Quebec a nation with in a nation

[#juan]

If you were disabled or poor you might have something to complain about. If you were an aboriginal you might have something to complain about. If you were a woman restricted by the infamous glass ceiling you might have something to complain about.

I'm a Canadian too Juan and I think that despite the fact that Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of many other nations in numerous ways that there's no reasonable explanation why Canadians continue to tolerate and have tolerated inequity, prejudice and injustice for decades. Those millions upon millions of dollars wasted and stolen by our "government" aren't "imaginary". Those millions wasted cost everyone. From a healthcare system that should be the envy of the world to waiting lines.... the proliferation of foodbanks as a "necessity" in our modern Canadian culture....native people suffering for years while successive Canadian governments waste and steal millions. I've yet to hear anyone in Canada declare that a critical plank in any party's platform should be action focused on locking up the incompetent...Anne Mclellan...STockwell Day.....Paul Martin...the list of theives and con-artists is long and yet we (Canadians) are so dull we spend our time ranting on about "same sex marriage" and "violence in hockey" and every other bullschit news item instead of demanding this great country pursue prosecute and punish those who abuse the system. Unless of course it's UI or welfare recipients then of course we can disparage and heap disdain on them...but if it's one of our wealthy politicians...hell NO they can steal from Canadians and we just give them a pass....

All these things you mention total what, about twenty million? forty million? even a hundred million is small potatoes. The Canadian government spends over $500 billion per year so we are talking about a fraction of one percent. I don't excuse or condone waste but every government wastes some money and it is usually publicised at some point. I would be worried if we didn't hear about it.

As far as the first nations are concerned, we sure as hell throw enough money at them. Enough to give every first nations family of four about forty thousand a year tax free. Even I could live on that. The government is not uncaring, they are simply incompetent. A bit like all governments.

 

[the caracal kid]

The next stage in social evolution!? What you have described in varying practice already occurs between the borders of Afghanistan in Pakistan with tribal societies that don't really recognize the border between them. It occurs in restless areas of Africa. It occurs where you have some group of people disenfranchised on lands they share tenuously with other groups of people.

One thing that defines us as a nation is a common law which binds our society, but I’m sure you think that what is convenient can simply stay practiced and enforced by a loose knit nationless society?

Your idea of that working is a lofty as the goals of pure communism with is doomed to fail because human beings are inherently selfish. Not that the premise itself is without noble intentions. However that goes without saying for most who speak in terms of ideology.

Given that this is a discussion forum, ideas are open for everyone, but that aside, the context of telling Canadians that there never was a ‘Canada’ can be highly offensive and I’m not one to usually get all nationalist on another person. That would be like me telling you that you never had an identity.

Unless I am misinformed, I would love to hear where your theory of such evolution works. Otherwise you have to either present a really good case on the workability of it, or someone has fed you horsesht with that idea.

Actually, what I have described has not happened yet anywhere.

Of course pure communism fails, as does pure socialism and pure capitalism.

Now, as to why such a system works: It works quite simply because it allows for the formation of an equality between "nations" within a common framework (which is cultureless). Under the current system there is not and will not be an equality amunst "nations" (this is a reflection of human nature). In order to counter this, we need to be explicit in our creating of an unbiased foundation.

As for no identity: indeed, there is no real canadian identity, which is why there is no "canada". The country is half-way between a collaboration of nations and being a nation. It is currently neither, existing in a "neither - neither land".

Also of note is that there really is not a unilateral code of law that binds anything. If you think all regions carry the same laws, or all groups are treated the same by laws, then you need to look again.

The nations under the flag could create something "great", but these peoples practice mediocrity better than anything else.

Remember what I have refered to is just a starting point in the process to an new global society. There is a very long way to go, that involves social and individual change.

 

[Zzarchov]

Originally Posted by Zzarchov
Does anyone...ANYONE understand the difference between a nation and a state?
Nation: A People, they have a Nationality. Canada has never been a Nation in its proper context, we are a multicultural society.
State: What Canada is, a sovereign government.

Quebecois as a Nation means being of French Canadian Descent in a Nationality. Meaning you can no longer discriminate against hiring people of Quebecois ancestry, nor making the jokes you hear in every workplace about "Dirty Quebecois", The one I heard on the bus today was "Quebec as a Nation? They only have two Exports, Ugly Strippers and Drunken Truckers". Now you can't go around making "Dirty Quebecois" comments anymore than you could make "Dirty Paki" jokes.

