Marois says independent Quebec would use dollar, request Bank of Canada seat
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
The PQ have elements of the right and of the left and as you have seen the debate we have on this site between the two it is never agreeable
Marios doesn't have a vision, nor do I think any separatist. There is to my knowledge no clear plan , non publically shown. Marois was selling her idea of a white book on the subject ... much easier to sell if you don't know the real content of it. Peladeau was the one being upfront about it.
I have a feeling that those who are truly behind the push for separation are actually doing so because it is a money scheme.
But in this case it's not just a left-right divide, which is one some sovereignists have been able to put aside for 'a greater cause', but the issue of identity politics. For instance, some sovereignists, regardless of their left-right position, categorically reject the 'Values Charter', which is neither left nor right but more a vision of an open vs closed society.
I think it's more of a power scheme, which equates to money really. It's politics, divide and conquer. But they seem to be dividing themselves as much as Quebec from the rest of the nation.
I don't know, I don't spend an awful lot of time on any level of politics, because it's all game playing really, there is often too little substance. But that continues to be the impression that I get.
She has a vision, but it's just a very ugly one behind the 'Values Charter'. Other sovereignists have a different one. I doubt very much money is involved seeing that there would be no financial benefit overall, more a matter of ethnic identity, which has its own problems.
See with the Values Charter, I'd pay good money that the play is going to be what it always seems to be for the PQ. They will play the anti-Federalist card (because this will go to the SCC and that's where I bet the PQ will make their stand) and will completely miss the boat in the terms of the divide it creates within the people they claim to represent. It's like they're sacrificing the cause for the goal.
Yes I agree... the Values Charter was the only thing I was for , mind you not as radical as they proposed.
IMO the underlining issue that is not mentioned here is that Religion is too strong. You are paid to be a government worker you leave your religion behind.... do it on your own time.
But then the problem I have is with the hypocricy behind it all: how can the government defend a crucifix in the National Assembly, a cross on the flag, and public schools following a Christian holiday calendar, all of which represent the religion of the state itself, while then telling a public servant to take off a personal?
Should the government lead by example or adopt a 'do as I say not as I do' policy?
And even if the government removed all its religious symbols, I'd still oppose it, but the hypocricy just makes it worse.
It is definitely a double standard , that cross should come down... Try taking away those holidays, even if you are not religious you would be upset if they were no more.
But should the cross come down off the NA wall and the flag before or after we take hijabs off of public servants' heads?
Also, is it the place of a secular state to decide if the hijab is Muslim or not (there is an irony in that)? What if a non-Muslim chooses to wear hijab owing to partial baldness, a scar, etc. and doesn't like whigs?
Actually, not necessarily. When you consider how many people work weekends and holidays, you could immagine some parents preferring to send their children to a school that follows a different holiday calendar from the Christian one. You're looking at it from a exclusively Christian perspective.
Before after or during don't care , as for the flag ... we are stuck with it but it doesn't look like a religious cross , you are the first one I ever heard associating it with it.
As for head wear .... you are not even allowed to have streaks of color of have a punkish hair do. That was the justice office. The rest I don't know.
So you'd be fine with removing hijabs while keeping the crucifix? What about the principle of all under the same law, including the government?
And it's clear that the cross on Quebec's flag is a cross. The fleur-sde-lys represent the trinity too.
No I didn't say that, I said take it down. As for the meaning of the flag , I missed that in history class. If it is that.
But if I understood you, you'd be in favour of removing hijabseven if you fail ot remove the crucifix, which would create the odd scenatio of giving the government a monopoly in religious expression. It would seem to me that it should not remove the hijab at least until it removes the cross.
You are dealing with timing ...I rather deal with the end results... the rest is details I don't care about.
My feeling is that if Quebec wants to go, let her. All I know is that I would hope that the federal gov't make it crystal clear that they absorb their portion of the debt, they use their own currency, transfer payments cease at once and as ruled by the Supreme Court in 1995, the borders are not static. Seperatists need to know that we are adamant on this. They will also have to negotiate with Ottawa the purchase any federal assets within the decided borders of Quebec. Under that scenario, they'll be "in hock" for many centuries!!
But what about the Quebecers who don't want to separate? Do Canadians really want to throw them out as well? That is part of my conundrum, for sure.
I'm betting that the Cree will likely have something to say about the whole separation issue and its unlikely that Quebec would be able to negotiate anything without their consent.
Bottom line - I would 'prefer' Quebec in Canada (albeit a more appreciative/happier Quebec) but we can survive without them too.
JMHO
But what about the Quebecers who don't want to separate? Do Canadians really want to throw them out as well? That is part of my conundrum, for sure.
I'm betting that the Cree will likely have something to say about the whole separation issue and its unlikely that Quebec would be able to negotiate anything without their consent.
Bottom line - I would 'prefer' Quebec in Canada (albeit a more appreciative/happier Quebec) but we can survive without them too.
JMHO
