Should Quebec be forced to abandon Separatist Dialogue


View Poll Results: Should Quebec be forced to abandon separatist parties?
No, Dialogue and Legislation (if whiny) is the key 7 63.64%
Yes, Quebec should engage in violence like every other country. 4 36.36%
Voters: 11. You may not vote on this poll

Zzarchov
#1
Well, What option does everyone think is better?

a.) No, they should continue to work through any seperatist issues or concerns they have peacefully through long, drawn out, whiney dialogue

b.) Yes, Quebec should be forced to resort to military and violent forms of seperatist movements like every other country in the world, in line with Canada's past.
 
the caracal kid
#2
i will vote ( a ).

the problem is that the issue is bigger than quebec separation. The issue extends to trying to fit a multicult mosaic "peg" into a country founded on two nations "hole".

The country is a wallowing mess caught somewhere in the middle. Some say multicult is to blame and should be abandoned. I say multicult needs to be fully implemented and not be just a windowdressing.
 
CDNBear
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Well, What option does everyone think is better?

a.) No, they should continue to work through any seperatist issues or concerns they have peacefully through long, drawn out, whiney dialogue

b.) Yes, Quebec should be forced to resort to military and violent forms of seperatist movements like every other country in the world, in line with Canada's past.

Now that's a typical polling question. Self serving and directing the answer to your agenda. You most be Quebecuoix.

I pick

c.) They should by forced to cease and desist, the Bloc should be banished from Parliment. Anyone that spouts violent or aggressive rhetoric, in the calling for an armed inserrection, should be tried for treason and hanged.

But if it's war you want, my brothers and sister in many First Nations would willingly wipe most of what Quebec could scrape up and call an Army, off the face of the earth in a couple days. I would count myself as one of them.

God have mercy on your soul, cause he won't save you.
 
Zzarchov
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Now that's a typical polling question. Self serving and directing the answer to your agenda. You most be Quebecuoix.

I pick

c.) They should by forced to cease and desist, the Bloc should be banished from Parliment. Anyone that spouts violent or aggressive rhetoric, in the calling for an armed inserrection, should be tried for treason and hanged.

But if it's war you want, my brothers and sister in many First Nations would willingly wipe most of what Quebec could scrape up and call an Army, off the face of the earth in a couple days. I would count myself as one of them.

God have mercy on your soul, cause he won't save you.


Well sir, then you are a magical man of some sort. You cannot just tell people not to revolt. If that were possible..do you think the world would be racked by separatist movements?

If you could just tell the Tamil Tigers "Stop wanting to seperate" don't you think someone in Sri Lanka would have in 20 years?

Don't you think that Saddam or the Turkish would have said to the Kurds "Stop wanting your own state".

What part of human history is it you refuse to learn from? What is this magical super-power making human beings in Canada genetically superior to every other people or government since the dawn of time.

Please, tell me your master plan to simply tell an insurgency not to happen?

If you want to go, and get shot up, and die (and have others die)..to do what? Avoid having to listen to people whinge? You do it. Of course, what makes you think the first nations are going to fight on your side? What if they make a go of their own nation too? I mean, seeing as how you pick on those who are different with guns and bayonets..get while the gettings good.

I've also yet to see any modern insurgency build a standing army. As I recall they tend to operate among the populace and be hard to route out. Good thing your willing to spend 10-15 years of your life with low pay waiting for some french bomb in a mailbox to go off and kill you and everyone in your Iltis.

I suppose you could commit Genocide, but I don't think you'd find many backers to help you carry it out.

So unless you have some magic plan to end the pitfalls that befall a majority of the nations on this planet with separatist movements and the hell it causes I think the poll is fair.

If you do have some magic plan, post it, and I'll add it to the poll.
 
Sassylassie
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid View Post

i will vote ( a ).

the problem is that the issue is bigger than quebec separation. The issue extends to trying to fit a multicult mosaic "peg" into a country founded on two nations "hole".

The country is a wallowing mess caught somewhere in the middle. Some say multicult is to blame and should be abandoned. I say multicult needs to be fully implemented and not be just a windowdressing.

