| View Poll Results: Do you recognized Québec as being a nation ? | |||
| Yes |    | 12 | 29.27% |
| No |    | 29 | 70.73% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll | |||
The Padre
Posts: 4,558 
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
November 20th, 2006, 03:15 AM
Quoting John Muff
No. As Trudeau once stated, and I'm paraphrasing, Why would Quebecers limit themselves when all of Canada is theirs too.
Hi there,
This is meant to be a clear question to the international community in it's true meaning...
Do you recognize Québec as being a nation ?
Yes or No ?
This is meant to be a clear question to the international community in it's true meaning...
Do you recognize Québec as being a nation ?
Yes or No ?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,323
November 20th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Exactly, in fact canada should unite with united states, at least they wouldnt have to deal with the stupid queen/monarchy thing.
Quoting s_lone
Of course...
We call the natives First NATIONS. Why not the Québecois? The Québecois now have considerable polictical power and their cultural independance is higher than the English Canadian culture.
We call the natives First NATIONS. Why not the Québecois? The Québecois now have considerable polictical power and their cultural independance is higher than the English Canadian culture.
Exactly, in fact canada should unite with united states, at least they wouldnt have to deal with the stupid queen/monarchy thing.
Electoral Member
Posts: 909
Location: Eastern Ontario
Location: Eastern Ontario
November 20th, 2006, 11:37 AM
Quebec was never a nation. It will be if it ever separates but until that time it is not now nor has ever been a nation. I began as a French outpost then became an English territory..never has been any more then either.....
What then we call Canada the United Nations of America? comprised of the former Nation of Newfoundland, the Nation of Quebec, the first nations, the Meti Nation, and hell lets have the Toronto..no the GTA nation.. they can all have a president, a flag and high taxes for all..ooohh where do we sign up??
Quebec was never a nation. It will be if it ever separates but until that time it is not now nor has ever been a nation. I began as a French outpost then became an English territory..never has been any more then either.....
What then we call Canada the United Nations of America? comprised of the former Nation of Newfoundland, the Nation of Quebec, the first nations, the Meti Nation, and hell lets have the Toronto..no the GTA nation.. they can all have a president, a flag and high taxes for all..ooohh where do we sign up??
Newbie
Posts: 15
Location: Utah
Location: Utah
November 20th, 2006, 11:56 AM
One problem I see with this question is that nation was never really defined--there are lots of defintions and criteria for a "nation". However, if you want to say that a nation is defined as a group of people having similar cultural, linguistic, or historical ties, well, my answer to the question would be "no." The reason being that my definition of nation involves people, not geographic borders. Honestly, if Quebec is a nation, then so is Nunavut or Newfoundland. Now, what if the original poster's question was something like, "Do you think Quebec is the homeland of French Canadians (or Quebecer or Quebequos--whatever your preference)?" That is something I would probably say "yes" to.
One problem I see with this question is that nation was never really defined--there are lots of defintions and criteria for a "nation". However, if you want to say that a nation is defined as a group of people having similar cultural, linguistic, or historical ties, well, my answer to the question would be "no." The reason being that my definition of nation involves people, not geographic borders. Honestly, if Quebec is a nation, then so is Nunavut or Newfoundland. Now, what if the original poster's question was something like, "Do you think Quebec is the homeland of French Canadians (or Quebecer or Quebequos--whatever your preference)?" That is something I would probably say "yes" to.
Council Member
Posts: 1,202
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
November 20th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Quoting Hamlet
Well there you go, I for one think Quebecers form a nation and I have no problem with Newfoundland calling themselves a nation if that is what they feel... But is that what they feel?
One problem I see with this question is that nation was never really defined--there are lots of defintions and criteria for a "nation". However, if you want to say that a nation is defined as a group of people having similar cultural, linguistic, or historical ties, well, my answer to the question would be "no." The reason being that my definition of nation involves people, not geographic borders. Honestly, if Quebec is a nation, then so is Nunavut or Newfoundland. Now, what if the original poster's question was something like, "Do you think Quebec is the homeland of French Canadians (or Quebecer or Quebequos--whatever your preference)?" That is something I would probably say "yes" to.
