Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

Quebec Liberals call province 'nation'

paracowboy calls Quebec Liberals 'dumbasses'

 

[youravatar]

paracowboy calls Quebec Liberals 'dumbasses'

+1
Except Me. ahah.

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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]

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.
...So we have done ourselves a great deal of harm. But never more so than when, in a bid to persuade Quebecers to spare us from destruction, we offer to turn ourselves inside out on their behalf, the sole effect of which is to declare that Canada is the problem -- that if Quebecers are dissatisfied, in whatever vague, inchoate way, it is up to Canada to satisfy them, and not up to the separatists to show how tearing the country to pieces would make their lives better.
...This is the heart of the problem, the mistake on which all others rest: the idea that Quebecers must be satisfied. Perhaps one day we will learn -- the condition of happiness in this life is not satisfaction, but resignation.

One of the new Liberal talking points (especially from Bob Rae) is that the Conservatives are practicing right-wing divisive politics whereas the Liberal party is the party that unites Canada. We can debate that on its merits (or lack thereof) another day but there is no more divisive policy in this country than Quebec nationhood. As Mr. Coyne says "One of these times we may not survive the encounter." Did anyone ask for this? Was there a palpable demand for this? Or are we being forced to endure another round of flagellation to satisfy a boyhood fantasy to become Prime Minister. If it makes Quebec happy, right? Well, why the hell do we all feel so bad.


Posted on October 25, 2006
| Permalink
Comments (2)
Greg:
Greg S wrote: One of the new Liberal talking points (especially from Bob Rae) is that the Conservatives are practicing right-wing divisive politics whereas the Liberal party is the party that unites Canada.

The Sinister One writes: What do you think of Chantal Hebert’s take on Harper’s strategy in her column today? I agree with it myself — go right big time and hope for vote splitting — but I would like to read your thoughts.

Posted by Greg | October 25, 2006 9:25 AM

Posted on October 25, 2006 09:25

Greg Staples:
I don’t disagree with you Greg. But it is politics. This will make your blood boil so prepare It is how elections are won, especially in Canada. You split the electorate into different groupings. Those who vote for you everytime. Those who will never vote for you. Those who might for you but for whatever reason have not been. Then you craft a platform to get those swing voters with your locked-in voters and build a coalition that gets you elected. You can make the John Duffy argument that it has not always been that way - that the classic coalition is the “Quebec bridge” (incidently read the Star today, looks like Dion and Kennedy might be building one). But I argue those days are over. Be in the formation of the NDP, be it “screw the West, I’ll take the rest”, be it our values are Canadian values and therefore you are unCanadian and unfit to govern, the 3 + 1 party situation (quickly becoming a 4 + 1) lends itself to this. I know, I know, proportional representation. Which could lead to further vote splitting, marginalization and regionalism….but it is representative. My point here is that this is modern coalition building and I argue that all parties who want to govern do it. My point is that of all divisive policies re-opening that Constitution to recognize Quebec nationhood is the most destructive one you could pick. I agree with Mr. Coyne, one of these days the country is not going to survive it.

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]

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.

“(It) builds up barriers between peoples, that has nothing to do with the Canada we should be building.”

[…] he digressed into the debate on Quebec’s place in Canada that erupted last weekend when Liberal leadership frontrunner Michael Ignatieff supported the idea of recognizing Quebec as a nation.

There would have been a time when Ignatieff might have agreed with either Trudeau on Quebec –and one certainly gets that impression from Ignatieff’s Blood and Belonging. But that was before Iggy decided to chase votes.

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]

Is it civic nationalism or transnationalism that J supports?

 

[Infanteer]

Michael is no Pierre: Trudeau

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

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it civic nationalism or transnationalism that J supports?

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

 

[couchcommander]

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

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

...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