# Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'



## Bigmac (22 Oct 2006)

> October 21, 2006
> 
> Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'
> 
> ...



       OK, here is my spin on this. The Quebec Liberals are divided over Quebec being considered a nation. The Liberal leadership race is going strong and Michael Ignatieff is looking for something to push him over the top. As Stephen Harper is steadfastly against the Quebec "nation" concept Michael Ignatieff can use his current stance to attack any Quebec Liberal who opposes as a Conservative supporter. By doing this he will gain the extra votes he needs to win the Liberal leadership and at the same time shows Quebec voters some love for the inevitable federal election that will likely occur in the spring. I think this is a dangerous path for the Liberals to take and will bite them come a federal election.
      Anybody have another theory??


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Oct 2006)

I think part of the whole "nation" problem is in that although they are spelled the same, "nation" in french, as I understand it, implies an ethnicity, whereas in english it is a synonym for country.  Can we have it both ways?  I don't know...


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> OK, here is my spin on this. The Quebec Liberals are divided over Quebec being considered a nation. The Liberal leadership race is going strong and Michael Ignatieff is looking for something to push him over the top. As Stephen Harper is steadfastly against the Quebec "nation" concept Michael Ignatieff can use his current stance to attack any Quebec Liberal who opposes as a Conservative supporter. By doing this he will gain the extra votes he needs to win the Liberal leadership and at the same time shows Quebec voters some love for the inevitable federal election that will likely occur in the spring. I think this is a dangerous path for the Liberals to take and will bite them come a federal election.
> Anybody have another theory??



I think Ignatiff is going to have this bite him in the arse. Suck up to Quebec at the peril of losing support in Ontario, especially when you start talking "nation" status. The referendum is still well remembered in the rest of Canada.


----------



## UberCree (22 Oct 2006)

I think you are being to strict with your definition of nation.  Nation means many things and a 'nation within a nation' stance is simply taking a different look at what is currently occurring in Canada in different forms.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> I think you are being to strict with your definition of nation.  Nation means many things and a 'nation within a nation' stance is simply taking a different look at what is currently occurring in Canada in different forms.



It can mean whatever it wants to those who chose to use it in their small group, but to the general Canadian voter, it only means one thing.


----------



## youravatar (22 Oct 2006)

Whatever will keep Bob Rae out of office is fine by me. ^-^


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

youravatar said:
			
		

> Whatever will keep Bob Rae out of office is fine by me. ^-^



Bob Rae is the best thing that could happen to the Conservatives


----------



## youravatar (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Bob Rae is the best thing that could happen to the Conservatives


No offence. How long do you think Steven Harper is going to be able to stand up there. He's starting to woble.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

I think you are underestimating the Conservatives, especially in Quebec. They only won 10 seats, but in 20+ others there were a close second with the Bloc...

There is lots of noise being made right now, but it's not election time. You don't blow all you capital just to improve your stance in the eyes of the media, you use it to gain votes WHEN they can be gained and used.


----------



## youravatar (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think you are underestimating the Conservatives, especially in Quebec. They only won 10 seats, but in 20+ others there were a close second with the Bloc...
> 
> There is lots of noise being made right now, but it's not election time. You don't blow all you capital just to improve your stance in the eyes of the media, you use it to gain votes WHEN they can be gained and used.



Still he's lost alot of ground in Quebec on some issues. And with this new Liberal policy it would be easier for them to take votes away from the bloc.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

Like I said earlier, if Ignatiff takes that stance the Conservatives won't have to do much to discredit him in Ontario, without going after him  about Quebec. The people are not stupid, well mostly.


----------



## youravatar (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Like I said earlier, if Ignatiff takes that stance the Conservatives won't have to do much to discredit him in Ontario, without going after him  about Quebec. The people are not stupid, well mostly.


Bob Rae would be an even easier target for the conservatives in Ontario. And Ignatiff's pro-war stance. Might win some jilted conservative support. But yea. It's WAY to early to tell. I just hope the NDP loose some seats.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2006)

"Quebec is a nation within Canada" will make an excellent campaign slogan during the next federal election.


----------



## warspite (23 Oct 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> I think you are being to strict with your definition of nation.  Nation means many things and a 'nation within a nation' stance is simply taking a different look at what is currently occurring in Canada in different forms.


We all know what they were really talking about. And I have one word to describe it...
*TREASON*​


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2006)

The problem with the nation position is being demonstrated in Caledonia.  The natives there are demanding that they be treated as a nation which means that they refusse to recognize the juriscdiction of the Ontario Government and the OPP as well as the Federal Government, the RCMP and the Army.  Any move onto their territory, in their view, is tantamount to an invasion by a foreign power.  By accepting the "nation" terminology, IMHO, we are aquiescing to the point of view and saying that they have the same right of appeal to the UNSC as North Korea and Saddam Hussein.

If they are a nation, represented at the United Nations (and that just takes recognition by some mischievous power and an out of sorts General Assembly) then they get to pick and choose what treaties they sign, the terms and the timing.

Language matters.  The difference between nation, state and country is critical and needs to be narrowly defined.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2006)

+1 Kirkhill

How soon we all forget. Our troops fought and died in former Yugoslavia as each subset of people within decided they were a "Nation", and then went out to claim their "historical" borders, settle "historic" scores and so on. Even when I was there in 2003, it was clear it was not over, everyone was plotting and muttering in their slivo, while on the road to Zagreb, election posters for people and parties implicit in the the civil war were boldly displayed.

Words do have meaning, and while academics can debate without consequences in the ivory tower, *in the real world* there are serious consequences to the misuse of language.


----------



## Bigmac (23 Oct 2006)

> Duceppe envisions sovereign Quebec by 2015
> 23/10/2006 9:46:16 AM
> 
> Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe painted a picture Sunday of the future of Quebec City in 2015, transforming it into the capital of a sovereign country that plays an important role in the global community.
> ...



     I think we all saw this coming. Read the link below for the full story.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061023%2fduceppe_Quebec_061023&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True


----------



## UberCree (23 Oct 2006)

Sorry, my 'agenda' got the best of me.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

I know you have a bit of an agenda, but what does this have to do with Quebec?