House Member
Posts: 3,659
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
November 20th, 2006, 03:11 PM
Once again, it's a case where it's perhaps unfortunate that words only rarely have precise, unambiguous meanings. Depends what you think "nation" means, or ought to mean. In the context of Quebec the word is loaded with emotional, political, and cultural freight it doesn't have in the context of discussing the so-called First Nations. If you define nation, as one of my dictionaries does, as " a community of people of mainly common descent, history, language, etc., forming a state or inhabiting a territory," then I suppose you'd have to agree that Quebec is a nation. On that basis, so are the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and thousands of other groups around the world. I could probably make a case that Saskatchewan is as well, and we should annex Alberta because such a large fraction of its population came originally from Saskatchewan. History shows that people have used weaker claims than that to justify annexing territory. It wasn't long ago that Iraq tried it on Kuwait.
Then consider the difference between "forming a state" and "inhabiting a territory," The latter is a much weaker condition and I'm inclined to dismiss it because it opens a door to so much potential foolishness. We could have Ukrainian nations in various parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, for instance. If you think carefully about what "forming a state" really means, the definition amounts to a tautology: a nation is a group of people who form a nation. Not very useful.
I think the key point has to be sovereignty: no community is a nation unless it has absolute independence and authority over all matters relating to its governance and its relationships with other such communities. So no, Quebec is not a nation. Some people think it should be and are working actively to make it so, but until they succeed (and I'll be very unhappily surprised if they do) the label doesn't apply.
Once again, it's a case where it's perhaps unfortunate that words only rarely have precise, unambiguous meanings. Depends what you think "nation" means, or ought to mean. In the context of Quebec the word is loaded with emotional, political, and cultural freight it doesn't have in the context of discussing the so-called First Nations. If you define nation, as one of my dictionaries does, as " a community of people of mainly common descent, history, language, etc., forming a state or inhabiting a territory," then I suppose you'd have to agree that Quebec is a nation. On that basis, so are the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and thousands of other groups around the world. I could probably make a case that Saskatchewan is as well, and we should annex Alberta because such a large fraction of its population came originally from Saskatchewan. History shows that people have used weaker claims than that to justify annexing territory. It wasn't long ago that Iraq tried it on Kuwait.
Then consider the difference between "forming a state" and "inhabiting a territory," The latter is a much weaker condition and I'm inclined to dismiss it because it opens a door to so much potential foolishness. We could have Ukrainian nations in various parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, for instance. If you think carefully about what "forming a state" really means, the definition amounts to a tautology: a nation is a group of people who form a nation. Not very useful.
I think the key point has to be sovereignty: no community is a nation unless it has absolute independence and authority over all matters relating to its governance and its relationships with other such communities. So no, Quebec is not a nation. Some people think it should be and are working actively to make it so, but until they succeed (and I'll be very unhappily surprised if they do) the label doesn't apply.
EVOLUTION
Posts: 62
Location: Québec, proche du Canada... Hehe!!!
Location: Québec, proche du Canada... Hehe!!!
November 20th, 2006, 05:15 PM
Thank you for your taught "Sinister", it's by understanding the way you do that the "game" will be played fairly when the time come. They, I think, shows how people like to say that Québec belong to Canada when the question only relate to our ways of living. We wouldn't get caught twice by the Liberal campaigns to buy votes in Québec; sorry to the Canadians I will offed, but even Mr. Pariseault comments following the lost at the PROVINCIAL referendum where true even if they were somewhat racist. I didn't vote on the last referendum on the basis that I wasn't as aware of the injustice that occured, the clear buying of votes within the minorities. (And many other things) Therefore I didn't taught that I was able to have a clear and honest judgment... When the time will come, I hope everything will be kept by the rules.
