Separatism is High Treason

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

Jay, the one thing that would boost the separatist cause even more than Gomery did would be the election of Stephen Harper.

 

[Jay]

I don't think that is the case, but I understand why you would say that.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

You may not think that's the case, Jay, but Conservative support in Quebec is basically nothing and, unlike the NDP, there is not an alternative Quebec-only party on the same side of the political spectrum.

Harper and members of his party also have a long record of saying things that anti-Quebec.

If Harper wins an election, Quebec is gone for sure.

 

[Jay]

I think there is common ground between the two parties. I think that common ground is decentralization of Canada.

I think that if the Liberals get elected again it will be read in Quebec as a slap in the face, and will fuel the fire of separation.

 

[#juan]

As a hypothetical situation,

if an Idaho senator decided to push for the separation of Idaho from the states, how long do you think it would be before that senator was discovered by reporters and cameramen in a motel bed with a young boy and a goat. We are too kind in Canada. I say tearing the country apart is treason.

 

[#juan]

PoisonPete2 wrote:

Reply with quote
there is no 'high treason' involved in the seperatist cause.

When a provincial cabinet minister, Pierre Laporte was kidnapped and killed, that was high treason. when a British diplomat was kidnapped, that is high treason. The man who strangled Laporte works for the Bloc. There is nothing honourable about the Bloc, or the killer they are harbouring. Nor was there anything honourable about the couple hundred thousand "lost" no votes in the last referendum.

 

[Jay]

We are too kind in Canada. I say tearing the country apart is treason.

We are talking about half the population of Quebec wanting to separate....don't you think it makes more sense to resolve this in the political arena?

 

[#juan]

Jay

Quebec was give two thirds of the territory it has now after joining Canada. Now, after all the federal developement money that has been poured into Quebec, they want to separate and take all that land with them. If we had leaders with any guts, we wouldn't be having these problems.

 

[Jay]

The land isn't being rented. It is theirs. Ontario was given land too. Should we consider that not ours?

As for leaders with guts...what are you going to do....Arrest them?

Personally speaking, if we took your direction, I think we would be looking at war instead of politics.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I think there is common ground between the two parties. I think that common ground is decentralization of Canada.

So you admit that wanting to rip the country apart is all the Conservatives and Bloc have in common?

We are talking about half the population of Quebec wanting to separate....don't you think it makes more sense to resolve this in the political arena?

I don't think we can resolve it any other way. The problem is that we haven't ever resolved it in the political arena and it is doubtful that we'll manage that any time soon.

While I agree that wanting to break up the country is treason, pressing charges or even just pushing the BQ out of the House would do more damage than having them there does.

I think it's time for all involved to lay their cards on the table. What happens with natives? What happens to the north? What happens with Labrador? Does Quebec leave with what they have now or what they had before? Where does Atlantic Canada stand? Will Canada accept sovereignty association?

We need to bash these issues out federally, then go to the Quebec government before the next referendum and say, "These are our terms. Now people know what they are actually voting for...what it really means for Quebec and Canada. Now go vote for the last time, because we aren't playing this game anymore."

 

[#juan]

Rev wrote:

I think it's time for all involved to lay their cards on the table. What happens with natives? What happens to the north? What happens with Labrador? Does Quebec leave with what they have now or what they had before? Where does Atlantic Canada stand? Will Canada accept sovereignty association?

We need to bash these issues out federally, then go to the Quebec government before the next referendum and say, "These are our terms. Now people know what they are actually voting for...what it really means for Quebec and Canada. Now go vote for the last time, because we aren't playing this game anymore."

Excellent Rev

That is precisely what I meant by "guts". We keep pussyfooting around, trying not to upset anyone, and pleasing no one. Laying out exactly what is possible and what is not, will remove a lot of assumptions and questions. The sooner the better.

 

[the caracal kid]

Since the "provinces" voted on entering confederation, they should be entitled to have referendms on exiting confederation.

I agree that what separartion entails needs to be clearly defined prior to any vote on the issue though.

 

[Jay]

Welcome to the board caracal kid.

 

[PoisonPete2]

As a hypothetical situation,
I say tearing the country apart is treason.

Answer - not according to the definitions provided.

ON Jay
Certainly a government led by Harper would create in Canada, a very real 'two solitudes". - a corporate centred conservative west and a progressive socially oriented Quebec. Probably the emphasis on regional issues would weaken the Federalist cause.

 

[no1important]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

I honestly think a conservative government would accelerate Quebec seperation. I think the cons have been lowley thought of since "Charlottetown accord accord" failed.

 

[Jay]

I think you can use the national day care program as a test of who thinks what. See what Duceppe said about it in the last election, and look at what Harper said about it.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Separatism is High Treason

I agree that what separartion entails needs to be clearly defined prior to any vote on the issue though.[/quote}

Answer - that would be impossible. Until there was a vote there would be no mandate for the negotiations (the terms of separation). One would hope that the Referendum question would have some clarity though, as basically that question is the first salvo of negotiation. The first response by the Federal government would include the view that contracts between Quebec and other provinces would cease to have force. Newfoundland would love to rewrite their power agreement.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Separatism is High Tr

You may not think that's the case, Jay, but Conservative support in Quebec is basically nothing and, unlike the NDP, there is not an alternative Quebec-only party on the same side of the political spectrum.

Harper and members of his party also have a long record of saying things that anti-Quebec.

If Harper wins an election, Quebec is gone for sure.

Their support in Québec is seperatists that don't believe in a seperatist party on the federal level. Harpers lieutenant in Québec for the last campaign, admited on Radio-Canada that he was a seperatist, but that a federal election didnt put his provincial affairs in question.

 

[Numure]

RE: Separatism is High Tr

And on that note, mind your own fucking business. The thing that revolts Canadians the most about the hole seperation issue, is that in the ultimate end, you have nothing to say about it.

Our cause ISNT treason.

Nothing in their does it say that seperation threw democratic process is treason.

The dams in Labrador exploited by Hydro-Québec are a deal between the province of Newfoundland and a corparation. To terminate the contract without proper compensation, would be illegal.

It is yet to be determined that the Cree wont follow us. Sure, a few leaders said they wouldnt. But we all know Inuits can be easily bought. I'm sure we will offer them a good deal to stick with us. Right now we can't even negotiate with them for anything without Federal Approval, and last I checked the Feds wont approve negotiation for seperation.

We want an association. We don't hate Canadians. We respect your culture for what it is, and we have many things in common. An association between two SEPERATE Nation would be best, then the status quo. If you don't want anything to do with it, fine. We will do fine on our own.

An army. Well, unless none of you can read right, the Army he proposed is AFTER we have our own country. Every self respecting country has an army.

One thing is clear in both parties, the first vote is only to give the MANDATE to negotiate. A mandate threw majority that the federal government cannot REFUSE to accept or loose face in the internationnal community. Once that is giving, we wont be free right away. Tons of negotiations have to take place, and official independance wont take place for at least 3-4 years for sure, unless the feds send in the army and we have to make this a bloody civil war that NO ONE in Québec wants. I'm a seperatist, a revolutionarie, but im no bloody killer.

 

[Numure]

Jay

Quebec was give two thirds of the territory it has now after joining Canada. Now, after all the federal developement money that has been poured into Quebec, they want to separate and take all that land with them. If we had leaders with any guts, we wouldn't be having these problems.

Ontario was OUR LAND. And it was taken away from us. The land we have now is only part of what was ORIGINALY OURS! So please, stop with that argument, its a ridiculous one.