 |
|
LiberalAtheist
|
|
quote:
Support right now is at 48%, but that is mainly due to the recent scandals in the federal government and dissatisfaction towards the provinvial federalists. A few months ago it was at 44%. |
So if its not even proven that the majority wants to separate (let alone a vast majority that I would feel would at least begin to create a case) what's the point?
Does Quebec have any solid reason (such as human rights violations) for wanting to separate, or is it just some sort of preference that's cropped up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
1- survival of French culture in North America
2- grief for past injustice
3- federal interference in provinvial politics (especially immigration and health)
4- for some, hatred of the English/French (bad reason, obviously)
5- the wish for an autonomous diplomatic voice
|
Reasons 1, 2, 4 and 5 seem sound justification for a group of independent First Nations' states across Canada too- and inside the Province of Quebec.
It always seems that in la belle Province, je me souviens applies only to the French Canadians. I like Mordecai Richler's articles and books on the idiocies of French Canadian language laws in Quebec-
http://www.vigile.net/ds-societe/do...ancophobie.html
As my friends in British Columbia noted, they'd be better off speaking Cantonese, Mandarin or the languages of the Kwakiutl and Haida, but Canada is 'officially' bilingual, so they learn French. Which is handy when they visit Quebec, the Canadian province where French is more equal than English. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, they already have a huge autonomous state in the North affiliated with Canada. It would be utterly silly though for them to form an independant nation, as they receive billions every year from the government, and their total population is barely over 30,000 in Quebec. |
And yet, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Andorra and the Vatican City State are all still around, and still tiny in size and population. If the Cree and other First Nation bands took the same stance as the Parti Quebecois, they could encourage immigration from Native Americans- or English speaking immigrants who are willing to learn Indian languages, or even say, Indians from South America and Central America.
They could also leave their foreign policy to Anglophone Canada.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Oncle Boris, you still don't get it, and with most of your posts only prove my point (including that you mean well).
quote:
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 |
Oncle Boris, your premise is that Montreal would set the rules the Cree would have to follow, your "limits". You still don't get it, it's paternalism. What gives you the right to tell the Cree they can only do one or the other, that you reserve the right to not let them split off from an independent Quebec and join the rest of Canada? You can justify it until you're blue in the face, but it boils down to that you (and the Quebecois) feel comfortable imposing your idea of choices on a seperate, distinct minority that currently falls within Quebecs borders. It's Paternalism  .
The Cree don't need Montreal to turn them into a modern state and show them how to develop their resources. That's also paternalism. Why do they need someone to show them what to do? I strongly suspect the Cree can do a perfectly good job, from their perspective, on developing their ancestral lands as they see fit. If the assets of Hydro-Quebec are purchased by the Cree using outside appraisals that would be fair. How about instead Hydro-Quebec has to negotiate with the Cree with about the same amount of leverage that the Cree had under Quebec when so many hunting grounds were drowned? 
Your statements about the population density of the Cree I find mortifying and embarrassing. Why? Because it sounds just like the justifications used on my side of the border for seizing Native American lands, forcing them to abandon their traditional ways of life, and heck who wants to speak those languages anyway. You are perilously close to transitioning from well-meaning to actually sounding like many of the apologist for the atrocities against the Native Americans in the Untied States up throught the 1930's, and the injustices that have continued until this very day. I would have thought that they are company you wouldn't want to keep.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
As much as Quebec shares culture and history with the French nation. These people definitely form a minority of the Quebecois nation, there is no denying this. |
No, much, much more so! They are Canadians now. Quebec has been seperated from France for over 200 years.
And they being a minority in Quebec means jack.
quote:
The Quebecois may not have been genocided or enslaved, but they have endured their shares of injustice. |
As have, say, American Southerners. Would you say they have a valid claim to seceed, even though they've controlled the government?
quote:
Besides, Quebecois PMs have historically been those who used the harshest policies against their province of origin, from Laurier to Chretien, and especially Trudeau. No wonder why the word 'traitor' is used to describe them. |
Yes, there are idiotic extremists in any movement. Heaven forbid that they say anything which isn't highly praiseworthy of Quebec. Not like they get an incredible amount of protective legislation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Oncle Boris, your premise is that Montreal would set the rules the Cree would have to follow, your "limits". You still don't get it, it's paternalism. What gives you the right to tell the Cree they can only do one or the other, that you reserve the right to not let them split off from an independent Quebec and join the rest of Canada? You can justify it until you're blue in the face, but it boils down to that you (and the Quebecois) feel comfortable imposing your idea of choices on a seperate, distinct minority that currently falls within Quebecs borders. It's Paternalism .
|
Nothing, but their agreement. They have signed treaties with our governments and seem, to tell you the honest truth, quite satisfied with them. If they want to leave, fine. My only point is: legally, a sovereign Quebec would simply get a transfer of authority from the federal, and as such would uphold any treaty that they have with the federal, which means that they would have no good, legal reason to whine about it.
