BS: Nation with-in Nation

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:09 PM

Things have never been the same since watching Insomnia (the Norwegian film).

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM

Ehhhh... sleep depreviation.















Cooooool....

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:32 PM

I forgot the '6' up above.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:31 PM

Let's face it .... most of us become incoherent with the trail of these fallacious posts.

and let's face it .... we enjoy it.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:04 PM

LOL! No, Cluin. It could have been, though. I must just have been seriously overtired when I posted that, and I somehow totally missed the fact that she was talking about the west coast and over that way!

Too much f*cking around on the political threads with Teribus, Bearded Bruce, and my friend, Slag. After awhile the old brain just ceases to function coherently.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM

That too.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

It's a damned shame there isn't an existing party looking after the interests of all regions of our country.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:14 PM

Were you trying on some irony, there, LH?

The Maritimes?

dianavan said "Alaska, B.C., Wash., Oregon, Northern Calif. and some of Alberta."


As I've said before, it's a damn shame there isn't another political party running out there besides the Reform wackos (which they still are, no matter what they call themselves today) trying to look out for the interests of the West. THEY have legitimate grievances.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:41 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:51 AM

It was bound to happen ...

why not

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: MMario
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM

Interestingly - if you go to mapquest - St. Pierre et Miquelon show until you increase the size a certain amount - then the islands disappear!!!

On google maps they don't show at all unless you call up satellite imagry.

They must be magical islands!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:46 PM

Maybe an idependent Quebec would apply to join the European Union... After all,it's not that far to the nearest bit, just off the coast of Newfoundland, St Pierre et Miquelon.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:05 AM

Quebec could not survive as an exclusively french country in North America. No one but the Government of Canada would put up with this linguistic foolishness. You have to be bloody bi lingual to work in a National Park in Northern Manitoba for Gods sake.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:52 AM

Quebec would love to be a part of the U.S. economy.

At any price.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:12 PM

They do know you exist, Dianavan. ;-) A lot of people here have a great affection for the Maritimes, and I assume it is the Maritimes you are speaking of?

The thing I don't like about any part of this country separating is that the USA would probably take full advantage of the situation in ways that would prove unfortunate for Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:06 PM

"Do they even know we exist?"

Only when it comes time to fork over equalization payments.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

I'd still like to see a Nation called Cascadia that would incorporate Alaska, B.C., Wash., Oregon, Northern Calif. and some of Alberta.

We could trade almost exclusively with Pacific Rim Countries.

At least it would be sustainable.

If Quebec wants to go it alone (and I don't believe the young people support an idea that is 30 years old) then the rest of Canada will be set free. I don't think Ontario would miss us anyway. Do they even know we exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:58 PM

there is a big difference in having countries come together in a union and a unified country breaking apart into sub-units.

True enough, and it wouldn't be easy - but it's a reality that Czechoslovakia (and earlier Denmark) managed to negotiate amicably enough, and one which the United Kingdom will probably have to deal with once again soon enough (having screwed up the first time round in relation to Ireland).

It doesn't have to mean any kind of hostility or loss of a very close relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

I agree with your post memyself.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:13 PM

In Canada, I think it's more a matter of people adjusting emotionally to the idea of the country being divided rather than considering the matter rationally. Thirty years ago, to most Canadians, the idea of Quebec separating was simply unthinkable - unbearable, really - because of a deeply-felt emotional attachment to the concept of the country as a whole. After thirty years of wrangling and arguing about Quebec and its place or lack thereof in Confederation, it is not unusual to hear comments to the effect of, "If they want to go, let them go" - not always expressed so politely. Similarly, the idea of Canada being divided into a number of smaller entities would be shocking initially, but if it was talked about and argued about long enough, people would get used to the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

I get your point McG of H but I think there is a big difference in having countries come together in a union and a unified country breaking apart into sub-units.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:58 PM

Resources are pretty unevenly distributed in Europe, and equalizing things is one ofthe things the EU is for. Canada could probably do the job a lot better.

My point is, there are a whole lot of ways in which different nations can join together, and still be different nations. It's not all or nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:38 PM

The problem with that model in Canada is the uneven distribution of resources. One useful function of the federal government is equalizing revenue.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:33 PM

Ten separate countries in a supranational union? A lot to be said for that? All right it's a bit messy at times, and some people gripe that it's too loose and some people gripe that it's too tight, but the European Union works well enough most of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:06 PM

Canada has one of the most decentralized federations in the world, any more significant devolution of powers to the provinces and you may as well have 10 separate countries.

The best the federal government can do, in order to keep the country together, is to provide good government and make Canada the kind of country in which one would choose to live. Trying to counter demagoguery is a mug's game.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:49 PM

So maybe you set up a looser union, something in between the way it's done in the European Union and the way it's done in the United States?

Not really anything to get all upset about. It'd still be Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 01:28 PM

"As I see it a certain number of Quebecers want Quebec to be an independant country, and they are not about to give up on that desire no matter what, so what is there to solve."

The question of what we do about it. It would be simpler if it were just a matter of dealing with the hard-core separatists, who are a minority, but there is a sizable number of people in Quebec who are "soft on separatism" and "soft on federalism", depending which way the wind is blowing. Do we try to keep them on side so that federalism carries the day in Quebec, or do we not worry about alienating them, and let the separatists achieve a clear majority if we do alienate the fence-sitters? If we want to keep them on side, how do we do so without alienating other groups within the country? ... You don't see that as a conundrum?

"they are a dying minority" - Don't know how you can say that with such certainty. As I've pointed out before, the feelings about sovereignty in Quebec can turn 180 degress literally overnight.

"Canada as a country will survive ... why, because Canadians have the fortitude to do so" - I wouldn't be so sure about that. We've seen separatist parties in Alberta, there are many Newfoundlanders who have resented Confederation since they were brought in, there have been grumblings for over a hundred years from the Maritimes and occasional talk of forming overly-cosy-partnerships with New England, BC is always a bit of a wild card; Ontario won't back out, but everyone hates Ontario; if Alberta packed up and left, chances are Saskatchewan would go toddling after - let's face it, Friendly Manitoba is the only nice, reliable province.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:10 AM

Oooops ... that's me (Number 6) who posted above.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 11:09 AM

"fortunately they are a dying minority."

How do you know that??

Anyway ... if they ever do ... what is there to fear ... don't you think Canada will continue as a country? ... if you don't, then why not?

If Quebec ever does separate I am one who believes Canada as a country will survive ... why, because Canadians have the fortitude to do so.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:13 AM

Exactly, bobad.

They will fight for independence with their last dying breath and fortunately they are a dying minority.

(from a mother who sent her children to northern Alberta and Quebec to learn French from their families).

Not all French speakers are in Quebec. Most French speakers share a common heritage but that doesn't mean they want to separate from the rest of us. Its a notion that is fast dying in an increasingly mobile population of young people.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:53 AM

"solve the national unity conundrum?"

What exactly is the conundrum?

