Should Quebec be forced to abandon Separatist Dialogue

Should Quebec be forced to abandon separatist parties?


  • Total voters
    11

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Pretty fascist statement, coming from you, it is not surprising, and you really don't believe in democracy, the bloc is the choice of quebecers, not yours, and by the way, the canadians should be thankful to the bloc, they are the one who brought the liberal scandals to the parliment.
That's a pretty unfounded and ridiculous sttatement coming from you. If you call me a facist or undemocratic, I must be the opposite, for everything you have ever typed, has been wrong or bass akwards.
It's not surprising that you would miss the sarcasm in the post.

But none the less, the Bloc is the choice of Quebecuoix, no kidding. Federal Parliment is the choice of a nation and as such is supposed to be for the nation, and to my knowledge, all parties are to be national parties, not secular divisionists, hell bent on tearing up a country.

My belief in democracy has nothing to do with the crime of treason. The crime of treason is a law I did not right. So how is it I am a facist and not democratic, when your beloved Bloc want to force people that have clearly voted NON, to seperate and furthermore, hows forcing French on the non French people of Quebec, not facist or undemocratic?

My hats off to the Bloc, yippeeeee, now if they would stop trying to pick my pocket and ruin our country, I would be much happier.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
no. to be recognized as a party in the house all that is necessary is the holding of IIRC 7 seats. There are no rules on how many candidates you must run. You and I could form our own party tomorrow and run ourselves plus lets say 10 others, and if we won the official party status number of seats we would be an official party. This is a valuable set-up as in theory it allows anybody to enter into politics. Unfortunately, with the costs of running a campaign it doesn't work out that way anymore.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
no. to be recognized as a party in the house all that is necessary is the holding of IIRC 7 seats. There are no rules on how many candidates you must run. You and I could form our own party tomorrow and run ourselves plus lets say 10 others, and if we won the official party status number of seats we would be an official party. This is a valuable set-up as in theory it allows anybody to enter into politics. Unfortunately, with the costs of running a campaign it doesn't work out that way anymore.
Thanx for correcting me.

Now what about an oath, is there not an oath a member of Parliment must take?

Besides that, isn't succession a federal offence?
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
Sedition is a federal offence. As for separation, the Bloc does not talk of separation in the house. It follows the federal rules in that it acts on behalf of its constiuants (being their voice, and attempting to obtain goodies for them). Having the people vote on if they want to separate or not is not an offence, but calling on the people to overthrow the government is.

I don't remember what the oath of office is.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Sedition is a federal offence. As for separation, the Bloc does not talk of separation in the house. It follows the federal rules in that it acts on behalf of its constiuants (being their voice, and attempting to obtain goodies for them). Having the people vote on if they want to separate or not is not an offence, but calling on the people to overthrow the government is.

I don't remember what the oath of office is.
Thanx again.

I've been trying to find a story since yesterday, about Bevilaqua I believe, approaching a Regiment stationed in Quebec during the lead up to the last referendum and asking if they would swear aligance to a sovergn Quebec.

Is that not a treasonous act?

I know if the Troops had said yes, it would have been, but that is because I'm familar with that oath.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
i guess if he asked "if quebec were to separate, would you swear allegence to her" it was not an offence, but if he had asked them to swear to serve quebec at that point it would have been (calling on the forces to basicly overthrow the government).
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
i guess if he asked "if quebec were to separate, would you swear allegence to her" it was not an offence, but if he had asked them to swear to serve quebec at that point it would have been (calling on the forces to basicly overthrow the government).
Well I've been corrected, thanx.

I still stand by my position though.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
the bloc is very clever. they know what they can and can not do legally (most politicians start off as lawyers, so they know the ropes).

I wish we had a bloc BC party out here though. Bouchard is one of the few politicians of my time I can relate to. Duceppe on the other hand....

check this out:

The idea of a Quebec nationalist party with candidates running for seats in the House of Commons is not new. The term Bloc Québécois was seen as early as 1926 in L'Action Française magazine in which an article called for a party of Quebecers defending Quebec's interests in Ottawa.