If they want their independance, they just have to hold a referendum. But they've not done so and don't seem willing at all to do it, for obvious reasons IMO: this would simply not benefit them.
There is IMO a difference between paternalism and realism: when you look at it, they would have trouble sustaining their own country. They must import everything by plane, and I doubt they could afford it without the governmental help they receive. That, or they abandon their houses and resort to igloo-like lifestyle.
quote:
The Cree don't need Montreal to turn them into a modern state and show them how to develop their resources. That's also paternalism. Why do they need someone to show them what to do? I strongly suspect the Cree can do a perfectly good job, from their perspective, on developing their ancestral lands as they see fit. If the assets of Hydro-Quebec are purchased by the Cree using outside appraisals that would be fair. How about instead Hydro-Quebec has to negotiate with the Cree with about the same amount of leverage that the Cree had under Quebec when so many hunting grounds were drowned?
|
This is also our land: after all, there are more Quebecers than Crees living in the North. There is a limit to how far back into history you can go. BTW, they could NEVER buy Hydro-Quebec assets; these are worth billions and sorry, a few thousands of people with no industrial base and no upper education infrastructure couldn't do anything worthwile with dams that take thousands of people to be operated. They know it, and that's why they have settled with profit sharing plans instead, which allow them to use the money as they see fit to develop their community.
EDIT: let's add here that when the dams were built (in the 60s and 70s), natives rights were not respected. Things are now settled: they have agreed on a fair compensation and stricter rules regarding future hydro developments.
quote:
Your statements about the population density of the Cree I find mortifying and embarrassing. Why? Because it sounds just like the justifications used on my side of the border for seizing Native American lands, forcing them to abandon their traditional ways of life, and heck who wants to speak those languages anyway. You are perilously close to transitioning from well-meaning to actually sounding like many of the apologist for the atrocities against the Native Americans in the Untied States up throught the 1930's, and the injustices that have continued until this very day. I would have thought that they are company you wouldn't want to keep. |
Again, the point of this argument was to show that it's not in their interest to form a fully independant country. I don't like your accusations, and I am definitely disgusted by the atrocities that have been done to them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, much, much more so! They are Canadians now. Quebec has been seperated from France for over 200 years.
|
You are commiting the geographical fallacy. That Quebec is next to Canada doesn't mean anyone who lives within its border is Canadian. Anglo-Quebecois are a minority of the Quebecois nation, just like Franco-Manitobans are a minority of the Canadian nation. It would be as silly for them to join an independant Quebec as it would be for Westmount to become a Canadian district within the Republic of Quebec.
quote:
As have, say, American Southerners. Would you say they have a valid claim to seceed, even though they've controlled the government?
|
No, the injustices have been based on race and religion too. I can't blame you for ignoring this, but don't let your mouth all open when you don't know about something.
quote:
Yes, there are idiotic extremists in any movement. Heaven forbid that they say anything which isn't highly praiseworthy of Quebec. Not like they get an incredible amount of protective legislation. |
Huh? Trudeau did revoke the charter of rights and send the army to Quebec, which is enough for many to be considered a "traitor". Chretien has passed the idiotic clarity bill, has been a corporate whore and created a discretionary, unmonitored public fund to promote federalism.
BTW, this "protective legislation" is not a GRANT; it is a condition for the federation. No recognition of Quebec's status, no federation. Anything else is annexion.
Finally, another point I'd like to bring: the Canadian government is required to accept the result of a referendum and discuss with Quebec. The unclear part is whether or not Quebec does have the right to secede in the case of an unsuccesful negociation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
You are commiting the geographical fallacy. That Quebec is next to Canada doesn't mean anyone who lives within its border is Canadian. Anglo-Quebecois are a minority of the Quebecois nation, just like Franco-Manitobans are a minority of the Canadian nation. It would be as silly for them to join an independant Quebec as it would be for Westmount to become a Canadian district within the Republic of Quebec. |
Ah, I think shawn's claim of racism is valid. They can't be Canadians because they live in Quebec?!
quote:
No, the injustices have been based on race and religion too. I can't blame you for ignoring this, but don't let your mouth all open when you don't know about something. |
 And yet they control the government. Hell, the American South had been suffering injustices based on its past agrarian economy and traditions. I guess you think the South should rise again!
