[DerbyX]

Numure Numure:

Ok then, so by your logic we will have to split Quebec, house by house. Because even if a small area is at 70% non, still 30% oui. If we can partition Quebec, we can partition a road too! Even an appartement bloc! Why not?

If you will note I specifically said that things like counties, ridings and concentrations of people supporting either side should be used as guidelines during any succession negotiations. I think I stated that quite clearly. Let me know exactly where I was unclear so I can avoid this in the future, thanxs.

$1:

As long as there is people still willing to support a cause, their will be referendums. Same can be said if it happens within a Quebec country as well. Democracy at work.

Is that a rounabout way of saying yes? Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that the seperatist position will be the complete opposite the moment they achieve their goal.

Do you honesty think its healthy for either side to continue that cycle or will you finally admit that the best coarse of action is the partitioning of Quebec with the ROC retaining all Canadians and a seperate Quebec doing the same.

[Numure]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Is that a rounabout way of saying yes? Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that the seperatist position will be the complete opposite the moment they achieve their goal.

Do you honesty think its healthy for either side to continue that cycle or will you finally admit that the best coarse of action is the partitioning of Quebec with the ROC retaining all Canadians and a seperate Quebec doing the same.

I still dont see partition as a solution. You will have to redo the infrastructure completly. Where will they get their power? What if their county doesnt have schools? Where will you get the teachers to replace the ones that dont want to stay in Canada? What province will they be annexed too? Will their rights be garanteed if they are francophones?

I just don't think its posible. If the bulks of Quebec chooses to leave, then expect most francophone quebecers to follow suit, anglophones with economic intrests, and the majority of immigrants with francophone origins.

You can't base the fact that they vote no, that they wont follow suit if everyone else votes yes.

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

DerbyX
I'm not quiblling numbers. They cannot force people to submit to being quebeckers against their will and there is no wrangling about it. The numbers reflect the amount of territory. In general terms the % yes votes mean the % territory. Thats why they are absolutely oppossed to any talk of partition because they know if they don't force people the the new country of Quebec will be less then half the province of Quebec in both pop & land.

They can force people to become Quebecers if they win a democratic vote on it. That's what democracy is all about. I don't like being ruled by Liberals year after year, but in a democratic society I have no choice but to submit to the will of the majority. And the amount of land Quebec would take has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote. Possession is 9/10's of the law and they'll begin negotiations with what they have now.

$1:

They are pretty self-explainatory. Try this then. Texas (in a few years perhaps) has so many mexican immigrants that they have achieved enough to get a 50+1% vote to leave the states and become part of mexico (there is a group). Is the US required to honour that? Would we if any lare group of immigrants living in a "region" demand to seperate. The situation in Quebec is different but they are still older immigrants just as we are. There is more to it then simply getting a majority concensus.

O.K. You lost me before with the bit about a "foreign country occupying an uninhabited island."

I don't think the Texas example is a very good one because comparing the US and Canada on this subject is apples and oranges. Let's say, due to immigration trends, at some point the Indo-Canadian population of Vancouver decides to separate and seek union with India. I would say no, they don't have the right to do that. Unlike Quebec, they are not an original founding people of the country who historically decided to join confederation, so they can't now opt out.

But rights are only relative when they're enforcable. Quebecers have the "right" to separate primarily because they have the ability to do so. Quebecers share a common language, culture and history. They have a large province with a diverse economy and a big enough land base to support a national infrastructure.

It's unlikely any immigrant community could ever achieve that kind of power in Canada. If they did though, then I guess we'd be forced to negotiate with them. Not because they had the "right" to do so, but because they'd have the ability. Unless we were willing to invade and occupy Indo-BC for a century or so, which I don't think Canadians would have the fortitude to do.

$1:

I meant it figuratively not literally. No they aren't going to march on the anglo enclaves. I meant that their rights as Canadians to remain Canadians are under attack. If they don't want to go then its our responsibility to help them out amd they have just as much right to remain in Canada with their land as the seperatists do to leave.

No they don't. Once again, if a democratic society decides to become sovereign, then it's residents have two choices. They can stay with their land or leave.That's it.

The government can fly whatever flag it wants over "your" land. There's no absolute right to private property in Canada. After all, the government can even expropriate "your" land for it's own purposes if it sees fit.

