Duceppe says it's up to NFLD whether it wants to leave Canada

[wulfie68]

Ah, Thank You, SJP......for reaffirming my faith...

Alberta has been paying much more than its own way in Canada for decades......unlike Quebec.

The Metis control no land, have no reservations, no territorial foundation on which to hold a separate vote.....they would not, indeed could not, vote as a separate entity from the rest of the province...........

Indians do have land claims and a territorial foundation.....but Alberta has the resources to negotiate an equitable deal with them........unlike Quebec, where natives control a major portion of the land mass.

Are you insinuating that the USA would take Alberta by force??? That is, of course, ludicrous.....as the people of the USA would not stand for an attack on an area with common language, culture, ideals..........it is simply outside of the realm of common sense to consider such a thing possible. Ask nicely??? Perhaps, but joining the USA would be a democratic choice for an independent Alberta.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

As usual.

One small correction is the point about the Metis. There are a couple "settlements" as opposed to reservations, where the Metis communities hold essentially the same rights as Treaty bands do, but the Metis are a small community compared to the full blood natives and thus a minor issue in the larger scheme of things. What SJP fails to appreciate is that the provincial gov't of Alberta is on decent if not good terms with many of the native bands, who don't care for dealing with Ottawa, and thus wouldn't be the same type of impediment as they would be in Quebec.

And why is joining the US such a horrible thing? Oh the politics are too far away from the extreme left to keep most of Toronto comfortable, but if we're to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority at least the American version affords some version of equality to all the states in the Senate, and the US constitution respects the rights of the individual far more than does the Canadian one.

 

[Praxius]

.... As for my view on that, I'd say that though it is true that New France was conquered territory, let's not forget that it was also built on conquered native land. Owing to the complexity of the situation, it would be best to respect international standards on this, and the international community recognizes Quebec as part of Canada and so as long as that's the case, Quebec is a part of Canada. Canada should of course conform to international standards when it comes to the right of a state to secede, and so should Quebec. We must remember too though that if the international community should defend Quebec's right to secede, it's likely to defend the right of Quebec's First Nations and Inuit to secede from Quebec too.

That is all based on if the natives wish to separate from Quebec and remain in Canada. Considering the conditions most native reserves and communities are in at present and the level of hatred I see coming from many in Canada in general towards natives and "How much they get for free" (Just look in any CBC & CTV news report relating to natives and the comments below the report), I personally don't see many jumping ship and staying in Canada, when they would now have an opportunity to hash out a much better deal with Quebec in order to remain in their new found territory.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

One small correction is the point about the Metis. There are a couple "settlements" as opposed to reservations, where the Metis communities hold essentially the same rights as Treaty bands do, but the Metis are a small community compared to the full blood natives and thus a minor issue in the larger scheme of things. What SJP fails to appreciate is that the provincial gov't of Alberta is on decent if not good terms with many of the native bands, who don't care for dealing with Ottawa, and thus wouldn't be the same type of impediment as they would be in Quebec.

So in the event of Alberta separation, I assume you won't have any problem if the Indians in the North have their own referendum? And further if they vote to stay in Canada, you would be OK with splitting Alberta into two parts.

And why is joining the US such a horrible thing? Oh the politics are too far away from the extreme left to keep most of Toronto comfortable, but if we're to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority at least the American version affords some version of equality to all the states in the Senate, and the US constitution respects the rights of the individual far more than does the Canadian one.

Whether being gobbled up by USA (and it would hardly be merger, USA will simply take over Alberta) is a good thing or not is for everybody to decide for themselves. Actually there are many similarities between the Alberta mindset and USA mindset. Perhaps one could argue that Alberta really belongs in USA, rather than in Canada. It is the most conservative province in Canada, conservatism is the hallmark of USA.

However, that indeed would be the hidden agenda of at least some separatists. Many separatists probably know very well that a land locked country like Alberta will find it difficult to survive on its own, especially with USA breathing down its neck and ready to claim Alberta at the slightest (or imaginary) provocation.

The hidden agenda of at least some separatists is merger with USA. Indeed, if Alberta separatists try for becoming part of USA rather than talking of separating from Canada, they probably would have more success.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That is all based on if the natives wish to separate from Quebec and remain in Canada. Considering the conditions most native reserves and communities are in at present and the level of hatred I see coming from many in Canada in general towards natives and "How much they get for free" (Just look in any CBC & CTV news report relating to natives and the comments below the report), I personally don't see many jumping ship and staying in Canada, when they would now have an opportunity to hash out a much better deal with Quebec in order to remain in their new found territory.

