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

[TCBF]

The truth could be worse:

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

Can anyone spell "Sub-Arctic Banana Republic"?

Tom

 

[George Wallace]

Tom

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

Tom

 

[ambex]

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

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

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

 

[a_majoor]

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

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

 

[3rd Horseman]

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

 

[Slim]

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

 

[Glorified Ape]

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

- From such thinking, blood flows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

Mr Milosovic, is that you?

 

[Infanteer]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

Jumping in late but.....

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

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

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

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

 

[3rd Horseman]

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

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

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

 

[3rd Herd]

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

 

[Glorified Ape]

Mr Milosovic, is that you?

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

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

 

[Glorified Ape]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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