As I see it a certain number of Quebecers want Quebec to be an independant country, and they are not about to give up on that desire no matter what, so what is there to solve.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:49 AM

By the way, people, don't forget that when the army did go in in 1970, it was at the request of Drapeau (mayor of Montreal) and Bourassa ("prime minister" of Quebec). Trudeau does not appear to have been terribly keen on the idea. (There are all those "Anglo/British/Orange overlords" again!).

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 08:19 AM

"...and how did such a large majority favour it?

Easy, it looked like an easy way out.

Doesn't say much for our representatives, does it."

What do you expect them to do - solve the national unity conundrum? If so, how do you expect them to do that? None of our greatest parliamentarians have been able to do it yet; what would make you think that this bunch of whom you are so contemptuous could do the job? Do you want them to stop all other business of Parliament and tear the country apart with a serious debate on the issue? Should they hold a constitutional conference and hash it all out? We've seen in the past how productive that approach is ...

There's been an awful lot of criticism of Harper over this issue, but I have yet to hear anyone come up with a plausible alternative way of dealing with the situation he and his party and the country were in (sending the army into Quebec does not fall into the "plausible alternative" category"). I certainly haven't read any plausible alternative on this thread. I wish someone would come up with one; I really hate defending Harper, but as I said earlier on, I will give him credit when its due.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:59 AM

Clarify: "Garth haunting Harper."

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:56 AM

Well Harper tried to demote Garth right out the door. He has been haunting him big time ever since. Perhaps we at last have found an honest one willing to speak some truth.

http://www.garth.ca/

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 03:12 AM

They mostly all just go..."Baa-a-a-a-a-a...!" when the party leader says "vote", don't they? (one wouldn't want to get demoted to the lowest levels of the flock, after all...)

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 02:36 AM

This 'nation in a nation' is not a resolution.

Thats what I think.

Its meaningless.

...and how did such a large majority favour it?

Easy, it looked like an easy way out.

Doesn't say much for our representatives, does it.

We should write to them and ask them why they voted for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:40 PM

It does baffle me how the large majority passed this 'bill' through parliament, downright scarry in fact .... it takes a few to stand up and question this 'nation in a nation' thing ... the likes of mp's such as Kenny Dryden. But then a goalie is the guy that tries to stop the opponent's shots.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:31 PM

Like I said earlier, it's Canada's political parties playing their usual stupid games. All of them. They are playing the old divide and conquer game, but pretending to do it in order to unite everyone.

The Liberals, in particular, have been doing that for so long that they can do it automatically...like a dog scratching itself. But they all do it to some extent, whenever they figure it will advance their cause and mess up the other guy's.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:31 PM

"Is this really a priority for Canada or for Quebec?"

Yup, it certainly is a (real) Canadian issue. It will be lurking in our souls until it will be fully resolved (don't ask me how, cause I don't have an answer) ... does anyone remember those dark October days way back with the War Measures Act (whew, now that was a heavy scene in the Canadian psyche)... the kidnapping of James Cross, the murder of Pierre Laporte ... serious stuff in our history ... and as I said, the issue has never been resolved.

This 'nation in a nation' is not a resolution.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:17 PM

"This Nation within a Nation crap is just a cover for Harper's inability to do anything meaningful."

Once again, may I point out that it was not Harper that raised this issue? It was opened up by Michael Ignatieff and his supporters in the Liberal Party, then the Bloc Quebecois jumped on it. Harper had the choice of either letting the Bloc and/or the Liberals score a great propaganda coup at the expense of the Tories, or of coming up with a way of beating them both at their own game. He chose to do the latter. In the process, although the outcome remains to be seen, he may have successfully steered the country past the latest potential national-unity crisis. I think this is "meaningful", and unfortunately the Bloc and the Liberals made the whole matter a "priority".

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:34 PM

Guest, memyself - I am only pointing out that when politicians and the public become preoccupied with a vague notion, its means we are not paying attention to what really matters.

What really matters is that we maintain an identity as a Nation (as opposed to a U.S. colony) and that Harper stop trying to please Bush and stop co-operating with the U.S. in military matters. This Nation within a Nation crap is just a cover for Harper's inability to do anything meaningful.

Is this really a priority for Canada or for Quebec?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 04:34 PM

Nation= Canadas N word.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:14 AM

So Quebec should be like a US Indian reservation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 08:11 AM

All it will take is a TV camera catching some old bigot abusing the fleur-de-lys to turn the whole situation on its head ...

Which sounds like a pretty clear demonstration that the term "nation" is an appropriate one in this case. Because bigotry may inflame people in other situations, but typically it doesn't lead to calls for separatism.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 07:33 AM

Dianavan - Can you explain what this bill has to do with "sucking up to Bush"?

(Speaking of) "throwing a red-herring" - Are you yet another person opining on this matter without having followed the news closely enough or having read the thread closely enough to realize that Harper is responding to both the Bloc Quebecois and to the Liberals (specifically, Michael Ignatieff)? This must be the third time I've pointed this out here.

"He's an idiot. Worse than Blair." That may be, but I don't think this is the matter that shows it. In fact, I think he was pretty slick in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:54 PM

Yeah. It's a heavy thing to face, isn't it? LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:49 PM

I'm completely devastated LH.

I've lost respect with a monkey and a reform school flunky. Jeeeesh.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:35 PM

Harper should have been taking care of business instead of sucking up to Bush and throwing a red-herring to our so-called, elected representatives.

We have soldiers in big trouble in Afghanistan.

He's an idiot. Worse than Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:30 PM

The trouble is, Shane and Chongo are already under the impression that they are "history"...in the positive sense, I mean (that they have made history)...not in the sense you mean. They both figure they have achieved the ultimate coolness in their chosen fields of expertise, and I think you know what those fields are. ;-)

1. drinking
2. smoking
3. scoring with good looking women
4. being undeniably cool
5. being "Number One" in their peer group

I think the fact that you are "Number 6"....5 notches down from Number 1, you note...is causing them to lose respect for you.

On the other hand, "Number 2" doesn't sound that good either, does it?

What can we do about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:18 PM

One of these days Shane your alter ego is going to come to realize that not only is one of his other personalities is a f*&king monkey, but the other one is a f*&king asshole ... then you and Chongo are history!

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:13 PM

There is another flippin' nation to consider here, eh? And that is the Hard Rock Nation, baby! That includes all us righteous dudes who play or lissen to Heavy Metal and Hard Rock music! We are a NATION, man, know'm sayin'? Our nation is exeemplified in all its flippin' glory in movies like "Tenacious D and the Pick of Destiny" which is out now and I suggest you go and flippin' see it RIGHT NOW. But get stoned first. It helps. That is a flippin' Nation, man.

These flippin' frogs in Quebec been moanin' and groanin' at our expense WAY too long. If Don Cherry was Prime Minister...which he oughta be...He would put a stop to it QUICK, lemme tell ya. They would all have to, like, either SHUT UP or move back to flippin' France!

"If ya can't beat 'em in the alleyway, ya can't beat 'em on the ice!" That's what Don Cherry says, and he is my idle, eh?

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:08 PM

I agree menyself ... but does anyone??