From March to May 1941 L'Action Nationale magazine renewed its calls for such a party, especially to oppose plans for conscription. In October 1941, the Bloc populaire canadien was created with those very objectives.

In September 1971, there was a similar plea in L'Action Nationale, this time with a view to countering the federalism of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. One year after the October Crisis, a desire to express frustration through democratic means was visible in the magazine: "The time has come to play hard; and it is necessary that it happens at the parliamentary stage to avoid other forms of violence." [1]

The Ralliement des créditistes was a rural Quebec-only federal party in the 1960s. Social credit ideology was based on the ideas of the British engineer, Major C.H. Douglas. The Créditistes took over the remnants of the federal Social Credit Party of Canada and had members elected to the House of Commons until 1979. While right-wing in approach, as opposed to the nominally more leftist Bloc, this party carried the torch of Quebec nationalism and separatism for decades.

The Union Populaire was a minor party that tried to build on the success of the Parti Québécois at the provincial level by nominating candidates in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections on a sovereigntist platform. The PQ, however, had rejected participation in federal elections and provided no support to the party, which achieved little success.

The Parti nationaliste du Québec was founded in the 1980s as an alternative to federalist parties (those opposed to independence for Quebec) and can be seen as a modest predecessor.

Finally, the Rhinoceros Party, founded in 1968 by Doctor Jacques Ferron, a renowned Quebec writer, won many votes from people who disapproved of federalist politicians. Jacques Ferron, the poet Gaston Miron and the singer Michel Rivard ran against the federalist Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in his seat of Mount Royal, but made little impact at a time when Trudeau was at the height of his popularity and influence.


The founder of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard and his wife.Guy Bertrand, a former PQ candidate, had a plan to create a federal party in favour of Quebec independence, a Bloc Québécois, in the 1970s. René Lévesque, the founder and leader of the Parti Québécois, stated in his autobiography that he had opposed this plan, believing that it was not the right time to do so.

After decades of reflection and failed attempts to launch a sovereigntist party at the federal level, members of a sovereigntist party were first elected on the federal level during the 1990s.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bloc-qu-b-cois-1
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I will reassert the poll is fair.

Point 1.) Quebecois are humans
Point 2.) If a human wants something bad enough, he will go through any means to attempt to attain it.
Point 3.) Forcing the abandon of seperatist dialogue closes all peaceful means of seperatism.

Therefore: Quebec separatists (being human, see point 1) truly want to be their own nation (whether or not its attainable). So if you close all peaceful means of attaining separation (even if you don't think they should separate) then the result is violence.

You cannot just tell someone not to want to separate..anymore than they can tell you to want to let them go. So you can either have the conflict with words, or bombs, pick.
 

John Muff

EVOLUTION
Pretty fascist statement, coming from you, it is not surprising, and you really don't believe in democracy, the bloc is the choice of quebecers, not yours, and by the way, the canadians should be thankful to the bloc, they are the one who brought the liberal scandals to the parliment.

Don't worry,

Teddy Bear feels he control the world... Natives are well equipped, I know, they have tanks, F-16, landing stripes and all that... ho ! and a bow too, I'm sorry...

Quebecers, would asks themseves: "What the F%&K are they doing crossing the St-Laurence with their kayak, come on... Grow up CDNBear... 21 century, Good ~!:wave:
 

John Muff

EVOLUTION
I wish it would be that simple...

I will reassert the poll is fair.

Point 1.) Quebecois are humans
Point 2.) If a human wants something bad enough, he will go through any means to attempt to attain it.
Point 3.) Forcing the abandon of seperatist dialogue closes all peaceful means of seperatism.

Therefore: Quebec separatists (being human, see point 1) truly want to be their own nation (whether or not its attainable). So if you close all peaceful means of attaining separation (even if you don't think they should separate) then the result is violence.