----------



## UberCree (23 Oct 2006)

Not much at all, but I did not bring Caledonia into the thread others did.

I will start a new thread.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2006)

For the sake of argument we will say that the residents of a hypothetical city or town decide to declare themselves a "nation". We now have an area which no longer recognizes the laws of Canada, the Province they are embedded in and any number of supplementary rules and regulations that fall under the ambit of various levels of government.

To be a "nation", they will have to establish a protective service, courts, system of taxation and so on, in opposition to the established protective services, tax codes and courts of Canada and the Province. People on either side of the divide will have little or no recourse to real or perceived injustices, the new "nation" will not recognize treaties, contracts or legal obligations under Canadina law, and Canada will not recognize the treaties, contracts or legal obligations set up under the new "nation" (suppose the "nation" has natural resources that China desires, and a treaty is established allowing a Chinese security force to garrison the new "nation"). When this happens, we may end up with a recourse to the force of arms to settle the dispute.

This is not really new; under Revolutionary Warfare Theory, insurgent or guerrilla forces create "parallel systems" of laws, courts and taxes to undermine the legitimacy of the legal government on a sovereign territory. Academics are playing with fire here, the consequences are real and terrible to contemplate.


----------



## ettibebs (23 Oct 2006)

I dont see any problem with Quebec being recognize as a nation if we can do like England with the scots.  If it work well for them i see no reason why it wouldn't work here.  And it migth shut some of does who are not so sure they wish sovreignty.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2006)

As a tribal Scot who has sworn allegiance to Her Majesty in both Britain and Canada I can comfortably attest that Tony's agreeing to give Scotland a separate parliament has done nothing to prevent the Scottish Nationalists continuing to demand "Freeeedom" (thank you Mel Gibson  ;D). If anything it has exacerbated tensions between Scots and English, never far under the surface for the last few millenia.  The English now want to know why it is that Scots get to sit in Westminster and in the Cabinet, making decisions on domestic matters that only affect Englishmen while the English have got no say in similar matters in Scotland.  It is becoming a major issue over there with some folks suggesting that Westminster should be a Federal parliament, a la Ottawa, and that England should get its own parliament like Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland (when they get their act together).  Other English folks are calling for England to be split up still further with parliaments for Cumbria, Northumbria, Mercia, Wessex, and presumably the "Home Counties".  That would take us all the way back to the days before that nasty, interfering Franco-Viking ******* William showed up at the gates.  ;D

That word Nation is way too volatile.  It is the word that Woodrow Wilson used when, in the age of Empires (States that held suzerainty over a number of Nations), he declared that every Nation had a right to its own State: the Nation-State, just like Germany and Italy and Ireland.  Nation and State are not synonymous in English no matter how they may have become confused, intentionally or otherwise in common usage.  

It is the word that defines the United Nations, not the United States note, nor even the United Countries nor United Governments nor United Religions.  The United Nations - the blood tribes of the world united.

State = Governance
Country = Geography
Nation = Blood
Religion = Belief

Edit:  PS I notice that the filter has deleted the word B*****D after William.  In this instance its use is legitimate because William wasn't.  He is regularly known to history as William the B******D.


----------



## paracowboy (23 Oct 2006)

> Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'


paracowboy calls Quebec Liberals 'dumbasses'


----------



## youravatar (23 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> paracowboy calls Quebec Liberals 'dumbasses'


+1
Except Me. ahah.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2006)

The Liberals are playing with fire, as people who remember Yugoslavia and Kirkhill's description of the present state of affairs in the UK (or at least formerly UK) will attest.

The only really successful way to deal with these sorts of issues is to separate and eliminate the concept of "Blood" from Nationhood; the ideal of Civic Nationalism as idealized in the United States and practiced probably most successfully during the Roman Empire (when citizenship was granted to most people who lived in the Empire, and people could advance on merit even to the Imperial Purple).

Since Canadians can't even agree on what it means to be a Canadian (except in the negative sense of "not American"), our federation is resting on a fragile foundation. Throwing out volatile concepts like "nationhood" is bound to create all kinds of problems.


----------



## youravatar (24 Oct 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Liberals are playing with fire, as people who remember Yugoslavia and Kirkhill's description of the present state of affairs in the UK (or at least formerly UK) will attest.
> 
> The only really successful way to deal with these sorts of issues is to separate and eliminate the concept of "Blood" from Nationhood; the ideal of Civic Nationalism as idealized in the United States and practiced probably most successfully during the Roman Empire (when citizenship was granted to most people who lived in the Empire, and people could advance on merit even to the Imperial Purple).
> 
> Since Canadians can't even agree on what it means to be a Canadian (except in the negative sense of "not American"), our federation is resting on a fragile foundation. Throwing out volatile concepts like "nationhood" is bound to create all kinds of problems.


Agreed. The fundimental upcoming debates in the politics of this country is exactly. What does it mean to be Canadian? New thread to follow.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2006)

youravatar said:
			
		

> Agreed. The fundimental upcoming debates in the politics of this country is exactly. What does it mean to be Canadian? New thread to follow.



Or we can just revive this one: Respect our values or Leave   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39343/post-343439.html#msg343439


----------



## FredDaHead (24 Oct 2006)

I think many of you are missing the finer points, and in some cases the whole point.

The definition of "nation" from the Quebec nationalist standpoint is not a nation as France, England and Canada. It is simply a people who share certain important traits, in this case the same religion (or at least the same religious background--Roman Catholic), language (French), ancestry (Northern France, for the most part), and culture (pâté chinois, poutine, etc).

To nationalists, there's no question as to whether Quebec and the ROC are two nations, if you use that definition: Quebecois are Catholic and speak French, whereas ROC-ers are, essentially, WASPs. (I'm over-simplifying, I know.)