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:06 PM

Notice that Chong didn't seem to have any suggestion as to what would have been a better course to take to deal with the political situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:01 PM

Well at least the majority of our elected representatives from all parties seem to agree with Harper.

from the CBC

I dunno, I just dunno.

Chong had a good point

... "Chong had said he would abstain from voting because the motion "implies the recognition of ethnicity.

"I do not believe in an ethnic nationalism. I believe in a civic nationalism."

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 10:43 PM

What would suggest Harper should have done in the circumstances?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 10:41 PM

Agreed, Obie. It was a stupid political move on Harper's part.

I think most people consider Canada a Country with people from many Nations.

The First Nations people must be given the option of:

1. Staying
2. Going
3. Becoming their own territory and taking their land with them.

Harper just threw everyone a big red herring. I wonder what he's really up to? Maybe he doesn't want anyone to focus on the fact that Canadian forces are in big trouble in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 10:34 PM

Okay, everybody, take a valium. You're getting yourselves all worked up over a tempest in a teapot ...

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 09:18 PM

Well Cape Breton is indeed a nation! We have a great leader in General John Cabot Trail and if we have to revert to terrorism we will blow up The Causeway. That should seperate us from youse! :-}
A more serious point to ponder though is:
If the first nations in Quebec want to remain in Canada along with their territory should they be allowed to do so? The seperatists say no, that Quebec is indivisable at the same time they claim Canada is divisable. They expect special status as a founding nation, but would not grant the same right to the nation that they found already on those shores.
There is an old expression that you can't spit and swallow ( suck and blow) at the same time.
Before there can be any truly democratic determination we need to answer such questions, but there will never be any political agreement between those who are playing the game.
There are many pressing issues in our country and our planet, but the damn fools that we elect ignore them to fight over nonsense. It is truly a pity and a disgrace!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 08:53 PM

Fair point, dianavan. I am thinking specifically of what I have come to know as the Metis Nation.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 08:52 PM

Seems to be quite a difference of opinion about the meaning of the term 'nation'.

Some say Canada is a country and not a Nation. Others say Canada is a country of many Nations. Some say Nation and Country is the same thing.

Does a Nation have to have geographical boundaries or can it refer to a cultural group?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 08:34 PM

ROFLMAO

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: gnu
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 08:10 PM

I am just fuckin Cheech for Chong, man!!!!

Really... come on you asshole separtistes... let's get it on. We are gonna trim you bastards to about a 100km strip on the north side of the Seaway and then not let you near it. You'll be so landlocked you won't even get fresh carrots from the Eastern Townships. Ungava? Prince Rupert's Land? New Quebec? Ere ye fuckin jokin?

Parizeau said there would be consequences if Quebec's borders were to be redrawn. Well, "Je Me Souviens" aussi, asshole. When Pierre sent the Canuck army in....

Oops, sorry. I try to stay away from these political discussions. just got me going for a minute there. My bad. carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 07:53 PM

Caught a little bit of Cross-Country Check-up (national call-in show) yesterday. Young fellow phoned in from Lac St.-Jean, a traditional separatist stronghold. Said it is only the "baby-boomers" who are still interested in the sovereignty cause. Said, "It's all we used to hear about in school; the teachers were always talking about separatism ... " Went on to say in so many words that the younger generation(s) are much more interested in the world outside their borders - including English Canada; sounded more in-tune with the Trudeau-ite "citizen-of-the-world" philosophy.

You could hear the refief in (host) Rex Murphy's voice. But having lived in Quebec, I've seen how quickly feelings can change on this issue. All it will take is a TV camera catching some old bigot abusing the fleur-de-lys to turn the whole situation on its head ...

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 06:36 PM

"Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong quit his post Monday over a controversial government motion that recognizes Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

Chong, who also held the minister of sport portfolio, said he simply couldn't support the motion and therefore had to resign.

"I believe in this great country of ours and I believe in one nation, undivided, called Canada," he told a news conference."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=00ca0fdf-1d31-49a7-8d9d-0eafb9edd3fc&k=71300&p=2

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 10:54 AM

I think that there are not many in Canada who would wish to part of America . Not for any anti american reason but because they would wish to remain Canada. It would be interesting how the rest of the country would respond to Atlantic Canada if it become geographically separated from the rest of the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 09:08 AM

Quebec....je nes ses pas

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 01:26 AM

Oh, so that's your game, is it, buster? This is one ape you ain't gonna turn into a monkey.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:35 AM

He did ... that no good insensitive digit.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:23 AM

Not you, pal. Number 6 called me a monkey.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:22 AM

BTW ... that Guest above was me.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 12:20 AM

Chongo ... It certainly would be an insult to call an individual a "monkey" .... I certainly would be an insult. I can't dispute that.

Did I call someone a monkey???

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:32 PM

It would be an insult to most individuals to call them a "monkey", Number 6. But in your case...maybe not. Go climb a tree!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:21 PM

Gotta be thankful for small blessings!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: pdq
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:16 PM

"...I'm the absolute dullest bulb in the drawer..."

Probably better than being "the sharpest knife in the light socket".

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:27 PM

Okay, maybe I'm the absolute dullest bulb in the drawer - Guest, what is your point? Can you just say it slowly and clearly so a dim-bulb such as myself can understand? I've got no idea what your view is on any of the issues under discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:01 PM

"........ sorta like the marriage, and the fearful party says ok, and arrives at the idea of an open marriage hoping that will make the unhappy party stay in the union. Just ain't gonna work..."

Why do you say 'just ain't goona work" ?

How could anybody know that? Besides history provides evidence to the contrary, the ROI and UK get along far better now that ever they did under the enforced union of Ireland and Great Britain.

Like I sez above, dude, it's far better to make a voluntary union then to have to shove it down folks throats with the butt of a rifle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 04:50 PM

Secede ici goes into the ground la.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:58 PM

One of these days Chongo your alter ego is going to realize his other personality is a f*&king monkey ... then your history!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:56 PM

It's "secede", not "succeed", you gimp.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:50 PM

"lead to disintegration and possible incorporation into the US"

This kind rhetoric is the fear factor put to us Canadians by the politicians. Politically ballyhoo.

Really, does one think that Canadians will allow themselves to be absorbed by the U.S. if Quebec does succeed from Canada? I certainly don't think the U.S. will gobble us up by force.

Guest regarding your point "Today, the same thing is happening in southern US states, a majority speak Spanish." ... this I feel will more than likely be a serious issue the U.S. will deal with in some years time ... particularly with Souther California and New Mexico. I would be surprised if it does not become an issue.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:49 PM

If all the apes and monkeys in the Greater Chicago area and in other major metropolitan centers in the USA like New York, Los Angeles, and Washington ever get the idea to separate and form their own nations, THEN you are gonna see the shit hit the fan. Forget about Quebec. I am talkin' full-scale insurrection here. No one can stop us once we get goin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:42 PM

"grounds for seperation? "

I should clarify myself with that one Guest ... "grounds for separation" is for whatever the reason decreed by the (majority) populace of Quebec who want to separate. I can't provide an answer to that question ... if you are not a Quebecois, if you don't live in the province you can only interpret the reason from what you read. I can only try to understand the reason and accept it, if it is the passionate will of the Quebecers themselves.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:15 PM

possible incorporation into the US

Which bits of Canada would be likely to go for that? And which bits would do a Quebec rather than accept it?