Mulit-cult is to blame, the extreme left has turned Canada into a PC spineless country where politicians pander and appease special interest groups to the extend Canada is losing it's identity, and no Caracole contrary to your philosophying posts Canada is unigue and does have a culture founded by our ancestors. More multi-cult no thanks Caracal read what is happening in England, they now allow Sharia Law (god help the females and children) they've also allowed Somalian Law and not just in family matters or civil laws they are allowed to hold criminal trials. I will never agree to live in a country that negates OUR laws to pander to a religion's dogma, because it's always the women and children who suffer under male dominated religious laws. Europe is burning into a cesspool of anger because of the socialist policies on pandering to newbies.

Canada is the only developed country that hasn't had a civil war, maybe Quebec will change that.
 
Zzarchov
#6
We Certainly have had them, more than most in the devoloped world and more recently than most. Its what shaped our country into what it is today, and why we are set up to avoid civil war at all costs.
 
CDNBear
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Well sir, then you are a magical man of some sort. You cannot just tell people not to revolt. If that were possible..do you think the world would be racked by separatist movements?

If you could just tell the Tamil Tigers "Stop wanting to seperate" don't you think someone in Sri Lanka would have in 20 years?

Don't you think that Saddam or the Turkish would have said to the Kurds "Stop wanting your own state".

What part of human history is it you refuse to learn from? What is this magical super-power making human beings in Canada genetically superior to every other people or government since the dawn of time.

Please, tell me your master plan to simply tell an insurgency not to happen?

If you want to go, and get shot up, and die (and have others die)..to do what? Avoid having to listen to people whinge? You do it. Of course, what makes you think the first nations are going to fight on your side? What if they make a go of their own nation too? I mean, seeing as how you pick on those who are different with guns and bayonets..get while the gettings good.

I've also yet to see any modern insurgency build a standing army. As I recall they tend to operate among the populace and be hard to route out. Good thing your willing to spend 10-15 years of your life with low pay waiting for some french bomb in a mailbox to go off and kill you and everyone in your Iltis.

I suppose you could commit Genocide, but I don't think you'd find many backers to help you carry it out.

So unless you have some magic plan to end the pitfalls that befall a majority of the nations on this planet with separatist movements and the hell it causes I think the poll is fair.

If you do have some magic plan, post it, and I'll add it to the poll.

I posted in another thread, that the Mohawk Nation were well equipt and well prepared to take the shores of the St Laurance all with the pleased appreciation of the US. The Cree were just waiting for a "yes" vote in the last referendum, to take James Bay back.

Don't kid yourself, whatever was left of Quebec, you could keep to yourself. It would be but a mere sliver.

Have you given much thought to the fact that even some Quebecers would rise up against the Draconian morons that would even think of an armed inserrection. Give your head a shake.

But I'm glad that you have such a high opinion of the Quebecuoix, that you think that they would rise on mass and start violence. That only makes me laugh even harder for two reasons. 1) You think that there are enough Draconian nuts, 2) Given the history of Quebec and warfare, I highly doubt you would be able to raise a flag, let alone an Army. LMAO!
 
the caracal kid
#8
sassy, it is the half-enabled multicult that is to blame then. So long as groups are told their cultures are unique and should be promoted/protected yet are denied a real equality there will be this need for "special interest groups" to push to preserve themselves.

If you think there is a canadian culture, point it out to me.

Now, most importantly is your last sentence. The fact that canada never had a civil war, or anything else that actually caused a formation of an identity/culture is exactly why it lacks cohesiveness. The history is not one of uniting and country building, but of opportunism and exploitation. "Every man for himself", except where rotten weather forced cooperation, which resulted in small geographic bindings.
 
CDNBear
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

We Certainly have had them, more than most in the devoloped world and more recently than most. Its what shaped our country into what it is today, and why we are set up to avoid civil war at all costs.

To use your "give and take" analogy. Perhaps the seperatist could give a little, and use reason for a change. They have failed before with referendums, they will fail again.
 
Zzarchov
#10
Well CNDBear..
"Have you given much thought to the fact that even some Quebecers would rise up against the Draconian morons that would even think of an armed inserrection. Give your head a shake."

How has that worked out in Every other nation in the world? Do you find that those hating the insurrection tend to overrule those willing to fight? Cause the world and history tends to say it does squat.

If I person is willing to kill and die for something, you can't stop them.
 
Zzarchov
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

To use your "give and take" analogy. Perhaps the seperatist could give a little, and use reason for a change. They have failed before with referendums, they will fail again.


They have given, they have stopped using armed insurrection. Britain had to work long and hard to earn that in Ireland, they gave it to us here..thats quite a bit.

You think we have it bad with whiny separatists? Look at Spain.
 