The point I'm trying to make is that "nation" in this context is more like a "people." Quebecois (and to a lesser extent, the Francophone people in other provinces) share almost nothing with the ROC-ers: they don't speak the same language (Albertans don't speak French and most Quebecois don't speak English), generally don't share the same religion, aren't from the same part of the world (although both are from European backgrounds, England and France are rather different), don't have the same history (Quebec was "oppressed" by the British, whereas the ROC was full of Brits who had the power), and have very different world views.

Saying Quebec is a nation within Canada is like saying white people are a nation within South Africa, or that Kurds are a nation within Iraq. It has nothing to do with separatism, but rather is expressing the idea that there are major, irreconciliable differences between Quebecois and ROC-ers.


----------



## couchcommander (24 Oct 2006)

I honestly think it is stupid for a national government to further separate Canadians by highlighting a particular groups "nationhood" as separate from our "nationhood" as Canadians. It only serves two purposes a) to further divide Canada and Canadians by providing officially recognized lines of division b) to provide Quebec soveriegntists with a concrete argument for self determination. If they are indeed a nation, do they not deserve to have their own nation state and is not federation just another form of colonial repression?  

I am also astonished by the sovereigntists. I always wonder what is it they hope to gain. But then I remember the Gilles Duceppe and his colleagues would be out of a job if they didn't continue to fuel this fervour. In the end, like many other things, I feel that the sovereigntist movement is nothing more than an attempt for certain politicians and other high minded individuals to justify themselves and provide employment. The average Quebecer would not benefit at all. 

I forced to wonder at what point do some of these groups want us to divide ourselves? By Province? By City? By Suburb? Shall we spread across the country as a group of family units to fend for ourselves? Its a pointless step backwards in human development.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2006)

South Africa does not consider white South Africans to be a "nation", and Kurds are ruthlessly persecuted in Turkey, Iran, Syria and were in Ba'athist Iraq for daring to refer to themselves as a "nation". If Quebec is a "nation", what will happen in that territory when the Cree decide they too are a "nation" not answerable to Quebec? (We don't have to worry too much about the Anglo "nation", they will mostly vote with their feet and take their talent and capital to another nation, but the Cree are attached to the concept of ancestral lands).

Of course, inside Quebec, just like inside many other parts of Canada, there are representatives of other immigrant communities bound by blood; "Nations" in the traditional sense. Perhaps they will feel a sense of "nationhood" when confronted by the "new" nation of Quebec.


----------



## couchcommander (24 Oct 2006)

Indeed Mr. Majoor - at what point do we decide to stop being "distinct" and cooperate for our own betterment?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Oct 2006)

Saved me the trouble Arthur.  Fred had me confused - his definition of a nation still sounded a lot like the definition of a big tribe, all linked by blood - and with "irreconcilable" differences.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2006)

words of wisdom from Greg Staples:

http://www.politicalstaples.com/2006/10/25/cue_sheryl_crow.html



> *Cue Sheryl Crow*
> You just knew that Andrew Coyne would weigh in on the Quebec is nation motion from the Ignatieff.
> 
> ...It is all so drearily predictable: the same mix of naivete and opportunism that always fuels these episodes -- of credulous outsiders, anxious to show how much they "get" Quebec by swallowing whatever the nationalists tell them, and cynical insiders, knowing it's all nonsense but willing to play along, hoping to exploit the situation to their advantage.
> ...



The destruction of Canada revolves around stroking the egos of a few political wannabes. What a sad commentary of the state we find ourselves in today.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2006)

Commentary from Justin Trudeau

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/10/26/1537



> *Michael is no Pierre: Trudeau*
> 
> The eldest son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau is belittling nationalism as an “old idea from the 19th century” that is not relevant to today’s Quebec.”Nationalism is based on a smallness of thought,” Justin Trudeau said in an interview broadcast on CTV’s Canada AM on Thursday.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, I do not believe that Justin knows or understands he is advocating Civic Nationalism, or it would be the work of a generation of Canadians to bring back the common symbols and (yes) myths of Canadian Nationhood front and centre for all Canadians to embrace and hold as their own.

There is perhaps one symbol which will be readily embraced Nov 11, based on Pericles' "Funeral Oration":



> I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all tombs, I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and, esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war.



Blood vs Civic Nationalism; Canada, for us to win or loose.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2006)

Is it civic nationalism or transnationalism that J supports?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

> Michael is no Pierre: Trudeau



...and thank the heavens for that; all we need is another calamity like him....


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Is it civic nationalism or transnationalism that J supports?



Or perhaps even Internationalism?  I believe they even have their own song and everything.


----------



## couchcommander (27 Oct 2006)

...Then come comrades rally, And the last fight let us face
The Internationale, Unites the human race.... 

:cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> ...Then come comrades rally, And the last fight let us face
> The Internationale, Unites the human race....
> 
> :cheers:



I knew I would out you eventually CC.  ;D


----------



## couchcommander (27 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I knew I would out you eventually CC.  ;D



...and I thought I was being quite clear....  



> I'm a socialist


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Ah well, you know us right wingers - never trust the obvious.  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ah well, you know us right wingers - never trust the obvious.  ;D



Or the clueless....


----------



## UberCree (27 Oct 2006)

You guys completely lost me.  



I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply.  
Not every Canadian is a privileged middle class wasp, to recognize such may be extremely threatening to some people, but its a reality.  The idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation may save Canada.


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Oct 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> You guys completely lost me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, splitting the country into a collection of little mini-nations is sure to "save" the country.  : Also nice of you to play the race card, because all wasp types are privileged. :


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

UberCree, 

If you will excuse me I am going to continue a longstanding tendency to keep using WASPish personal analogies.  I am a Scot by birth and an Englishman by blood.  My father was English.  That made it easy for me to see myself as British.  Then I didn't have to choose between my Mother and my Father.   

When I came to Canada that made it easier for me to accept taking on an additional identity as a Canadian.  I have many such identities.  Some of them change over time as I self-identify with some groups then change my mind.

One thing that never changes though is my seeing myself as a Scot and a Brit and a Canadian.  I don't find those things to be mutually exclusive.  I can't do anything about my blood.  It defines me as a Scot and a Brit.  I wouldn't do anything about it anyway as I am proud to be both.  

