Is it time to get totalitarian?

[FredDaHead]

Ah lemme guess

with your aggressive posts this last 48 hours, it must be end of term at RMC....

Oh it's going to be quite a cake eating summer.

dileas

tess

Just because you're a mod, doesn't mean you have a clue about RMC and what's going on around here. Stick to trying to be clever, you need some practice.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

OK Fred, enough of the misinformed comments. Please.  Shawn Brant for example, is the instigator of the Deseronto blockade - he lives in Toronto.  Most of the instigators in protests are professional protestors - like Brant.  Tax issues - Amendments to the Income Tax Act removed the tax free status of Status Indians unless they worked for a company which held its assets and incorporation on a reserve territory.  If anyone else works for an off reserve employer they pay taxes. In my entire working career, I never not paid income taxes. Those FN that have signed agreements for Self Governing, gave up the provincial sales tax exemptions. 

INAC stats: 2005 population of status Indians - 759, 047
On reserve population - 2005 - 471, 453
Off reserve population - 2005 - 287, 595 

Just doing some math here, but if the annual budget for Indian Affairs is around $6 billion, that works out to almost $9,000 per Indian in direct/indirect expenditures exclusive of the taxes they don't pay on cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.

Wow.....


Matthew. 

 

[FredDaHead]

Just doing some math here, but if the annual budget for Indian Affairs is around $6 billion, that works out to almost $9,000 per Indian in direct/indirect expenditures exclusive of the taxes they don't pay on cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.

I have no clue where to start looking, so I'll ask: any idea where those $9,000 are going?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Just because you're a mod, doesn't mean you have a clue about RMC and what's going on around here. Stick to trying to be clever, you need some practice.

http://rmcnavyguy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-hate-packing.html

I rest my case your honor...

dileas

tess

(Sorry, I forgot to add the link) Modified Thursday May 17th, 2007 @ 22:03

 

[FredDaHead]

Not a surprise from the likes of you.

dileas

tess

I decided to step back and not keep up the discussion, but you seem determined to try and get me to post something inappropriate by posting repeated personal attacks. Please stop immediately.

 

[Burrows]

Time for a time out.

Thread will be unlocked sometime tomorrow.

Freddy, give it up with the whole "My post reports don't get answered" crap.  We read them all, we just choose not to act in the way you think we should.  If you have an issue with the moderation policy of this board then contact Mr. Mike Bobbitt, otherwise you're just being a nuisance.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

UNLOCKED, BUT NOT UNLEASHED!!

 

[Reccesoldier]

However, you did call Separatists "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins," if indirectly, completely ignoring the pretty legitimate peeves they had, although most of their original problems have been solved since. Just because you don't agree with someone's beef with the RoC doesn't mean they're idiots, it just means you don't agree with them.

I never said separatists were idiots, I said they (and the silent majority) were blackmailers.

Speaking of Alberta... any reason you didn't link them to the "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins" and call for them to be kicked out of Canada? Oh, they're WASPs, so they're allowed to whine and get their way, right?

You are absolutely correct, I didn’t include Alberta, not because they are WASPS (nice attempt at calling me a racist by the way) but perhaps it is because they are not trying to get more than they deserve, they are just trying to hold on to what they have worked so hard for.  How fair and equitable do you think it is that a province of 3,256,800 sends a huge portion of its revenue to support a province of 7,598,100. 

There is little wonder why Quebecers can have $5.00 a day daycare, it’s subsidized by the hard work of Ontario, B.C and Alberta.  People who call the Quebec system a “model” for all to emulate should take a cold hard look at where over the top social spending has gotten France. 

Point to note, Albertans have paid into transfer payments every year since 1961, so much for a plan that was established to help out other provinces during “hard times”.

I won’t even comment on your last paragraph as it is nothing more than a drive by smear, and not even a good one at that.

Now, I’ll try to explain myself one last time. 

I do not deny any citizen of this country the right to speak out, and within the limits of the law, to voice their dissatisfaction, even to the point of calling for separation from Canada. 

I do not even deny that the Bloc Quebecois has every right to sit in the House of Commons and poke the rest of the country in the eye at every opportunity. They were, after all, elected to do just that.

What I do advocate is taking this fight to the enemy. 

If you want to separate, let’s go…  We (the RoC) should force your hand, we should not allow ourselves to be bullied, bribed or coerced by the threat of a never-endum referendum any longer. 

