|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2005 9:49:07 GMT -5
If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec.... Now who said that? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 21, 2005 9:50:10 GMT -5
Fast forward to the late 90's, I went to La Collessée (spelling sorry) in search of some souveniers for a Nordiques buddy of mine back in Kingston. I asked the lady at the counter, "Parlez-vous Englais?" To which she replied an adamant, "Non!" Right then and there I broke into a bastardized form of French. But, she was extremely receptive the attempt. Don't get me wrong: many of the people I have been in contact with in the province are open and receptive. I've had people just reply to my weak attempts at French with English (to my relief and probably theirs). I have a problem with the superior attitudes shown -- east and west. As you say, As a transplanted westerner I know well the attitude. I cringed at the thought of having to move to Ontario with the uppity easterners . . . but here I am. And when I went back for a *shudder* family reunion a couple of years later I couldn't wait to escape those uppity westerners. Where you are is where you are . . . and we are all distinct in some ways . . . and it should be encouraged and celebrated. Unless you are a Toronto Maple Leaf fan. then you should be xxxxxxx. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 21, 2005 11:28:29 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong: many of the people I have been in contact with in the province are open and receptive. I've had people just reply to my weak attempts at French with English (to my relief and probably theirs). I have a problem with the superior attitudes shown -- east and west. As you say, As a transplanted westerner I know well the attitude. I cringed at the thought of having to move to Ontario with the uppity easterners . . . but here I am. And when I went back for a *shudder* family reunion a couple of years later I couldn't wait to escape those uppity westerners. Where you are is where you are . . . and we are all distinct in some ways . . . and it should be encouraged and celebrated. Unless you are a Toronto Maple Leaf fan. then you should be xxxxxxx. Times have changed. When you don't live in Quebec anymore you notice the changes more than the people who experience them gradually. In both Quebec City and Gaspe, I experienced much more friendliness and eagerness to help on the part of the French speaking people I encountered. I know that this is anecdotal, but there was a definite spirit of cooperation instead of confrontation. There is no question that Quebec would be better off economically if everyone learned and spoke English, but pure economic consideration is not the issue. Quebec has a culture and pride that trancends economics. If separation is viewed only in economic terms by ROC, they are missing the real issue. Separation makes as much sense as St. Pierre Miquelon does, and splitting Quebec into regions makes as much sense as splitting St. Pierre and Miquelon. In retrospect, if Trudeau took a much tougher stand, the problem would have been resolved once and for all. They way things are now, separation rears it's ugly head every time a Canadian government official is corrupt (common occurence) or a problem arises. There is a lot that is wrong with the government of Canada, but it is a beautiful country with boundless resources and genuinely good people. The same is true of Quebec. Together they are stronger, but like in any marriage, staying together is better than being apart only if both parties are happy. Constant bickering (50 years of it) does not increase the love. Not withstanding all the above, the West-island and Eastern townships would create a large enough 11th province and join the maritimes with the ROC if Montrealeast and QC insist on a split. Countries like Iraq and Afganistan have real problems. Murder, corruption, poverty, starvation, rape, torture, daily bombings. In comparison, separation in a beautiful country like Canada, doesn't even get a blip in the LA Times or OC Register. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 21, 2005 13:15:40 GMT -5
Actually, I try to avoid the urban nightmare. I guess once you get past the ongoing road destruction construction it isn't bad, but it would be nice if the repair crews would finish just one job! They are doing the job just well enough for the next PC contractor in line to win a bid to improve over their work. The link within this link (http://tinyurl.com/bgxw5) leads to a Canoë news brief, in French, on Montréal public opinion regarding road conditions. Ah, but Montréal is not a nightmare. Far from it. In comparison to almost all major North American urban centres it is a dream. Certainly a dream I aspire to regain. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 21, 2005 13:39:25 GMT -5
Personally I feel that approaches in the paternalistic styles of "you won't be able to achieve nothing without us" or the semi-threats of "...you know maybe we'll hold a grudge and make your life a nightmare..." don't achieve anything but raise and galvanize the Nationalist feeling of "...oh yeah, we'll show you...".