I am also proud to be a Canadian.  That is something that I asked to become and I was honoured to be allowed to become.  

In the case of my blood, my nation - that is an accident of history and beyond my control.

In the case of my citizenship - that is a contract that I voluntarily entered into.  It entailed rights and responsibilities.  I accepted the responsibilities and welcomed the rights.

Regardless of my citizenship my nationality will not and cannot change.  

By the same token I don't expect my nationality to have any legal effect on my citizenship.  

I am not alone in seeing nationality and citizenship in this light.  Many, if not most, Brits living in Canada as Canadians see things in a similar vein as, I am sure, do most Germans, Ukrainians, Sikhs and other immigrant populations.  I am fairly sure that this is the way that Ignatieff, Martin, Turner and Federalist Quebecers see the concept of a nation.  In fact this may be the way that most Sovereigntists see themselves - hence the request for something other than an independent Nation-State.

Unfortunately, many other people around the world do not see things in the same light.  Even at home here my wife, a French-Canadian from Saskatchewan, sees nationality and citizenship as synonymous.  She sees herself as a Canadian. Full Stop.  My children, likewise, see themselves as Canadians. Full Stop.  For them nationality and citizenship are one and the same.  In addition they see themselves as belonging to the country of Canada and of Canada belonging to them.  Canada is birthright.  Not a voluntary decision.  From there it is a short step to believing that citizenship is a birthright and from there that no responsibilities are entailed.  We work to ensure that they understand there are both rights and responsibilities.

My question to you UberCree is: Can you see yourself as a member of the Cree nation, with no legal distinctions resulting from that differentiation that would set you apart from my children, and also a citizen of Canada with the same rights and responsibilities as they have?

If you can, and you can see all other Canadians seeing themselves in the same light then there is no problem with defining nation as Ignatieff wants to define it.  

On the other hand, even if you personally can accept that definition of nation I would argue that many would not because there are those that prefer not to see it in that light.  For political purposes, to achieve political ends, they look for allies and one of the oldest sources of allies are family.  If you can convince people that they are all of one blood family, and different to the rest, then you have the basis of a political movement.  Belief (religious or political) works just as well to cut out a body of support from the herd. 

It is the concern of most others that this is the intent of those that insist on seeing Quebec, and first nations, as separate and distinct. It is not the seeing of them as nations.  It is the threat that in a world of United Nations that that word has very significant political meaning that could be used to tear apart the State of Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

This article says it better than I can.



> The inherent dangers in recognizing Quebec as a nation
> WILLIAM JOHNSON
> 
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061027.wjohnson27/BNStory/National/home

And I don't normally find myself agreeing with PET.

The only thing I would add is that this also ties into the concept of mindset and the desire of some to create a perfect society.

To prevent the use of guns in crime, you deny the use of guns to everyone.
To prevent the use of police and security services in oppressing a population, you deny the state police and security services.
To prevent the use of religion as a rallying cry against the state, you deny the expression, and even the existence, of religion.
To prevent the use of nation as a rallying cry, you likewise deny the expression and existence of the concept.

As I said on another thread.  It is not the tool: gun, police, religion, nation or chisel. It is the intent of the person that wields that tool. 

Unfortunately that intent is not controllable by legislation, nor apparently, by education.


----------



## warrickdll (27 Oct 2006)

Part of the problem for those wanting Nation status (I'm not completely opposed) is that they insist on viewing their proposed Nation (e.g. Quebec) as being on a Nation-to-Nation status with Canada. 

This dismisses all other Canadians as being a generic lump of people they term as "Canadians".  If they were able to get around their bigotry and understand that being "Canadian" is the encompassing term for all, then they would probably find a better response.

That is to say: If Quebec wants to be referred to as a Nation then it must refer to the other provinces as Nations. And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada. 

There can be "layers" to Nationality, but the understanding of this can't be one sided.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

> This dismisses all other Canadians as being a generic lump of people they term as "Canadians".  If they were able to get around their bigotry and understand that being "Canadian" is the encompassing term for all, then they would probably find a better response.
> 
> That is to say: If Quebec wants to be referred to as a Nation then it must refer to the other provinces as Nations. And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada.



That may be true Iterator, but do the people of Ontario see themselves as a Nation of Ontarians. Or even Alberta - do they see themselves as a Nation? Some may but I don't believe the majority do.  In any event, as PET pointed out, the problem is NOT the notion of nation, it is the combination of the Wilsonian concept of "self-determination" and the self-defining membership of a nation which means that the entire concept is undefinable and unmeasurable therefore uncontrollable.

The underlying problem is summed up in this statement: "And come to terms with the fact that it changes nothing fundamentally about the structure of Canada."  There are those in this country who want to change the fundamental structure of Canada.  Fortunately they seem to be in an overall minority position and are very much divided as to what should replace the status quo resulting in an ineffective body of minorities.  

But ultimately this isn't about definitions. It is about power and being able to live your life the way you choose and being able to live with the compromises necessary to maintain a functioning society.  And that cannot be clearly set for eternity.  That is the sum total of individuals making choices in response to situations as they perceive them.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> You guys completely lost me.
> 
> I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply.
> Not every Canadian is a privileged middle class wasp, to recognize such may be extremely threatening to some people, but its a reality.  The idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation may save Canada.



As Kirkhill said, the concept of "nationhood" is rather slippery. Historically, it has been the rallying cry of zealots and revolutionaries, and we have seen examples all through history of "nations" tearing apart States. The 20th century was particularly apocalyptic, we saw the disintegration of the Hapsburg "Austrio-Hungarian Empire" along nationalist and ethnic lines, many "small wars" in the 1919-1939 period being fought along ethnic divides (even if the ostensible cause of the war wasn't ethnic; look at the general breakdown of the forces in the Russian Civil War), the "tribal" fighting which plagues Africa and parts of SW Asia, the ethnic divisions which erupted in Former Yugoslavia, inter communal violence in places as far afield as Latvia (directed at ethnic Russians) or France (by Islamic radical youth, generally ethnic Algerians)....about the only peaceful divide I can think of is the separation of the Czech Republic from Slovakia.