When the sovereignty question arise again, it wont be directed on the Canadian platform as many still think. This is a Québecers decision and international rights are, as following for the people who don't understand majority, a 50% +1, the independence, simple as that. Or we could maybe think about giving # in math new meanings. Exemple, we could count the next unit+1 at 0.60, instead of the boring 0.50... Hehe !
So to reemphasized on the question. Do you see us (Québec) different from the rest of Canada in a simple way as being so different that it must be specifically recognized ? I only say RECOGNIZED there for everyone...
I didn't ask if you support the independence of Québec, since this is an internal matter, therefore, out of reach of every single Canadians but the Québecers.
Thanks, Have a great one !
John Muff
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Hi there,
Once again, it's a case where it's perhaps unfortunate that words only rarely have precise, unambiguous meanings. Depends what you think "nation" means, or ought to mean.
[...]
Then consider the difference between "forming a state" and "inhabiting a territory," The latter is a much weaker condition and I'm inclined to dismiss it because it opens a door to so much potential foolishness.
[...]
I think the key point has to be sovereignty: no community is a nation unless it has absolute independence and authority over all matters relating to its governance and its relationships with other such communities. So no, Quebec is not a nation. Some people think it should be and are working actively to make it so, but until they succeed (and I'll be very unhappily surprised if they do) the label doesn't apply.
[...]
Then consider the difference between "forming a state" and "inhabiting a territory," The latter is a much weaker condition and I'm inclined to dismiss it because it opens a door to so much potential foolishness.
[...]
I think the key point has to be sovereignty: no community is a nation unless it has absolute independence and authority over all matters relating to its governance and its relationships with other such communities. So no, Quebec is not a nation. Some people think it should be and are working actively to make it so, but until they succeed (and I'll be very unhappily surprised if they do) the label doesn't apply.
Thank you for your taught "Sinister", it's by understanding the way you do that the "game" will be played fairly when the time come. They, I think, shows how people like to say that Québec belong to Canada when the question only relate to our ways of living. We wouldn't get caught twice by the Liberal campaigns to buy votes in Québec; sorry to the Canadians I will offed, but even Mr. Pariseault comments following the lost at the PROVINCIAL referendum where true even if they were somewhat racist. I didn't vote on the last referendum on the basis that I wasn't as aware of the injustice that occured, the clear buying of votes within the minorities. (And many other things) Therefore I didn't taught that I was able to have a clear and honest judgment... When the time will come, I hope everything will be kept by the rules.
When the sovereignty question arise again, it wont be directed on the Canadian platform as many still think. This is a Québecers decision and international rights are, as following for the people who don't understand majority, a 50% +1, the independence, simple as that. Or we could maybe think about giving # in math new meanings. Exemple, we could count the next unit+1 at 0.60, instead of the boring 0.50... Hehe !
So to reemphasized on the question. Do you see us (Québec) different from the rest of Canada in a simple way as being so different that it must be specifically recognized ? I only say RECOGNIZED there for everyone...
I didn't ask if you support the independence of Québec, since this is an internal matter, therefore, out of reach of every single Canadians but the Québecers.
Thanks, Have a great one !
John Muff
EVOLUTION
Posts: 62
Location: Québec, proche du Canada... Hehe!!!
Location: Québec, proche du Canada... Hehe!!!
November 20th, 2006, 06:00 PM
No-wonder why some may want to protect "whatever" they care for in Québec.
John Muff
Quoting Hamlet
[...]
However, if you want to say that a nation is defined as a group of people having similar cultural, linguistic, or historical ties, well, my answer to the question would be "no."
[...]
Now, what if the original poster's question was something like, "Do you think Quebec is the homeland of French Canadians (or Quebecer or Quebequos--whatever your preference)?" That is something I would probably say "yes" to.
So it's our nation if it's your too, and only then right ? Canadians must feel included in all sentence said that relate to Québec. [...]
However, if you want to say that a nation is defined as a group of people having similar cultural, linguistic, or historical ties, well, my answer to the question would be "no."
[...]
