
A motion of mischief and ambiquity Quebec sustain itself..

Does anyone...ANYONE understand the difference between a nation and a state?
Nation: A People, they have a Nationality. Canada has never been a Nation in its proper context, we are a multicultural society.
State: What Canada is, a sovereign government.
Quebecois as a Nation means being of French Canadian Descent in a Nationality. Meaning you can no longer discriminate against hiring people of Quebecois ancestry, nor making the jokes you hear in every workplace about "Dirty Quebecois", The one I heard on the bus today was "Quebec as a Nation? They only have two Exports, Ugly Strippers and Drunken Truckers". Now you can't go around making "Dirty Quebecois" comments anymore than you could make "Dirty Paki" jokes.
Now they need to clearly define Newfoundland as a Nation. Its wrong that they have to suffer through Dumb Newfie jokes and discrimination as if they are all drunks.

The wonderful thing about this "jar of jellybeans" arrangement is it is the perfect precursor to the death of the "nation-state", which is what we are now beginning to embark upon (in the past few years, not just this latest act of Harps). This is not just happening here, but the foundation of canada makes for a smoother transition to a nationless state, which is the next stage of social evolution.

Does anyone...ANYONE understand the difference between a nation and a state?
Nation: A People, they have a Nationality. Canada has never been a Nation in its proper context, we are a multicultural society.
State: What Canada is, a sovereign government.
Quebecois as a Nation means being of French Canadian Descent in a Nationality. Meaning you can no longer discriminate against hiring people of Quebecois ancestry, nor making the jokes you hear in every workplace about "Dirty Quebecois", The one I heard on the bus today was "Quebec as a Nation? They only have two Exports, Ugly Strippers and Drunken Truckers". Now you can't go around making "Dirty Quebecois" comments anymore than you could make "Dirty Paki" jokes.
Now they need to clearly define Newfoundland as a Nation. Its wrong that they have to suffer through Dumb Newfie jokes and discrimination as if they are all drunks.

The next stage in social evolution!? What you have described in varying practice already occurs between the borders of Afghanistan in Pakistan with tribal societies that don't really recognize the border between them. It occurs in restless areas of Africa. It occurs where you have some group of people disenfranchised on lands they share tenuously with other groups of people.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
One thing that defines us as a nation is a common law which binds our society, but I’m sure you think that what is convenient can simply stay practiced and enforced by a loose knit nationless society?
Your idea of that working is a lofty as the goals of pure communism with is doomed to fail because human beings are inherently selfish. Not that the premise itself is without noble intentions. However that goes without saying for most who speak in terms of ideology.
Given that this is a discussion forum, ideas are open for everyone, but that aside, the context of telling Canadians that there never was a ‘Canada’ can be highly offensive and I’m not one to usually get all nationalist on another person. That would be like me telling you that you never had an identity.
Unless I am misinformed, I would love to hear where your theory of such evolution works. Otherwise you have to either present a really good case on the workability of it, or someone has fed you horsesht with that idea.

If you were disabled or poor you might have something to complain about. If you were an aboriginal you might have something to complain about. If you were a woman restricted by the infamous glass ceiling you might have something to complain about.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
I'm a Canadian too Juan and I think that despite the fact that Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of many other nations in numerous ways that there's no reasonable explanation why Canadians continue to tolerate and have tolerated inequity, prejudice and injustice for decades. Those millions upon millions of dollars wasted and stolen by our "government" aren't "imaginary". Those millions wasted cost everyone. From a healthcare system that should be the envy of the world to waiting lines.... the proliferation of foodbanks as a "necessity" in our modern Canadian culture....native people suffering for years while successive Canadian governments waste and steal millions. I've yet to hear anyone in Canada declare that a critical plank in any party's platform should be action focused on locking up the incompetent...Anne Mclellan...STockwell Day.....Paul Martin...the list of theives and con-artists is long and yet we (Canadians) are so dull we spend our time ranting on about "same sex marriage" and "violence in hockey" and every other bullschit news item instead of demanding this great country pursue prosecute and punish those who abuse the system. Unless of course it's UI or welfare recipients then of course we can...

The next stage in social evolution!? What you have described in varying practice already occurs between the borders of Afghanistan in Pakistan with tribal societies that don't really recognize the border between them. It occurs in restless areas of Africa. It occurs where you have some group of people disenfranchised on lands they share tenuously with other groups of people.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
One thing that defines us as a nation is a common law which binds our society, but I’m sure you think that what is convenient can simply stay practiced and enforced by a loose knit nationless society?
Your idea of that working is a lofty as the goals of pure communism with is doomed to fail because human beings are inherently selfish. Not that the premise itself is without noble intentions. However that goes without saying for most who speak in terms of ideology.
Given that this is a discussion forum, ideas are open for everyone, but that aside, the context of telling Canadians that there never was a ‘Canada’ can be highly offensive and I’m not one to usually get all nationalist on another person. That would be like me telling you that you never had an identity.
Unless I am misinformed, I would love to hear where your theory of such evolution works. Otherwise you have to either present a really good case on the workability of it, or someone has fed you horsesht with that idea.

Originally Posted by Zzarchov
![]()
Another Example, The Mowhawks are a Nation, they are not a Nation-State (they lack state-hood). But no one would disagree that Mowhawks are an nationality. Likewise Quebecois really are a nationality, merely not a Nationstate.
This isn't that radical, for example, In America you have an Arcadian Nation (Cajun), it however is merely a Nationality (ethnic group), not any kind of government.

And yet no one and I mean no one, has ever seen a "Cajun", "Mowhawk" or "Quebecuoix" passport.
You know why?
Because they are citizens of a NATION.
With this logic, we would need passports to enter and exit Woodbridge(little Italy), Scarborough(Little Jamaica), Markham(Little Asia), or further south, to enter or exit Louisiana.
Pure nonsense.

I foresee many more years of angst-filled, pointless debate about national unity and the status of Quebec in the federation. Just what we need. We've got young people dying in Afghanistan, a medical care system in trouble, great disparities in wealth and income across the country... I think we've got more important things to think about.