PQ's looks to next referendum

I was being farcical but it has merit <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> Why? Because the key is to gain financial and political support of the United States and Europe (This is known as Foreign Policy <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> )Once established, the party could campaign to win seats. When a majority of the seats is attained, any legislation can be singlehandedly pushed through the legislature (not very democratic is it??). Once passed, a referendum in each province could be put forward. The results put before the US congress and the European Assembly for Acceptance. Because the party holds a majority, I would also control the Canadian Army and any other Federal Institution. Any rebellion, I would be able to invoke the war measures act and squash that rebellion with the Canadian Army <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Of course if the Canadian Army should rebel. The United States and Europe would be standing by with their forces. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> You see, No UN, No International Court. An of Democracy and the Military muscle of the United States and Europe to back up that act of Democracy. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> Why can't Canada just respect Quebec??? So many scenarios, but which one will play out <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> <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'> <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'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[QUOTE BY= _747]Because the party holds a majority, I would also control the Canadian Army and any other Federal Institution. [/QUOTE] Bzzzzzzt! But thanks for playing. The Armed Forces are under direct authority of the G.G. (therfore Canada, not any sitting government) - Adrian Clarkson, not Parlament. The G.G. can also repeal any legislation, such as enactment of the War Measures Act by Parlament.

I think you meant Bzzzzt, Swat <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> But!!! The G.G is appointed by the Prime Minister. So much for that <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'>

[QUOTE BY= _747] I think you meant Bzzzzt, Swat <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> But!!! The G.G is appointed by the Prime Minister. So much for that <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'> [/QUOTE] Bzzzt yourself, the G.G. holds office for longer than the PM(probably), and is appointed by the queen (yes, a technicality, but an important one). The odds of a 'corrupt' GG are considerably lower, given that we tend to switch up the party in power more often than that 5-7 year term. If you're getting the GG in on the action, it is starting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy where every single position has been compromised, and we're probably fucked anyway. APPOINTING THE GOVERNOR GENERAL The governor general is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister. TERM OF OFFICE The term is five years and can be extended to seven. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/governorgeneral/

Hmmmm.....So Canada is not so patriated after all is it <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> Really an appeal to Europe, the United States and the International Court must be made to get this Queen Bee off the hive and out of Quebec's affairs all together. The Illusion of Canada persists. However, I am for the truth of Quebec and not the grandeur of the Queen. It appears Quebec is not the only one in need of a lever <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Canada also is in need of a lever to break it free from the monarch. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> What is funny is that Canada Used to be a province of Nouvelle France, and Quebec was the capital. Now Canada is the Country, Quebec is a province, and Quebec City is the capital. Humorous to say the least. <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/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> Oh well, full speed ahead, destination, round 2 on separation.

Actually it would be round 3. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

No,No, No, Dino <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> First Referendum was on whether to negotiate a distinct society/sovereignty by association clauses in the construction of the 1982 constitution. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/idea.gif' alt='Idea'> The 1995 referendum was for separation! so, yes, round two on separation!! To Governor General and Queen CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE. Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. The Contracting Parties, Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world; Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required; Hereby agree as hereinafter provided. Article 1. The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (Killing Francophones and installing anglophones in their place) (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (Occupying Quebec, and the immolation of Quebec under duress of the Supreme Court and the threat of military repression at the hands of the Canadian army) (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (Introducing Immigrants to Quebec, and placing them in English Communities. Purposely building English Institutions at Federal Taxpayers expense at the expense of Quebec's framework) (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (Immigrants have replaced births. By not placing Immigrants in welcoming French Communities you are preventing Births.) (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (The Supreme Court Sides with Anglophones and attempts to use its bias to further its pursuit of the immolation of Quebec) Art. 3. The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (Colonizing Quebec with Anglophones) (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;(Enacting Legislation and a Smoke and Mirror Constitution designed to unravel Quebec) (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;(The media is used as a tool to scoff and sneer at Quebec at every opportunity with respect to its language laws, Opinion sections are often used a mode to further the agenda of the immolation of Quebec) (d) Attempt to commit genocide (Using the 1982 constitution as an authority to impose federal policies in Contravention to Quebec's Framework); (e) Complicity in genocide.