$1:

Really? Remember the 1984 Olympics in yugoslavia. I was loads young but from the research I did it was an enormously successful venture and sarajevo (and yugoslavia) was touted as a great success in different cultures cooperating. How did that turn out? Feelings like this are very deep and many Quebeckers are very patriotic about being Canadian. My own grandfather taught all his kids to think of themselves as Canadian and not frech or english canadian. Complete francophone BTW. Once the reality of seperation hits you will indeed see that kind of violence & feelings. You can see that in northern Ireland. The Loyalists are deeply committed to being British and the Republics are deeply committed to being free Irish. We aren't any better then them. Thats why partitioning and each side taking only those people who want to be with them is the only real chance a soverign Quebec has of achieving their goals peacefully.

I disagree. Canada is different. Yugoslavia has always been a hotbed of tribalism and nationalist sentiment. There's a reason Sarajevo was the fuse for WW1, and there's a reason it's historically been called "Europe's Powderkeg."

Chezchoslovakia was a peaceful, negotiated settlement. I think that's a much more likely scenario.

$1:

Your time to answer. Consider the Natives who voted overwhelmingly (>95%) to No in the last neverendingdum. What right has Quebec to arbitraily decide their future against their will? So far the standard seperat response has been to try and illustrate how they would get along with them but none of them say that the rights of the natives to remain in Canada is as sacred as the rights they demand. Hippocracy or double standard? You decide.

You've got a point there. I think legally the native question is far more complex than the others you've cited. Simply because of the involved system of treaties and their special status in confederation. The details of that one are for more schooled legal minds than mine. But once again, it comes down to rights vs reality. Do you think a Canadian government is going to convince the Rest of Canada to go to war over a few thousand natives in northern Quebec? Whose going to offer up a son for that?

As a society we don't even care enough to make sure natives have safe water to drink. As if anyone would care about their national aspirations!

Regardless, it would be in a sovereign Quebec's interest to pay off the local leaders in those communities or whatever to keep them happy. I'm sure that fact wouldn't escape Gilles and Andre.

[DerbyX]

$1:

I still dont see partition as a solution. You will have to redo the infrastructure completly. Where will they get their power? What if their county doesnt have schools? Where will you get the teachers to replace the ones that dont want to stay in Canada? What province will they be annexed too? Will their rights be garanteed if they are francophones?

Who is they? The natives or the people that remain in Canada? If by the people then "they" will have the same infrastructure as they do now or don't you thing the provincial Liberals can easily assume control. "they" will make the transition as easily or difficultly as you do. "they" can easily remain as a province (you don't own the name Quebec you know) and given that NB is very bilingual I see no problem protecting all francophones who remain.

How about you. Given the rabid "quebec-french only" BS currently in your province what protection do you guarentee those Canadians who join you? Will you respect english and give it equal rights (hah). Will you allow them to celebrate their culture (Canadian) and allow them to celebrate Canada day? I bet you haven't thought about that.

$1:

I just don't think its posible. If the bulks of Quebec chooses to leave, then expect most francophone quebecers to follow suit, anglophones with economic intrests, and the majority of immigrants with francophone origins.

I doubt it. Wishful thinking on your part and you are not in the least preparing for what will be 1000X more complicated then the PQ spindoctors say. When we push (and Canada will) the partitioning angle and the people realize that seperation means choosing either side (and we will demand it) then you will see support fall off. That is the precise reason the last referendum question was not in the least bit clear. BTW, I have more then a few family members tell me they voted "yes" last referendum even though they are staunch;y CDN because they felt they would get more "incentives" from the gov't and they didn't think it meant true seperation. The PQ knows this which is why the question wasn't "Do you wish Quebec to become a complete & soveriegn country with no ties to Canada?". Ask that and watch support tumble.

You see partioning as no answer because you cannot stand the thought of "your" country as you see it being divided. No you know exactly how Canadians like myself feel. You are trying to split my country and I am trying to save it. You see the problems (as you see them) with partitioning yet I see the only sensible way for the people who do not want to be Canadian leave and for those that do to remain.

$1:

You can't base the fact that they vote no, that they wont follow suit if everyone else votes yes.

