The Bloc is. LOLAren't you confusing the PQ with the Bloc. PQ is a provincial party. No provincial party is a national party.
The Bloc is. LOLAren't you confusing the PQ with the Bloc. PQ is a provincial party. No provincial party is a national party.
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?
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.
Aren't you confusing the PQ with the Bloc. PQ is a provincial party. No provincial party is a national party.
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?
The Bloc in return plays by the rules of Canadian democracy. It's a democratic party and supports a democratic, not violent, way to achieve sovereignty.
It's all fair play to me. Is it unfair to you?
How is that? A political party exists simply to pander to Quebec. A province that hardly makes up a majority.Well the Bloc is obviously separatist and yes it receives money from the Feds because it represents citizens from Quebec on a federal level as do all other federal parties. And that is the beauty of Canada. Democracy is respected.
A party that legally shouldn't even exist.Many Quebecers vote for the Bloc and the institutions of Canada see that this vote is represented and respected.
Cool, they should do it on their own dime.The Bloc in return plays by the rules of Canadian democracy. It's a democratic party and supports a democratic, not violent, way to achieve sovereignty.
It sure is. Why should I pay to have a political party that doesn't even meet the standard, to sit on Parliament Hill and try to divide my country?It's all fair play to me. Is it unfair to you?
Not to mention, all the Natives in Quebec, that have almost unanimously said no to a sovereign Quebec. How are their democratic rights being up held? You and I both know, Quebec will want to keep Ruperts land. And that just ain't going to float with the local Injins.
What's good for some, isn't always good for others, it seems.Wasn't there a fun little comment made after the last referendum about "the ethnic vote"... In fact, I recall that the Bloc had their collective panties all in a bunch over the ability of the Natives to separate from Quebec via the identical mechanism that the Bloc was using.
Quebec doesn't.Now, that's what I love about democracies.
What's good for some, isn't always good for others, it seems.
I actually equated a sovereign Quebec to Animal Farm years ago. It didn't go over well.As the old adage goes: Some people are more equal than others
Except that pesky little rule that any federal party MUST run candidates in ALL provinces.
Just like the reform party?Except that pesky little rule that any federal party MUST run candidates in ALL provinces.
And federalists employ their rhetoric in order to preserve their federation. What's the difference?
I just sifted through Elections Canada Online | Canada Elections Act , and you're right.I'm afraid that "pesty little rule" doesn't exist in Canada. Not in any law, not anywhere.
How is that? A political party exists simply to pander to Quebec. A province that hardly makes up a majority.
A party that legally shouldn't even exist.
Cool, they should do it on their own dime.
It sure is. Why should I pay to have a political party that doesn't even meet the standard, to sit on Parliament Hill and try to divide my country?
Not to mention, all the Natives in Quebec, that have almost unanimously said no to a sovereign Quebec. How are their democratic rights being up held? You and I both know, Quebec will want to keep Ruperts land. And that just ain't going to float with the local Injins.
Agreed. It's just that their stated goal, is actually illegal, as determined by the Supreme Court.How does that go against Canada's political system? Electors vote for someone to represent them in Parliament, and MPs have a right to be independent or to be part of a party. I see the Bloc as a coalition of independents who are there to defend Quebec's interest within the federation. We're all defending our interests by voting for who we vote for. Con or Lib or NPD voters aren't any different than Bloc voters in that regard.
Absolutely, I take sedition serious.So if you had it your way, you would jail Bloc members?
Well ya. It's illegal.Stop people from representing themselves as potential MPs for the reason that they are separatists?...
Ya, because Quebec leaders remind me of the boys in charge. I can see my peeps as Piggy, if Quebec separates.Aren't you the one who was referring to Animal Farm?
No, but you aren't talking about dissension, you're talking about succession. Which has been determined to be illegal by the Supreme Court.You want a Canada where non violent dissension is illegal?
To many pansies in power.Why doesn't Canada change the law about funding political parties if it's so pissed off by separatists in parliament?
Because they enjoy the benefits of a Canadian passport, and still owe a large portion of debt. And of course there's those pesky equalization payments.While Quebec does get equalization payments, you folks often seem to forget that Quebec citizens pay federal taxes too. So taxes payed by separatists end up paying for federalism. It goes both ways.
And that is why I still say you are the best and most brightest separatist I know, lol.Now there's a point I can agree on. My biggest issue with separatism is its denial of problems that would follow a successful YES vote. It follows that if Canada is divisible, than so is Quebec. I wouldn't blame Natives for holding their own separatist referendums would Quebec ever become a country. To me this is clearly the weakest aspect of Quebec separatism. And this is why I tend to push towards massive decentralization for all provinces rather than Quebec's separation.
I understood that, but thanx.To be clear, CDNBear, the Supreme Court of Canada declared, in its wisdom, that unilateral secession is unlawful. However, the Supreme Court also left the door open for secession through a constitutional amendment carried out with the engagement of the Parliament of Canada and the provinces (this is the reason for the passage of the Clarity Act). It is not unlawful for the Bloc to advocate sovereignty, provided that they do not attempt to secede without the consent of Canada.
Are you purposefully being obtuse?
I'm not comparing the Separtists to anyone. I said they threaten to leave, and you thought that was contentious. I said the Separtists are motivated by cultural differences, you disagreed and in subsequent posts affirmed that it is cultural distinctions.
So how does the use of Federalists using rhetoric in anyway support your objection that Separtists threaten to leave?
This is why to me you seem like an apologist. These are not contentious assertions at all, this is from the horse's mouth so to speak. It's on record....