BS: Nation with-in Nation

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?