# Manufacturing history, or did it really happen? The CBC Strikes Again ..



## Cloud Cover (9 Sep 2005)

No CF-18s left Quebec before vote, officer says
But producer stands by his film's claim
  
ELIZABETH THOMPSON 
The Gazette 


Friday, September 09, 2005


The former wing commander of CFB Bagotville denies jet fighters were flown out of Quebec on the eve of the 1995 referendum and says he cancelled or postponed scheduled exercises to avoid lending credence to rumours the planes were being evacuated.

"There was supposed to have been another, larger exercise ... and the planes were supposed to leave Monday (the day of the vote)," retired maj.-gen. Richard Bastien said yesterday.

"At that moment, I asked for the departure to be delayed so that nobody got the wrong impression about it. It was either delayed or completely cancelled," said Bastien, wing commander at the time.

Bastien acknowledged that about five of the bases' 30 operational jets were flown to Beaufort, S.C., at the time of the referendum, but said it was for a joint exercise with the U.S. military that had been planned well in advance.

According to documents retrieved yesterday from CFB Bagotville's pile of paperwork to be shredded, the exercise was called Hornets Nest and was a Dissimilar Air Combat Training Exercise.

Bastien said he did not recall jets also being in Virginia at the time.

Bastien's comments come after a new documentary on the 1995 referendum, Breaking Point, which aired over the last two nights on CBC and Radio-Canada, said Ottawa flew many of the CF-18 fighter jets from the Bagotville base just before the referendum to U.S. air bases in Virginia and South Carolina. The documentary says the planes were flown out for fear they would become pawns in negotiations following a sovereignist victory.
Reached last night, producer Hubert Gendron stood by the documentary, saying the flight logs obtained under the Access to Information law and analyzed by a military expert show at least 16 planes left the base around Oct. 27 and returned Oct. 31, the day after the referendum. Moreover, researchers for the documentary spoke to witnesses who were at Bagotville during that period who told them that, exceptionally, no planes could be seen on the base that weekend.
Gendron said another National Defence source confirmed to researchers that the planes were removed to prevent them from becoming pawns.The Department of National Defence did not return calls from The Gazette Wednesday.

However, Bastien said in yesterday's interview that he had heard rumours a couple of weeks before the vote that his jets were to be flown out of Bagotville in the event of a Yes victory.

"I have to admit that at that time I had heard such a rumour, there was a rumour about two weeks before the event that such a plan existed. I was personally quite concerned because I was the wing commander and if there were any such plans, I should have been made aware so that we were ready to execute them," he recounted.

"I had never heard officially of such a plan, so I had a discussion with my boss to ask him if there was anything to that rumour."

Bastien said he discussed the rumour with both the head of fighter group and the head of air command, pointing out the need to stay non-political and to avoid any activity that could be misinterpreted.

"I was told that there was no such plan and that of course they would support me if we had to cancel activities in order to ensure that any military activity would not be misconstrued or misunderstood by the population."

Bastien said he was very concerned that military personnel on the base, located in the sovereignist heartland of Saguenay-Lac St. Jean, not do anything that could aggravate the situation.

Bastien said he was so concerned that he postponed or cancelled planned exercises to avoid any impression the planes were being removed from the base.

"We were looking at additional exercises and I was ready to cancel them if, for any reason, people could have construed them as being linked to the referendum whatsoever."

The documentary also says that plans were drafted to provide for additional security for military installations across Quebec in the event of a Yes vote.

Bastien, however, said he knows of no plan to increase security at CFB Bagotville in the wake of the referendum, nor would it have been needed because the base already had a high level of security.

"As a matter of fact, I would have found it a little silly to have a plan like that because we were quite capable of responding to any threat that would have come."

The Breaking Point documentary is not the first time there have been reports concerning the referendum and the CF-18 fighters stationed at Bagotville. In 1996, for example, there was a news report that the planes had been fitted with drop tanks just before the referendum to allow them to be flown out in the event of a Yes vote.

However, Bastien said the planes have long had drop tanks - a legacy of the Cold War and the need to fly in the high Arctic. Nor would it have been necessary to install drop tanks to get the planes out of Quebec, he added, pointing out that CF-18 fighters can travel from Bagotville to Toronto on a single tank of gas.

ethompson@thegazette.canwest.com

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2005

Ends. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



This is the reason why journalists are less and less able to take cover under Freedom of the Press provision of the Charter. Who are the so called experts- what documents exactly are they referring to- who is the inside source? I think there ought to be an Somalia like inquiry into the journalistic practices of the CBC, the National Film Board, RDI and the whole rotten ship.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2005)

I recall a similar news report just after the referrendum claiming the JTF-2 was conduction an exercise in Montreal right at the time. As usual, there were no attributable sources, just fear/scare mongering.

Today of course, the legions of bloggers will be unleashed on the story, and eventually the facts will filter out (remember what happened when the Liberals tried to pull a curtain across the Gomery inquiry? "Captain Ed's" server crashed due to the massive increase in Canadian traffic looking for answers they could not get from the media here). Don't look for any retractions by CBC, however (Dan Rather never made a retraction either, even though he was shown to be a fool or a lier within 48hr of the airing of the so called "Air National Guard" story).

I will stay tuned into the blogosphere, not the CBC, to see what really happened.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (10 Sep 2005)

i tend to believe the story. it sounds reasonable to move big items out the province, the banks were moving large sums of cash by brinks and the boys, just in case, get it out of the province to where it would remain in thier safe keeping, why not move aircraft.

 a lot of strange things were done for the past votes, the first vote the QPP stopped guys where my dad worked ( we live in ontario) he worked in quebec,  on their way  home and told them if they leave might not be able to come back to work the next day. that company safe guarded a lot of things to make sure the investment was safe frombeing seized.

I am willing to bet warning orders were issused at high levels to have plans to protect Canadian Governement Offices, Indians wanted the army to guard the reservations incase of the yes vote winning they did not want QPP coming in to the land and taking over.

some member of the Block Party faxed various bases wanting French soldiers to come and get sworn in tothe Quebec army if they  won.

i am sure there was a lot planning that will never see light of day  unless another vote comes up.

securing the weapons at various armouries?
securing ammo on bases ?
aircraft movements, ship movements, troops outside of the province on alert or at least the commanders?
many other places would have to be guarded so the Canadian Goverment could pull out if the need was there.

so it could be very well truthful


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2005)

The ideal north american security environment consists of two friendly countries.  The second best scenario consists of three friendly countries.  any separation would be conducted with a view to maintaining continental defence.  The big country to the south has a stake in that, too.  You don't just fly interceptors around because of a vote?  What kind of idiot would hold ten year old jets hostage?  There would be an interim arrangement, and in three years or less, the Quebec Air Force (or the USAF) would have been flying '18 C/Ds, or F15s.

The taxpayers of Quebec paid for those planes, too.  I would think they deserve a cut.

Don't you?

This deserves a big (yawn) "SO?"

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (11 Sep 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The taxpayers of Quebec paid for those planes, too.   I would think they deserve a cut.
> 
> Don't you?
> 
> ...



Yes, absolutely, as a reward for their treasonous attempts to break up our nation. Why not give them a going away present of a few billion as well?


----------



## TCBF (11 Sep 2005)

What do you mean break up our nation? 

Boundaries come and go, nations endure.

Canada would have come out of that much stronger than it went in, eventually.  With or without rusting jets and tanks.

Tom


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER (11 Sep 2005)

I saw that doc, it said that support for sovernty is well over 50% at this point and there may be talks of another attempt.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (11 Sep 2005)

there was some thought on breaking up of canada.
 if quebec left the following things could happen:

1) the native nations that  have land in quebec wanted army  troops to protect their land till they  could join the new native territory tot he north , which would of made quebec 50 to 70 percent smaller
counties in western quebec west of ottawa/hull area wanted to join ontario , make quebec smaller

those were some of in quebec issuses.

eastern canada would be cut off from the rest of canada , no direct route to the east coast, lead to eastern canada wanting to leave canada maybe

western canada  has always had a movement to leave canada , only reason parts of them joined canada was because of the railroads to link them to eastern canada, that was the agreement for confederation , railroad to the west or they were not joining. 

money  is a huge factor for leaving or joining a country.
quebec wanted to use the canadian dollar as their own canadian passports, and other canadian systems till they got their own. so we would still be paying for them to be not in canada. 

it would of torn canada apart as we knowq it. The usa would not of wanted to have a new country  spring up north of them,  quebec supplies a lot of hydro power to the states and if the first nations took their land to another territory  or country, they  would of lost the rights and cheap power sources. quebec would not want the high tension power lines running thru  their country if they were not getting the money  from the sale of power,  the dams are on native lands.  

There are military bases in the states that  have gone on alert for invading of quebec  if the need came up , during the flq crisis there are talk of plans in various books i read about that,, the states was worried about cuba having a too friendly  of a relationship with the flq people and the people who wanted toleave canada and create quebec as a country.

the f 18 s were the little moves to protect the canadian flag so to speak,  moving them from one base to another, just in case not a big deal. look at Iraq they moved parts of their airforce to Iran  before the americans could destory it, iran has not given the aircraft back yet. 
lots of countries move stuff to safe guard in time of inknown power struggles


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2005)

FHG,

 Please, its called capilization.


ANY seperatists East or West, English or French (or Alien  : ) can seperate peacefully and take any Federal toys they want too - Provided they pay off their share of the debt...

