The Republic of Quebec

Santula

New Member
Oct 6, 2010
7
0
1
До Свидания #14

The Republic of Quebec

by

Amitakh Stanford

14th October 2010

As the closing ceremony of the XIX Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi approaches, many are reminded of the times that various Commonwealth countries achieved their independence. Unlike other Commonwealth countries, America totally separated itself from the British Empire and became an independent republic, and, hopefully, its neighbour can follow suit in the 21st century.


Lest we forget, the American colonists were so frustrated in the late 18th century that they were constantly petitioning George III, the king of England, to cease the oppression of them. Leading up to the formalisation of their resolve to become independent of Britain was the October 1774 Declaration of Resolves of the First Continental Congress, which announced express offence at the British Parliament's claim to the right “to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever.”


It was one week after the Resolves was signed that the Articles of Association were entered into by the colonies, which voiced grievances and described severe oppression by Britain. The Articles of Association adopted a ban on the importation of British and Irish goods and also on East India Company tea. As a consequence of the ban on British imports, there would have also been a prohibition of slave importation. The Articles of Association expressed that George III was using authority from Henry VIII, who is accepted by most investigators to have been one of history's worst tyrants. The following excerpt reveals that the English despotically stretched Henry VIII's statutes to abuse the “rule of law” to “legally” transport American colonists to England to be tried for acts supposedly committed in America:



“And whereas it has lately been resolved in parliament, that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies, and by a late statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.”


It is amazing that whenever anything is rationalised by the phrase, “it's the law”, it is automatically accepted as right and just. George III was so annoyed with the colonists that he sponsored a system of government in Quebec that was foreign to the rest of the British North American colonies. George III's retribution against Americans in the years leading up to the American Revolution regarding Quebec has set the stage for the French-speaking Province of Quebec (then an enemy of Britain) to become an independent republic, free of the English/Hanover Crown. The following is an excerpt from the Articles of Association about Quebec:



“Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law and government) of the neighbouring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France.”


The colonists were not overstating the situation when they declared:



“[T]hat the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British empire.”

Quebec is everything French and independent. The people of Quebec deserve to be free of the British Hanover Monarch. Viva la Quebec!
 

jwmcq625

Nominee Member
Sep 14, 2007
95
1
8
God how I hope Quebec does leave the Canadian federation although I can't see that any time soon considering they are the largest welfare burden on the rest of Canada. You send separatists to Ottawa who spend their days complaining that they want a larger share of everything. Considering the fact they already get far more than their fair share of the fiscal pie, I welcome them leaving. By the way, you leave with the land you came into Confederation with, which is basically the strip of land across southern Quebec, north of there belongs to First Nations and they have already stated they have no intentions of following Quebec out of Canada, because they would then be at the mercy of a province who has no respect for aboriginal rights.
 

Kafir

New Member
Oct 13, 2010
3
0
1
Manitoba
Isn't it funny how nowadays the loser gets treated like a winner? The french lost the freakin' war! Why did the Brits even allow them to keep their culture? Quebec should seperate. At first it might hurt our economy, but after that it'll be alright. Seperate or Assimilate! I'm sick and tired of seeing the french language everywhere I go.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
72
Ottawa ,Canada
God how I hope Quebec does leave the Canadian federation although I can't see that any time soon considering they are the largest welfare burden on the rest of Canada. You send separatists to Ottawa who spend their days complaining that they want a larger share of everything. Considering the fact they already get far more than their fair share of the fiscal pie, I welcome them leaving. By the way, you leave with the land you came into Confederation with, which is basically the strip of land across southern Quebec, north of there belongs to First Nations and they have already stated they have no intentions of following Quebec out of Canada, because they would then be at the mercy of a province who has no respect for aboriginal rights.
God how I hope Quebec does leave the Canadian federation

Throw those welfare bums out;trust me they wont leave on their own.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
What's the latest on the separation vote? French-Canadians going to secede any time soon?
The majority of Quebecois do not want to separate but you would think with all the small minds on here that they would be anxious to be rid of all the hatred aimed at them. It seems like the majority of Canadians want them gone by they are in the minority too. Seems silly to be a sore winner.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
The secession of Québec is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.

Let's recall that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its Reference re Secession of Québec, has ruled that Québec may not separate unilaterally; rather, Her Majesty's Government for Canada is required only to negotiate with Québec in good faith (not necessarily to come to an agreement), and only when the people of Québec have expressed, on a clear question of separation, that they wish to do so by a clear majority (and the Clarity Act has helped Canadians to define a clear question would entail).

