[Mustang1]

LysPatriote LysPatriote:

The federal stole the 1995 Referendum, By spending illegal money in the no camp, about 50 millions more then the Yes camp (Chuck Guité tel us that). Every camp ad not more than 5 millions for the campanain to spend.

Other point, diring the last years before the referendum, Federals give canadien right to vote to more than 90 000 new imigrants so than they vote no. we lost by less than 50 000 votes , you understant that we cannot just give up, pack our bag and shut up.

Imagine if it was the Yes who won by 0,3% and you find out that we have cheated in many ways, Nerver you woud except that resolt.

Quit whining like a 6 year old that just got nailed by a dodge ball at recess – YOU LOST!!! Deal with it. Quit crying foul and go back to your separatist masturbatory group and congratulate each other on not being swayed by the evil federalist propaganda. Just make sure you don’t get too high from your post coital bliss that you forget that you push an agenda that employs propaganda too! In fact (I posted this before) separatists bullshit people by suggesting sovereignty-association (as if somehow they can dictate this relationship with the rest of Canada) and that they’ll respect the rights of others (yeah right, like Bill 101) – they are essentially nationalistic bigots and you definitely don’t here that promulgated in plain language.

If you really want to leave, do it. Go ahead. Leave. You erroneously believe that you can partition yourself from Canada? That’s fine. We’ll have a binding plebiscite that will partition Quebec from Canada. Let’s see you stop us. What you don’t seem to comprehend is that Canadians won’t be your whipping boys anymore and we’ll partition you, just as you think that this is somehow your right. So enjoy that land you started with (not any geography the BRITAIN gave you), your portion of the national debt, your piss-poor tattered economy, your own exclusive worthless currency (because it won’t be the Canadian dollar!) and the rest of use will be just fine without you. I’ll wait while you fumble with your “response.”

[RoyalHighlander]

I now think I am going to regret letting this continue.. as I see now how things are turning out between members.. Ill talk to trev about this but I think ill nip this in the bud, and soon too... I can see folks getting thier lkighters out reading to start flaming allready... either it stays VERY civil or it will be stopped right quick... And this is meant for BOTH sides too

[Erinites]

<font face=Comic Sans MS>

Ever since the "Plaines D'Abraham", There has been animosity between French and English.
IMHO... this is not about to stop.
Stereotyping a whole nation is not a reasonable thing to do.
I lived in Quebec for many years and loved it.
The Bloc was elected fair and square by the majority.
Misinformation and propaganda are part of the politics' game.
Resorting to name calling and flaming just demonstrates the stubborness of BOTH SIDES.
We live in a democratic country, many on both sides have lost thier lives to maintain this.
So Quebec wants to be a distinct society.
So be it...considering a huge part of our countrie's defences are based in P.Q. I am certain that if our country was ever at risk, reason would prevail and we would fight side by side again.
French and English have been around a long time, both stubborn, opinionated and argumentative.
I guess everybody needs a hobby. </font>

[LysPatriote]

Merci


About the name calling, to Mustang (a want to read you in french please, will see if you dont Look like a 6 years old.)


tank You Erinites, you seem respectful and you representent what we like about Canadiens.


Internet Help

Separatist Spirit Remains Alive in Quebec
Supporters of an independent Quebec plan to call for another referendum on independence within the next few years, hoping to create a separate French-speaking country in what is now one of Canada's eleven provinces. A referendum on the issue in 1995 narrowly failed, with slightly less than half of the voters in Quebec voting for independence.

Over the past 25 years, Quebec's French-speaking residents have become increasingly alienated from English-speaking Canadians. They fear that their language and culture will be lost amid 300 million Anglophones, or English-speaking people, in the United States and Canada.

Although Quebec's population is greater than that of Denmark and its territory larger than that of
France, its economy would suffer as a result of independence. Despite the anticipated drop in income for residents of Quebec, however, many Quebecois would prefer to live in an independent French-speaking country than continue to live as an ethnic minority within Canada. Most English-speaking Canadians oppose independence for Quebec, which they believe would begin a process of national disintegration

[LysPatriote]

What do you tink of this letter ?

OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION FOR QUEBEC



The Chretien government's "Clarity Act" is a cause for alarm for allsupporters of democratic rights. This act denies the democratic right ofthe people of Quebec to decide their own future. The Act grants the
federal Parliament the sole authority to establish the "clarity" of a future referendum question and to determine whether a "clear majority" has expressed itself in any referendum. This means that Parliament is taking away the historically recognized rights of the people of Quebec to make these decisions. In the two previous referendums, the federal
government accepted that the Quebec government could draft its own question without federal interference. By requiring federal approval of the question in future referendums, the federal government is denying the right to self-determination for the people of Quebec.

This authoritarian act also raises the stakes by requiring something more than a simple majority. This means that a majority of participants in a referendum in Quebec could vote in favour of sovereignty (or sovereignty-association) but the federal government, acting unilaterally, would refuse to recognize that majority, if they didn't like the question or the size of the majority. What's worse, the people and government of Quebec don't even know how big a majority they would
need to satisfy Ottawa. Furthermore the act if passed prevents the federal government from fulfilling its democratic obligation to negotiate in good faith with the government of Quebec following a successful yes vote.

These proposals are an affront to all democrats.

Since the narrow defeat of the "yes" side in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the Liberal government has adopted a policy of threats towards Quebec and especially towards the millions of its people who support sovereignty. There have been no proposals from the federal government that seriously address the concerns of the people of Quebec about Confederation.

Canada is a multinational country. Aboriginal peoples and the people of Quebec have raised a series of objections to the structure of the federal state in Canada. They have insisted that they -- as distinct nations -- need to have the right to determine their own futures. We affirm the democratic right of aboriginal peoples and the people of
Quebec to self-determination in a context free of coercion. Ottawa's anti-democratic attempt to dispute this right for the people of Quebec must be opposed. If the federal government can deny this right of the people of Quebec, they will be in a stronger position to deny the right of self-determination to aboriginal peoples too.

When democratic rights are violated for the people of Quebec, or for aboriginal peoples, all of our rights are under attack. We remember the October 1970 imposition of the War Measures Act when hundreds of activists were rounded up in Quebec and across the rest of Canada by the army and police. And we remember the massive 1990 Canadian military intervention against the land claims of the Mohawk Nation at Oka-Kanehsatake. We seek to prevent a repetition of such attacks on people's rights.

We call for the withdrawal of the "Clarity Act" and the end of all threats and intimidation against the right of the Quebec people to determine their own future. At the same time, we affirm the right of aboriginal self-determination both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. We commit ourselves to an ongoing campaign of public actions -- letters, statements, meetings and events -- to prevent the subversion of democratic rights and to promote solidarity and cooperation between the many peoples living in the Canadian state. We will not tolerate, by our silence, any attempt to bully, threaten or coerce the people of Quebec or aboriginal peoples in the name of "national unity".


Supporting organizations:

Canadian Auto Workers Left Caucus
Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)
Les Intellectuels pour la souveraineté (IPSO)
National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC)
New Democratic Party Socialist Caucus
New Socialist Group
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP)
Socialist Action
Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre
Organisme La Libération

To know more i find a interresting english site on that subjet http://english.republiquelibre.org/

[Erinites]

LysPatriote LysPatriote:

its economy would suffer as a result of independence. Despite the anticipated drop in income for residents of Quebec, however, many Quebecois would prefer to live in an independent French-speaking country than continue to live as an ethnic minority within Canada.

<font face=Comic Sans MS>
People's minds' change when they cannot feed their children.
"Ethnic minority within Canada"
Try being an educated, retired Airforce Metis woman.
Hell...in this society...just try being a woman!
"Equal pay for equal work"
PFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTT!!!!!
"Ethnic Minority" you say?

<img src="http://ca.geocities.com/erinites/forum/anathema5.jpg" alt="">

BOOYAH!!!

My apologies to those whom this post may offend.
I am a strong beleiver that a picture is worth more than a 1000 words.
And one CANNOT put a value on ethics and loyalty!

N'uff sed.