(By you the Govenor General and the Queen not recinding or reigning in Questionable legislation you are both guilty of Complicity) Art. 4. Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Because the Governor General has the final say on all legislation and is appointed by the Queen; the Queen and the Governor General are both responsible for the genocidal policies towards Quebec over the last forty years. Read and digest this convention <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> Allowing Quebec to be colonized by Anglophones in contravention to Quebec's Framework is genocide. May one day you both pay for your crimes against humanity <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

That's carrying things a little far. I highly doubt that any court is going to find in favour of that, since even natives can't get that recognized under international law, and they have far better claims to genocide than Quebec (and if it is true that as you say Quebec is already a 'nation' then by definition they can be charged with the genocide of native canadians<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>. There's no doubt that there's been injustice, but to equate it with genocide is a stretch. In fact, as many claim, there is a good chance that this time a referendum vote WILL succeed, which of course means that the francophone culture is in the best shape it's ever been. Under our charter Canada CAN"T keep a canadian in any one location, so I'm surprised we haven't seen supreme court lawsuits by immigrants complaining that they can't go to other parts of Canada if what you say is true. In that regard I must admit that I've heard many who live off the welfare of the Quebec state have some VERY derogatory things to say-whether it's worse than the rest of canada though is a good question. In fact, this is the reason why New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba have been forced to start their own immigration programs because of course most immmigrants settle where they have cultural contacts. If Quebecers are like other canadians and having fewer children that's hardly the fault of immigration policies. I do agree that that is why Quebec wants to control its own immigration, but as I said, Quebec has more resources to do that now than New Brunswick does, and in fact I'd be surprised if they weren't already. Again, that is not a reason to support federalism, forcing provincial governments to duplicate federal policies because the federal government does a lousy job is hardly an argument for federalism.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] That's carrying things a little far. I highly doubt that any court is going to find in favour of that,[/QUOTE] mararc, If it's genocide, anyone can be brought before the International Court of Justice. Because the Governor General and the Queen have a final say on all Federal Policies and Laws they themselves can be brought before the International Court of Justice. Face it, the Queen is going to jail <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> If anything, this will make a good story for the National Enquire, the Globe, etc. <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'> The Queen is liable for the actions of Canada. It is in her interest to make sure Canada is operating within International Law. I see a possible expansion of the Governor Generals office to Screen Legislation against International Law. I don't think the Queen wants to be humilated before the world because of negligence on Canada's part. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] since even natives can't get that recognized under international law, and they have far better claims to genocide than Quebec (and if it is true that as you say Quebec is already a 'nation' then by definition they can be charged with the genocide of native canadians<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>. [/QUOTE] An uninformed Statement to say the least. <a href="http://www.gouv.qc.ca/wps/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_11T/_th/J_3_CH/_s.7_0_A/7_0_VD/_s.7_0_A/7_0_11T?lang=en#A%20pluralist%20society">Source</a> [QUOTE]Recognition of rights In 1985, by a resolution of the National Assembly, the Québec government became the first government in Canada to recognize the aboriginal nations. The Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones acts as a liaison between the Native peoples and the Québec government. In virtue of the resolution, the government recognized the right of the aboriginal peoples to autonomy in Québec, the right to their culture, language and traditions, the right to own and control land, the right to hunt, fish, harvest and participate in the management of wildlife resources, and the right to participate in the economic development of Québec and to benefit from such development.