Independence for Quebec

[Aliksander]

And history and language are not related?



Whoever one identifies to politically, the language you speak still has a fundamental impact on your cultural identity. One can barely be part of the hispanic culture if one doesn't speak Spanish. This is what I mean when I say language is the backbone of culture.


As a Quebecer, I can only agree that their are significant cultural differences between Quebec and the ROC. But it's all relative, from the point of view of a Chinese person, the only difference might as well be language.


Of course Americans and British are different. But they are also very much alike in many ways. It all depends on the point of view. They are cultural cousins in the same way that Quebecers are cultural cousins of the French.

Nothing is black and white when it comes to this. On one hand, we Quebecers are much closer to English Canadians in terms of culture because of our shared history and territory. But in another way, we are closer to the French because of our common background.

Firstly, I would like to clear up the hispanic/Spain reference. Hispanic people in North America feel no political attachment to SPAIN in Europe, which is the true origin of their language. If anything, they would sooner feel politically affiliated with Mexico, their country of origin, but even this is not the case. They leave Mexico to become Americans, and therefore ally themselves with the American way of life, and its laws and governing body. This disproves how much of a role language can play in politics, because it PROVES that no matter what sort of language barrier may exist, the incentive to have a better life will always prevail. Mexican immigrants often risk being arrested and/or shot in order to become an American. Many of them don't even have the opportunity to learn English before they do. Keep in mind, we are ALL descendents of people who seperated from our parent countries and settled in a new one. Imagine a North America still ruled by Europe. Now imagine all of the same animocity that triggered the seperation still present in North America. Do you really think such nations as Canada, Mexico, and America would be living up to their true potential under these conditions?

Now consider Quebec.

 

[s_lone]

This is just the sort of thing I was hoping to hear. YES, this makes every bit of sense in the world, but I still do not consider it to be a viable option. People have to have faith in their government in order for the government to function, and unfortunately, many people, those both in and out of Quebec are rapidly losing faith in the government's ability to correctly facilitate the priorities of every province effectively.

Wouldn't that be the exact reason for provinces to become more independent?

I believe that unification of a people should always be the first option considered when political tension begins to have a noticeable effect on society, but I think that the time for that in this scenario may be past. At this point, we have to ask ourselves which is a more difficult task: Separating Quebec from Canada and producing a self-sufficient country with the capability of Independently operating its own government and economy -- or-- Convincing the people of Quebec that they would NOT be better off as a separate entity from Canada, and somehow granting them the belief that their government is working to rectify the problems that have gone not rectified for many years. I am not trying to argue that the Canadian Government does not have Quebec's best interest at heart. I believe that Canada is a beautiful country that is full of wonderful people, but the government does not serve our interest at this time. At this point, it is a matter of the people's natural right to chose which way they want to be governed, and it should be within the good nature of Canada to grant its people this right if they so desire it.

It's already in Canada's good nature to grant us the right to leave if we want to. They didn't stop us to hold the referendums. But we can't expect Canada to let us leave and not negotiate the terms of the separation. That's not realist in my opinion.

 

[Aliksander]

Wouldn't that be the exact reason for provinces to become more independent?

It's already in Canada's good nature to grant us the right to leave if we want to. They didn't stop us to hold the referendums. But we can't expect Canada to let us leave and not negotiate the terms of the separation. That's not realist in my opinion.

Agreed. I am not proposing that this happens over night. This is a sensitive issue and it will need to be done carefully, and diplomatically. It's important to remember that even if we want to separate, the Canadians are still our brothers, and we must treat each other as such.

 

[s_lone]

Firstly, I would like to clear up the hispanic/Spain reference. Hispanic people in North America feel no political attachment to SPAIN in Europe, which is the true origin of their language. If anything, they would sooner feel politically affiliated with Mexico, their country of origin, but even this is not the case. They leave Mexico to become Americans, and therefore ally themselves with the American way of life, and its laws and governing body. This disproves how much of a role language can play in politics, because it PROVES that no matter what sort of language barrier may exist, the incentive to have a better life will always prevail. Mexican immigrants often risk being arrested and/or shot in order to become an American. Many of them don't even have the opportunity to learn English before they do. Keep in mind, we are ALL descendents of people who seperated from our parent countries and settled in a new one. Imagine a North America still ruled by Europe. Now imagine all of the same animocity that triggered the seperation still present in North America. Do you really think such nations as Canada, Mexico, and America would be living up to their true potential under these conditions?

Now consider Quebec.

