# Is it time to get totalitarian?



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Aboriginals are promising a summer of protest and the question of Quebec separation remains.  Is it time that the RoC tell these factions to get with the program or get out of our country?

By the way, out means out.  No sovereignty association, no right to the Canadian Dollar, Canadian Defence, Canadian Passport, No automatic place in NAFTA or NORAD.  Sink or Swim.

I’d like to see what the result would be…  

I could see Quebec becoming the France of North America, crippled economically and socially by socialist programs and values that are unattainable in any society.  

I wonder how long it would take for Aboriginal bands to establish property laws and start stringing up corrupt chiefs and band councils.

As for the rest of Canada I think we could all survive without them, prosper even without the Billions in bribes the Canadian Government pays both Quebec and Aboriginals.


----------



## Flip (16 May 2007)

> I’d like to see what the result would be…



No you wouldn't.

Once divided a thing becomes infinitely divisible - P.E. Trudeau

Secessions based on ethnic nationalism have a very poor track record.

The potential for very grim fallout is very real although very few of us
will admit that.

I don't see any way at all to separate what was theirs (the boundary of old Quebec)
from what is ours ( northern Quebec) without some strife an economic loss.
The native population are in no way obliged to become part of the new Quebec.

Your idea of outlining some draconian terms in advance has merit.
Before the last referendum the separatists seemed to plan on having their cake
and eating it too.  They had no problem with the RoC covering the tab.
They should not be allowed to think for a second that it would be easy.

Now, if you wanted to kick Ottawa out of Canada I think you could rally some support!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 May 2007)

I think the Prime Minister should come right out and say that native "protests" are fine, but any blockades by anyone is a criminal offence and that there will be arrests.

The problem is by not being upfront about consequences, we actually invite the action.

It's beyond stupid and borders upon negligence....


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> No you wouldn't.
> 
> Once divided a thing becomes infinitely divisible - P.E. Trudeau
> 
> ...



I never said we would separate northern Quebec from the rest.  If they vote to separate they can have it all.  International law would most likely support the Quebecers on that point anyway.

I believe that Quebec separation and Naitive protests are two peas in a pod.  They are forms of blackmail, and we as a nation made a fatal flaw so long ago in giving into this bribery.  Like a sucessfull protection racket run by a street thug or schoolyard bully, Quebec and the Natives have been emboldened by their sucess and will push for more and more unless we as a nation stand up and say *ENOUGH!*

Don't get me wrong, I love this country and would hate to see it broken up but we all can recognize that there is only one way to deal with this and that is to stand up and say as a nation that we are all equal and we can not and will not allow any portion of this country either ethnic or cultural to claim any special status.  This is not Animal Farm, some are not more equal than others. Peace, order and good government is not achieved through threat intimidation and lawlessness.


----------



## Flip (16 May 2007)

> The problem is by not being upfront about consequences, we actually invite the action.



Yup! Read 'em the riot act. ( so to speak )
Make it clear what it will cost.

There are systems in place - work within Canadian law or go to jail.

If anyone else pulled that kind of crap, they would ruin their legal position.
The claim would become void as a result of the criminal activity.

I guess you could say the government has been to liberal.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (16 May 2007)

What about all the people who dont want to seperate in Quebec?
The people in Montreal, the Anglophones in the Eastern Townships, the Natives in the north, the Frenchspeakers who love this country?
They are just SOL?
Why shouldnt the eastern townships be able to start their own country inside of Quebec if a majority of people there want it?


----------



## Flip (16 May 2007)

That's why I mentioned the division of Quebec.

There is now way at all the Natives in the north will either move
or make nice with the new QuebecFrance.

There is no way at all a new Quebec France is going to
accomodate the needs of all of the other groups who are
not Quebecois.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Fascist and Flip, the quick answer is yes... They are SOL.  It would be up to them to then begin their own succession from Quebec.  Legaly (international law) there is no alternative, just as there was no alternative for the Serbs living in the Krajina when Croatia was formed.

"Loyalists" of course would be welcome in Canada, along with all their money.


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

Wow, so much "culturalism" (for lack of a better term) in this thread... Good thing you guys aren't talking about black people instead of Quebecois, you'd probably get in trouble.

I don't understand how people can even begin to compare Quebec separatism and Aboriginal protests. Separatism might be annoying and appear stupid to some who have no understanding of Quebec whatsoever, but (except for the FLQ) separatists have never resorted to outright criminal activities and violence against unarmed and uninvolved civilians to get what they wanted. The same cannot be said about Aboriginals; they have resorted to almost every criminal and violent act up to (and possibly including) murder.

Quebec separation, if it came to fruition after a referendum that was deemed "acceptable" by international observation teams (from the UN, say), would have grounding in international law and would be, for all intents and purposes, legal and the only problem would come from the negotiations about Crown possessions in Quebec and other such matters.

Aboriginal protests are about getting more and more money and rights above and beyond what the citizens of this country are entitled to, and generally about getting more than "The Man." They have no grounding in international and even national law, and indeed are criminals and outlaws who have to resort to violence because it is the only way to receive what they claim as theirs, as the law is against them.