 Quebec cant pay its way out of a wet paper bag, ergo sum: JACK and SH*T

 Alberta - Hmm PPALI, LdSH(RA) etc. probably better funded and kitted out than under Canada....


Personally I want Quebec to stay, if they go Alberta will be 5min behind - and they she goes....


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Sep 2005)

On the up side, if Quebec separated, it would cut about 6 hours out of the roadmove from Pet to Gagetown...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2005)

To really test this theory, one only has to ask a couple of pointed questions.   Was the Royal Canadian Mint instructed to remove French from all of our currency being produced, in the event Quebec separated?   Was Supply and Services instructed to stop printing contracts, so as to remove half the documents, as there would no longer be a requirement to print everything in English and French?   Were any Government Translators put on notice?   Did Indian Affairs put into motion any contingency plans?   Did Transport Canada put into action any contingency plans?   What about the Coast Guard?   Were RCMP Constables in Quebec given any contingency plans?   How about CBC, itself, did they have any plans to close down CBC and Radio Canada in Monteal?   The questions are endless.....Conspiracy Theories abound.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Sep 2005)

....and I've said it before, but just because "I'm an attention whore" I'll say it again, even if more than 50% said "lets go", who said they get to leave with Canada's land?

"Here's the boat, here ya go.....yoooo, separate away."


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Sep 2005)

At the risk of antagonizing my Franco brethren and sistren,  when do we get to vote whether or not we want Quebec to stay part of Canada?  If it's an issue effecting the entire nation, the entire nation deserves to vote, no? Again, not Franco bashing, just a question.


----------



## TCBF (12 Sep 2005)

We obviously have struck a nerve here, when normally sane people throw rationality to the dogs....

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Personally I want Quebec to stay, if they go Alberta will be 5min behind - and they she goes....



Separation isn't as easy as the separatists make it out to be - Quebec and Alberta only have a right to _negotiated_ separation and the international community's response to that separation would be questionable - IE whether they would recognize either as a sovereign state. Canada, if it was even semi-intelligent, would make the negotiations as long, costly, and painful as possible for Quebec (or Alberta for that matter) while actively sabotaging their attempts at independence on the international stage through undermining recognition (if there was any) of Quebec/Alberta as a sovereign state which, of course, would do wonders for putting either's economy in the crapper (that's not even taking into account the adverse economic effects of just the referendum and "yes" vote). Import and export embargos by Canada as well as any other countries it could coax into doing the same would worsen the situation further (and I have no doubt that convincing other countries to do so wouldn't be difficult - Canada has substantially more to offer in the way of "compensation" and "competition benefits" than either province by virtue of its size and trade volume). On top of that you have the terms of separation which Canada would (I hope) make as costly as feasibly possible - compensation for federal lands, assets, etc. The supreme court says the right to separation exists but that doesn't mean we have to make it a pleasant and non-destructive (for the province) affair, nor should we, I think. 

I think separation in either province's case would be a very bad idea - for Canada but especially for the province. I think both provinces have legitimate gripes (though I think Quebec has had more than its fair share of attention and compensation for them) and I think they both deserve to be heard and accomodated (to some degree) but separation isn't the answer. A country shouldn't be something where someone can just up and say "Well, I'm unhappy for X and X reason so I'm just gonna quit." The Kurds have legitimate separation gripes, as do the Chechens and Tibetans. Neither Alberta or Quebec have gripes credible enough to warrant separation, though the right exists. I'm not saying we should go the way of the US during the Civil War (though I believe they were right and am not entirely opposed to the idea here) or Russia with the Chechens but we shouldn't just roll over and say "uncle" either. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> who said they get to leave with Canada's land?



The Supreme Court.


----------



## GO!!! (14 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court.



Source?


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Source?



http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html


----------



## paracowboy (14 Sep 2005)

yes, but if a Province is seceding, would it care what the Supreme Court of the nation it's seceding _from_ had to say? After all, the ridiculous and flagrantly biased decisions of our hypothetical Supreme Court are part and parcel of _why_ that province is leaving its' former country.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Sep 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html



That was some time ago, and I don't recall anyting persuasive in the opinion that the territorial integrity of Quebec would be status quo. The borders of Quebec were arbitraily and artificially created by Royal proclamation, parts of which are of questionable validity in the current context. Personally, it seems to me the determining factor would be variations of the level of support within the voting ridings within succeeding territory, minus all first nation land claims. Basically, an ugly result.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Sep 2005)

What is "Quebecois"?  Certainly Quebec (the province) doesn't have any significant claim for seperation - as Whiskey said, it is artiface, a province created by the British Crown.  Will all the Native groups of the PQ have the right to seperate from Quebec?

Is it language?  If I learn to speak French, does this give me equal entitlement to a French homeland, despite not living in Quebec?  What about the Anglo population of Quebec, which has only 150 years less heritage in the province.

Aren't we all Canadian?  Can I not move to the province of Quebec when I feel like it (aren't mobility rights guranteed by the Charter?).  So, if I am, as a Canadian, permitted to move to Quebec because it is part of my country, should I, and all other Canadians, not have a say in whether a group of people decides to take Crown land (meaning "all of ours") away from us?  How long does it take to become a Quebecois?  Does 6 months in St. Jean cut it?


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Sep 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> That was some time ago, and I don't recall anyting persuasive in the opinion that the territorial integrity of Quebec would be status quo. The borders of Quebec were arbitraily and artificially created by Royal proclamation, parts of which are of questionable validity in the current context. Personally, it seems to me the determining factor would be variations of the level of support within the voting ridings within succeeding territory, minus all first nation land claims. Basically, an ugly result.



I agree with what you're saying and I think that would be a large part of what would be negotiated. 



			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, but if a Province is seceding, would it care what the Supreme Court of the nation it's seceding _from_ had to say? After all, the ridiculous and flagrantly biased decisions of our hypothetical Supreme Court are part and parcel of _why_ that province is leaving its' former country.



I think they would care, since if they want to cite that decision as confirmation of their right to separation (which they need to do) then they have to abide by that decision. While it wasn't the affirmative response to a right to "unilateral secession" that they wanted, it's enough. They'd also stand a MUCH worse chance of being recognized internationally if they separated "illegally" when the only legal condition placed on them (after an affirmative vote by a majority) was to negotiate their secession. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> What is "Quebecois"?   Certainly Quebec (the province) doesn't have any significant claim for seperation - as Whiskey said, it is artiface, a province created by the British Crown.   Will all the Native groups of the PQ have the right to seperate from Quebec?
> 
> Is it language?   If I learn to speak French, does this give me equal entitlement to a French homeland, despite not living in Quebec?   What about the Anglo population of Quebec, which has only 150 years less heritage in the province.
> 
> Aren't we all Canadian?   Can I not move to the province of Quebec when I feel like it (aren't mobility rights guranteed by the Charter?).   So, if I am, as a Canadian, permitted to move to Quebec because it is part of my country, should I, and all other Canadians, not have a say in whether a group of people decides to take Crown land (meaning "all of ours") away from us?   How long does it take to become a Quebecois?   Does 6 months in St. Jean cut it?



You're preaching to the choir - I love Quebec and I have a great deal of respect and affection for French-Canadian culture but I don't believe they should have the right to secede. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Sep 2005)

From what I understand, the 1998 Supreme Court Reference and the 1999 Clarity Bill made it much harder for the _Seperatiste_ crowd - it seems to me that no "unilateral" declaration of independence means that more is needed then a simple "Oui" vote.

Anyways, found an interesting passage that was in my head after reading and agreeing with Ape's original post:



> To set and protect its own interests, Canada needed to set clear and demanding rules and conditions under which secession could take place.   By making clear the difficulties and costs involved in separation, moreover, such rules might well cause Quebeckers to think twice before voting Yes in the next independence referendum.   This was Plan B.
> 
> The essential components of Plan B were set out in a remarkable exchange of open letters in the late summer of 1997 between Stephane Dion, the federal minister for intergovernmental affairs, and the premier (Lucien Bouchard) and deputy premier (Bernard Landry) of Quebec.   Dion's version of Plan B had three main elements.   First, although Quebec was entitled to separate, a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) would be illegal under both Canadian constitutional law and international law.   If Quebec wished to respect the rule of law, separation would have to be achieved through an amendment of the existing Canadian constitution.   Since such an amendment would require the consent of other Canadian legislatures, including the Parliament of Canada, the details of the disengagement - e.g., the division of the debt - would have to be negotiated first, while Quebec was still part of Canada, not after a UDI.   As part of this dimension of its Plan B strategy, the Chretien government had referred the question of the legality of a UDI to the Supreme Court of Canada _*[which, as we discussed above, makes it clear that a UDI is not permissable - Infanteer]*_
> 
> ...



Needless to say, I agree with Dion's assertions.


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Sep 2005)

Good passage. I'd never heard of that before. It seems to me that excising one of the provinces, especially one as large as Quebec, would be so costly and difficult that it's possible the public will would drain away before it could be done (as the passage makes reference to).


----------



## Sheerin (15 Sep 2005)

wasn't the whole referendum found to be horribly corrupt?


----------



## TCBF (16 Sep 2005)

"have gripes credible enough to warrant separation, though the right exists. I'm not saying we should go the way of the US during the Civil War (though I believe they were right and am not entirely opposed to the idea here) or Russia with the Chechens but we shouldn't just roll over and say "uncle" either."

- From such thinking, blood flows.

-The idea is to make it as PAINLESS and as PROFITABLE as possible for all concerned.  This is nothing new.  Countries move their borders all the time.  Last I looked, Poland was doing just fine.