The point is not whether they would vote to stay in Canada or to go with Quebec. The point is that they must be given the right to decide that. If the French speaking people vote in a referendum, the Natives must also be allowed to hold their own referendum and their wishes must be honoured.

If they vote to go with Quebec, well and good. But if they don't, Quebec must be partitioned into two parts, and it won't be pretty.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But see, that's the real problem... % based on opinions.

You may say it's not fair to confirm a decision based on a 51% win, but a 60+% is.... yet another person will complain that 40% of the people still want to remain, thus in order to protect that minority, the 60+%'s decision could be disqualified just as easily as your 51% and then set it to something like 85%..... or maybe 90%.... or 95%.....

Because of this, it should remain at the 50% balance and anything above 50% is the decision.

The fairest thing I can think of is that if a province votes 51% to leave Canada, then allow that province to do so..... the other 49% should be allowed to leave the province and move to another province if they so wish, while the others who refuse to move can suck it up and live in their new country.

Trying to make this more technical then it needs to be doesn't help anybody.

51% should be the balance of win in a democracy and playing around with that makes democracy a mockery.

Sure separating is a serious issue, but the price of giving people the freedom to choose is that sometimes people will make the wrong choice.

If Quebec wants to separate.... I have no issue.... let them. It's either that, or we put up with decades more of them moaning and complaining about separating.

You are right; exactly what is the fair percentage is a matter of opinion. That is why we will refer to the highest authority in Canada, the Supreme Court. If a referendum is passed by a slim majority (say, 50%+1 or 55%) on a fudged, obscure, vague question, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court. And we should abide by what the Supreme Court says. If the Court says 50%+1 is good enough, well and good. I will agree to it even though I don’t think that is enough to break up the country.

But if Supreme Court also says that it is not enough, that it goes against the Clarity Act, Canada should refuse to accept the Quebec independence and should take the same steps it would if Quebec (or indeed any other province) were to unilaterally declare independence today.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And continually forcing a 51% or more majority of a population to do what the minority wants all the time can lead to the exact same conclusion.

Just look at the government today. In one point of view, the Conservatives have the majority of votes compared to the other parties, yet in another point of view, a very clear majority of Canadians didn't vote Conservative... but the Conservatives still get to run this minority government against a clear majority of voter's wishes of having another party other then Conservative.

And now we're having fewer and fewer people come out to vote because, besides the continual political finger pointing and nothing ever really being done, many see the system broke.

Historical Voter Turnout in Canadian Federal Elections - 1867-2008

The 2008 election only had a total of 58.8% of registered voters turn out to vote.

What happens when that number drops below 50%?

And what happens when a fraction of that less then 50% votes in a government to oversee all?

People can talk about legalities and such towards what majority is legitimate or not, but when it comes to the human being and them seeing that over half of the total legit population sees things contrary to what a minority are dictating.... you may not be able to escape civil war in either case.

Sure the numbers and the law makes sense to those who actually pay attention to that stuff, but you and I know most people in our country are not well educated in the technicalities of it all and only know "Majority Rules."

And when those people believe "Majority Rules" and the minority are dictating to them something else to hold their position, whether you think the majority are right or wrong in their views, they will think they're right and may take drastic actions they feel are justified because they feel they're being jipped.

Democracy carries some responsibilities, some obligations with it, and if people are not willing to carry out those responsibilities, then they don’t deserve to live in a democracy.

If voting turnout falls below 50% or even 40%, it will be easy for a small and extremist but dedicated group to take over the government peacefully, it will be a peaceful revolution.

Let me take a hypothetical case. Let us say there are 25% strong, committed prolifers in the country (I don’t know the real percentage, but let us assume) who want to ban all abortions. Now, let us say that the voting in an election is 40%, but that 100% prolifers vote. That means that 25% prolifers would have voted, 15% pro choice electorate would have voted. That means 62.5 % prolife vote, 37.5% pro choice vote.

Thus prolifers will be able to take control of all the levers of power and implement their extremist agenda.

I only took this as an example, but it could apply to any issue. The faction which wants to recriminalize homosexuality could theoretically form a government. Or if separatists vote in large proportion and federalists all over Canada ignore the election, PQ could form a minority government.

Indeed, that is how Hitler started; I think he received only 33% of the votes. But he was able to seize power in the wheeling and dealing which ensued afterwards.

So if people don’t take their responsibility seriously and refuse to vote, that means they don’t deserve to live in a democracy. If the country is taken over by an extremist faction, that will be no more than what the people would deserve.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Several possibilities that can apply to the other side of the argument in equal fashion.



