FLQ famously kidnapped a Canadian Minister, Pierre Laporte and murdered him.. that's pretty threatening.. just say'in.
The fight for Quebec Sovereignty has not been without bloodshed.
The fundamental human right of self determination...
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
FLQ famously kidnapped a Canadian Minister, Pierre Laporte and murdered him.. that's pretty threatening.. just say'in.
The fight for Quebec Sovereignty has not been without bloodshed.
That is not what brought Canada and the Province of Quebec to the negotiation table, seeking a clear question for the referendum.
Peaceful negotiation and a legal ruling is.
Like I insinuated, your argument was silly., the first time.
If I employed your logic, France bears responsibility for the actions of the US today. Simply because 200+ years ago, they aided the US in seceding from Britain.
Canadian Minister, Pierre Laporte was kidnapped and killed in 1970..
The FLQ was a domestic force fighting for the Liberation of Quebec. That debunks your statement that the path to Quebec's referendum did not have any bloodshed.
October Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ; English: Quebec Liberation Front)
...anyhow.. later
The FLQ was a domestic force fighting for the Liberation of Quebec. That debunks your statement that the path to Quebec's referendum did not have any bloodshed.
October Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ; English: Quebec Liberation Front)
...anyhow.. later
Canadian Minister, Pierre Laporte was kidnapped and killed in 1970..
The FLQ was a domestic force fighting for the Liberation of Quebec. That debunks your statement that the path to Quebec's referendum did not have any bloodshed.
October Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Front de libération du Québec (FLQ; English: Quebec Liberation Front)
...anyhow.. later
Ok....I'm curious as to why you are affording the FLQ more importance than they deserve?
1, I said nothing of a path. This is what I said...
That's a pretty specific comment.
2, No it doesn't, unless you can show a connection to the position Canada took. That shows its choice to negotiate with Quebec on the referendum question, was impacted by historical acts of terrorism.
Given the collective default position of western nations, of not negotiating with terrorists. You'll have some serious hurdles in your way.
Good luck.
What an excellent visual representation of your debating skills and posting style.
"not negotiating with terrorists" is a new US concept.. I think it's more of a Hollywood concept.
Yet, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Sgt. Gilad Shalit who was held for 5 years.
How about in 2007, when the U.S. negotiated with Sunni insurgent leaders in Iraq to get them to stop bombing U.S. troops and join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq?
oh yeah, U.S. negotiating with terrorists?
Yet, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Sgt. Gilad Shalit who was held for 5 years.
How about in 2007, when the U.S. negotiated with Sunni insurgent leaders in Iraq to get them to stop bombing U.S. troops and join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq?
oh yeah, U.S. negotiating with terrorists?
I concede to, as a last resort.
Can you point to ongoing violence leading up to, or that caused the Crown to go to the table and negotiate a legal and peaceable manner for Quebec to secede?
You'll require specific and supportable evidence to convince me. Not some silly claim that the FLQ murdered someone way on back in Canadian History. You chasing your tail is silly and mildly entertaining, but wears thin after a while.
Actually, Canada did not negotiate a peaceful method by which Quebec could succeed. It imposed the Clarity Act and that, in itself, was a weak response to the idea of Separatism. Quebec had no justification.
Of course it didn't. The referendum didn't go in Quebec's favour...
Try to stay within the context of the conversation. I understand that your ego is fragile, and such a powerful driver in your sad life. But context is everything.
BTW; The Clarity Act framed the method of how Quebec could secede for Canada. Note the word used repeatedly, to determine how that would happen in the Preamble of the Clarity Act (Which is also carried over into the legislation as well), if and when a clear majority of the population of Quebec voted in favour of...
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly,legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
WHEREAS any proposal relating to the break-up of a democratic state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens;
WHEREAS the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question;
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession;
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority rule, that a clear majority in favour of secession would be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favour of secession exists in the circumstances;
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada, and that those negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities;
WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province secede from Canada;
The Clarity Act makes it clear that negotiation will be the method by which Quebec would secede from the Nation. After a referendum, using clear questions is had, to determine the will of the clear majority of the population of Quebec.
Except for the fundamental human right of self determination.
For someone that perpetually thumps her chest about how smart you are, and how much you know about this. You sure do say a lot of idiotic things in your posts.
Tell me Cabbagefarts, do you ever get tired of looking foolish?
Last edited:
I can't get tired of looking foolish since I do not look foolish. You do, though, posting all that to try to cover for your errors. You should read what you posted prior before posting the Clarity Act which confirms what I wrote.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the use of the different tenses in the English language and that is why you had it wrong.
You really are tiresome in your belligerent ignorance. You should also be experienced enough to know that it does not matter if you made a mistake in your phrasing. You could simply have said that what you meant was...... Nobody would think the worse of you and your 'friends' would still give you lots of thumbs up.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the use of the different tenses in the English language and that is why you had it wrong.
You really are tiresome in your belligerent ignorance. You should also be experienced enough to know that it does not matter if you made a mistake in your phrasing. You could simply have said that what you meant was...... Nobody would think the worse of you and your 'friends' would still give you lots of thumbs up.
Last edited:
So how about George Bush Jr. whose action killed thousands of civilians that did not want a war?
Should human rights be considered a right or a privilege on a country level as opposed to an international one?
They claimed it was an accident,that he injured himself trying to escape,and bled to death,if it was true,why didn't they brought him to the nearest hospital?
As for the british diploat they kidnapped back then,i wonder how things would have went,if they had killed him,possibly the british army would have come here to deal with them.
Also all the FLQ members are heros in the mind of separatists idiots today.
BTW there's apparently a new loony group FARQ,like the south american one,but with the Q replacing the C.
I appreciate you honesty and the fact that you conceded to fact.
I can be as equally unethical and dishonest as you. If that upsets you, I suggest you stop filling your posts with dishonesty and unethical commentary.
Cabbagfarts is.
Then I suggest you get to work being proficient in at least one topic of discussion.
So far, you've been PWND in the bulk of the topics you've chosen to engage in.
Last edited:
You have not "PWND" me in anything (whatever that childish claim is supposed to mean). You have shown yourself to be inadequate in everything with never an actual response to anything I post. Always just silly one liners with addendums telling everyone how great you are.You are the most superficial person I have ever encountered.
Even in this question you have not yet grasped that, in the original concept there is nothing to discuss. The elements have been set out in international law. The origin of erga omnes is lost in the mists of time. It might be Magna Carta in the opinion of some: in the laws of Edward Ist for others. But who cares!
This thread takes on validity only because it makes some effort to address the question of whether some entity has the Right in law. Not much of that so far, though.
Even in this question you have not yet grasped that, in the original concept there is nothing to discuss. The elements have been set out in international law. The origin of erga omnes is lost in the mists of time. It might be Magna Carta in the opinion of some: in the laws of Edward Ist for others. But who cares!
This thread takes on validity only because it makes some effort to address the question of whether some entity has the Right in law. Not much of that so far, though.
You can keep up your charade until the cows come home. You've been proven wrong at every turn.
But please do go on with obfuscation and nonsensical babbling. Beyond being entertaining, it removes any doubt about the observations I've made about you.
The Cree in Quebec stated in 96 they would not leave Canada. Then subtract the land Quebec was given after they joined Confderation - and you got a smaller new country of Quebec.
Absolutely. And lets not forget the lands along the St Lawrence, that the Mohawks hold.