Any comparison of the two is flawed and grounded in hatred and general disrespect for Quebec, and is actually going to push Quebec further away.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (16 May 2007)

I have native origins[among irish, french and scandinavians].

How indians affairs are dealt with is outrageons.

6 189 701  thousands of dollars 6 189 701 000$ Oh yeah you read this right, 6 billion dollars.

It rose by 364 163  000 compared to 2005-2006.

Right the *northern development is comprised 

Here's the link:http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20062007/me-bd/ME-272_e.asp#page_276

By comparison the minister of defence:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20062007/me-bd/me-325_e.asp 
14,789,222,000$ 14.789 billion dollars.

So the indians affairs and *northern development* is roughly 40% of the military budget.

This proportion is outrageous, and they block highways in impunity?(Ontario and Quebec).
How exactly they deserve all that money? Are they paying more taxes???


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> This proportion is outrageous, and they block highways in impunity?(Ontario and Quebec).
> How exactly they deserve all that money? Are they paying more taxes???



They pay taxes? Since when?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2007)

MOD POST

Folks, this is a divisive topic and be forewarned that I have no patience for any _racist_ posts regarding these issues.

My post,



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Aboriginals are promising a summer of protest and the question of Quebec separation remains.  Is it time that the RoC tell these factions to get with the program or get out of our country?



Who do you think is "our"?
..and just when did you consider it all right to toss out a majority of a race/culture by the actions of a minority?   Shades of Robert Mugabe..................
Sad, very sad.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MOD POST
> 
> Folks, this is a divisive topic and be forewarned that I have no patience for any _racist_ posts regarding these issues.
> 
> ...



I'll tell you who *I* think "our" is, it is every single law abiding proud Canadian.  Every single one.  

I am tossing nothing and no one out.  My intent, my onus is that we as a nation must take the hard road.  For far too long we as a nation have tollerated every whining self-absorbed self-serving cretin who wants to subjigate the entire nation to satisfy their own particular special interest.  As a result we are slowly but surely giving the whole thing away.  My intent is to propose that we hack off a limb in order to save the patient, rather than have the patient die from an infected finger.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

For far too long silent majorities within Quebec and the Aboriginal communities have played quiet compatriot to the Separatists and wannabe terrorists in their midst.  They sit back and tisk, tisk while waiting with baited breath to see what the radicals within their societies will be able to rip from the rest of this nation.  They may claim to be loyal and law abiding but their inaction labels them as complicit apologists and worse.


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> For far too long silent majorities within Quebec and the Aboriginal communities have played quiet compatriot to the Separatists and wannabe terrorists in their midst.  They sit back and tisk, tisk while waiting with baited breath to see what the radicals within their societies will be able to rip from the rest of this nation.  They may claim to be loyal and law abiding but their inaction labels them as complicit apologists and worse.



I won't even adress the rest of your post as you have your head way too far up your ass.

However, there is a difference between approval of the demands of equal rights, respect, and generally getting treated fairly, and approval of separation and the general attitude of separatists. I can't speak for Aboriginals, but I'm damn glad at least one party up in Ottawa wants French-speaking Canadians to be respected and to have equal rights as English-speaking Canadians. I don't agree with separation and I time and time again voice my opposition to it, but that doesn't mean I don't think they have some legitimate claims.

An analogy: do you believe all Germans who were adults while Hitler was in power and didn't forcefully oppose him, were "complicit apologists and worse"? Should they all have been executed? Same question for Soviet citizens who didn't revolt against the regime.

All provinces are trying to get more than their fair share, deal with it, and stop with the overt culturalism, you're just making yourself sound like an ass.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> I won't even adress the rest of your post as you have your head way too far up your ***.
> 
> However, there is a difference between approval of the demands of equal rights, respect, and generally getting treated fairly, and approval of separation and the general attitude of separatists. I can't speak for Aboriginals, but I'm damn glad at least one party up in Ottawa wants French-speaking Canadians to be respected and to have equal rights as English-speaking Canadians. I don't agree with separation and I time and time again voice my opposition to it, but that doesn't mean I don't think they have some legitimate claims.
> 
> ...



You know what they say about opinions.

Care to tell me just what rights French Canadians don't have?  You might want to check out this document to confirm your assumptions.  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter/index.html

Your analogy is weak.  Both German and Russian citizens in those cases were afraid for their lives, were seriously outnumbered, and would have been opposing the entire political and military complex of their nations.  That is not the case either on our reserves or in Quebec.  Unless of course you believe that Canadians would allow Radical Aboriginals to murder disenters or separatists to start using letterbombs.


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> You know what they say about opinions.
> 
> Care to tell me just what rights French Canadians don't have?  You might want to check out this document to confirm your assumptions.  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Charter/index.html



What about being served in one's language? Despite the official party line, it's incredibly hard to get service in French at government offices even in Eastern Ontario. However, English-speaking Canadians get all upset if they can't get served in English in Quebec. At the same time, French-speaking Canadians are told to just learn English if they're outside Quebec.

There has also been the recent elimination of some programs/offices dealing with language rights, which you might want to look up.