So you have a clear majority of say 60+% who want to separate, so you put their decision on hold for 5 years while they're bombarded by continual propaganda to sway their decision for the next vote?

Sounds to me like more bureaucratic mumbo jumbo to make it virtually impossible to make any decision other then to keep everything the way it currently is, as is.

What's the point? You're basically applying elementary school mentality to the situation.... ie: Spelling Pre-Test and then the Spelling Real-Test, where the first one doesn't count for jack except give the opposition of the majority a clear view on how much more propaganda they have to dish out and waste further tax dollars on.

The point is that a country should not be broken up unless a large number of people consistently feel that way. If people today feel that country should be broken up, but there is a chance that they may not feel that way next year, that doesn’t mean that the country should be broken up this year.

In fact, the five year interregnum could be put to good use. There could be preliminary negotiations about the separation, how to split up the national debt, how to treat the minorities etc. Some powers could be devolved to the province in preparation for the separation; reversible steps (which could be easily reversed if the next referendum does not go for separation) could be taken to give the province more powers, to help the province on its way towards separation.

A lot of leg work, hard work could be accomplished in the five years. There could be discussions as to whether it is possible to address the concerns of the province so that it may want to continue remaining part of Canada. At the same time, there could be negotiations for separation.

The five year period could be put to a good use. Also, the economy and the currency, would have five years to get adjusted to the new reality, it won’t be thrown into turmoil as a result of a quick, sudden separation.

The Québec referendum if it had succeed, would have thrown Canadian economy into turmoil. Just before the election, Bank of Canada increased the interest rates by a full 2 % (by 200 points) to avoid a run on the Canadian dollar. They put it right back down after the separation. It also turned out that the PQ government had stashed away 1.5 billion US $, with which to purchase Canadian dollar to prevent a run on the dollar.

Democracy is Democracy, regardless of what is at question. The people who are voting are grown adults and regardless of how mental someone may think they are because of a decision they made, the law states their vote should count and shouldn't have to go through some circus trick to ensure they voted the way they wanted to vote.

Democracy doesn't mean that everything is decided by 50%+1 vote. Constitution cannot be changed by 50%+1 vote, you cannot take away rights from minorities by 50%+1 vote. Why should a country be broken up by 50%+1 vote?

In fact, in Canada nothing is decided by 50%+1 vote, we don't have the tradition of binding referendum in Canada.

 

[Praxius]

The point is not whether they would vote to stay in Canada or to go with Quebec. The point is that they must be given the right to decide that. If the French speaking people vote in a referendum, the Natives must also be allowed to hold their own referendum and their wishes must be honoured.

I don't think anybody ever said they wouldn't be allowed to do so.... as I said previously, I think every province should have the right to decide if they wish to stay in Canada or not.... and in regards to the natives, the same applies on whether they wish to stay a part of Canada, stay a part of the Province in question, or if they wish to set out on their own.

If they vote to go with Quebec, well and good. But if they don't, Quebec must be partitioned into two parts, and it won't be pretty.

Probably not, but nothing's pretty in this topic and separation isn't supposed to be a cake walk.... but if the majority of a community wish to take this route, they should be free to do so, at the same time, be free to face the consequences of their actions, good or bad.

 

[Praxius]

You are right; exactly what is the fair percentage is a matter of opinion. That is why we will refer to the highest authority in Canada, the Supreme Court. If a referendum is passed by a slim majority (say, 50%+1 or 55%) on a fudged, obscure, vague question, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court. And we should abide by what the Supreme Court says. If the Court says 50%+1 is good enough, well and good. I will agree to it even though I don’t think that is enough to break up the country.

But if Supreme Court also says that it is not enough, that it goes against the Clarity Act, Canada should refuse to accept the Quebec independence and should take the same steps it would if Quebec (or indeed any other province) were to unilaterally declare independence today.

Well for one thing, I agree that the question being asked should be very clear and detailed without any doubts on what's being asked..... however, as I pointed out in a previous post, that rule wasn't very clear in what "Clear" means in a Majority or in Question..... which leaves this line on what is clear or not very subjective.... and since it's not very clear on what exactly is "Clear" I stick by the 51% rule for majority, because it is a majority over 49%.

As it goes for a clear question being asked to vote on, something along the lines of "Do you wish for your Province to separate from the Country 'Canada' and become its own independent State?"

^ That's pretty cut and dry on what's being asked..... whether or not that province decides to join another nation later on (the US, France, UK, etc.) after gaining total independence, can be asked and dealt with later in another vote.