But, of course not, you've shown yourself to be nothing better than a hypocrite.
quote:
Trudeau did revoke the charter of rights and send the army to Quebec, which is enough for many to be considered a "traitor". |
So he acted more for the country of Canada than a province. I guess you can call him a traitor for that if you want. I'm sure some Southerners called LBJ a traitor for signing the Civil Rights Act.
quote:
this "protective legislation" is not a GRANT; it is a condition for the federation. |
Yes, and? There is still protective legislation up the wazzoo. What would Quebec do if it were, as you say, 'annexed'? Revolt? How long would that last?
quote:
The unclear part is whether or not Quebec does have the right to secede in the case of an unsuccesful negociation. |
They don't according to any law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, I think shawn's claim of racism is valid. They can't be Canadians because they live in Quebec?!
|
Yeah, I'm racist because I consider them to be a minority, which they obviously are. If the Italians of New York, who are majoritary in a few places, wanted to join Italy, would that be acceptable?
I've never said they're not Canadians; they might feel as such, but if they do, they are a Canadian minority living amongst a Quebecois majority, and their adherance to society compels them to accept the results of a referendum. In fact, if Anglo districts had the right to secede from Quebec, we should not even consider their vote for a referendum.
BTW, there are many Anglo-Quebecois with a strong Quebecois identity, that they consider different from the Canadian one.
quote:
And yet they control the government. Hell, the American South had been suffering injustices based on its past agrarian economy and traditions. I guess you think the South should rise again!
|
They don't control the government- those who do have to forgive their Quebecois origins and start bashing on their province. You can't say that French Canadians control the federation, because those who did become PMs held the EXACT SAME VIEWS, or sometimes even HARSHER, than an Anglo PM would have.
Again, I'd never say that the discrimination against Quebec has ever reached nazi-level; but your statement is similar, in its underlying logic, to saying that Blacks were not discriminated against in the South because X black man agreed on segregation.
quote:
But, of course not, you've shown yourself to be nothing better than a hypocrite.
|
That would be more the case of those who think that federative pacts are inalienable, regardless of conditions.
quote:
So he acted more for the country of Canada than a province. I guess you can call him a traitor for that if you want. I'm sure some Southerners called LBJ a traitor for signing the Civil Rights Act.
|
Don't even TRY. Trudeau jailed THOUSANDS without mandate because the FLQ held two hostages. He obviously did take the time to put in about anyone who was a political oponent. Trudeau is a war criminal and a traitor.
quote:
Yes, and? There is still protective legislation up the wazzoo. What would Quebec do if it were, as you say, 'annexed'? Revolt? How long would that last?
|
Quebec is an annexed nation. French Canadians support sovereignty in a 60% proportion. They were annexed back in 1763, went through a failed revolt in 1838-1839 and really never had the choice to join or not the Federation in 1867.
quote:
They don't according to any law. |
According to CANADIAN law, it's unclear. The Supreme Court said that the federal has the obligation to negociate with Quebec in the advent of a succesful OUI; obviously, 'negociation' in this case would be an absurd term if Quebec couldn't threaten the opposite party with separation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
Seperatists call our French-Canadian PMs traitors? I can see why, I guess. It is usually a federalist who is brought to the fore of a national party, especially the Liberals (I won't really count Mulroney for fear of the flame factor). It is surprising that a federalist from Quebec acts to ensure Confederation? The fact remains that we have been ruled by men from Quebec for a disproportionate amount of time going back a long way.
However, Quebec is oppressed. I see. Maybe it is seperatists who do not feel represented by those citizens of Quebec who they must convince in order to destroy Confederation.
Recent PMs:
- Paul Martin, 12 Dec 2003 to Current, Quebec
- Jean Chrétien, 4 Nov 1993 to 12 Dec 2003, Quebec
- Kim Campbell, 25 June to 4 Nov 1993, British Columbia
- Brian Mulroney, 17 Sep 1984 to June 25 1993, Quebec
- John Turner, 30 June to 17 Sep 1984, Ontario
- Pierre Trudeau Redux, 3 Mar 1980 to 30 June 1984, Quebec
- Joe Clark, 4 June 1979 to 2 Mar 1980, Alberta
- Pierre Trudeau the I, 20 Apr 1968 to 3 June 1979, Quebec
- Lester Pearson, 23 Apr 1963 to 20 Apr 1968, Ontario
- John Diefenbaker, 21 June 1957 to 22 Apr 1963, Saskatchewan
- Louis St. Laurent, 15 Nov 1948 to 21 June 1957, Quebec
- William Lyon Mackenzie King the III, 23 Oct 1935 to 15 Nov 1948, Ontario
It seems that a good majority of our post war governments have been headed by people from Quebec. In fact, since Pearson it seems to be lethal to not be from Quebec.