CDNBear
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Well CNDBear..
"Have you given much thought to the fact that even some Quebecers would rise up against the Draconian morons that would even think of an armed inserrection. Give your head a shake."

How has that worked out in Every other nation in the world? Do you find that those hating the insurrection tend to overrule those willing to fight? Cause the world and history tends to say it does squat.

If I person is willing to kill and die for something, you can't stop them.

But I thought all the Quebecuoix were enlightend and against war? At least the polls say so, and of course the regiments of Laurentien Highlanders.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

They have given, they have stopped using armed insurrection. Britain had to work long and hard to earn that in Ireland, they gave it to us here..thats quite a bit.

You think we have it bad with whiny separatists? Look at Spain.

I don't think we have it bad, I think it's tiring, debating and arguing the same damn thing every couple of years because the British didn't exponge the french from Canada when they had the chance. Jeeze, you think being give the grace to live on and then showered in money would make a groups of people grateful. Not the Quebecuoix.
 
Zzarchov
#13
So I assume you think natives should feel that way too?
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

So I assume you think natives should feel that way too?

YES, if you have read any of my scathing calls for self examination and culling of the corruption and sloth, you would not have asked me that.

As an activist within my community of the Six Nations and Anishinabe and Metis, I have called on my own people to examine their actions, take accountablity for themselves and stop the cycle of stupidity. I have death threats and been chased from Pow Wows. I have taken the hard line on making the First Nations, a truely distinct society and Nation within a united Canada, take a long hard look at themselves and their reliance on others for support and life.

This was our land, long before you or the Anglais came here. I have come to terms with being a person, living under the rules of an occupying Army. That is the way of life. My people have suffered far more attrocities then the Quebecuoix, by far. But yes, our leaders are in Ottawa with their hands out, much like yours. But my leaders advocate peaceful solutions and try to adhere to the laws of the NATION, not force their own on the majority as would the Quebecuoix. Our language was first, yet yours is the second to the Anglais. We aren't crying, we are not talking seperation. Some are demanding "Self Governance". To them I say WE ARE NOT READY. And as long as we are srife with corrupt leaders, we will never be.

But you, the Quebecuoix, have self governance, provincialy. Is that not good enough? NON. You want more. You have been French Canadian for years. Why is that so bad? You have more territory then my people do, yet it was ours first.

Please tell me why I should support you wishes to tear apart the country I have come to love, that has given me far less then it has given you?
 
Zzarchov
#15
1.) Im not Quebecois. I think I speak 5-10 words of french. But im not blind to others point of view.
2.) Now.. you had previously said Quebec should not have this "Nation within a Nation" business (i'll double check through older posts to be sure, let me know if this isn't the case and I'll remove it from my post), so doesn't that mean you should support First Nations blending back into Canada as simply another citizen with no specific "Nation withing a Nation" of your own?
 
CDNBear
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

1.) Im not Quebecois. I think I speak 5-10 words of french. But im not blind to others point of view.

As do I, as long as it does not infringe on the will of the people, or their rights.
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

2.) Now.. you had previously said Quebec should not have this "Nation within a Nation" business (i'll double check through older posts to be sure, let me know if this isn't the case and I'll remove it from my post), so doesn't that mean you should support First Nations blending back into Canada as simply another citizen with no specific "Nation withing a Nation" of your own?

Yes, I said that. They have more rights then the rest of Canada as is, via signage, language and how they conduct business. This piece of legislation is only going to be used to further screw over those that live within Quebec, but do not follow the seperatist party line, ie, the Anglais and other non french minotities. Including my brothers and sisters.

To some degree I support an better integration of the Native peoples, the exclusionary attitude of the reserve, from internal, to external, has been a mechasism of destruction. Should we lose the status we have? Some of it has gone to far. Should we have self governance? Yes, if and when our leadership shows some skills that would garner it. Do we deserve a "Nation within a Nation" title? We pretty much already have it and it has been used to further some good, but all to often it is to further ones agenda over anothers. I can not agree with that.

BTW, thanx for leaving the sarcasm out of the last couple posts, I truely only asked for clarification, I was not trying to incite an arguement.
 
John Muff
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

c.) They should by forced to cease and desist, the Bloc should be banished from Parliment. Anyone that spouts violent or aggressive rhetoric, in the calling for an armed inserrection, should be tried for treason and hanged.

But if it's war you want, my brothers and sister in many First Nations would willingly wipe most of what Quebec could scrape up and call an Army, off the face of the earth in a couple days. I would count myself as one of them.