If ROC wants to keep Quebec in the Federation (which is less and less a certainty) they'll have to think up solid arguments in favor of the Federation that can't be achieved with a strong social-economic pact that doesn't involve sharing a government. Raising scarecrows will not work. Canada is doing well but certainly not because of the great work of the Liberals, nor because of Jean Chretien leadership and vision. Before defending the Federation I think that many should stop and wonder why it should be kept together, in the current model, at all cost. IMO, if Quebec becomes sovereign, other parts of Canada will wonder if the Federation is indeed working for them or if their own goals wouldn't be achieved better in a strong economic partnership that does not involve a central government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 21, 2005 14:12:37 GMT -5
IMO, if Quebec becomes sovereign, other parts of Canada will wonder if the Federation is indeed working for them or if their own goals wouldn't be achieved better in a strong economic partnership that does not involve a central government. I wanted to post this earlier, Doc. I have to share your opinion on this. Bare with me for a second please. When I submitted my request for release from the military, I caught a lot of people off guard. Many thought I was a career guy who was in for the long-haul. And, I believed it at one point also. However, before I left I learned at my retirement dinner that 16 additional releases went in after mine including my immediate boss (a captain who had 3 years remaining on her contract). Similarily, I've long thought that a successful Quebec referendum could ultimately start the ball rolling with the rest of Canada. Specifically, the three western provinces could leave tomorrow and they would do just fine with their oil and (until recently) their beef and agricultural exports. Lobbiests in British Columbia have also entertained the idea of an independant country of their own if Quebec separatists continue to hold the federal government hostage to their demands. I'll have to finish this off later, Doc. Just got the word for the staff to depart for the day. Later. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 21, 2005 14:41:10 GMT -5
Referendums on Separation are becoming an irregularly scheduled event in Quebec. Everytime there is an incompetent or corrupt federal government, Quebekers want out!
I have news for you! There will always be a bad federal government just around the corner. It gets better and then it gets worse after which it gets better again.
Same with Quebec. Liberal corruption, Parti Quebecois incompetance, Union National institutionalized bribery, Conservative ineptitude. It's easy for Quebec to point out the flaws in Ottawa, but voting for the Bloc does nothing to improve the situation. Ya gotta roll up the sleeves and make it work.
The ROC does NOT have to recognize a 50.1% vote in Quebec as a reason to dismantle the country. Unless the ROC is committed to getting rid of Quebec, there is no reason to simply let it go, in whole or in part.
If the PQ wants to start their own country, there is a large island named Anticosti they can build in any way they see fit, speak any language they want, paint signs however they want, and celebrate Bonhomme Carnival without disturbing the ROC.
Al Qaida can teach how to build bombs to place in mailboxes, or better still wrap around your torso to take into the metro. That really works to makes things better.
I really think that there will always be a percentage of the population that is disgruntled and wants radical change. In the US they planted bombs in Oklahoma City, Atlanta, Waco.
Canadians should realize how lucky they are. Montreal has potholes, not bomb craters.
The problems in Canada are minor. The opportunities in Canada are Great! From a comfortable distance, I see nothing that should be escalated to the level of tearing the country apart in order to make things better.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 21, 2005 14:45:25 GMT -5
We shall be remembered in the Matrix as "The Nation That Talked Itself To Death."