If you want laws to be applied to Aboriginals and you want to kick Quebec out because some people are pushing things a bit far... do you also want French-speaking Canadians to be able to have the laws applied? No, of course not, we don't need French-speaking Canadians, do we?


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> What about being served in one's language? Despite the official party line, it's incredibly hard to get service in French at government offices even in Eastern Ontario. However, English-speaking Canadians get all upset if they can't get served in English in Quebec. At the same time, French-speaking Canadians are told to just learn English if they're outside Quebec.
> 
> There has also been the recent elimination of some programs/offices dealing with language rights, which you might want to look up.
> 
> If you want laws to be applied to Aboriginals and you want to kick Quebec out because some people are pushing things a bit far... do you also want French-speaking Canadians to be able to have the laws applied? No, of course not, we don't need French-speaking Canadians, do we?



See, this is the problem with laws, one must actually read what is written, not what one want's to be written...



> 20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, *any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where*
> 
> a) *there is a significant demand * for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
> b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.



There is *NO * guarantee of service in either official language unless there is deemed to be a "significant demand".  Only one province in this country is bilingual, New Brunswick.  The rest of us are just playing allong with the bilingual fairy-tale as told to us by the government.

Your lame attempt to label me as being anti-french will not work.  I am all for the bilingual nature of Canada (sham though it is) and I made bloody sure that my children grew up bilingual.  

What I am against is the Animal Farm nature of our current society.  Equality means equality for all, that's it that's all, no exceptions, no caveats, no backroom deals or special status or priviledge. 

There is no I or ME in EQUAL


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> For far too long silent majorities within Quebec and the Aboriginal communities have played quiet compatriot to the Separatists and wannabe terrorists in their midst.  They sit back and tisk, tisk while waiting with baited breath to see what the radicals within their societies will be able to rip from the rest of this nation.  They may claim to be loyal and law abiding but their inaction labels them as complicit apologists and worse.



I seem to remember the band Chief at Deseronto speaking out very loudly about how wrong the blockade was......what should he have done, jumped on his horse and yelled "charge"?  Did you.....?


'Bout that letter bomb thing,
Quote,
_Walter Leja, maimed for life while digging out a bomb in a Westmount mailbox on May 17, 1963._

Naaaw, your right, could never happen here.


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> There is *NO * guarantee of service in either official language unless there is deemed to be a "significant demand".  Only one province in this country is bilingual, New Brunswick.  The rest of us are just playing allong with the bilingual fairy-tale as told to us by the government.



And why is it that when I lived in Abitibi and there weren't enough English-speaking residents for them to have a separate high school and elementary school (it was all in one tiny school), they still expected to be served in English? They were hardly significant compared to the rest of the population. As well, many communities in English Canada are rather large and get no French service as they are not deemed significant.

The "significant demand" caveat is exactly the problem: those who make that decision can impose their ideas, as there is no definition of "significant." Even if the "significant" meant that ten people had to ask, it might still not happen, as people will more likely just deal with the situation than ask for change.

Your reference to the 1960s letterbombings is marginal at best; there has been no separatist violence since the early 70s. Or maybe French Canadians should accuse the English Canadians of destroying cities and killing innocent civilians. After all, that's what they did to Quebec City a while back.

As for labelling you anti-French, you've done that yourself by your discourse, I just pointed it out.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 'Bout that letter bomb thing,
> Quote,
> _Walter Leja, maimed for life while digging out a bomb in a Westmount mailbox on May 17, 1963._
> 
> Naaaw, your right, could never happen here.



Walter Leja was a soldier doing his job, hardly a civilian.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> What I am against is the Animal Farm nature of our current society.  Equality means equality for all, that's it that's all, no exceptions, no caveats, no backroom deals or special status or priviledge.
> There is no I or ME in EQUAL



Now heres the first thing you've said in this thread that makes sense...............don't blame those who scream for more, the blame soley rests with those who hand it out. 

Ran for office lately?

Edit to add,
_The Quiet Revolution turned bloody in 1963. On April 20 and 21, Molotov cocktails and dynamite time bombs planted by l'Armée de libération du Québec rocked Anglo-Saxon Montreal. The group's first victim was Wilfred O'Neil, a 65-year-old war veteran one month away from his pension. Another, explosives expert Walter Leja, was maimed for life while digging out a bomb in a Westmount mailbox on May 17, 1963. On Feb. 13, 1969, more bombs exploded, ripping through the Montreal Stock Exchange and injuring 27. It was the work of fed-up Québécois nationalists looking for Ottawa's recognition. They became the Front de libération du Québec_.

All soldiers too?


----------



## niner domestic (16 May 2007)

"Between 1963 to 1968, FLQ cells and affiliated
groups raided Militia armouries to steal automatic and
anti-tank weapons. They bombed provincial and federal
targets, they engaged in sophisticated labour and
student group agitation which produced increasing
waves of violence, and even planned the assassination
of future Prime Minister Trudeau. FLQ cells would
also attack hundreds of government and private industry
targets with increasingly sophisticated bombs. FLQ
personnel trained in Jordan and Algeria and infiltrated
Government of Canada departments (including the
CBC and the Company of Young Canadians), the
Militia, the Regular Army, and the RCAF. They raided
armouries to secure weapons and communications
equipment, established training camps in the
Laurentians, attempted to bomb Prime Minister Lester
B. Pearson’s aircraft, and orchestrated increasingly
violent political and labour-oriented demonstrations.8
The next spike was the 1968-1970 bombing campaign
(137 attacks with weapons of increasing size and
sophistication) which did not remain confined to
Quebec. Ottawa was also targeted; one incident resulted
in the death of a DND civil servant."