You make some good points. But the major difference with Quebec is that we are born here. And we already live in the state we want to live in, unlike those Mexicans you refer to that want to leave their country. Quebec really is a state within a state. And I think that is largely why the separatist movement in Quebec has mostly been a half-victory, half-failure. Half-failure because Quebec is not a country. But half-victory because the movement did much to help Quebec gain the at least part of the independence it wants.

If Quebec was truly unfree because of its being part of Canada, the separatist movement would be a heck of a lot stronger. The movement isn't that strong because Quebecers enjoy a good quality of life and most don't feel the urgency or the necessity of separating.

Yet, Quebec remains poorly integrated in Canada. The fact that we have not signed the Constitution and that the Bloc Québecois is still going strong is testament to that.

To say that the issue is solved is pure denial.

 

[Aliksander]

If the issue was solved it would not keep resurfacing. I do agree that the conditions in Quebec are no perilous, and that the quality of life is not so dire as to suggest an immediate need for absolute separation. The point that I am trying to make is that if Quebec never separates, we may never realize the true potential that our people have to offer. The parental governing body has stifled the sort of progression that Quebeckers are poised to commit to, and that is a tragedy in and of itself. Even if unintentionally, (which I do believe it is unintentional) the present state of the Canadian government is more of a hindrance in the way of Quebec's future than anything else, and it is unfortunate that separation is the only operate option that I can foresee.

 

[s_lone]

If the issue was solved it would not keep resurfacing. I do agree that the conditions in Quebec are no perilous, and that the quality of life is not so dire as to suggest an immediate need for absolute separation. The point that I am trying to make is that if Quebec never separates, we may never realize the true potential that our people have to offer. The parental governing body has stifled the sort of progression that Quebeckers are poised to commit to, and that is a tragedy in and of itself. Even if unintentionally, (which I do believe it is unintentional) the present state of the Canadian government is more of a hindrance in the way of Quebec's future than anything else, and it is unfortunate that separation is the only operate option that I can foresee.

I can agree with much that you say here. I don't think the status quo is serving Quebec very well. And look what the filthy Quebec Liberals are doing right now to add on top of it...

OK... So let's say the YES side wins.

Does Quebec leave with all its territory? How is that negotiated?

And most importantly, how could we stop regions of Quebec from holding mini-referendums to separate from Quebec and simply remain Canadian? I've given much thought to this whole issue and I still haven't found a way around the fact that we'd be hypocrites to separate and then refuse to let others separate from us...

 

[Aliksander]

I can agree with much that you say here. I don't think the status quo is serving Quebec very well. And look what the filthy Quebec Liberals are doing right now to add on top of it...

OK... So let's say the YES side wins.

Does Quebec leave with all its territory? How is that negotiated?

And most importantly, how could we stop regions of Quebec from holding mini-referendums to separate from Quebec and simply remain Canadian? I've given much thought to this whole issue and I still haven't found a way around the fact that we'd be hypocrites to separate and then refuse to let others separate from us...

You are correct, we would be hypocrites to refuse our own people the same rights that we are demanding. This is a very sensitive issue, and that is the reason why I believe that it should take more than a 51 percent majority vote to determine something as momentous as a complete separation. The best way for this to work would be to approach the situation as logically as possible. First, we must establish what it means when we say "Independence for Quebec"

"Quebec" as we know it is a province of a larger country defined by its political borders. Quebeckers are people who live within these borders. When one says "Independence for Quebec", it is assumed that he is referring to both the physical landmass and the people contained within. If it should occur that a number of people residing within the borders of Quebec do not wish to be a part of the new Quebec nation, then they will be given the option to move. Consider this on a lesser level. If a bill that you do not approve of is passed into law, you are expected to adhere to the new law regardless of however you feel about it. Democracy dictates that you had a say in the passing of the law in the first place, and if you didn't vote, that is your own fault. On the other hand, if you did vote, and you do not approve, what are your options? The government will not change the law on account of one person, that's nonsensical. If a person or group of people residing in Quebec do not approve of the new government, there should be no pressure on them to stay, and if there is a large, organized movement for parts of Quebec to remain part of the Canadian Federation, then that will be a matter that will have to be diplomatically addressed as well.

Logically speaking, if the majority of Quebec decides to finally have its independence, it is unlikely that any large number of people will resist the transistion of government. This is another instance where proper LEADERSHIP is required, and much time and careful planning must go into selecting the proper leaders to carry Quebec out of the shadow of Canada and produce a self-sufficient, functional nation with peace within its own borders.

