Quebec a nation with in a nation


Paladin
#1
Quebec is not a nation with in a nation it is a PROVINCE with in Canada. Quebec is and always will be a part of Canadian soil. Quebec can call itself whatever the heck it wants but it will always be a province in Canada, they can do as many referendums as they want but that province will always be marked as Canadian terrirtory. I have an idea how about the people that want to seperate from Canada actually seperate from it by getting out of the country. I think harper is showing Canadian weakness by allowing Quebec to get this much power and and influence, quebec is no different than any other province and it must realize that. We have been pouring billions into quebec to make sure they dont go off trying to seperate, yet they continue to make these threats. We must stop giving into this provinces B******G. Steven Harper sold out Canada by letting quebec call itself a nation and giving them these ridicolous sponsorships, hes just opening more doors for that province to seperate, he is also showing Canada as a weak country by letting this out of control province do anything it wants. If quebec passes a referendum to seperate from Canada, I hope to god Canada will take action, military if necessary, in securing that province because it will tear apart this country. Again Canada is one nation there is no nation with in it, its just CANADA, The money were injecting into quebec is such a waste, we should be spending it on something usefull like health care or god forbid some proper equipment for the military.
 
the caracal kid
#2
yay, another rant on Quebecois Nationhood. yawn. Quebec is a nation, get over it. There is no "canada", there never was, there never will be.
 
General James Wolfe
#3
Paladin


I agree with you that Quebec is not a Nation with in a Nation but a Province with in Canada and nothing more. I was shocked by the statement by the person whom I least expected it Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper has sold out and has betrayed Canada by declaring Quebec a Nation.

If Quebec succudes in gaining indpendence threw a referendum I hope the Royal Canadain Armed Forces goes into Quebec and crushes the Quebec Nationalist and send them to


France
Monaco
Belguim
Switzerland
Guiana (French Guiana and Suriname)
Saint Domingue (Hati and Dominican Republic)


Quebec belongs to Canada today
Quebec belongs to Canada tommorow
Quebec belongs to Canada forever


If the Francophones of Quebec dont like living in an Anglophone Nation then they can move to the above countries I have listed. Its time to end the faild project called billengualism and declare Canada offically an English speaking Nation and to all the people who disagree then they can leave.


I STAND WITH ALL PATRIOTIC AND NATIONALIST ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADIANS AND CANADA 110%


Long Live Canada
Death to Quebec Nationalism
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

yay, another rant on Quebecois Nationhood. yawn. Quebec is a nation, get over it. There is no "canada", there never was, there never will be.

There is no Canada? Mind explaining that?
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

There is no Canada? Mind explaining that?

I'm certain it was nothing more than sarcasm ;p
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#6
Ah, what a pointless can of worms Parliament's opened for us. The motion has no statutory or constitutional status, but this morning's Globe&Mail's already reporting Jean Charest saying it'll make a difference in how the Supreme Court interprets the law in Quebec, and the debate's been joined about what Québécois actually means. Originally it only meant somebody from Quebec City, according to Douglas H. Fullerton (The Dangerous Delusion, McClelland and Stewart. 1978, ISBN 0-7710-3217-X),and in lower case, québécois, it means the French language as spoken in Quebec, even though there are quite clearly regional variants within the province. Even my untutored ear can pick up different accents among the hockey players and commentators I see on the French language broadcasts of hockey games.

There are those who claim Québécois means anybody who lives in Quebec. Seems reasonable on the face of it, but I don't think Quebec's aboriginal people would call themselves Québécois. That seemed pretty clear in the run up to the 1995 referendum when they were arguing that if Canada is partitionable so is Quebec and they wanted to stay with Canada. Parizeau's comment after the referendum about "money and the ethnic vote" losing it for the separatists strongly suggests there are at least a few people who think Québécois means only the French-speaking descendents of the original French colonists. And there will be those who think it means that plus any more recent immigrants whose first language is French, from France and other former French colonies.

It's a slippery word. So is nation. You can bet with certainty that people will spin them to mean whatever suits their purposes at the moment and we'll never get a clear definition of them. The Council of Europe last spring in fact declared in the context of an analysis of what nation means within the EEC that no unambiguous definition of nation is possible. 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.
 
Zzarchov
#7
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.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#8
This is the best take on this mess I've seen so far.