</font>

[norad]

I think it's full of shit!

The Quebec government's insecurity over the issue of aboriginal rights
was starkly demonstrated in 1981, when the ruling Parti Quebecois
unleashed heavily armed riot squads to enforce provincial fishing
regulations on the Micmacs of Restigouche. The failure of the authors of
the Meech Lake accord to acknowledge the existence of aboriginal people
as part of Quebec's distinct society is yet another reflection of
official hostility to native claims.

Oh and this:

The stakes involve questions that cut to the very root of peoplehood and
identity - Aboriginal identity, Quebecois identity and Canadian
identity.

These hidden realities constitute the essential background to understand
the extreme overzealousness of the original military manoeuvre to take
out the Indians' protective blockade. Tragically, a young police officer
fell in the exchange of gun fire. The stakes in the confrontation were
raised yet another notch.


You speak shit, bud. If Quebec cannot respect the rights of natives, then how the hell do you expect to have your rights respected? Just a question, which I'm sure you will not answer.

RH already mentioned this kind of trash talk on a Pro-Canadian site.

*edit* I'm not providing links, since I'm sure you realize what type of hypocrite you really are!

[Mustang1]

This is some of the most blatant hypocritically, disingenuous, self-serving, delusional, naïve pigswill I have come across since…well, at least your last post (although 747 was pretty good too)

Give it up! You don’t get mega-constitutional politics, contemporary social realities or history. In essence, you’re a separatist automaton – a mouthpiece that understands very little about his professed political leanings and even less about the greater national picture.

You dodged all my salient points – that makes you shifty and insincere. Like you other separatists brethren you’re all about propaganda and nothing about discourse. Oh well…let’s throw an intellectual wrench in your most recent polemic.

$1:

About the name calling, to Mustang (a want to read you in french please, will see if you dont Look like a 6 years old.)

Good one. What you evidently don’t get is that I was educated in English and I’ll respond in that language. You can’t compose your posts well in English? So what? This site has a French forum – go spew your separatist pigswill there. I don’t go on to German sites and chastise others for not responding in English! Great logic! Hey, is that the same rational thought you apply to your politics – it’s no wonder it’s a garbled mess. Besides, my IDEAS are still valid (the ones that you have yet to successfully challenge and cower from almost daily) despite the language issue – deal with the salient points and stop hiding behind your inability to write well in English (which I haven’t issue with anyway!)

LysPatriote LysPatriote:

The Chretien government's "Clarity Act" is a cause for alarm for allsupporters of democratic rights. This act denies the democratic right ofthe people of Quebec to decide their own future. The Act grants the
federal Parliament the sole authority to establish the "clarity" of a future referendum question and to determine whether a "clear majority" has expressed itself in any referendum. This means that Parliament is taking away the historically recognized rights of the people of Quebec to make these decisions. In the two previous referendums, the federal
government accepted that the Quebec government could draft its own question without federal interference. By requiring federal approval of the question in future referendums, the federal government is denying the right to self-determination for the people of Quebec.

This authoritarian act also raises the stakes by requiring something more than a simple majority. This means that a majority of participants in a referendum in Quebec could vote in favour of sovereignty (or sovereignty-association) but the federal government, acting unilaterally, would refuse to recognize that majority, if they didn't like the question or the size of the majority. What's worse, the people and government of Quebec don't even know how big a majority they would
need to satisfy Ottawa. Furthermore the act if passed prevents the federal government from fulfilling its democratic obligation to negotiate in good faith with the government of Quebec following a successful yes vote.

These proposals are an affront to all democrats.

Since the narrow defeat of the "yes" side in the 1995 Quebec referendum, the Liberal government has adopted a policy of threats towards Quebec and especially towards the millions of its people who support sovereignty. There have been no proposals from the federal government that seriously address the concerns of the people of Quebec about Confederation.