-Let them go.  Let them keep whatever they want.  If the north of the province explodes in a  follow on secessionist movement, don't get involved, and just let Darwin take his course.  

Then, adapt our own constitution so NEVER AGAIN can one social/cultural group hold an entire nation of 33,000,000 people hostage to the point where we let down our allies and cost lives.

Tom


----------



## Jed (16 Sep 2005)

I agree with your reasoning on your last post, Tom. I also feel that the people in the province of Ontario would have a much greater heartache then those from the western provinces, if Quebec was to make a concerted effort to separate from Canada. If Quebec was to leave I don't think there would be much point in having the Ontario powerbase continuing to abuse the folks in the west.

I suspect cooler heads will prevail and I find it highly unlikely Canadians in any province will get sucked into a death spiral that will allow any province to leave without a very painful separation.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Sep 2005)

maybe I'm just obtuse, but I seem to missing something. If a province decides to secede from the nation, why would it care what the Supreme Court of that nation has to say about it? Why would a province care whether the secession was "illegal"? They are leaving the country in which that ruling applies, and starting their own, or joining another. The laws of the previous nation to which they belonged no longer apply.

If New Brunswick decided today, "That's it! We're outta here!" it wouldn't matter what Ottawa had to say about it. They're gone. Unless Ottawa decided to use force, it's a done deal, Supreme Court or not.

What have I missed?


----------



## TCBF (16 Sep 2005)

Correct.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (16 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> maybe I'm just obtuse, but I seem to missing something. If a province decides to secede from the nation, why would it care what the Supreme Court of that nation has to say about it? Why would a province care whether the secession was "illegal"? They are leaving the country in which that ruling applies, and starting their own, or joining another. The laws of the previous nation to which they belonged no longer apply.
> 
> If New Brunswick decided today, "That's it! We're outta here!" it wouldn't matter what Ottawa had to say about it. They're gone. Unless Ottawa decided to use force, it's a done deal, Supreme Court or not.
> 
> What have I missed?



Quebec seperatistes know that the international community won't regard a seccession as legitimate - their political capital will be nil and no one will care when we march in and throw them into jail.

As the Supreme Court says, it must be legal - meaning both parties recognize things as being done right - to be recognized; the government of Canada has to say "uncle".

As you say, the power of force has more weight than legality (look at the American Revolution), but I don't think there is much of a credible threat in Canada of that (look what we did with the FLQ).


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Sep 2005)

They would not be separate for long once they got their share of the bill we as a Nation owe.It would break them right off the bat.
Also  I don't think they would get any financing and if they did they would be owned by whom ever loaned them the money and the running of their new land in regards to natural resources etc. would be dictated by said money lenders.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Sep 2005)

We're still going back the the Supreme Court, here. I'm suggesting that if Quebec decides tomorrow that they no longer subject to Canadian Law, the Supreme Court's rulings are, for them, invalid. And as for the debt Canada owes, that would be Canada's problem, not the sovereign nation of Quebec's. They can simply say "We ain't a gonna pay". Canada can then say "Yes you are" but if they decide not pay, they don't have to pay. They're a seperate country.

And I'm certain they could find any number of other countries to recognize them. They may not be countries with any real pull, but if Mozambique, RhodesiaZimbabwe, East Timor, and Belize decide to recognize Quebec, we've effectively gained a new entry into the League of Nations UN. Granted, they now owe whichever countries recognize their seperate status, but such is politics.

The only way Ottawa could prevent this is by use of force. And that ain't gonna happen. So, we'd have a rogue province (from Canada's point of view) ignoring the Law, and we'd have a seperate state (from Quebec's point of view) resisting an illegal aggressor.


----------



## TCBF (17 Sep 2005)

The debt is irelevant.  if you want to collect it, you simply stop paying Pensions to those living in the area that broke away.  watch the negotiations start real quick then.

Tom


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

Oooh I forgot about that one. 
You are a evil one you are Tom. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2005)

There are actually two different outcomes possible; if a wealthy province were to decide to leave (Alberta, Ontario), they have the means to go it alone. Indeed, should Ontario or Alberta ever decide to take a walk, it is questionable if Canada would be able to survive. Who would pay the freight for the other provinces? Should the remaining provinces want out, they simply do not have the resource base (human, natural or financial) to carry on with anything approaching their current standard of living.

Of course if the Federal government were to scale back a lot of its "Social spending" and "redistributive" activity, and get out of areas like health, education and natural resources which are constitutionally mandated to the Provinces, then spending and taxes would be reduced to the point everyone would have a much higher standard of living anyway.


----------



## geo (20 Sep 2005)

*Haven't we gone "off topic" here?*

On a practical nature - the chances of Alberta & BC separating from Canada are just as high as of Quebec deciding to go it alone... a lot of unhappy campers out there - everywhere... which is how the Canadian Reform Alliance & the Bloc Quebecois got their origins in Ottawa.

If you have listened to any of the Quebec rhetoric in the past - they have always talked about negociating their going their own way - no hostage taking, no grabbing whatever is out in the open, no nationalisation of others property and no Quebec "Renés" or "Louis" to replace the soaring Loonie.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (20 Sep 2005)

> To really test this theory, one only has to ask a couple of pointed questions.  Was the Royal Canadian Mint instructed to remove French from all of our currency being produced, in the event Quebec separated?  Was Supply and Services instructed to stop printing contracts, so as to remove half the documents, as there would no longer be a requirement to print everything in English and French?  Were any Government Translators put on notice?



Why would they?  NB is still a bilingual province.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Sep 2005)

Michael Moore does not like CBC by this article:

http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/tv/articles/1318858.armx

Michael Moore weighs in on CBC dispute, calls lockout 'abhorrent'
September 16, 2005
TORONTO (CP) - Famed American documentarian Michael Moore demanded Friday that the CBC drop plans to air this weekend his Academy Award-winning film, Bowling for Columbine, because of the month-long lockout at the public broadcaster. 
"I do not want my film being broadcast on the network unless it is willing to let its own workers back in to work and promises to bargain with them in good faith," Moore said in a statement Friday. 
"CBC has locked out its union workers, an action that is abhorrent to all who believe in the rights of people to collectively bargain. Why the great and honourable CBC is behaving like an American corporation is beyond me." 
Bowling for Columbine, an examination of America's obsession with guns and violence, is scheduled to air Sunday night on CBC and a spokesman for the broadcaster said the documentary will be shown despite Moore's objections. 
"We've promoted the film heavily and our audiences are expecting it to be on," said Jason MacDonald. "We will broadcast it." 
Moore won an Oscar for best documentary for the film in 2003. 
He used his acceptance speech at the Oscar ceremony as an opportunity to launch a broadside against President George W. Bush and his participation in the war in Iraq, which had been launched only a few days earlier.


----------



## geo (21 Sep 2005)

I can appreceate Mr Moore's position AND
I can appreceate the CBC management's position that "the show must go on"


----------



## GO!!! (23 Sep 2005)

www.moorecxposed.com

Michael Moore is a retard, who is in the business of pulling people's heartstrings with dubious facts and misrepresentations. Anyone who has seen Farenhype 9-11, or remembers the portly producer from such brilliant pieces as "What Terrorist Threat" (February 2001) can vouch for this.

His comments should be recognised for what they are, a thinly disguised attempt to keep his pathetic face in the news.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2005)

Paracowboy...

If New Brunswick decided today, "That's it! We're outta here!"  

 ;D That's really funny!! I'm a native Herringchoker and this ain't even fathomable because this province can't afford it...even it's was FREE!!  ;D Really really good one though....my taxes go each month to keep my Miramichi relatives in the cheques!! ^-^


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2005)

What the hey?  I thought everyone in the Miramachi worked at the Canadian firearms center.  Thats why we still have a Firearms Registry - can't lay off North Central N.B.

Tom


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What the hey?   I thought everyone in the Miramachi worked at the Canadian firearms center.   Thats why we still have a Firearms Registry - can't lay off North Central N.B.
> 
> Tom



 Well...and gee with the Mill closure looming everyone will need to register...I here they're selling nice shiny ones at their new WalMart!!  :-X   Good thing they've got Renous just up the road for housing.... ;D


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2005)

Renous? Didn't we store our naval nukes there once?  ;D

Tom


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> naval nukes  ;D



 Naval Nukes??? Renous is landlocked but maybe that explains it all....can no longer put it down to inbreeding!!


----------



## TCBF (24 Sep 2005)

Gotta be some old salts out there who remember it, and another depot on the Freddy Beach/Miramachi highway.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2005)

Tom

It was an Air Wpns Range.  (Like the 'back woods' of Cold Lake.)


