The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[joncha]

I'm not sure how many in BC would want to take Alberta up on that offer.

[notyoueither]

As it wouldn't be the first choice of most Albertans either.

However, there is a similar very small percentage of people in both provinces who feel we would be better off together on our own. Of course, some of them think that Washington, Oregon and maybe Idaho would join us, so I suppose that tells you how grounded in reality they are.

[joncha]

Yeah, I'm not sure which are worse, the Cascadia wingnuts or the Western Canada Concept bigots.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Richelieu: I'd like to know why you seem to disagree so much with me.

Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this.

Are you separatist?

I'll try and answer.

1 - Yes i am for the independence of Quebec.
2 - "Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this."
What are you referring to specifically? I am not so sure that he is wrong per say. I am not certain that there are provisions in international law that provide for a way to undo a country. The fact that the UN may have a definition of what a nation is and whether or not Quebec qualifies is only one aspect of this (If this is what you were referring to). I haven't seen or heard of any laws that would apply to such a process and a UN definition is not "legally binding" in itself AFAIK.
3 - Why i disagree with you so much? I'm 39 years old. I've lived all my life with this debate in the background. I take it seriously and I find that most people think with their hearts or don't think at all when it comes to this. Whether on the Canadian or Quebec side a lot of arguments are put forth that frankly are not only unconvincing but sometimes dead wrong.

For example:

In fact, if Anglo districts had the right to secede from Quebec, we should not even consider their vote for a referendum.

I can't even begin to comment on that.

Talking about Quebecois PM's

They don't control the government- those who do have to forgive their Quebecois origins and start bashing on their province.

That's BS. They have a different view and a different allegiance, so they defend that view and that allegiance. If you haven't noticed, a majority of Quebecois still agree with them. There have been referendums that have proven that.

Ah well...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha
Yeah, I'm not sure which are worse, the Cascadia wingnuts or the Western Canada Concept bigots.

The WCC, definitely. They tend to be xenophobic, and they claim to speak for all Westerners, although they are mostly about 200 Albertan malcontents.

Cascadia is mostly a joke, I thought. I could have sworn Alberta was included in it though. It was when I saw a piece on the 'movement'.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu
2 - "Imran is obviously wrong, no dispute on this."
What are you referring to specifically? I am not so sure that he is wrong per say. I am not certain that there are provisions in international law that provide for a way to undo a country. The fact that the UN may have a definition of what a nation is and whether or not Quebec qualifies is only one aspect of this (If this is what you were referring to). I haven't seen or heard of any laws that would apply to such a process and a UN definition is not "legally binding" in itself AFAIK.

The UN approves of undoing a country if it is oppressed. Obviously, Quebec isn't.
However, Imran denied that the federal has the obligation to discuss with Quebec in the case of a OUI. Obviously, the term 'negociate' implies that Quebec can use the threat of a secession which has been granted by its people, or else there would no incentive at all for a fair talk. That is why the question was:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

For example:
I can't even begin to comment on that.

Oh well, then I'll explain you. The underlying idea behind any democracy is that its citizens must have a sincere feeling towards the nation they belong to. This is the reason why people in Ontario didn't vote in our referendum- they have nothing to do with it. This is the reason why the upcoming referendums on 'fusions municipales' will be held in each city separately: because, if you take all the votes of Westmount and Montreal together, Montreal will absorb the votes of Westmount. Each and every political body has to give its separate agreement. This means, at least 50% of Westmount and 50% of Pierrefonds and so forth.

However, if Westmount had the right to secede from Quebec, that would be because they form a different political body. Say they held a referendum that said "do we secede from the Republic of Quebec and join Canada?" - obviously, the people of Longueuil wouldn't vote in it.
Therefore, in the case that interests us - the 1995 referendum - the logical conclusion of this would be that the poll results of Westmount and the rest of Quebec should be taken separately, and not counted together.

Talking about Quebecois PM's

That's BS. They have a different view and a different allegiance, so they defend that view and that allegiance. If you haven't noticed, a majority of Quebecois still agree with them. There have been referendums that have proven that.

Ah well...

Imran wanted to say that Quebec was not oppressed, as demonstrated by Quebecois PMs in Ottawa. Obviously, this is not a valid argument, because these PMs have not done much to defend Quebec. It is Trudeau who sent the army, and it is Chretien who backstabbed its OWN province to prevent Meech from functioning. How many Quebecois disagree with Meech?