And would the idea be too popular in the States?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 03:08 PM

I personally would hate to see separation, since I think that would lead to disintegration and possible incorporation into the US. I think we all benefit from the existing states of things.

I have to second the sentiments of Big Mick. I've been fortunate enough to drive across Canada and fly across Canada, and listen to the CBC and spend time in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Vancouver BC (and one town so fine I may hide there someday). I don't know enough about Canadian politics to understand whether declaring Quebec a 'nation' is a valid attempt to maintain her within the Canadian confederacy, or whether it is a precursor to separation. I think I am ahead of most yanks in that I at least know that Canada HAS politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 02:45 PM

"So, why do you think Quebec thinks it has grounds for seperation? "

I never said they had grounds for separation ... I'm just saying if the majority of the people of Quebec want to succeed ... and they have been debating and working this for a long, long time ... well, what can ya do ... bet let 'em .... accept it, and for the rest of Canada and Quebec work together as separate nations.

As I mentioned previously ... it's like a marriage that doesn't click ... they have gone to therapy, counciling, ... one party fears the breakup, the other party is unhappy and wants to break away, the fearful party has pampered to the unhappy party by giving, and giving but the unhappy party still is not happy, and still want to break away. It's best they breakup and get on with their lives. This new nation within a nation does not make sense ... sorta like the marriage, and the fearful party says ok, and arrives at the idea of an open marriage hoping that will make the unhappy party stay in the union. Just ain't gonna work.

But who knows, maybe the Quebecois will suddenly wake up some morning and they all realize they want to stay and be part of Canada ... would be nice, but impropable ... somewhere up the road this issue will have to be dealt with.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:52 PM

I may not be the sharpest bulb in the drawer, but I have no idea what Guest is talking about ... Anyone care to explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:24 PM

"Gee sorefingers, not only do you know nothing about Canada but you seem to know precious little about the difference between nationalism and republicanism. I am astounded by your ignorance of Canada and am equally astounded by your unashamedlly expressing it in a public forum. The situations are not at all comparable.

If the majority of the population of Quebec (in all earnest) want to seperate and form a nation of their own, I say let them. It is their democratic will and right. Canada should leave it be. If the desire and fortitude of the people Canada exists, the nation of Canada will succeed. Life will go on.

biLL:"

At least you are consistent! A minority in 6 counties of Ireland, or Oirland, in the 1900s, expressed their desire to NOT be in the independent nation. The rest, as they say, is history.

So, why do you think Quebec thinks it has grounds for seperation?

Hmmmm..

Well

They are not a majority in the captive country, neither were the N Iron Orangies, they are not the same ethnicity as their captors, neither were the N Iron Orangies, all, both Orangies and Quebecois, were prepared for violence if necessary.

Today, the same thing is happening in southern US states, a majority speak Spanish...... because because because thats why .....

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:11 PM

It's not good intentions and tolerance that are destroying Canada, Guest, it's unscrupulous political parties who will toady up to any special interest group in order to get a few more votes, and who rule by "divide-and-conquer" tactics.

Political parties are the problem, and they are causing this sort of trouble in many places, not just in Canada.

I have friends in Trinidad...which is basically a tripartite culture...Christian/Muslim/Hindu. It's also split racially between East Indians, Blacks, and Whites. Now, the people there tell me that the 3 religions and 3 races normally get along fine together and are indeed very frienly to one another...except around the time of election campaigns! When an election campaign is on, all kinds of trouble starts between the communities, and that trouble is fomented by the politicians. The politicians raise all kinds of troublesome issues in their attempts to discredit and attack their opponents and create controversy that will motivate people to get out and vote for them and against their opponents. This results in unusual levels of violence, kidnappings, scandal-mongering, hatred, and every sort of damaging thing, and it is entirely and unnecessarily created by the politicians for their own selfish reasons.

The same is true in Canada, but to a much lesser extent. Thankfully!

Politics is the problem, not tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:04 PM

Then why aren't the scots, the irish, the english, the chinese, the lebanese, the arabs, the Indians, the Pakistanis and so on a nation, not to mention Cape Breton eh ?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:02 PM

Harper's proposal is to recognize the "Quebeçois" as opposed to "Quebec" as a nation, an important distinction. It implies a recognition of nationality and not state. From what I've been reading this includes all Quebeçois, no matter where they may reside in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:00 PM

Harper did not create this problem. Somewhere in our not to distant past we decided that evryone could be a hyphenated Canadian. Or that you could be a Canadian but a citizen of one or two other countries as well. So now we have loads of people who wish to be known as something other than Canadian except of course when it comes to free medical services, education, pensions, rfreedom of religion, speech and association, social services, subsidies and rescue from the other countries they are citizens of. This is a country being destoyed by good intentions and tolerant people..go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 12:52 PM

We shall see...

If Harper digs his own political grave (and I'm sure he will, in time) that's okay with me. I don't trust him one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 12:47 PM

Well, its a done deal.

"...there would be VERY serious trouble right away between the French and the Native Canadians, who would claim huge portions of the province and would oppose rule by a Quebec national government! I'm talking about trouble that could go as far as open warfare between the Natives and the Quebec government." - Littlehawk

It remains to be seen how Native Canadians in Quebec will react. I agree with Littlehawk; when its all over, Quebec may be a very tiny nation within a nation. I would rather negotiate with the nation of Canada than the nation of Quebec when it comes to land claims and/or issues of discrimination.

This could backfire on Harper. I don't think its up to him to determine the fate of so many Native Canadians. He basically threw them away. Duceppe is a fool for taking them on.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 10:05 AM

Why worry about Atlantic Canada ... it has been pretty well put on the back burner by the power provinces Ontario and Alberta since confederation.

Never-the-less .... it would be sad day indeed if Quebec does succeed and become a soverign nation, fragmenting a country that I am proud to be a citizen of ... but this haggling has been going on for years ... and if it happens we should be prepared and accepting of it. Look on the brighter side, maybe it will unify us as Canadians even more.

Hell, Atlantic Canada has an awful lot to offer to the world. Maybe something like this would be a kick in the butt get things going to capitalize on what we have. Case in point Iceland's succession from Denmark.   

