The Nation of Greenland?

[notyoueither]

To be a senior civil servant, and to be stationed in Western Canada, one will have to be bilingual. This is because of Quebec being a part of Canada, and most importantly, because of Quebec French is important to our nation from sea to sea.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The population got a choice in the people it returned as reps to the Legislature.

Indeed. That is the way it works. If Quebec was so opposed to being a part of Canada, it shouldn't have sent reps to Parliament. But it did. It acquiesed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed. That is the way it works. If Quebec was so opposed to being a part of Canada, it shouldn't have sent reps to Parliament. But it did. It acquiesed.

Elections are organized by the federal government. Quebec currently has 54 separatist reps in Ottawa (out of 75).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Interestingly, the elected legislature held sufficient legitimacy to join the Confederation - so why wouldn't an elected PQ have the right to leave it?

Admit it, there was a democratic deficit back in the times. In the RoC no one cares because it's still what they want. Here things have evolved differently.

As Imran noted earlier, there is no universal right to sucede. It effects more than just the people of the jurisdiction who want to go.

The fact it took a hundred years for a group to take up the cause, and none of them were alive when the original deal was struck, speaks a bit of inventing reasons if this is the basis of the arguement, to me.

Incidently, I am a bit struck by the conflicting claims to the power of self determinism. I myself have said from time to time that Alberta could hold a vote to be able to pack up and leave. Under certain circumstances I think it might be justified, or at the very least that a great many people might have good reason to be dissatisfied. However, that would be based in current situations, not the facts of the origin of the province.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Those were not of the same nature.

Actually, they were after the same things. Responsible government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Elections are organized by the federal government

Refuse to vote in them then. Don't allow them to set up polling stations. Break them down.

Is everyone a wuss in Quebec?

And isn't it kind of wierd that if Quebec was so dissatisfied with the union with Canada and no one thought of holding a secession referendum at that time?

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Do they have a flag? No flag, no country, thats the rule.

But of course.



(Greenland, not Quebec btw)

[Heresson]

It's VERY NICE. It looks like a compromise between Polish and Japaneese flag, with a little bit of Indonesia!

[Richelieu]

oops

[Richelieu]

Here ya go.

[Gangerolf]

that's a nice one too

bizarro finland?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Actually, they were after the same things. Responsible government.

Errr... no. The French Canadians (well, the leaders of the rebellion should I say) sought to create an independant republic founded on the principles of the French Revolution.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Elections are organized by the federal government

Refuse to vote in them then. Don't allow them to set up polling stations. Break them down.

Is everyone a wuss in Quebec?

Unfortunately yes. Personally I got confronted by the police when I was caught changing the street name panels to that of a prominent separatist. (The street was Dorchester Boulevard, named from a British governor of the 19th century. I changed it back to its true name, Boulevard René-Lévesque )

And isn't it kind of wierd that if Quebec was so dissatisfied with the union with Canada and no one thought of holding a secession referendum at that time?

at the time, it was just unthinkable. Again, shall I have to tell you that the province was garrisoned by British soldiers?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As Imran noted earlier, there is no universal right to sucede. It effects more than just the people of the jurisdiction who want to go.

This statement is so broad it can barely be discussed. The UN clearly recognizes the right to "self-determination", though. Of course then, according to you, the people of Britain should have voted about the independance of African colonies?

The fact it took a hundred years for a group to take up the cause, and none of them were alive when the original deal was struck, speaks a bit of inventing reasons if this is the basis of the arguement, to me.

This is not the basis of my argument. It's just the legalistic part of it. There is just no way to pretend that Canada right now has any more legitimacy than Quebec, because in effect there was never any strong and consensual choice, done in a democratic manner choice.

To claim that Quebec doesn't have the right to secede because Canada just happens to hold jurisdiction over its territory out of an historical contingency sounds to me like a weak argument.

I do believe that a right to secession can reasonably exist under certain conditions, and I've certainly done more than my fair share of efforts to describe how and when it should be limited, in this thread and others.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that by virtue of its constitution, Ottawa would be forced to discuss in goodwill with the government of Quebec in case of a Yes. This simple statement opens a lot of doors; obviously, there is no 'discussion' (as has been demonstrated by Meech) witthout the threat of separation. This is why referendum questions develop in two stages: do you agree to secession after a formal offer of partnership has been made?

Today's values and situation, whatever might be the motives driving sovereignists (historical or not), do point towards the eventuality of a peaceful and democratic solution, and this is why the PQ is playing its game fairly. After all, if a right to secession does not exist, as keep hammering my relativist friend over there, it can by his logic be gained through war, as legitimacy according to him is a de facto state granted by a monopoly of violence.

I sincerely hope that in 2004 the Canadian people would rather use common sense to agree on peaceful methods - as I pointed out earlier, it is crystal clear that Quebec, up to the hearts of its citizens who deem themselves (by a comfortable majority) 'Quebecois' before 'Canadian' - to recognize that right to self-determination which unfortunately isn't much respected by the conservative international law.

[notyoueither]

What if that discussion is framed by the bits that want to stay get to stay?

The RoC would be discussing it.