That's going on 40 years of rule by people from Quebec. Oppressed? What colour would the sky be on that planet?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The injustices are now over, but until the 60s Quebecois were forced to work in English, had much lower wages than Anglo-Canadians and Americans, were used as cannon fodder in WW1 and WW2, and were considered to be a sub-race - literally - by other Canadians.
Back in the 19th century, they were required to renounce the Catholic religion in order to work in the public service. |
Language at work? OK, I did not know that. Wages? That would have had to do with class in your province and the fact it was fairly class based for a long time, would it not? Were there no French Canadians who did well?
Cannon fodder in WW1 and 2? Now there I have to draw the line. It was largely due to the feelings of Quebec that conscription was put off nationally for so long in both cases. However, there came a time when it could not be put off any longer for us to maintain our obligations, and was then used for combat troops. Anglos bled just as much, if not more. How is that descrimination?
Sub-race by other Canadians? I need some back up for that. Were there Anglo bigots? I'd bet there were, but sub-race? We had the Scots for that!
I believe the bit about the Catholic religion and the civil service long ago. However, did you know that Catholic education is a right across Canada because of the French fact?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NYE,  .
Did you notice that of all these PMs, the one that was the most Quebec-friendly was an Anglo, Mulroney?
Chretien is a SHAME.
Martin is a corporate whore. He speaks French with an English accent anyway. 
Trudeau is a traitor.
St-Laurent was just OK, I don't know much of him.
Laurier was an ass, but he did it way too long ago for us to feel bad against him. You can try and try and try, but the fact will remain that the most despised PMs are French Canadians, because they built their political capital in Canada at the detriment of Quebec. |
I can see you saying that, but I can't grant it as true.
The fact is that most of the time we are goverened by a man from Quebec, and he is a very powerful man. You may disagree with his views, but it is a very long stretch to then say Quebec seperatism has any basis in oppression given the current situation.
And just how detrimental are the billions in transfer payments shipped from the Alberta oil patch to Quebec City, anyway? Stop. I am not saying that all that Alberta gives goes to Quebec. Ontario gives too. It is just that Quebec receives in massive proportion to what reality should dictate. Do you think those payments would continue after sovereignty? Are they another sign of oppression?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LiberalAtheist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The issues are mainly, pellmell:
1- survival of French culture in North America |
Why? If adhering to other cultures makes people happier, shouldn't they simply be allowed to adhere to them? Or is culture more important then freedom and happiness?
Are cultures to be preserved like museum artifcacts, or allowed to evolved into something greater?
quote:
2- grief for past injustice (Quebec is not terribly oppressed right now) |
Irrelevant.
quote:
3- federal interference in provinvial politics (especially immigration and health) |
Which comes from a federal system.......not a huge injustice imo.
quote:
5- the wish for an autonomous diplomatic voice |
This looks quite simply like some sort of mere whim, again hardly justification for a change as radical and unprecedented as secession.
I'm not trying to sound dismissive of the sucessionist's case, as I imagine they feel very strongly on the issue, have genuine concerns and may have excellent arguments I've yet to hear. But from what I've read so far the conditions present hardly merit something as volatile and imo, counter-progressive (from an internationalist pov) as secession.
Last edited by LiberalAtheist on 30-03-2004 at 13:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This is also our land: after all, there are more Quebecers than Crees living in the North. There is a limit to how far back into history you can go. |
Hmm, isn't it 'government' land too, Canadian government land? As in, all Canadians, not just the French Canadians?
As to how far we go back in history- well, clearly we can go as far back as as French Canadian Separatists want to go, but not as far back as the Cree might like.
Do as I say, not do as I do, obviously.
Culturally and in terms of their religion, the First Nations have much bigger grievances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
I've never quite understood why anyone would object to the Quebecios leaving, anyway.
Good riddance, I would say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Somehow i don't think that Boris is the best advocate to the separatist cause.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-03-2004 05:33
|