Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] All nationalism is 'ethnic' nationalism, because we are all from some ethnic or other. I don't know what the difference is between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism is...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This may be a bit off topic but I've just finished reading an letter to the editor for Le Devoir, written by Guy Lachapelle, PQ's international relations president, thanking Mr Landry for his years with the party. <br /> In it, he speaks about what was noticed by international observers who were present at last week-end's PQ convention and what they perceived of Québec sovereignists and their values. <br /> <br /> From <b><a href="http://www.ledevoir.com/cgi-bin/imprimer?path=/2005/06/09/83659.html">Le Devoir's letter</a></b>:<br /> <br /> Alors que j'accompagnais nos invités internationaux au cours de la fin de semaine, nombre d'entre eux se disaient extraordinairement étonnés par la qualité de l'organisation du Parti québécois et de la vigueur de nos débats en comparaison avec plusieurs grands partis politiques européens. Dès votre première rencontre avec eux, vendredi soir dernier, vous avez su les convaincre que notre quête n'était pas uniquement celle d'un pays mais aussi d'une société meilleure. <br /> <br /> Deux jours après le congrès, une députée catalane me disait, à quelques heures de retourner chez elle, qu'elle avait compris une chose importante au cours des derniers jours : <b>notre «nationalisme» a une saveur cosmopolite, universelle, qui n'a rien à voir avec un repli sur soi. </b><br /> <br /> Nos ennemis, tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur de notre parti, voudraient bien que nous ne soyons qu'une tribu en quête d'identité.

   

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] All nationalism is 'ethnic' nationalism, because we are all from some ethnic or other. I don't know what the difference is between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism is...[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> This may be a bit off topic but I've just finished reading an letter to the editor for Le Devoir, written by Guy Lachapelle, PQ's international relations president, thanking Mr Landry for his years with the party. <br /> In it, he speaks about what was noticed by international observers who were present at last week-end's PQ convention and what they perceived of Québec sovereignists and their values. <br /> <br /> From <b><a href="http://www.ledevoir.com/cgi-bin/imprimer?path=/2005/06/09/83659.html">Le Devoir's letter</a></b>:<br /> <br /> Alors que j'accompagnais nos invités internationaux au cours de la fin de semaine, nombre d'entre eux se disaient extraordinairement étonnés par la qualité de l'organisation du Parti québécois et de la vigueur de nos débats en comparaison avec plusieurs grands partis politiques européens. Dès votre première rencontre avec eux, vendredi soir dernier, vous avez su les convaincre que notre quête n'était pas uniquement celle d'un pays mais aussi d'une société meilleure. <br /> <br /> Deux jours après le congrès, une députée catalane me disait, à quelques heures de retourner chez elle, qu'elle avait compris une chose importante au cours des derniers jours : <b>notre «nationalisme» a une saveur cosmopolite, universelle, qui n'a rien à voir avec un repli sur soi. </b><br /> <br /> Nos ennemis, tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieur de notre parti, voudraient bien que nous ne soyons qu'une tribu en quête d'identité.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Une tribu repliée sur elle-même...<br /> Une grosse ethnie vouée à être noyée dans le multiculturalisme...<br /> Eh bien... Canadians tenez-vous le pour dit s'il y a un multiculturalisme canadian, il y a un métissage québécois francophone.<br /> Le Québec est une société globale avec ses propres institutions.<br /> Bientôt elle pourra enfin se voir reconnaître en bonne et due forme !<br /> <br /> Merci Michou !<br /> Excellent message !<br /> Je le transmets à mes proches.<br /> Mon frère souverainiste plus ou moins convaincu commence à le devenir une fois pour toutes.<br /> Convainquons et reconvainquons.<br /> <br /> Quelle merveilleuse Machine internaute !

   

Not 'a bit' off topic, more like out in left field. It's a very nice political polemic, but says nothing of substance. I'm really not sure how a province, or country can call itself cosmopolitan when it restricts language rights so heavily. I would agree though that there is no difference between Quebec's national political construction and any other nation, that's hardly rocket science, the mohawks have had their own embassies and passports for years and they live in a culture severely oppressed and regulated. To be considered 'national' one only needs either a sizeable population willing to embrace it (like Quebec) or a small population willing to fight for it (like Ireland or the mohawks). One of the best tactics I can think of for the argument that Quebec can't 'go it alone' is simply to recount some of the countries currently in the United Nations. There are tiny little african nations with hardly any land mass or population there. That still doesn't change that fact that every country has an ethnic identity, perhaps switzerland is the exception where the dominant 'ethnic' variant is the business institutions.