Given the rather blood stained history of Ethnic Nationalism, I would say that anyone of ANY background should be worried when a stupid but influential person like Micheal Ignatieff is suggesting Quebec is a nation. Inside the "nation" of Quebec are many other ethnic communities which are "nations" by the same definition as the Quebecois, do you think they should be accorded different treatment because of that? Will Quebec recognize the rights of these "nations"? If Quebec does not, what do you think will happen?

I am not saying civil war is inevitable, however, based on history the possibility of unrest and violence is certainly present. Why mess with what we already have, engage and promote Civic Nationalism so people can embrace a positive Canadian identity.


----------



## warrickdll (27 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That may be true Iterator, but do the people of Ontario see themselves as a Nation of Ontarians. Or even Alberta - do they see themselves as a Nation? Some may but I don't believe the majority do.  In any event, as PET pointed out, the problem is NOT the notion of nation, it is the combination of the Wilsonian concept of "self-determination" and the self-defining membership of a nation which means that the entire concept is undefinable and unmeasurable therefore uncontrollable....



I am not in disagreement. Quebec actively accepts immigrants and is not derived of one ethnic origin or religion. The population of Quebec has long since passed the days when they could be described as a "People" (if that time ever truly existed).

And I also agree that it is not the term or idea of Nation, it is that there are those that want to have the label of Nation so that they can then gain the concept of Sovereign Nation.



But I believe that Canada would be better off if it co-opted the term Nation. By codifying the term Nation so that it doesn't reflect sovereignty, then you allow Canada to be ahead of the separatists. 

Define the term Nation and its many meanings, call Quebec a Nation, Newfoundland a Nation, Alberta a Nation, the Haida a Nation, etc, and as long as Canada is the level of Nationhood that has exclusive external authority then the power of the term Nation is lost to those who would wield it against Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

> Define the term Nation and its many meanings, call Quebec a Nation, Newfoundland a Nation, Alberta a Nation, the Haida a Nation, etc, and as long as Canada is the level of Nationhood that has exclusive external authority then the power of the term Nation is lost to those who would wield it against Canada.



Now that's not a bad idea.  Dilute the concept.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Arthur - does your Civic Nationalism equate to Citizenship?  Is it enough to be a Citizen or is it necessary to be a National?


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2006)

Civic Nationalism as usually defined is the acceptance of certain unifying symbols, ideas, myths etc by all the people who consider themselves to be citizens of the nation.

In history, the two most successful examples were the Roman Empire, which granted citizenship to virtually all the people inside its far flung realms (and allowed for advancement by merit as well, several people achieved the Imperial Purple without being born in Rome, and a great many famous if lesser "Romans" were born in the provinces), and the United States, which expected people to adopt the unifying ideas (or mythology, if you will) of American Citizenship as expressed through such symbols as the Constitution.

Since citizenship is not equated with "nationality" (or at least not the ethnic kind), a person born in Iberia, Gaul or Britania is equal to a person born in Syria (in the Roman example), and being born in Iowa makes you no more or less an American than being born in Saigon or Havana and coming into America, adopting the American ideals and becoming an American.

Civic Nationalism is faltering in the United States, as multi culturalism becomes more entrenched and the concept of "hyphenated Americans" becomes more prevalent. The concept of the State is also morphing into an all encompassing entity, which demands as much attention as the concept of the Nation (if not more, the State wields the tools of power, even if it is not always synonymous with the Nation). This trend may yet be reversed (only time will tell).


----------



## youravatar (27 Oct 2006)

So doesn't that leave Quebec with a form of civic nationalism?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

> the people who consider themselves to be citizens of the nation.



There's that self-defining aspect of the group again - which inevitably - mutatis mutandum - leads to change and as a result defies definition and stability.

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2006)

>I don't buy the alarmist stance that anything that creates inequality (nation within a country) creates conflict, or even warfare as some of you would imply. 

It shouldn't, as long as a people's expression of their nationality is defined and executed by themselves, for themselves. The instant someone tells me that he needs me to recognize that he has some sort of special status, I have for him two questions:
1) Why do you need me to validate your self-realization?
2) What extra powers and privileges are you seeking at my expense?

If the answer to (2) is "none", then my answer to (1) is "Fix your ego problem and define yourself.  You don't need my blessing."  If the answer to (2) is "some", then my answer to (1) is "One law for all.  Go pound sand."


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

> If the answer to (2) is "none", then my answer to (1) is "Fix your ego problem and define yourself.  You don't need my blessing."  If the answer to (2) is "some", then my answer to (1) is "One law for all.  Go pound sand."



Concise and to the point.  ;D


----------



## UberCree (27 Oct 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "One law for all.  Go pound sand."



How is this for one law (this ties in with the land claims thread).

My band is currently negotiating with the province of Manitoba for land claims settlements.  The process began in the early 90's, its called Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) and recognized (in our community anyway) numbers were altered so we would receive less land that was originally negotiated through the treaty process.  Nation to nation  ;D
We have a number of acres of land on Clearwater Lake in Clearwater Lake provincial park, adjacent to our traditional fishing area.  Through the TLE process we have been trying to increase our land on Clearwater Lake (it is a beautiful lake) and we would like to develop private housing there, but the province has refused to negotiate for lands in provincial parks, as through lobbying from the 'Clearwater cabin owners group', they openly declared that the lake could not handle any further development ecologically.  We were cool with that and actually looking into negotiating for other land elsewhere.  (60,000 acres total).  We were negotiating in good faith.
This week we find out that the Province was in fact behind our backs negotiating with the town of The Pas and the cabin owners to create a new subdivision at the lake, a rather large subdivision.
So were we being treated equally?  Hell no, the whole thing stinks of racism, as the cabin owners tend to be the last refuge of rednecks in the area and they absolutely cannot even fathom our communtiy having access to their little estuary.  The people of influence that have cabins at the lake took the opportunity to be treated differently than us and we fell for it.
So when you say "One Law for all"  I call utter and complete B.S., or else I see plain ignorance.  One law for all is nice and dandy if you are one the receiving end of lots of goodies, it aint so nice when you do not have the political, and legal influence of rich cabin owners (metaphorically speaking this case is being replicated elsewhere no doubt) on your side.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Oct 2006)

Maybe its because your looking for racism?