Nope, never happened here.   http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph/Vol1/no2/pdf/71-84_e.pdf


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> They pay taxes? Since when?



Like, if they work like you and me off reserve?

Like, when they pay property taxes when living in town?


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Like, if they work like you and me off reserve?
> 
> Like, when they pay property taxes when living in town?



I doubt the radical Aboriginals who use violence to get their way live off the reserve and actually work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> I doubt the radical Aboriginals who use violence to get their way live off the reserve and actually work.



Ah, then I misunderstood which "they" you meant.


----------



## niner domestic (16 May 2007)

OK Fred, enough of the misinformed comments. Please.  Shawn Brant for example, is the instigator of the Deseronto blockade - he lives in Toronto.  Most of the instigators in protests are professional protestors - like Brant.  Tax issues - Amendments to the Income Tax Act removed the tax free status of Status Indians unless they worked for a company which held its assets and incorporation on a reserve territory.  If anyone else works for an off reserve employer they pay taxes. In my entire working career, I never not paid income taxes. Those FN that have signed agreements for Self Governing, gave up the provincial sales tax exemptions.  

INAC stats: 2005 population of status Indians - 759, 047
On reserve population - 2005 - 471, 453
Off reserve population - 2005 - 287, 595


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2007)

The title of this thread is rather silly if not actually dangerous.

What we are dealing with here is really people who are demanding special privilages at the expense of others (and we have lots of threads about THAT subject on Army.ca), which leads to the rather simple and logical conclusion that what is needed is the end of special privilages and an equal application of the law. 

Many of the problems we see in Canada are pretty much self inflicted, since it is decided by one group or another to "buy" votes and support to maintain political power. Observers see this and say "wow, x is getting a sweet deal, I/we should get some of that as well".

Of course, since time and resources are finite, and not every wannabe group has the critical mass or utility to be of interest to the politcal elite, not everyone will get what they want, and those who already are in the "in"' crowd will fight tooth and nail to prevent others from elbowing them out of the trough.

Interesting article with a possible solution geared to Canada's needs: http://www.c2cjournal.ca/public/articles/16


----------



## 2 Cdo (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> I doubt the radical Aboriginals who use violence to get their way live off the reserve and actually work.



Wow, you wrote that shortly after writing this 





> Good thing you guys aren't talking about black people instead of Quebecois, you'd probably get in trouble.


 and this 





> They pay taxes? Since when?


 and 





> I won't even adress the rest of your post as you have your head way too far up your ***.



Sorry, but any point you might have had is ruined by your hypocritical ramblings. :


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

2Cdo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? "Culturalist" comments were made against French Canadians and all was well, so I assumed it was acceptable to use that type of comments in my own posts. I don't see where I was hypocritical in realizing that a behaviour that I thought was unacceptable was, in fact, accepted, and adopting said behaviour for my own purposes. If anything, I realized I was wrong and corrected the situation.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now heres the first thing you've said in this thread that makes sense...............don't blame those who scream for more, the blame soley rests with those who hand it out.



You're finally pickin up what I've been layin down.  

I've been pretty consistent, I thought.  Equality for all. It's a simple concept.

Except I blame both those who scream for more, and those who dole it out.  There used to be a time when being a citizen meant more than what have you done for me lately.  Kennedy recognized the shift and addressed it (weakly) in his speech "Ask not..." but I digress.

What I am advocating is not the dissolution of Canada or the marginalization of any segment of our population but a call to arms.  

It is high time that all the people in this country knew just how lucky they are to enjoy our freedoms and live in an open and democratic society where rights are guaranteed by the highest law of the land.  It is also time that people realized that the price of our freedoms is not only paid by soldiers on the battlefield every 50+ years but must be paid for and guarded by each and every citizen.

Also I believe that should you advocate the dissolution of our country or sit in complicit silence of it those rights should not be irrevocable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Also I believe that should you advocate the dissolution of our country or sit in complicit silence of it those rights should not be irrevocable.



Now this is where you lose me...........the freedoms we enjoy are not at the whim of what you think people should be talking about.   

 Wow, Reccesoldier advocating 'speech police"...who'da thunk it?


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> 2Cdo, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? "Culturalist" comments were made against French Canadians and all was well, so I assumed it was acceptable to use that type of comments in my own posts. I don't see where I was hypocritical in realizing that a behaviour that I thought was unacceptable was, in fact, accepted, and adopting said behaviour for my own purposes. If anything, I realized I was wrong and corrected the situation.



You have read exactly what you wanted into everything I have written.  

At no time did I equate the actions of the Aboriginals with those of  the current batch of separatists, I said that both were forms of blackmail, and they are.

The letter bomb reference was in answer to the German/Soviet analogy I said that those analogy's were weak and asked, in the current situation both on reserves and in Quebec, "would Canadians let it happen?"