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Sep 2005)

As I recall it from my days at Camp Gagetown in the early-sixties, Renous was an ammunition depot. In May 1963 1 RCHA had six gun numbers injured by the premature explosion of a 105mm HE round and I worked on the investigation with a RCOC ammunition officer from Renous.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2005)

Well this is interesting stuff!! I don't remember it from when I was a kid...All that's there now is good old Federal Pen Renous....home to Alan Legere another Miramichi legend. Renous and just up the road ... "Retirement Village Miramichi" in the CFB Chatham location.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2005)

Just finished reading something that brought me back to this conversation:



> From the Founding to the outbreak of the Civil War, the United States flourished as a remarkable free-trade and demilitarized zone.   As Lincoln saw it, those Americans in any given state who disliked Union policies were free to leave, but they had no right to take the land with them, or to impose their secessionist preferences on their pro-Union neighbors both within their states and beyond.   All Americans had invested in Fort Sumter and had a stake in the Mississippi River, and no single state or region could unilaterally take its land or waters and go home.
> 
> America _as a whole_, however, might decide to divide.   Neither Lincoln nor his Federalist predecessors meant to prevent _national_ reconsideration when they insisted that the more perfect union must be "indivisable" or "indissoluable."   Lincoln elsewhere hinted at several ways that a national alteration of borders might properly occur, via constitutional amendments (perhaps informed by nonbinding referenda or national conventions), federal statutes and treaties, and regular presidential elections.   The right of the entire American people to rethink national boundaries was part of the continental people's inalienable right to alter or abolish; and Lincoln, as proud pupil of the Preamble, emphatically affirmed government of, by, and for the people.
> 
> Akhil Reed Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography; pp 52-53



To me, this passage speaks directly to those who would see Alberta or Quebec (the two most noteworthy) strike out on their own.   We could change a few words in the first part to get something like this:

_those Canadians in any given province who disliked Federal policies were free to leave, but they had no right to take the land with them, or to impose their secessionist preferences on their pro-Canada neighbors both within their provinces and beyond.   All Canadians had invested in Northern Alberta and had a stake in the St Lawrence River, and no single province or region could unilaterally take its land or waters and go home._

Makes sense to me.   The quoted passage was referring to the enduring legal and moral implications made by different areas within the US Constitution (in particular, the Preamble) and how "a more perfect Union" was something that was greater than the sum of its parts.

It seems to me that Canada is no different - the Supreme Courts reading, the Clarity Bill, and Stephane Dion's "Plan B" all seem to underscore this.


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> I can appreceate Mr Moore's position AND
> I can appreceate the CBC management's position that "the show must go on"



I don't appreciate Micheal Moore...

I don't appreciate the CBC...

They could both go bye bye and it wouldn't bother me in the least!


----------



## paracowboy (16 Oct 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Canada is no different - the Supreme Courts reading, the Clarity Bill, and Stephane Dion's "Plan B" all seem to underscore this.


yes, but, again. Just as the Confederates disagreed, so could those people of a Province. And, if they choose to seperate, then the laws of Canada no longer apply to them, since they are no longer part of Canada. So, Parliament, the Supreme Court, et al can proclaim and announce anything they wish. It's all just sound and fury without action to back it up.


----------



## geo (16 Oct 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I don't appreciate Micheal Moore...
> I don't appreciate the CBC...
> They could both go bye bye and it wouldn't bother me in the least!



Ummm.... so what's your point?
wouldn't ignoring my statement have had the same effect?
IMHO


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm.... so what's your point?
> wouldn't ignoring my statement have had the same effect?
> IMHO



No...Becuase you overlooked the obvious

Micheal Morre says he for free speech and all that...Challenge him publically on anything he's said and you'll find your self in court being sued by the fat fuck.

The CBC is practically communist and never lets the truth get in the way of a good story.

Neither entity is something that I really need to continue to exist.

Rant off

Slim


----------



## geo (16 Oct 2005)

Slim...
The original post was made during the time of the CBC lockout.
Mr Moore indicated that he would prefer it if the CBC did not air his film while the lockout was in effect......   a somewhat reasonnable request - based on his personal beliefs
The CBC management chose to ignore his request, on the basis of that they had bought and paid for the right to air the film. If the distributor had a problem, they could have refused to sell the rights .... but once they're sold..... too bad.

That was the context of my comment and turning it into a rant against either or both should not be an issue.........

Have a nice day


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, but, again. Just as the Confederates disagreed, so could those people of a Province. And, if they choose to seperate, then the laws of Canada no longer apply to them, since they are no longer part of Canada. So, Parliament, the Supreme Court, et al can proclaim and announce anything they wish. It's all just sound and fury without action to back it up.



Sure, but like the Supreme Court said, a UDI is illegal and would thus recieve no international recognition.  We could ignore them and, if required march in and arrest them.

The important factor is international recognition - look at the difference between the Revolution, where Spain and France recognized the United States, and the Civil War, where Britain and France refused to recognize the Confederacy.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Oct 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sure, but like the Supreme Court said, a UDI is illegal and would thus recieve no international recognition.   We could ignore them and, if required march in and arrest them.


and that was the only point I was trying to make. That the law would only apply if force was used to back it up. And this could quickly lead to a Balkanization. If we want to keep our nation together, then we have to do more than pass laws that can be ignored.

But, that's a different thread.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Nov 2005)

PQ won't follow 'clarity' rules: Boisclair
Newly-elected Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair

Canadian Press 
   
Updated: Sat. Nov. 19 2005 6:33 PM ET 

MONTREAL - The new leader of the Parti Quebecois says he will not follow Ottawa's ground rules for any future referendum on separation. 

In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be air Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act. 

*Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word. *  
He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process. 

Boisclair, who met with senior party officials on Saturday, has said he wants to see a referendum as soon as possible in the first mandate of a PQ government even though most opinion polls have suggested Quebecers don't want another referendum. 

Before a referendum can be held, the Part Quebecois must defeat the Liberals, who have a majority in the National Assembly. 

Premier Jean Charest does not have to call an election until 2008. 

The Clarity Act was drafted in the wake of the 1995 referendum, won by a razor-thin margin by federalists. 

It requires Ottawa to negotiate with Quebec should the Yes side receive a "clear majority" of votes in a referendum but does not specify what that constitutes. 

   
© Copyright 2002-2006 Bell Globemedia Inc.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Comment: Well, at least he's making it real easy for the rest of us. 

*edit: what do you call that concept that takes politics into a whole other dimension? I hope he picks a date with some history behind it.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (19 Nov 2005)

I would suggest a good date is the day Wolf emerged victorious on the plains.

Applications are still being taken at the CDR don't wait for the line ups! ;D


----------



## Infanteer (20 Nov 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Comment: Well, at least he's making it real easy for the rest of us.
> 
> *edit: what do you call that concept that takes politics into a whole other dimension? I hope he picks a date with some history behind it.



No kidding - as a Canadian, I can be happy that some coke-snorter is puffing up his chest and saying that he doesn't have to follow the rules.  If anyone is going to marginalize any legitimacy that the _seperatiste_ crowd has, it's this guy.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Nov 2005)

I think a hard line in return would be in order- which certainly would not come from a minority government.  It seems like the political matrix is changing by the hour. With the way PMPM is going around compensating everybody for any reason at all he would be likely tooffer compensation for them to separate in return for votes over the next election.


----------



## TCBF (20 Nov 2005)

The truth could be worse:

 We have a province that separates, but their MPs in parliament then REFUSE to recognize their separation, which allows them to remain legitimate and still sit in Parliament  Which is where they can sabotage any attempt tp deal with the problem federally, which leads to cabinet shutting down an unworkable Parliament.  Meanwhile, an interprovincial conference to establish a new republic is stonewalled by native groups, and two members of the Supreme Court are assassinated by a car bomb....

Can anyone spell "Sub-Arctic Banana Republic"?

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

Tom

I mulled over the idea, even worse case scenario than yours, of Quebec separating and the Prime Minister, then Jean Chretien, now Paul Martin, officiating over the 'Peaceful Transition'.  Now how could any member of Parliament, including the PM, become involved with any deliberations and dealings in this matter, if their Riding were in the Province of Quebec.  They would now be "Foreigners" and any participation on their part would be a 'conflict of interest'.  Could you see it now, a negotiation that allowed Quebec to keep everything, and let's say a lion's share of....say profits from the Oil Patch in Alberta, or Natural Gas from NS?


----------



## TCBF (21 Nov 2005)

Worst case scenario is right.  I don't think the Firearms Act could then keep a few million Canadians from "voting from the rooftops".

I would take a nice long canoe trip with my family.  Maybe thirty years.  In Arizona. 

Tom


----------



## ambex (21 Nov 2005)

I dont know about Quebec but I think that if Alberta seperated it would create a very interesting situation with regards to the US. On one hand they do a ton of business with the rest of Canada and so would not want to hurt that by supporting a 'rogue' province but at the same time that province allows the lights in the US to stay on with all the oil and gas that gets pumped out of Alberta. 

I honestly believe that if any province in Canada violently tried to seperate that even if the rest of Canada did nothing the US would. After all it is not in thier interest to have a weakened northern neighbour.

On a sidenote, Micheal Moore is a scum bag. This is the reason I really dont like him, he invited the family of the students killed at Columbine to a private theatre showing to thank them for thier support of his film and actually made them pay thier own movie tickets. He didnt even bother to show up for the screeing. Moore = pathetic.    Sorry bout the little rant I just dont like him.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Nov 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/20/pqleader051120.html

Interesting - PM PM offers a counterpunch.   Canada is governed by the Rule of Law, not the whim of any group of people.   Since "Quebecois" is a highly subjective term anyways (Francophone?   Residing in the province?   Descendant of French _habitants_?), I think that there is strength in this argument.   No group has a unilateral right to Canadian soil.

It shall be interesting to see what political brinksmanship comes out of this - I don't think the Federal government (representing the opposition to the separatist opposition) will be caught off-guard anymore; being armed with the Rule of Law is a big thing in legitimacy.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2005)

This should end so the rest of us can get on with life. Lets have the Federal Government hold a referendum; the question "Do you want to be a citizen of Canada, YES or NO. The conditions; every riding which has a supermajorety of NO votes looses all Federal monies, access to Federal programs or treaties and the various rights accorded to Canadian citizens (no appealing to Canadian courts, for example).