Kinda looks to me like your mad because someone else is going to do what you wanted too but didn't get the chance.
Now, I know there are people out there that are slimy/despicable racist morons who should be memory-cleansed but, sometimes things just don't work out.

I want about 10% of the city of Guelph that my Great-Uncle lost for taxes ........


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Nation to Nation? I am afraid I don't know what that means.  Now Government to Government - your Clan/Band/Tribe/Nation leaders with the Government that represented the interests of Canada - now that I understand.

As to the "racist", "redneck" etc.... You're not helping your cause as Bruce points out.

It does sound as if you have some issues pertaining to the settlement, and it wouldn't be the first time that a developer had colluded with a rate-payers association, municipal, provincial or even federal government.  From what I understand it has even happened to some of my fellow WASPs that, unlike myself, were born here in Canada.  I suppose I could call that racism too given the nature of our federal government over the last few decades but it has also happened in the lands of the "Other" Founding Nation.  ;D

When it happens to "Us", if I can use that term, "We" are restricted to using the courts, whose authority we accept (reluctantly on occasion) or else organizing to chuck the bums out of parliament and get the laws changed. 

By the way, I understand there are a lot of Scots Cree up your neck of the woods.  Good fiddlers.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2006)

>How is this for one law (this ties in with the land claims thread).

What you then go on to describe clearly isn't one law for all.  I can't offhand conceive of any excuse by which I could as a matter of birthright claim exceptional rent-seeking or other resource use privileges stemming from outright ownership, either as a person or a member of a group.  I realize legal traditions in Canada allow some people to do so by accident of birth, so I suppose it sucks to be me.  Are you complaining that you find the process for pursuing privileges I can never have to be cumbersome?

>So when you say "One Law for all"  I call utter and complete B.S., or else I see plain ignorance.

If some other people are misusing the law, I'm certain the productive course of action is to deal with them through the system, not to throw the system away.

"One law for all" would mean you and I share the same opportunities and limitations under the law.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

If Quebec is a "Nation", then is Canada? Andrew Coyne speaks about the underpinnings of true Civic Nationalism.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=5cb087f8-6ef6-479d-9f3b-56c003d59633&p=1



> *The real question: Is Canada a nation?*
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> National Post
> ...


----------



## rregtc-etf (23 Nov 2006)

November 22, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved to defuse a potential national unity time bomb Wednesday by introducing a motion to recognize that Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada.   quote from Toronto Star

I guess Quebec is a nation according to the Prime Minister of Canada


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2006)

I think we need to note a couple of crafty ambiguities in PM Harper's _resolution_:

•	It is the _Québecois_, the people, not *Québec*, the province or political entity, which is the _nation_; and

•	The _Québecois_ constitute a nation only *within a united Canada*.

This serves several political purposes:

•	It helps Jean Charest in Québec – he can say: “See, I got the Feds to agree we are a _nation_.  The separatists could not manage that.  All you Québec nationalists had best vote for me.”

•	It _*may*_ make up for Conservative actions in Afghanistan and on Middle East Policy and for inactions re: Fiscal Imbalance.

•	It may further complicate the Liberal leadership race by making live easier for Ignatieff.

Good politics.  The status (good, bad or indifferent) of the _*policy*_, if one ever emerges, is in doubt.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Nov 2006)

The resolution, as introduced into the House of Commons yesterday:

_Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Bloc Québécois will present the House with an unusual request that we here at the federal Parliament define the Québécois nation. As a consequence, with the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the notice paper later today the following motion.
     “That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.
     Mr. Speaker, the real intent behind the motion by the leader of the Bloc and the sovereignist camp is perfectly clear. It is to recognize not what the Québécois are, but what the sovereignists would like them to be. 
     To the Bloc, the issue is not that Quebec is a nation—the National Assembly has already spoken on that subject; the issue is separation. To them, “nation” means “separation”. We saw its true intent on October 27, when it said that the NDP had recognized for decades that Quebec was a nation, but that every time there was a referendum its actions contradicted the positions it had taken. 
     In other words, if you recognize that the Québécois form a nation, you have to vote yes in a referendum on separation. The attempt by the leader of the Bloc to persuade Quebeckers of good faith to support separation despite themselves brings to mind what his mentor, Jacques Parizeau, said about lobster traps. Quebeckers are not taken in by these clumsy tactics.
     The former PQ premier, Bernard Landry, asked this question:
_— once that recognition is achieved, you must know, in all honesty, that you will then be faced with the question: why should the nation of Quebec be satisfied with the status of province of another nation and forego equality with yours and every other nation?_ 
    Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. Quebeckers have always played an historic role in Canada’s progress, through their public spirit, courage and vision, by building a confident, autonomous and proud Quebec showing its solidarity within a strong, united, independent and free Canada.
     When Champlain landed in Quebec, he did not say that this would not work, it was too far away, it was too cold, or it was too difficult. No. Champlain and his companions worked hard because they believed in what they were doing, because they wanted to preserve their values, because they wanted to build a lasting and secure country. That is exactly what happened nearly 400 years ago, when Canada, as a country, was founded.
     Quebeckers know who they are. They know that they have participated in the founding of Canada and in its development and its greatness. They know that they have preserved their language and their unique culture, and that they have advanced their values and their interests within Canada. The real question is simple: do the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form a nation independent of Canada? The answer is no, and it will always be no.
     Mr. Speaker, throughout their history, Quebeckers have always known who the prophets of doom are and who the true guides of their destiny are.
    Once again, the leader of the Bloc and his separatist friends are not concerned with defining who Quebeckers are but rather what they want them to become, a separate country. 
    The separatists do not need the Parliament of Canada to define what is meant by the sociological termination. My preference has been well-known. I believe this is not the job of the federal Parliament. It is the job of the legislature of Quebec. However, the Bloc Québécois has asked us to define this and perhaps that is a good thing because it reminds us that all Canadians have a say in the future of this country.
    Having been asked by the Bloc to define the Québécois, we must take a position. Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no because Quebeckers, of all political persuasions, from Cartier and Laurier to Mulroney and Trudeau, have led this country and millions like them, of all political persuasions, have helped to build it. With their English and French-speaking fellow citizens, and people drawn from all nationalities of this earth, they have been part of making this country what it is, the greatest country in the world.
    To millions more who live in a dangerous and dividing world, this country is a shining example of the harmony and unity to which all peoples are capable and to which all humanity should aspire. 
    I say to my federalist colleagues and to the separatist side that we here will do what we must and what our forefathers have always done to preserve this country, Canada, strong, united, independent and free._


