Quebec/Canada separation motion coming back again

As happy as i would be for Slocki, Ned, I would really not like to have my country destroyed.

"I've never really understood Quebec's desire to secede. Can someone in the know explain it to me?"

It's a really long, and complicated story going back centuries. To be honest, I don't think that anyone really even knows anymore. The modern separatist movement depends entirely on lies, and historical grievances to make their case. They also make thinly veiled appeals to the latent nationalist and even racist sentiment which exists in many parts of Quebec.

I've never really understood Quebec's desire to secede. Can someone in the know explain it to me?

I'm nowhere near being an authority (or even particularly well-informed). I gather, however, that it has to do with the fact that Quebec was originally 'united' with other Canadian provinces only because of a military defeat by the British. So some in Quebec see themselves as a colonized nation/culture. I think most people would agree that Quebec is a distinct cultural entity. So it's partly a matter of whether one thinks that culture would be better preserved as a part of Canada or as an independent nation. (I hesitated to say "independent nation" because even separatists are often quite fuzzy on exactly how independent they would want Quebec to be. I'm not sure, though I haven't looked it up recently, that even the Bloc or PQ leaders actually want to have their own currency and a full military force of their own or to enforce an international border between Ottawa and Hull, etc. They generally seem to use the terms "sovereignty" or "sovereignty-association" rather than "secession".) You also get into the issue that both the BQ and PQ have strongly social democratic leanings, which can run contrary to political trends in some of the rest of Canada.

I just found this Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement

http://www.rocler.qc.ca/turp/eng/Road/Road.htm

But that's just me.

True enough, but pretty much every country can claim to have been united with other cultures/provinces because of a military defeat.

Noodles/Rufus3K always says that Atlantic Canada is more of a distinct culture than Quebec is compared to the "rest of Canada" (whatever that means).

I don't know if I've claimed that, but I don't believe Quebec is a distinct society. Especially when compared to Northern Ontario, New Brunswick and Northern PEI. I'm sure Herbert and I have moaned and bitched enough about the Canadiens leaving the Acadians to the mercy of the British.

http://www.national.gallery.ca/exhibitions/past/alex_colville/english/images/content/visualpreview/frenchcross.jpg

ps: I am sad to report that all the Saint Hubert's in Toronto are now closed. No more hot chicken sandwiches and Sam Adams for me wihtout a 5 hour drive. Though Loblaws still sells the gravy, the gravy of the gods.

(the first nations of course are the largest festering sore, but they dont have enough power to do anything--in a pure real politik sense)

no way!!

and i think it's pretty disingenuous to claim that quebec is not a distinct society

(Not the best parallel for very obvious reasons.. the histories among the three countries are very different.. no French culture ingrained in the history of the US, UK & Ireland nearly as deeply, etc.)

The issue of separatism can vary, depending on who's arguing for/against it, from being really empassioned & complex, to really stupid.. or both.

Anyway, it's sobering (although not quite comforting) to see that pretty much every Western country has complex and fucked politics.

Has always stuck in my mind and is why I don't buy into the noble virtues of separatism.

Well, it's a counterexample, but as far as comedy goes, it's probably more vice-versa to some degree!

New Brunswick, Saint Pierre and Miquelon carry French raod signs. Though we rarely count the last two as part of North America. And Quebec does begrudgingly have its Stop/Arrêt road signs here and there just liek the 401 started using that wacky hammer notation for littering fines.

Also, every Canadian customs area in all of the country has "Stop/Arrêt" signs... as do the jackets of every Canadian customs have "Customs/Douanes" on it.

Even Quebec's road signs aren't all French.

Bill 101, what a crock of shit.

You've nailed it -- that IS the point.

And like I mentioned upthread, what country can't make similar claims? Germany and France fought over Alsace-Lorraine for ages ... is it French? German? Neither? You can certainly claim that it is a "distinct society". Hell, you can extend that logic to all of Germany ... it was a loose federation of seperate states until the late 19th century -- should Germany split up again into its respective "distinct cultures"?

This sort of reasoning gets ridiculous very quickly.

I think you just paraphrased what I wrote, but regardless, your point stands and I agree with it.

And Anthony... how in god's name can you agree or even "understand" the assertion that they are the "white niggers of north America"??? I think of all the things to tumble out of the mouths of separatists this is the most loathsomely offensive thing I've ever heard!

i certainly don't want Quebec to go, particularly considering the inevitable effect on Atlantic Canada and the possibility of a hard swing to the right in federal politics, but if they do elect to separate, i figure it's got to be all or nothing.

"Je cite un fédéraliste objectif: «La journaliste, Chantale Hébert, a démontré que les haut-fonctionnaires du ministère de l'Immigration étaient au courant des efforts d'accélération des demandes de citoyenneté et que ces efforts étaient si importants que les fonctionnaires, qui sont normalement récalcitrants à faire du temps supplémentaire, ont dû, durant cette période de pointe, travailler la nuit et les fins de semaine. Hébert a poussé plus loin sa recherche comparative et a découvert qu'Ottawa, contrairement à ses affirmations, a systématiquement réduit le temps d'attente requis pour devenir un nouveau Canadien de huit mois à un mois pour au moins 14 000 partisans du NON potentiels dans les mois qui ont précédé le référendum de 1995. Tout cela prouve une chose: Parizeau avait raison.» Peter Scowen, le 9 mai 1996."