Excellent. You just supported my earlier point. You cannot base the fact that someone voted "yes" they they are in favour of a complete an soveriegn Quebec. Thank-you.

[AngloAngst]

[quote="Motorcycleboy"]


But rights are only relative when they're enforcable. Quebecers have the "right" to separate primarily because they have the ability to do so. Quebecers share a common language, culture and history. They have a large province with a diverse economy and a big enough land base to support a national infrastructure.

quote]

MCB,

I don't have a common culture or history with the majority of Quebeckers. Not my fault; not theirs. Both Boisclair and Duceppe have said that the sovereignty movement has moved on to a civic, not ethnic, definition of Quebeckers. So; which is it? Can Quebec separate because we're all Pur Laine (not true) or can Quebec separate because it is a political choice (like the Texans you say cannot make this choice).

[Numure]

It has moved on from an ethnic issue long ago.

[AngloAngst]

That makes no attempt to explain the contradiction in Motorcycle Boy's argument. Are the Quebecois an ethnic group, entitled to self determination (in which case it cannot be inclusive of other ethnic groups) or is Quebec merely a political region of Canada, in which case cessession is specifically prohibited under the UN charter.

If the Quebecois decide to leave the nation of Canada, they have no right to take other peoples or other people's land with them. If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.

[Elvis]

$1:

If the Quebecois decide to leave the nation of Canada, they have no right to take other peoples or other people's land with them.

Absolutely But I don't think that anyone here is talking about the country of Québec grabbing Labrador or some part of Ontario. silly??

$1:

That makes no attempt to explain the contradiction in Motorcycle Boy's argument. Are the Quebecois an ethnic group, entitled to self determination (in which case it cannot be inclusive of other ethnic groups) or is Quebec merely a political region of Canada, in which case secession is specifically prohibited under the UN charter.

Look you are twisting the argument around here. It's a all a question of legitimacy When Quebecer decide in a democratic fashion not to be part of Canada the Canadian Government will loose it's legitimacy to govern the people of Québec. It's that simple the government could refuse to listen to the people of Québec by overthrowing the National assembly but that would lead to massif civil disobedience, do you understand now.

The logical fallacy that you use in this argument "non-sequiture" If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. is starting to get old.

[DerbyX]

$1:

Absolutely But I don't think that anyone here is talking about the country of Québec grabbing Labrador or some part of Ontario. silly??

Wrong. We are talking about a group of people who wish to leave Canada trying to take Canadian land and people from her. The federal gov't and nation of Canada ultimately has ownership over every parcel of land within its borders. Your claim that it doesn't might hold weight if you were only talking about the land seceded by france and/or the land at the time of confederation, not the land granted you by the british over the years. You are not. You are wrong to think that.

$1:

Look you are twisting the argument around here. It's a all a question of legitimacy When Quebecer decide in a democratic fashion not to be part of Canada the Canadian Government will loose it's legitimacy to govern the people of Québec. It's that simple the government could refuse to listen to the people of Québec by overthrowing the National assembly but that would lead to massif civil disobedience, do you understand now.

Wrong. The federal gov't does not lose its legitmacy. You are ignoring federal law in place of provincial law and are not taking into account any native lands or the fact that the people of "montreal" can do as you are suggesting and declare itself seperate from Quebec or any other region can do that. You are using dishonest tactics to claim that the Quebec provincial boundaries are some etched in stone marker of legality in any decleration of independance. You are wrong. Borders move all the the time and the civil disobedience you describe "if Canada does not listen to a yes vote" is the same disobedience that will happen if "quebec attempts to force Canadians to become part of their new country". You seem to think that the seperatists would rise up in anger if they are denied their dream but that federalists will meekly accept being told by you that they have no choice but t become quebeckers against their will. Bollocks. Since you will never accept being Canadian what makes you think they will ever accept being quebeckers in a soverign country?

$1:

The logical fallacy that you use in this argument "non-sequiture" If Canada is divisible, so is Quebec. is starting to get old.

That is not a logial fallacy. The reverse is. Stating that Canada can be divided but quebec cannot is a desperate ploy by the seperatists because they know that if every person in quebec were given a choice between choosing one or the other then the population of your new country would probably be less then half the current proivincial population and that you will lose land and resources. The simple fact is that unless genocide breaks out Canada will be left to its own devices to solve its internal dispute.

