Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] This doesn't really surprise me. The PQ propaganda machine has been churning their bile for years now. I'll bet she actually believed what she was saying.<br /> <br /> Sad.<br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> If you are a moderator are you not supposed to be unbiased?

   

[QUOTE BY= lachapelle]<br /> If you are a moderator are you not supposed to be unbiased?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> <br /> <br /> I am, when I moderate. <br /> <br /> When I comment, I can do what I want. I am a moderator of a pro-Canada website. Does it surprise you that I am anti-seperatist? Does it surprise you when I tell you Jesus was Jewish?<br /> <br />

   

Jesus was jewish?Huh!According to the bible maybe. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'>

   

U know the french guys ... We r patriotic! this women ate canada cause she loose the war in quebec 400 years ago and also cause in 1960, Montreal was french and all was working in english. Take 1970 to change thing and make explode a few bomb. Canada not always been the * best country in the world * guys. And all the past is in us. I know she freakout. But , dont blame the PQ for this. PQ always been a democratic institution and always claim a nice collaboration and association after the independance. But , yes , a lot of quebecers r angry cause we always have to fight to talk french and make it survive. This is not easy too live beside USa with 300 millions of english people around us. All that mathers for us, IS FRENCH. We r not racist. This is in our blood. We r patriotic, determinate to accomplish the wish of our ancestors since Abraham Battle. We lead this as a mission and we have to suceed. Our evolution is prooving by our intelligence to use democracy and not an army. Anyway, dont ask people of Quebec too be happy when 30 years after 101 law, u praticly have to talk english in every job in montreal, and a lot of french find it <br /> * IN * too talk english. French is always in danger in America and this is an eternal fight. If u dont understand, imagine that all america is french and u have only one little province called Quebec where english is in majority. What would u do?

   

I never saw the PQ or BQ mentioned here, though I only scanned this page. I don't think anybody ever badmouthed the existence of the PQ or BQ, in fact I think it was remarkably smart, if there were a party for each province I think we'd be far better off. It would literally be like a Premier's meeting where each province would be looking for the interests of its constituents-not their parties and cronies.<br /> <br /> Here in southern ontario though we have glimpse depending where you live. Most of my co-workers and places I eat and shop all speak chinese or german. So I'm learning chinese and german because I don't think my culture is tied up in my language (that's just me, I'm not badmouthing Quebec here). As they say, if you don't like change, you're going to like obsolescence even less.<br /> <br /> The shoe goes on both feet though, since when you have a language law for french you are punishing those who have their OWN language-specifically natives (whose language is even more threatened), but also new immigrants. THEY have a culture to protect as well. <br /> <br /> However, that the BQ and PQ exist is not a debate, I don't think anybody would suggest going back to the days of killing diplomats and the war measures act. To its credit even the federal government accepts their existence and even constructed a clarity act which sets out the rules for separating from the country. Although its back was against the wall, as far as I know Canada is the ONLY country to have such a legal means of dissolution.

   

You better believe their back was against the wall, Québec did not sign the Constitution.<br /> <br /> The Clarity act is a sham and nothing but more Federal obfuscation in a jurisdiction where it has no legal validity. You didn't see the Feds enact a Clarity Act for BC or PEI's referendum on electoral reform, did you? It's a worthless feel good lifeboat full of holes, the Feds will sink along with it.

   

That's because the clarity act has nothing to do with 'electoral reform', just like the feds don't try to mess with Quebec's provincial national assembly which is different from every other province. There back wasn't against a wall, they could do like every other country in the world does and simply ignore the issue and tell those who want to separate 'too bad'. The way they've handled it is quite unique, and in fact I would love for Quebec to have the vote very soon and vote to separate. I think if Canada could deal with this equitably (which is a BIG if) it would be the most beneficial contribution to the world that Canada has ever provided. Regions in countries all over the world could look to the Canadian proposal as to how to peacefully separate. However, there could be some russian regions which have done it as well, I'm not sure.

   

So the "way they handled it" with this Clarity Act is a model for the world? That Act has a hole so wide if it were in the hands of Isrealis when the Palestinians pronounced their UDI they could of said sorry, 90% is not a sufficient number. Thanks to Québec leaders (of all stripes) for having the vision not to fall into the Federalist trap.

   

The act simply stipulates that a 'super' majority could be imposed, meaning that not just over half the people of a province can decide to form a new country, that's certainly not unreasonable. I assume that's the 'hole' you're referring to, the other parts of the clarity act simply stipulate that the question must be acceptable both to quebecers AND the federal government, again not unreasonable. The fact that the two sides refuse to discuss the issue is the real headache. I'm the last person to defend the federal government, but yes, I would clearly stand this up as a model. Yes, there is a 'hole' but that simply means there must be a negotiation with the two sides prior to a referendum, again not unreasonable. The 'supermajority' would probably be 60%, but that's just my opinion based on what was the accepted number for electoral reform in BC and PEI. I agree that the clarity act is a bit of a misnomer as it doesn't set out clear rules, but again, it is designed to open up a two way dialogue.<br /> <br /> I think that's a positive step, Hawaii was clearly annexed by the states but if the people had a vote the US would simply laugh at them. Likewise, for an even better example take a look at the anti-secessionist act which China passed regarding Taiwan, which basically says that if those people even TRY to have a vote then China will use "non-peaceful means" to suppress such an event. So, yes, in this I think Canada is a FAR better model.

