 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
The SCoC explicitly tossed the 'peoples right to self determinism' argument.
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-s...8scr2_0217.html
quote:
The Court was also required to consider whether a right to unilateral secession exists under international law. Some supporting an affirmative answer did so on the basis of the recognized right to self-determination that belongs to all "peoples". Although much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics of a people, it is not necessary to decide the "people" issue because, whatever may be the correct determination of this issue in the context of Quebec, a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state. A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the "National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec" do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Even if granted, such recognition would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.
|
Considering that Canada's PMs since 1980 have all been from Quebec (except for some few weeks where a lady from Vancouver served) the claim to national self-determinisim is balderdash on it's face.
They didn't say it never applies. They just said that it doesn't apply to Quebec. Despite that, they found that any province has the right to start the ball rolling on seccession simply as a reflection of the will of the inhabitants of the province. It is then up to the rest of Canada to address the grievances. Failing that, the province goes on it's own by fiat if they can gain support internationally.
That's how I read it.
Last edited by notyoueither on 01-03-2005 at 11:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's a bit different than that. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that the secession doesn't just affect Quebec, so the rest of Canada ALSO has to decide by majority of Quebec can leave.
The international recognition option is ALWAYS open, however. If Quebec decides to leave even without a majority refendum and international support is forthcoming, that could be enough if Canada doesn't decide to assert some authoritah! Chances of that, though, are slim and none under current circumstances. |
Yes, but the court said, in effect, that the ROC has to negotiate in good faith and respect the wishes of the people who have opted to leave. That's where it becomes a mud pie. Who says who did what in good faith?
It could easily break down and then the opting out province would seek international recognition for a unilateral declaration.
Canada could assert all the 'authoritah' its 6 battalions of infantry can muster (which isn't much considering that 4 of them are deployed overseas at any given time, even if 6 battalions of infantry were enough to excercise any kind of 'authoritah' over a space as vast as Canada) then France recognises Quebec and what's Canada going to do about it? Occupy Quebec? With what? Harsh words?
Conversely, imagine Aggy gets his wish and everyone East of Saskatchewan opts to amend the constitution abolishing provincial powers over many areas, like resources. Then Alberta and BC hold referendums to leave. The ROC then balks at talks. BC and Alberta seek international recognition. The US or China grant it in a New York minute. Again, what does Canada do about it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Well, Aggy, do you want to wear your words scrambled, or as a souffle? |
Are you stupid or something?
There are two separate issues here.
The first is whether Federalism is itself defensible. You haven't answered this question at all. I gave a few reasons explaining what I think is wrong with it.
So:
quote:
I don't have to. You are the one wanting to make the change, you have to show how this is likely or likely enough to warrant doing something about it. |
Has absolutely nothing to do with that particular question. The suckfullness of Federalism is not a likelihood or a possibility, it's a demonstrable fact.
If you ask me how the Federal government would go about reducing the power of provincial governments with a view to eliminating them, then that is a practical question.
The answer is obvious, and I've already given it: by regular political means (bribery, playing them off against each other, appealing to the public, etc.).
Now stop screwing around and sound off like you actually have a pair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
I also pointed out how it leads to unnecessary conflicts.
But if you want a more complete exposition, fine.
The point of a government is to exercise a monopoly on force. It exercises this monopoly so that it can provide services to its citizens that competition will either not provide at all, or provides at a level less than people would like. Things like a legal system and health care are the obvious examples.
The central justification behind government provided services (in other words government itself) are that competition will not provide them, and is in many cases destructive of them. Hence the government is given the power to coerce people to pay for them.
This should be obvious to anyone who lives in a modern society.
So why on earth would any idiot think to have two or more governments competing with each other And don't say that this doesn't happen, because it is exactly what happens - politicians, being what they are, seek to expand their own influence (hence the Catch-22 reference a few pages back).
It's no response to say that Federal and provincial responsibilities are clearly demarcated, since each government will attempt to accrue the benefits and praise to itself and impose the costs and blame on the other. Sound familiar?
