Québec's destiny will be decided by Québécois.

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Québec's destiny will

Colpy.

So you agree that you fantasy civil war would be a result of Canada stupid position of not being able to negotiate pacifically, in good faith, as a grown up man, with it's new ally?

No.

You miss the point.

The Supreme Court has declared that any negotiations would have to take place after a strong "yes" majority on a clear question.

If those two conditions are not met, there can be no legal negotiations.

Even with negotiations, Canada would insist on huge territorial concessions from Quebec. It would have to, to defend largely English portions of the Province, to defend native interests, and to keep the country territorially cohesive.

Quebecois would refuse, leading to UDI............

Study a little history. You don't tear apart a nation easily, without anger, and rarely without bloody retribution.

The people of Quebec need to be told straight out what they are risking.

IMHO, civil war is practically unavoidable after UDI.

 

[Colpy]

If you don't think the ROC are capable of such radical, militaristic action, I would ask you to consider one point:

Trudeau. 1970. After ONLY two kidnappings.

Now, consider that this is in general a very left-wing, non-militaristic forum. I'm the resident right wing looney, for God's sake.

Now ask these pacifist lefties what they thought of the military deployment in 1970.

You'll be surprized at how approving of military action they can be.

Now find a right wing forum and ask them.......no don't.

You might never get out from under the bed.

 

[PoisonPete2]

sorry I was called away.

I think it would be a beautiful experience to be part of the birth of a Nation. Yah lost out cos of some tricksy english general. Sold out by the Family Compact, Papineau and since then had national aspirations ignored by duplicitous politicians. Unfortunately the PQ has largely been in the control of (ex)(?)liberals. Hopefully this new leader will realize that he cannot walk in the old leader's shoes.

Over the next two years it is incumbant for this leader to ready for power. It will take a lot of money. Raise an international profile. This means attending trade conferences, meeting leaders, developing informal ties with them. Be brazen. This leader must be known to the world, and comfortable on the international stage before even winning an election.

The idea of separation in Quebec has always been the cause celebe of the pseudo-intellectuals, but they never fostered anything tangible. Find out how Quebec can help other emerging nations. There are many francaphone countries needing lots of help. Niger, Camaroon, Mali, Haiti, Guiana. Work through NGOs. Put the talent pool to the task of spreading Quebec around the world. One of the planks of resistence is that Quebec is isolated in an english world. Well it ain't so but it will take an outward looking social movement to prove that to the leery. Some attempts have been made at this stuff in the past but inconsistently.

Marketing is an important aspect of developing the brand name Quebec. Where is the alternative media? More and more, the media holds sway. Community television? Take advantage of other movements. The feministists co-opted the black power movement in the 60's. You can ride the anti-globalization swell, the environmental causes. Differenciate yourselves from the Ottawa stance. Decry their sad backing of environmental credits.

Nobody is going to just hand you a working Nation and your movement has wasted a half-century wallowing in dispair rather than preparing for change.

 

[Colpy]

Poison Pete2 said
"I think it would be a beautiful experience to be part of the birth of a Nation."

That's a lovely thought, PP2.

Just try to stay out of the line of fire.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Québec's destiny will be decided by Québécois.

If you don't think the ROC are capable of such radical, militaristic action, I would ask you to consider one point:

Trudeau. 1970. After ONLY two kidnappings.

Answer - I lived in Ottawa when the tanks rolled in. Trudeau was an enemy of Democracy and his actions amounted to State terror. He was propping up a corrupt and disfunctional government in Quebec by taking away the civil liberty of all Canadians. There was no activity that could not have been handled through the Criminal Justice System. He disqusted me.

In a Democracy, a vote of 50% +1 is a majority. I spent years in the labour movement where anything less than an 80% strike vote was considered questionable, while in politics 60% is called a 'landslide'. It's all in perception, and the spin doctors who get to do the analysis.

In a successful referendum toward separation, the eyes of the world will be on Canada. It will be called by a legitimate government in Quebec, and they had better be prepared for a very high level of covert interference from America (sponsored by Ottawa).

