step does not affect the application of the Constitution on the whole territory.

Quebec refrained for a long time to refer to the constitution in its own laws. However, the use of the notwithstanding clause to the Bill 101 implies an inclusion in the framework of the Constitution Act of 1982. In addition, treaties involving the Quebec Native Americans, including that of Nitassinan made history by making explicit reference to the Canadian Constitution.

Finally, the Agreement of Calgary (1997), signed by Prime Ministers the rest of Canada endorses the principle that Quebec will never get anything that would have constitutional significance. In other words, the Constitution will NEVER be amended to Quebec, for any reason whatsoever. The Agreement provides for Calgary symbolic gains for Quebec and reaffirms the equality and absolute equivalence of all provinces. Finally, the premiers at the same time noting that Canada is functional despite Quebec's refusal to sign the Constitution. Note that this agreement was largely drafted by the team of Stephen Harper.

Therefore, we can say that:
1) the Constitution Act, 1982 applies to Quebec without regard to the lack of signature, the objections of the National Assembly or the refusal of elected officials (and elsewhere);
2) Quebec has implicitly acknowledged its application ;
3) Quebec explicitly recognized its application at least once;
4) the rest of Canada refused any concession
5) Act 99 of Lucien Bouchard, who sought to counter both the Clarity Act referendum Dion and the Calgary Declaration of Harper, is a failure - it had no effect.

What else does in Quebec as a bargaining? First, lack of signature carries a symbolic extremely heavy, despite attempts to minimize it. The persistent efforts of Mulroney in this sense are not innocent - Quebec's absence creates an uncomfortable political and ideological, while undermining the "nation building" Canadian (both aligned with the Toronto / Ottawa that aligned with Calgary).

Finally, large areas of constitutional law have not been officially translated into French, despite a clause that required it. Only the English text is law and can be used in legal interpretation. Quebec is entitled to demand an explanation or challenge its validity, particularly with regard to Bill 101. There is a collision between the strictly speaking parts of the Constitution Act of 1982 (excluding the 1867, of which there is no translation having the force of law) and Act 101 applies in Quebec. A clever constitutionalist could consider that some items are not valid or request to suspend the application in Quebec until they have been translated. Question of "arm twisting" policy!

Finally, we note that the recognition of the "Quebec nation" should be analyzed in depth by a constitutionalist. First, the term "nation" does not exactly the same direction and the same scope in French and English. The application of this law has problems: it applies to what or to whom, exactly? Finally, reducing its scope ("within a united Canada") could have consequences - that phrase might even become obsolete. And if it is not included in the Constitution, this Act comes into collision with so many elements of Canadian law it is unenforceable, entirely questionable or downright unconstitutional! If the law recognizing the "Québécois nation" has legal consequences (for example, need to protect the French character of Quebec recognizing Bill 101 and subtracting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), it could undermine the constitutional edifice constructed since 1982.

And in this case, the question remains: the Constitution Act of 1982 could it be legal by telescoping, "less relevant" in Quebec than in the rest of Canada?

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Mysore Mallege Blue Film Vedios

Three Questions about Québec interculturalism

1. Interculturalism Quebecois can exist if it is solidly framed in the Canadian Multiculturalism?

2. When the two principles are in conflict or contradiction, interculturalism in Quebec come out there always lose, knowing that Canadian multiculturalism is enshrined in the Constitution of 1982 (through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)?

3. And if we try to interculturalism exist without it becoming unconstitutional (and therefore illegal), he must necessarily be a subset of multiculturalism, in short, become "smaller" and store them wisely ?

Somehow, if multiculturalism is in the Canadian Constitution is that it is "basically good" according to the most basic Canadian values. What we put in a constitution is the basis of our society, the rationale of the state and what it undertakes to apply and defend. Therefore, any principle which would derogate from a value enshrined in the constitution would, by definition, bad.

If Quebecers (or Quebec, or the people of Quebec or French-speaking Quebecers) are recognized politically by the Canadian government, this recognition is limited by the Constitution Act 1982, which limits the scope of any recognition gender. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms acts as a watchdog morale and could bring down any interpretation interculturalism in Quebec would be in contradiction with the text, gasoline or application, Canadian multiculturalism and bilingualism status.

we can give an initial response to these three questions. To exist, interculturalism must be applied exactly as multiculturalism , lest our state and our institutions to the Supreme Court rejected. What, then, our flexibility?

Pattern For Fondant Baby Shoes

Commission Report BT: put Quebec in its context

The Commission's report seems to assume that what happens in the rest of the planet, either side of the culture or trade is entirely in English. This may be true for part exchanges, especially North American side, and it is not surprising to note that most scientific publications are primarily in English. Either.

But it would be wrong and even dangerous to imagine that Quebec is a French island, so necessarily isolationist in a sea of English ideals. The two commissioners are committing, in this stage of their reasoning, a serious error of generalization - an exaggeration in the report of the proportions in Quebec's place in the world and in their vision of the rest the planet.

If they really wanted to be intellectually honest, they would have called things by their name. Learning English was mainly aimed at the integration of Quebecers in all North American Anglo-Saxon and the rest of the world does not feel this need to integrate them and this is understandable. Brazil, Japan, Finland and Russia can work very well in their respective national language without fear of being accused of "nationalist" and "isolationists." Insults fly low, very low.

The main harm the average Quebecer is not his sketchy knowledge of English. It is rather to be born in a bubble in French North America. Had he been born anywhere else in the world, he would be entitled to continue to speak their mother tongue (and national) without feeling guilty of "crime of isolationism and without being accused of being outdated.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Replacment For Oestrogen

Notes Durham, Thoreau and Human Development in Quebec The three

The Durham Report is often quoted even today by federalist activists trying to demonstrate that the French regime was under British occupation, that the British have "saved" the people of the St Lawrence was "backward" (people in the direction of settlement).

Oddly enough, when Thoreau wrote "A Yankee in Canada" in the 1860s, it is EXACTLY the same criticisms that Durham schools on the St. Lawrence Valley: People of misery, outdated farming methods, population linear along the river, poor cities, not enough cake to the menu (!), etc.. However, these criticisms are directed as much to French farmers than to the British masters, already present a century when he made the trip.

Could it be, therefore, that the British have finally brought nothing superior (in terms of institutions and human development), the slow development of our countries have instead been caused by adverse weather conditions, and the stand-linear (along rivers) has been made to make the most of access roads? Could it be that the Conquest has been ultimately a conquest - a change from colonial rule? And the people here, both francophone and anglophone, have started to really develop until they were able to make their own decisions?

In this case, the identity of the colonial power, the ruler, has little importance. The project of political liberation of Papineau, Lafontaine-Baldwin then, makes sense - be freer to be more prosperous (compared with the "masters in our" Lesage). But does it justify IN NO EVENT revision of history that would give the British colonial military forces a humanitarian role, no offense to Durham.