 

[Praxius]

Democracy carries some responsibilities, some obligations with it, and if people are not willing to carry out those responsibilities, then they don’t deserve to live in a democracy.

That's a matter of opinion, not law.

Case in point, is that in Australia, by Law, you must go to the polls and vote during elections. You don't actually have to vote for someone, but you must at least get your name checked off the list to show that you showed up.... whether you spoil your ballot or not is not up for the law to decide.

Since here in Canada we have no laws forcing people to vote or face punishment, one can not dictate to or complain about those who decide not to vote.... that's how our democracy currently works and you can not dictate who lives in this country or not, just because you don't like the fact that they refuse to vote.

If voting turnout falls below 50% or even 40%, it will be easy for a small and extremist but dedicated group to take over the government peacefully, it will be a peaceful revolution.

While I agree a revolution will most likely occur, whether it'll be peaceful or not depends on the government in power at the time and whether or not they're willing to step down. It would depend on the current government's actions that would determine just how "Extreme" this group would be. (IMO)

Let me take a hypothetical case. Let us say there are 25% strong, committed prolifers in the country (I don’t know the real percentage, but let us assume) who want to ban all abortions. Now, let us say that the voting in an election is 40%, but that 100% prolifers vote. That means that 25% prolifers would have voted, 15% pro choice electorate would have voted. That means 62.5 % prolife vote, 37.5% pro choice vote.

Thus prolifers will be able to take control of all the levers of power and implement their extremist agenda.

I only took this as an example, but it could apply to any issue. The faction which wants to recriminalize homosexuality could theoretically form a government. Or if separatists vote in large proportion and federalists all over Canada ignore the election, PQ could form a minority government.

Indeed, that is how Hitler started; I think he received only 33% of the votes. But he was able to seize power in the wheeling and dealing which ensued afterwards.

So if people don’t take their responsibility seriously and refuse to vote, that means they don’t deserve to live in a democracy. If the country is taken over by an extremist faction, that will be no more than what the people would deserve.

Actually there was a bit more to how Hitler gained power, which included brown shirts going around and beating the crap out of their competition and intimidating voters to either vote for them, don't vote, for face the consequences. Most of Hitler's opposition were too intimidated to stand against him, people saw them as weak, and thus voted for the stronger candidate, while those who knew better, were still too scared to vote against him or face the goons.

It's not so much "How Many" people didn't turn out to vote, it's "Why" those people didn't turn out to vote.

If it's because someone just doesn't care about the outcome of a vote, that's one thing.... but if it's through intimidation and threats that make people stay away from the polls, that's something totally different..... just look at what happened in Afghanistan's last election, where Taliban threatened that if they found anybody with ink on their finger (a sign they voted) they would cut them off.

Same as our current elections as towards the importance of "Why"

There was a study not too long ago done on those who don't vote and the clear majority of those who don't vote state they have no political parties to choose from who represent their best interests..... it's not that people don't care who get's in, it's that they don't want to throw away their vote to some party they don't agree with.

That to me is a problem that needs to be addressed.... I was in the exact same position until in the last couple of elections I decided to vote NDP, because they were the closest (although not exactly) to my own principles and views and they were the only party that sounded like they knew what they were talking about, didn't beat around the bush like the Libs and Cons and answered questions.

But recently, I've been starting to question the point of continuing to vote again.... and chances are in the next election, if nothing changes, I won't see any point in continuing to vote.

I care about what happens in our government and this country, however my vote seems to count for squat, everything continues to stay the same and we're still no better off then when I didn't vote.... so again, what's the point?

Our government doesn't work, except for a select % of the population, and more and more of our population are beginning to view it the same way and are no longer voting.

It's not the fault of the population that they don't vote for a particular party, it's the fault of the government for not winning over their votes and engaging the public properly.

As it goes for your above example on pro-lifers, while I agree with your hypothetical and its outcome, voting on this that actually and directly affect your life and what you can do (be that to have or not have an abortion, be allowed to smoke weed legally, leave your house at night, etc.) the voter turn out will be a much more different story then say a political election.

So as I see it, it's not just "Why" someone votes or doesn't, it's also "What" is being voted that really matters.

If all the Pro-Lifers did come out and voted to ban abortion and the majority of pro-choicers didn't, then the decision is made and that's that.... thus, if all those who want to separate wish to turn out and vote and those who want to stay a part of Canada don't.... that's indeed is their own fault and as I stated in another post, if some in said province wish to remain in Canada, they should be allowed to move to another province to do so.

If they're stubborn and don't want to leave their homes, yet don't want to separate from the country, then they have two choices.... vote, or get mobilized for a fight which may lead to a civil war.