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Nov 2006)

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/22/061122211050.bf2kf5r0.html



> PM to recognize francophone Quebec as 'a nation'
> Nov 22 4:10 PM US/Eastern
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2006)

If there is anybody in this country that doubts Jack Layton is an idiot of the highest order, the last line in this article should quickly change your mind. What a numpty.


Quebec a nation without conditions: Bloc motion
Last Updated: Thursday, November 23, 2006 | 12:29 PM ET 
CBC News 
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said Thursday the prime minister is trying to "pull the wool over the public's eyes," and urged MPs to consider a separatist motion declaring Quebec a nation "that is currently within Canada."

Duceppe introduced his party's amended motion a day after Stephen Harper announced his own motion to recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada.

BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe said Quebec cannot be boiled down to one of two options: a nation within a united Canada, or a separate, sovereign nation.
(CBC) "The prime minister clumsily tried to pull the wool over the public's eyes with his motion," said Duceppe, who opened debate on his motion Thursday. "When he attaches that condition, we see through it as a partisan tactic."

Quebec cannot be boiled down to one of two options: a nation within a united Canada, or a separate, sovereign nation, said Duceppe.

"Never should the existence of the Quebec nation be subjected to what your preferred option is.

"I hope the prime minister will recognize the Quebec nation. Period," he said. "I hope elected officials will take a stand on the issue without any strings."

Continue Article

Bloc House leader Michel Gauthier added a new twist Thursday, tabling the amendment to his party's motion adding that Quebecers form a nation "actuellement au Canada" — that is currently within Canada. 

The move spawned a flurry of parliamentary gamesmanship.

Deputy Liberal leader Lucienne Robillard proposed an amendment to the amendment, adding the adjective "united" to Canada and dropping "currently" so that it would declare Quebecers form a nation "within a united Canada," virtually cloning the Tory proposal.

The Bloc agreed to add the word "united" but insisted on keeping "currently." Robillard wouldn't consent and her proposed sub-amendment died.

Harper, who was in Toronto Thursday to announce details of a proposed bail reform package, didn't answer any questions on his motion, which will be voted on Monday.

Liberals, NDP to support PM
The Liberal caucus on Thursday agreed to support Harper's motion, although MPs are split.

While interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham stood to applaud Harper following his announcement, Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said he'll vote against it.

"Are we in Canada to be a nation of nations?" he asked.

Quebec Liberal Senator Serge Joyal warned it could be a slippery slope.

"The very moment you introduce the concept of a nation within Canada, you open the door to the Acadian Nation, to the First Nations, to all the other groups that might form a cultural community," he said.

"Newfoundland could be a nation."

MP Belinda Stronach said she didn't have a problem with the prime minister's motion if it helped Quebec "protect its unique culture and identity."

*NDP Leader Jack Layton said Wednesday his caucus would support both the Tory and BQ motions.*
With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2006)

While I am usually with Prime Minister Harper, on this one I am against him, and agree with the view articulated by Andrew Coyne:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2006/11/coyne-on-canadian-nationalism.html



> *Coyne on Canadian Nationalism*
> 
> Andrew Coyne writes in the National Post that Harper's decision to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada is essentially the end of Canadian nationhood. He argues that Harper, while appearing clever politically, has set the stage for Quebec eventually achieving independence from Canada.
> 
> ...



The argument is ultimately between the idea of "Blood" or ethnic nationalism vs the idea of an overriding and enveloping "Civic Nationalism". Ethnic Nationalism is the politics of exclusion, setting up "us" vs the "others", and leads down the road towards conflict, civil war and even genocide. Civic Nationalism is inclusive, draws everyone into a larger national family, pools talents and resources and leads to great power status for the polities which can harness this idea the best (The Res Publica Roma, the  Roman Empire and the United States are the prime exemplars of this idea in history).

In the Canadian context, this idea will keep rising up to block or divert attention from other, more pressing national level issues and initiatives. This has hamstrung us through our history, and Prime Minister Harper has given it new legs. I hope this does not become his legacy to Canada.

(Ironic note; The Conservative slogan in this by election is "Getting things done for ALL of us". Now we can fight over who "All of us" really are).


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Nov 2006)

I'm afraid that like the poor this debate will always be with us.  The very facts that nobody can define a nation, that a nation is self-defining, that a nation (according to that Yankee idiot Woodrow Wilson - and a Democrat IIRC) has a right to self-determination, means that it can be used as an effective rallying cry for any mob.  In addition to Quebecois and Scots, we have Brits and Kurds, Catalonians and Chinese, not to mention Russians and Americans as well as the Nations of Israel and Islam and the Aryan Nations, all of whom define a nation any which way they choose to suit the occasion.  All of them predicated on Wilson's silly-ass comment and a desire to secure the top-chair.

One way to grasp the nettle is to say "OK.  You're a nation. Carry on.  You're still not splitting up my country."

I find it risible.  Some of the Blocistes have taken to deriding Ottawa as being neo-colonialists, colonialists, colonial remnants, Imperialists............. What the devil do they figure their "Pur Laine - Axminster Brand" ancestors were up to when they came over?  Pretty low moral ground but there you are.....

