Yes. Quebec is a province in Canada.
True. But the fact that Canada has authority over Quebec remains debatable. There's no denying Canada
does have a certain authority over Quebec. But to what extent? The concept of authority is not fixed in any form of quantifiable way and it's prone to be reinforced or weakened by the current of history. And we all know the concept is malleable by individual and collective perceptions. Does a teacher have authority over his students? I'm sure we can both agree that this is how it
ought to be. But you know very well that's not always the case. The authority can be there only in principle while in fact it can be weak or even non-existent.
In the case of Quebec, as I said, Canada does have some authority over Quebec but when it comes to language, I think it's clear that Quebecers feel entitled to overrule that authority.
Until it becomes a sovereign nation, whether Canada or other nations accept that, it can act any way it wants and accept the consequences of those actions.
I agree. But if Quebec were to separate from Canada after a
clear mandate to do so by the population (which I am far from convinced will ever happen), we wouldn't need Canada's approval to do so. We don't need your permission to become a country should we decide that is what we want. Does one need permission to put an end to a love relationship? No, that is part of one's right and capacity to self-determination. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences to deal with. As you folks rightfully like to remind us so often, we'd need to leave with our share of the national debt and there would be the inevitable question of territorial disputes.
So long as it wants to enjoy the benefits thereof, yes.
Again I mostly agree. But we're still talking about
sometimes questionable authority and I won't repeat what I just said at the top of this post.
The Six Nations are already a sovereign nation.
Is that a fact? Do the Six Nations have a country? Do nations need a country of their own to be considered sovereign? Does a nation need the recognition of other nations to be sovereign? What if these other nations disagree among themselves? Who's ''authority'' prevails? All these questions emphasize the fact that sovereignty is a fluid concept and as it relates to the ever shifting reality of human political power struggles, it ought to be viewed with an open and cautious mind. All provinces in Canada are already sovereign to a certain extent, at least when it comes to provincial responsibilities.
To me you do. I don't see much difference with you telling me how the Crown has authority over my people and Europeans telling American natives the Crown had authority over them a few centuries ago.
Nope, Quebec was given the status at the pleasure of the Crown.
And the Crown's authority can be mocked at our pleasure.
It's not an argument, it's a fact.
The sun is a big ball of burning gas. That's a fact. It tends to be colder significantly colder in winter. That's a fact. Authority can
always disputed.
Now THAT'S a fact.
Nope, I just now how it came to be.
All that says is you accept the authority of the Crown. Good for you.
Haven't what? Made an argument out of a fact?
I meant, I haven't been brainwashed into monarchical rhetoric. I fully understand the political system status of Canada as a constitutional monarchy. And of course, I accept the facts of how the system is defined from a neutral point of view. That doesn't mean I agree nor accept the Crown's authority over my nation.
So if we're not quite following the rules, that means Canada's (or the Crown's) authority over Quebec is not quite respected.
Squeaky bitches get lots of goodies. Works for handout Injins too.
Again. It seems this country does have authority problems.
You do if those acts are contrary to the law, or infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Charter.
Like I said, squeaky bitches.
And you guys are big bossypants!!! (I can resort to juvenile insults too)