The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[LiberalAtheist]

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?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by LiberalAtheist
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?

It's obviously not proven, as there have been two failed referendums. But-- the majority of French Canadians (over 60%) want to secede, however anglo and immigrant vote is preventing it. Their objective is to change their mind, which is not easy at all.

The issues are mainly, pellmell:

1- survival of French culture in North America
2- grief for past injustice (Quebec is not terribly oppressed right now)
3- federal interference in provinvial politics (especially immigration and health)
4- for some, hatred of the English (bad reason, obviously)
5- the wish for an autonomous diplomatic voice

[molly bloom]

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/docs2/02-6-15-fulford-francophobie.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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by molly bloom
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.

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.

[molly bloom]

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.

[Fake Boris]

Maybe you could compare Liechtenstein with the 10,000 natives populating a 1,000,000 sq. kilometers territory?

[Mr. Harley]

Oncle Boris, you still don't get it, and with most of your posts only prove my point (including that you mean well).

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.

[joncha]

Yeah, shawn, I see your point now. I retract my rant demanding that you retract your rant.

I was just giving OB the benefit of the doubt (and reading my position into OB's, which is dangerous at the best of times).

As an Anglo-Canadian, I unconditionally support the right of both the Quebecois and all Native Peoples (status or otherwise) to self-determination, up to and including seceding outright. My support is not uncritical, however... but that's beside the point. Whether or not I think independence is a good idea, it is their decision to make.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

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?

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.

[Gatekeeper]

OB, NYE ... thanks for the insights ...

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

[pchang]

The Cree want to stay with Canada. They haven't had a referendum to leave Quebec because Quebec hasn't left Canada. However, I'm pretty sure that if Quebec left Canada, the Cree would hold a referendum pretty quickly to leave Quebec.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?!

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.

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.

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?

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.

[notyoueither]

Couple of points.

Most all First Nations in Canada are covered by treaties signed prior to settlement, or other settlements reached relatively recently in the case of people from areas settled prior to the treaty system. As such, I would not be in a hurry to say that any such group could up and leave Canada. It's a done deal, and Canada would react to such nonsense in much the same way that Poland would react to renewed territorial demands by Germany for lands lost after WW1 and 2.

In the case of the Cree, the issue arises due to the fact that the Cree signed deals with the GoC, not the GoQ. It could be argued that they can not be forced to honour those deals with a group they did not negotiate them with. That is why the whole issue arises

Be that as it may, although the cases of Quebec and the Cree are not really the same at all, when it comes down to it there is no keeping a significant enough group within any political arrangement when push comes to shove unless you are willing to shove back. That is part of the reality that the Courts and Parliament have addressed. Canada would be very unlikely to be willing to wage a civil war to keep Quebec, so we might as well set some standards for what happens if they vote 'oui'. That has been done.

What has not been done is to determine what happens in some specific cases, such as the Island of Montreal and the Cree of Northern Quebec. Canada is not and is unlikely to be willing to fight to keep Quebec. Would Quebec be willing to use force to prevent a similar decision to theirs being exercised by others? That is what it comes down to.