Yup, kind of like taking out the garbage or cleaning the bathroom.  A never ending chore.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that like the poor this debate will always be with us.



Hope not.  

"My friends, some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty — and poverty won." - Ronald Reagan


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Nov 2006)

I have no interest in paying to sustain this never-ending cultural tantrum. Let people be whatever the hell they want to wherever they live; if they want some of my tax money to fulfill their aspirations, cut them loose.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I have no interest in paying to sustain this never-ending cultural tantrum. Let people be whatever the hell they want to wherever they live; if they want some of my tax money to fulfill their aspirations, cut them loose.



Agreed.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2006)

Listening to Talk Radio this morning (CFRA) and a woman sent in an email that was read.  In it she stated that if Quebec wanted to be a 'Nation' than this would make them the "2nd Nation" after the Natives who are the "1st Nations".  She asked if this would now require Quebecer's to live on 'Reserves'?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2006)

Preston Manning had anticipated some of this many years ago:

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=604



> *The Game Of Chess Played With “Nations” Has A New Grandmaster*
> Filed under: Politics-Federal — TrustOnlyMulder @ 11:20 pm
> And his name is Stephen Harper.
> 
> ...



Stay tuned indeed. I hope this is the opening move in some deeper game that Prime Minister Harper can control, rather than him stepping on a banana peel.


----------



## warrickdll (24 Nov 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Part of the problem for those wanting Nation status (I'm not completely opposed) is that they insist on viewing their proposed Nation (e.g. Quebec) as being on a Nation-to-Nation status with Canada.
> 
> This dismisses all other Canadians as being a generic lump of people they term as "Canadians".  If they were able to get around their bigotry and understand that being "Canadian" is the encompassing term for all, then they would probably find a better response.
> 
> ...






			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> But I believe that Canada would be better off if it co-opted the term Nation. By codifying the term Nation so that it doesn't reflect sovereignty, then you allow Canada to be ahead of the separatists.
> 
> Define the term Nation and its many meanings, call Quebec a Nation, Newfoundland a Nation, Alberta a Nation, the Haida a Nation, etc, and as long as Canada is the level of Nationhood that has exclusive external authority then the power of the term Nation is lost to those who would wield it against Canada.



If all Canadians were nationally defined only as Canadians, then things would have worked out. But leaving some Canadians defined nationally only as Canadians, while others are not, will lead to problems in the future, no matter how meaningless it appears today.


Hopefully, the way this will play out (after the resolution passes) will be:
	- Newfoundland And Labrador will request a similar declaration (who actually have a clearer case than Quebec).
	- Followed by Alberta (and possibly Nunavut).
	- Followed by the other Provinces and Territories.
	- Followed by Canada actually voting to recognize Canadians as a nation.
	- Then a final resolution leaving it to the Provinces to further define Nations within their territory.

And then we will return to our regularly scheduled programs, already in progress.


----------



## Bigmac (28 Nov 2006)

Well, it's official, the Harper conservatives have managed to pass a motion recognizing Quebecois as a nation within Canada. All I can say is this is dumb move! The separatists are going to use this as a platform for another referendum on Quebec becoming a country in itself. I can see it now, Duceppe will argue that Canada has finally seen the light and by recognizing Quebecois as a nation they now must accept Quebec as a nation. 
         I guess we are no longer defined as Canadians? We must now all be divided into distinct nations within Canada. What distinct nation within Canada are all of you? Since my family descended from Irish, Scottish, French and Mi'Kmaq I would like to be recognized as the Bigmac nation within Canada! 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11/22/2446825-cp.html


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> ......... What distinct nation within Canada are all of you? Since my family descended from Irish, Scottish, French and Mi'Kmaq I would like to be recognized as the Bigmac nation within Canada!



Let's see.....we have the First Nations and now the 2nd Nations (Quebecers).......why not have a 3rd Nations - the Bigmac's?   ;D (You may have to change your name though as I am sure Mcdonald's will be in the Courts suing for Copyright infringements.)


----------



## Bigmac (28 Nov 2006)

There is no copyright infringement. I am a nation they are burgers! Since my nation came first perhaps I should sue Mcdonald's! ;D


----------



## Scott (28 Nov 2006)

I recall General John Cabot Trail, leader of the Cape Breton Liberation Army, stating that when the Capers hold a referendum about separation the question shall not be confusing, it will simply be:

"You's comin' or what?"

Down with the Causeway!


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2006)

An alternative take, how to say "Canada is a Nation":

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/brookstreet/2006/11/time_for_a_free_market_nation.html



> Time for a "Free Market Nation"
> The recent Parliamentary commotion about Quebec’s “nationhood” proves the nationalists in Quebec are winning.
> 
> And that’s something all those people praising Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his “masterstroke” resolution seem to be forgetting.
> ...



Since Ethnic Nationalism seeks to exclude potential challengers for political and economic supremacy, the concept of creating smaller ponds to increase the relative size of the fish within makes sense. This plan effectively drains the water from the pond, leaving the Phil Fontaine's and Giles Duceppe's flopping and gasping without access to State funds and State power to further their own personal agenda.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2006)

Two views:

http://www.daifallah.com/2006/11/my-last-post-on-nation-i-hope.htm



> *My last post on the nation -- I hope*
> 
> David Mader, aka the smartest person I know, has thrown down the gauntlet on my reasoning for supporting the Québec is a nation concept.
> 
> ...



http://www.maderblog.com/



> *A Question for Daifallah*
> 
> I hope my friend AD won't mind my calling him out like this, but I think this could be interesting. Adam was involved in a very interesting debate with, among others, Andrew Coyne, regarding the deux nations resolution. In response to the arguments by Coyne and Tom Axworthy regarding liberal political theory, Daifallah essentially argued (and he'll correct me, I hope, if I mischaracterize him) that theories were essentially irrelevant in the face of 'the facts on the ground' and 'the reality' of Quebec nationhood.
> 
> ...


----------