Meanwhile, people have to put up with the pointless wastage from not getting things that need to be done, done. Each side can point to the other and say "it's their fault". Voting won't make a difference because the system is structured so as to make it easiest to apportion blame to the other. One only has to listen to Ralph Klein speak to see that he is a master at that game (one reason why he is such a successful politician).
It's like having a corporation that has a specific department which is granted some form of contractual autonomy that the parent corporation cannot rescind. People being what they are, this leads to insane amounts of territorial pissing and buck passing. The obvious solution to this is to allow the parent corporation final power over the department, so that changes in its scope and accountability can be made for the interests of the whole company. This would be equivalent to making the provincial governments much more like local government, which is instituted because of efficiency gains and can be granted more or less powers by the central goverment depending on what works. Having said that, local goverment still manifests many of the same problems and I'm not a fan of it either.
Introducing, however unwittingly, competition into an institution that is specifically designed to avoid it for the very reason that it is destructive in those particular areas of interest is about the dumbest thing that anyone could ever do.
Doing what Federalism does, and drawing rather strict boundaries between the Federal and provincial just makes this worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Actually, many Canadians would argue that given what you just said, we should reduce the influence of the fed and increase the taxation powers of the provinces. |
No. The only way to avoid the conflicts I've described would be to split Canada up into autonomous states. That's entirely consistent with my posiition - I just guess that if given the choice, the efficiency gains from being part of a larger country would entice most people.
quote:
What you fail to mention is that a federal system allows for unique cultures to survive and flourish in the midst of larger states. |
Have you never been to England? Go call someone from Manchester a Scouser and see how far you get. 
Excluding Quebec, England manifests much more cultural difference between its regions than Canada does.
quote:
Done properly you would end up with the country that Canada should be, a nation of 12 or more regions with distinctive and vibrant cultures where everyone has an assured level of healthcare, education, childcare and other social services. |
That is entirely consistent with the Feds running everything.
quote:
Where it goes wrong is when one level or the other goes tilt and is out of step with what people need. The feds have passed that point long ago. |
That's not my point. My point is that it will never be any good. Federalism provides perverse incentives to both the Federal and Provincial governments because it puts them at competition with each other.
It would be nice if they didn't do this, but that will never happen people being what they are.
quote:
Not to mention that the people of Quebec, and a few other regions, would tell you where to put your idea for a replacement for federalism. You can't have a better system if it breaks the country, can you? |
Stealth would be my preferred option. But that is a question of implementation, not of the value of Federalism itself.
Perhaps people are too dumb to realize that they'd be better off without it, and that they would have a government that would respond more effectively to their needs (because it couldn't play the blame game with its competitors).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Actually, Aggy, it's a matter of the Constitution. You are bound to step on provincial toes, and then the **** hits the fan. You can't change a confederation to an central authority (whatever you call it) without people noticing. |
Which is why you have to play it smart. Getting rid of Federalism is in the interest of the majority of Canadians, even if they don't know it.
quote:
Also, the people of Newfoundland and those of BC might be fairly dumb, as you say, but they may also be attached to their traditions of regional power. |
People are daft, what more can be said?
quote:
It might be all fine and dandy to propose such schemes in New Zealand, where the entire country fits into Nova Scotia with some to spare, but it is another to put it into practice in a nation like Canada where the land is vast and changing, and the people who inhabit the land take on nearly as many characters as the land itself. |
Rhetorical nonsense. England is more diverse than Canada (excluding Quebec).
quote:
For a lesson on how federal power over all else works in such large nations, glance south of the 49th. Why would you want us to go there? |
They face similar problems with their ridiculous state governments. They also have other problems like the lack of proper public broadcasting and political infantilism, but let's not go there.
What precisely do you disagree with in my indictment of Federalism? Exclude practicalities of implementation for a moment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-03-2005 09:59
Man, you're being smacked around in this argument. Stop trying to change the subject because you're being smoked.
|