Canada is a multinational country. Aboriginal peoples and the people of Quebec have raised a series of objections to the structure of the federal state in Canada. They have insisted that they -- as distinct nations -- need to have the right to determine their own futures. We affirm the democratic right of aboriginal peoples and the people of
Quebec to self-determination in a context free of coercion. Ottawa's anti-democratic attempt to dispute this right for the people of Quebec must be opposed. If the federal government can deny this right of the people of Quebec, they will be in a stronger position to deny the right of self-determination to aboriginal peoples too.

When democratic rights are violated for the people of Quebec, or for aboriginal peoples, all of our rights are under attack. We remember the October 1970 imposition of the War Measures Act when hundreds of activists were rounded up in Quebec and across the rest of Canada by the army and police. And we remember the massive 1990 Canadian military intervention against the land claims of the Mohawk Nation at Oka-Kanehsatake. We seek to prevent a repetition of such attacks on people's rights.

We call for the withdrawal of the "Clarity Act" and the end of all threats and intimidation against the right of the Quebec people to determine their own future. At the same time, we affirm the right of aboriginal self-determination both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. We commit ourselves to an ongoing campaign of public actions -- letters, statements, meetings and events -- to prevent the subversion of democratic rights and to promote solidarity and cooperation between the many peoples living in the Canadian state. We will not tolerate, by our silence, any attempt to bully, threaten or coerce the people of Quebec or aboriginal peoples in the name of "national unity".

What an absolute biased piece of crap! Firstly, the Clarity Act safeguards your historical abuse and utter disregard for the democratic process (YOU have LOST two plebiscites and YOU refuse to honour those results) so; as a result, you don’t get to complain about anything.

Secondly, supermajorities are required for constitutional amendments, but should be disallowed for unilateral political separation? What?!?!? How the hell is the democratic?!?!? Nice logic!! Besides, why not have a national referendum that addresses the partition of Quebec from Canada? Why don’t we have a vote on whether you get to stay? I notice that you dodge this part every time!!!

Moreover, you won’t protect minority rights (Bill 101?) and I seriously doubt aboriginals would trust a reactionary nationalistic bigoted separatist government over the federal counterparts. You essentially champion majority rights in your province – that’s what nationalism inherently is! The fact that you have the gall to support anything that chastises others for this is despicable.


I fully support the Clarity Act – it’s about time the federal government devised a political solution to the nationalistic bigotry that periodically rears its ugly head in Quebec. You don’t recognize your OWN referenda, you don’t respect minority rights in your own province and you don’t realize that WE (Canada) can partition you with just as much legitimacy as you erroneously think your separation horseshit contains. In truth, your “argument” lacks that intellectual depth that persuades educated people – save it for your separatist forums.

[JackD]

Mustang: You have some very good points:
True,

$1:

French-Canadiens became conquered people.

Just like the Blacks were conquered and expatited to slavery in the U.S. They fought for their cause and they are now free (er). Ever read the book titled: "The white niggers of America?" Ever heard of some countries prisionner of the CCCP (Soviet) empire gaining back their independance?

$1:

Had they taken an oath of allegiance..... (Acadians]there might have been less of an issue.

If you said you were to sign an oath of allegiance with any conqueror of your area(say the Chineese), it would mean you would not care about your own values, your roots, your language, your aspirations. What a patriot you are.
[/quote]How is this related to the contemporary bigotry and hypocrisy of sovereignty-association? [/quote]
Ever heard of 'Je me souviens" ?

$1:

How is this related to the contemporary bigotry and hypocrisy of sovereignty

Looks like you forgot that the idea is not that contempory. Does 1837 rigns a bell in your history book?
1864: The first Quebec Independant political party
1911: Wilfrid Pelletier;" Quebec does not fit into Canada."
1927 The Brits transfer a large piece of the Quebec territory (Labrador) to NFLD.
1949: The Maurice Duplessis (extreme right-wing Quebec Premier)era:"Je suis en faveur de l'autonomie de la Province, c'est-à-dire du respect intégral des juridictions de 1867. Je voudrais bien séparer le Québec c'est un concept légal que la Province ne peut réclamer sans quitter la Confédération"
Free translation: I am in favor of the Quebec autonomy, which means the total recognition of the 1867 federal jurisdictions. I would like to separate Quebec, this is a legal concept which the province (Quebec) can not claim without leaving the confederation"
1960: Rassemblement pour l'independance du Quebec (RIN) is formed.
1962: Jean lesage (A liberal)
"La nation canadienne française ne peut accepter, en 1962, une réforme constitutionnelle qui aurait pour résultat de proclamer officiellement son statut de collectivité subordonnée dans l'union canadienne. "
Need a translation?, I can oblige.
The subject of the separation of Quebec has taken many twists over the last 2 centuries, but has alwyays been there.
[/quote]your pipe dream of sovereignty-association is dead.[/quote]
Not so sure Mustang. It could still take some time, but one day, you (or your kids) will have to face reality.