 

[EagleSmack]

Firstly, I would like to clear up the hispanic/Spain reference. Hispanic people in North America feel no political attachment to SPAIN in Europe, which is the true origin of their language. If anything, they would sooner feel politically affiliated with Mexico, their country of origin, but even this is not the case. They leave Mexico to become Americans, and therefore ally themselves with the American way of life, and its laws and governing body. This disproves how much of a role language can play in politics, because it PROVES that no matter what sort of language barrier may exist, the incentive to have a better life will always prevail. Mexican immigrants often risk being arrested and/or shot in order to become an American. Many of them don't even have the opportunity to learn English before they do. Keep in mind, we are ALL descendents of people who seperated from our parent countries and settled in a new one. Imagine a North America still ruled by Europe. Now imagine all of the same animocity that triggered the seperation still present in North America. Do you really think such nations as Canada, Mexico, and America would be living up to their true potential under these conditions?

Now consider Quebec.

What world are you from again?

I have an idea. One side dress in blue... the other side dresses in gray (or butternut if you chose) and line up and blast away at each other.

Two things will happen...

1. The problem would be solved once and forever

2. You will have lots of historic battlefields to visit

 

[lone wolf]

Quebec will not leave with territory intact, The Cree and Mohawk nations have both made it clear that if separation is granted for Quebec, they will not be a part of the deal. With them go the James Bay and St Lawrence power projects.

 

[Aliksander]

Quebec will not leave with territory intact, The Cree and Mohawk nations have both made it clear that if separation is granted for Quebec, they will not be a part of the deal. With them go the James Bay and St Lawrence power projects.

I never claimed to have every answer to every problem that may arise. Again, this is another issue that demands a powerful presence of leadership in order to negotiate an understanding that is beneficial to all parties involved. I do appreciate the good nature debate, however, and even though I may not have the correct solution to this particular problem, I am sure that there is someone involved who does.

As for the marine promoting civil war: That my friend is why you are/were a marine. Perhaps if you could get war off of your mind, diplomacy may have a chance to finally settle in. And while on the topic of the American Civil War, you ought to know that it's a conflict that still persists to this day. Parts of the south still harbor a deep resentment for the Yankees, and don't even try to bring up the topic of racism. The very flames that fueled the civil war still burn very strong in the south, and it does not seem as though anything is going to change that very soon. Sure it doesn't disrupt the economy or the political arena on any significant level, but it's proof that unresolved conflicts do not simply "go away", even after as long as 150 years. Who is to say that the cultural divergences of southern United States will not again ignite another civil war?

 

[Machjo]

I think one challenge with Canada has to do with overlapping nations sharing the same land. The First Nations have primary rights as per historicity. English-speakers have primary rights in Canada by majority, and French-speakers have primary rights in Quebec by majority.

However, Treaties are beyond majority politics as, like any other contract, they cannot simply be voted null and void. They must be honoured.

So on any given piece of land in Canada, we can have anywhere from two to three or more nations claiming the same land.

 

[Aliksander]

I think one challenge with Canada has to do with overlapping nations sharing the same land. The First Nations have primary rights as per historicity. English-speakers have primary rights in Canada by majority, and French-speakers have primary rights in Quebec by majority.

However, Treaties are beyond majority politics as, like any other contract, they cannot simply be voted null and void. They must be honoured.

So on any given piece of land in Canada, we can have anywhere from two to three or more nations claiming the same land.

No nation should lay any claim to any portion of Canada except for Canada. This applies to all sovereign countries.

 

[Machjo]

Personally, I think the beginnings of a long-term solution could be to gradually reintroduce the local indigenous languages and cultures into the school system as a symbolic recognition that the only cultures on North American soil that are entitled to government promotion and development are the local indigenous languages and cultures, just as is the case in Europe.

French and English will not be threatened in the world as long as they're spoken across England and France respectively But our own indigenous languages and cultures have nowhere to go but North America.

No nation should lay any claim to any portion of Canada except for Canada. This applies to all sovereign countries.

Seeing that many First Nations did in fact sign international treaties with the British Crown,that essentially is an acknowledgement that the Crown recognizes them as nations in their own right.

No nation should lay any claim to any portion of Canada except for Canada. This applies to all sovereign countries.

What about the nations that have no country?

Quebec will not leave with territory intact, The Cree and Mohawk nations have both made it clear that if separation is granted for Quebec, they will not be a part of the deal. With them go the James Bay and St Lawrence power projects.

