Is it time to get totalitarian?

[a_majoor]

I think the wrong argument is being made here. The root causetm is really all about power, and Separatists, radical natives, and others of that ilk would believe the best way to become "Big Fish" is to make their ponds smaller.

While that is one way to increase their relative size, we should be challenging others to grow into Canada instead, and cast their shadows over these puffed up blowfish while working to make the pond that much larger for the rest of us.....

(Don't take this metaphor too far, I'd hate to be tangled up in nets of illogical arguments and false analogies  )

 

[FascistLibertarian]

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.

Wrong, English speakers who challenge the languge laws always lose. The French speakers in Quebec want to have it both ways. They want to be protected as a minority within Canada but are unwilling to protect the rights of the English speaking minority in Quebec. How is that fair at all?

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.

Really? There are millions of French speakers in Quebec, I dont think they are going anywhere. Other groups (ie the mennonites) are much smaller and able to protect their culture. MANY other groups inside and outside of Canada are able to protect there language with under a million speakers.

 

[Reccesoldier]

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.

There is not a single solitary culture on the face of this planet "that must be protected at all costs"  that is the sort of thinking that leads to purges, holocausts and ethnic cleansing. 

If ones culture is to last then it will change, slowly, conservatively over time.  To try and halt that change at a point in time is not only detrimental to continued growth of the culture in question it is practically impossible.

Hmmm, is this another point of similarity between the Quebecois and the Natives?

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Besides the fact that Canada is multicultural not bicultural.

 

[Reccesoldier]

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.

Careful who you invoke...  ;D

It was I who gave you that little tid-bit about the UN so where is your argument now?  You really have yet to read what I have been writing.  I in no way suggest that Canada will take everything, I say only that Canada will take everything that is her sovereign property.

Passports, you I and every single other person in this country does not OWN a passport, the government lends us our passports, that is why when you've been a very very naughty boy they take it away from you.

Currency, same principal applies, the Canadian Dollar is Canada's currency.  I will note in the interest of factual discussion that any country can adopt another country's currency (I was wrong) but most do not as it is political suicide.  So if the newly formed Quebec nation wanted to use the Canadian dollar they could, of course that could allow for Canada to have undue influence on the Quebec economy.

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've already pointed out that I do not believe or agree for that matter that Quebec should pay it's share of the debt, after all with Quebec receiving the lions share of transfer payments just having that money to spare would be a huge windfall for the RoC.  As for the land issue I am not in favor of that idea either.  I think of it the same way as the old concept of squatters rights.  Quebec has for all intents and purposes "owned" that land, let them take it.

I  do not know of empirical evidence of anything when it comes to politics and social sciences in general.

Horse hockey! (to quote Colonel Sherman T Potter)

Every election there is empirical evidence, every public opinion poll is a snapshot of empirical evidence, how people live and the decisions they make in their lives is empirical evidence.

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.

Didn't David McGuinty find himself on the wrong end of a rather irate Accadian in the House of Commons this week for suggesting that Quebecers were somehow the "real French" in Canada?  The Quebecois should tend to their own house, the Metis and Accadians are doing fine.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Keep chasing your tails fools.......... :boring:

Quebec isn't going anywhere, get used to it.
If you want to do something useful, instead of wasting bandwidth, start finding polititions who don't cave at the slightest whine from a special interest group.

 

[FredDaHead]

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

So once again, only what you want to read is there, not what I actually wrote.

I said that your point was irrelevant to the point I was making. Don't start putting words in my mouth and using lies and libel to attack me.

 

[FredDaHead]

If you want to do something useful, instead of wasting bandwidth, start finding polititions who don't cave at the slightest whine from a special interest group.

Is that even possible? I mean, that would be like an honest politician, which we all know to be a perfect example of an oxymoron. Besides, if they don't cave in for special interests groups and lobbyists, where will they make their money?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Is that even possible? I mean, that would be like an honest politician, which we all know to be a perfect example of an oxymoron. Besides, if they don't cave in for special interests groups and lobbyists, where will they make their money?

Nice big tar brush there.......................sigh.

 

[FredDaHead]

Nice big tar brush there.......................sigh.

After being tarred and feathered, I got some extra tar, so I figured I'd share.

 

[Michael OLeary]

And we are done here.

No caveats.

No continuance.

Army.ca Staff