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There's no doubt that there's been injustice, but to equate it with genocide is a stretch. In fact, as many claim, there is a good chance that this time a referendum vote WILL succeed, which of course means that the francophone culture is in the best shape it's ever been. Under our charter Canada CAN"T keep a canadian in any one location.. [/QUOTE] No, you miss my point. Quebec's official language is French. To function in Quebec you are to learn French, not English. If the Federal Government is using the Constitution as an authority to integrate immigrants in English Communities in Quebec at the expense of Quebec's Framework; it is an attempt to Commit Genocide, and is punishable by the International Court of Justice. <a href="http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Intellectuals/Intel.htm">source</a> [QUOTE] Intellectuals for the Sovereignty of Quebec (IPSO) As for the opposition by new Quebecers and those whose first language is neither English nor French, several other factors come into play. They are most often integrated intothe English-speaking community, and the federalist policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism support them in this choice. Indeed, the bilin-gualism policy allows them to integrate into the English-speaking community anywhere in Canada, and this includes Quebec, while the multiculralism policy conceils the existence of a welcoming community in which French is a common language. [/QUOTE] Those responsible for this policy can be brought before the International Court of Justice. The Queen and the Governor General Can also be brought before the International Court of justice for complicity in genocide. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If Quebecers are like other canadians and having fewer children that's hardly the fault of immigration policies. [/QUOTE] The point of Immigration, is to make up the difference between births and deaths. It doesn't matter where an immigrant settles, Quebec or otherwise. They are to learn the official language of that province. In Quebec's Case it is French. If the Federal Government Cannot respect Quebec's Framework or any other provinces Framework, those individuals can be brought before the International Court of justice and punished. The Quebecois, are the first Canadians. We existed 155 years before 1759 as a french speaking Canadian (Canada Now Quebec) Province of Nouvelle France (Now Canada). The Quebecois continued after 1759 Utilizing French as their language. The Quebecois built Quebec. Quebec is turning 400 years old in 2008. 400 years as a French Speaking Nation. Yes Quebec is a Nation!! We have an Official Government. We have a legislative framework. The framework and Government exists because of the efforts of the Quebecois's 400 years of work/effort/evolution. Marcarc, whatever some beareacrats and politicians have been up to in the last 25 years can be interpreted as Conspiracy to commmit genocide. In the present Convention , genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. If these policies and attitudes persists towards Quebec. Those individuals, the Queen, and the Governor General can be brought before the International Court of Justice. The truth is, the World media would have a field day with this <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> It won't be the court putting the Queen on trial, it will be the media <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'> What would result of this??? The Queen would likely expand the Governor Generals office to guage all legislation and policies against International Law. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> to avoid any further embarrassment by the media.

Headline: Queen to go to Jail <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <a href="http://www.writerswrite.net/pubdisp.cfm?market=3219912">source</a> National Enquirer -- Tips Publisher: American Media, Inc. Accepts Email Submissions: Yes Website URL: http://www.nationalenquirer.com Description: A weekly tabloid seeking celebrity news stories and tips. Guidelines URL: Click here for writer's guidelines information. Newsstand Listing: Subscription Information Payment: National Enquirer will pay you up to $500 for good stories - even more for juicy tips about celebrities. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/idea.gif' alt='Idea'> I will go about this the American way and get paid <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

I really can't tell if you're serious, though I commend you for backing up your arguments (some of them anyway). Again, the genocide doesn't wash because you can't prove 'intent'. Even the PQ and BQ don't say that. If what you say is true then why isn't it happening? Indonesia has never been brought to trial for murdering hundreds of thousands of East Timorese, what you are claiming isn't even in the ballpark. As you say, Quebec is a french nation, why then can't it encourage french among new immigrants? If immigrants settle in an english part of quebec that's hardly genocide. As I said, the french culture is flourishing more and more all the time, it's hard for a court to find for genocide when the culture is more vibrant and powerful than any time in its history. Again, you mention: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group) Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group None of those exist in Quebec, you're arguments are not cause and effect but cause leads to a cause which may lead to an effect. You'll note that that quote by 'intellectuals for sovereignty' doesn't make any such claims of genocide. I must admit that it was strange to see you quote that, maybe you mentioned them before but I had just finished reading their article last night! weird. For natives, 'recognizing' natives means nothing as any native will tell you. If you read government pronouncements and arguments then you'd think the government was the most efficient proactive place in the world. In fact, that is quite true for most government programs, at all levels. But once you get into the practise it is far different. For natives, you saw what happened in Oka, so there's no point in claiming 'recognition' for natives because we know what that means in practise. This is exactly why natives are against sovereignty, because in Canada there has at least been very slow progress toward self government, under Quebec, they have no idea. The problem here is that federal dollars filter down to natives, what will Quebec do? Natives, in this case, are much like the maritimes, they need money just to keep functioning, and access to investment and money for investment to flourish. I may be mistaken but I don't think so, in that the first french colony was at St. Croix island in New Brunswick, and the next year the acadian settlement became permanent in Annapolis Valley. So the acadians were before the Quebecois. You might like to think that somehow history rewards losers, but the plain fact is that france ceded North America to the british in 1763 except for a few islands in the atlantic. Your ideology may stretch back to that, however, reality has a nasty way of intervening. Likewise, acadians could go back and reclaim annapolis valley, but I don't see that happening. I also find it quite repugnant to refer to them as 'first canadians', that shows a disrespect to the people of First nations. If we are simply saying 'we were here first', we should be giving the land back to the scandinavians, or, as I've said, the natives.