I stand behind what I have written here.  This country, from coast to coast needs a wake up.  

Those that do not want to be a part of it should be encouraged to take legal and democratic steps toward that goal NOW.  Not in 10 years, not in thirty years but right freaking now.  

If we who are loyal leave it to the separatists and cultural revisionists we will live with this shadow looming over us and demands being made of us until it's all gone for good and there isn't anything in Canada worth saving.

For those who think it'll never happen just ask yourself why some in Alberta are beginning to talk of separation, and why Ontarians are so short on compassion for not just the the actions of Aboriginals, but for their plight too.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now this is where you lose me...........the freedoms we enjoy are not at the whim of what you think people should be talking about.
> 
> Wow, Reccesoldier advocating 'speech police"...who'da thunk it?



Bruce, you misunderstand me.

I am not, NOT saying that they should not be allowed to say it. 

I am saying that they should not be permitted to threaten it forever in order to get their way, to achieve a status and position above *everyone else* in our confederation.  

Blackmail requires two things, a person unscrupulous enough to use his strength, position or knowledge to extort, and a coward susceptible to the threat of violence, fear of reprisal or exposure.  Canada has played the cowards role for far too long.


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> You have read exactly what you wanted into everything I have written.
> 
> At no time did I equate the actions of the Aboriginals with those of  the current batch of separatists, I said that both were forms of blackmail, and they are.



However, you did call Separatists "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins," if indirectly, completely ignoring the pretty legitimate peeves they had, although most of their original problems have been solved since. Just because you don't agree with someone's beef with the RoC doesn't mean they're idiots, it just means you don't agree with them.



> For those who think it'll never happen just ask yourself why some in Alberta are beginning to talk of separation, and why Ontarians are so short on compassion for not just the the actions of Aboriginals, but for their plight too.



Speaking of Alberta... any reason you didn't link them to the "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins" and call for them to be kicked out of Canada? Oh, they're WASPs, so they're allowed to whine and get their way, right?

As I said earlier, what's good for the goose is good for the gander; bitching and whining and calling for the expatriation of one group of separatists while saying another group doing the exact same thing is right is hypocritical and shows that you don't care about separatism and about keeping the country together, you just don't like French people and Aboriginals getting their way.


----------



## muskrat89 (16 May 2007)

This is a topic that can get personal real quick, with no one intending it to be that way.

Cool the jets, debate the issue, no barbs/digs/jabs or it's getting locked.

Thanks
Army.ca Staff


----------



## FredDaHead (16 May 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> This is a topic that can get personal real quick, with no one intending it to be that way.
> 
> Cool the jets, debate the issue, no barbs/digs/jabs or it's getting locked.
> 
> ...



I'm fairly certain it got personal at the end of page 2, but heh, it's above my paygrade.


----------



## muskrat89 (16 May 2007)

> I'm fairly certain it got personal at the end of page 2, but heh, it's above my paygrade.



Maybe we just let it go to see if you could police yourselves. Apparently not. 

If you felt it was personal at Page 2, then you should have used the "Report to Moderator" function, and been a part of the solution.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

By "being a part of the solution," you mean "ignored," right? Seems to be what happens every time I use that function.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 May 2007)

Complaints go to Mike Bobbitt.

Back on the topic please, or I'm locking the thread.


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> By "being a part of the solution," you mean "ignored," right? Seems to be what happens every time I use that function.



Ah lemme guess

with your aggressive posts this last 48 hours, it must be end of term at RMC....

Oh it's going to be quite a cake eating summer.

dileas

tess


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ah lemme guess
> 
> with your aggressive posts this last 48 hours, it must be end of term at RMC....
> 
> ...



Just because you're a mod, doesn't mean you have a clue about RMC and what's going on around here. Stick to trying to be clever, you need some practice.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 May 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> OK Fred, enough of the misinformed comments. Please.  Shawn Brant for example, is the instigator of the Deseronto blockade - he lives in Toronto.  Most of the instigators in protests are professional protestors - like Brant.  Tax issues - Amendments to the Income Tax Act removed the tax free status of Status Indians unless they worked for a company which held its assets and incorporation on a reserve territory.  If anyone else works for an off reserve employer they pay taxes. In my entire working career, I never not paid income taxes. Those FN that have signed agreements for Self Governing, gave up the provincial sales tax exemptions.
> 
> INAC stats: 2005 population of status Indians - 759, 047
> On reserve population - 2005 - 471, 453
> Off reserve population - 2005 - 287, 595



Just doing some math here, but if the annual budget for Indian Affairs is around $6 billion, that works out to almost $9,000 per Indian in direct/indirect expenditures exclusive of the taxes they don't pay on cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.

Wow.....


Matthew.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just doing some math here, but if the annual budget for Indian Affairs is around $6 billion, that works out to almost $9,000 per Indian in direct/indirect expenditures exclusive of the taxes they don't pay on cigarettes, booze, gasoline, etc.



I have no clue where to start looking, so I'll ask: any idea where those $9,000 are going?