Sorry, but when half of Quebec is NOT represented and mostly ignored by Ottawa, except for bribes and tuitions, I don't call this a province running a country. I call this the rest of the country imposing the rule of one half of our province over the other.

[Richelieu]

Re: The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

Originally posted by Wezil
Let's start with three key issues:
1) Canada is divisible but Quebec is not. Why not?

Good question. If Quebec is divisible, on what basis is it divisible? According to which criterias? I can tell you that Canada is divisible in my opinion because Quebec fullfills all the requirements for a nation. Quebec can be clearly identified as a geographical entity and has been given juridiction over its territory. It has a recognized representative government. It also has a culture distinct from the Canadian culture.
If parts of Quebec can secede after independence, would it be under the same conditions? I don't think so.
The parts that would secede would do so under the Canada umbrella: We don't want to be part of Quebec so we remain a part of Canada.
And there is the question: can they do that? Do they have jurisdiction over that piece of land that they say is their territory? Do they have more jurisdiction over it than Quebec does?

2) We will use the Cdn currency but have more control over our economy. When Canada sets rates and currency supply? Sounds like a Puerto Rico situation to me....

That's a non issue. You can't prevent it. But since it would not last IMO, it is true that it is only a gimmick. That issue was brought up in the late 70's IIRC as a way to reassure those who got frightened by those who made jokes about an independant Quebec and its new "Laurentian" dollar.

3) Quebecers employed in the Fed civil service will remain so employed. Oh really?

I can't see anything that would justify that. Anyone who believes that is a dumbass. And yes: there are a lot of them. (NB: I work at the National research Council of Canada in Ottawa and i live in Gatineau, Quebec)

[joncha]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The WCC, definitely. They tend to be xenophobic, and they claim to speak for all Westerners, although they are mostly about 200 Albertan malcontents.

Cascadia is mostly a joke, I thought. I could have sworn Alberta was included in it though. It was when I saw a piece on the 'movement'.

Yeah, you're right. A small group of nutters can just be laughed at or ignored. A small group of organised bigots can be dangerous.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by joncha
Yeah, you're right. A small group of nutters can just be laughed at or ignored. A small group of organised bigots can be dangerous.

Although reasuringly, they have been mostly the same small band of bigots for the last 25 years. They have been there ever since the NEP. They try, and try, and try, but they never make any headway even though they have incorporated some of the better arguments that Alberta and the West have with Confederation.

They never get ahead because a: most of us do not see Confederation as hopeless, and b: we wouldn't follow those twits out of a paper bag that was on fire.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Oh well, then I'll explain you. The underlying idea behind any democracy is that its citizens must have a sincere feeling towards the nation they belong to. This is the reason why people in Ontario didn't vote in our referendum- they have nothing to do with it. This is the reason why the upcoming referendums on 'fusions municipales' will be held in each city separately: because, if you take all the votes of Westmount and Montreal together, Montreal will absorb the votes of Westmount. Each and every political body has to give its separate agreement. This means, at least 50% of Westmount and 50% of Pierrefonds and so forth.

However, if Westmount had the right to secede from Quebec, that would be because they form a different political body. Say they held a referendum that said "do we secede from the Republic of Quebec and join Canada?" - obviously, the people of Longueuil wouldn't vote in it.
Therefore, in the case that interests us - the 1995 referendum - the logical conclusion of this would be that the poll results of Westmount and the rest of Quebec should be taken separately, and not counted together.

Sure: but you have to give them their independence before you hold the Quebec referendum. If you are keeping them out of the Quebec referendum because they are a different political body and have a different allegiance, then take them out completely of Quebec.
Beforehand.
And by the way: i have reason to believe that the Crees will also want to hold their own referendum and secede from Quebec so you should probably boot them out too.
And my brother is federalist: he's thinking of creating the republic of 333 Beaubien street, apt. 22. He'll want out.

[Fake Boris]

Oh, they're not out, but we'd just count the results separately. BTW, I don't think the Anglos have the right to secede, but the Crees do.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran denied that the federal has the obligation to discuss with Quebec in the case of a OUI

They don't. They can simply renege on the negotiations and they wouldn't be compelled to do so. They can always change the law.