Now they need to clearly define Newfoundland as a Nation. Its wrong that they have to suffer through Dumb Newfie jokes and discrimination as if they are all drunks.

that made absolutley no sense

What part are you having trouble with here Paladin?

Before it was legal for me to say to someone "Im not hiring you because your Quebecois"

As long as I am hiring a Canadian I could be free from charges of Discrimination (otherwise It could be argued I was discrimination against the Canadian Nationality).

Now If I flat out tell someone "I won't hire you just because your Quebecois" or If I show workplace harrassment based upon Qubecois Nationality, I have violated Canadian Human Rights Laws.

Before I would not be violating those laws, as we didn't acknowledge Quebecois Nationality (which if you look up the Definition of Nation, it fills to a T).

The problem most people seem to be having is that we in english have a "Lazy tongue" and have taken to saying the word "Nation" when we mean Nation-State. Ie, Canada is not (just) a Nation, it is a Nation-State.

Another Example, The Mowhawks are a Nation, they are not a Nation-State (they lack state-hood). But no one would disagree that Mowhawks are an nationality. Likewise Quebecois really are a nationality, merely not a Nationstate.

This isn't that radical, for example, In America you have an Arcadian Nation (Cajun), it however is merely a Nationality (ethnic group), not any kind of government.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You're trying to insist on a distinction that's not there, Zzarchov. The three dictionaries I have immediately available are quite clear that nation and state have multiple definitions and some are synonymous. The meanings aren't as precise and unambiguous as you're claiming.

 

[Zzarchov]

Those extra dictionaries are using the same "Lazy Tongue". Aint is also in most common dictionaries.


If you really are unsure, keep this in mind. Nation is word going back to biblical times.

The Modern concept of a Nation-State began at Westphalia in the 1600's.

Nation is a very old word with a very set meaning, even if usually used incorrectly.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you'd claim your authority on the meaning of English words exceeds the Oxford Dictionary's.

 

[CDNBear]

Originally Posted by Zzarchov
Another Example, The Mowhawks are a Nation, they are not a Nation-State (they lack state-hood). But no one would disagree that Mowhawks are an nationality. Likewise Quebecois really are a nationality, merely not a Nationstate.

This isn't that radical, for example, In America you have an Arcadian Nation (Cajun), it however is merely a Nationality (ethnic group), not any kind of government.

And yet no one and I mean no one, has ever seen a "Cajun", "Mowhawk" or "Quebecuoix" passport.

You know why?

Because they are citizens of a NATION.

With this logic, we would need passports to enter and exit Woodbridge(little Italy), Scarborough(Little Jamaica), Markham(Little Asia), or further south, to enter or exit Louisiana.

Pure nonsense.

 

[Abbadon]

I'm relatively neutral on this issue.

However, I am not a patriot of Canada, and I sympathize with separatists, such as Alberta Separatists or the Western Block Party.

The parts of Canada I love are the people, the land, the resources, the wildlife, the forests, mountains, lakes and rivers...

The parts of Canada I do not like are the government and the Maple Leaf rag.

And it is the latter with which I associate the name 'Canada' when I ask myself 'am I a patriot of Canada?'

I believe that a smaller, localized government can rule more competently than a gargantuan sea-to-sea monolith...

I understand Quebecois wanting to be recognized as a nation for cultural reasons, but would they not also desire independance? Self-rule? Autonomy?

'Nation' as a title might seem little more than a word without these other things.

 

[Zzarchov]

And yet no one and I mean no one, has ever seen a "Cajun", "Mowhawk" or "Quebecuoix" passport.

You know why?

Because they are citizens of a NATION.

With this logic, we would need passports to enter and exit Woodbridge(little Italy), Scarborough(Little Jamaica), Markham(Little Asia), or further south, to enter or exit Louisiana.

Pure nonsense.

Actually its because they are citizens of a SOVEREIGN COUNTRY. Many Nations do not have passports. Scotland for instance is and always has been a nation. Scotland however is not sovereign, and you do not have a scottish passport.

And yes, it is officially recognized as a nation by the United Kingdom and has been since we were still British Colonies.

"A nation within a nation" is a tradition older than Canada itself.

 

[s_lone]

I foresee many more years of angst-filled, pointless debate about national unity and the status of Quebec in the federation. Just what we need. We've got young people dying in Afghanistan, a medical care system in trouble, great disparities in wealth and income across the country... I think we've got more important things to think about.

If Canada loosened up a bit and just let Quebec mind its peaceful little business, Canada would maybe start moving towards much better times. I think we need to wake up and deal once and for all with our stupid constitutional technicality problems... To get rid of the problem we need to adress it. We are all into an intricate web of inter-dependance... Canada is one of those beautiful webs and Quebec is a web within the Canadian web of inter-dependance.

 

[CDNBear]

If Canada loosened up a bit and just let Quebec mind its peaceful little business, Canada would maybe start moving towards much better times. I think we need to wake up and deal once and for all with our stupid constitutional technicality problems... To get rid of the problem we need to adress it. We are all into an intricate web of inter-dependance... Canada is one of those beautiful webs and Quebec is a web within the Canadian web of inter-dependance.

Great idea, lets start off this little paramount thought with cutting off the grossly bloated transfer payments.

 

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Zzarchov
Does anyone...ANYONE understand the difference between a nation and a state?
Nation: A People, they have a Nationality. Canada has never been a Nation in its proper context, we are a multicultural society.
State: What Canada is, a sovereign government.

Quebecois as a Nation means being of French Canadian Descent in a Nationality. Meaning you can no longer discriminate against hiring people of Quebecois ancestry, nor making the jokes you hear in every workplace about "Dirty Quebecois", The one I heard on the bus today was "Quebec as a Nation? They only have two Exports, Ugly Strippers and Drunken Truckers". Now you can't go around making "Dirty Quebecois" comments anymore than you could make "Dirty Paki" jokes.

Now they need to clearly define Newfoundland as a Nation. Its wrong that they have to suffer through Dumb Newfie jokes and discrimination as if they are all drunks.



What part are you having trouble with here Paladin?

Before it was legal for me to say to someone "Im not hiring you because your Quebecois"

As long as I am hiring a Canadian I could be free from charges of Discrimination (otherwise It could be argued I was discrimination against the Canadian Nationality).

Now If I flat out tell someone "I won't hire you just because your Quebecois" or If I show workplace harrassment based upon Qubecois Nationality, I have violated Canadian Human Rights Laws.

Before I would not be violating those laws, as we didn't acknowledge Quebecois Nationality (which if you look up the Definition of Nation, it fills to a T).

The problem most people seem to be having is that we in english have a "Lazy tongue" and have taken to saying the word "Nation" when we mean Nation-State. Ie, Canada is not (just) a Nation, it is a Nation-State.

Another Example, The Mowhawks are a Nation, they are not a Nation-State (they lack state-hood). But no one would disagree that Mowhawks are an nationality. Likewise Quebecois really are a nationality, merely not a Nationstate.

This isn't that radical, for example, In America you have an Arcadian Nation (Cajun), it however is merely a Nationality (ethnic group), not any kind of government.

I think the most racism found in Canada is probably in quebec (or Alberta) , they look at non french, ethnics as dirt, and i have never seen people not hired cause their quebecois, and it was always illegal to do something like that since it violates the charter of rights and freedom, you cant discriminate based on culture which is clearly what "im not hiring you cause ur quebecois" is. In the end, I dont care if quebecois is a nation or not, but quebec belongs to Canada, thats the bottom line, the quebecois can go form a nation outside of the Canadian nation. Aside from that there will always be jokes about french people, just like there will always be jokes about people from newfoundland.

 

[Paladin]

I'm relatively neutral on this issue.

However, I am not a patriot of Canada, and I sympathize with separatists, such as Alberta Separatists or the Western Block Party.

The parts of Canada I love are the people, the land, the resources, the wildlife, the forests, mountains, lakes and rivers...

The parts of Canada I do not like are the government and the Maple Leaf rag.

And it is the latter with which I associate the name 'Canada' when I ask myself 'am I a patriot of Canada?'

I believe that a smaller, localized government can rule more competently than a gargantuan sea-to-sea monolith...

I understand Quebecois wanting to be recognized as a nation for cultural reasons, but would they not also desire independance? Self-rule? Autonomy?

'Nation' as a title might seem little more than a word without these other things.

There will never be a perfect government, but our government is still a lot better than others. Its easy for you to call our flag a "rag", but show some respect for people who died for that "rag". No province will be able to sustain itself economically if they seperate, the reason we enjoy our life styles Talks of seperation not only destroy our economy but show us as weak infron of the world, the only good seperatists movements do is hurt our economy.