Now, what if the original poster's question was something like, "Do you think Quebec is the homeland of French Canadians (or Quebecer or Quebequos--whatever your preference)?" That is something I would probably say "yes" to.
No-wonder why some may want to protect "whatever" they care for in Québec.
John Muff
House Member
Posts: 3,659
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
November 20th, 2006, 06:01 PM
Quoting John Muff
Yes of course, and it is. Canadian law has always recognized the special status of Quebec, at least as far back as 1839 when the then Governor-General, Lord Durham, wrote a lengthy report on the affairs of what was then called British North America. It's one of the foundations of the degree of local autonomy given to provinces in the British North America Act that created Canada in 1867.
Do you see us (Québec) different from the rest of Canada in a simple way as being so different that it must be specifically recognized ?
The Padre
Posts: 4,558
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
November 20th, 2006, 06:50 PM
Quoting John Muff
Oh poppycock, I'm so tired of that line of reasoning. The whole problem with your province is its attitude of us vs. them. It is indeed an internal matter-for all of us in this country. Your decision is something that will affect every province. How dare the seperartists in Quebec assume it is, in a nutshell, none of our business in Ontario, Manitoba, etc. Quebec belongs to us as much as Ontario belongs to you.
...
I didn't ask if you support the independence of Québec, since this is an internal matter, therefore, out of reach of every single Canadians but the Québecers.
Thanks, Have a great one !
John Muff
I didn't ask if you support the independence of Québec, since this is an internal matter, therefore, out of reach of every single Canadians but the Québecers.
Thanks, Have a great one !
John Muff
Newbie
Posts: 15
Location: Utah
Location: Utah
November 20th, 2006, 06:57 PM
However, with respect to the Quebecois, there are many Quebequois that have spilled over into Ontario or New Brunswick. In my definition of nation, those populations would still be Quebecois, despite living in another province, because they would identify with particular language, culture, history, etc. If I were to draw on a map a depiction of the Quebecois, I would color in the southern third of Quebec, and include parts of Ontario and New Brunswick that have significant populations of Quebecois.
Now, the upper 2/3 of Quebec doesn't have very many people, but from what I understand, there is a Cree and Innu population. Do they identify with Quebecois culture (language, history, etc.)?
John Muff, you asked a question to another poster, "Do you see us (Québec) different from the rest of Canada in a simple way as being so different that it must be specifically recognized ?"
This is a great question! But I have to answer it, "no". I think there are already a number of laws on the books and directives from the government that help protect French language rights. However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know any Quebecers, so perhaps there are some significant differences. If so, I'd like someone to explain to me the differences between a Quebecer and someone from Alberta.
Quoting John Muff
I think perhaps you misunderstand my definition of "nation". To me a nation is a group of people, not the borders that surround said people. Certainly, often the borders and people are one and the same (for example, the Danish people live in the Danish state).
So it's our nation if it's your too, and only then right ? Canadians must feel included in all sentence said that relate to Québec.
No-wonder why some may want to protect "whatever" they care for in Québec.
John Muff
No-wonder why some may want to protect "whatever" they care for in Québec.
John Muff
However, with respect to the Quebecois, there are many Quebequois that have spilled over into Ontario or New Brunswick. In my definition of nation, those populations would still be Quebecois, despite living in another province, because they would identify with particular language, culture, history, etc. If I were to draw on a map a depiction of the Quebecois, I would color in the southern third of Quebec, and include parts of Ontario and New Brunswick that have significant populations of Quebecois.
Now, the upper 2/3 of Quebec doesn't have very many people, but from what I understand, there is a Cree and Innu population. Do they identify with Quebecois culture (language, history, etc.)?
John Muff, you asked a question to another poster, "Do you see us (Québec) different from the rest of Canada in a simple way as being so different that it must be specifically recognized ?"
This is a great question! But I have to answer it, "no". I think there are already a number of laws on the books and directives from the government that help protect French language rights. However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know any Quebecers, so perhaps there are some significant differences. If so, I'd like someone to explain to me the differences between a Quebecer and someone from Alberta.
