New Quebec group takes militant stance on sovereignty
- Thread starter Johnnny
- Start date
But would like the rest to conform ......................completed your thought for you.
They employ their rhetoric in a manner which threatens the Federation. Are you a separatist s_lone? I only ask because you seem to be sticking your neck out-as an apologist would, playing with semantics.
Never thought of it that way. I consider myself in the odd camp. I think conformity is highly overrated.
Canada is a confederation, not a federation;
"A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement."
The whole debate about separation and sovereignty association is a smoke screen because Quebec is already a sovereign state. The federal government has exceeded it powers as originally agreed to by the provinces. Quebec has every right to want to re-negotiate the terms of association. The separation issue is an emotional one and as long as there is all this animosity toward Quebec by the other provinces, Quebec has a legitimate beef. Canada is just one big dysfunctional family. Most of us came from dysfunctional families, so how can we expect the family of provinces to be any different.
"A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement."
The whole debate about separation and sovereignty association is a smoke screen because Quebec is already a sovereign state. The federal government has exceeded it powers as originally agreed to by the provinces. Quebec has every right to want to re-negotiate the terms of association. The separation issue is an emotional one and as long as there is all this animosity toward Quebec by the other provinces, Quebec has a legitimate beef. Canada is just one big dysfunctional family. Most of us came from dysfunctional families, so how can we expect the family of provinces to be any different.
Sovereign states use their own currency, passports, military and are able to stand independently in terms of an economy. Quebec is not capable of providing any of this as a "sovereign nation".
Quebec is capable but because the terms of agreement of confederation give that power to the central government they don't have to. The same applies to all provinces. The definition of confederation I gave is based on Canada. But because most people do not understand that, we have all these blowhards who hate the Quebecois who obviously do. Sad commentary on the rest of Canada, no!
You'll get no argument from me on this Cliffy, however, the reality is that Quebec is playing politics and compounding the issue by sitting on the fence and cherry-picking what they want... Any of the provinces can do that, it is not the exclusive ability of Quebec, however, as the political shell game progresses, Quebec will be the big loser in this.
I was on vacation a couple of weeks back, & have a weird (maybe not so weird)
observation. On an excursion (Sea Catamarans), the Tour Guide was asking the
group (about 50 on our boat) to identify which country they were from. There were
and handful from Brazil, many from Canada, some from Spain, etc...and several
who stated they where from Quebec (as their nation) and where Quebecois as
a nationality. So this is more than just an economic squeeze and political
blackmail upon the rest of Canada if this is being spouted in the Caribbean....
I can also note that there where some very distinct behavioral differences from
those who came from Quebec who identified themselves as Canadians versus
those who identified themselves as Quebecois....not only on the excursion, but
in the bars and restaurants, etc...and anywhere that someone had to stand in a
line, or leave a tip. Weird to me anyway....
I think that the public at large is growing very tired of this issue and have less of an emotional attachment to Quebec... I'm guessing that there will be another referendum in the not-so-distant-future and the likely result is that more national/international corps will flee this budding sovereign nation for more stable regions... Quebec needs to learn a lesson in that money talks and bullsh*t walks.
Yes that, and that once outside of Canada, the special status and entitlement
that may exist in Canada for certain groups...doesn't extend beyond Canada's
borders. That was the most obvious observation we witnessed. It was bad too.
Here's my (and others...from other places, countries, nationalities, etc..) observation
on this from our recent vacation. People from Quebec that didn't self-identify as
Quebecois where good company and just there for a good time like everybody else.
Equally polite and civil. Treating others as they would themselves like to be treated.
Those that self-identified as Quebecois didn't seem to understand that where a line
had to form for a service (the Buffet, or to get a drink at a busy bar, etc...), that they
too had to get in that line and work their way from that back to the front like everyone
else from every other country. Those that self identified as Quebecois didn't seem to
understand that there even was a "back" to a line...that sort'a thing. That's just one
example of many, and though annoying to everyone (& their treatment of the wait-staff
wasn't nice either), the ones most annoyed seemed to be the other non-self-identified
as Quebecois folks from Quebec who would apologize for them, and then make sure
that you understood that they where not in that group of....thought...I guess.
It was weird, and an eye-opener for sure. It seems like though Quebec may be it's own
distinct Nation....that there are Nations inside of that Nation (like Quebec inside of
Canada) with respect to camps of thought and the associated behavior that goes
along with that.
Exactly and I think that the separatists are declining as people forget how the English treated them prior to the sixties.
Separatists were presented a metaphor, that they chose to ignore, when Bouchard lost his leg to flesh eating disease.
Separatists were presented a metaphor, that they chose to ignore, when Bouchard lost his leg to flesh eating disease.
That was the end of the separatists dream. After that they didn't have a leg to stand on.
