The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No, the injustices have been based on race and religion too.

Could you elaborate on those? I'm curious to know what you see as injustices done to the French people. Whether I agree or not, they are your perception and I am curious since I have quite a different view.

[Fake Boris]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Could you elaborate on those? I'm curious to know what you see as injustices done to the French people. Whether I agree or not, they are your perception and I am curious since I have quite a different view.

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.

[notyoueither]

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?

[Fake 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.

[DinoDoc]

This is what Canada gets for not whipping their French population into shape all those years ago.

[notyoueither]

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]

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?

[Fake Boris]

Whatever. I don't get your point here.

And as for transfers, no one cares about them really.

[notyoueither]

My point is that oppression as justification for seperation seems silly, to me.

Canada has a good thing going, why screw it up for somethings that happened 100 to 250 years ago?

The West has a better gripe with Confederation as things stand than Quebec does, and it is only a vast minority who would advocate destroying the country to solve that.

[LiberalAtheist]

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?

2- grief for past injustice (Quebec is not terribly oppressed right now)

Irrelevant.

3- federal interference in provinvial politics (especially immigration and health)

Which comes from a federal system.......not a huge injustice imo.

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.

[molly bloom]

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]

Somehow i don't think that Boris is the best advocate to the separatist cause.

[East Street Trader]

What things would change in Quebec if it seceded?