Since this is about as "Clear" as you can get, and also satisfies the self proclaimed aims of the separatists, then there should be no objections and everyone will be happy, right >


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Dec 2005)

I don't know what happened in Canada at the 95 ref time since I was in theatre with a french unit. What I do know is that as the time drew near for the vote the Anglos in Bosnia got together to discuss the possible end result. Three of those were pilots in Valcartier and Bagotville they confirmed that during the first ref they were odered with there aircraft out of Quebec the night before. It is interesting to note that during the 95 ref two Quebec french units were out of the country and all the guns were out of Quebec. Now if a tanker can chime in and tell us were the tanks were the die may be cast as to the validity of the story.

  IMHO we will not have a separation of politeness it will be bloody, let me explain why.
The Accidental Civil War:    On the eve of the vote to separate all will be polite and politicians will attempt to keep things civil after the vote shows the Quebec win, but the Cree at James bay will turn off the power and reclaim their land, Newfoundland will do same with there power station under lease to Quebec. The new Quebec government will send in the SQ to stop the occupation of the Cree at James bay, the Cree will fight and the SQ will lose (Oka). The Quebec army (5 Brigade leftovers) will move into help the SQ restore order. Canada will send in the Army and separate the two factions in an attempt to show sovereignty and control of its territory. In the end the CF will then turn on the SQ and Quebec army out of frustration and taunting. The battle will start the US will intervene and we will have the UN separate the CF from the Quebec army. The only final insult will be when Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia show up as part of the force.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> The only final insult will be when Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia show up as part of the force.



...and wouldn't that be a touch of irony.


----------



## Slim (5 Dec 2005)

I wonder if they'd try to stop the CF from looting


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "have gripes credible enough to warrant separation, though the right exists. I'm not saying we should go the way of the US during the Civil War (though I believe they were right and am not entirely opposed to the idea here) or Russia with the Chechens but we shouldn't just roll over and say "uncle" either."
> 
> - From such thinking, blood flows.



Perhaps, but I'd rather die fighting for national solidarity than something like Iraq.  



> -The idea is to make it as PAINLESS and as PROFITABLE as possible for all concerned.  This is nothing new.  Countries move their borders all the time.  Last I looked, Poland was doing just fine.



Sure it is, but we're not talking about a post-Communist transformation state. I think the important thing is to make it as painFUL and costly as possible for the provinces. If you crap on the cookie, they're less likely to try to eat it. 



> -Let them go.  Let them keep whatever they want.  If the north of the province explodes in a  follow on secessionist movement, don't get involved, and just let Darwin take his course.



The rule of law says that they can go, and so I support that. What I'm arguing is for an alteration of the law. Make it illegal to separate so that force can be used if anyone ever attempts it. 



> Then, adapt our own constitution so NEVER AGAIN can one social/cultural group hold an entire nation of 33,000,000 people hostage to the point where we let down our allies and cost lives.



Let down our allies? If you're referring to Iraq, I wouldn't blame Quebec for that in its entirety. That being said, not holding down the girl that my friend's raping wouldn't be "letting down my allies" in my eyes, it's just the right thing to do (or not do). 

As for changing the law, I agree in relation to secession but we should do it before a separation, not after. That's like closing the barn door after the horse got out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2005)

Mr Milosovic, is that you?


----------



## Infanteer (6 Dec 2005)

Hey - who let Saddam access the internet and put his cross-examination notes up here?!?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2005)

Jumping in late but.....

When is an illegal UDI not an illegal UDI?  When some other country recognizes the UDI.

Domestic law isn't the only law and International law is pretty fluid when it comes to "SELF (as in unilateral) determination".

Boisclair can be right, if he can round up international friends to support his position.  Anybody want to bet against that possibility?  How about Alberta or BC?

If they want to go we either negotiate terms or fight and negotiate terms.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (8 Dec 2005)

Boisclair cannot lead a UDI from a solid state that always was a solid state. Kirkhill is correct UDI is only valid when you have an outside diplomatically recognized nation support and acknowledge it at a world body such as UN or setting up an embassy. Problem is that to do it without blood shed is almost impossible, the UDI is intended for colonial states not full up countries that after hundreds of years are splintering. In our case the PQ would have to do it illegally and prove several facts to the world bodies even after an illegal UDI is declared and a country supports it. 

1) They need to provide security for new borders and be able to defend them;
2) They need to be able to control civil unrest with a valid internal security force;
3)  Have a state recognize them at a world body and set up diplomatic entities on the soil of the new state.

   I cant see any of this occurring except the last one and that would be France, what irony. We have made many mistakes over the past 100 years getting to this point, St Pierre should have been taken during the 1st WW as a payment for our helping France survive, that would remove a French forward operating base from them for the one day when this was bound to occur. We played right into the separatist hands when we let the CF become a place were promotion and in the end control by rank landed in the laps of those who spoke french. And to make matters worse we let the recruit system bring in 50% french speaking officers back in the 80s for all the officer positions available even when they only made up a fraction of the recruit base. We now live with these problems self created, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Dec 2005)

Let Quebec go. It is going to be a very small small country. Several years ago Macleans magazine took a good look at this. Most of the physical territory of the province is covered by various treaties with native groups. At the time all stated they wish to stay with Canada. As to separation of other provinces there was been a proposal called I believe "Casscadia" the linking of BC with Washington and Alaska for about the last 150 years or so. In conjunction it seems a rather large portion of our armed forces was stripped from other parts of Canada(particularly the west) and moved to Quebec, by guess who another Quebec liberal.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Dec 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Mr Milosovic, is that you?





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hey - who let Saddam access the internet and put his cross-examination notes up here?!?



lol... Very funny, guys. Would you characterize Lincoln as a despot? Would you classify the US as an oppressive authoritarian state? I'm not suggesting anything that hasn't been done before in North America. US states can't separate, but I wouldn't say that makes them oppressed. When the South tried, it got sense smacked into it by the Union and rightfully so. 

If I want to leave the country, it's not as though I can declare that my private property (IE the lot my house sits on) is now a sovereign state or claim a right to negotiated separation.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

The problem is that the BQ/PQ effectively argue that they ARE a colonized nation and that the Anglos (h**l the Brits) were the colonizing power.

Internationally 1759 was yesterday.  When was the Field of Crows? 1238?  How about the Boyne - 1689? Or Culloden - 1745? All those dates still resonate.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Dec 2005)

Ape, in my dictionary, "confederation" is not defined as "perpetual thrall to a higher power", or "absolutely no right to self determination".  Of course, as everyone likes to point out, I have no degree, so maybe I misunderstood the fine print.    8)


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

> If I want to leave the country, it's not as though I can declare that my private property (IE the lot my house sits on) is now a sovereign state or claim a right to negotiated separation.



Actually Glory, you probably could - with enough friends, or enough money - find some good Uranium down there and see how long it takes for you to find friends willing to support your claim of sovereignty.


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem is that the BQ/PQ effectively argue that they ARE a colonized nation and that the Anglos (h**l the Brits) were the colonizing power.
> 
> Internationally 1759 was yesterday.   When was the Field of Crows? 1238?   How about the Boyne - 1689? Or Culloden - 1745? All those dates still resonate.



Yes, and the ridiculous nature of colonists claiming they're a colonized nation is painfully apparent. I agree with you that history matters, especially to those who dig and dig looking for something to whine about and rally around. The fact remains, however, that while separation is still legal, I'll support the right to it. It's the legality of it that I have a problem with. 




			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Ape, in my dictionary, "confederation" is not defined as "perpetual thrall to a higher power", or "absolutely no right to self determination".  Of course, as everyone likes to point out, I have no degree, so maybe I misunderstood the fine print.    8)



I guess it depends on your interpretation of confederation. As confederation allows the constituents thereof to retain substantial independence, I suppose you could view the right to separation as a natural result of that retained independence. Conversely, you could view the retention of a high degree of independence as simply that - the retention of rights and autonomy as delineated by the agreement governing the confederation and no more. 



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually Glory, you probably could - with enough friends, or enough money - find some good Uranium down there and see how long it takes for you to find friends willing to support your claim of sovereignty.



I will call it Apeland and it will be a beacon of light guiding the world.  ;D


----------



## TCBF (14 Dec 2005)

"I will call it Apeland and it will be a beacon of light guiding the world."

If you let me run it , it will be.

If you run it, it will be a statist camp where criminals run free and honest working men are helpless.

Commie.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (14 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I will call it Apeland and it will be a beacon of light guiding the world."
> 
> If you let me run it , it will be.
> 
> ...



YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO TASTE THE WRATH OF MY APISH FOREIGN POLICY. I will dispatch APE agents (Agency for the Promotion of Enlightenment) after you and they will re-educate you in the ways of Apian enlightenment. :rage:


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2005)

> ways of Apian enlightenment



Where's Freud when you need him?  Coming out of the Hive are we?  Going to bee a bzzzy boy are we?  Beware the Borg.  We shall all be assimilated.

Apian-of or pertaining to bees.  Much more appropriate as a defining image for your philosophy doncha think?

Cheers


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Dec 2005)

You could even call them Talibapes, now THAT would be cool....


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2005)

"APE agents (Agency for the Promotion of Enlightenment)" 

- I see .....  opportunity.

This agency hire ex-military?  Can I roll my pension over?  