Then we have the issue of precedent. If a nation can separate from a country, and Canada has two nations of European origin plus myriad First Nations and Inuit living on this land, I don't think I need to point out the potential fall out from such a precedent. Before you know it, Canada would comprise multiple countries, and Quebec would face the same fate.

 

[Aliksander]

Personally, I think the beginnings of a long-term solution could be to gradually reintroduce the local indigenous languages and cultures into the school system as a symbolic recognition that the only cultures on North American soil that are entitled to government promotion and development are the local indigenous languages and cultures, just as is the case in Europe.

French and English will not be threatened in the world as long as they're spoken across England and France respectively But our own indigenous languages and cultures have nowhere to go but North America.



Seeing that many First Nations did in fact sign international treaties with the British Crown,that essentially is an acknowledgement that the Crown recognizes them as nations in their own right.



What about the nations that have no country?



Then we have the issue of precedent. If a nation can separate from a country, and Canada has two nations of European origin plus myriad First Nations and Inuit living on this land, I don't think I need to point out the potential fall out from such a precedent. Before you know it, Canada would comprise multiple countries, and Quebec would face the same fate.

I beg your many pardons, but I'm afraid that I do not entire understand you. Is it actually possible for a nation to not be a country? As far as I understand, the terms "nation" and "country" are synonymous. I respectfully submit that you may be misunderstanding me.

And as I said before, I don't consider the topic of language to be the operate topic here. I believe that over the years, the language issue has been one of the only things to make it through the wash, and yes, it is important, but it is not the core of this cause.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

quebec is no different than any other province, and as
much as 'we', here in B.C., bring up that question, should
B.C. separate, it is ridiculous, and it is also, for
Quebec.
Get over yourselves, just as we have to, and make it work
for all of us together, it is our strength to be 'one', and
it has to stay that way.

problems can be solved, and the people of quebec are
canadians, just as I am.

People in Quebec say they are "Quebecois" instead of Canadian. Which makes them much different from BCers who don't have th same separatist tendencies or desire for referendums. Which makes them think things are not fine.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Independence for Quebec is a moot point. As I pointed out in another thread it does not matter what Quebec does in an attempt to preserve its culture. It is a tiny island of French located in a vast sea of English. Its culture will slowly fade over time in precisely the way the cultures of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were absorbed into the greater English culture. Even complete independence won't matter. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen.

 

[talloola]

People in Quebec say they are "Quebecois" instead of Canadian. Which makes them much different from BCers who don't have th same separatist tendencies or desire for referendums. Which makes them think things are not fine.

What percentage of quebecers call themselves quebecois and
not canadians.

 

[Aliksander]

Independence for Quebec is a moot point. As I pointed out in another thread it does not matter what Quebec does in an attempt to preserve its culture. It is a tiny island of French located in a vast sea of English. Its culture will slowly fade over time in precisely the way the cultures of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were absorbed into the greater English culture. Even complete independence won't matter. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen.

But should that disqualify our us from our own human rights? Regardless of whatever the outcome may be, the Canadian government has an obligation to observe the needs of its citizens.

 

[FiveParadox]

The interesting thing about the Bloc Québécois is that they have actually defeated their own purpose.

By acting as representatives of Québec in the federal House of Commons, and giving an aggressive voice to Québec issues, and making sure that Québec’s cultural distinctiveness is recognised (as has already been recognised by the Commons in a motion adopted by the entire House), the Bloc Québécois has proven that Québec’s needs and interests can absolutely be met under our current constitutional arrangements. Recent polls have also indicated that the people of Québec themselves largely consider the sovereignty issue to be settled (here, as reported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation).

But should that disqualify our us from our own human rights? Regardless of whatever the outcome may be, the Canadian government has an obligation to observe the needs of its citizens.

The people of Québec are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as are all other Canadians.

The language and cultural rights of Quebeckers are defended just as vigorously by the Parliament of Canada as are the language and cultural rights of other Canadians, and this is exactly how it should be. The House of Commons has even adopted a motion recognising the cultural distinctiveness of Québec within a united Canada, an absolutely unprecedented move to demonstrate the solidarity of Québec within Canada.

Now, if we want to talk about respect for human rights, how about the past decisions of Her Majesty’s Government for Québec to invoke the notwithstanding clause in its language legislation to revoke the rights of its English-speaking minority? The use of that clause is an overt declaration that a group of Quebeckers are not important enough to the Government to warrant the defense of fundamental rights and freedoms.

 

[El Barto]

OH BTW this is the 30th anniversary of the first Quebec referendum :canada: