Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

[Finder]

Re: RE: Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

Finder, the reason that the Supreme Court of Canada made such a decision was one based on the Constitution Act, 1982[/b] — it was by no means forcing Québec to "jump through hoops." The Court decided that a decision to remove a province from the nation would require the passage of an amendment via Section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 — therefore, if Québec were to attempt to remove itself through a referendum, it would not be constitutional.

I am not saying yeay or nay, only how the law provides for separation today.

BTW thats where you disagreed with me that they do not have to jump threw hoops. =-D

 

[FiveParadox]

Oh, no, sorry for the confusion there. I only meant that the court was not deliberately creating hoops for Québec to jump through. Those hoops were created by the Constitution Act, 1982 — and were agreed to by nine out of ten provinces, by the way (...heh, oddly enough, the odd one out was ... Québec ... :? ... nonetheless, they are no less bound to its provisions than any of the signatory provinces).

 

[Finder]

Well the fact that Quebec had not signed onto the the constitution just goes to show you how weak it could be considered. Another reason to why I think we should open the box of wurms many Conservative and Liberal politicians think would happen if we did amend the con. The legitimacy of the constitution in Quebec a question here as well. Anyone can write done then a none signing party must follow it as long as the other parties agree but then the words in the constitution may only be seen as valuable as the paper its writen on in the eyes of those who do not agree with it or did not sign it.

 

[Machjo]

As I am sure, France which is considered a magor power would legitimize such a move within a heart beat of the anouncment.

I'm not too sure about that. I suspect the french would certainly consider that option, while at the same time considering its own problems with the Basques, Occitans, etc. This could cause a dangerous precedent for France itself. So while I'm not saying France wouldn't recognise Quebec, I think it's still not a sure thing. With all the complications involved, I don't believe france's reaction is one we can predict yet; too many vriables at present.

 

[Finder]

As I am sure, France which is considered a magor power would legitimize such a move within a heart beat of the anouncment.

I'm not too sure about that. I suspect the french would certainly consider that option, while at the same time considering its own problems with the Basques, Occitans, etc. This could cause a dangerous precedent for France itself. So while I'm not saying France wouldn't recognise Quebec, I think it's still not a sure thing. With all the complications involved, I don't believe france's reaction is one we can predict yet; too many vriables at present.

I think we all know the policy of France ever since the famous words from the fr.... I mean De Gaulle's lips "Vive Le Québec libré". Also this is a lot different then the Basques, in which the Spainish have the problem with the Basques and not so much the French, so I think your slightly confused on this issue. The people the French oppress are my Gaulic cousins in Breton. Both the Basques and the Bretons are relitively non agressive. Even if they were it would not stop France from supporting Quebec as Quebec is one of the largest french speaking, um, nations, around the world.

http://www.answers.com/topic/vive-le-qu-bec-libre-speech

 

[Jersay]

Quebec is screwed.

If they don't follow the hoops that the Canadian law has for it to follow, it unilaterally seperates, and no one recognizes unilateral independence anymore if they did there would be another dozen nations in the world. So it will still remain apart of Canada and the forces may go in.

 

[FiveParadox]

Agreed, Jersay.

Canada, unlike Britain, should not accept any sort of "declaration of independence."

They don't have it terribly bad here in Canada; if they decide to attempt to throw this nation into a constitutional crisis through declaring independence notwithstanding the Constitution Act, 1982, then all reasonable measures should be taken to ensure that the constitution remains and continues to be in full force and effect — and that means the retention of Québec as a province of Canada.

 

[Jay]

Well the fact that Quebec had not signed onto the the constitution just goes to show you how weak it could be considered. Another reason to why I think we should open the box of wurms many Conservative and Liberal politicians think would happen if we did amend the con. The legitimacy of the constitution in Quebec a question here as well. Anyone can write done then a none signing party must follow it as long as the other parties agree but then the words in the constitution may only be seen as valuable as the paper its writen on in the eyes of those who do not agree with it or did not sign it.

I'm seriously starting to think we should scrap the Charter.

Do we even need it?

 

[FiveParadox]

Yes, Jay, we need it; it should be noted that the Charter has nothing to do with the separation of Québec. The sections of the Constitution Act, 1982 that are considered to be the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Sections 1 through 15.

:!: Revision : Corrected a typo.

 

[Jay]

You would have to demonstrate why we need it.

1867 - 1982 we didn't have it.

I'm starting to believe it is a rather poorly written document.

 

[FiveParadox]

I disagree; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has assisted this nation in making leaps and bounds in terms of the equality of our citizens, and that never would have been possible without the Charter.

 

[Jay]

How?

By declaring affirmative action? :roll:

 

[Jay]

Bump....

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not sure what you mean, Jay; are you asserting that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has perhaps served against the interests of Canada?

 

[FiveParadox]

My responses in relation to this and other discussions on Canadian Content may be few and far between during the next few hours (due to the fact that I am in school).

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper Assisting in Sovereignty: Duceppe

I am not sure what you mean, Jay; are you asserting that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has perhaps served against the interests of Canada?

In a round about way.


What I would like to see is a defense of the Charter, based on facts. You said we need it, and I say we lived without it for 120 some odd years.

 

[FiveParadox]

Perhaps I see a definitively more tangible result of the Charter, being a gay teen; without the Charter, there isn't a chance in Hell that I would be allowed to marry in Canada (there may not have even been a drive for civil unions).

 

[Jay]

Although I'm not sure I agree with you, I would point out to you the fact that Britain doesn't have a "Charter" and they have civil unions...

One thing? You have only one thing to address this "need" with?

 

[FiveParadox]

What about freedom of speech, Jay? Or our democratic rights?

 

[Jay]

Are you suggesting we didn't have these things before 1982?