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 21, 2005 22:29:49 GMT -5
If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec.... ...Following the election of the Parti Québécois in the fall of 1994, the Quebec government initiated steps toward secession. A draft bill calling for a unilateral declaration of independence was made public in December 1994, followed by the introduction of an Act respecting the future of Quebec (Bill 1) in the National Assembly on 7 September 1995.(5) The bill affirmed that a new Quebec constitution would recognize the existing constitutional rights of aboriginal nations, in a manner "consistent with the territorial integrity of Quebec." The bill clearly stated that Quebec would retain its boundaries as they currently exist within Canada. It also provided that under the new constitution, the right of aboriginal nations to self-government on the lands over which they have full ownership and their right to participate in the development of Quebec would be recognized. In the lead-up to the referendum, aboriginal groups reacted in opposition to this position. In particular, the Crees argued that they had a right to maintain their territory in Canada. The Crees and the Quebec government dominated the debate on this issue, along with academic commentators. Since the referendum, the Crees and the Quebec government have continued to conflict on this matter, and the status of aboriginal territory has also become a prominent part of federal-provincial rhetoric on the terms of a possible secession. A. Aboriginal Perspectives 1. The Crees of Quebec The Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), under leadership of Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, have been the most outspoken aboriginal group. The Crees have asserted for many years that they are a people, with a right to self-determination recognized under international law. They argue that no annexation of them or their territory to an independent Quebec should take place without their consent, and that if Quebec has the right to leave Canada then the Cree people have the right to choose to keep their territory in Canada. Cree arguments generally do not claim the right to secede from Canada; rather, the Crees see themselves as a people bound to Canada by treaty (the JBNQA), and as citizens of Canada.(6) The Crees have stated that a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec would be a violation of fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and consent. If secession were to proceed, the Crees argue they would seek protection through the Canadian courts as well as asserting Cree jurisdiction over its people and lands. In the period leading up to the referendum, the Crees were active at both the domestic and international levels. A Cree Commission held 14 hearings in 10 different communities during August and September 1995. Its report, "The Voice of a Nation on Self-Determination," affirmed Cree opposition to secession without their consent, and restated their commitment to maintain a relationship with the federal government. In October 1995, the Crees released a study, Sovereign Injustice, which cited a variety of Canadian and international sources to support their case.(7) The book updates a study completed in 1991 and submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its forty-eighth session in February 1992. Sovereign Injustice emphasizes that aboriginal peoples have a right to self-determination, including a right to stay in Canada. It argues that the forcible inclusion of the Crees in any future Quebec state would lack validity and legitimacy from the viewpoint of international, Canadian, and aboriginal law and practice. Such an action, the Crees assert, would also seriously detract from Quebec�s claims that it is resorting to fair or democratic process to achieve its goals. The study also argues that there is no rule under Canadian or international law that would ensure the present boundaries of Quebec would become those of a sovereign Quebec state.... - tinyurl.com/9wnck |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 21, 2005 23:19:26 GMT -5
Soft nationalists - those who recognize sovereignty as a potential solution but only to consider because the current setup isn't working for us. The ethnic mix in Quebec is very varied... If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec.... Well, that's something to be seen after sovereignty. Of course, the municipal level of government is entirely dependant on the provincial level, so I don't see much partitioning of Quebec anytime in the future. The Canadian constitution has proven to be a real pain for Quebec, for once it has a clause that's to our advantage. Finally. The ROC does NOT have to recognize a 50.1% vote in Quebec as a reason to dismantle the country. Unless the ROC is committed to getting rid of Quebec, there is no reason to simply let it go, in whole or in part. If the PQ wants to start their own country, there is a large island named Anticosti they can build in any way they see fit, speak any language they want, paint signs however they want, Democracy and self-determination really mean nothing to you, don't they... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 22, 2005 5:04:59 GMT -5
Soft nationalists - those who recognize sovereignty as a potential solution but only to consider because the current setup isn't working for us. OK, thanks. That helps me put your perspective in better perspective, as it were. On the island of Montréal, very much so. Off the island, not at all. I will try to dig up the most recent numbers in this area. And the provincial level is dependent on the federal level. Hmmm, maybe Canada (excluding Québec) should hold a referendum - "In?" or "Out?" |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 7:20:56 GMT -5
And the provincial level is dependent on the federal level. No, provincial and federal roles and responsibilities are defined in the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Apr 22, 2005 9:46:22 GMT -5
I love the irony of seperatists countering partitionists. Sounds to me like the Cree have a pretty good case.  And when arguing Federalism doesn't work for Québec, consider the raison d'être of the Parti Québecois: independence |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Apr 22, 2005 13:15:19 GMT -5