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Where's Freud when you need him?  Coming out of the Hive are we?  Going to bee a bzzzy boy are we?  Beware the Borg.  We shall all be assimilated.
> 
> Apian-of or pertaining to bees.  Much more appropriate as a defining image for your philosophy doncha think?
> 
> Cheers



You learn something new every day. I thought I'd created a new word... dammit. I'd follow the whole bee-theme but I'm just a much larger fan of primates. Hey, they're social and they generally follow hierarchical organization so it's still a good theme. 




			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> "APE agents (Agency for the Promotion of Enlightenment)"
> 
> - I see .....  opportunity.
> 
> ...



Yes, the APE hires ex-military but, unfortunately, pensionable service to a foreign government is non-transferable to Apelandic service. There is a pension service for Apelandic personnel. 



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You could even call them Talibapes, now THAT would be cool....



Hahaha - "Talibapes" - that's gold. I'm stealing that. Thanks!  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (16 Dec 2005)

The Canadian Military would be almost cut in half in that eventuality.  It has one of its three Bdes in Quebec, one of its two major Fighter Bases in Quebec, as well as a fairly large chunk of its War Reserves, Workshops and Materials.  The Recruiting infrastructure and School is in Quebec also.  It would cause there to be quite a shake up in DND, with many guessing as to what direction CF Members may swing their allegiance.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2005)

Irregardless of my general opinion, I do think Martin has cojones for telling the Bloc what he thinks of them and their politics in the second debate:



> "Let me say also that I am a Quebecer. And you are not going to take my country away from me, with some trick, with some ambiguous question," Martin said.
> 
> "...This is my country and my children were born and raised in Quebec, and you're not going to go to them and say that you're going to find some backdoor way of taking my country, or dividing Quebec family against Quebec family."


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Canadian Military would be almost cut in half in that eventuality.   It has one of its three Bdes in Quebec, one of its two major Fighter Bases in Quebec, as well as a fairly large chunk of its War Reserves, Workshops and Materials.   The Recruiting infrastructure and School is in Quebec also.   It would cause there to be quite a shake up in DND, with many guessing as to what direction CF Members may swing their allegiance.



Well if it happens all DND will do is transfer every thing back to Upper Canada then if not we use Military Force.
I'm fed up of just one so called Federal Party but which is just a Provincial Party wishing to split us up as Nation and they get Million's of our Tax  $' s for what to just bone us?


----------



## geo (18 Dec 2005)

Gents,

For what is't worth, I find the whole thing of your BQ/PQ Quebec bashing somewhat tiring.

Have provided, to date, 30+ years of good and loyal service to Canada and the CF and have yet to have someone of importance come up to me and suggest that he is aching to join a Quebec Army of any kind.

Give it a break

Please

Thank you!

Chimo!


----------



## GO!!! (18 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Gents,
> 
> For what is't worth, I find the whole thing of your BQ/PQ Quebec bashing somewhat tiring.
> 
> ...



So we should just ignore that millions of dollars of taxpayer's money goes to traitors, and not discuss the possibility (however remote) of seperation and the fate of billions of dollars of kit and infrastructure if Quebec did seperate, just because you find it tiresome?

I'm sure if we just ignore this problem, it will go away......


----------



## TCBF (18 Dec 2005)

But, what if thet are not traitors?  What if the best future for both Canada (-) and Quebec was once that allowed them to grow stronger separately unencumbered by each others values and culture?

Indded, what if what they want is not only better for them, but also much better for us, allowing us to strengthen our culture and stop it's decline?

What if?

Is it not better that we thrive separately as good friends rather than compromise ourselves down the toilet bowl of irrelevancy?

Speaking theoretically, of course.

Tom


----------



## Jed (18 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> As TCBF says: But, what if they are not traitors?   What if the best future for both Canada (-) and Quebec was once that allowed them to grow stronger separately unencumbered by each others values and culture?
> 
> Indeed, what if what they want is not only better for them, but also much better for us, allowing us to strengthen our culture and stop it's decline?
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (18 Dec 2005)

What about the czech and slovak republics?

And just how hard do you thing the Sri Lankans, Jamaicans and Somalis in Ontario will fight for Westmount?

"Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary?"

Riiiiiiiiiiggghht....

Tom


----------



## Jed (18 Dec 2005)

Yep some divorces do end amicably too, so I give you the occassional benign split up like Checkoslovakia, Tom. And I also feel that many of the newer Canadains in TO or Montreal will not be so eager to jump into a frey to support a united Canada; but, I do think that there are more than enough Canadians with deeper roots that will.

I don't think we will ever know for sure, and I this is one point of view that I do not want to be proven correct about.

In 1995 ( ?) during the last NO / YES referendum, there seemed to be some agitated folks along the Ottawa river tht had a stronger opinion than me on this issue.

Jed


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2005)

FWIW.............

Aren't we off topic here?

just my 2 ¢ worth


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2005)

> "Let me say also that I am a Quebecer. And you are not going to take my country away from me, with some trick, with some ambiguous question," Martin said.
> 
> "...This is my country and my children were born and raised in Quebec, and you're not going to go to them and say that you're going to find some backdoor way of taking my country, or dividing Quebec family against Quebec family."



Although my French is pretty much non existant, I did get some help with the French language debate and Martin said nothing even remotely like that. So the message to English voters is "I'm a tough guy" but absolute silence on the French side? *Odd there has been no mention of this by our favorite news agency.*


----------



## 3rd Horseman (20 Dec 2005)

Bad example the Czechs separated from the poor province of the Slovaks, the Slovaks could do nothing since they were poor and lacking the Army to stop it. It would be like Canada separating from Quebec.


EDIT typo


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> And just how hard do you thing the Sri Lankans, Jamaicans and Somalis in Ontario will fight for Westmount?



Interesting observation, and a damned good one to remind them with. Considering the US probably won't recognize their citizenship papers when Ontario fractures into about 5 pieces and the rural and resource rich regions assimilate into the states of Michigan and New York (respectively), I would think they will fight like hell to keep Westmount under the roof. Otherwise, they may as well go back to their home countries because life will be about as miserable, and a lot colder.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2006)

Interesting point Whiskey, how will the United States receive the citizens of the former Dominion of Canada, and what obligations will they undertake if/when they assimilate the pieces. (Don't count on generous CPP and UI payments anymore, that's for sure.) Would/could they simply write off Canada's accumulated national debt? Will they convert our currency at the going market rate ( expect a currency collapse on our side if there is a separation).

Even without a fight, separation will create a moster financial collapse.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jan 2006)

Nope.  Not if it is done properly.  There will be no Canadian military action, largely due to the fact that there is no Canadian military effective to the task.

Expansion?  New Canadians in the ranks?  Right, soon as their security clearances come through - in 2017.

Or, do the Foriegn Legion trick, right off the boat, into uniform, Canadian citizenship on demob?  Sure...  picture yourself on trial as a Platoon Commander who had to lead a bunch of THOSE war criminals house to house in Dorval.

Nope.  Never happen.  Let them keep what they have, and wish them good luck.

Tom


----------



## sheikyerbouti (4 Jan 2006)

To Mr.majoor,

 PM Martin's comments in the French debate were almost verbatim with respect to his family comments in the English debate. If memory serves the leaders repeated alot of their comments  in both debates as the questions were not too dissimilar with the exception of a few 'regional' questions. My personal fave was the hunter, showing off his collection of rifles while asking about handgun restrictions. 

 TCBF,
 The whole  conscription issue is in my opinion a  nonstarter nowadays. Historically it was an unfortunate recurrence of perceived Anglo neglect for the Franco position but that belies the participation of many, many French-canadians who enlisted and served quite proudly. In truth, so few people were conscripted (30,000 or so) it shouldn't have aroused any concern especially with over a million Canucks in uniform for WW2.

 Let's face it, there is a nostalgic contingent which might want to go back to the time before La Conquete (1759) but they are truly a dying breed. Look at what Boisclair is saying about sovereignty, let alone the 'Hero' Duceppe's unwillingness to lead the charge by assuming provincial leadership. It's not as if the Bloc would initiate a referendum in the Parliament.

 The St.jean Baptiste society and some other groups have long cultivated support from the media, clergy, the public, some politicians and even academics and they have yet to succeed. Pere L'Abbe Groulx espoused this approach a hundred years ago and nothing has changed. Action Francaise tried and failed. The only real chance that the hardliners had in Quebec was 1995 and only since most Quebeckers were pissed at economic problems that were rampant at the time (and mostly the provinces fault).

 I think Montrealers in particular realized this, as well paying jobs left for the less secessionist parts of the country. As Mr. Parizeau said so well "we lost because of money and the ethnic vote" (sounds better in French)

 If we are to see a battle for Quebec's sovereignty it will be exclusively in the political arena. In financial terms, we can look at the '95 aftermath which depressed our currency a bit but didn't really hit the rest of Canada like it hit Quebec (a low dollar helps, but not if you want  to leave the country). In fact, some areas like Toronto and Calgary benefited from the outflow of  corporate activity from Urban Quebec.


edited to correct a surname.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jan 2006)

"TCBF,
 The whole  conscription issue is in my opinion a  nonstarter nowadays. "

Exactly.  That, and my previous posts on this thread, were directed to the assumptions made by normally logical people on this site, that Canada would somehow resort to a levee-en-masse to combat a separation, and that the normal dregs of society (militarily useless at any time) would flow to the colours to protect the 'unity' of a country most call home out of convenience.