Besides, there are some serious issues that it would seem many Québec sovereigntists have not considered; Québec has a provincial debt that would not suddenly be dissolved, were the jurisdiction to [somehow] break away from Canada. Furthermore, it would be an expectation that an independent Québec would assume its share of the federal debt at the time of secession--somewhere in the area of $127 billion. Of course, it would also be an expectation that lands reserved by the Crown for Aboriginal peoples would remain Crown possessions; additionally, any lands under claim by Aboriginals would need to be held by the Crown, too, as treaty negotiations and court discussions continue.

I think it's also disingenuous to suggest that Quebec is being oppressed at present by Her Majesty the Queen of Canada and our institutions of monarchy. The monarchy has evolved considerably into a contemporary institution of government, and its functions give the government of Quebec much flexibility and responsiveness to the day-to-day needs of the people. Quebec would be making a serious mistake by removing itself from those constitutional arrangements.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
The secession of Québec is not going to happen any time soon, if ever.

Let's recall that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its Reference re Secession of Québec, has ruled that Québec may not separate unilaterally; rather, Her Majesty's Government for Canada is required only to negotiate with Québec in good faith (not necessarily to come to an agreement), and only when the people of Québec have expressed, on a clear question of separation, that they wish to do so by a clear majority (and the Clarity Act has helped Canadians to define a clear question would entail).

Besides, there are some serious issues that it would seem many Québec sovereigntists have not considered; Québec has a provincial debt that would not suddenly be dissolved, were the jurisdiction to [somehow] break away from Canada. Furthermore, it would be an expectation that an independent Québec would assume its share of the federal debt at the time of secession--somewhere in the area of $127 billion. Of course, it would also be an expectation that lands reserved by the Crown for Aboriginal peoples would remain Crown possessions; additionally, any lands under claim by Aboriginals would need to be held by the Crown, too, as treaty negotiations and court discussions continue.

I think it's also disingenuous to suggest that Quebec is being oppressed at present by Her Majesty the Queen of Canada and our institutions of monarchy. The monarchy has evolved considerably into a contemporary institution of government, and its functions give the government of Quebec much flexibility and responsiveness to the day-to-day needs of the people. Quebec would be making a serious mistake by removing itself from those constitutional arrangements.

Quebec is not being oppressed within Canada.

But I do have a problem with your statement about Aboriginal people. Why not say that the lands ''reserved by the Crown'' simply belong to the Aboriginal people. If Quebec did separate and Aboriginals in Quebec somehow decided they wanted to go along the ride, what would stop them from doing so? The Québecois can separate but not the Aboriginals?
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Quebec is not being oppressed within Canada.

But I do have a problem with your statement about Aboriginal people. Why not say that the lands ''reserved by the Crown'' simply belong to the Aboriginal people. If Quebec did separate and Aboriginals in Quebec somehow decided they wanted to go along the ride, what would stop them from doing so? The Québecois can separate but not the Aboriginals?

I believe that the sentiment expressed regarding FN's was that if it was possible for Quebec to separate from Canada, the FN groups would be in a position to separate from Quebec if they chose... That said, they could also opt to be a part of Que or possibly go it alone.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
Quebec is not being oppressed within Canada.

But I do have a problem with your statement about Aboriginal people. Why not say that the lands ''reserved by the Crown'' simply belong to the Aboriginal people. If Quebec did separate and Aboriginals in Quebec somehow decided they wanted to go along the ride, what would stop them from doing so? The Québecois can separate but not the Aboriginals?

If Quebec has the right to determine their own fate, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, why don't the aboriginal peoples have that same right, as it regards them seperating themselves from Quebec? Most Quebec aboriginal groups have stated that they would rather stay with Canada than be part of a seperate Quebec because the federal gov't of Canada respects their rights more than the provincial gov't of Quebec does.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
If Quebec has the right to determine their own fate, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, why don't the aboriginal peoples have that same right, as it regards them seperating themselves from Quebec? Most Quebec aboriginal groups have stated that they would rather stay with Canada than be part of a seperate Quebec because the federal gov't of Canada respects their rights more than the provincial gov't of Quebec does.
That was patently obvious at the Oka crisis.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Respect is a 2-way street... I don't recall the people of Oka having violence resulting in death visited upon them.
Tuning a burial ground into a golf course is disrespect.

Reminds me of the anthropologist (or was he an archeologist?) who asked the grandson of a famous indigenous women if he would tell him where his grandmother was buried. The native fellow said sure, if he told him where his grandmother was buried. The anthropologist was incensed. "But my grandmother is buried in hollowed ground!" "Exactly" says the native man.

Cool heads prevailed on the Mohawk side, otherwise a blood bath would have ensued. There were 32 Mohawks to how many thousands of military, SWAT and provincial police present? The Quebec and Canadian governments over reacted. That the Mayor who wanted his golf course no matter what the consequences is very telling of the prevailing attitudes. The land was taken from the reserve without their consultation. Not much has changed, not in Quebec or the rest of Canada.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
I believe that the sentiment expressed regarding FN's was that if it was possible for Quebec to separate from Canada, the FN groups would be in a position to separate from Quebec if they chose... That said, they could also opt to be a part of Que or possibly go it alone.

I agree. My issue is with Paradox saying Aboriginal land is the Crown's possession. Does it belong to aboriginals or to the Queen?

If Quebec has the right to determine their own fate, as per the ruling of the Supreme Court, why don't the aboriginal peoples have that same right, as it regards them seperating themselves from Quebec? Most Quebec aboriginal groups have stated that they would rather stay with Canada than be part of a seperate Quebec because the federal gov't of Canada respects their rights more than the provincial gov't of Quebec does.

I do think aboriginals have the right to separate from Quebec. As I already said, I see a problem with the way Paradox talked about Aboriginal land as being the Crowns' possessions.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Tuning a burial ground into a golf course is disrespect.


All ground is hallowed and sacred to someone at some point. We can adopt that position and in time (a lot), you will run out of ground that isn't sacred.

But on the Mohawk note, if my memory is correct, the Mohawks were not original FN's as far as Canada is concerned. I was under the impression that the Brits promised them land if they fought for the king/Queen (whatever)... IF this is correct, one could make the argument that the Mohawks were given someone else's "sacred land".

I'm sure that you can see where I'm going with this.



Cool heads prevailed on the Mohawk side, otherwise a blood bath would have ensued. There were 32 Mohawks to how many thousands of military, SWAT and provincial police present? The Quebec and Canadian governments over reacted. That the Mayor who wanted his golf course no matter what the consequences is very telling of the prevailing attitudes. The land was taken from the reserve without their consultation. Not much has changed, not in Quebec or the rest of Canada.


How many shots were fired? Who fired them?

How many Mohawks died? How many non-aboriginals?

The blood bath was prevented due to political will on the part of the feds, not because of the Mohawks restraint.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
All ground is hallowed and sacred to someone at some point. We can adopt that position and in time (a lot), you will run out of ground that isn't sacred.

But on the Mohawk note, if my memory is correct, the Mohawks were not original FN's as far as Canada is concerned. I was under the impression that the Brits promised them land if they fought for the king/Queen (whatever)... IF this is correct, one could make the argument that the Mohawks were given someone else's "sacred land".

I'm sure that you can see where I'm going with this.






How many shots were fired? Who fired them?

How many Mohawks died? How many non-aboriginals?

The blood bath was prevented due to political will on the part of the feds, not because of the Mohawks restraint.
So someone has to die for a deed to be considered disrespectful and arrogant?
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I just found this gem and thought it relates to this subject:

Landry blasts War Measures Act as form of 'terrorism' - Yahoo! Canada News

Canada would never have gone on to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council if the War Measures Act had been publicized around the world 40 years ago, former Quebec premier Bernard Landry said Saturday.

Landry was participating at a ceremony to unveil a monument bearing the names of more than 450 Quebecers arrested after Pierre Elliott Trudeau invoked the Act on Oct. 16, 1970...

I was surprised by the fact that someone would be so delusional as to raise a monument to this angling to be sympathetic to people who were responsible for the situation, so I dug a little and found this story from earlier this month:

Societe St. Jean Baptiste to mark October Crisis with monument - CTV News

The Societe St. Jean Baptiste will erect a monument later this month to the many people imprisoned during the October Crisis, an event that began 40 years ago Tuesday and left a black eye on Quebec and Canada.

On Oct. 5, 1970 James Cross, the British trade commissioner in Montreal, was kidnapped by the Front de liberation du Québec. The October Crisis then saw Quebec labour minister Pierre Laporte kidnapped and killed, the first peace-time use of the War Measures Act, and led to the largest mass arrest in Canadian history until the G20 summit earlier this year.

"There is still lots we don't know," said Mario Beaulieu, head of the St. Societe Jean Baptiste, who maintains the suspension of civil rights and arrest of close to 500 Quebecers under the War Measures Act was never justified.

"The violence didn't bring us anything," he said...

I think this speaks volumes about the disconnect between Quebec seperatists and the rest of the country. How is a group that bombd, kidnaps and kills people the victim when they evoke a draconian response from the gov't? What were the FLQ and their sympathizers expecting? That the gov't would pack up and leave?

The October Crisis may not be a great event in Canadian history but lets not forget why it happened: it was radical seperatist terrorism that instigated the entire affair. The victims were the one like James Cross, Pierre LaPorte and other recipients of violence from the FLQ thugs.