Since you think that Quebec can simply start ignoring the ROC and/or the feds in the event of a yes vote Canada can simply claim any territory it wants to where there is a majority of federalist support and unless you are willing to tke up arms to validate your claim especially when the people living there say "We are Canadian and we recognize only Canadian law and not the authority of a soverign quebec". How will you enact legislation, collect taxes, or doing anything remotely considered governing when the people choose to ignore it? Its the same for seperatists ignoring federal authority as it is for federalists ignoring seperatists authority. You can't avoid it.

If Canada is divisble then so is Quebec. Anything else is wishful thinking in the least and dishonest in the most.

[maple_leaf1]

$1:

if Canada does not listen to a yes vote" is the same disobedience that will happen if "quebec attempts to force Canadians to become part of their new country".

So true! Tellement vrai!

That's what you call dictatorship.
The PQ loves to use dictator tactics.....One example is when they were in power and forced a bunch of municipalities to merge together when the population strongly opposed it. They even refused to let the population decide in the form of a referendum.

[AngloAngst]

...I'll paraphrase; the boundaries of Quebec are politically defined within Canada, as are the boundaries of Cree territories and the municipality of Westmount. If Quebec is allowed to leave Canada, then so can the Cree and Westmounters vote to leave Quebec.

On the other hand, if you'd like to go back to the right of ethnic nations to self determination, you would need to define the boundaries of Quebec in accordance with those areas occupied by ethnic Quebecois. You cannot invoke the right to national self determination without an ethnic definition of that nation. That is what Motorcycle Boy said; I agree with him. My original point stands. How can this be squared with the civic definition of Quebecois without undermining the right to national (ethnic) self determination.

You cannot have it both ways.

[Numure]

All three of you put out your ultimate stupidity by thinking that you have any say on how things can go down. You don't. Unless you are a citizen of Quebec, you have absolutly no say in the matter

If a succesful referendum is voted, negotiations ensure, then the partition of Quebec wouldnt be on the table, or maybe it will. But either way, the Provincial Government with a mandate for Seperation will be going in as the Government of all of Quebec, not parts of it.

The National Assembly of Quebec has Authority OVER ALL OF QUEBEC. If a referendum on Seperatism is giving that government the mandate to negotiate our withdraw from Confederation. Democracy dictates 50+1 for everyone. Your all idiots with absolutly no knowledge of not only Canadian law, but British law as well. The only one with a subjective view on this has been Motorcycleboy, and he seems to agree with me on this.

Now accept that fact already. If parts of Quebec want to rejoin Canada, they will only have the ability to do so AFTER Quebec is a country. Or if they can strike a deal with the Quebec Government during Negotiations.

If you did not know, an agreements does exist in Parlement between all 3 parties in the case of a Succesful Referendum. All 3 parties would work together for a better Transition for Province to Country. All 3 parties, The PQ, Liberals and ADQ have signed it. Charest has even said, he doesnt want it to happen, but if a yes vote wins, he will work to respect the decision of the people.

Now Darby, stfu already, and go read british law.

[DerbyX]

$1:

All three of you put out your ultimate stupidity by thinking that you have any say on how things can go down. You don't. Unless you are a citizen of Quebec, you have absolutly no say in the matter

If you could read you would see that it was the very wishes of Canadians in quebec being discussed but since you put it that way, all Canadians have a say in what happens in Canada and that includes Quebec wether you like it or not.

$1:

If a succesful referendum is voted, negotiations ensure, then the partition of Quebec wouldnt be on the table, or maybe it will. But either way, the Provincial Government with a mandate for Seperation will be going in as the Government of all of Quebec, not parts of it.

Partition will be on the table because we will put it there and the Canadians in Quebec will put it there.

$1:

The National Assembly of Quebec has Authority OVER ALL OF QUEBEC.

Just as the federal gov't has AUTHORITY OVER ALL OF CANADA, NOT JUST THE AREAS OUTSIDE OF QUEBEC. The same authority that grants the NAQ authority of quebec grants the feds authority over our country.

$1:

Democracy dictates 50+1 for everyone. Your all idiots with absolutly no knowledge of not only Canadian law, but British law as well. The only one with a subjective view on this has been Motorcycleboy, and he seems to agree with me on this.