No, provincial and federal roles and responsibilities are defined in the constitution. If the Cree nation wishes to exercise it's sovereignty in the event of Quebec trying to take it's territory on the eve of independence, what is to stop them? Or the Mohawks? You said yourself there won't be an army. Or is their sovereignty somehow less valid than this (admittedly I hope never to see) Quebec sovereignty that would enable Quebec to declare independence? Is it because they're not a nation? Well, they are - in every conceivable sense. Is it because they "lost" their land? They never did - the treaties governing their sovereign rights and responsabilities in the Canadian federation are very clear. Please explain this to me - I've tried to get answers from nationalists before and usually the answers are pretty damn racist. Allow me to touch upon one more subject you brought up: The analogy of an eight-year-old talking to his parents. I've argued this before - the essential core of Quebecois nationalism is to denegrate the French speaking population of Quebec so they feel so poorly about themselves that they feel no recourse but to react in anger and fear and suspicion. It portrays French Quebecois from before the Quiet Revolution as either scheming traitors or simple-minded farmers under the thumb of the Catholic Church; as if before 1960 the average IQ of French Quebecois was 50, so they just didn't know better. And then 1960 came, and all of a sudden the youth of Quebec saw the light - how stupid their forebears were! How incompetent and how shameful! Obviously, there is a lot of crap that Quebec went through between 1759 and 1960 - but never forget: -This group, unlike dozens of others in North America when faced with English hegemony became English speaking, kept it's language, it's culture, it's identity. That is no small feat. -This group, Catholic, were able to convince England to allow them their Catholic religion within 10 years of the beginning of English rule - something that so shocked the American Colonies (well, that, and the huge expansion of Quebec territory) that it was one of their primary reasons for revolting from the Crown. Remember, this was a shocking development. -This group went from conquered to power-broker within 100 years - no other British possession would say the same until the 1940s. So when Quebec, who was a fully cognisant and willing leader in the creation of the Canadian Dominion in 1867, complains about their lot in life, it confuses the hell out of Albertans who were allowed to join up in 1905 and still think they're not listened to. Look at it from their perspective: -Quebec nationalists complain the ROC don't listen to them, especially those bastards in Ottawa. -Ottawa has a PM from Quebec. Government made up of lots of Quebecois. PM has been Quebecois since 1968 (except for brief interludes and now Martin, who pretends he's Quebecois) -But nationalists complain they're not real Quebecois -Albertans say WTF? -Then they wish they had fake Albertans in power like Quebec -Repeat ad naseum The problem with Quebec nationalists, honestly, is that they ask everyone to listen but then don't bother listening to anyone else. It's really annoying, especially when you're Quebecois yourself and have to listen to it even more. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 22, 2005 14:06:06 GMT -5
If the Cree nation wishes to exercise it's sovereignty in the event of Quebec trying to take it's territory on the eve of independence, what is to stop them? Or the Mohawks? You said yourself there won't be an army. Or is their sovereignty somehow less valid than this (admittedly I hope never to see) Quebec sovereignty that would enable Quebec to declare independence? Is it because they're not a nation? Well, they are - in every conceivable sense. Is it because they "lost" their land? They never did - the treaties governing their sovereign rights and responsabilities in the Canadian federation are very clear. Please explain this to me - I've tried to get answers from nationalists before and usually the answers are pretty damn racist. I won't speak for him but I felt PTH gave this reply as an answer towards the concept brought forward that municipalities had some kind of constitution from which they could elect to part from, ie, cities could elect to be in the country of their choice. The West-Island won't chose to remain in Canada just like Brossard can't elect to become part of China and St-Leonard part of Italia. As you said Canada Natives have a treaty with Canada in which their rights and territory are defined. I have never seen or heard so far any declaration that a Sovereign Quebec does not intend to respect this and so I do not see where the problem is. To claim a violation of human rights, there actually has to be one. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Apr 22, 2005 14:08:35 GMT -5
I won't speak for him but I felt PTH gave this reply as an answer towards the concept brought forward that municipalities had some kind of constitution from which they could elect to part from, ie, cities could elect to be in the country of their choice. The West-Island won't chose to remain in Canada just like Brossard can't elect to become part of China and St-Leonard part of Italia. As you said Canada Natives have a treaty with Canada in which their rights and territory are defined. I have never seen or heard so far any declaration that a Sovereign Quebec does not intend to respect this and so I do not see where the problem is. To claim a violation of human rights, there actually has to be one. PTH might not have said it, but please feel free to read the following: www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/95-3/issue7/cup1.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 22, 2005 14:28:41 GMT -5
Questions re the status of Federal property (structures) in a province that gains independence:
Does the property (minus any information it may have housed) de facto become part of that newly independent province?
Can the the Federal government exact payment for the transfer of the property?
Does the Federal government have the right to destroy the property rather than let the independent province have use of it for nothing?
