 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Since the thread has just bumped, I'd like to mention that the idea of Quebecois racism towards the Crees and Inuits is ridiculous. |
Bulllllllllllllllllllshit.
The Natives signed a treaty with Canada/"The Crown", not Quebec. They are not toys of the French, to be used and moved about as the PQ wishes.
I'm not saying that all seperatists are anti-First-Nations, but I do think that the majority of them think of the Natives' concerns as secondary to their glorious revolution. I've seen too many separatists, when interviewed, say simply that the Natives "must come along" when the separation occurs. But that's just not good enough, I'm afraid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
The Natives signed a treaty with Canada/"The Crown", not Quebec. They are not toys of the French, to be used and moved about as the PQ wishes.
|
And they are not toys of the federal neither. What they want is their rights to be recognized. They don't care much about who will be recognizing them, especially if the PQ shows willingness to discuss with them on good terms (BTW, the agreement concluded in 2003 is by far the most favorable one granted by a provincial government). Natives feel 'native', not Quebecois or Canadian. They aren't any more loyal to the crown than they would be to a Republic.
quote:
I'm not saying that all seperatists are anti-First-Nations, but I do think that the majority of them think of the Natives' concerns as secondary to their glorious revolution.
|
The separatist leaders know how delicate the issue is. You can't judge them from the herd's opinion.
quote:
I've seen too many separatists, when interviewed, say simply that the Natives "must come along" when the separation occurs. But that's just not good enough, I'm afraid. |
As citizens of the Province of Quebec, I'm afraid they are subject to the authority of a referendum. I'm confident they can be convinced to come along willingly. They won't fight to be part of Canada, that's for sure. Maybe some kind of affiliation with Nunavut could be thought of.
The problem is, the land officially belongs to the 'State', who is in turn recognizing some ancestral rights to the natives- but the natives, themselves, are not part of the constitutional federation. They are forced to deal with whatever national entity will be holding the land they are cccupying. Quebec could even innovate on this, by recognizing the natives' rights in its new Constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
 |
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
The national question is the key to understanding Canadian politics. From a Quebec point of view, Canada has two founding nations, french and english. Thus Quebec should get 50% of the pie. Most english canadians (especially "Westerners") view every province as being equal, meaning Quebec = Alberta and should get a 10% share of confederation. The result is an ugly compromise which neither side can accept, with Quebec generally recieving about one third (roughly matching its population).
Add to this mix the question of Native rights (which the courts have consistently upheld), and you begin to get an idea of the political dynamics.
Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were creations of this conflict. The Bloc explicitly came together after the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, and Reform was an implicit reaction against both the spirit of Meech Lake and Charlottetown and against the increased Native militancy as symbolised by the military confrontation at Oka.
The "hardline" stance of Reform against these perceived threats attracted a disproportionate amount of bigots with other agendas (anti-gay, anti-immigration, etc.) to the party. The new Conservatives (and the Alliance before them) are still trying to shake that stink off as they become more and more mainstream.
For many on the left, the Liberals, although distasteful, provided a bulwark against the right wing. If 1993 election was about destroying the Progressive Conservatives (from all sides), 1997 was about keeping Reform out.
Canadian politics are only now shaking themselves out of the aftermath of the failed attempts of national reconciliation of the 1980s. From this point of view, the 2004/05 election should end up looking a lot like the 1988 election, but with the Liberals on top (and the Bloc with 20 or 30-odd seats).
The solution? Good question. The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that was struck after Oka called for a third house of parliament: a House of Nations. Add that to a triple-E senate and you've got the beginnings of a plan. But given the results of the last attempt at fixing the constitution, I doubt any politician would be willing to go near it any time in the next 20 years.
[/essay mode]
jon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
The solution? all the first nations get together, sue the pants off us in court, and reclaim the soil. English and French jointly wind up learning how to breathe underwater.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wezil
Well.
Three pages now and still no defense of Mr Martin (although the political debate was entertaining it was somewhat OT for the thread).
Since no Liberal apparently wants to defend the man, how about telling me why you plan to vote for him anyway?
A lack of alternatives was mentioned earlier. To me, any party caught with both hands in the till CAN NOT be voted for. Any alternative seems better.
The poll says 39% of Cdns support the Liberals (still). So where are you all? |
Well, having listened to him this afternoon, it seems he will play several cards...
What happened was not something that Liberals in general approved of, and most Liberals would love nothing better than to see whoever is responsible in jail. He sited departmental internal audits that saw no criminal activity, but that found administrative problems which were supposedly addressed.
The problem is bigger than what happened in this instance. Corruption has happened before under governments of different parties. He is therefore going to argue that reform of the institutions is equally important to finding the culprits in this instance of the disease.
He did not know what was happening, and he had no power of enquiry to find out. The Finance Department does not oversee federal spending after allocation, the Treasury Board does.
He is commited to better government and fell out with the previous administration over issues of how things should be run. He does not want to bribe Quebec to be contented, he wants to build a country that Quebec (and other disenchanted regions) would be proud of and would want to remain part of.
He is going to campaign as the straight shooter who fell out with the 'bad old boys'. He is going to ask Canadians to entrust him with reforming our institutions with the goal of making such thefts less likely or harder to pull off in the future.
He is going to ask Canadians to believe.
Last edited by notyoueither on 16-02-2004 at 12:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
He's playing it right for the press; for the time being
Good-bye Conservative Alliance crashing of the majority parliament. And after the elections, the west is f*cked once again.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-02-2004 14:26
at Canadian politics. 
I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be good stuff.
|