[Mustang1]

JackD,

Thank you, if thought my points were good just then, I’m about to dazzle with some great shit now. The more I read this separatist rhetoric the more prophetic Durham’s observations become. He’s like the English Nostradamus.

$1:

Just like the Blacks were conquered and expatited to slavery in the U.S. They fought for their cause and they are now free (er). Ever read the book titled: "The white niggers of America?" Ever heard of some countries prisionner of the CCCP (Soviet) empire gaining back their independance?

What?!? You are comparing African-American slaves to the conquered French?? Does anyone in your camp read history? Show me the similarities!! Provide me with the irrefutable, tangible and verifiable primary evidence that shows me how antebellum slaves are similar to French-Canadians. While you fumble with that, don’t forgot to address the Quebec Act (where land was ceded to you among other privileges such as Roman Catholicism) and the Royal Proclamation.

$1:

If you said you were to sign an oath of allegiance with any conqueror of your area(say the Chineese), it would mean you would not care about your own values, your roots, your language, your aspirations. What a patriot you are.Ever heard of 'Je me souviens" ?

Point? It was hardly an act of cultural genocide – show me how the oath would have demonstrably hindered their roots (didn’t the Quebec Act maintain French-Canadian’s) their language and their aspirations. If not – your assertion is erroneous.

$1:

Looks like you forgot that the idea is not that contempory. Does 1837 rigns a bell in your history book?

Hmm…this might be a potential bomb. Why don’t you explain how this (I’m assuming you mean Lower Canada?) relates to contemporary sovereignty-association? Be careful.

$1:

1864: The first Quebec Independant political party

Point? Where exactly did I deny the existence of separatist notions prior to the late 20th century? Don’t ascribe assertions to me that I didn’t profess.

$1:

1911: Wilfrid Pelletier;" Quebec does not fit into Canada."

Point? This is along the same lines as the previous supposition. Besides, Laurier thought the opposite. We can play this silly game all day.

$1:

1927 The Brits transfer a large piece of the Quebec territory (Labrador) to NFLD.

Nice try – read history first and you’ll avoid such errors. It wasn’t necessarily Quebec’s land and it was a JCPC decision that awarded a difficult interpretation of the boundary issue. Relation to separation? Hmm…seems rather immaterial and useless minutia unless you can demonstrate a direct relation.

$1:

1949: The Maurice Duplessis (extreme right-wing Quebec Premier)era:"Je suis en faveur de l'autonomie de la Province, c'est-à-dire du respect intégral des juridictions de 1867. Je voudrais bien séparer le Québec c'est un concept légal que la Province ne peut réclamer sans quitter la Confédération"
Free translation: I am in favor of the Quebec autonomy, which means the total recognition of the 1867 federal jurisdictions. I would like to separate Quebec, this is a legal concept which the province (Quebec) can not claim without leaving the confederation"

Nice one: a quote from one of Canadian history’s most oppressive politicians. If he’s such a visionary, then explain the Quiet Revolution?

$1:

1960: Rassemblement pour l'independance du Quebec (RIN) is formed.

Point? Where did I question this?

$1:

1962: Jean lesage (A liberal)
"La nation canadienne française ne peut accepter, en 1962, une réforme constitutionnelle qui aurait pour résultat de proclamer officiellement son statut de collectivité subordonnée dans l'union canadienne. "
Need a translation?, I can oblige.
The subject of the separation of Quebec has taken many twists over the last 2 centuries, but has alwyays been there.