 

[Jay]

I've always been partial to the Canadian Red Ensign.

 

[Zzarchov]

I think the most racism found in Canada is probably in quebec (or Alberta) , they look at non french, ethnics as dirt, and i have never seen people not hired cause their quebecois, and it was always illegal to do something like that since it violates the charter of rights and freedom, you cant discriminate based on culture which is clearly what "im not hiring you cause ur quebecois" is. In the end, I dont care if quebecois is a nation or not, but quebec belongs to Canada, thats the bottom line, the quebecois can go form a nation outside of the Canadian nation. Aside from that there will always be jokes about french people, just like there will always be jokes about people from newfoundland.

Culture isn't a ground for discrimination.

Pardoned Convicts, Race and Colour, National origin, Religion, Age, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Marital or family status and Disability are the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Women, Visible Minorities, Disabled and Aboriginal groups are the four protected groups.

So until now, It was perfectly legal to discriminate against someone for being Quebecois, and it IS still legal to discriminate on them for being Newfoundlanders (unless they were born prior to 1947)

Basic HR knowledge.

 

[CDNBear]

Basic HR knowledge.

That would land you in the sights of the labour board if you tried to discriminate against them in any way shape or form.

 

[the caracal kid]

There will never be a perfect government, but our government is still a lot better than others. Its easy for you to call our flag a "rag", but show some respect for people who died for that "rag".

A rather pointless misdirection at best to say "hey, it isn't as bad as..."

If we are going to respect people for fighting for what "they believe in", then we need to respect all such people, regardless of the "flag" they flew.

No province will be able to sustain itself economically if they seperate,

Prove it.

Talks of seperation not only destroy our economy but show us as weak infront of the world, the only good seperatists movements do is hurt our economy.

Addressing the issues, in the long term, is far better than trying to sweep them under the rug.

 

[Abbadon]

Its easy for you to call our flag a "rag", but show some respect for people who died for that "rag".

I wear a poppy on Remembrance Day. I've debated the issue internally many times, and I've come to the conclusion that it's the right thing to do. I just ignore all the political propaganda that gets shoveled onto the practice, and simply wear it in remembrance of all the young men who were slaughtered in the wars. Conscripted, often unwilling, innocent young men who had no idea what they were fighting for, other than whatever reasons their superiors gave them; young men who probably, for the most part, did not want to fight, did not want to kill, did not want to die.

I see them as the murder victims of the tyrannical governments that were supposed to be their guardians, not their executioners.

No province will be able to sustain itself economically if they seperate,

While I sympathize with the Alberta Separatist Party, I prefer the Western Block Party because a land-locked Alberta would lack coastal cities, ports, and all the other benefits of ocean-front property. Nonetheless, I have faith in a separated Alberta finding its way to an economy that works for them.
QUOTE=Paladin;752314]the reason we enjoy our life styles Talks of seperation not only destroy our economy but show us as weak infron of the world, the only good seperatists movements do is hurt our economy.[/QUOTE]
'show us as weak infron of the world'? I'll need a clarification of how that works. As far as I can discern, a nation which allows its citizens to communicate dissent without crushing them is a nation which exhibits a high degree of personal freedom for its subjects. Obviously, freedom is relative notwithstanding; but, the more that is evident, the stronger the nation is as a bastion of liberty.

I've always been partial to the Canadian Red Ensign.

I, too, prefer that to the Maple Leaf. At least the Red Ensign reflects the roots of our nation - and not just the leaves.

 

[Abbadon]

No province will be able to sustain itself economically if they seperate,

Prove it.

He'd have to separate a nation to do that, and I don't think he wants to, lol.

 

[kellystone]

"I wear a poppy on Remembrance Day. I've debated the issue internally many times, and I've come to the conclusion that it's the right thing to do. I just ignore all the political propaganda that gets shoveled onto the practice, and simply wear it in remembrance of all the young men who were slaughtered in the wars. Conscripted, often unwilling, innocent young men who had no idea what they were fighting for, other than whatever reasons their superiors gave them; young men who probably, for the most part, did not want to fight, did not want to kill, did not want to die."

Why bother. WW 1 and WW 2 accomplished nothing. We still are being controlled by an elitist few who make decisions based on what "they" want.