Imran wanted to say that Quebec was not oppressed, as demonstrated by Quebecois PMs in Ottawa. Obviously, this is not a valid argument, because these PMs have not done much to defend Quebec.

So it's not a valid argument because all these Quebec PMs haven't followed your idea of what they should follow?

Quebec benefits most of all from the Canadian system. They get the most money out of it and basically run the whole thing (the parties and PMs). The fact that they don't suck Quebec's dick at every corner doesn't mean Quebec is being trampled over.

I agree with the poster that compared Quebec today with pre Civil War US South: a bunch of morons who control the government believe they are being oppressed.

[notyoueither]

Actually, none of the seperatists in this thread have said they 'are' being oppressed. Some have said they 'have' been oppressed, which I grant. Although, as i see it, Quebec is doing very well by Confederation now, as it has in the past. Just that now Quebec is run by the Francos, and not the Anglo minority as may have been in the past.

The way I see it, the case for seperatism is mostly emotional. It is one of smaller political fish wanting to be bigger political fish by making their own pond. They seek to do that by appealing to emotions of a people who have had legitimate historical gripes ever since the Conquest up until some time around the end of WW2.

Those emotions are not yet forgotten, and will not be by all for a good long time to come. It should stand as a lesson to any nation not willing to kill the other to preserve itself on how minorities should not be treated if you want to build a better national mouse trap.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They don't. They can simply renege on the negotiations and they wouldn't be compelled to do so. They can always change the law.

No. The Supreme Court ruled that they would be forced to listen to the result of a referendum. Are you deaf, idiot or both?
They could change the law to disallow democratic referendums, but there's a thing called 'Godwin law' and I don't want to invoke it against you, again.
Or they could always amend that Constitution we've never signed?

So it's not a valid argument because all these Quebec PMs haven't followed your idea of what they should follow?

Get a clue about our history you moron. The PM that was the most friendly to Quebec was Mulroney (an Anglo).
There are several stances on the issue:
-hard federalism
-renewed federalism
-separatism

About NO ONE is Quebec is an hardline federalist; a significant minority is in favor of separatism, and about the rest wants a RENEWED federalism. Both Trudeau and Chretien, the two most significant French Canadian PMs, were hard federalists, and played some dirty tricks to prevent a renewed federalism (these tricks are the reason why Quebec, disgusted, refused to sign the Constitution).

They were not defenders of Quebec at Ottawa, they were defenders of RoC at the detriment of Quebec. If Quebec had been ruling the confederation, they would be part of the constitution. That a few PMs came from here doesn't mean anything, unless you compare their deeds with the popular will.

To say that Quebec has been ruling the confederation, you would need to prove that the separatists and nationalists have been somewhat heard. What has happened, though, is that the soft minority (hard federalists) has ruled over the moderate to hardcore majority (mild nationalists and separatists) with the help of the RoC. To say otherwise is complete ignorance of the political situation in Canada.

Quebec benefits most of all from the Canadian system. They get the most money out of it and basically run the whole thing (the parties and PMs). The fact that they don't suck Quebec's dick at every corner doesn't mean Quebec is being trampled over.

No, we're not being oppressed or anything but there is a significant unheard voice here. That's why the PQ is a strong party, and the Bloc remains a significant political force. The vast majority of Quebec's liberals are elected in the Anglo districts; French support of the Liberal party is not even at 30%, while the Bloc is at 45%.

BTW, we are in the middle of the transfers: proportionally to our population, we get much less than the Maritimes and about as much as Manitoba. Add what we get from Alberta and Ontario; substract what we give to the Maritimes; substract too the administrative overhead between Ottawa and Quebec, and the balance of a sovereign Quebec is 0.

I agree with the poster that compared Quebec today with pre Civil War US South: a bunch of morons who control the government believe they are being oppressed.

We don't control the government, that's for sure, but we're not being oppressed neither.

[Mr. Harley]

Wezil, thanks for that link, I forgot to mention that when I got riled over the Cree and First Nations' issues. Just for the record, I believe the Quebecois, if they can convince a majority, should get their independence - no matter how silly I may feel they are being, I'm NOT in their shoes. However, any border section or distinct people, as in native Americans, should get their chance to vote to stay with Canada, go with the Quebecois, or join the Nunavet region. One of the hallmarks of a good compromise - everybody hates it .