Is it time to get totalitarian?

[scoutfinch]

I am commenting on the content of your argument which is specious at best.  Your argument has no basis in international law.  

When you own the Board, you can tell me what I can read and write.  Until then, why don't you dial it down a bit and respect the guidance of the mods.  Last time I checked, I (and everyone else here) are entitled to post on this Board so long as we follow the guideline promulgated by the Owner.  I suggest you start following those guidelines in very short order.  You will be a more effective member of this Board and you stand a chance of salvaging your reputation here.  But, if you continue as you have in the past you demonstrate absolute disregard for this community and you do nothing to establish yourself as a credible individual.

Just some advice you might want to think about for a few minutes before you post again.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

It all depends on perspective, it doesn't matter if its here or in say the UK.
People that want to have their own country will portray everything as fine if they separate (IE Scotland claims it would be in the EU)
Federalists want to show all the negative things that would happen.
Bottom line, its not a zero sum equation either way, its a huge grey area that is extremely complex legally.

Having talked to, and being friends with, separatists I have come to the conclusion that money, in the form of transfer payments and not taking the debt, is not really their main goal at all. It is protecting and preserving their unique culture.
That being said I cant see Quebec separating. My family is from there and I visit it all the time. Call me foolish but if it separated I'm going to my land there and the Quebecois would have to kill or jail me to make it part of their country.

 

[FredDaHead]

I am commenting on the content of your argument which is specious at best.  Your argument has no basis in international law.

So I'm in keeping with reccesoldier's path, then!  

When you own the Board, you can tell me what I can read and write.  Until then, why don't you dial it down a bit and respect the guidance of the mods.  Last time I checked, I (and everyone else here) are entitled to post on this Board so long as we follow the guideline promulgated by the Owner.  I suggest you start following those guidelines in very short order.

I suggest you stay in your lane and let the mods do their job. Jumping in is not generally suggested, especially from antagonists.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Tick, tock.....

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I suggest you stay in your lane and let the mods do their job. Jumping in is not generally suggested, especially from antagonists.

I love the irony here. You jump in to tell someone to stay in their lane... about jumping in to tell you to stay in your lane.

Let's keep it on topic folks, off topic posts will be summarily deleted.

 

[Harris]

As Mike said.  Keep it on topic or it gets deleted.  Your choice.

 

[Reccesoldier]

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.

Let me spell it out.

Area "A" separates from Canada. Canada wants to deny the separatists the use of the Canadian passport so they invoke a law in the Canadian parliament that every Canadian living within Area "A" must register their intent to remain a Canadian Citizen on or before X date or their Canadian passport and citizenship will be revoked.

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!

My 17 year old daughter can could probably explain to you the principal behind an international strait. Come to think of it isn't that why those damn 'murricans can use the St Lawrence seaway?

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.

Read what I wrote.  I never mentioned the national debt due to the fact that the United Nations quite some time ago determined that a separated part of a nation was under NO obligation to pay any part of the national debt of the former nation.

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.

Carefull, people on this site are well known for their toleration, except when posters step over the line of rational discussion and break into wild hyperbole.  Show me where any Canadian or Quebecer signed the Treaty of Westphalia.   :

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.

Perhaps instead of trying to use the Treaty of Westphalia as some sort of a weak foil of my argument you might aquaint yourself of it and the concept of sovereignty a little better. Canada makes laws for Canadians.  These laws are our sovereign power and primarily hold sway within the borders of Canada... BUT Canadian citizens are governed by them no matter where they are, this makes them powerful.  

Canada is not making demands on Quebec in this case it is making demands on the Citizens of Canada... those demands will necessarily affect Quebec.  

 

[muskrat89]

reccesoldier - Check your PMs

 

[FredDaHead]

Having talked to, and being friends with, separatists I have come to the conclusion that money, in the form of transfer payments and not taking the debt, is not really their main goal at all. It is protecting and preserving their unique culture.
That being said I cant see Quebec separating. My family is from there and I visit it all the time. Call me foolish but if it separated I'm going to my land there and the Quebecois would have to kill or jail me to make it part of their country.

I should have paid more attention to this post, as I completely missed your second paragraph.

Anyway, I think you are right in your assessment that separatism is, for Quebec, more a question of language, culture and identity than every other consideration. If anything, the fact that the rest of Canada wants to inflict as much "damage" in the form of distribution of debt and reacquisition of land, is only alienating separatists--as well as the rest of the Quebecois--and encouraging the "they don't care about us" or "they hate us" mentality that is leading people to separatism.