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I really can't tell if you're serious, though I commend you for backing up your arguments (some of them anyway). [/QUOTE] Oh, this is serious. It may or may not get to the enquire. But eventually, this will get media play. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Again, the genocide doesn't wash because you can't prove 'intent'. Even the PQ and BQ don't say that. If what you say is true then why isn't it happening? Indonesia has never been brought to trial for murdering hundreds of thousands of East Timorese, what you are claiming isn't even in the ballpark. [/QUOTE] Actually, It is quite widely known that English Canadians and businesses were INTENTIONALLY senting up shop in the seventies to undermine Quebec and the French Language. That is the Origin of the Language laws, Bill 101. Trudeau and the Supreme Court unilaterally added an amending formula and significantly alter the Constitution without holding a referendum to the people and having each provincial legislature approve those changes. Although, the Queen specifically stated in the Proclamation that with Canada’s Consent the constitution is patriated and amended (thus Nullifying the proclamation). Now, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Liberal Party are up to throwing out leglistation and reprogramming Canada to what they want it be !! Through a tagged team act of despotism and tyranny the Liberals and the Supreme Court single handedly wrote the rules. Now they are enforcing those rules they wrote. However, before any policies or legislation is implemented it must get clearence by the Queen. So she is also responsible for the legitimacy and the outcome of such legislation. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> To get around bill 101 the Federal Government is now using the authority of this smoke and mirror constitution to build up English Communities with Immigrants. Recently the Supreme Court issued a ruling that Quebec should broaden access to English Institutions to immigrants. This ruling affirmed what I quoted in my last post. So yes, there is intent, conspiracy, and complicity in Genocide. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As you say, Quebec is a french nation, why then can't it encourage french among new immigrants? If immigrants settle in an english part of quebec that's hardly genocide. [/QUOTE] These English areas never existed until after the sixties. These English areas are a result of the move into Quebec in the 70's by English Canadians that led to the passing of Quebec's language laws. As stated in my prior post and in that report Federal Government's policy allows immigrants to choose where they want to go, and this includes Quebec. As for genocide, I suggest you study this statement from the convention! genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such Quebec's language is French, and has always been french. Quebec is French. English Canadians are purposely colonizing Quebec with English and building communities. They are doing so with the aid of the Supreme Court and the Federal Governments policy on immigrants. This contravenes Quebec's framework. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As I said, the french culture is flourishing more and more all the time, it's hard for a court to find for genocide when the culture is more vibrant and powerful than any time in its history.[/QUOTE] But if you read that report, it goes on to say montreal is slowly becoming more English than French. So, your statement is not accurate. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Again, you mention: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group) Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group [/QUOTE] This is a conceptual view. If Quebec is 100% French (and it was!!!), and over time because of forces outside of Quebec's Control (the Supreme Court, the Federal Government) Quebec becomes 60% French. What has happened here??????? Once again, review this statement in the convention. genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] None of those exist in Quebec, you're arguments are not cause and effect but cause leads to a cause which may lead to an effect. You'll note that that quote by 'intellectuals for sovereignty' doesn't make any such claims of genocide. [/QUOTE] The crux of that report is the precarious position of the French Language in Quebec with respect to Canada's policies on Immigrants and economic factors, and so forth. The report was constructed as an appeal to the world for a resolve to this plight. International Law to the rescue <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] For natives, 'recognizing' natives means nothing as any native will tell you. [/QUOTE] I have stated what Quebec has done for the Natives. The Native population in Quebec is only 60,000. Quebec's population is 7.5 million. Whatever, they need, they will be fine <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I may be mistaken but I don't think so, in that the first french colony was at St. Croix island in New Brunswick, and the next year the acadian settlement became permanent in Annapolis Valley. So the acadians were before the Quebecois. [/QUOTE] <a href="http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/exhibit2/sec2.htm">source</a> [QUOTE]Jacques Cartier's settlement at Kébec/Québec (1535-41) [/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] You