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> Just because you're a mod, doesn't mean you have a clue about RMC and what's going on around here. Stick to trying to be clever, you need some practice.



http://rmcnavyguy.blogspot.com/2007/05/i-hate-packing.html

I rest my case your honor...

dileas

tess

(Sorry, I forgot to add the link) Modified Thursday May 17th, 2007 @ 22:03


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Not a surprise from the likes of you.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I decided to step back and not keep up the discussion, but you seem determined to try and get me to post something inappropriate by posting repeated personal attacks. Please stop immediately.


----------



## Burrows (17 May 2007)

Time for a time out.

Thread will be unlocked sometime tomorrow.

Freddy, give it up with the whole "My post reports don't get answered" crap.  We read them all, we just choose not to act in the way you think we should.  If you have an issue with the moderation policy of this board then contact Mr. Mike Bobbitt, otherwise you're just being a nuisance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 May 2007)

UNLOCKED, BUT NOT UNLEASHED!!


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

> However, you did call Separatists "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins," if indirectly, completely ignoring the pretty legitimate peeves they had, although most of their original problems have been solved since. Just because you don't agree with someone's beef with the RoC doesn't mean they're idiots, it just means you don't agree with them.



I never said separatists were idiots, I said they (and the silent majority) were blackmailers.



> Speaking of Alberta... any reason you didn't link them to the "whining self-absorbed self-serving cretins" and call for them to be kicked out of Canada? Oh, they're WASPs, so they're allowed to whine and get their way, right?



You are absolutely correct, I didn’t include Alberta, not because they are WASPS (nice attempt at calling me a racist by the way) but perhaps it is because they are not trying to get *more* than they deserve, they are just trying to hold on to what they have worked so hard for.  How fair and equitable do you think it is that a province of 3,256,800 sends a huge portion of its revenue to support a province of 7,598,100.  

There is little wonder why Quebecers can have $5.00 a day daycare, it’s subsidized by the hard work of Ontario, B.C and Alberta.  People who call the Quebec system a “model” for all to emulate should take a cold hard look at where over the top social spending has gotten France.  

Point to note, Albertans have paid into transfer payments every year since 1961, so much for a plan that was established to help out other provinces during “hard times”.

I won’t even comment on your last paragraph as it is nothing more than a drive by smear, and not even a good one at that.

Now, I’ll try to explain myself one last time.  

I do not deny any citizen of this country the right to speak out, and within the limits of the law, to voice their dissatisfaction, even to the point of calling for separation from Canada.  

I do not even deny that the Bloc Quebecois has every right to sit in the House of Commons and poke the rest of the country in the eye at every opportunity. They were, after all, elected to do just that.

What I do advocate is taking this fight to the enemy.  

If you want to separate, let’s go…  We (the RoC) should force your hand, we should not allow ourselves to be bullied, bribed or coerced by the threat of a never-endum referendum any longer.  

By the way, there will be no talk of shared currency, common passports or sovereignty association.  It’s all or nothing, a complete and total separation from the federal teat.  

Think about it…  How will Quebec replace the projected $7,160,000,000 that it will be given in 2007/2008 by the federal government through transfer payments?  

Who’s going to pay for the ludicrous social handouts of the Quebec government?  *Not* the rest of Canada, that’s who.

Just to reiterate, (so I don’t get libeled… again) this situation could be applied to any separatist ideal, aboriginal, Albertan, Quebecer or the Cape Breton Island Fusiliers… I don’t care

Here is the question (not just for Quebec but any other separatist movement): 

Do you wish to separate from Canada and in doing so relinquish all legal, social, economic and sovereign rights and privileges associated therewith? 

Yes   or    No


----------



## Flip (17 May 2007)

Sorry RecceSoldier,



> Do you wish to separate from Canada and in doing so relinquish all legal, social, economic and sovereign rights and privileges associated therewith?



Not worded strongly enough for me.

I would add "Are you willing to suffer the consequence no matter what they are?"
or some thing to that effect.

The very foundation of the sovereigntists' pitch last referendum, was that some favourable accommodation could be extracted from the RoC.
Chretien's government didn't want to say there couldn't be.

I think separatist thought is ludicrous and dangerous.  
The mythology surrounding the separatists is much like the "happy divorce".
Might be a poor analogy but "staying friends" just isn't a rational expectation.

So back to your (RecceSoldiers') question.
Are you willing to accept the loss of the house, the kids and the cat
(you can have the dog and the fish) to achieve your Independence?

Putting that in black and white terms might end the nonsense.
I think we all want to end the nonsense.

As for the Natives - there are no clean hands.
The government needs to get the lawyers into gear and settle some claims.
The tough guys need to know if they act illegally they will be a guest of the 
government. And the media needs to stop facilitating the soapbox threats.
This issue has turned into a national black eye.
Again, I think we all want to end the nonsense.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 May 2007)

The other factor Quebec has to take into account is acceptance of their portion of the Federal Debt.  Specifically if we shared "Canadian debt" based on per capita basis, they would immediately add another $100 billion to their already $120 billion in provincial debt....at which point good luck with a combination of lower revenues due to elimination of transfer/equalization payments and doubling of their debt servicing obligations.


Matthew.


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Sorry RecceSoldier,
> 
> Not worded strongly enough for me.