With a vote toward separation, the 'elephant in the room' will be the aspirations of a People demanding to leave the Confederation. Canada would ignore it at its peril.

I realize there are some warmongers amongst us but sadly for them, a civil war is very unlikely to occur on dissolution. Quebec would be prepared to sieze any military asset that mobilized within its border. There would likely be two or three years of negotiations, and a pile of referendums through the remainder of Canada.

Postings like those threatening civil war make me want to separate with Quebec, just to be rid of these bully boys.

 

[Colpy]

Poison Pete said:
"Answer - I lived in Ottawa when the tanks rolled in. Trudeau was an enemy of Democracy and his actions amounted to State terror. He was propping up a corrupt and disfunctional government in Quebec by taking away the civil liberty of all Canadians. There was no activity that could not have been handled through the Criminal Justice System. He disqusted me. "

This may surprize you, but I completely agree. And you left out the fact that 700 people were jailed without trial. The whole thing was a political epiphany for me (I was 16, and interested in politics). Waking up one morning without legal rights led to my complete distrust in government, and, eventually, to the view that less (gov't) is more (freedom).

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Québec's destiny will be decided by Québécois.

In a Democracy, a vote of 50% +1 is a majority. I spent years in the labour movement where anything less than an 80% strike vote was considered questionable, while in politics 60% is called a 'landslide'. It's all in perception, and the spin doctors who get to do the analysis.

Usually, constitutional change requires at least 66%.

I realize there are some warmongers amongst us but sadly for them, a civil war is very unlikely to occur on dissolution. Quebec would be prepared to sieze any military asset that mobilized within its border. There would likely be two or three years of negotiations, and a pile of referendums through the remainder of Canada.

Untrue. For one, any attempt to seize military assets will result in resistance, and the fight is on. Canada can not legally negotiate without the preconditions met, unless they ignore the Supreme Court. Simple fact.

Postings like those threatening civil war make me want to separate with Quebec, just to be rid of these bully boys

I am in no position to threaten. I'm not going to invade Quebec with my double barreled shotgun, or even my FN.

My point is to warn, to lessen the chance of sliding unawares into such a tragedy, like the world slid into WW1.

The parameters, and the consequences need to be understood by both sides.

 

[PoisonPete2]

This may surprize you, but I completely agree. And you left out the fact that 700 people were jailed without trial. The whole thing was a political epiphany for me (I was 16, and interested in politics). Waking up one morning without legal rights led to my complete distrust in government, and, eventually, to the view that less (gov't) is more (freedom).

Answer - so why would you summon up the jackboots of military oppression to impress a point on someone. I've been in too many war zones and there is nothing glorious or uplifting about them. Just the suffering of common folk. That's what you carry around forever, the screams, the smells, the shattering of the familiar.

 

[Colpy]

This may surprize you, but I completely agree. And you left out the fact that 700 people were jailed without trial. The whole thing was a political epiphany for me (I was 16, and interested in politics). Waking up one morning without legal rights led to my complete distrust in government, and, eventually, to the view that less (gov't) is more (freedom).

Answer - so why would you summon up the jackboots of military oppression to impress a point on someone. I've been in too many war zones and there is nothing glorious or uplifting about them. Just the suffering of common folk. That's what you carry around forever, the screams, the smells, the shattering of the familiar.

See above post, you missed it, I think.

 

[#juan]

Waking up one morning without legal rights led to my complete distrust in government, and, eventually, to the view that less (gov't) is more (freedom).

What about the rights of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte? What about the rights of James Cross the British diplomat who was kidnapped. The filthy swine that strangled Laporte and kidnapped Cross were the ones you should blame for your temporary loss of freedoms. The PQ brought the bastards back and treated them like heros. Real class. They should have spent the rest of their lives in prison.

Do you have any idea how much money the rest of Canada has poured into Quebec in equalization payments? TROC definitely has a stake in any separation. Not just Quebec.

 

[Colpy]

Waking up one morning without legal rights led to my complete distrust in government, and, eventually, to the view that less (gov't) is more (freedom).