might like to think that somehow history rewards losers, but the plain fact is that france ceded North America to the british in 1763 except for a few islands in the atlantic. [/QUOTE] The Quebecois/Canadiens existed for 155 years before the lost of Nouvelle France in 1759 to the British. Twenty years later, 1776 King Louis XVI of France was helping the American Colony achieve Independence, arguably for the return of Nouvelle France. The American Colony tried to persuade the Quebecois to join them in the fight for Independence, but the British Monarch responded by promising the Quebecois Language Rights, and the right to manage their own affairs - the result is modern day Quebec. Your statement of refering to the Quebecois as losers, is another uninformed statement. This attitude is the very source of the discontent between the Quebecois and English Canadians. We made a deal, point blank!! At this moment I am in the process of tracking down all those historical sources on the American Revolution that discuss this aspect of the Quebecois and the British. I will be sure, to send a letter referencing those sources to the office of the Governor General and she in turn can pass it to the Queen. That way she could avoid Canada from passing or enacting anymore humiliating legislation against Quebec [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I also find it quite repugnant to refer to them as 'first canadians', that shows a disrespect to the people of First nations. If we are simply saying 'we were here first', we should be giving the land back to the scandinavians, or, as I've said, the natives. [/QUOTE] For One, yes the First Nations, are the First Inhabitants of NA, but they are not Canadian. Ask any First Nations person. They will tell you they are First Nations, not Canadian <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> It is a distinction in the sense that I am not American. I hope you understand. <a href="http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/h24/f1/nlc000642-v6.jpg ">source</a> Check out that link, look at the date, and look what is in capital letters <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> I am sure that should clear up, who the First Canadians are <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'>

You are actually, I have to admit, quite correct in your view and your adherence to it. It's good to see such 'Quebaciatism?' Being from New Brunswick I was always told that St.Croix was the 'first' french colony-hoodwinked again! I actually can more and more see your point about genocide. And I suppose it's also true that 'justice' only goes to those with the strength and the will to call attention to it. I do, unfortunately, not see any way that you can get an international court involved, but perhaps it is time to look at how to do so. It would be a great example, because if they looked at it as genocide, they'd be under far more pressure to look at it in less aggregious areas. It might be bad, but by east timorese standards it's positively benign. Unless you consider Montreal to be Quebec though, I don't see how having more english in one area can threaten the integrity of the nation. I think it was you or Michou who claimed that more and more anglo Quebecers are bilingual-isn't that evidence that they are 'more assimilated' to the french culture? I think I've come around to your way of thinking on most things, but you better put your research skills to work on finding those 'laws' that the english promised Quebec. Trouble is, even if they were written down they'd have be legislated, or some kind of 'treaty'. Most canadians don't begrudge natives for pushing for their treaty rights, I certainly wouldn't if you actually can find that. Keep in mind, the result could well be that its not as you like to think, history is a pretty large complex entity. As usual, protection for language is something that can be open to interpretation, as I've said, there's no real fear of french 'disappearing'. However, for natives, as that has always been my primary focus in activism I cannot simply accept that 'they will be fine'. That's just an absurd statement from somebody so good at documenting arguments. Oka PROVED that they will not be 'fine'. Likewise, the lack of settled or projected land claims PROVE they will not be fine. Just a quick aside, they ARE first canadians, the iriquois word for 'village', which WE took from them. Although I quite concur that they do not want to be associated as canadians (as a culture anyway), however, the big question is will that respect be granted when they say they do not want to be associated with Quebec. This is a huge issue that the 'they will be fine' statements simply fill me with dread. In Oka they were burning natives in effigy, and the Mayor, who was re-elected refused under any circumstances to accept the natives legitimate land claims over his precious golf course. I'm not going to suggest that somehow its better in other parts of canada, but Oka WAS in quebec, which means quebec has a more public symbol of native activism to overcome. The native question could quite legitimately be central to the 'border integrity' issue, since they would have even more claims to international law than quebec does.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] You are actually, I have to admit, quite correct in your view and your adherence to it. It's good to see such 'Quebaciatism?' Being from New Brunswick I was always told that St.Croix was the 'first' french colony-hoodwinked again! ...I do, unfortunately, not see any way that you can get an international court involved, but perhaps it is time to look at how to do so.[/QUOTE] <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicstatute.htm#Article_36 ">source</a> [QUOTE]Article 36 1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. 