   

<b><a href="http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200507/02/001-Sondage-PQ-CROP.shtml">L'option souverainiste a le vent dans les voiles</a></b><br /> Samedi 2 juillet 2005 <br /> <br /> Un sondage CROP-La Presse indique que la souveraineté a atteint son plus haut niveau depuis 1995 au Québec.<br /> <br /> .Ainsi, 55 % des Québécois appuieraient le oui lors d'un référendum sur la souveraineté, après répartition des d'indécis. Même sans les indécis, l'option souverainiste recueille 52 % d'appuis, contre 41 % pour l'option fédéraliste.<br /> <br /> En outre, même s'il n'a plus de chef depuis la démission de Bernard Landry, le Parti québécois vogue allègrement en tête. Les péquistes balaieraient le Québec en cas d'élections générales, avec 47 % des intentions de vote, après répartition des indécis.<br /> <br /> Le Parti libéral recueille la faveur de 27 % des Québécois, tandis que l'Action démocratique stagne à 23 %.<br /> <br /> Le gouvernement Charest peut quand même se consoler, puisque son taux de satisfaction a légèrement augmenté. Il est passé de 20 % à 27 % en un mois, selon le sondage.<br /> <br /> L'enquête a été menée du 16 au 27 juin auprès de 1001 personnes. La marge d'erreur est de 3 %<br />

   

[QUOTE BY= michou] <b><a href="http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Index/nouvelles/200507/02/001-Sondage-PQ-CROP.shtml">L'option souverainiste a le vent dans les voiles</a></b><br /> Samedi 2 juillet 2005 <br /> <br /> Un sondage CROP-La Presse indique que la souveraineté a atteint son plus haut niveau depuis 1995 au Québec.<br /> <br /> .Ainsi, 55 % des Québécois appuieraient le oui lors d'un référendum sur la souveraineté, après répartition des d'indécis. Même sans les indécis, l'option souverainiste recueille 52 % d'appuis, contre 41 % pour l'option fédéraliste.<br /> <br /> En outre, même s'il n'a plus de chef depuis la démission de Bernard Landry, le Parti québécois vogue allègrement en tête. Les péquistes balaieraient le Québec en cas d'élections générales, avec 47 % des intentions de vote, après répartition des indécis.<br /> <br /> Le Parti libéral recueille la faveur de 27 % des Québécois, tandis que l'Action démocratique stagne à 23 %.<br /> <br /> Le gouvernement Charest peut quand même se consoler, puisque son taux de satisfaction a légèrement augmenté. Il est passé de 20 % à 27 % en un mois, selon le sondage.<br /> <br /> L'enquête a été menée du 16 au 27 juin auprès de 1001 personnes. La marge d'erreur est de 3 %<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes, but if a simple question was asked, Quebec would never succeed. The last vote was a twisted question.Just ask "Do you wish Quebec to remain a part of Canada?" yes or no. Very simple.Also contrary to popular belief,Quebec would not have any ties with Canada, you would be treated as any other country.

   

The federalist will have to vote for yes and the sovereignist for no ? That's much more tricky.

   

[QUOTE BY= no1important] Just ask "Do you wish Quebec to remain a part of Canada?" yes or no. Very simple.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= fleur-de-lys]The federalist will have to vote for yes and the sovereignist for no ? That's much more tricky.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Touché fleur-de-lys ! <br /> <br /> ROTFL !!! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <br /> <br /> <br />

   

Timbit, what do you know about anything? Not much i'd say. "Quebec would never succeed". Haven't seen a tendency towars independance for Québec in the last decades? Man, you must be blind. A twisted question. Don't make me laugh. We're not so dumb we can't understand a simple question. Although I would agree that in 1980, it was so-so. " you would be treated as any other country"...yah thats the point. <br /> <br /> Mathieu, no hard feelings, its just politics right

   

[QUOTE BY= mathireu] Timbit, what do you know about anything? Not much i'd say. "Quebec would never succeed". Haven't seen a tendency towars independance for Québec in the last decades? Man, you must be blind. A twisted question. Don't make me laugh. We're not so dumb we can't understand a simple question. Although I would agree that in 1980, it was so-so. " you would be treated as any other country"...yah thats the point. <br /> <br /> Mathieu, no hard feelings, its just politics right[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It won't ever win a referendum if it asks a simple question. Whenever pollsters in Quebec ask Quebecers if they would vote yes in a referendum the people answering the question always have this dumb assumption that Quebecers will keep the Canadian money and the PQ will get to campaign telling Quebecers they can keep the Canadian citizenship!!<br /> <br /> IF you were to ask all Quebecers " do you want Quebec to be fully independent?" then tell them that Quebec would have to make there own money and make all Quebecers choose between being Canadian or a Quebecer, mathireu I can't see Quebecers voting over 25%. By the way in order to form a country you would need 90 to 95% of the population backing you. That won't ever happen.