What about the rights of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte? What about the rights of James Cross the British diplomat who was kidnapped. The filthy swine that strangled Laporte and kidnapped Cross were the ones you should blame for your temporary loss of freedoms. The PQ brought the bastards back and treated them like heros. Real class. They should have spent the rest of their lives in prison.

Do you have any idea how much money the rest of Canada has poured into Quebec in equalization payments? TROC definitely has a stake in any separation. Not just Quebec.

Laporte was strangled after the declaration of the War Measures Act, in fact his strangulation was a response to the War Measures Act, so it can hardly be used as a justification for martial law.

Trudeau was responsible for my loss of freedom, the whole damn thing could have been handled by an increased police presence.

I agree with the rest of your post.

And, quite sincerely, thanks for demonstrating exactly the kind of anger that would happen in Canada after a UDI.

I would be pissed as well.

 

[Jay]

Laporte was strangled after the declaration of the War Measures Act, in fact his strangulation was a response to the War Measures Act, so it can hardly be used as a justification for martial law.

I didn't know that....

 

[Doryman]

cub1c, what do you expect to improve in a sovereign Quebec?
Or, put another way, what are sépératistes dissatisified with in the current provincial/federal arrangement?

2. More regional power. I am not fundamentally against globalisation but I think it needs a strong resistance everywhere.

3. If it is true that Quebec gets tons of money from the rest of Canada

If federalism is to work, Quebecers want to feel like they are contributing to it, not constantly begging it!


5. Culturally, we are already a country.

2, More Regional power where? IN the Maritimes, annexing Labrador from Newfoundland? Your charting a dangerous course there friend. No-one's going to let Labrador go easily.

3. It is true. you people get treated like the spoiled child, and the rest of us get what you don't snatch up. You're in for a rude awakening when you seperate and my province gleefully hacks down the power lines that WE maintain and operate and YOU reap the benefits from.

5. No, culturally, you are a province that speaks a different language. I've had it with Quebecers whining about having a "distinctive culture", as if the rest of Canada is a series of bland, repeating, cookie-cutter provinces. Is Newfoundland culture not visibly dissimilar from that of Saskatchewan? Is life in Urban BC virtually indistinguishable from life in Nunavut?

Your culture is not shockingly different from the rest of ours, and differs in magnitude from the rest of Canada no more than Newfoundland differs from Alberta.

The only difference is that you speak French. Suck it up, princess.

 

[PoisonPete2]

What about the rights of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte? What about the rights of James Cross the British diplomat who was kidnapped. The filthy swine that strangled Laporte and kidnapped Cross were the ones you should blame for your temporary loss of freedoms. The PQ brought the bastards back and treated them like heros. Real class. They should have spent the rest of their lives in prison.

Answer - So when the rights of a politician or diplomat are abridged, the whole society must lose their rights? Is that equal justice? Pierre Laporte was the most corrupt minister in a very corrupt government. He should have been investigated long before his demise but Bourassa protected him cos of all the money he brought into the Liberal Party. Underworld connections, fixed labour contracts, huge transfers of funds without proper oversight or work done for it. Bourassa was already in political deep-water and the War Measures Act was brought in to save his bacon. Last time I checked, kidnapping is still a crime and could have been handled by the police. There was no hint of insurgency. It did turn into a political circus, especially after the lawyer got arrested. The QP were well aware of the Rose brothers and the other petty criminals. Most embarrassing was the RCMP burning barns and then blaming the FLQ. In the end, it was political interference that prevented justice being done.

 

[Booh]

The only difference is that you speak French. Suck it up, princess.

You seem to forget we spawned Celine Dion** and Simple Plan**!






** :?

 

[Colpy]

The only difference is that you speak French. Suck it up, princess.

You seem to forget we spawned Celine Dion** and Simple Plan**!






** :?

GEEE_ZUZZZ

Nuke the place!

Quick!
:lol: :wink:

 

[#juan]

Laporte was strangled after the declaration of the War Measures Act, in fact his strangulation was a response to the War Measures Act, so it can hardly be used as a justification for martial law.

