Some good points by several people. On this topic re Mr Bellevance: PERHAPS he is courageous (hmm) for taking a stand for his beliefs, but I doubt it. This "stand" could be extrapolated to say if he (and the Bloc) reject Canada then why is he, or the Bloc for that matter even involved in FEDERAL politics. This would seem to fly in the face of their so-called beliefs, ideals, priniciples...whatever..
Thus the Bloc has "selective" ideals..whie accepting Federal money in their paychecks. And I ask, upon retirement from federal politics, will he/they refuse the federal pension? I think not. on this subject read further below re Lincoln's speech of 1861
I would also insist that the oath he swore upon accepting the position was to serve all his constituents whether of his religion, colour, or political beliefs. and it seems to me failure to do so should be cause for removal, orat least sanction. Although this is not a major case, it does point out a clear desire on his part not to serve the obligations of his oath.
RE the flags: Federal constituency offices are not perhaps legally "obligated" to provide the national flag. However, certainly as a service to a recognized organization like the Legion, and in response to specific and reasonable requests such as in this case a nice condition new flag for the Remembrance services, such requests are readilyl and willingly granted. This is not the same as Joe Bloggins walking in off the street with such a request, and as such it is at least a case of pure "petty" behaviour.
As for separation itself, perhaps one should read the inauguration speech of Abe Lincoln in 1861 wherein he addressed the real threat of the destruction of the US through seccession of the Southern states. Most of his comments seem directly applicable to the Canada/Quebec issue.
some notes:
In speaking of a negotiated separation by the South (as the BQ/PQ wants from Canada) , Mr Lincoln said
.......â Å“Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.â ? .......
He goes on to say, that no â Å“stateâ ? (of the United States) can legally decide upon its own to break away and that no declarations by them are valid. Any act of aggression against the federal government is also considered as an â Å“insurrectionâ ?
He then asks,....... â Å“Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not.â ?..... I mean when can any separatist here in Canada claim their civil rights to language, liberty, and freedom of expression, (or any other right) have been denied?
Mr Lincoln then wisely points out as is the case here, that a separation of Quebec, by its very premise could result in a further separation or partition of a â Å“newâ ? nation of Quebec
........â Å“If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority......
.....Sooooo, food for thought