First off, MCB agrees with anyone saying anything bad against Canada and agrees with the seperatists because he would enjoy seeing the breakup of Canada. Second, not once have I disagreed with majority rules I simply state that quebec is not a seperate entity hat can simply ignore the wishes of the people who don't wish to seperate. You are he ones pushing an agenda that forces people to do things against their will not us.

$1:

Now accept that fact already. If parts of Quebec want to rejoin Canada, they will only have the ability to do so AFTER Quebec is a country. Or if they can strike a deal with the Quebec Government during Negotiations.

You are wrong. They can decide not to leave just as you can decide to leave. What you propose is the worst in baseless logic and hipocrisy. You have no right to force them to leave on your terms and you know it.

$1:

If you did not know, an agreements does exist in Parlement between all 3 parties in the case of a Succesful Referendum. All 3 parties would work together for a better Transition for Province to Country. All 3 parties, The PQ, Liberals and ADQ have signed it. Charest has even said, he doesnt want it to happen, but if a yes vote wins, he will work to respect the decision of the people.

Now Darby, stfu already, and go read british law.

You pick and choose what laws and agreements you adhere to as long as they suit your needs. You seem to think that you can dictate whatever conditioins of seperaion you want, dictate your relationship with Canada, dictate exactly what everyone has to do and you are utterly wrong.

If the people do not decide to recognize a soveriegn quebec then it is you who will stfu. Just exactly how are you going top force people to recognize your authority? How are you going to force the natives to suddenly accept that hey are now part of your country whether they like it or not.

More then 50 years ago it was the germans forcing their wil upon people and now you are saying that a seperate quebec gov't will do just that.

Show some honesty & integrity for once and recognize the rights of people to stay Canadian just as you demand we recognize your rights to seperate. You had better get used to the idea of partitioning because you will never be a legitamite seperate country without recognizing that absolute truth.

[Numure]

maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:

$1:

if Canada does not listen to a yes vote" is the same disobedience that will happen if "quebec attempts to force Canadians to become part of their new country".

So true! Tellement vrai!

That's what you call dictatorship.
The PQ loves to use dictator tactics.....One example is when they were in power and forced a bunch of municipalities to merge together when the population strongly opposed it. They even refused to let the population decide in the form of a referendum.

PQ isnt all about dictatorship. Ill let you in on something, most of us didnt agree on the way that was conducted. And I still hold a grudge against Madame Harel for it. Me and a few friends booed her at a PQ convention last year, the hole crowd booed on with us. I think she got the message.

[AngloAngst]

All three of you put out your ultimate stupidity by thinking that you have any say on how things can go down. You don't. Unless you are a citizen of Quebec, you have absolutly no say in the matter

I live in Montreal, Maple Leaf 1 lives in Gatineau, and you don't know where Darby X lives. As such, you have no entitlement to silence us on the basis of citizenship. As an aside, there are NO citizens of Quebec right now; only Canadian citizens resident in Quebec.


The National Assembly of Quebec has Authority OVER ALL OF QUEBEC.

.....as a provincial government administering their responsibilities within Confederation. They don't get to decide on my citizenship even after a yes vote.

Now accept that fact already. If parts of Quebec want to rejoin Canada, they will only have the ability to do so AFTER Quebec is a country.

Faulty logic. Why is the provincial level of government allowed to take people out of Canada when other levels of government might well vote to stay in Canada? Surely it'll be less paperwork if those who want to leave get out and leave the rest of us alone.

If you did not know, an agreements does exist in Parlement between all 3 parties in the case of a Succesful Referendum. All 3 parties would work together for a better Transition for Province to Country. All 3 parties, The PQ, Liberals and ADQ have signed it. Charest has even said, he doesnt want it to happen, but if a yes vote wins, he will work to respect the decision of the people.

Hard to imagine; politicians agreeing to give themselves extra powers beyond their remit. Legally very compelling.

Now Darby, stfu already,

Calm down, you're losing your ability to reason

and go read british law.

This is a matter of international law as well as Canadian law. You have not explained how the legal definition of national self determination correlates with the current geography of Quebec's provincial boundaries or the ethnic divisions within that province. You cannot claim National self determination as a "people" and yet retain the lands of the Cree, an entirely different people.
[/quote]