What would be the status of Federal lands existent within the boundaries of the independent province (excluding Native territory for purposes of this question)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 22, 2005 14:47:54 GMT -5
...again, there needs to be a violation of rights. It is said in the article that a sovereign Quebec intends to recognize the negotiated treaty. Gabrielle might not believe or trust that but there isn't much he can do until the PQ effectively baffles such rights... ...but again, it is eye opening that discussion with Federalists regarding the possibility of a Sovereign Quebec usually never revolves around the positive aspects of the Federation and how it could serve the Quebec Nationalists, but how it can't happen because of such and such hurdles, such and such studies, etc... and how in the end, over 3.5 million of people are just whiners that don't realize how good they have it... The constitution had to be forced upon Quebec and every attempts to renegotiate it turned to failure. IMO it was quite naive to think that the unsolved constitutional problems would simply vanish with time. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 22, 2005 14:49:53 GMT -5
The entire document referenced by the link in the above quote bears reading. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND A. Aboriginal Peoples in Quebec B. The Province of Quebec’s Current Boundaries C. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement THE REFERENDUM AND POST-REFERENDUM DEBATES A. Aboriginal Perspectives 1. The Crees of Quebec 2. Inuit of Northern Quebec 3. Other Aboriginal Groups B. Quebec Government C. Federal Government ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Self-Determination 1. History and Evolution of the Concept in International Law 2. United Nations Documents and Self-Determination 3. Secession 4. Territorial Integrity B. Current International Norms and Aboriginal Peoples C. Discussion CONSTITUTIONAL AND TREATY RESPONSIBILITIES CONCLUSIONS *** Also, from another source (link below): CHAPTER 6 FROM SEA TO SHINING SEA - EXCEPT FOR QUEBEC What territory, if any, should we give up if Quebec secedes? Should Quebec be allowed to leave Confederation with all its present territory, including all the lands in Northern Quebec, or only with the narrow strip of land along the St. Lawrence River it had in 1867? Or should Quebec be permitted to exit not only with its current territory but be allowed to take Labrador as part of the bargain, fulfilling a longstanding desire expressed by some Quebeckers to "liberate" Labrador from Newfoundland and include it in a separate Quebec? Opinions differ sharply between Quebeckers and other Canadians on the territorial boundaries of an independent Quebec. An Angus Reid/Southam News poll released in June 1994 revealed that slightly more than half of Canadians living outside Quebec thought that the territory of a sovereign Quebec should be "considerably smaller" than at present and only four in ten believed that current boundaries should be maintained. In contrast, almost three quarters of Quebeckers believed Quebec's territorial integrity should be respected, and only slightly more than one in five felt Quebec should occupy a smaller territory. The concept of territory is rooted in international law but, above all, in human instincts. Human beings are at their core territorial animals with an innate, instinctual attachment to their own lands that goes far back into prehistory. This primitive instinct translates into a need for a specific territory and ultimately, in terms of international law, into a desire for a definable country. In our time, the concept has been increasingly sublimated to community, city and region or, in the case of Canada, province. Yet even today nothing is more likely to lead to conflict and violence than disputes over territory. The civil war that has raged in the former Yugoslavia will quickly testify to the dangers of territorial disputes when they're linked to explosive ethnic issues. - www.global-economics.ca/dth.chap6.htm |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 22, 2005 15:27:17 GMT -5
...again, there needs to be a violation of rights. It is said in the article that a sovereign Quebec intends to recognize the negotiated treaty. Gabrielle might not believe or trust that but there isn't much he can do until the PQ effectively baffles such rights... He can, as per his nation's right, choose to keep Cree territory in Canada should Québec separate. At least that seems to be what you are implying - which agrees with his people's legal rights. He doesn't have to wait for Québec to take any further course other than separating from Canada to take such action. It revolves very much around the practical and real issues of property (including territory), money, custody rights and power. Just like with any divorce. To be sure there are whiners and those who want to take Dad's credit card and not pay off the balance owing that they have rung up. Hopefully they are in the uninformed minority, though they may be likely to make the loudest noise. Hard cap, hard cap, hard cap...Canada is just looking for cost certainty. Seriously, don't forget that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Québec may need to be more acquiescent when dealing with the rest of the country - they certainly will have no choice but to be so if they go it alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 22, 2005 17:40:34 GMT -5