Cultures, and countries of the world have been changing, evolving through history. Life goes on. People will persevere. Quebec's and Canada's issues is like a marriage, with 2 distinct personalities that in some ways just don't click. If a breakup occurs, maybe it is for the best. Do it amicably is the best route to go.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:33 AM

As someone who lives in the "true eat", Atlantic Canada, I have to say that Quebec leaving Canada would be a disaster for us as it would cut us off geographically from the rest of Canada. We would live in country divided by the presence of a forgien country in the middle of Canada. Perhaps those who use England and Scotland as an example would feel diffently if Scotland were located in the Middle of England.
   As a Canadian I am sick to death of this constant wrangling over Quebec. Maybe the rest of us should have a referendum to decide if we want this foolishness to continue or just give them what they want and be done with it.
    Then I don't know what would happen here in Atlantic Canada. But let's get this resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 01:12 AM

I think this is just the Liberal and Conservative parties screwing around (as usual) with their eyes on the next election, both trying to curry favour with the Quebec voters. As such, they will try to outdo each other with insincere rhetoric to make it sound like they love the French minority more than their opposition does.

It's so tiresome...

The Liberals sense that the tide is turning in their direction again, and they will have a new party leader soon. The Conservatives are worried about that, so they figure they'll say some nice things to the Quebecois and pick up some votes.

Same old deal. Both those parties are willing to prostitute themselves indefinitely for the Quebec and Ontario vote...any way they can...because it is Quebec and Ontario which are key to winning an election in Canada. And Quebec is unique, because the Quebecois tend to vote as a bloc for some reason. That has historically most often favoured the Liberals, but the Conservatives are not above playing the same game. Actually, they have to play it...if they hope to stay in power very long.

It's silly.

Be that as it may, Canada is a wonderful country and I'm delighted to be here!

Dianavan is absolutely right that if Quebec were to separate there would be VERY serious trouble right away between the French and the Native Canadians, who would claim huge portions of the province and would oppose rule by a Quebec national government! I'm talking about trouble that could go as far as open warfare between the Natives and the Quebec government. No joke.

I doubt that it will happen, though. Like I said, the Conservatives and Liberals are doing what they always do...angling for votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,the ghost of P.E.Trudeau
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 10:32 PM

And here's to you Monsieur de Gaulle

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,the ghost of Charles de Gaulle
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 10:11 PM

Vive le Québec libre!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:07 PM

Today the Bloc Quebecois leader said he would accept the motion on a 'nation within a nation.'
"Down the road, he said, the motion might help Quebec gain international recognition after a sovereinity referendum. The declaration might also be a springboard to demand new power."
"What's important is that the nation is recognized and it is on that basis that we will demand the government be accountable because it must mean something," Duceppe told reporters on Ottawa."" Les Pereaux, Canadian Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 06:02 PM

"but if the whole business were not handled in a far, more rational way than it has been so far, by all parties, then such a happy relationship might be a long time coming."

Well, sometimes that kind of thing gets screwed up, as it was by the British in relation to Ireland, or by the various nations in Yugoslavia.

But sensible countries seem to handle it without too much fuss - for example in Scandinavia, when Norway went its own way in 1905, or Iceland in the 1940s; or in the way Slovakia and the Czech republic separated amicably enough in 1993, within the European Union. Or as will probably happen before too long in the case of Scotland, I suspect. And Canada always comes across as a pretty sensible country.

Quite why people get annoyed at would be secession always seems very strange to me. Leaving aside where there are other issues involved, like chattel slavery, or a newly discovered oil-field motivating a break that previously hadn't been envisaged. I'd have thought the natural reaction would be "Oh great - now I can go abroad and more or less stay home at the same time."

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 04:24 PM

You may find this enlightening; it's a combination of news commentary & summary of what the major Canadian news organs are saying about the latest development in this issue (from www.maisonneuve.org/mediascout).


MOVE OVER GILLES, HARPER'S GOT THE NATION NOW
by Daniel Tencer
November 24, 2006


After months of minority government acrobatics, Stephen Harper must finally feel like he's really in charge in Ottawa. And all it took was nine words—"the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada"—for the prime minister to turn Canadian politics on its head. Conservative and Liberal MPs who just a few days ago stood staunchly against any recognition of Quebec's nationhood are suddenly singing a different tune. It appears (minus the Bloc Quebecois, of course) that Harper has near-unanimous support for his motion. But commentators of all political stripes agree that these nine words boil down to a question of semantics: What is a "nation"? And, if we recognize that the Quebecois (note the use of Quebecois, not Quebeckers or Quebec—another semantic issue) are indeed a nation, what are the constitutional implications? The Globe, citing the Tories, suggests there may be none. But the Post isn't so sure.

So what prompted Harper to throw himself into the career-threatening quagmire that is the unity debate? The obvious answer is that it was an attempt to turn the tables on the Bloc Québécois, which had forwarded an almost identical motion in Parliament, with the intention—observers claim—of sowing disunity within the Liberal party ahead of its leadership convention (and consequently forcing federalist politicians to vote against nationhood for Quebec). In his column appearing in the traditionally federalist La Presse today, Michel Auger relishes the irony of it all. "Bloc MPs found themselves alone in opposing a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation," he writes. "It was enough to see the bloquistes' buried heads, in Parliament yesterday, to know that their party has taken a turn for the worse." According to the Globe, Harper saw the Bloc's original motion as an implicit agreement that the Canadian Parliament has a role to play in determining Quebec's status. He called Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, asked Duceppe if this was really the road the Bloc wanted to go down, then threw down the gauntlet. But Parti Québécois leader André Boislcair is taking a different view. Far from giving Ottawa a role in determining Quebec's status, recognizing that the Quebecois form a nation "will give us a powerful tool for the international recognition of a future sovereign Quebec," he said. As the dust settles, it will be most interesting to see how this gamble plays out.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 02:44 PM

" ... sizeable community of people who see themselves as having enough in common, and enough distinction from others, to justify themselves in requiring political independence if they wish it. It doesn't imply that they necessarily wish to exercise that right ... "

Holy smokes, McGrath, you must be reading up on Canadian political history - that convoluted definition is worthy of MacKenzie King himself [as you may know, our war-time Prime Minister who steered the country through a couple of "national unity" crises; famous or infamous for the slogan "Conscription if necessary but not necessarily consciption", which was enough to, if not satisfy, at least befuddle those who wanted military conscription ("English" Canada) and those who were opposed ("French" Quebec)]. Right up there with Harper's "nation within a united Canada" and the 1995 referendum question, " "Do you agree that Quebec becomes sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership within the context of the Bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12,1995?" (http://www.uni.ca/dialoguecanada/trent_guide.html#2).

I'm not really conversant enough with the situation re: Scotland to comment on the validity of the analogy; there are some obvious similarities, but there are differences as well. Most notably, perhaps, Quebec, unlike Scotland as I understand it, has had its own Legislative Assembly since at least the 1850's, and French Quebeckers were equal and very involved partners in the formation of the first "responsible government" of Canada, and then in the Confederation government of 1867, from which is marked the beginning of Canada in its present form. One of the frustrations of some of us Anglo(phone) Canadians is that under the influence of separatists/nationalists, much of Quebec's role in the early political development of Canada has been written out of Quebec's history as it has come to be understood in Quebec. Seminal, impressive figures such as the reformer, democrat, French-rights advocate and early (pre-Confederation) prime minister LaFontaine have been dismissed as sell-outs. This aspect of Canadian history doesn't fit the myth of the unrelenting oppression of French Canada. Which is not to say that there haven't been legitimate beefs over the years ...

