The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[Guest]

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...

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

[notyoueither]

But how fair is it to have your currency and economy hi-jacked by an endless threat of seperation?

I don't think that's happening now, but the threat of seperation has certainly affected all Canadians negatively in the past, when it looked like the seperatists could win.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by LulThyme


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...

Thanks for the answer. That is not one I thought of.

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm ... I guess I always thought Canadian provinces were similar, if not identical, to U.S. states in terms of their relationships with the federal government. Do the provinces have less indepedence from Ottawa than U.S. states do from Washington, D.C.?

Gatekeeper

[gopher]

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Hmm ... I guess I always thought Canadian provinces were similar, if not identical, to U.S. states in terms of their relationships with the federal government. Do the provinces have less indepedence from Ottawa than U.S. states do from Washington, D.C.?

Gatekeeper

They have many powers, but a bit less than American states I think.

[notyoueither]

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.

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[notyoueither]

Immigrants are turning sovereigntist? Do you have a source, in English?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Control over all resources, for instance.

I shouldn't have said that. There are resources that are under federal jurisdiction. They would be waterways and the seas. Fisheries, for instance, are under federal jurisdiction.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Immigrants are turning sovereigntist? Do you have a source, in English?

I don't have any source. I was referring to a poll from a few months ago. I can give you some approximate numbers from my marijuana tainted memory.

-Quebec is doing more effort to increase the proportion of French speaking immigrants. This has helped the separatists, because this 'kind' supports independance in a 50% proportion.

-It has also been noticed that 35-40% of the 20-35 years old immigrants are favorable to sovereignty.

Overall, the proportion of Anglos and immigrants who support independance is 15%, a rise from the quasi-insignificant 1% of the 80s.

Yeah, I do know a few Anglos who are separatists.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
..... There would be no reason for them to form an independant country, though, because they probably need the help of a full fledged state to develop their resources. Autonomy within a federation looks like the best option to them. And I don't see why they would have any problem with this, whether this nation is Quebec or Canada.

Given a choice between Canada and Quebec the Cree have made it quite clear (99%) that they feel their minority rights would be much better protected in the former. For instance - the parents currently suing the Quebec gov to allow their child to be educated in English (contrary to Quebec law).

The only thing I can foresee is a *****y Canada playing stealth diplomacy in order to strip the North away from Quebec, which would put Hydro-Quebec in some trouble.

Take a look at the boundries of Quebec when it entered Confederation. The north was acquired AFTER joining - not before. Canada has a very legit claim to those lands.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

The English speaking suburb SHARES a culture and history with CANADA. They are not a seperate nation but part of the Canadian one!

That's the argument used by the Supreme Court, and it is debatable.

It really isn't. Not in terms of international law anyway.

the "international law" is crap when it comes to the right to secede

Why? Because they won't let a province which controls the federal government to leave that federal union because they are whiny *****es?