The Dishonesty of Quebec Separatists

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle 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...

Right. They're second class citizens. Let's not count their votes cause they're not voting the way that i want them to. Are you going to identify people in Westmount with something so we know who the bastards are?
Hmmm let's see: the star of David thing has been done already....

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Supreme Court ruled that they would be forced to listen to the result of a referendum.

You answered your own query:

They could change the law to disallow democratic referendums

And I don't know how it works in Canada, but the federal government in the US is free to ignore US Supreme Court decisions it doesn't like.

To say that Quebec has been ruling the confederation, you would need to prove that the separatists and nationalists have been somewhat heard.

No, all I have to prove is which province most of the PM's belong to. Just because they don't agree with YOU doesn't mean they are traitors .

No, we're not being oppressed or anything but there is a significant unheard voice here.

Let me state it again:

"we're not being oppressed"

So you're a bunch of idiotic whiners? Thought so. Democracy is only good if you win, right?

the balance of a sovereign Quebec is 0.

I'll let nye or Asher rip this apart. Quebec is definetly above 0!

Let's not count their votes cause they're not voting the way that i want them to.

Well that's his argument for PMs from Quebec. They aren't doing what he wanted them to, so they are traitors .

[Bosh]

As far as I can tell there's a hell of a lot more imposition of French culture on the rest of culture than English culture on Quebec. For example the government being stricly bilingual even in places where more people speak a third language than French. It seems that separatism is more a tactic for Quebec to get its way at the expense of the rest of Canada and it seems to have worked admirably thus far...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Apparently there is no lawful way to "undo" a country.

Quebec does have borders that are legally/internationaly recognized i believe. Any individual, country or corporation wishing to do commerce or deal in any way at the provincial level with Quebec is subject to do it within the limits of its territory only. If not de jure, at the international level, at least de facto borders then. (Although i am pretty much certain that the current borders do have a legal value, but i guess a lawyer would know more about this than i do) I know that that argument has been used to justify that Quebec's claim on Labrador were void since it entered in contracts with Newfoundland & Labrador for transport of electricity: it implicitly accepted the territory's borders.

Also: i realize that i've been educated in Quebec's school system by teachers who were very probably overwhelmingly in favor of independance. That may hastainted their / my vision of things but : what i was taught was that nations have a right to "dispose of themselves".
Then came the definition of a nation, which included a distinct culture and a geographical area governed by a representative legislative body. I believe Quebec does meet all of these requirements. Gotta go now but i'll come back later.

IIUC its a priniciple of international law that the decision to organize based on a federal system is an INTERNAL matter of a country, and does NOT grant ANY right in international law to secede beyone what would exist otherwise. Ergo the existince of Quebec as a PROVINCE of Canada is irrelevant in international law, as are its provincial boundaries. Quebec can gain independence with Canadas consent, in which case international law protecting sovereignty would not matter - but then Canada might well choose to negotiate the frontiers, and NOT accept the current provincial boundaries, which were agreed to ASSUMING Quebec stayed in Canada. OR Quebec might seize independence unilaterally - if successful they would become de facto sovereign, a status that would lead to de jure recognition under international law. However if they failed to achieve de facto control over the James Bay region, they would not gain de jure rights to this area in this fashion.

Geographic and cultural distinctivenes is not the basis for a claim of sovereignty under international law. That is why the world has not yet seperated Kosovo from Yugoslavia and continues to recognize that Chechnya is part of Russian, etc.

International law is very conservative in this regard - it recognizes the rights of the de facto ruler as sovereign, subject to limitations on the inadmissibality of gaining territory by force (but this seems to apply only where that force was exercised since the founding of the UN) and the general rule against overseas colonial empires.

[lord of the mark]

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.

someone please get Arik Sharon on the line - your demographic problem has been SOLVED.

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOTM: Mostly spot on. One minor quibble:

if successful they would become de facto sovereign, a status that would lead to de jure recognition under international law.

Not always. If the de facto soveriegn isn't recognized by any other state as being independant then it isn't a de jure soveriegn. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. It wasn't really considered a soveriegn ruler because it had not been recognized as such by most of the world.

[DinoDoc]

That and the fact that they still didn't control the country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They controlled enough... if the world recognized them as rulers of Afghanistan, they would have been the de jure soveriegn instead of just the de facto ones. What I'm saying is that it doesn't automatically follow.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They controlled enough... if the world recognized them as rulers of Afghanistan, they would have been the de jure soveriegn instead of just the de facto ones. What I'm saying is that it doesn't automatically follow.

But what was the legal basis, for withholding recognition - I presume the Talibans human rights record and harboring of Al Qaeeda - neither likely to be an issue for an independent Quebec.

[Lancer]

Canada should split into bite sized little bits so as not to adversly effect US digestion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what was the legal basis, for withholding recognition

Because they didn't want to . There doesn't have to be a legal basis for withholding recognition. Every state has the soveriegn power to recognize foriegn governments, or not to.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Yep. That's the first point. The borders of an independent Quebec would revert to those borders of Quebec before Confederation.

Secondly, you have the problem of the anglo minority within Quebec.

I find some similarities between the situations of the Anglo minorities there, and the partition between India and Pakistan. You had minorities of Muslims and Hindus in both areas, and the way they resolved those issues is to give all the majority Hindu areas to India, and the majority Muslim areas to Pakistan.

Suppose we were to apply that same logic to Quebec, those areas within Quebec with Anglo majorities would have to be relocated to Canada, in the event Quebec seperated. Secondly, you would likely have to make those areas contigious with the rest of Canada, through additional cessation of territory.

In exchange, French minorities within Canada have the option of relocating to Quebec.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose we were to apply that same logic to Quebec, those areas within Quebec with Anglo majorities would have to be relocated to Canada, in the event Quebec seperated. Secondly, you would likely have to make those areas contigious with the rest of Canada, through additional cessation of territory.

In exchange, French minorities within Canada have the option of relocating to Quebec.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yep. That's the first point. The borders of an independent Quebec would revert to those borders of Quebec before Confederation.

Why?

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, those cessations would have to be negotiated.

I think it's rather funny, and I'm not the only one to comment on the fear of the French from their Anglo speaking minority population. I don't see any reason why they should cede Montreal since in many cases, they have lived there just as long as the Francophones.