" ... some some equivalent amicable relationship with the rest of Canada. And the same would apply if I was any kind of Canadian."

That fine sentiment is one of those things that is easier to express from the outside than from the inside. There is a lot of bitterness in relation to this issue; some of it valid and understandable; some it silly and small-minded. If Quebec were to separate, some "amicable relationship" would certainly come into being eventually, but if the whole business were not handled in a far, more rational way than it has been so far, by all parties, then such a happy relationship might be a long time coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 11:57 AM

"Nation"? For me I suppose that would mean means a sizeable community of people who see themselves as having enough in common, and enough distinction from others, to justify themselves in requiring political independence if they wish it. It doesn't imply that they necessarily wish to exercise that right in full or even in part (ie home rule or local autonomy).

And on that definition it seems pretty evident that there is a nation in Quebec, just as there is in Scotland and in Wales.

The situation of Quebec in relation to Canada and Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom does seem very analogous to me. The existence of the European Union, which would mean that an independent Scotland would continue to have a close relationship with England and Wales, as is now the case with the Irish Republic, is a relevant factor in any future constitutional change.

If I was Quebecois I would want to ensure that bwhatever happens there will be some some equivalent amicable relationship with the rest of Canada. And the same would apply if I was any kind of Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 11:28 AM

Here's some answers:

Not all of the French speaking people of Canada live in Quebec. Where does that leave them?
... no they aren't.They are happy being Francophones in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario or whatever province they live in.

Not all of the people in Quebec are French. Where does that leave them?
... No they aren't. There are some in Quebec whose mother tongues is not French, some of them are in favour and of course some of them are not. But, if the majority of people wish separation what can you do? It's the will of the majority.

It aint gonna happen because our First Nations People won't allow it.
... Good point ... if you are referring to the First Nations of Quebec. This is the difficult issue that will have to be resolved.

Its all politics and it won't amount to anything.
...Far from it. A majority of Quebecers are very passionate about separation.

This issue has been going on for a very long time. Canada will have to deal with it in a realistic process if a referendum proves a majority of Quebecers want to separate. If that is the wish of the people of Quebec, we should allow it, not letting heated emotions in the way. Is it worth a civil war?

There is a lot of negative feelings towards Quebec in Canada. In some cases downright prejudiced feelings. All Canadians have heard a story from some Anglo ordering a meal in Quebec, asking for directions and critizing the Quebecer for not replying or undersanding English ... I always reply to these critical individuals, "well yes, in most cases they do know English, but do you have any knowlege of French."

Peace ... I do agree with your frustration. Canada did nothing regarding Bill 101 ... that bill was unacceptable.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:27 AM

tell me this, if there is a referendum in Quebec re seperation, is that fair. Why should the people of Quebec be the only ones to vote on the future of Canada. A unilateral decision to breakup Canada seems unfair.
   Secondly....the population of Canada is about 33 million, about 6 million of whom are francophone ( not all in Quebec). If quebec leaves Canada they will represent about five million Francophones on a continent of 150 million Spanish speakers ,over 3 hundred million English speakers. The constitution of Canada protects french language rights and Canada is an officially bilingual country. How long does quebec expect to survive and do business in this environment. It is all well and good to rant about Canada not respecting qUEBEC, BUT i TRULY BELIEVE THAT HAD NOT qEBEC BEEN PART OF cANADA AND HAD THESE LANGUAGE RIGHTS BY LAW, THERE WOULD BE NO fRENCH LANGUAGE OR CULTURE IN nORTH aMERICA TODAY.(SORRY FOR THE CAPS..WONKY KEYBOARD)

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:14 AM

This little blurb from that page is why I love CBC:   "Supreme Court rules children of parents have the right to English schools in Quebec." As opposed to children of ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:36 PM

Some background.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:34 PM

It was really named Bill 101, but it was renamed by folks because the highway from Montreal to Toronto is called 'the 401'.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:32 PM

Balls as to people allowing it. I was in Quebec in 1976. This whole damned country stood by and watched 800,000 English speakers get stripped of their language rights by Bill 401. And they did fuck all, not ONE THING.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:27 PM

Here's my question.

Not all of the French speaking people of Canada live in Quebec. Where does that leave them?

Not all of the people in Quebec are French. Where does that leave them?

It aint gonna happen because our First Nations People won't allow it.

Its all politics and it won't amount to anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:12 PM

McGrath - With all due respect - and I don't mean that sarcastically - I don't think you really understand what's going on here, and there's no particular reason you should; it's complicated as hell. I've tried to explain that the issue is not simply about the word "nation"; that term is being used as a political football at the moment, and it has all kinds of baggage attached to it, to mix metaphors.

"The future position of Quebec in relationship to the rest of Canada is something for the people of Quebec to decide"

Has anyone here said it isn't? Have any political figures of any significance said it isn't? Are you aware that there is legislation in place that provides a framework for the separation of Quebec from Canada?

'those wishing for the existing political union to continue would be unwise to to pretend that these are not already "nations".'

You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet there are those, some of whom belong to that "nation" of Quebec, who believe that in the context of the power struggles going on in Quebec and Ottawa, that even the legislation being proposed by Harper - i.e., to label the Quebecois "a nation within a united Canada" - will give a boost to those who wish the "existing political union" to come to an end.

"I've never come across a Scot, from Canada or any other part of the world, who has expressed any doubt that Scotland is indeed a nation."

This one has me scratching my head. I'm half-Scottish, some of my relatives are Scottish on all sides, I grew up in a largely Scottish neighbourhood, I play Scottish music, but I can't for the life of me recall a conversation in which in the nationhood of Scotland or lack thereof has ever come up, explicitly or by implication. It may be different for first-, second-, or even third-generation Canadian Scots, but those of us who have been here for five or ten generations, while we may identify with Scottish culture, a clan, and some locale in Scotland, I think that the matter of Scottish nationhood is just not, again, part of our consciousness. I think most fourth-and-beyond-generation Scottish Canadians would be baffled as to why they would be expected to have an opinion or feeling about it. Now, I may be completely off-base on this; I'd be curious to hear from other (more!)Scottish Canadians - if you're out there, speak up!

A question for you: you seem quite certain that the term "nation" applies to Quebec; would you care to explain what you understand that term to mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:16 PM

Words mean what people choose them to mean. Of course the word "state" is pretty ambiguous too, what with that mass of "states" to the south of Canada, all within one political union and constituting "one nation" - but also containing a large number of other nations, such as the Navajo Nation.

The future position of Quebec in relationship to the rest of Canada is something for the people of Quebec to decide, just as is the case for Scotland in relation to the other parts of the United Kingdom. In either case those wishing for the existing political union to continue would be unwise to to pretend that these are not already "nations".

