The Nation of Greenland?

[Imran Siddiqui]

True. But then, what does it take? 52%? 54%? 63%? When is a majority a "large enough" majority? And what about denying the 51% who said Yes?

See, there are many problems with that referendum. How can you bind even a significant minority with such a decision?

From the viewpoint of Parti Quebecois, fat chance.

Which means they are hypocrits.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which means they are hypocrits.

It's absurd and pointless to claim that a cluster of Anglos living in an enclosed part of Montreal and some eastern villages are politically detached from Quebec.

To claim that a group of 7 million persons are politically detached from Canada, living on a territory larger than many nations, with a distinct culture, language, religion, and history is another matter. Debatable indeed, but not within the realm of absurdity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's absurd and pointless to claim that a cluster of Anglos living in an enclosed part of Montreal and some eastern villages are politically detached from Quebec.

It's absurd and pointless to claim that a cluster of French living in an enclosed part of Canada are politically detachable from Canada .

If you can leave Canada, they can leave you. It's fair play. If you don't like then don't start the dominoes falling.

with a distinct culture, language, religion, and history

And the substantial Anglo minority doesn't share it and doesn't want to be part of a country based on that.

[notyoueither]

But you're not just 7 million clones. The same thing that leads nationalists to think secession is possible certainly leads the Cree to think the same thing, and perhaps the predominantly federlist areas around Montreal.

What is the difference?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is the difference?

He's a Frenchie and they aren't .

[notyoueither]

Thinking about it... a distinct culture, language, religion, and history...

What stops the Cree from saying they want to leave both Quebec and Canada? What about the Haida in BC? The Innu in Nunavut? The Ukrainians around Edmonton?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's absurd and pointless to claim that a cluster of French living in an enclosed part of Canada are politically detachable from Canada .

It just isn't. No one thinks that what Timor or Slovakia was absurd and/or pointless.

Go to a university library. Look for books on Canadian cinema, Canadian literature, Canadian theater. Chances are they won't even speak about Quebecois stuff, because, as you might guess, Quebecois stuff in discussed in books about Quebec. The distinction is widely recognized and accepted. Quebec isn't really a minority, it's a conquered nation.

If you can leave Canada, they can leave you. It's fair play. If you don't like then don't start the dominoes falling.

To answer that you need to be able to define what can reasonably form a state. Following your logic every house that votes yes should already form its country, and every that votes no should be part of Canada.

And the substantial Anglo minority doesn't share it and doesn't want to be part of a country based on that.

The Anglos form a scattered minority, but in no way a separate nation. And this shows in their cultural integration, because Anglo-Quebecois culture is clearly intertwined with the French fact in Quebec, which is not the case of the RoC.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Thinking about it... a distinct culture, language, religion, and history...

What stops the Cree from saying they want to leave both Quebec and Canada? What about the Haida in BC? The Innu in Nunavut? The Ukrainians around Edmonton?

Natives: nothing
Ukrainians:

[Imran Siddiqui]

It just isn't.

Yes it is. You are just being selfish, saying you should be seperate and yet no one else shall be seperate from you. It's utter hypocrisy!

Quebec isn't really a minority, it's a conquered nation.

So? Does that mean that Texas can rightfully seceed from the US? No.

Following your logic every house that votes yes should already form its country, and every that votes no should be part of Canada.

No, that's following your logic. What is your beef? That Quebec isn't discussed in the books? Oh no! Remind me again where the Prime Minister is from. And the one before that?

The Anglos form a scattered minority, but in no way a separate nation.

What about the Cree, who are a seperate nation and don't want a part of Quebec the country?

And this shows in their cultural integration

Aside from the fact they don't want to leave, right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Go to a university library. Look for books on Canadian cinema, Canadian literature, Canadian theater. Chances are they won't even speak about Quebecois stuff, because, as you might guess, Quebecois stuff in discussed in books about Quebec. The distinction is widely recognized and accepted. Quebec isn't really a minority, it's a conquered nation.

Couldn't the Cree say exactly all of the above?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Natives: nothing
Ukrainians:

So then the Cree are free to decide to detach themselves from Quebec. What about the bands and tribes farther south?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by notyoueither


They were, and then they weren't.

They went on their own prior to WW1. Then they went bankrupt and Britain had to take them back. In the end they opted to become Canada's 10th province (somewhere about 1949, IIRC). We took them because... well they're real good talkers and at the time we were feeling our oats.

I'm sure we'll welcome Greenland too, when the time comes.

I see you've upgraded from Stealth Nation technology to Stealth Empire technology.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I see you've upgraded from Stealth Nation technology to Stealth Empire technology.

I am sure we'll welcome New York, New England, Seattle, and San Francisco when the time comes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So then the Cree are free to decide to detach themselves from Quebec. What about the bands and tribes farther south?

I guess they can, the only problem being that the territory is being occupied right now, which means they would pretty much be confined to their actual position.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes it is. You are just being selfish, saying you should be seperate and yet no one else shall be seperate from you. It's utter hypocrisy!

And I gave the reasons why. Unlike my favorite relativist friends I have the ability of being coherent, which means that any entity that meets the criteria I gave is eligible.

So? Does that mean that Texas can rightfully seceed from the US? No.

How many in Texas feel like their adherence to the US is forced? Of course when people come to change their mind about a political situation the right to secession becomes absurd.

This is not terribly important anyway, as again you missed the point. At the time Quebec joined the Confederation, it was an oppressed country under military occupation. This historical problem has not been solved.

Following your logic every house that votes yes should already form its country, and every that votes no should be part of Canada.

No, that's following your logic.

No, that is following yours. When one assumes that the Anglos of Montreal could preserve their association with Canada, they mean that the voting districts where their votes are taken and counted do have some kind of legitimacy as political entities, while in fact they are arbitrary administrative abstractions to make elections proceed more fluently.

A referendum binds the whole mass of people living in a jurisdiction. Or else you might as well say that everyone who voted Yes in 1995 should already be part of the Republic of Quebec.

What is your beef? That Quebec isn't discussed in the books?

Not at all. I was rather pointing out that this was some sort of scientific evidence as to the innate differences between Canada and Quebec

Oh no! Remind me again where the Prime Minister is from. And the one before that?

1. A group of people cannot be oppressed when one of its delegates holds high magistrature in the government.
2. Hermann Goering was homosexual.

3. Therefore, homosexuals weren't oppressed in the Third Reich.

Not that I believe that Quebec is oppressed right now, but I've had my fill of that strawman you've been repeating for ages. It is utterly invalid.

Aside from the fact they don't want to leave, right?

No matter whether they want or not. They are a clear minority and not a distinct nation within another, which was the point.