Tom


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Jan 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> what obligations will they undertake if/when they assimilate the pieces. (Don't count on generous CPP and UI payments anymore, that's for sure.) Would/could they simply write off Canada's accumulated national debt? Will they convert our currency at the going market rate



 Does anyone know if the "problems" a separation would cause, have been addressed by the bloc? The native land claims, portion of national debt, currency, etc. It seems the rest of Canada sees the problems but we havn't heard any responses from the seperatists. If anyone knows of links or can direct me to a website, I would be very interested in hearing logical answers to what the game plan would be.

 Or is it a matter of seperate first and wing it from there?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Or is it a matter of seperate first and wing it from there?



That seems to have been the plan, do a UDI right after the refferendum. Plan "B" was probably to keep a jet warm on the runway full of American dollars, gold certificates and an up to date flight plan to the Grand Cayman Islands for the leaders of the PQ.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (4 Jan 2006)

TCBF: loud and clear and I couldn't agree with you more.

Shelldrake: look here if you want www.uni.ca/bq00_orientations.html

 The bloc have been wavering on the issue of separation and have been more open to the idea of promoting sovereignty in increments. Negotiations on things like debt would probably take a long time but some things like Native land claims, Hydro-power rights, and the status of ex-patriates would probably be addressed fairly quickly. Money is a huge problem for Quebeckers as there is a distinct unwillingness to be fiscally accountable (case in point the recent strikes and protests over cuts to education and pay packages).

 We really shouldn't have much fear of the Bloc as they have proven they are more than willing to work within the present system. As many on this board complain, the Bloc has been taking Federal dollars for quite some time and seem to be in no hurry to get off the gravy train.

 Of most concern should be the efforts of the Parti Quebecois who would be in the position of initiating any referendum. What is notable is the seeming reluctance of their new leader (Boisclair) to initiate said referendum. Quebec is in a major financial crisis right now with booming deficits and a fast growing retirement population. This financial situation is dire enought to allay immediate concerns over secession as Quebeckers do not have the means($) to mitigate the fallout that would occur. 

 One other item worthy of mention is that there is currently a major transition within the PQ itself. The old guard is aging out and for too long there was little effort to cultivate a new crop of tomorrow's leaders. The election of Andre Boisclair is evident of this as his credentials are not exactly up to snuff. He is an avowed drug user and his open sexuality most certainly irks certain traditionally supportive segments of the Quebec population(read Catholics and rural people).

 Pure Laine is an ill conceived notion with no great historical affinity to the present day Quebecois population.Yes, it is true that 80% are French speaking but Bill 101  is more responsible for that than some groundswell of sentiment for days gone by.

 If Quebeckers want to go back to the way things were, they may want to remember the days when there was no Rural electricity, School wasn't mandatory, most people worked manual labour jobs (many for American firms) and were subject to the rule of such notable leaders like premier Maurice Duplessis(strike breaker and racist) or the Catholic clergy which advocated pastoralism over advancement and knowledge.

 In my own opinion, as long as Quebeckers feel represented on the Federal stage we are not very likely to face the threat of secession. More likely to occur is a revisitation of the Constitution Act, preferably without the need for near unanimous approval from the outside provinces. We came close, but you can blame Manitobans and their politicians for cocking it up the last time we had a real chance.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jan 2006)

"you can blame Manitobans and their politicians for cocking it up the last time we had a real chance."

- Amazing what one guy with an eagle feather can do, eh?

 ;D

But, as to Meech Lake, I agreed with Trudeau (for only the second time in my life, the first was "Just watch me!"). Meech was a "..mess that deserve(d) a great big no."

Tom


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (5 Jan 2006)

Although any seperation of Canada in my view is disgusting, maybee a measured approach to seperation would take a hell of alot less flack.

 The seperatists would need to adresse each problem individually in stages before getting their desired result in the end. And that would take decades.  Another major thing they have clearly failed to look at is, how many crown corporations are based out of Quebec? What about things like Federal loan guarantees for companies like Bombardier? The idea of cutting free like a proverbial ice floe and merrily singing "sur le pond d'avion" for the rest of eternity is so ludicrouse its funny.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jan 2006)

"proverbial ice floe and merrily singing "sur le pond d'avion" for the rest of eternity is so ludicrouse its funny."

- But, oddly enough, it is probably the only way it could possibly happen.  M. Parizeau knew this instinctively, and I think from a people standpoint, he was right.  You have to sell the product and focus your audience - like Columbus burning his ships.

Do it, let the chips fall where they may, and pick up the pieces and start over. In a few decades, the break and recovery will have assumed legendary proportions - instant history.

Tom

Edit; "Actually, it was Cortez who burned his ships, just before setting off on a pillaging expedition which destroyed the Aztec Empire."

- OK, one of those dead guys.  

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2006)

Actually, it was Cortez who burned his ships, just before setting off on a pillaging expedition which destroyed the Aztec Empire.

Frankly, I believe that was the intention of the Separatists, do a UDI, grab everything which could be grabbed and thumb their noses at the rest of us in the (probably) well founded expectation we would be too dumbfounded to actually do anything to stop them. This would certainly give internal opponents of separation pause (hey smart guy, you think Les Canadians will help you now?), and of course there are lots of ways to enforce your will on a reluctant population, especially when you parse the word "Enforce".

Sooner or later, there would be internal opposition, and probably violent opposition at that, since some of the players would feel there was nothing left to loose and others are well entrenched criminal gangs like the Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors Society which thrive where government control is weakened or non existent. Since the United States is not likely to tolerate this sort of anarchy on its borders, there is a very good chance they will be drawn into the conflict, although in ways short of outright invasion unless the situation has spiralled right out of control. Perhaps the only benefit of this scenario is the Liberal Government of the day would be totally discredited and the Liberals themselves would be out of power for at least a generation (see, there really is a silver lining....)


----------



## sheikyerbouti (5 Jan 2006)

Shelldrake: Small doses of a bitter pill make it easier to swallow. 

Finances are of the greatest issue to future Quebec sovereignty, so much so, that it would be a driver in determining the scope of Quebec "sovereignty". Quebec has enormous debts which were racked up by their own legitimate leaders. It would be wrong to assume that Quebec could renege on debts that were created by their own leadership base. The International community has generally been supportive of the more diplomatically assertive nations, which would lead one to assume that the International community would be against recognizing Quebec's status without resolution within our own legal framework(ie:the clarity act, Constitution Act, Quebec's constitution, Code Civile, etc.).

 Don't forget that natives are not the responsibility of the Quebec government, it would be up to the Feds to police/enforce potentially new borders. The Iroquois nations would probably stick together meaning a likelihood of remaining Canadian, they know which side butters their bread. The James Bay Cree in the last referendum were dead set against separation, chances are also good that the other native communities in Quebec would favour remaining within Canada.

 It is absolutely naive to ever assume the American government would step in and put any boots on Canadian or Quebec soil. It is so beyond the realm of hypothesy that the assertion should not be made. The White House has made numerous statements to the effect that the American administration views the issue of secession as an "internal matter". 

 Given the American reluctance to interfere with much more pressing internecine conflicts, it would have to mean that we as a country had devolved in governance beyond such luminary nations as Rwanda, the Koreas, or anywhere in the Balkans. 

 That will never be the case, good topic to discuss though


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> It is absolutely naive to ever assume the American government would step in and put any boots on Canadian or Quebec soil. It is so beyond the realm of hypothesy that the assertion should not be made. The White House has made numerous statements to the effect that the American administration views the issue of secession as an "internal matter".
> 
> Given the American reluctance to interfere with much more pressing internecine conflicts, it would have to mean that we as a country had devolved in governance beyond such luminary nations as Rwanda, the Koreas, or anywhere in the Balkans.
> 
> That will never be the case, good topic to discuss though



You have it exactly backwards, especially given the changed conditions since 9/11. There is no way whatsoever that the Americans would allow anarchy to erupt on their own border, with the possibility of terrorists using the disorder to slip into their nation. They are already taking a very hard look at Canada and Canadians now (tried to cross the border lately?) with this nation notionally stable and secure.

While President Clinton and Bush have suggested that separation is an internal matter, it is in the context of preventing further distractions to the legitimate government of Canada (no need to arouse anti-American hysteria in Quebec or the ROC). I certainly haven't been talking to Dr Rice about this subject lately (she is rather busy with other things), but the State Department is heavily biased towards stability and the status quo (hence the tensions between State and Defence on the Middle East), so of course would want to keep a smooth surface on things. When the surface cracks open (which separation will bring) then the Administration will have to open the toolbox to find _*a more appropriate way of resolving matters to the satisfaction of the United States*_. I emphasise this last point because in the end, the Administration, the Congress and the American people have no compelling interest in what *you* want or think, but they have a strong record of looking after their own interests. 

Thomas Hobbes would be able to enlighten you on this subject, look up his works.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Jan 2006)

I am curious as to what substantive proof you could provide which would bolster or even rationalize your position. Canada will never devolve to the point of involving invasion by American forces.


 The American administration, above all else, cherishes the democratic process that has so ably shaped their history. The invasion of a sovereign ally is totally preposterous. In response to your question, Yes, I have crossed the border and I can explicitly state that we are not up against some impenetrable curtain. It is far too easy to cross the border even with the enhancement in security that our Yank counterparts have introduced. 