A motion of mischief and ambiquity

Nov. 27, 2006

That the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada... they've been telling us this is just words, that it's just symbolism, and that it's merely a motion. Well, words are what we live by. They are the foundational marble of our intellectual, moral and civic existence. Some of them – home, country, nation – constitute the deepest meaning in our lives.
As for symbols, well, the flag is a symbol. Symbols are extremely powerful. They are concentrated meaning, the emblems of our deepest common passions. And as for it being merely a motion, the Parliament of the nation of Canada is the ultimate deliberative and legislative body of the nation of Canada, a motion passed with all-party approval in that Parliament specifying one group of citizens, the Québécois, as a nation, well, that's the highest imprimatur any words about Canada can have.
So trying to brush off as just words the idea of the House of Commons recognizing the Québécois as a nation within Canada is absurd.
The Commons hasn't done anything as significant in years. This is of the ultimate importance. It is changing the grounds on which we, all of us, understand our idea of Canadian citizenship, and the idea of the one nation to which we, all of us, give our fealty.
How important?
Today a minister, Michael Chong resigned. By the way, good for him. It's refreshing to see so dignified a stand on a matter of principle and a politician willing to lose cabinet rank because he thinks something is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Chong deserves respectful credit.
The motion itself is a train of mischief and ambiguity as is the entire concept of nominating subsets of Canadians based on their ethnicity or historical associations or geographical boundaries or constitutional past — Newfoundland would be an example — as nations in their own right. But it is particularly mischievous and ambiguous when it sets the Québécois as the designated category for nation status.
What is the Parliament of Canada doing declaring the Québécois a nation? Has that not been the principal aim of the Parti québécois and the Bloc, the separatists, since their formation? The idea behind this motion has been a mischief since the train was put on the track by Michael Ignatieff in his leadership bid, and as it gained momentum with the Bloc's embrace and Stephen Harper's too-clever response last week, it has become more divisive by the day, igniting the call now by the premier of British Columbia to go one more step and incorporate all aboriginal peoples in another group nation.
There's no reason to stop there. It sets a division within Quebec — who are the Québécois? All Quebecers? Some? French-speaking people across the country, are they part of this new nation too? And it will spark division outside Quebec.
Why not a Ukrainian nation?
A nation of Labrador?
An Alberta nation?
The House of Commons, the House of Commons of Canada, should be underlining only one nation, Canada. We are all its citizens regardless of height, colour, province, language, history, religion or politics. Canada is the nation, and the biggest quarrel I have with this motion tonight is that our parliamentarians seem to have the courage to declare a bit, a slice, a portion of the country a nation when they are timid about asserting and constantly asserting and proudly asserting that Canada is the nation, and all Canadians now are already and deeply a part of it. But I forgot, it's only words. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy.
 
the caracal kid
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurkaView Post

There is no Canada? Mind explaining that?

What defines the "canada"? We can look at a map and say "these lines here define the territory", but that is about it. Beyond that it is a group of groups of people agreeing on some commonalities in order to survive together.

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.

So, when I say there never was a canada, i mean there has never been a distinct culture and ethnicity making for a "canadian".
There will never be a canada because the time when such a "canadian" would have been forged is long past by (developmental period of a peoples).

So say cheers to the many nations under one flag, for as long as that flag flies. Eventually the flag will be retired as well (as we move to a united world society of societies).
 
annabattler
#10
Rick Mercer did a very funny "rant" on this very topic,last night on CBC-TV.
He wondered about a gay Cree living in Quebec ...someone's who part of the "gay"nation, within the Cree nation,within the Quebec nation,withing the Canadian nation.
Some years ago,I visited Quebec City and took a colleche(sp?) ride. I asked the driver if he was a separatist...he said he was, but he wasn't going to "vote" for separation until the Quebec economy could sustain itself. One has to wonder if THAT will ever happen.
 
Curiosity
#11
AnnaBattler

Quote:

Quebec sustain itself..

haha....

I thought Quebec was being "paid to stay" as part of Canada - if they vote to remove themselves from the golden fleece - they also remove the source of funding they have enjoyed over time...
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#12
I am a proud Canadian. I have lived in this country for 67 years and I see no reason to change my mind. That Canada is a good place to live, is a view held by many people around the world who continually vote that Canada is the best country in the world to live in, and to raise your children in. To say there "never was a Canada", is a gross insult to the hundred thousand Canadians who died in two world wars and various, other conflicts where Canada has joined others to assert her opinion. It is enough for me that Canada remains a free country where generous people strive to keep those freedoms, and never, knowingly, let anyone go hungry. Canada has her warts but I proudly stand to sing "Oh Canada" in spite of those warts, and so do my children.
 
MikeyDB
#13
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.

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 disparage and heap disdain on them...but if it's one of our wealthy politicians...hell NO they can steal from Canadians and we just give them a pass....
 
Jay
#14
Well at least this time he didn't say he wants to join a terrorist organization and kill us all.
 
MikeyDB
#15
Were the suffragettes terrorists Jay? Didn't they have to demonstrate, chain themselves to buildings...
Has the "European" gene been so successfully eradicated in you that you forget about the effort by Europeans to eradicate the native people of this continent? Were these people terrorists Jay? I could go on listing the history of violence used by many groups to get a message across to people energetically and enthusiastically opposed to considering anyone else's point of view....

If that's what it take Jay then that's what it takes....
 
Paladin
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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.

that made absolutley no sense
 
Paladin
#17
It doesnt matter what quebec can or cant do if it seperates the thing is it should have no right to even attempt that since the land quebec occupies is Canadian land. The same goes for Alberta who are tryin to do the same thing, Canada has to start showing some strength as a nation and not give in to whining of these provinces. These seperatist groups must be brought down the Bloc party should not even exist, all it does is provide instability to the Canadian economy and waste time in the house of commons asking for more money for their special treatment.
 
elevennevele
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kidView Post

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.