"The term "nation" in relation to England and Scotland is not part of our consciousness" - well, you say it and you live there, memyself. But there are an awful lot of Scots in Canada, and I've never come across a Scot, from Canada or any other part of the world, who has expressed any doubt that Scotland is indeed a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

Canada also has the native nations.
On the edge of Calgary (1 million census) is the Tsuu t ina Nation. Calgary wants to complete a ring road, but it would have to go through Tsuu-t ina land. Negotiations are underway between the Province, the City, and the Tsuu tina to find a compromise that is satisfactory, but it may be several years before a settlement is reached.
This adds still another dimension to the meanings of 'nation.'

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 05:46 PM

Okay, let me re-phrase that: in Canada, Anglophones tend to equate the word "nation" with the concept of a state. The term "nation" in relation to England and Scotland is not part of our consciousness, generally speaking; if it were, the concept as applied to Quebec might be more palatable in the rest of the country ...

I just heard on the radio an account of a discussion apparently going on amongst Quebecois intellectuals about whether the term "nation" as applied to them should be taken to mean "independent nation", "civic nation", or, their new term, "sociological nation" - so I'm not the only one who finds the term ambiguous, and the ambiguity is not just in (Canadian) English, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 05:27 PM

in English, in which language - your post to the contrary notwithstanding - we tend to equate the word with the concept of a state

So England and Scotland aren't nations?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:56 PM

"A nation is not necessarily the same as a state. ... ", etc.

This issue cannot be understood outside of the context of Canadian politics, and it's doubtful if it can be understood even within the context of Canadian politics. But I'll point out a few of the pertinent factors: 1) no one is quite sure what the term "nation" means, or at least, no one's quite sure what it means, or might mean sometime in the future, to separatists in Quebec, not to mention what decision some court may make on the basis of that word; part of this is a language issue - we are often told that the term "nation" has a more general meaning in French than in English, in which language - your post to the contrary notwithstanding - we tend to equate the word with the concept of a state; 2) it is assumed, I think, that if the federal government officially recognizes Quebec as a "nation", without qualification, then this will be used rhetorically by separatists to promote their cause: "they call us a nation, but how can we be a nation if we cannot set our own foreign policy?", etc., or, contrarily, "we are a nation; we send our own representatives to trade conferences; we fly our own flag at the Francophonie; why are we bothering with Canada?"; 3) the Canadian provincial governments are like a group of children who are extremely jealous of each other, and always on the look-out for some perceived slight or injustice, and there is considerable resentment in the country over what is perceived to be the disproportionate amount of money that has been pumped into Quebec in various ways over the last fifty years, so there is resistance to any move that looks like it might confer privilege on Quebec; 4) this is the latest event in a battle of wills that has been going on for at least forty years, if not for 200:; Gilles Duceppe and the Parti Quebecois are in a sense trying to make the federal government say "Uncle"; in this instance, Prime Minister Harper has come up with the type of compromise that so far has held this country together: he's saying "Aunt".

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:46 PM

Bloc Quebecois, with 51 seats in Parliament, holds the balance of power between Liberals (103) and Conservatives (124).
Today, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe urged MPs to adopt an amended separatist motion declaring that Quebecers form a nation "that is currently within Canada."
Quoting Canadian Press, Duceppe told the House of Commons that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's motion declaring that Quebecers form a nation within 'a united' Canada was a clumsy attempt to 'pull the wool over the public's eyes.' When he attaches that condition, we can see through it that it's just a partisan tactic," Duceppe said, kicking off a spirited debate. "I hope that the prime minister will recognize the Quebec nation, period. I would invite everyone in this house to follow through on their logic, to get rid of their psychological hang-ups about recognizing the Quebec nation," he said, receiving a standing ovation from his party.

Wonderful! The arguments will continue to the end of session in parliament, and the members won't be able to pass stupid legislation from the conservative fringes. A do-nothing parliament is sometimes best for the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:24 PM

A nation is not necessarily the same as a state. Nobody woudl deream for a moment of denying that England, Scotland and Wales are nations, even those who want to see the United Kingdom continue to exist as a state.

And there are right now a considerable number of Nations within the border of the USA (and I believe Canada) - with official government and treaty recognition.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:06 PM

The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to pursue Quebec's independence was defeated by an extremely small margin, 50.58% "No" to 49.42% "Yes".

Wikipedia

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 02:55 PM

Guest ... the last referendum was back in 1996. What percentage of Quebecers voted to seperate?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 02:30 PM

"it could never ever be said that Quecbec owes their Anglo overlords anything ./weakening British-Orange power in the Americas."

Speaking on behalf of all Anglo/British/Orange overlords in Canada, I hereby grant our Canadian Catholic slaves, freedmen, and other categories of second-class citizens the temporary right to speak freely of your oppression and misery on this thread. Oh, stop all that bowing and scraping, and get on with it.

Oh, and when addressing those as well-versed in Canadian history and politics as Mr sorefingers, you needn't bother mentioning your sufferings under those cruel Anglo/British/Orange tyrants Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Saint-Laurent, Laurier - oh, my, but the list does go on, back into pre-Confederation, back to Georges Cartier, lo, even unto LaFontaine ...

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 02:24 PM

I believe it was the bloc who wanted a vote in the house. Harper just beat them to it. alas the bloc are never satisfied and are now wingeing about it all. He we go round the mullberry bush again.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:59 PM

'GUEST,sorefingers' is not very accurate about the United Kingdom either. The 9 counties of Ulster were all members of the United Kingdom before 1921, 6 were kept in the UK as 'Northern Ireland'.

Still as long as people can be sidetracked into matters of ethnicity, language, religion and nationalism they won't be thinking about the areas of politics that really matter. Beware of any narrow-minded so-called politician who promotes/opposes in these areas. Voters should be able to vote on policies that really affect the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:27 PM

There has been a referendum in Quebec and the the seperatists lost. However, they seem unable to accept the democratic process, that is why we are all sick of it. Also, Canada cannot just let it go because those people in quebecc who do not want to leave canada are canadians and need to have the support of the national government.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:13 PM

GUEST11:13: "Shame on Harper for opeing this issue yet again." Read my previous post or read a newspaper. It was not Harper that opened this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: number 6
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:12 PM

If the majority of the population of Quebec (in all earnest) want to seperate and form a nation of their own, I say let them. It is their democratic will and right. Canada should leave it be. If the desire and fortitude of the people Canada exists, the nation of Canada will succeed. Life will go on.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:07 PM

Gee sorefingers, not only do you know nothing about Canada but you seem to know precious little about the difference between nationalism and republicanism. I am astounded by your ignorance of Canada and am equally astounded by your unashamedlly expressing it in a public forum.
   The situations are not at all comparable.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:59 AM

It couldn't be a Principality. That's an English word!

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:58 AM

Hmmm well somebody does not want to be in the Canadian nation and as GUEST shows somebody else opposes it.

Compare Britian and Northern Ireland; of 9 counties, 6 were artificialy scooped off by the British into the UK on the basis of religious/national sentiment, in order to create a slave class for the Protestant majority. So far, this has caused two wars, and laid the seeds for a pogrom later on. The rest of the Island now an independent country continues to relate to the rest of Britain in much the same way it did before independence AND it still relies on old understandings in all spheres.