B.S.. Laporte was kidnapped before the "war measures act", and so was Cross. Laporte's body was eventually found in the trunk of a car. The war measures act was justified. The hour of Laporte's death probably didn't matter to his family since they never saw him again.

 

[Colpy]

Laporte was strangled after the declaration of the War Measures Act, in fact his strangulation was a response to the War Measures Act, so it can hardly be used as a justification for martial law.

B.S.. Laporte was kidnapped before the "war measures act", and so was Cross. Laporte's body was eventually found in the trunk of a car. The war measures act was justified. The hour of Laporte's death probably didn't matter to his family since they never saw him again.

Easy there, Juan.

I'm not defending the SOBs that grabbed both of these men, nor the guys that killed Laporte. I am just saying that you can not use the murder of Laporte as an excuse for martial law, as it had not happened when Laporte was killed. Indeed, the Conventional Wisdom is that Laporte's murder was a reaction to the War Measures Act.

Two kidnappings does not a revolution make. Martial law was a serious over reaction. Iknow and respect a lot of people that disagree, but there it is.

It is disgraceful how well the Libs have treated these murderers.

 

[PoisonPete2]

back toward the topic in today's context.
The Supreme Court of Canada will not be the arbitor of any separation negotiations. It is not likely that those who speak for the will of the people of Quebec would bow to the very authority they wish to break from. A bunch of patronage appointees by Prime Ministers defining process and parameters just ain't gonna cut it.

But there will be obstacles to separation as noted repeatedly during the last round. Quebec will be arguing that, while it does not recognize the territorial integrity of Canada (by sessation) it will demand that its own territorial integrity be respected. Unfortunately for them, the land rights of the indigenous people of the north will hold under that same argument. Those groups will seek to become a protectorate of Canada and take with them most of the land north of the 49th parallal.

The vote to separate will have regional disparity. It is very likely that some areas will have a majority not wishing to leave. In any forum these groups would seek standing. Now the sovereignists will argue that minority rights will be respected. The sad part is that this is where the language laws and the use of the 'not withstanding clause' will come and bite them in the ass. They have not respected minority rights in the past and will not be seen as a benign authority. In other words the territory will not be inviolate.

The 3rd nail in the coffin is inherited debt. Split it by population (as it should be) and the new nation of Quebec will be saddled with a hefty part of a national debt in the range of $510,000,000,000. They will become one of the most deeply in debt nations in the world. Given that they lose access to much of the natural resources they now tap, their bond rating will be much lower than the rest of Canada.

In many ways Quebec is leading this nation in social reform and government supported initiatives. These could no longer be supported financially. Quebec has become the dairyland of Ontario. A lot of Ontario farmers were not happy as their milk quotas were bought out, but that industry will certainly get a boost as Ontario moves to self-sufficiency in agriculture. Look for milk quota auctions the day after the vote. There are many Quebec workers, especially in the construction industry, employed in Ontario. There has never been a balance to this labour pool. That will be corrected as a border issue. Slogan 'Canadian jobs for Canadians'.

There will be a multitude of similar disengagement and negotiations for many diverse elements including road / rail rights, power sharing agreements, crown land and private land ownership, military devestment, corporate displacement ETC. but the chances are, unless the sovereignists are very proactive, the disengagement will come long before the negotiations.

Yes, I would vote against sovereignty association (there would be a referendum in the rest of Canada) and work toward a free Quebec unfettered by Canada.

"you don't know what you got until it's gone"
Joanie Mitchel

 

[pastafarian]

Thanks for your thoughts s_lone. I've discussed the issue with a few Quebecois. Interestingly of my 7 nearest colleagues, 6 are Francophone, 5 are Quebeckers, and all are Federalists. Another person I discuss this with says he voted "oui" in the last referendum to get Quebec a better bargaining position in Canada and the only admitted separatist I know, is always talking in vague generalities, which kinda gets on my nerves.

The NAFTA angle is a good one. In fact, if we continue to get deeper into it with the US and Quebec does separate, I may just jump the river and apply for citizenship.