Sorry!
And federalists employ their rhetoric in order to preserve their federation. What's the difference?
I'll reserve my right to decide if I'm a separatist the day I get to actually vote on the subject if there ever is a third referendum. I wasn't even born in 1980 and was only 14 years old in 1995. It would all depend on the context. Would Quebec have signed the Constitution? Would we still be a constitutional monarchy? What would be the state of the world? What kind of government would be in Canada (federally speaking)? What kind of country would the separatists offer? What solution or compromise would they offer to the very real possibility of losing territory would secession become reality?
I really am in the middle ground on this whole issue. I understand why one would think I'm a separatist because I'm very vocal about the issue here at CanCon but in the end, I very often end up defending Canadian unity with my Québecois friends who mostly lean towards separatism. I'm a potential YES voter, but that means I'm also a potential NO voter. Complex issues require prudent opinions.
There are crackpots and idiots but also intelligent and thoughtful people on both sides. It ticks me off when gratuitous generalizations are made about one side or another. It's not a black and white issue and it's too complex to be. Both sides are guilty of transforming this issue in a good vs. bad duality. It's not. I come from a bilingual family and that largely explains my ambiguity, or my capacity to understand both sides. The fact that I grew up in English makes me relate easily to Canada. The same can't be said for many unilingual francophones. This also renders me capable of seeing to what extent many Canadians can't relate to Quebec. In other words, I really am on both sides of the fence and quite happy about it. I certainly won't apologize for it.
Here's the best answer I can give to your question. I think the best solution for both Quebec and Canada as a whole would be to decentralize significantly and accept the true spirit of confederation. Find a balance between independance and co-dependance which really is what a confederation is about. I believe in relative independance for ALL provinces with some crucial issues managed by the federal government. The ideal Canada to me would be more like the European Union. I'm not saying the EU is problem free. It obviously isn't. But a community of nations is more what I have in mind when I think of Canada. Not one nation united under one crown. (I have zero respect for hereditary monarchy).
Canada is a huge country and I don't believe it can function properly if regional independence is hindered. The way I understand it, we're all wasting a lot of time and energy sending money to Ottawa for it to then be sent back to the provinces.
I'm pretty sure most Quebecers would more than satisfied with a more decentralized Canada. The problem is that the rest of Canadians don't seem to think the same. Am I wrong?
A really complete answer to your question would require a long conversation, preferably over a couple of good beers.
Last edited:
boat2010 in post #5 said “They are probably laughing behind our backs.” No, they are not laughing behind our backs, they are laughing in our faces.
Probably no one will notice this posting. But... Can someone please enlighten me on why it is that it seems that when I reply on a thread, that appears to be the end of any other comments on it.
thank you wolfie
and that elected was a joke..
you're right RalphB, the french teacher I had in school, went to Quebec to learn french, she had a visiting teacher from France come to our class, and the 2 'languages' were totally different. The teacher from France had trouble understanding the Quebec taught teacher. The girl in our class who was born in Montreal and spoke french had no trouble communicating with the Quebec taught teacher but had trouble with the France teacher.
Can you please note these behavioral differences? I am curious.
Probably no one will notice this posting. But... Can someone please enlighten me on why it is that it seems that when I reply on a thread, that appears to be the end of any other comments on it.
The difference is that the federal position pays for that privilege, the separatists rely on outside cash to fund this luxury
Riiight... The Canadian government is on the PQs donorship list. And separatist web sites are funded federally... And separatists eat babies for breakfast.
This is probably one of the lamest ways to bash Quebec.... Saying we don't speak French.
Are you able to have a normal conversation with a Brit? I'm sure you are. And I'm sure you're able to easily imagine a conversation between a Quebecer and French.
Local slangs exist everywhere. Quebec French is unique. But so is Texan English.
Yup... The Quebec public at large doesn't really donate that much to the PQ cause. Considering that the PQ receives most of its dollars from the feds as an expression of the votes/seats AND they (technically) don't qualify as a national party as they don't run candidates in all provinces, well, it appears that they are a federally sponsored lobby group.
Hmmmm.. Let's see... Fries+gravy+cheese curds... Maybe eating babies isn't entirely out of the realm.
If I've misinterpreted the conversation, please excuse me, but...
We the Federal tax payers, pay the Feds, that money is divided up and then given to all branches of Gov't to function.
Part of those funds go to a party, whose expressed purpose is the dismantling of the country. They in turn hand out funding to groups in their core ridings, to bolster, buy and pander for votes.
Do you think that maybe they have inadvertently, or otherwise, given funds to groups that actively petition, rally or formulate ways to separate from Canada? Violently or otherwise?
Aren't you confusing the PQ with the Bloc. PQ is a provincial party. No provincial party is a national party.