Even among the non-separatist Quebecois, there is a large portion, if not a majority, who believe that English Canada is "screwing them over" in every way possible. A flawed but easy example would be the French and English week here at RMC; most French-speaking students refer to French week as "French Drill week," as all "important" business is still conducted in English and French e-mails and briefings are only given by staff and senior cadets who either have difficulty with English, or who truly believe that French should be equal. Given that most French students speak English already, but most English students have trouble learning French, there should be a bigger emphasis on French week actually being French, so that English students can learn to operate in French. If anything, the English are, in the eyes of French students, disrespecting French and those who speak it, while doing themselves a disservice by denying English students the opportunity to practice their French. The English students do not seem to realize that, but the percieved slap in the face to French students is felt by most of the French student body. The most blatant example of this would have been when a Colonel said, on parade, "I know it's French week, but this is important so I'll say it in English." Most, if not all, French-speaking cadets were insulted by this, and even though the majority are not separatists, they share some of the ideas the separatists hold.

For those who skipped the long paragraph, in short, I explained that although English-speaking Canadians might not percieve it, there are some actions that are received in French Canada, even by those who have no love for separatists, as insults and as such, they alienate French Canadians.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Sorry for the smarmy tone everyone, what can I say... I'm a reactionary

 

[scoutfinch]

If anything, the fact that the rest of Canada wants to inflict as much "damage" in the form of distribution of debt and reacquisition of land, is only alienating separatists--as well as the rest of the Quebecois--and encouraging the "they don't care about us" or "they hate us" mentality that is leading people to separatism.

I think this comment reveals much about your perception (or perhaps misperception) of what the RoC expectations might be in the event of separation.  What you perceive as RoC wanting to inflict as much damage as possible to Quebec is perceived by RoC as Quebec being responsible for its share of accumulated debt (as but one example). 

If this were a divorce, I would say that while there may be some bitterness in the "take your share" argument, I dare say it isn't a maliscious "we are soooooo going to screw you" mentality.

 

[scoutfinch]

Even among the non-separatist Quebecois, there is a large portion, if not a majority, who believe that English Canada is "screwing them over" in every way possible.

I don't think there is a lot of empiral evidence to support this opinion.  I would be very interested in taking a look at anything you can point me to that would suggest that this is the case.  I understand that your example is anecdotal but it doesn't quite establish your main thesis.

... and before you react, this is a genuine request.

 

[Harris]

While I agree that your example has merit, I've got one back at you.  Explain how the English speaking Canadians who live in Quebec should feel about the language laws that essentially prohibit English?

 

[FredDaHead]

I think this comment reveals much about your perception (or perhaps misperception) of what the RoC expectations might be in the event of separation.  What you perceive as RoC wanting to inflict as much damage as possible to Quebec is perceived by RoC as Quebec being responsible for its share of accumulated debt (as but one example). 

If this were a divorce, I would say that while there may be some bitterness in the "take your share" argument, I dare say it isn't a maliscious "we are soooooo going to screw you" mentality.

I was mostly refering to the vocal opposition such as reccesoldier who basically claim that if there is separation, Quebec will pay dearly--even though, as was pointed out by someone else (I can't think of who it was), international law clearly opposes the notion that Quebec could be forced to bear any part of the national debt.

To take your divorce analogy, I would counter that what the vocal opposition to separation are saying is not "take your share" but rather, "pay your share of the mortgage, but I keep the house and the car." The "share" that Quebec would have to bear should, and likely would--through negociations--be commensurate to what Quebec got back. If all the Crown land reverted to Canada and the borders were pushed back to the pre-Confederation borders, Quebec would undoubtedly refuse to share any of the debt incured by Canada. However, if the Canadian government negociated in good faith and did not let the radicals have their way, then Quebec would most likely be reasonable and share the burden.

I don't think there is a lot of empiral evidence to support this opinion.  I would be very interested in taking a look at anything you can point me to that would suggest that this is the case.  I understand that your example is anecdotal but it doesn't quite establish your main thesis.

I  do not know of empirical evidence of anything when it comes to politics and social sciences in general. However, the general sentiment that seems to pervade Quebec--although I'd have to put the caveat that this is mostly the reflection of the Quebec urban intelligentsia, who are usually in line with the population--is that English Canada in general does not negociate in good faith with Quebec. A good example that even non-separatists remember is the negociation about the Constitution, and how Quebec was double-crossed and basically shoved out of the negociations. I cannot think of other blatant examples, but from what one can observe, the feeling that English Canada is trying to somehow take advantage of Quebec is undeniable. Also, the treatment of French Canadians in other provinces is taken into accounts by the Quebecois; the elimination of the federal program regarding complaints about language,* which was used mostly by francophones outside of Quebec, made a lot of waves in Quebec.