By the way, there will be no talk of shared currency, common passports or sovereignty association.  It’s all or nothing, a complete and total separation from the federal teat. 

Think about it…  How will Quebec replace the projected $7,160,000,000 that it will be given in 2007/2008 by the federal government through transfer payments? 

Who’s going to pay for the ludicrous social handouts of the Quebec government?  Not the rest of Canada, that’s who.

Just to reiterate, (so I don’t get libeled… again) this situation could be applied to any separatist ideal, aboriginal, Albertan, Quebecer or the Cape Breton Island Fusiliers… I don’t care

Here is the question (not just for Quebec but any other separatist movement):

Do you wish to separate from Canada and in doing so relinquish all legal, social, economic and sovereign rights and privileges associated therewith?

Yes  or    No

 

[Flip]

Sorry RecceSoldier,

Do you wish to separate from Canada and in doing so relinquish all legal, social, economic and sovereign rights and privileges associated therewith?

Not worded strongly enough for me.

I would add "Are you willing to suffer the consequence no matter what they are?"
or some thing to that effect.

The very foundation of the sovereigntists' pitch last referendum, was that some favourable accommodation could be extracted from the RoC.
Chretien's government didn't want to say there couldn't be.

I think separatist thought is ludicrous and dangerous. 
The mythology surrounding the separatists is much like the "happy divorce".
Might be a poor analogy but "staying friends" just isn't a rational expectation.

So back to your (RecceSoldiers') question.
Are you willing to accept the loss of the house, the kids and the cat
(you can have the dog and the fish) to achieve your Independence?

Putting that in black and white terms might end the nonsense.
I think we all want to end the nonsense.

As for the Natives - there are no clean hands.
The government needs to get the lawyers into gear and settle some claims.
The tough guys need to know if they act illegally they will be a guest of the
government. And the media needs to stop facilitating the soapbox threats.
This issue has turned into a national black eye.
Again, I think we all want to end the nonsense.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The other factor Quebec has to take into account is acceptance of their portion of the Federal Debt.  Specifically if we shared "Canadian debt" based on per capita basis, they would immediately add another $100 billion to their already $120 billion in provincial debt....at which point good luck with a combination of lower revenues due to elimination of transfer/equalization payments and doubling of their debt servicing obligations.


Matthew. 

 

[Reccesoldier]

Sorry RecceSoldier,

Not worded strongly enough for me.

Don't let the civil tone fool you.

No economic rights mean no guaranteed entry into NAFTA, and no piggybacking on Canadian Trade deals or missions.  

It would I believe, also preclude the separated province or community from using the Canadian dollar for day-to-day transactions.

No sovereign right as Canadians means they would not be allowed to use our passports. There would necessarily have to be a way for people living in the area that do not want to separate to register and maintain their Canadian citizenship.  A residence provision would most likely have to be fulfilled with a specific period of time.  

This also means that they could not call on the Government of Canada for a bailout when they find themselves in the midst of a war in some foreign land.  

It would mean that passage, ownership and use of waterways would have to be negotiated Have you ever seen the navigational corridor that France must use to get to St Pierre and Miquelon?

It could also be construed to mean that any treaty between Canada and the province or area would also cease to exist.  This could mean (in Quebec's case) the return to pre confederation borders i.e. Crown lands revert back to Canada and are no longer held in trust by Quebec.

No legal rights means that once the deal was done the separatists would have no legal recourse against Canada.  No matter how pear-shaped the whole thing went they would have no legal way (in Canadian courts) of playing the blame Canada game.  No lawsuits for historic wrongs, no way to launch claims against Canadian territory, nothing.

It's a complete and utter divorce, no longing glances backwards, no offer of reconciliation and staying friends is just a sentiment, not a foregone conclusion.

 

[tank recce]

You've been talking about the Natives and the Separatists as two separate (ahem) issues - what happens if they overlap?

If Quebec separates, and has no further ties in any way shape or form, including loss of the dollar and passport, no involvement with existing treaties, and reduction to pre-confederation borders, what then of any Native treaties signed since 1867? Would any native lands relinquished under treaty within Lower Canada revert to the pre-treaty holders?

 

[Reccesoldier]

You've been talking about the Natives and the Separatists as two separate (ahem) issues - what happens if they overlap?

If Quebec separates, and has no further ties in any way shape or form, including loss of the dollar and passport, no involvement with existing treaties, and reduction to pre-confederation borders, what then of any Native treaties signed since 1867? Would any native lands relinquished under treaty within Lower Canada revert to the pre-treaty holders?