 As security is heightened, the criminal element finds ways to circumvent all efforts that are put in place. As an example that has been brought up by some, the use of remote controlled vehicles is an effective way to cross a relatively undefended border. How about the recently discovered tunnel here in BC or what about swimmers or hikers that cross at points which are not easily responded to. Shall I continue? OK then but only since you insist. What about neutral bouyancy flotation, or fast boat ingress and egress through local waterways a la native smuggling. Since the statute of limitation has somewhat expired, I personally, along with many other High School students have filled a pack full of booze and made the 50 yard dash from A ave. to Zero ave. Fake Canadian ID is easier to pass in Bellingham than in Vancouver. What's to stop someone from simply running the checkpoint in vehicle with run flat tires?

 The assertion that America completely controls its'  borders is proven wrong on a daily basis by Mexicans, many of whom make repeated incursions. Whose to say it is any better or more secure along the 49th parallel?


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The American administration, above all else, cherishes the democratic process that has so ably shaped their history. The invasion of a sovereign ally is totally preposterous. In response to your question, Yes, I have crossed the border and I can explicitly state that we are not up against some impenetrable curtain. It is far too easy to cross the border even with the enhancement in security that our Yank counterparts have introduced.



While I would hope that our leaders will continue to "shoot their mouths off" instead of shootin from the hip; I should point out that, after the Ayatolah overthrew the Shah of Iran, the US became real friendly with none other than Sadam Hussein and the Iraqis.

The US was real friendly with the gov't of Chile.... and then Salvatore Allende died with CIA involvment.
The US was real friendly with the Gov't of Panama... and we all know about their "social call".

The US will continue to define the democracies that it supports as they see fit and as they, from time to time, ammend.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (8 Jan 2006)

The examples you give Geo are those of ineffectually governed nations that by and large do not have the diplomatic impact that Canada has long enjoyed.

 There still remains no substantive evidence which indelibly points towards such a necessity (invasion). Are the Americans going to invade India, Australia, Britain, Turkey, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Italy, ... ?

 The rights of the Westernized nations are distinct from those from other regions, ways of life or cultures. I am not attempting to initiate some Christian vs Islam, Brown vs. White argument but it must be implicitly recognized that certain governments, namely stronger democratic entities, enjoy a level of autonomy that is unimpeachable even by the standards of their peers.

 As an aside, the democratic process in the USA requires the consent of the ruling houses and as such the political argument would be a very protracted affair. Look at the recent debate and near dismissal of the Patriot act as an example of the level of debate that is achieved  over certain matters. 

 To imply American intercession on our domestic behalf would imply an absolute denial of our forms of government at all levels. There is no indication that the provincial and municipal administrations of all the provinces of Canada would somehow lose their way in the face of a simple vote for secession by one province. Let alone the security institutions of this country, notwithstanding the CF which would be ineffectual as proven by the last invocation of the War Measure Act and the subsequent fallout. If Canadians are not welcoming to our own troops, they certainly wouldn't be receptive of foreign troops regardless of their intentions.

 The rule of law and political discourse will prevail in the face of nonsensical fear mongering.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jan 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The examples you give Geo are those of ineffectually governed nations...



I too am constantly amazed with the administrative prowess of Canadian federal government departments!


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2006)

Once again, Sheikyerbouti has his eyes closed to the realities of the world. Perhaps a quick re read of Thomas Hobbes would help.

The United States will not invade or otherwise insert itself into the Soverenty debate today or tomorrow; what I am saying is they will forcefully insert themselves once their interests  become involved. The examples of the US involvement with Iraq, Panama and Chile during the "Realpolitic" era are prime examples of what happens when an area of interest has weak, ineffectual or destabilized government. Certainly if there were to be a separation, the former Province of Quebec would undergo a massive amount of social, economic and political turmoil, which the Government of Canada (as currently instituted) does not have the political economic or police/military resources to address. Given those sets of conditions, how else would the American Administration of the day respond?


----------



## geo (9 Jan 2006)

It all depends on which side of the bed "dubya" got up from that morning.
and what his lobbyists are telling him to do that day.

(ok - negative rant over)


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

Well, at least he ain't a Commie like Billary.

Tom


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2006)

Tom...
but with Hillary - you could write it off / explain it away as being PMS


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

No, no, BILLARY - her husband!

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, at least he ain't a Commie like Billary.
> 
> Tom



Billary is actually relatively fiscally conservative.


----------



## midgetcop (10 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, at least he ain't a Commie like Billary.
> 
> Tom



::scratches head::


----------



## TCBF (10 Jan 2006)

"Billary is actually relatively fiscally conservative."

Not wanting to hi-jack this poor thread any more than I already have, I just want to say that appearing to be fiscally conservative by hacking and slashing defense and security spending will not normally impress the people who admire fiscal conservatism.  My opinion, however, was regarding the statist attacks launched against his own socially conservative people at Waco, Ruby Ridge and so on.

Now back to our thread:  This Right vs Left spectrum and it's effect on the body politic of an Indie Quebec has not been lost on all proponents of a UDI.  At least one envisioned the splitting of the PQ - a fairly lefty org - into it's component parts as the left vs right reality re-invents itself in the context of a Republic of Quebec.  In effect, it's reason for existance no more, it will have rendered itself obsolete having accomplished it's mission.  Then their fun begins.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Billary is actually relatively fiscally conservative."
> 
> Not wanting to hi-jack this poor thread any more than I already have, I just want to say that appearing to be fiscally conservative by hacking and slashing defense and security spending will not normally impress the people who admire fiscal conservatism.  My opinion, however, was regarding the statist attacks launched against his own socially conservative people at Waco, Ruby Ridge and so on.



Neither Waco or Ruby Ridge were "statist attacks" as both had legal merit and were the fault of uncooperative citizens. As for fiscal conservatives not liking defense/security cuts, I agree - they have their own areas they like to cut which are no more or less justifiable.  



> Now back to our thread:  This Right vs Left spectrum and it's effect on the body politic of an Indie Quebec has not been lost on all proponents of a UDI.  At least one envisioned the splitting of the PQ - a fairly lefty org - into it's component parts as the left vs right reality re-invents itself in the context of a Republic of Quebec.  In effect, it's reason for existance no more, it will have rendered itself obsolete having accomplished it's mission.  Then their fun begins.
> 
> Tom



I think the PQ and BQ would blend together in the wake of separation. There would be no shortage of issues to deal with and I'm sure both parties would have no shortage of things to keep them busy. I think you're right that the left/right split would factor more after an election, since all attention would be focused inward and the "enemy" no longer present.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (11 Jan 2006)

Mr Majoor,

 Your comments were entirely uncalled for and I demand a retraction of your negative statement directed against me. If you wish to criticize my remarks you are welcome to do so provided you at least exercise a nominal amount of respect for your counterparts.There is no evidence which indicates the possibility of massive social and fiscal collapse should the eventuality of some form of Quebec sovereignty or independence come to pass. I have asked you to provide said substantiation and you declined said request. 

 All indications are that should we (Canada) face UDI or sovereignty or cultural independence as promoted by the province of Quebec and its' proponents; Canada will respect the rule of law and we can reasonably assume that Quebec would reciprocate in kind. The Quebec question is profound and it has impacted the Canadian landscape quite heavily but there is no reason to assume that violence, of any form, would be employed.

 My family history is deeply rooted within Quebec and as a staunch Federalist I would resent the occurence of sovereignty but on a personal level I would wholeheartedly accept the decision made within a legal framework by Quebeckers.

 I will begrudge the point that the USA has long exercised its' will against other nations but I still maintain that it is irresponsible to claim there would be American intervention in the form of "exercised willpower". As I have previously stated the battle for Quebec's independence will be fought within the political arena.

 Simply put, the level of debate expected within this forum is such that it behooves all of us to abide by the gold standard that has been set and in my personal opinion, fear mongering and baseless speculation need not apply. I have great respect for some of your commentary but not on this particular occasion.

 Regards,


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

"Neither Waco or Ruby Ridge were "statist attacks" as both had legal merit and were the fault of uncooperative citizens."

- It is not against the law to be unco-operative.  Not a lot of people talk to the cops in Edmonton after a gang shooting, but we don't send in a sniper to shoot dead a mother as she is nursing her child (Ruby Ridge).

"I think the PQ and BQ would blend together in the wake of separation. There would be no shortage of issues to deal with and I'm sure both parties would have no shortage of things to keep them busy. I think you're right that the left/right split would factor more after an election, since all attention would be focused inward and the "enemy" no longer present."

I hadn't thought of that - the merging of BQ/PQ in the context of determining the economic and social structures of a new nation.  All with a budding civil war in their northern wilderness.  Quite the challenge.

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Neither Waco or Ruby Ridge were "statist attacks" as both had legal merit and were the fault of uncooperative citizens."
> 
> - It is not against the law to be unco-operative.  Not a lot of people talk to the cops in Edmonton after a gang shooting, but we don't send in a sniper to shoot dead a mother as she is nursing her child (Ruby Ridge).



It's illegal to be non-cooperative when there's a summons out in your name for a court date on charges you're facing. As for the mother, that was unfortunate and the round wasn't aimed at her but at one of the armed boys/husband outside. 



> "I think the PQ and BQ would blend together in the wake of separation. There would be no shortage of issues to deal with and I'm sure both parties would have no shortage of things to keep them busy. I think you're right that the left/right split would factor more after an election, since all attention would be focused inward and the "enemy" no longer present."
> 
> I hadn't thought of that - the merging of BQ/PQ in the context of determining the economic and social structures of a new nation.  All with a budding civil war in their northern wilderness.  Quite the challenge.
> 
> Tom



That's if Quebec refuses to allow the Natives to remain in Canada. That would be an extremely bad move, regardless of how much they stood to lose in natural resources.


----------