Democracy and self-determination really mean nothing to you, don't they... Democracy and self-determination do not mean that 50.1% of the people can do anything they want. If that were the case, the Kurds would have their own country, the Basques would have their own country and the Southern States would have their own country with slaves picking still cotton. Democracy has built in checks and balances to protect minorities like the Englishand Crees living in Quebec. Once Alaska has joined the other 48 states, they can't suddenly leave because oil was discovered and they are now better off alone. Massachussets can't leave because they like Kerry and dislike Bush. With freedom comes responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:08:47 GMT -5
Questions re the status of Federal property (structures) in a province that gains independence: Does the property (minus any information it may have housed) de facto become part of that newly independent province? Can the the Federal government exact payment for the transfer of the property? The way I see it, federal property would still belong to the Canadian government, but would politically be part of Quebec. Kind of like if Canada went out and bought some land in the US - it's Canadian in ownership, but politically American. However, in the splitting up of assets and debts I'd expect Quebec to get its share of both, which means its share of the debt as well as its share of federal-owned buildings, which logically would mean many of the buildings in Quebec. Well, yes, but it also means that the overall pie is smaller. It would be like spending a lot of money to increase the debt so that Quebec takes on more debt when it takes its share. I'd expect those to be ceded to the government of Quebec in the whole process. They're not "owned" by the government, they're federally-created preserves that can't just be sold off. ie, they're not an asset or a debt. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:09:18 GMT -5
I won't speak for him but I felt PTH gave this reply as an answer towards the concept brought forward that municipalities had some kind of constitution from which they could elect to part from, ie, cities could elect to be in the country of their choice. The West-Island won't chose to remain in Canada just like Brossard can't elect to become part of China and St-Leonard part of Italia. Absolutely. I think the whole Cree situation could get quite complicated. In a way, it's about the long-standing land claims over much of the country, only now instead of having prolonged wrangling and court cases, everything would have to be settled in some way fairly quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:11:07 GMT -5
Allow me to touch upon one more subject you brought up: The analogy of an eight-year-old talking to his parents. I've argued this before - the essential core of Quebecois nationalism is to denegrate the French speaking population of Quebec so they feel so poorly about themselves that they feel no recourse but to react in anger and fear and suspicion. Whoa ! I see what you're getting at, but that's not what my point was. I'm saying that the ROC feels it is making compromises, while Quebecers are feeling that the ROC is treating them like spoiled children. I won't denigrate what's been done in Quebec, and don't need to be convinced that Quebec's done pretty well through it all. That's part of the reason I think we're ready for the next step. Actually, many historians feel that a referendum for joining Canada wouldn't have been succesful. (note how I use the word succesful: it means succeeding in an endeavour, what you think of the endeavour is a whole other question) Well, it all depends who you're talking about. Mulroney could only speak French because of extensive coaching. But fact is, many of those PMs were picked as being acceptable elsewhere in the country, not because they were the best possible representatives of Quebec opinion. So they could be Quebecers yet not represent Quebec's opinion. Also, a Quebec PM couldn't be seen as being weak faced with Quebec, whereas someone from out West would have more room to maneuver, which would be a welcome change for Quebec. That fits in with the 8-year old comment I made. Quebecers try to be listened to, and wind up ticking off the ROC, yet nothing gets resolved, but the ROC feels it's done its share. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:17:25 GMT -5
Democracy and self-determination do not mean that 50.1% of the people can do anything they want. Not *anything they want*, but they can choose a different form of government for their group, especially when there's every reason to believe this new government will fulfill the vast majority of its obligations just as well as the current one. If 50% + 1 people of the relevant areas voted for it, why would this be bad ? So? An independant Quebec won't turn into a witchhunt for anglophones. This won't be the Khmer-Québécois eliminating all non-"pure laine" with shotguns. Responsibility ? Coming from you, this is a bit much. The same guy who's willing to kill thousands of Irakis if it'll save a single American dares to talk about responsibility ? Nothing, NOTHING, Quebec has done or would plausibly do is as irresponsible as the actions you've been backing the US over, over the past couple of years. --- PS: Mods, is there an "ignore" feature that would allow me to no longer have to see posts from a certain poster appear when I want to view posts ? I don't care if others can see them, I just don't want to be exposed to this anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:17:50 GMT -5