That would not be Canada's problem.

 

[FredDaHead]

No sovereign right as Canadians means they would not be allowed to use our passports. There would necessarily have to be a way for people living in the area that do not want to separate to register and maintain their Canadian citizenship.  A residence provision would most likely have to be fulfilled with a specific period of time.

Ah, once again, the good old "separatists are evil blah blah blah." If the province separates, anyone living in it will legally be separated. Not allowing people living in said province to maintain Canadian citizenship, means NO citizen of the province would have Canadian citizenship, not some of them provided they have some convoluted ideas. Would the people have to move out of the separating province? Would they have to renounce citizenship rights in said province? All you've said is that if the province separates people will be able to keep their citizenship if they don't want to separate; what's to say nobody will go and say they voted "no" just to get the citizenship? Will they have to prove how they voted? Will there be some kind of gestapo-like secret police would monitor the activities of every single citizen to make sure they engage in no separatist activities?

There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory.

It would mean that passage, ownership and use of waterways would have to be negotiated Have you ever seen the navigational corridor that France must use to get to St Pierre and Miquelon?

So Canada couldn't use the St. Lawrence river without Quebec's ascent? Perfect, one more way to make money for the newly created country!

It could also be construed to mean that any treaty between Canada and the province or area would also cease to exist.  This could mean (in Quebec's case) the return to pre confederation borders i.e. Crown lands revert back to Canada and are no longer held in trust by Quebec.

Assuming part of the national debt would include getting back at least a majority of the crown lands. No crown lands, no money. Would you cut into Newfoundland to give us that chunk of Labrador, too? They might get a little peeved about that one.

As for the fact that treaties cease to exist... does that mean the Treaty of Westphalia is null and void and has absolutely no bearing on today's world? After all, all the signatories have undergone at least some change in their status, borders, and general policies, and there have been countless wars that could have annulled it.

No legal rights means that once the deal was done the separatists would have no legal recourse against Canada.  No matter how pear-shaped the whole thing went they would have no legal way (in Canadian courts) of playing the blame Canada game.  No lawsuits for historic wrongs, no way to launch claims against Canadian territory, nothing.

You forget that this goes both ways. If Quebec can't go up and demand things from Canada, how do you expect Canada will be able to demand things from Quebec, such as the reiumbursement of national debt? After all, all treaties will become invalid and there will be no legal recourse between the two countries, so Quebec will just do whatever it wants, and that'll be that.

Aaaaaand you once again show that all you really want is for Quebec separatists to stop rocking the boat, and that you're unable to see that both parties have something to lose, not just Quebec.

 

[scoutfinch]

I hereby nominate Freddy G the "King of the Strawman argument".

It never fails.  Instead of addressing the issue, throw up some asinine argument to deflect.

The bottom line is that the Rule of Law would prevail in any seperation of Quebec from Canada.  It would be a negotiated exit so as to gain recognition from the International Community.  Whether Quebec likes it or not, RoC holds the stronger negotiating position. 

Your argument of Quebec thumbing its nose at RoC and doing whatever it wants in the process of leaving the federation is ridiculous and so far detached from any reality it is not worth further comment.

 

[muskrat89]

There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory

Ditch the sarcasm, and watch your tone. I'm not asking again.

Army.ca Staff

 

[FredDaHead]

Your argument of Quebec thumbing its nose at RoC and doing whatever it wants in the process of leaving the federation is ridiculous and so far detached from any reality it is not worth further comment.

Just about as detached from reality as the idea that if Quebec separates Canada will just take everything away while throwing all the debt it can at Quebec.

And if you don't like my post, there are various ways you can go about it. One of them is not reading them, I suggest you try it.

 

[FredDaHead]

Ditch the sarcasm, and watch your tone. I'm not asking again.

Army.ca Staff

I can't disagree with other posters, now?

 

[muskrat89]

Sure you can, and you know it.

Instead of "There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory"

How about "I do not believe what you propose is achievable. Now, on to your next point."  Surely you see the difference.

 

[FredDaHead]

Sure you can, and you know it.

Instead of "There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory"

How about "I do not believe what you propose is achievable. Now, on to your next point."  Surely you see the difference.

If I may make a suggestion, then, you might want to look at the tone of other posters, which is equally as condescending as my own.