   

Yeah right, take a look at what happened last referendum. Federalists jumped through much tighter holes and in fact, illegallity and democratic principals weren't even obstacles to the crap they pulled off. Just listen to the cowards now, if you think this hole wouldn't be exploited to its fullest, you're dreaming. Unfortunately for them the Clarity Act carries no legal weight, false hope is what it is.<br /> <br /> Funny you should mention Hawaii. It seems even the evil USA is considering granting the Kanaka Maoli all the sovereignty and distinct society recognition they seek:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://akaka.senate.gov/akakabill-b.html">Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005</a><br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.hawaii-nation.org/legal.html">Legal Foundation for Hawaiian Independence</a>

   

Considering is a far step from 'granting', and what form that sovereignty will take will be interesting to see, however, it certainly is a positive step.<br /> <br /> As for 'illegality' we saw that on BOTH sides during the referendum, so people in glass houses,etc. I did say IF the governments can be reasonable, we can note that Quebec's response was not 'negotiate', it was to say 'screw you'. That's pretty hard to negotiate with. Quebec gets a LOT of money from the federal government, it certainly isn't unreasonable that TWO sides be involved. However, this depends on many factors and individuals, which may or may not be conducive to negotiation. This is a HUGE issue and not one where one side can simply say 'these are the terms', especially with only 50.1% of the vote.

   

The double standards and hypocricy in Canadian Federalism is astounding. 50.1% is enough for Federalists to not only grab the reins of power, but govern in a majoritarian fashion. Stifling democracy by withholding opposition days is not even enough to get Canadians riled up, but screwing with Quebecers' democratic rights is a call to action people respond to. Canada is a pitiful society indeed.

   

Samuel: <br /> Going through a divorce is a messy thing but is sometimes the right thing to do. I have personally come that far from our first exchanges. It is not by screaming at each other over who gets the toaster -vs- the microwave that it will work out. Cause ultimately that is what it is about: democratic principles will not sort that out. Many people think that they cannot sort out "who gets the microwave and who gets the toaster" and end up spending miserable life together.<br /> <br /> Marcarc and myself I are probably the most supportive amongst ROC Vive forum participants toward Quebec sovereignty. You have to work with what you have got and show confidence. You will otherwise go nuts long before the 3rd referendum actually occurs.Saying that Canada is a pityful society will simply piss off People. I have lived in the ROC for many years as you well know and it is not a "pitiful society". Your comment was extremely insulting IMHO and you should apologize for making it. Yes Canada does have problems and should work on them. And so does Quebec, sovereign or not or on the way to become.

   

Well, I don't find it quite so insulting, but I'd change it somewhat, "canadian federalism is a pitiful form of government indeed". Canadians themselves play little part in this, and in fact it is right on, but even WORSE than what the comment parlays. Namely, in our 'federalism', a party doesn't even NEED 50.1%. The liberals have NEVER had more than 50% of the vote and yet they governed for a decade with a majority. That is indeed pitiful. <br /> <br /> But again, glass houses. If the PQ were saying that they were going to adopt Switzerland's model of direct democracy and regional autonomy I'd be MOVING to Quebec and spearheading the campaign to get them out of the country. From the new constitutions that were posted that I've read the 'new' Quebec won't be much different from this old Canada. Once again the grassroots, who will take all the risks, will be shut out of the political process. From what I've read they won't even adopt proportional representation (though that has changed). <br /> <br /> But we can admit one thing, the clarity act is a hell of a lot better response than an 'anti-secessionist act', and the fact that this isn't 1972 and the PQ and BQ are official representatives, and not 'instigators' who are arrested says an awful lot about our 'pitiful society'. <br /> <br /> In many ways Canadian society IS pitiful, just like in many ways Quebec society is pitiful, my personal feeling is that the pitiful aspects are far more likely to be highlighted when you've got a dysfunctional political arena. I mean, just take a look at Bill C-9, the bill to establish and economic development agency for Quebec. This is federal money going to Quebec, which was approved by the crooked liberals, even by the conservatives who say they are opposed to regional development. The only party who unanimously rejected it was the BQ, the official representatives of Quebec don't even want it. New Brunswick would kill for that kind of federal presence instead of the pennies it gets from ACOA. <br /> <br /> So pitiful indeed describes it, but Quebec's shoes may be a different colour, but they are equally uncomfortable. The BQ would never have gained so much power if it weren't for Canada's 'first past the post' electoral system. There's enough pity to go all the way around.

   

If you read the leadup to my last comment, I meant BOTH Canadians AND Federalism ARE pitiful. There is no attempt to take government back from zealous Federalists, people continue falling for the centralist smokescreen. No wonder a majority of people don't understand the Québec Sovereignty movement, thinking and living inside the box is much too comfortable.<br /> <br /> Switzerland's democratic model is way too bureaucratic, in fact the dominating Party is the one that strives for greater centralization. Regionalism is alive here and so I like to think Quebecers will strike a better balance.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next