So? Again, what is the relevance? Did I deny that separation was a historical issue? Don’t invent an argument and then ascribe suppositions to me only to later address them. It’s a disingenuous tactic.

$1:

Not so sure Mustang. It could still take some time, but one day, you (or your kids) will have to face reality.

Nope. It’s done. Besides, maybe Canada should partition Quebec? We’ll have a binding plebiscite that will partition Quebec from Canada. Let’s see you stop us. What you don’t seem to comprehend is that Canadians won’t be your whipping boys anymore and we’ll partition you, just as you think that this is somehow your right. So enjoy that land you started with (not any geography the BRITAIN gave you), your portion of the national debt, your piss-poor tattered economy, your own exclusive worthless currency (because it won’t be the Canadian dollar!) and the rest of use will be just fine without you.

Nice try, separatist.

[Streaker]

...Maybe RH was right - "Aw Jeez, not this shit again!"

This debate has gotten way too emotional to be of any value, so I will put down some random thoughts and a couple of personal opinions (in no particular order of importance) and we'll see what happens.

1- I really don't see the ROC accepting any form of "sovereignty-association" under any circumstances. And I don't believe that the leaders of the separatist movement seriously believe that they can achieve such an arrangement with the ROC either. They just want to gull Quebecers into thinking that they can have their cake and eat it too.

2- An independant Quebec could use the Canadian dollar as its currency, but Canada will never allow Quebec to have any input into Canadian monetary policy. Which means that Quebec would be sacrificing much of its independence by adopting the Canadian Dollar.

3- If Quebec votes yes in a future referendum, Canada will insist that Quebec's borders be redrawn to ensure the continued territorial integrity of Canada. Check this out. Things could get very messy and the consequences could be tragic for all Canadians and Quebecers.

4- An independant Quebec would be economically viable although there would be a short to medium-term price to pay for its independence.

5- Non-francophone residents of Quebec would have every reason to be worried about their treatment in a sovereign Quebec. Quebec's track record in this regard is not very impressive

6- It doesn't serve anyone to rub Quebecers' noses in the fact that they were conquered on the Plains of Abraham! This kind of talk is just depressing and childish

7- There has been talk of Canada's co-option of Quebec symbols. But it goes both ways, apparently. The example cited of Rocket Richard is interesting. I wasn't aware that he was a nationalist firebrand until I read this thread! In fact, Richard was, by all accounts, a quiet and modest man who just wanted to play hockey - in short, he was apolitical. And shamelessly exploited by Quebec nationalists.

8- There aren't any maples in BC? News to me! One of my favourite places in Vancouver is Maple Tree Square, in Gastown. The architecture makes it look almost like Paris. Fact: there are maple trees in BC, even though they may be dwarfed by the douglas firs.

9- If Quebec really insists it can have "O Canada", although I suppose they'll have to change the title! As much as I love "O Canada", "The Maple Leaf Forever" is a much catchier tune, IMHO, and would make a fine national anthem for Canada.

10- I fully support the Clarity Act. It's an invaluable tool in cutting through separatist propaganda.

11- The Sudbury Sexual Assault Centre is an authority on the Clarity Act? We all know there are right-wingers who hate Canada (i.e. Lawndart), but that whole tract shows that some misguided lefties are self-loathing Canadians too. Sad.


Good night and Bonsoir!

[Streaker]

...just two more things:

There are maples in the West: Lookee here!

And here too!

[Erinites]

There is no reasoning with either side.

[alsocanadian]

Amen Erinites (btw, where can I get one of those hats?)

One thing to remember though, if we keep pissin of the yanks like we seem to be doing lately, maybe an independent Quebec will have a strong trading partner. (I wonder if Quebec will sign on to BMD?)
Maybe they would be smart enough to not publicly insult them at every opportunity (well, even if they did the Americans wouldn't understand them anyways!)

IAM(also)CANADIAN

[guest123]

alsocanadian alsocanadian:

I wonder if Quebec will sign on to BMD

Their influence is a large part of why Canada didn't sign on in the first place.