I did not say the feeling is appropriate, but I dare say there is some legitimacy to it. While the average English Canadian might not wish to harm Quebec, even if Quebec did not wish to separate, the vocal majority that is heard all the way to Quebec does give off that impression.

*The actual name of the program/agency escapes me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even among the non-separatist Quebecois, there is a large portion, if not a majority, who believe that English Canada is "screwing them over" in every way possible.

And many in English Canada feel the same way about Quebec.

 

[FredDaHead]

While I agree that your example has merit, I've got one back at you.  Explain how the English speaking Canadians who live in Quebec should feel about the language laws that essentially prohibit English?

The laws, like the intentions of English Canada, are generally misunderstood. However, there is a difference between applying a law that is possibly wrong, and refusing to apply regulations.

The correct course of action of anyone who does not agree with the rules, in both cases, is to take it up to the appropriate authority and, if there is a valid argument and if people agree upon it, the rules will be changed. The wrong course of action is to simply ignore the regulation, as is being done in my example.

I think that what the English speaking Canadians living in Quebec have to understand is that because of the geopolitical situation Quebec finds itself in, protecting French Canadian cultural and linguistic individuality is impossible without the use of laws to force that individuality to be respected or at the very least upheld. French Canadian communities in other parts of Canada are diminishing and even vanishing because the pressure around them is too great. While some might hail cultural darwinism as progress, there are those who believe that cultural diversity in Canada means more than having cultures from all over the world live freeling in English Canada, and that the primary cultures in Canada--those that need to be preserved at any cost--are the French and English cultures, les deux solitudes.

And to think all these problems have their root causes in the thirteen colonies...

 

[FredDaHead]

And many in English Canada feel the same way about Quebec.

How exactly is that relevent to the point I was making?

I was saying that separatists are being alienated by certain groups in English Canada, and that even non-separatists feel, in some instances, that English Canada is trying to get its way no matter what, and thus agree with some of the demands of the separatists. The fact that English Canada feels the way you describe or not makes absolutely no difference.

 

[scoutfinch]

All of what you argue is based on solely your opinion.  

In your previous post, you relied on a majority opinion.  Empirical evidence of the existance of that opinion would be as simple as a public opinion poll.  So, yes there is a way of providing evidence of what you are arguing, if such an opinion -- particularly a majority opinion -- exists in Quebec. With all due respect, I think you are relaying your experiences and your understandings as the understanding of people from Quebec writ large because these are opinion or views you share with family/friends/whomever.  And yes, the majority of the people that you know may share those views.  But, I cannot agree that the majority of Quebec shares those opinions.

Your suggestion that the Quebec urban intelligentsia's views are usually consenant with rural Quebec is not exactly true.  My family is from the Sagenauy.  I understand that only certain messages from RoC are carried into the 'hinterland' of Quebec.... mainly very negative messages about English speaking Canada.  But that doesn't mean those messages represent the opinion of most people in RoC... any more than the separatists speak for my family or my husband's family.

I also take exception to your grouping of all francophones outside Quebec together.  Ask any Acadien about how they feel about Quebec's language laws or the view that Quebec is the saviour of the french language in Canada.  You will be very surprised to find that most Franco-Ontarian and Acadiens are not on board with Quebec's views.  (I can find the empirical evidence on that you give me about two weeks!)  I stand to be corrected but I believe the majority of french speakers outside Quebec are not Quebeckers.  Notwithstanding my lack of stats on this at the moment, I can state with certainty that Acadiens find Quebec's 'protection' to be patronizing and paternalistic.  I believe similar views were expressed by franco-ontarian groups (but again I don't have my research immediately in front of me).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How exactly is that relevent to the point I was making?

I was saying that separatists are being alienated by certain groups in English Canada, and that even non-separatists feel, in some instances, that English Canada is trying to get its way no matter what, and thus agree with some of the demands of the separatists. The fact that English Canada feels the way you describe or not makes absolutely no difference.

So once again, only your statements means something, and all else is irrelevant.

Let's change a couple of words for their 'opposites'.

I was saying that anglos are being alienated by certain groups in French Canada, and that even anglos feel, in some instances, that French Canada is trying to get its way no matter what, and thus disagree with some of the demands of the separatists. The fact that French Canada feels the way you describe or not makes absolutely no difference.

 

[scoutfinch]

I think that what the English speaking Canadians living in Quebec have to understand is that because of the geopolitical situation Quebec finds itself in, protecting French Canadian cultural and linguistic individuality is impossible without the use of laws to force that individuality to be respected or at the very least upheld. French Canadian communities in other parts of Canada are diminishing and even vanishing because the pressure around them is too great.

Your statement is not accurate. It reflects a Quebec bias that has long irritated francophones outside Quebec.   Francophone communities are flourishing elsewhere in Canada without Quebec's language laws.