Independence for Quebec

[JLM]

[QUOTE


The analogy is a nice projection of your maturity level when it comes to discussing Quebec.



QUOTE]

Yeah, but fairly accurate- my brother has lived in Pierrefonds for over 30 years. :smile:

 

[El Barto]

[QUOTE


The analogy is a nice projection of your maturity level when it comes to discussing Quebec.



QUOTE]

Yeah, but fairly accurate- my brother has lived in Pierrefonds for over 30 years. :smile:

It is far from accurate.
The federalist voice in Quebec tends to be a quiet one . Until you hear that side you haven't a balanced opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That is why I wish for some sort of resolution of this conflict in which Canada's structure would change enough to satisfy Quebec's need for independence. I think the only way this could work is if all provinces get the same level of independence Quebec wants. We would then all be winners.

What you are talking here is reworking of the entire society, of the whole constitution. It is a mammoth task, and I don't see that happening. Nobody has an appetite for a lengthy, bitter constitutional debate.

 

[FiveParadox]

Nobody has an appetite for a lengthy, bitter constitutional debate.

Except for Québec’s sovereigntists, of course.

And s_lone, the fact that the Québec government did not sign the constitution really has no constitutional significance, since these signatures were of a symbolic nature only. At the time, a package of constitutional amendments (such as was the Constitution Act, 1982) did not require the consent of the provinces, only the decision of the Parliament of Canada with a reasonable amount of provincial engagement.

 

[s_lone]

Except for Québec’s sovereigntists, of course.

And s_lone, the fact that the Québec government did not sign the constitution really has no constitutional significance, since these signatures were of a symbolic nature only. At the time, a package of constitutional amendments (such as was the Constitution Act, 1982) did not require the consent of the provinces, only the decision of the Parliament of Canada with a reasonable amount of provincial engagement.

Symbolic nature only? Out of all people, you're the one I'd least expect to say something like that. What's the use of a constitution if it's only symbolic in nature?

If you're gonna go down that road, how about admitting that the Queen is only a symbolic Head of State? That her authority means absolutely nothing because it's all only symbolic?

 

[Trotz]

Ya think? It dissolved. That would not be good for a country. But in dissolving it made Russia and 15 other countries, most of which kind of benefited from the dissolution of the USSR. Apparently Slovakia is happy, too. So how does this example provide disproving evidence of "a nation that became stronger or wealthier when a portion of it seceded."

This is not an exception but the rule. There's truth in the expression that an Empire is as strong as its weakest link.

Europeans abandoned colonialism because all the boatloads of exotic fruit never came close to paying for the infastructure and defense of said colonies. Even "Mother Britain" was quick to abandon all responsibility of her Dominions. And the Soviet Union was spending a fortune in propping up the Central Asian Republic and never so much received a thanks.


In Canada, a lot of our western alienation stems from the fact that BC, Alberta and Ontario is propping up everyone, Quebec isn't necessarily the worst as that honor (in my opinion) would go to Manitoba and Newfoundland. :lol:

 

[s_lone]

This is not an exception but the rule. There's truth in the expression that an Empire is as strong as its weakest link.

Europeans abandoned colonialism because all the boatloads of exotic fruit never came close to paying for the infastructure and defense of said colonies. Even "Mother Britain" was quick to abandon all responsibility of her Dominions. And the Soviet Union was spending a fortune in propping up the Central Asian Republic and never so much received a thanks.


In Canada, a lot of our western alienation stems from the fact that BC, Alberta and Ontario is propping up everyone, Quebec isn't necessarily the worst as that honor (in my opinion) would go to Manitoba and Newfoundland. :lol:

This is a recurring theme from ROCers. That the rich provinces are paying for Quebec and the other poor provinces. Do you accept the principles of equalization?

Do you realize that even if all provinces were very rich, there would still be some provinces giving to the others? That's the basic principle of equalization. Canada is a rich country in general. That doesn't make the ''less rich'' provinces poor. They are only poor in comparison with the richer provinces.

 

[Trotz]

This is a recurring theme from ROCers. That the rich provinces are paying for Quebec and the other poor provinces. Do you accept the principles of equalization?

Do you realize that even if all provinces were very rich, there would still be some provinces giving to the others? That's the basic principle of equalization. Canada is a rich country in general. That doesn't make the ''less rich'' provinces poor. They are only poor in comparison with the richer provinces.

I take it you haven't been to Wennipeg... :-? :lol:

 

[JLM]

The main thing is (so no one forgets during all the excitement) that Quebec pay her share of the National debt before exiting. Would she still expect to use Canadian currency? :lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you're gonna go down that road, how about admitting that the Queen is only a symbolic Head of State? That her authority means absolutely nothing because it's all only symbolic?

I have no problem admitting that (but that is not an argument for getting rid of monarchy).

 

[s_lone]

I have no problem admitting that (but that is not an argument for getting rid of monarchy).

I want to see Five Paradox admit it.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I think you're largely over confident when it comes to the disappearance of French. The fact that any language survives or slowly dies as centuries go by is largely dependant on political and socio-cultural events.

For example, the Irish saw their language (Irish Gaelic) decline because of the direct bullying of the UK. The huge death toll of the great famine had in the 19th century certainly didn't help either. One could argue that had their been no famine, Irish Gaelic would have kept the critical necessary amount of speakers to ensure its survival as the main language of the country.

Of course there isn't much sense in hypothesizing about the past. Whatever happened happened. But the future isn't written yet.

Quebec has been much luckier than the Irish in terms of maintaining its language for various reasons. The British were not as aggressive as in Ireland in imposing English. The Quiet Revolution put an end to the gross economic dominance of English speakers in Quebec and the language laws now create a significant barrier to the decline of French. Had there been none of these laws, it's not hard to imagine how Montreal would be predominantly English today.