God have mercy on your soul, cause he won't save you.

So basically, Canada is all our too... for now at least... So we shoud bargain something with the US to give them access to the North; In the same time "offering" them, the rest of Canada...

Your hate toward Qebecers is so stuypid... I've I ever done anything to you to deserve such a hate...

Your soul is currupt my son, you'll have just enough years ahead of you to consider following someone else peace roadmap. Your invasion of someone else home is so disgusting that I couldn't have ever imagine such a hate towards quebecers. To deny a "nation" (In the way that bother you the least, I guess:"Just repeting "Distinct Society" in other words) to vote for representatives from Quebec. You don't want to deal with Quebecers and it's allies. Heeeee... BTW, France didn't bother sending moore troops to the new land back than just cus they never could have imagined what the "REAL PROBLEM" is.

Could it be, just suggesting, that there is still some WAY TOO loyal foes to the crown in Canada. I love the Queen, serious... and I love all Canadians too.

I also red somewhere on this forum, just as an exemple of your selfishness, things like: "Who would deliver the mail, Post Canada?" Comme on... We have nice post office to, just a name change... Market is one thing, but comparing Quebecers to idiots that ABSOLUTELY NEED CANADA to survive, make us all think, and think...

Like if you would LOVE to bring a northern "middle-east" here... Wake-up buddy. Were all in peace, sorry, could you please say it out loud a couple of times so that you remember it if you cross the border... Something you must do often...

Have a good one, and, live in peace... which mean peacefully... just wanted to clarify...

John Muff
 
Sassylassie
#18
Logic is that you at the library?
 
CDNBear
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Well, What option does everyone think is better?

a.) No, they should continue to work through any seperatist issues or concerns they have peacefully through long, drawn out, whiney dialogue

b.) Yes, Quebec should be forced to resort to military and violent forms of seperatist movements like every other country in the world, in line with Canada's past.

Hey JohnMuff, my response was to the complete off the wall Yes part of this poll, which isn't that far from how the polls are swayed in general, but none the less as assinine. My response was as much a parody as it was a rebuttle.
Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

So basically, Canada is all our too... for now at least... So we shoud bargain something with the US to give them access to the North; In the same time "offering" them, the rest of Canada...

Good luck with that, the leaders of the Quebecuoix have stated that they want more control of the St. Laurance seaway, so many times and in such manner, that the US is looking to the Native communities to resolve that issue if Quebec were to leave Canada.

Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

Your hate toward Qebecers is so stuypid... I've I ever done anything to you to deserve such a hate...

I do not hate the Quebecois, I hate the Quebecuoix. The leadership of the seperatist movement are nothing more then grandstanding opportunists, that have bled the rest of Canada for years, forced french on those that should have the right to exist within Canada, a two language country, without having the wants(not rights) of others forced upon them. You and the rest of Quebec are now and have always been CANADIAN, and enjoyed all the rights,freedoms and privledges that entails. That is not enough apparently, you want more.

Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

Your soul is currupt my son, you'll have just enough years ahead of you to consider following someone else peace roadmap. Your invasion of someone else home is so disgusting that I couldn't have ever imagine such a hate towards quebecers. To deny a "nation" (In the way that bother you the least, I guess:"Just repeting "Distinct Society" in other words) to vote for representatives from Quebec. You don't want to deal with Quebecers and it's allies. Heeeee... BTW, France didn't bother sending moore troops to the new land back than just cus they never could have imagined what the "REAL PROBLEM" is.

My soul is not corrupt, the vision of dividing the Nation of Canada up is as corrupt a vision is there ever was.
I want this to end peacefully. But if the FLQ types in Quebec start killing and kidnapping again, or stepping on my brothers rights again, I will take up arms and defend OUR right to exist in Canada. Or didn't you consider the rights of those in Quebec that do not follow the deluded mindlings of the Quebecuoix. They have rights too, they said NON twice.
I was noy I that brought up violence, it was the author of this thread Zzarchov.
If's, coulda's and woulda's are great, but France didn't so now you are Canadian, deal with it. I'm Native, I delt with it. Move on.

Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

Could it be, just suggesting, that there is still some WAY TOO loyal foes to the crown in Canada. I love the Queen, serious... and I love all Canadians too.

So why do you want to destroy the Nation of Canada?

Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

I also red somewhere on this forum, just as an exemple of your selfishness, things like: "Who would deliver the mail, Post Canada?" Comme on... We have nice post office to, just a name change... Market is one thing, but comparing Quebecers to idiots that ABSOLUTELY NEED CANADA to survive, make us all think, and think...

I never said that, but it's true, it's called Canada Post, not Quebecuoix post. I would assert that you all need to think and think and think, what has been done to you that would garner seperation? You have Draconian language rights the rest of Canada does not have, you control internal Federal spending more so then the rest of Canada, you stomp all over the rights of Natives with impunity, what more do you want?
btw, I never called Quebecers idiots, I called the seperatist Draconian morons.
Quote: Originally Posted by John Muff View Post

Like if you would LOVE to bring a northern "middle-east" here... Wake-up buddy. Were all in peace, sorry, could you please say it out loud a couple of times so that you remember it if you cross the border... Something you must do often...

I do not want that kind of mindless ignorance on my land. My point was in referrence to the OP and the threat of violence if we do not aquiess to the Quebecuoix, and if you bring it, bring your A game hunny. The brothers in the MWS, do not have rules of engagement. Leave Canada, see what becomes of La Belle Provence, a sliver, not much to rate.
Try saying this over and over, Quebecois are CANADIAN, Quebecois are CANADIAN!
Quebecuoix aren't peaceful, they're cowards. God bless the Laurentien Highlanders.
 
Logic 7
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Now that's a typical polling question. Self serving and directing the answer to your agenda. You most be Quebecuoix.

I pick

c.) They should by forced to cease and desist, the Bloc should be banished from Parliment. Anyone that spouts violent or aggressive rhetoric, in the calling for an armed inserrection, should be tried for treason and hanged.

But if it's war you want, my brothers and sister in many First Nations would willingly wipe most of what Quebec could scrape up and call an Army, off the face of the earth in a couple days. I would count myself as one of them.

God have mercy on your soul, cause he won't save you.



Pretty fascist statement, coming from you, it is not surprising, and you really don't believe in democracy, the bloc is the choice of quebecers, not yours, and by the way, the canadians should be thankful to the bloc, they are the one who brought the liberal scandals to the parliment.
 
CDNBear
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Logic 7 View Post

Pretty fascist statement, coming from you, it is not surprising, and you really don't believe in democracy, the bloc is the choice of quebecers, not yours, and by the way, the canadians should be thankful to the bloc, they are the one who brought the liberal scandals to the parliment.

That's a pretty unfounded and ridiculous sttatement coming from you. If you call me a facist or undemocratic, I must be the opposite, for everything you have ever typed, has been wrong or bass akwards.
It's not surprising that you would miss the sarcasm in the post.

But none the less, the Bloc is the choice of Quebecuoix, no kidding. Federal Parliment is the choice of a nation and as such is supposed to be for the nation, and to my knowledge, all parties are to be national parties, not secular divisionists, hell bent on tearing up a country.

My belief in democracy has nothing to do with the crime of treason. The crime of treason is a law I did not right. So how is it I am a facist and not democratic, when your beloved Bloc want to force people that have clearly voted NON, to seperate and furthermore, hows forcing French on the non French people of Quebec, not facist or undemocratic?

My hats off to the Bloc, yippeeeee, now if they would stop trying to pick my pocket and ruin our country, I would be much happier.
 
the caracal kid
#22
actually bear, there is no requirement for a party to be a "national" (as in one nation-state) party.
 
CDNBear
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid View Post

actually bear, there is no requirement for a party to be a "national" (as in one nation-state) party.

I always thought that a party had to have members in all provinces?
 
the caracal kid
#24
no. to be recognized as a party in the house all that is necessary is the holding of IIRC 7 seats. There are no rules on how many candidates you must run. You and I could form our own party tomorrow and run ourselves plus lets say 10 others, and if we won the official party status number of seats we would be an official party. This is a valuable set-up as in theory it allows anybody to enter into politics. Unfortunately, with the costs of running a campaign it doesn't work out that way anymore.
 
CDNBear
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid View Post

no. to be recognized as a party in the house all that is necessary is the holding of IIRC 7 seats. There are no rules on how many candidates you must run. You and I could form our own party tomorrow and run ourselves plus lets say 10 others, and if we won the official party status number of seats we would be an official party. This is a valuable set-up as in theory it allows anybody to enter into politics. Unfortunately, with the costs of running a campaign it doesn't work out that way anymore.

Thanx for correcting me.

Now what about an oath, is there not an oath a member of Parliment must take?

Besides that, isn't succession a federal offence?
 
the caracal kid
#26
Sedition is a federal offence. As for separation, the Bloc does not talk of separation in the house. It follows the federal rules in that it acts on behalf of its constiuants (being their voice, and attempting to obtain goodies for them). Having the people vote on if they want to separate or not is not an offence, but calling on the people to overthrow the government is.

I don't remember what the oath of office is.
 
CDNBear
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid View Post

Sedition is a federal offence. As for separation, the Bloc does not talk of separation in the house. It follows the federal rules in that it acts on behalf of its constiuants (being their voice, and attempting to obtain goodies for them). Having the people vote on if they want to separate or not is not an offence, but calling on the people to overthrow the government is.

I don't remember what the oath of office is.

Thanx again.

I've been trying to find a story since yesterday, about Bevilaqua I believe, approaching a Regiment stationed in Quebec during the lead up to the last referendum and asking if they would swear aligance to a sovergn Quebec.

Is that not a treasonous act?

I know if the Troops had said yes, it would have been, but that is because I'm familar with that oath.
 
the caracal kid
#28
i guess if he asked "if quebec were to separate, would you swear allegence to her" it was not an offence, but if he had asked them to swear to serve quebec at that point it would have been (calling on the forces to basicly overthrow the government).
 
CDNBear
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid View Post

i guess if he asked "if quebec were to separate, would you swear allegence to her" it was not an offence, but if he had asked them to swear to serve quebec at that point it would have been (calling on the forces to basicly overthrow the government).

Well I've been corrected, thanx.

I still stand by my position though.
 
the caracal kid
#30
the bloc is very clever. they know what they can and can not do legally (most politicians start off as lawyers, so they know the ropes).

I wish we had a bloc BC party out here though. Bouchard is one of the few politicians of my time I can relate to. Duceppe on the other hand....

check this out:

Quote:

The idea of a Quebec nationalist party with candidates running for seats in the House of Commons is not new. The term Bloc Québécois was seen as early as 1926 in L'Action Française magazine in which an article called for a party of Quebecers defending Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

From March to May 1941 L'Action Nationale magazine renewed its calls for such a party, especially to oppose plans for conscription. In October 1941, the Bloc populaire canadien was created with those very objectives.

In September 1971, there was a similar plea in L'Action Nationale, this time with a view to countering the federalism of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. One year after the October Crisis, a desire to express frustration through democratic means was visible in the magazine: "The time has come to play hard; and it is necessary that it happens at the parliamentary stage to avoid other forms of violence." [1]

The Ralliement des créditistes was a rural Quebec-only federal party in the 1960s. Social credit ideology was based on the ideas of the British engineer, Major C.H. Douglas. The Créditistes took over the remnants of the federal Social Credit Party of Canada and had members elected to the House of Commons until 1979. While right-wing in approach, as opposed to the nominally more leftist Bloc, this party carried the torch of Quebec nationalism and separatism for decades.

The Union Populaire was a minor party that tried to build on the success of the Parti Québécois at the provincial level by nominating candidates in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections on a sovereigntist platform. The PQ, however, had rejected participation in federal elections and provided no support to the party, which achieved little success.

The Parti nationaliste du Québec was founded in the 1980s as an alternative to federalist parties (those opposed to independence for Quebec) and can be seen as a modest predecessor.

Finally, the Rhinoceros Party, founded in 1968 by Doctor Jacques Ferron, a renowned Quebec writer, won many votes from people who disapproved of federalist politicians. Jacques Ferron, the poet Gaston Miron and the singer Michel Rivard ran against the federalist Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in his seat of Mount Royal, but made little impact at a time when Trudeau was at the height of his popularity and influence.


The founder of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard and his wife.Guy Bertrand, a former PQ candidate, had a plan to create a federal party in favour of Quebec independence, a Bloc Québécois, in the 1970s. René Lévesque, the founder and leader of the Parti Québécois, stated in his autobiography that he had opposed this plan, believing that it was not the right time to do so.

After decades of reflection and failed attempts to launch a sovereigntist party at the federal level, members of a sovereigntist party were first elected on the federal level during the 1990s.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bloc-qu-b-cois-1
 

Similar Threads

5
No More Dialogue: Tories
by FiveParadox | Aug 23rd, 2006
0
Abandon Ship
by I think not | Jan 10th, 2006