6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court [/QUOTE] <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm#gbin">Source</a> [QUOTE]UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 5 July 2004 1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 1 January 1974, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than: (i) any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful settlement; (ii) any dispute with the government of any other country which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth; [/QUOTE] The International Court reserves the right to review any case it wants. Will they is another matter. By this letter, the UK and the Queen has deferred all legal to matters to the International Court. We know the Governor General (appointed by the Queen) is the last checkpoint before it is proclaimed into law. If the ball is dropped here by Canada in respect to International Law she is responsible. This letter by the UK defers all disputes to the International Court. The key now, is to determine how much power the Governor General has over Canada's existing laws. If none, each law has to be reviewed against International Law, and the matter raised with the International court if Canada and the supreme court is unwilling to revise those laws. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Unless you consider Montreal to be Quebec though, I don't see how having more english in one area can threaten the integrity of the nation. I think it was you or Michou who claimed that more and more anglo Quebecers are bilingual-isn't that evidence that they are 'more assimilated' to the french culture? [/QUOTE] Being pushed to learn a new language by existing citizens whether its French or English or whatever other language to function in a province where the official Language is French or English is unacceptable (it is inhumane to existing citizens that were schooled by the province). [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I think I've come around to your way of thinking on most things, but you better put your research skills to work on finding those 'laws' that the english promised Quebec. [/QUOTE] Forget History, forget the Canadian Government and focus on Quebec, its political structure and various legal statues. Now look at International law. End of Story. Quebec's framework is to be respected by the Federal Government, Canadians, the courts, and the media. However, the perception is, that Quebec is a result of conquest and is to be deposed how Canada sees fit. Well, maybe in the 1700s and 1800s yes. Now, no, you have the convention on Genocide to be concerned about. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Trouble is, even if they were written down they'd have be legislated, or some kind of 'treaty'. Most canadians don't begrudge natives for pushing for their treaty rights, I certainly wouldn't if you actually can find that. [/QUOTE] If I dust off history books of credible sources, it is more of an act to reshape the perception of Quebec and give a greater insight as to why Quebec is what it is 400 years later. The treaty?? Look at Quebec's political framework and laws. That's the treaty <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> The national and political aspect of the Quebecois. Any move by Canada or anyone else to dismantle and disrespect this framework is genocide and can be punished before the International Court. Quebec existed for 360 years, then Canada decided to declare war on Quebec with its attitude and began imposing English Institutions and disrespecting Quebec's framework. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Keep in mind, the result could well be that its not as you like to think, history is a pretty large complex entity. As usual, protection for language is something that can be open to interpretation, as I've said, there's no real fear of french 'disappearing'. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE by="dictionary.com"] gen·o·cide The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. eth·nic Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage. Qué·be·cois Of or relating to Quebec and especially to its French-speaking inhabitants or their culture [/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] However, for natives, as that has always been my primary focus in activism I cannot simply accept that 'they will be fine'. [/QUOTE] Quebec has already done what other parts of Canada refuse to do. Are things perfect, no, but all issues will eventually be worked out, I am sure. The difference is, the First Nations are trying to establish what doesn't exist (a wish). Quebec is preserving what it already has <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> We exist, our political structures exist, the legal framework exists; What doesn't exist is the respect by the Supreme Court, the Federal Government, and the English Canadians with their attitude towards Quebec. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Just a quick aside, they ARE first canadians, the iriquois word for 'village', which WE took from them.[/QUOTE] Technically, NO, the word may translate, or was inspired from an Iroquois word, but the alphabet, the word, the spelling, is 100% Nouvelle France. We used that Word exclusively for 155 years before 1759 as a French Speaking province of Canada. If what you say is true, show me their alphabet <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> I will be shoring up sources as to why the Quebecois didn't side with the United States in the Fight for Independence, but in the mean time... <a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/question.htm ">source</a> [QUOTE]On the other hand, the Continental Congress saw nothing wrong with printing its Journals and other official documents in German and in French (hoping to win Québécois support for the Revolution). No patriotic objections were raised against accommodating these politically significant minorities. States were even more likely to cater to minority needs. Before World War I [/QUOTE] Of course this support was not won because the British Monarch promised Quebec Language rights, and the right to manage their own affairs - result Quebec <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/idea.gif' alt='Idea'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>