You may well be right. But so far as North America is concerned Quebec is in tough. No other nation except a few small Caribbean islands speak French and most modern Quebecois are bilingual. The Allophones in Quebec are helping to speed up the decline of French as most of them are trilingual. This is a trend that will probably continue.

One recent and remarkable example of the powerful influence of English is the decision of Rwanda to switch from its colonial French legacy and make English the official language. English as a world language is being pushed by a number of powerful factors including the fact that it is the language of business and technology as well as the prime language on the internet. Quebec French has none of this going for it and as a result is doomed to disappear, just as many of the minority languages of Europe have disappeared. Many people do not know that just a few centuries ago Europe had hundreds of languages. This has been reduced to just a few dozen with many of these fighting to survive. I suspect Quebec Frecch is going to be another casualty. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[FiveParadox]

Symbolic nature only? Out of all people, you're the one I'd least expect to say something like that. What's the use of a constitution if it's only symbolic in nature?

If you're gonna go down that road, how about admitting that the Queen is only a symbolic Head of State? That her authority means absolutely nothing because it's all only symbolic?

You misconstrued my statement.

The Constitution Act, 1982 itself is entirely a legitimate piece of constitutional legislation. It is not the constitution that was symbolic, but rather the Government’s drive to gather signatures. They could have gathered six out of ten signatures, or three out of ten, and the constitution would have had just as much force and effect as it does now because the law (at the time) did not require that the provinces agree to the constitutional amendments put forward by the Parliament of Canada. Precedent only required the Government to engage the provinces, not necessarily to have them agree to its amendments.

 

[s_lone]

You misconstrued my statement.

The Constitution Act, 1982 itself is entirely a legitimate piece of constitutional legislation. It is not the constitution that was symbolic, but rather the Government’s drive to gather signatures. They could have gathered six out of ten signatures, or three out of ten, and the constitution would have had just as much force and effect as it does now because the law (at the time) did not require that the provinces agree to the constitutional amendments put forward by the Parliament of Canada. Precedent only required the Government to engage the provinces, not necessarily to have them agree to its amendments.

But you've got a big problem here. Suppose none of the provinces would have agreed. How can someone in his or her right mind claim that the constitution would be legitimate?

We're touching upon the exact same issue of El Barto's thread ''What makes a law legal''. It's impossible to enact a law if virtually everybody opposes it, unless you impose it by threat of violence, which is contrary to the spirit of Canada.

I think this applies to the Constitution. If none of the provinces agreed with it, Canada would have a very big problem right? This would be disastrous for national unity and massive decentralization would be inevitable. No amount of official pomp could hide the fact that the Constitution would not be legitimate.

Now where do we draw the line? It seems to me that at least 5 provinces would need to agree for such an important thing as a Constitution to be legitimate. Otherwise, you lose the essential trust in central government needed for the country to be functional. And that is notwithstanding the very large differences in size of population of some provinces (Ontario vs. PEI)

So for you to claim that the constitution would have had just as much force and effect as it does now if only 3 provinces had signed is simply ludicrous. That would go along the line of dictatorship, which I know is not what you stand for!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quebec French has none of this going for it and as a result is doomed to disappear, just as many of the minority languages of Europe have disappeared. Many people do not know that just a few centuries ago Europe had hundreds of languages. This has been reduced to just a few dozen with many of these fighting to survive. I suspect Quebec Frecch is going to be another casualty. We will just have to wait and see.

I know very little French, but I understand that Quebec French is not 'French' French. It is not the same as the language spoken in France, it is substantially different. So it may may be that it will keep evolving along separate lines.

 

[JLM]

If most people don't like where they are, they leave rather than hanging around for years and years whining about how hard done by they are. Not to mention making ridiculous signage laws, just to make things miserable for everyone else. :lol::lol:

 

[s_lone]

If most people don't like where they are, they leave rather than hanging around for years and years whining about how hard done by they are. Not to mention making ridiculous signage laws, just to make things miserable for everyone else. :lol::lol:

You defeat your own argument. If the anglophone speakers in Quebec consider their life miserable because of language laws than they are free to leave aren't they?

And there is always an option to leaving a situation you are not comfortable with, that is to try to change the situation.

I know very little French, but I understand that Quebec French is not 'French' French. It is not the same as the language spoken in France, it is substantially different. So it may may be that it will keep evolving along separate lines.

Quebec French is to French French as American English is to English English. The basic structure is the same. What differentiates is accent, colourful expressions, slang etc.

 

[JLM]

[QUOTE
And there is always an option to leaving a situation you are not comfortable with, that is to try to change the situation.



QUOTE]

And just what reasonable way would there be of accomplishing this? What do French Quebeckers have to gain by setting sign restrictions? French Quebeckers are obviously a group who are more hell bent on excluding people than including them. I think the only way to change something this stupid is a round of rock salt from a shot gun for anyone who trespasses with the intent of removing such a sign and THAT would only inflame the situation. :smile:

 

[YukonJack]

Quebecers will never have the courage to go on their own.

End of debate.

 

[s_lone]

[QUOTE
And there is always an option to leaving a situation you are not comfortable with, that is to try to change the situation.



QUOTE]

And just what reasonable way would there be of accomplishing this? What do French Quebeckers have to gain by setting sign restrictions? French Quebeckers are obviously a group who are more hell bent on excluding people than including them. I think the only way to change something this stupid is a round of rock salt from a shot gun for anyone who trespasses with the intent of removing such a sign and THAT would only inflame the situation. :smile:

To demand that immigrants learn the language of the majority isn't what I would consider a way of excluding people.

Quebecers will never have the courage to go on their own.

End of debate.

What you say isn't worth consideration. End of discussion.

(How's that for useless unproductive contribution to a thread?)