Don't let the civil tone fool you.

No economic rights mean no guaranteed entry into NAFTA, and no piggybacking on Canadian Trade deals or missions.  

It would I believe, also preclude the separated province or community from using the Canadian dollar for day-to-day transactions.

No sovereign right as Canadians means they would not be allowed to use our passports. There would necessarily have to be a way for people living in the area that do not want to separate to register and maintain their Canadian citizenship.  A residence provision would most likely have to be fulfilled with a specific period of time.  

This also means that they could not call on the Government of Canada for a bailout when they find themselves in the midst of a war in some foreign land.  

It would mean that passage, ownership and use of waterways would have to be negotiated Have you ever seen the navigational corridor that France must use to get to St Pierre and Miquelon? 

It could also be construed to mean that any treaty between Canada and the province or area would also cease to exist.  This could mean (in Quebec's case) the return to pre confederation borders i.e. Crown lands revert back to Canada and are no longer held in trust by Quebec.

No legal rights means that once the deal was done the separatists would have no legal recourse against Canada.  No matter how pear-shaped the whole thing went they would have no legal way (in Canadian courts) of playing the blame Canada game.  No lawsuits for historic wrongs, no way to launch claims against Canadian territory, nothing.

It's a complete and utter divorce, no longing glances backwards, no offer of reconciliation and staying friends is just a sentiment, not a foregone conclusion.


----------



## tank recce (17 May 2007)

You've been talking about the Natives and the Separatists as two separate (ahem) issues - what happens if they overlap?

If Quebec separates, and has no further ties in any way shape or form, including loss of the dollar and passport, no involvement with existing treaties, and reduction to pre-confederation borders, what then of any Native treaties signed since 1867? Would any native lands relinquished under treaty within Lower Canada revert to the pre-treaty holders?


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

tank recce said:
			
		

> You've been talking about the Natives and the Separatists as two separate (ahem) issues - what happens if they overlap?
> 
> If Quebec separates, and has no further ties in any way shape or form, including loss of the dollar and passport, no involvement with existing treaties, and reduction to pre-confederation borders, what then of any Native treaties signed since 1867? Would any native lands relinquished under treaty within Lower Canada revert to the pre-treaty holders?



That would not be Canada's problem.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> No sovereign right as Canadians means they would not be allowed to use our passports. There would necessarily have to be a way for people living in the area that do not want to separate to register and maintain their Canadian citizenship.  A residence provision would most likely have to be fulfilled with a specific period of time.



Ah, once again, the good old "separatists are evil blah blah blah." If the province separates, anyone living in it will legally be separated. Not allowing people living in said province to maintain Canadian citizenship, means NO citizen of the province would have Canadian citizenship, not some of them provided they have some convoluted ideas. Would the people have to move out of the separating province? Would they have to renounce citizenship rights in said province? All you've said is that if the province separates people will be able to keep their citizenship if they don't want to separate; what's to say nobody will go and say they voted "no" just to get the citizenship? Will they have to prove how they voted? Will there be some kind of gestapo-like secret police would monitor the activities of every single citizen to make sure they engage in no separatist activities?

There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory.




> It would mean that passage, ownership and use of waterways would have to be negotiated Have you ever seen the navigational corridor that France must use to get to St Pierre and Miquelon?



So Canada couldn't use the St. Lawrence river without Quebec's ascent? Perfect, one more way to make money for the newly created country!



> It could also be construed to mean that any treaty between Canada and the province or area would also cease to exist.  This could mean (in Quebec's case) the return to pre confederation borders i.e. Crown lands revert back to Canada and are no longer held in trust by Quebec.



Assuming part of the national debt would include getting back at least a majority of the crown lands. No crown lands, no money. Would you cut into Newfoundland to give us that chunk of Labrador, too? They might get a little peeved about that one.

As for the fact that treaties cease to exist... does that mean the Treaty of Westphalia is null and void and has absolutely no bearing on today's world? After all, all the signatories have undergone at least some change in their status, borders, and general policies, and there have been countless wars that could have annulled it. 



> No legal rights means that once the deal was done the separatists would have no legal recourse against Canada.  No matter how pear-shaped the whole thing went they would have no legal way (in Canadian courts) of playing the blame Canada game.  No lawsuits for historic wrongs, no way to launch claims against Canadian territory, nothing.



You forget that this goes both ways. If Quebec can't go up and demand things from Canada, how do you expect Canada will be able to demand things from Quebec, such as the reiumbursement of national debt? After all, all treaties will become invalid and there will be no legal recourse between the two countries, so Quebec will just do whatever it wants, and that'll be that.

Aaaaaand you once again show that all you really want is for Quebec separatists to stop rocking the boat, and that you're unable to see that both parties have something to lose, not just Quebec.


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

I hereby nominate Freddy G the "King of the Strawman argument".

It never fails.  Instead of addressing the issue, throw up some asinine argument to deflect.

The bottom line is that the Rule of Law would prevail in any seperation of Quebec from Canada.  It would be a negotiated exit so as to gain recognition from the International Community.  Whether Quebec likes it or not, RoC holds the stronger negotiating position.  