Scotland and Wales are also devolving, allbeit in a more peacefull way, but in the end it will end up the same. A seperate nation within the old union but less bound to it. About N Iron, there is very little to say, since the abused and growing Cathjolic minority within it fully expect their numbers to exceed the punishing Protestant majority in the not too distant future thereby enabling those 6 counties to join with the rest of free Ireland.

British still? sure, but not with 'enforced' Loyalty, more like voluntary union.

Now Quebec shares the same difficulties as did Ireland Scotland and Wales with regard to Anglo domination. They are a different ethnicity, they do not like being Anglofied, and in this case they are still speakling their own language ( unlike the 3 subjugated nations of the Britons whose languages were replaced by English with some encouragement by swords and such things). Then there is the historical side of things from which they inherited some sovereignty, so it could never ever be said that Quecbec owes their Anglo overlords anything .

From my unique Republican perspective it would be better for us all if Quebec becomes independent, thus further weakening British-Orange power in the Americas.

So yes, go for it Quebec.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:26 AM

One of our biggest problems is that we no longer have a nation federal party. We have the Bloc(quebec sereratists.) Reform, aka the tories, Western Isolationists. The liberals, who have the best understanding of the country but can't articulate it, and the NDP who really don't get any of it.
    I have no affiliation with any of these parties but I am very fond of this country and I do wish that we could elect someone who loved it as much as its citizens and residents do.
Stephen Harper is our national disaster because he does not get the joke..why did the Canadian cross the road ? To get to the middle.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:18 AM

Make it a Princepality, rather than a Nation.

It has that extra little bit of independance, but ends up with such a silly name that nobody would use it...

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:13 AM

First of all, I doubt very much that Quebec would have any interest in the Commonwealth, games or otherwise. Secondly if they did participate as a seperate nation they would be called Quebec, the rest would be called Canada.
I realize that the UK has nations within nations. However, The situation in Canada is quite different. Canada was a nation voluntarily formed by two groups, the french and the british. It is, unlike the UK , a federal state, which means it has many equal partners and a central Government. One part of the country is like orwell,s famous pig. It wants to be more equal. Shame on Harper for opeing this issue yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:44 AM

Here in the UK we are quite used to nations within nations. But the only effect we will see of Quebec as a nation is when they send a separate team to the Commonwealth Games, as do England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. So what will they call the team representing the rest of Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:36 AM

"hopefully this will return the issue to the back burner where it belongs."

I wish I could share that hope with you but past events have proved otherwise. Those who would separate are very adept at seizeing on such issues and spinning them into yet another insult to Quebec (see the Meech Lake accord) and using that as a vehicle to ride into another referendum on separation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:35 AM

Thanks for the kind words Big Mick. I think that Canada is a very undervalued, underappreciated and underestimated place, especially by the people who live here. I travel a great deal outside of Canada and whenever I am away I am grateful to have this country to come home to.We are not perfect, we are not better, we are just us, we need to have politicians in this country who do not encourage regionalism, the Republic of Alberta, The "Nation of Quebec", western alienation, Atlantica, or any other divise nonsense. For God's sake, stop and smell the roses. We are SO lucky to live here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:23 AM

I was purposely going to stay out of this thread because, unlike some folks around here when referring to the States, I feel as though this topic is one for Canadians to discuss and for me to just read and learn. But the post from GUEST compels me to say this. I sincerely hope that your national identity is preserved, and you don't descend into just a group of disassociated parties. I have come to love the look, the feel, the tolerance of Canada. The Canadian society has so much to be admired, and I wish my own country would simply take the lessons of tolerance that exist on our northern border. Canadian culture is unique, it's history is fascinating, its musical legacy is priceless, and the pride that Canadians take in their heritage is palpable and completely justified. As a governmental entity, Canada is very progressive in a great many areas, and once again I say, has much that the States should look and learn from.

I will follow this thread with great interest.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Mooh
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:15 AM

Guest...Agreed. We make for ourselves this great place then bite the hand that feeds us.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 10:05 AM

I think this is a very sad day for Canada. I know it is old fashioned these days to say such things, but I do love my country and I wish that all of us who live here would realize how lucky we are are. Hospitals and medical care are free to all, Gays and Lesbians may marry, we may worship as we please, we have great Universities, for the most part, we have decent and honourable politicians, we do not make war, We have many wonderful cultures within Canada, We are a people who are tolerant, civil and just. We may not be the biggest, the best or most powerful nation on the planet, but we are a great blessed to live here and I justb wish that those who, for political gain, wish to tear us apart, would grasp the fact that to divide this nation would be a crime against evry soul who lives in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:48 AM

Welcome to the Balkans.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:44 AM

"I suspect that the First Nations peoples and the Anglophones of Canada will soon demand the same recognition."

Um - don't the First Nations already have that recognition? What are they called again? Oh yeah - the First NATIONS.

"Harper has opened a huge can of worms" - Harper did NOT open this can of worms. In my understanding, it was opened this time by Michael Ignatieff, under pressure from the Quebec youth wing of the Liberals. Then the Bloc Quebecois tried to get the jump on Ignatieff by making a plan to introduce a bill recognizing Quebec as a nation. Now Harper's got the jump on both of them, and has neatly stepped out of the corner they were both trying to paint him into, by introducing a bill to recognize "the Quebecois" as "a nation within a united Canada". I've never been a big Harper fan, but I'm willing to give credit where it's due. He's handled this touchy matter in a neat way, and hopefully this will return the issue to the back burner where it belongs.

"Mulroney tried to appease the separatists and that ended with Lucien Bouchard and the nearly successful referendum. Harper doesn't appear to be a very good student of history."

Harper is not trying to "appease the separatists"; he's trying to hang onto his Quebec federalists, and to give them some ammunition to use against the separatists - the Que. federalists can say to those sitting on the fence, "Look, we are recognized as a nation, now vote federalist". This does nothing for the real separatists except piss them off, because Harper's got one up on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: Mooh
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:15 AM

Well, the First Nations have been doing it for ever, the Acadians have an argument too. As for me, I'd just as soon separate Canada from Harper.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: bobad
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:12 AM

Harper, as did Mulroney, needs votes from Quebec to get a majority in parliament. Mulroney tried to appease the separatists and that ended with Lucien Bouchard and the nearly successful referendum. Harper doesn't appear to be a very good student of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 08:02 AM

Oh God, here we bloody go again. Frankly, I am very tired of this Quebec stuff, get over it. Canada is a country, you're part of it. End of stopry. I think Harper has opened a huge can of worms here and I wish he hadn't. What a bore all of this is.

Subject: BS: Nation with-in Nation
From: 3refs
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:49 AM

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a brilliant political move yesterday by putting forward a historic motion calling for the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a "nation" within Canada. But whether it will be good for national unity is another matter.

Basically, what it means is that the Commons will soon pass a motion recognizing that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. The $64,000 question is what does that mean?"

I suspect that the First Nations peoples and the Anglophones of Canada
will soon demand the same recognition.

Now, speaking only of these three very distinct groups of people is it possible that we get to take a step backwards in time, correct some injustices and that it will be to the benfit of all?