 |
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
He meant that Quebec still hasn't signed Canada's (edit : last ) Constitution |
quote:
But it seems they operate under it. They send representatives to Parliament. They send money and get back even more than they send to Ottawa. Even if they haven't signed it officially, by their actions, they have agreed to it. |
No argument here.
quote:
Now if Quebec decided to not participate in the government, didn't send money to the government, then you may have an issue. |
Wouldn't that be equal to secession or a unilateral declaration of independance?
edited for last part.
Last edited by Richelieu on 28-09-2004 at 02:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
Canada would recognize an independent Greenland only if the new entity renounced all claims to Hans Island
Oh and it IS the Turks and Caicos that has been mentioned as a entity interested in formal links with Canada
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Here is my main problem with the referendum. Say 51% say they want to leave Canada. We are going to make the 49% go along with it? Isn't that a major problem for such a large decision? |
True. But then, what does it take? 52%? 54%? 63%? When is a majority a "large enough" majority? And what about denying the 51% who said Yes?
quote:
Are we then going to allow secession for Anglo areas in Quebec? Where does it end? |
Anglos areas, northern Quebec (a lot more than 50% of the territory) etc... etc...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's absurd and pointless to claim that a cluster of French living in an enclosed part of Canada are politically detachable from Canada  .
|
It just isn't. No one thinks that what Timor or Slovakia was absurd and/or pointless.
Go to a university library. Look for books on Canadian cinema, Canadian literature, Canadian theater. Chances are they won't even speak about Quebecois stuff, because, as you might guess, Quebecois stuff in discussed in books about Quebec. The distinction is widely recognized and accepted. Quebec isn't really a minority, it's a conquered nation.
quote:
If you can leave Canada, they can leave you. It's fair play. If you don't like then don't start the dominoes falling.
|
To answer that you need to be able to define what can reasonably form a state. Following your logic every house that votes yes should already form its country, and every that votes no should be part of Canada.
quote:
And the substantial Anglo minority doesn't share it and doesn't want to be part of a country based on that. |
The Anglos form a scattered minority, but in no way a separate nation. And this shows in their cultural integration, because Anglo-Quebecois culture is clearly intertwined with the French fact in Quebec, which is not the case of the RoC.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes it is. You are just being selfish, saying you should be seperate and yet no one else shall be seperate from you. It's utter hypocrisy!
|
And I gave the reasons why. Unlike my favorite relativist friends I have the ability of being coherent, which means that any entity that meets the criteria I gave is eligible.
quote:
So? Does that mean that Texas can rightfully seceed from the US? No.
|
How many in Texas feel like their adherence to the US is forced?  Of course when people come to change their mind about a political situation the right to secession becomes absurd.
This is not terribly important anyway, as again you missed the point. At the time Quebec joined the Confederation, it was an oppressed country under military occupation. This historical problem has not been solved.
quote:
quote:
Following your logic every house that votes yes should already form its country, and every that votes no should be part of Canada. |
No, that's following your logic. |
No, that is following yours. When one assumes that the Anglos of Montreal could preserve their association with Canada, they mean that the voting districts where their votes are taken and counted do have some kind of legitimacy as political entities, while in fact they are arbitrary administrative abstractions to make elections proceed more fluently.
A referendum binds the whole mass of people living in a jurisdiction. Or else you might as well say that everyone who voted Yes in 1995 should already be part of the Republic of Quebec.
quote:
What is your beef? That Quebec isn't discussed in the books?
|
Not at all. I was rather pointing out that this was some sort of scientific evidence as to the innate differences between Canada and Quebec
quote:
Oh no! Remind me again where the Prime Minister is from. And the one before that? |
1. A group of people cannot be oppressed when one of its delegates holds high magistrature in the government.
2. Hermann Goering was homosexual.
3. Therefore, homosexuals weren't oppressed in the Third Reich.
Not that I believe that Quebec is oppressed right now, but I've had my fill of that strawman you've been repeating for ages. It is utterly invalid.
quote:
Aside from the fact they don't want to leave, right? |
No matter whether they want or not. They are a clear minority and not a distinct nation within another, which was the point.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-09-2004 21:57
|