I love the irony of seperatists countering partitionists. *sigh*. When I see that all that federalists can do to promote Canada is to try to scare people into staying, it tells me that there's not much to stay for, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 22, 2005 18:29:13 GMT -5
Well, I have to say that I don't much credence in anything coming out of a right-wing privately-owned thinktank from out West... Even at that, it doesn't say anything all that bad. As far as I'm concerned, Canada's obligations would be passed on to Quebec. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Apr 23, 2005 2:20:07 GMT -5
...but again, it is eye opening that discussion with Federalists regarding the possibility of a Sovereign Quebec usually never revolves around the positive aspects of the Federation and how it could serve the Quebec Nationalists, but how it can't happen because of such and such hurdles, such and such studies, etc... and how in the end, over 3.5 million of people are just whiners that don't realize how good they have it... The constitution had to be forced upon Quebec and every attempts to renegotiate it turned to failure. IMO it was quite naive to think that the unsolved constitutional problems would simply vanish with time. From what I've read and seen from mid 1980s on, the federalists tried the positive approach; then in the 1990s when Quebec sovereignty was promoted as some sort of Utopia, a negative reactionary attitude took hold. I'm not the one to figure out the best answer to Quebec nationalism; if I were, I'd be running the country. All I know is that I believe in Canada; I think it is a noble experiment in uniting opposites - I think that English Canada has benefitted greatly from les Quebecois and francophones throughout the country - else the rest of the country might look more...... American, I suppose. Or maybe more British. I guess it's something that I can go to Toronto or Winnipeg or Ottawa (or Montreal, for that matter) and know I'm in Canada. I think Quebec has gained much as well - a prominent and ultra-influential member of a highly industrialized, progressive democracy. One where the French fact of the entire country is constitutionally protected and encouraged - official bilingualism, while mocked and attacked from Chicoutimi to Medicine Hat, is still something I am proud of; Americans have a horrible track record of being fearful of anything unEnglish - France decimated various dialects as quickly as possible following the French Revolution (les langues d'oil especially).. I was perhaps too harsh in inferring that nationalists seem to whine too much - certainly, they are not eight year olds in my eyes - nor are they in other Canadians' eyes (although I'm sure nationalists feel this way). However, it is true that some nationalists will nitpick on any little inequality that they perceive and nag about it to death. I tried to explain that an Albertan might feel even more disenfranchised about the federal process than a Quebec Nationalist - only to be responded to that this proves the eight-year-old hypothesis (which it certainly did not). I don't have an answer; I wish I did. I know there's lying on both sides - I hate federalists who paint doom and gloom scenarios about Quebec separation (PTH is very right that it would probably be no more doomed than Norway leaving the Sweden-Norway Union in 1905); yet I still feel it would be an immense loss of prestige for both Quebec and Canada; we'd never be the same. There are, believe it or not, nationalists who will colour any federal act as an affront to Quebec's rights; I don't like them very much either. I am proud, however, that we allow the discourse to continue - unlike others I have no problem with a frank discussion of Canada's future (and Quebec's decision to stay or go) - I am so damned proud to be a citizen of a state that protects this discussion's right to continue. I could point to France again - ask the Corsicans how free they are to vote to leave France; or perhaps Spain and the Catalonians.... I see two outcomes - either Quebec stays, and stays legitimately and of it's own accord; or it leaves, a horrible sadness yet at least it will be a decision it arrives at freely. As I've pointed out; Quebec is an architect of Canada; a founding member if you will - and Quebec absolutely has the right to leave if it wishes. I have no clue what I would do if it did, however (stay/move/die) |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Apr 23, 2005 2:21:23 GMT -5
Well, I have to say that I don't much credence in anything coming out of a right-wing privately-owned thinktank from out West... Even at that, it doesn't say anything all that bad. As far as I'm concerned, Canada's obligations would be passed on to Quebec. Simon Fraser's student newspaper is a privately-owned think tank? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 23, 2005 7:50:58 GMT -5
PS: Mods, is there an "ignore" feature that would allow me to no longer have to see posts from a certain poster appear when I want to view posts ? I don't care if others can see them, I just don't want to be exposed to this anymore. That function wasn't programmed into this version of the proboards software. |
|
