 |
|  |
 |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by notyoueither
Would you mind relating what leads you to be a soft seperatist? I am genuinely curious.
I think where I am from should tell you that I favour a weaker central power as well. It's ironic that for all the moaning about Quebec that goes on out here (Alberta and the West in general) we have no more natural ally in Confederation than those in Quebec who want stronger provincial rights. |
Actually, my main argument for separation has nothing to do with the actual country we live in.
I would prefer to live in a smaller\less populous country.
I think many of the problems that many countries have are based on big countries.
I would rather be more reprensented, with laws that follow what people around me think.
In a big country, a million can be a minority.
Of course on the international level, your voice decreases, but I still would prefer it that way.
Now my lesser argument is that there are slight differences, mostly cultural between Quebec and the rest of Canada. I don't think they are big enough to warrant secession by themselves, but some people do.
We don't totally agree on the reasons (most separatist's reasons are not very well-founded if you go in deeper, same goes for federalists, the truth is most people dont really think about why they have) a certain opinion but we sorta agree on the result...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But the point is false. The anglos in Quebec can say they are part of the Canadian 'nation'. |
That's silly. Some people living in an English-speaking suburb with no separate culture and history, and no precedent of political independance, don't form a nation.
quote:
Besides, Quebec does NOT have the right to self-determination based on international law. In order to be able to seceed, it has to prove that it is being oppressed. Seeing as how Quebec controls Canada's government, those claims really would have little merit. |
That's the argument used by the Supreme Court, and it is debatable. The first thing would be that Quebec was an oppressed country at the time it joined the federation, in 1867. And as things are right now, Quebec has not signed the Constitution, which has been validated without its consent.
Besides, Canada is a democratic country, and is required by its laws to accept in good faith the result of a referendum.
And above all of this, the "international law" is crap when it comes to the right to secede. I just don't think it is totally fair, and this is a sentiment that those who don't form an aspiring minority have trouble to understand.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gopher
|
|
I eat my own poop
Dec 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
Remember that if Quebec seceedes, OB, that Hydro-Quebecs debt load is no longer federally handled. The Crees have unanimously declared their intent to not only stay in Canada, but also to take control of part of Hydro-Quebec, based on the James Bay Development Treaty (Can't remember if that is the official title).
A independent Quebec would have a hard time in the international workplace. The issue seems to be that now, with Quebecers being the masters of their own house in Quebec, what other victories can Quebecers and the PQ get besides sovreignty? And once the experiment of seperation occurs, then what? How will Quebec deal with the creation of a Federal system? How will it differ from the provincial government? What happenes when parts of Montreal wish to stay with Canada?
Thank heaven that the demographics are on the side of the Federalists. In a few years, perhaps this won't be such an issue for our northern neighbors.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:35
|
|
More and less, I think.
Theoretically, the Canadian provinces have more power than US states. Control over all resources, for instance. Some control over immigration is another curious spot of provincial power. However, the fed wields a terrible blunt instrument of central authority through taxation and redistribution of wealth.
Also, the regions, they being 8 out of 10 provinces, have precious little say in national government. Our Senate is knackered; completely powerless. That leaves the Commons where a government requires support from at least one or the other of Quebec and Ontario, and can be impossible to manage without a share from both. Any other province or region can safely be ignored for the purposes of running any given government.
The combination of federal powers of the purse, demographics vis-a-vis rep by pop, and the complete lack of any political check on the Commons from the Senate, and we have one mother-fooker of a powerful Prime Minister. The powers of the Provinces pale in comparison, which Alberta and Quebec have been on about for a very long time now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by gopher
Remember that if Quebec seceedes, OB, that Hydro-Quebecs debt load is no longer federally handled. |
I don't know what you mean here. Hydro-Quebec is a company owned by the government of Quebec.
quote:
The Crees have unanimously declared their intent to not only stay in Canada, but also to take control of part of Hydro-Quebec, based on the James Bay Development Treaty (Can't remember if that is the official title).
|
They may have stated their will to stay in Canada, but I have sincerely never heard of anything like shares or assets of Hydro-Quebec being handed to them.
quote:
A independent Quebec would have a hard time in the international workplace. The issue seems to be that now, with Quebecers being the masters of their own house in Quebec, what other victories can Quebecers and the PQ get besides sovereignty?
|
Do you mean "house" as a metaphor, or as a reference to the "House of Commons"? I don't get your point - 'sovereignty' is usually used as a synonym of 'independance', which Quebec obviously doesn't have.
quote:
And once the experiment of seperation occurs, then what? How will Quebec deal with the creation of a Federal system? How will it differ from the provincial government? What happenes when parts of Montreal wish to stay with Canada?