Your argument of Quebec thumbing its nose at RoC and doing whatever it wants in the process of leaving the federation is ridiculous and so far detached from any reality it is not worth further comment.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 May 2007)

> There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory



Ditch the sarcasm, and watch your tone. I'm not asking again.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> Your argument of Quebec thumbing its nose at RoC and doing whatever it wants in the process of leaving the federation is ridiculous and so far detached from any reality it is not worth further comment.



Just about as detached from reality as the idea that if Quebec separates Canada will just take everything away while throwing all the debt it can at Quebec.

And if you don't like my post, there are various ways you can go about it. One of them is not reading them, I suggest you try it.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Ditch the sarcasm, and watch your tone. I'm not asking again.
> 
> Army.ca Staff



I can't disagree with other posters, now?


----------



## muskrat89 (17 May 2007)

Sure you can, and you know it.

Instead of "There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory"

How about "I do not believe what you propose is achievable. Now, on to your next point."  Surely you see the difference.


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Sure you can, and you know it.
> 
> Instead of "There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory"
> 
> How about "I do not believe what you propose is achievable. Now, on to your next point."  Surely you see the difference.



If I may make a suggestion, then, you might want to look at the tone of other posters, which is equally as condescending as my own.


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

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

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

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


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 May 2007)

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

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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

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



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



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



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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 May 2007)

Tick, tock.....


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Harris (17 May 2007)

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


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> Ah, once again, the good old "separatists are evil blah blah blah." If the province separates, anyone living in it will legally be separated. Not allowing people living in said province to maintain Canadian citizenship, means NO citizen of the province would have Canadian citizenship, not some of them provided they have some convoluted ideas. Would the people have to move out of the separating province? Would they have to renounce citizenship rights in said province? All you've said is that if the province separates people will be able to keep their citizenship if they don't want to separate; what's to say nobody will go and say they voted "no" just to get the citizenship? Will they have to prove how they voted? Will there be some kind of gestapo-like secret police would monitor the activities of every single citizen to make sure they engage in no separatist activities?
> 
> There is no way to achieve what you're proposing. On to the next hole in your little theory.



Let me spell it out.

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





> So Canada couldn't use the St. Lawrence river without Quebec's ascent? Perfect, one more way to make money for the newly created country!



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




> Assuming part of the national debt would include getting back at least a majority of the crown lands. No crown lands, no money. Would you cut into Newfoundland to give us that chunk of Labrador, too? They might get a little peeved about that one.



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



> As for the fact that treaties cease to exist... does that mean the Treaty of Westphalia is null and void and has absolutely no bearing on today's world? After all, all the signatories have undergone at least some change in their status, borders, and general policies, and there have been countless wars that could have annulled it.



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



> You forget that this goes both ways. If Quebec can't go up and demand things from Canada, how do you expect Canada will be able to demand things from Quebec, such as the reiumbursement of national debt? After all, all treaties will become invalid and there will be no legal recourse between the two countries, so Quebec will just do whatever it wants, and that'll be that.



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

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


----------



## muskrat89 (17 May 2007)

reccesoldier - Check your PMs


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

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


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## Harris (17 May 2007)

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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> I think this comment reveals much about your perception (or perhaps misperception) of what the RoC expectations might be in the event of separation.  What you perceive as RoC wanting to inflict as much damage as possible to Quebec is perceived by RoC as Quebec being responsible for its share of accumulated debt (as but one example).
> 
> If this were a divorce, I would say that while there may be some bitterness in the "take your share" argument, I dare say it isn't a maliscious "we are soooooo going to screw you" mentality.



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

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



			
				Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

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



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

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

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 May 2007)

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



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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Harris said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 May 2007)

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



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

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



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


----------



## scoutfinch (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2007)

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

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

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


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 May 2007)

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


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



> I think that what the English speaking Canadians living in Quebec have to understand is that because of the geopolitical situation Quebec finds itself in, protecting French Canadian cultural and linguistic individuality is impossible without the use of laws to force that individuality to be respected or at the very least upheld.


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


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> there are those who believe that cultural diversity in Canada means more than having cultures from all over the world live freeling in English Canada, and that the primary cultures in Canada--those that need to be preserved at any cost--are the French and English cultures, _les deux solitudes_.



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

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

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


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 May 2007)

Besides the fact that Canada is multicultural not bicultural.


----------



## Reccesoldier (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



Careful who you invoke...  ;D

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

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

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



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



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



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



Horse hockey! (to quote Colonel Sherman T Potter)

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



> Also, the treatment of French Canadians in other provinces is taken into accounts by the Quebecois; the elimination of the federal program regarding complaints about language,* which was used mostly by francophones outside of Quebec, made a lot of waves in Quebec.
> 
> I did not say the feeling is appropriate, but I dare say there is some legitimacy to it. While the average English Canadian might not wish to harm Quebec, even if Quebec did not wish to separate, the vocal majority that is heard all the way to Quebec does give off that impression.
> 
> *The actual name of the program/agency escapes me.



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


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 May 2007)

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

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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## FredDaHead (17 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2007)

And we are done here.

No caveats.

No continuance.

Army.ca Staff


----------