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.

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.
Last edited by elevennevele; Nov 29th, 2006 at 02:43 PM..
 
elevennevele
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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.


Actually, this situation that our politicians have thrown upon us will surely create more bigoted remarks from both sides of the fence because it serves to create confrontation between people and their concept of equality.
 
Jay
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by elevenneveleView Post

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.
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.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

We all know the caracal kid is a bit crazy in the head....we shouldn't take great offence to these things he says.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

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.
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...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
All these things you mention total what, about twenty million? forty million? even a hundred million is small potatoes. The Canadian government spends over $500 billion per year so we are talking about a fraction of one percent. I don't excuse or condone waste but every government wastes some money and it is usually publicised at some point. I would be worried if we didn't hear about it.

As far as the first nations are concerned, we sure as hell throw enough money at them. Enough to give every first nations family of four about forty thousand a year tax free. Even I could live on that. The government is not uncaring, they are simply incompetent. A bit like all governments.
 
the caracal kid
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by elevenneveleView Post

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.
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.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Actually, what I have described has not happened yet anywhere.

Of course pure communism fails, as does pure socialism and pure capitalism.

Now, as to why such a system works: It works quite simply because it allows for the formation of an equality between "nations" within a common framework (which is cultureless). Under the current system there is not and will not be an equality amunst "nations" (this is a reflection of human nature). In order to counter this, we need to be explicit in our creating of an unbiased foundation.

As for no identity: indeed, there is no real canadian identity, which is why there is no "canada". The country is half-way between a collaboration of nations and being a nation. It is currently neither, existing in a "neither - neither land".

Also of note is that there really is not a unilateral code of law that binds anything. If you think all regions carry the same laws, or all groups are treated the same by laws, then you need to look again.

The nations under the flag could create something "great", but these peoples practice mediocrity better than anything else.

Remember what I have refered to is just a starting point in the process to an new global society. There is a very long way to go, that involves social and individual change.
 
Zzarchov
#23
Originally Posted by Zzarchov
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.


Quote: Originally Posted by PaladinView Post

that made absolutley no sense

What part are you having trouble with here Paladin?

Before it was legal for me to say to someone "Im not hiring you because your Quebecois"

As long as I am hiring a Canadian I could be free from charges of Discrimination (otherwise It could be argued I was discrimination against the Canadian Nationality).

Now If I flat out tell someone "I won't hire you just because your Quebecois" or If I show workplace harrassment based upon Qubecois Nationality, I have violated Canadian Human Rights Laws.

Before I would not be violating those laws, as we didn't acknowledge Quebecois Nationality (which if you look up the Definition of Nation, it fills to a T).

The problem most people seem to be having is that we in english have a "Lazy tongue" and have taken to saying the word "Nation" when we mean Nation-State. Ie, Canada is not (just) a Nation, it is a Nation-State.

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.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#24
You're trying to insist on a distinction that's not there, Zzarchov. The three dictionaries I have immediately available are quite clear that nation and state have multiple definitions and some are synonymous. The meanings aren't as precise and unambiguous as you're claiming.
 
Zzarchov
#25
Those extra dictionaries are using the same "Lazy Tongue". Aint is also in most common dictionaries.


If you really are unsure, keep this in mind. Nation is word going back to biblical times.

The Modern concept of a Nation-State began at Westphalia in the 1600's.

Nation is a very old word with a very set meaning, even if usually used incorrectly.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#26
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you'd claim your authority on the meaning of English words exceeds the Oxford Dictionary's.
 
CDNBear
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

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.
 
Abbadon
#28
I'm relatively neutral on this issue.

However, I am not a patriot of Canada, and I sympathize with separatists, such as Alberta Separatists or the Western Block Party.

The parts of Canada I love are the people, the land, the resources, the wildlife, the forests, mountains, lakes and rivers...

The parts of Canada I do not like are the government and the Maple Leaf rag.

And it is the latter with which I associate the name 'Canada' when I ask myself 'am I a patriot of Canada?'

I believe that a smaller, localized government can rule more competently than a gargantuan sea-to-sea monolith...

I understand Quebecois wanting to be recognized as a nation for cultural reasons, but would they not also desire independance? Self-rule? Autonomy?

'Nation' as a title might seem little more than a word without these other things.
 
Zzarchov
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

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.

Actually its because they are citizens of a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Many Nations do not have passports. Scotland for instance is and always has been a nation. Scotland however is not sovereign, and you do not have a scottish passport.

And yes, it is officially recognized as a nation by the United Kingdom and has been since we were still British Colonies.

"A nation within a nation" is a tradition older than Canada itself.
 
s_lone
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

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.

If Canada loosened up a bit and just let Quebec mind its peaceful little business, Canada would maybe start moving towards much better times. I think we need to wake up and deal once and for all with our stupid constitutional technicality problems... To get rid of the problem we need to adress it. We are all into an intricate web of inter-dependance... Canada is one of those beautiful webs and Quebec is a web within the Canadian web of inter-dependance.
 

Similar Threads

123
99
216
Quebec as a Nation
by John Muff | Dec 1st, 2006
0
no new posts