|
I detailed in large what is my stance on the issue of Quebec partition in this same thread, you can look for it if you wish.
quote:
Thank heaven that the demographics are on the side of the Federalists. In a few years, perhaps this won't be such an issue for our northern neighbors. |
Not so fast. Immigrants are increasingly favorable to the idea of independance, and it's unclear whether the aging boomers will turn federalist as they get older.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Joncha, you miss the ponit entirely. Oncle Boris is doing the exact same thing MOST of the Europeans settled on other people's lands do. I sadly include the United States. He sees nothing wrong, and in fact is proud, of "negotiations" with the Cree. So it's okay that a people that own their own land, and have taken a vote noted by other posters here, have to ask PERMISSION of the French speakers in Quebec to do what they wish with their land. White Man's Burden. Paternalism. Or, as I stated before, it's racism.
It's subtle, and Oncle Boris MEANS well. Most people who buy into a cultural racism mean well. But also like most well-meaning people in a culture that is racist he doesn't even see it. Neither did you. Try asking a Cree how he likes after to go to Montreal to have to NEGOTIATE ABOUT HIS LAND AND HIS PEOPLE and their status. The United States treats it's Native American's worse, and I EMBRACE that and have cast votes to try and prevent more hideous anti-Native American decisions in the US Supreme Court like happened in the 1990's. I am one of that tiny minority that consider a presidential candidate's, or party's, stand on Supreme Court nominees critical, and it's one of my top three critieria.
I am consistant on this. I believe ALL minority peoples should have the right to become independent, as long as they guarantee similiar rights to non-natives remaining in their territory that the natives would have had the remained part of the greater political unit. If the Quebecoius were instead acting like Vaclav Havel (Czechoslovakia - which no longer exists, it's two countries - exactlyl) and trying to "negotiate" with the Cree and other Native Americans to stay in an independent Quebec, while still stating should the negotiations fail we will respect the will of your people to become independent if that's what they want, I would retract my rant and apoligize. I've done it before, to Imran on a name scramble.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Joncha, you miss the ponit entirely. Oncle Boris is doing the exact same thing MOST of the Europeans settled on other people's lands do. I sadly include the United States. He sees nothing wrong, and in fact is proud, of "negotiations" with the Cree. So it's okay that a people that own their own land, and have taken a vote noted by other posters here, have to ask PERMISSION of the French speakers in Quebec to do what they wish with their land. White Man's Burden. Paternalism. Or, as I stated before, it's racism. |
Seriously, I do have some values of cooperation and peace. The thing is, we are here, the past is done, we have built mines and barrages and railways in the North, and there's no way we will destroy them or transfer their property to the Natives. What we can do, however, is to sign treaties to make the development more fair - give them veto rights on construction projects, grant them a percentage of the profits, etc. Racism? not even close.
The thing is, Natives used their land to fish with spears and hunt with traps. 'Ancestral rights' are limited to this. If they are to 'develop' in the modern way, they have to follow the rules of modern states. Make the rules fair to everyone who has settled the country and everything will be fine.
quote:
I am consistant on this. I believe ALL minority peoples should have the right to become independent, as long as they guarantee similiar rights to non-natives remaining in their territory that the natives would have had the remained part of the greater political unit. If the Quebecoius were instead acting like Vaclav Havel (Czechoslovakia - which no longer exists, it's two countries - exactlyl) and trying to "negotiate" with the Cree and other Native Americans to stay in an independent Quebec, while still stating should the negotiations fail we will respect the will of your people to become independent if that's what they want, I would retract my rant and apoligize. I've done it before, to Imran on a name scramble. |
That is my stance, so you should retract. If Quebec can get away, the Natives can. There are some limits to this, however: I don't think it makes sense in any way that they stay with Canada instead of Quebec from a legal standpoint. If Quebec guarantees to uphold the exact same treaties as the federal gave them, the Natives would see the federative authority move from Ottawa to Quebec. Fair play, IMO, says: you follow, or you become fully independant, but you don't stay with the former.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That is my stance, so you should retract. If Quebec can get away, the Natives can. There are some limits to this, however: I don't think it makes sense in any way that they stay with Canada instead of Quebec from a legal standpoint. If Quebec guarantees to uphold the exact same treaties as the federal gave them, the Natives would see the federative authority move from Ottawa to Quebec. Fair play, IMO, says: you follow, or you become fully independant, but you don't stay with the former. |
Why? The Cree might want to stay linked with the people living South of them. They may gain some advantages by doing so.
It then comes down to a choice for them, the Crown with whom they have had a long history and who they know, or Quebec City with whom a member of any minority might have some misgivings. I'm not trying to sling mud, but the GoQ is not renowned as being a champion of minority rights within its jurisdiction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|