   

That's clearly false that you would need 90-95% of a referendum vote to secede, no referenda legislation has ever demanded such a huge percentage. And of course currency is not a big deal, there are literally hundreds of currencies to choose from, as most of Quebec's trade goes to the US it would probably even be easier just to adopt the american US. However, currency exchanges are INTERNATIONAL, meaning that a country cannot FORCE another country to not use its currency, in fact it is a great boon to the economy and Canada would be crazy not to enjoy that perk, and even if it were crazy then you can't do anything about it. Murderers and dictator thugs buy canadian currency as much as they like and nobody says boo, let alone try to stop them.<br /> <br /> As for the rights of secession, here's an interesting quote:<br /> <br /> By 1992, Slovak calls for greater autonomy effectively blocked the daily functioning of the federal government. In the election of June 1992, Klaus's Civic Democratic Party won handily in the Czech lands on a platform of economic reform. Vladimir Meciar's Movement for a Democratic Slovakia emerged as the leading party in Slovakia, basing its appeal on fairness to Slovak demands for autonomy. Federalists, like Havel, were unable to contain the trend toward the split. In July 1992, President Havel resigned. In the latter half of 1992, Klaus and Meciar hammered out an agreement that the two republics would go their separate ways by the end of the year.<br /> <br /> Members of the federal parliament, divided along national lines, barely cooperated enough to pass the law officially separating the two nations. The law was passed on December 27, 1992. On January 1, 1993, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia were simultaneously and peacefully founded.<br /> <br /> Relationships between the two states, despite occasional disputes about the division of federal property and governing of the border, have been peaceful. Both states attained immediate recognition from the U.S. and their European neighbors. <b><br /> <br /> So obviously the above post is blatantly untrue, in fact, if the PQ and BQ had more balls that's exactly what they would do-simply stop the normal functioning of the federal government. <br /> <br /> So again I reiterate that both sides have shown quite a model to the world which I still haven't seen-though I haven't gone through all the russian states yet. The Czech division came about with NO referendum, just with election of a national party, which Quebec has already done. <br /> <br /> There are thousands of ways to set up a federation, however, it should be noted that Quebecers are quite well aware that they have the best of both worlds-security in the country, as well as the most effective lobby tool short of complete control of the federal government. Canada, for its part, and if it were actually run by canadians, would no doubt concede MORE control to Quebecers. As I've said before, there have been at least three new federal DEPARTMENTS specific to Quebec drawn up during a minority government. Why conservatives and NDP would support such things is beyond me, there certainly is no argument for 'canadian unity' in setting up yet another Quebec regional economic development program . In fact, stats canada released its figures on new canadian federal jobs in the provinces, and the maritimes and prairies were virtually excluded, so they would LOVE to see an economic development program in their province.

   

Quite true, however it's not a question of balls more than it is ethics. There are soft and ardent federalist Quebecers who's rights and opinions must be respected and protected if they are to accept, embrace and build upon a democratically founded Sovereign Québec. Hopefully past referendums have shown that to be the case.<br /> <br /> The Sovereignty movement was not concieved as a lobbying tool and is not exclusively used as such by "separatists". Jean Charest's Provincial Liberals are notorious for using the Sovereignty movement as a lobbying tool against Ottawa. Federalist political Parties both in and out of Québec also use it to fear-whip their voters into submission. Like the opportunists they are, Paul Martin Liberals absolutely LOVE the Sovereignty movement at election time.<br /> <br /> It always amuses me to read average Canadian's comments on this and other sites. Québec's Sovereignty movement is held to the highest standards and wrongfully accused of things (take your pick) while vile Federalist corruption, violation of democracy, sellouts, abuses of power and cronyism (of every affiliation) go unpunished. I'm sure the roads of federalist politicians are paved with good intentions, but all that changes when they set foot in Ottawa. Canadian federalism is geared that way, it is a breeding ground for soft despotism.

   

THe above is very true, and I quite agree about the propaganda use of Quebec, we find it also true in an even harsher manner as pertains to native canadians, most of whom live in abject poverty and yet we still hear constant canadian complaints of how they are the most 'rewarded' minority in Canada-and Quebec. However, we should try a little 'empathy' here and remember that in Canada most political dialogue on the part of the electorate is what I'd call a 'dialogue of frustration'. People are fully aware that their opinion has absolutely no relevance to the decisions which will actually be made, so they are free to shoot off their mouths with little thought to the 'constructive' nature of their words. Even here the conversation is more moderate than many places I've seen but it really has to be noted that the political ramifications of these conversations means nothing in the political realm. It's catharsis and little more. KNOWING what is going on is useless if you can't DO something. This is extremely frustrating for many people, and like people at a hockey game the only way to show patriotism is to 'be against' somebody, when you haven't anything else. This is of course why the US is almost perpetually at war, it's no surprise that the federal government is most active in a country which has one of the greatest tendencies toward democracy in the world. If people are focused on an enemy, they are less likely to look at their own government. <br /> <br /> Representative democracies, and ours seems to mirror the states, has few issues discussed and 'fear baiting' is the main occupation of the main party, whose economic agenda has been shown to be not that much more disastrous than the other. <br /> <br /> "Balls" was meant facetiously, I certainly wasn't FAULTING the BQ for not 'taking over parliament'. Even though each side of this debate has tendencies to throw vitriol at the other there are still lines that will not be crossed-and as I said, that's a real bonus. While out and out independence is a HUGE issue, if canadians were actually involved in the political process we'd have far fewer issues. If canadians were to vote on whether you want yet another economic development program for Quebec, what do you think they'd say? In Quebec it MAY be more of an issue because certainly there are some who may think that this means more money for them, and in a way it does. <br /> <br /> However, I still think Quebecers would agree with their BQ representatives who stated that the feds simply can't be trusted and yet more bureaucracy is not necessary. The BQ rep from Gaspesie in fact agreed with what virtually every rural MP would say and thats that their riding is withering away and what is needed is regional, not provincial, economic development. <br /> <br /> So there are tons of ways that Quebecers and canadians would be in agreement, and like I said, why the conservatives, who claim they want more autonomy for the provinces, and the NDP, who usually oppose all liberal platforms, would sign on to this is beyond me. Except to make me think that the 'clear divisions' between parties is in good measure simply a media fabrication. <br /> <br /> However, although I think that the last referendum question was fairly clear, I would still stand by my claim that many a Quebecer 'uses' the current political system to their advantage.

   

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]However, although I think that the last referendum question was fairly clear, I would still stand by my claim that many a Quebecer 'uses' the current political system to their advantage. [/QUOTE]<br /> The question you should be asking is: Of who's creation is that? The lack of backbone and integrity in Canadian federalism will not only see it fail on the Québec issue, but will most likely prevent it from holding up once Québec is gone. Although I hope when Québec is Sovereign, Canadians will wake up and take advantage of the situation to strip Ottawa of most of its powers. Because that is what the despots in Ottawa are afraid of, not the fact Québec is Sovereign <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

   

That shoe fits both ways, it's not a question of 'balls' but of ethics. If there is anything that a good percentage of canadians would be behind is the government playing hardball with Quebec. That indecision is NOT a bad thing and doesn't reflect a lack of integrity, if anything it is the ONLY good thing I've seen in the issue. To go back to an old example we see PLENTY of backbone whenever natives get a court case in their favour or when they demand their own self government. As we saw in Oka and Burnt Church we see strong similarities between both Quebec and Canada. <br /> <br /> We've had the clarity act discussion before and we can note the tendency at least for Samuel to claim that Canada can't play ANY part except acceptance, that's his opinion, but we can note that the clarity act COULD have been as draconian as the anti-terror bill was. <br /> <br /> That indecision, which SHOULD be part of every democracy, works very heavily in separatists favour, so it's odd to hear it criticized so heavily. I"d far more prefer the indecision of the clarity act to the 'decisions' of Oka, Burnt Church, and the anti terror bill.

   

You mentioned Natives, here is note on the issue to support what I've said above. I have personal friends on several Cree and Algonquin Band Councils. I make it a duty to visit them on their communities throughout the year, especially when it's goose & bannick time (yummy). A few years ago I was at one of the band councils and they were all in a meeting so I waited for my friend to come out. When he did I asked what's up, he replied "we're getting ready to go shake the money tree in Ottawa". I won't say what the issue was about, but suffice it to say we all got a good laugh out of his answer.<br /> <br /> His answer is endemic to the problem and not the solution. You see, instead of working on long term solutions (transfers of power) that bring about desired results and that actually fix problems, it is plaster over plaster over plaster of money coming out of Ottawa. The size of the plaster is always proportionnate to the political advantages or flavours of the day. You can argue that this is the cause & effect of lobbying and that this sort of thing happens in all democracies. However a con/federation wasn't designed with the intention of seeing so much power and money taken out of the hands of its members (including Native Partners) and concentrated in Federal hands. That's what went wrong with Canada from_the_beginning.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next