You cannot just tell someone not to want to separate..anymore than they can tell you to want to let them go. So you can either have the conflict with words, or bombs, pick.


"La plume est plus forte que l'épée", right, so let it be...
People now seems to think that Québec cannot decide for himself... You are one of the few who can still see clear in all that !

John Muff
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I will reassert the poll is fair.

Point 1.) Quebecois are humans
Point 2.) If a human wants something bad enough, he will go through any means to attempt to attain it.
Point 3.) Forcing the abandon of seperatist dialogue closes all peaceful means of seperatism.

Therefore: Quebec separatists (being human, see point 1) truly want to be their own nation (whether or not its attainable). So if you close all peaceful means of attaining separation (even if you don't think they should separate) then the result is violence.

You cannot just tell someone not to want to separate..anymore than they can tell you to want to let them go. So you can either have the conflict with words, or bombs, pick.
Your assertion is that they are so hungry for "FREEDOM", from what no one is quite sure, they have so much as is. But further more that they will readily take to violence to get what only a minority want. That's not a very nice veiw of the Quebecuoix.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Don't worry,

Teddy Bear feels he control the world... Natives are well equipped, I know, they have tanks, F-16, landing stripes and all that... ho ! and a bow too, I'm sorry...

Quebecers, would asks themseves: "What the F%&K are they doing crossing the St-Laurence with their kayak, come on... Grow up CDNBear... 21 century, Good ~!:wave:

Great post Muffy. To bad your point was nothing more then to take racist shots at me. Great arguement there.
You keep that racist and dimwitted view or us Natives. It is typical of you Quebecuoix. It will be your down fall if you keep that view of what will be your enemy if you seperate.

Thank you for showing us the true Quebecuoix racist, and why Quebec should not be allowed to seperate. The rights of Natives will be nonexistant as well as the non french, good work Muffy.

I assert that it is you and the rest of gimme gimme gimme Quebecuoix that need to grow up, and drop the racist crap, before you get any sort of seperation.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Well if Quebec can seperate then so can the Natives separate from Quebec (either to stay in Canada or be their own nation). Well im not gonna sit in a fox hole and murder people to make them obey me and my government, I would do that to keep them from forcing others to obey them and their government.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Well if Quebec can seperate then so can the Natives separate from Quebec (either to stay in Canada or be their own nation). Well im not gonna sit in a fox hole and murder people to make them obey me and my government, I would do that to keep them from forcing others to obey them and their government.
Yes somehow "murdering" for ones cause or agenda is always easier, way to see both sides.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Im not sure I grasp your point?

I believe I have a fairly consistant stance.

I will not sit in a hole and shoot up a bunch of people because they want to run their own government away from me, using different arbitrary lines in the dirt than the arbitrary lines in the dirt my ancestors drew.

I will sit in a hole and shoot up people who are intent on forcing another group of people to obey them and their government based on arbitrary lines they are drawing in the dirt.

ie.) I have nothing against peaceful separation, I do have something against conquering other people.

I fully understand its murder either way, just only one of them could I live with myself and my actions.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Im not sure I grasp your point?

I believe I have a fairly consistant stance.

I will not sit in a hole and shoot up a bunch of people because they want to run their own government away from me, using different arbitrary lines in the dirt than the arbitrary lines in the dirt my ancestors drew.

I will sit in a hole and shoot up people who are intent on forcing another group of people to obey them and their government based on arbitrary lines they are drawing in the dirt.

ie.) I have nothing against peaceful separation, I do have something against conquering other people.

I fully understand its murder either way, just only one of them could I live with myself and my actions.
So I take it you support the MWS in their armed occupation of lands under claim? Or perhaps their armed revolts in the future Quebec where there rights will likely be negated as they have been since Quebec took province policing control of Reservations?
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Yes I do, providing one of two situations have occurred.

1.) Peaceful means have failed (ie, no legal way to pursue challenge, no matter how tedious and drawn out)
2.) Violence has been used against them to enforce something currently disputed.