The decision was never said to be an easy one, but the decision should still be allowed none the less.

 

[DaSleeper]

Now how did the separation of Quebec manage to get turned into a pro/anti abortion thread:roll:

 

[Praxius]

.... Democracy doesn't mean that everything is decided by 50%+1 vote. Constitution cannot be changed by 50%+1 vote, you cannot take away rights from minorities by 50%+1 vote. Why should a country be broken up by 50%+1 vote?

In fact, in Canada nothing is decided by 50%+1 vote, we don't have the tradition of binding referendum in Canada.

And this is why so many Canadians are not voting.... because of the way our system works, most feel nothing will be done, because everything requires a 60 or 70 or 80% of a vote to make anything happen, and since just about everything Canadians vote on balances around the 50% mark, nothing ever changes, nothing ever gets done.... so why bother even trying?

People wonder why Canadians are so apathetic in their nature... this is why.

Heck, in the US, elections and major decisions are usually won by slim majorities, be that by the people, Congress, or the political parties themselves.... they fight tooth and nail for that 51%+ vote and when they get it, it's done.

Just as a quick example, Bush won the 2004 election by 50.7% of the vote and Kerry lost with a 48.3% of the vote.

Their Health Care Reform bill passed with 219 votes vs. 212 votes...

regardless of how tight or how close the vote is, majority rules and in my opinion, a system that only says a 60%+ is a valid majority is a mockery to democracy and allows the minority to always hold control over the majority.

The minority should be protect at all times in a Democracy.... through laws and rights... not by fudging the vote in their favor.

Let's go back to the Quebec separation thing again. Let's say those who voted Yes to separate got 59% of the vote.... it's not 60%+, so nothing changes.... but what happens when the No's voted 59%? It's not 60%+.... so does that mean the Yes's get their way and they separate?

Hell no... Nothing happens and either way, the No's still win in either case.... so wtf was the point in putting it to a vote in the first place?

^ This is why so many people are dropping out of voting in our country, because our Democracy is a farce where one bureaucratic technicality or another holds everything in the exact same position in favor of the country/political party in power no matter what the final vote says.

Our system is designed to keep everything the same status quo for as long as possible.... it's a system to give us the illusion that we have a voice, a say in what happens in our country, but in reality, we very rarely ever get a say on anything that happens in our country and it's always left to those in our government to tell us how it's going to be.

Vote out that party in power and you just end up with another party exactly like the previous, doing the exact same thing, changing nothing.

We sit here, complain and moan about the party in power and say "Well this time I'm gonna do something about it and vote them out." Then they're voted out and the other party comes into power, screws us over like the last party, then we do it all over again "Well this time, I'm gonna do something about it and vote them out..." Only to vote in the last party you just booted out and start it all over again.

To me, our Democracy is a joke.

And at the same time, we have a political party gain power in the government by holding a slim majority of the votes (ie: Conservatives) ok, fair enough... yet our political system says that in a minority government, the leading party needs to form a coalition with other parties to ensure its stability and to get things done..... if they don't, the other parties (which the greater majority of voters voted for) are legally allowed to form their own Coalition government to ensure it survives and work gets done.

But that didn't happen and the Conservatives said what was being done was illegal and spread their propaganda and lies on how our system works to ensure they remained in control..... so once again.... our Democracy is a friggin joke where even our Gov. General obviously doesn't know how the system works.

It's no wonder why so many around the country (Quebec, Newfoundland, the Maritimes, Alberta, BC) are talking about separation and doing things on their own.

Hell, in the US they have some very heated divisions and debates on many issues.... yet it doesn't seem like many there are talking about separation from the US on a level as here in Canada.

Why?

See the above.

 

[Praxius]

Just to add to what I just said.... I think the most fair and balanced approach for our Democracy to actually work properly and fairly is to vote on decisions like this:

If a decision is voted on by a 50-60% margin victory on one side or the other, that decision should be respected and adopted.... but on a temporary trial basis of 2-3 years.... test the decision, let's see if it works or doesn't. Then after the 2-3 years, put it to another vote.

If the decision in the first vote is 60+%, then there is no trial basis and the decision is final. If it remains in the same 50-60% margin and doesn't change in the second vote, then it's finalized as a double majority victory.

It's similar to what SirJosephPorter was saying, but rather then having what I call a "Time Out" for 5 years and then put to another vote.... it's a trial basis for 2-3 years to see how the 50-60% decision works or not.... that way, the minority of the vote still have a chance to change things, yet the majority's decision is still honored.