And this excuses Parizeau's use of the world "us" to denote francophones? If any other premier had used 'us' to refer to white British/Irish/Scottish citizens we would be outraged at the environment which would allow a leader to be so blatantly xenophobic.
Sébastien is right that we should get UN peacekeepers in next time. Last time it took 200+ cops to keep the sore losers from rioting at the Non headquarters.

And I do believe the Supreme Court cleared anyone of breaking Quebec's electoral laws.

Just because Catalans have some kind of endearing vision of québec and they believe that their situation is pretty much the same, though I ignore to which extent this is true

--

there is a lot of action from separatist leftists nowadays
http://www.pourunquebecsolidaire.org/
so the "power grabbing" comment... well , what are you gonna do heh :-)

ps http://www.cafegraffiti.net/pics/boisclair.jpg

It's probable that arrangements will be made for Québec to get some some federal services; after all, economic exchanges between Québec and Canada will continue after the separation. On the other hand, like, Duceppe argues for sovereign Quebec army.

Has always stuck in my mind and is why I don't buy into the noble virtues of separatism.
that said, Parizeau is not every single sovereignist, and not every sovereignist agreed with the timing or the phrasing of his statement.

Thus, saying "couldn't any country or state make this claim?" is largely irrelevant. All it proves (if it does - and I'm not even certain of that) is that Quebec can not use the historical grievance argument.

That's not always true. In some cases, it's important to know that country A illegally annexed country B (like, say, with the Soviet Union and Lithuania).

It's just that when historical grievance isn't clear, that doesn't mean end of debate. It just means you'll have to use a different reason.

So should they ban immigrants or just anglophones?

What could be more legitimate than this universal aspiration of the people to manage their business with broadest possible autonomy?

To choose its own constitution and to establish freely and democratically, on this basis, the laws which will mark out and ensure its development.

While reaching sovereignty, Quebec will recover the totality of the taxes and of the taxes currently perceived by the federal government, that is to say some 33 billion $ annually

The only way of ensuring the continuity and the cultural prosperity of the Québécois nation, whose French language is the fundamental element, it is to make so that it becomes majority in its own country, that it reaches sovereignty.

Sovereignty for the Québécois nation, it is the capacity to find themselves on the same foot as the other nations of the world and to compromise with them, without supervision, intermediary.

Robyn OTM - there is a tone of dismissal on this thread about the whole idea that Quebec just might have some good reasons to want to leave.

and Rufus, it has nothing to do with banning people, it has to do with protecting a culture - that's what I mean when I say a fear of "them" may be legitimate...

"I don't think anyone here has been contemptuous of Quebec or french Canadian culture".

I completely agree. I think that most people have expressed admiration for Quebec and French Canadian culture and feel that secession would be a disaster both for Quebec, and for what remained of Canada. I grew up in Ontario, but went to French Immersion schools where many of my teachers were from Quebec. I have friends and family in Quebec, and have spent a fair bit of time there. Most of us are on your side and Quebec needs to stop seeing enemies where there really are none. The most contemptuos and condescending views I ever heard expressed about Quebec were in France, not English Canada.

are you an eminent economist? separatists have them as leaders, to really run the numbers. So you are saying that you, internet man, are right and they are wrong. ok that's settled, then.

"state lines aren't about culture, they're about money and power."

culture is important to people = it have to be important to the state or else other people will be elected.

gimme a break dude

This to me seems like the quintessential Canadian stance - but there is contempt in it, as in, "We are your friends! We love you!" And that may be true, but your friends don't always have your best interests at heart and can't always see your point of view. If they're your friends, they'll stick by you anyway and respect your differences and the world will go round lalala. Canada wants Quebec for a reason and it's not just to be bestest friends. There's surely a comprimise to be reached, but Canada's not acknowledging its true feelings about Quebec is kind of a piss off - different definitions of "comprimise"... "Federalism" worked at the time b/c it aimed at the hearts of Canadians, people got gushy, but a lot of Quebecers weren't impressed - were they then heartless? No, their hearts were somewhere else and Canada wasn't/isn't really willing to see that.

My feelings come mostly from personal experience and less from political understanding; however, the personal and political are always intertwined, it doesn't matter whether you read the paper every day or not - ideologies get in. I don't think separatism is a political ruse, just some kind of card to play - these sentiments are personal and cultural. Moving here was not like moving to or visiting any other part of Canada - for at least a year, I felt distinctly like an outsider in another country and not just b/c of language (I spoke enough at the time to get by.) There's a different history and, obviously, a different culture that is trying to protect itself. When someone is always in defence mode, it's hard to play the game with a smile on one's face.

I do know, from many ex-Canadian co-workers here in Seattle that grew up in either Toronto or Vancouver, that -- while having nothing personal against folks from Quebec at all -- talk about how there's a VERY strong anti-French-Canadian sentiment in the West.. especially in the Canadian rockies. Like, when French Canadians get killed in skiing accidents or avalanches near Banff, they won't even be reported, whereas a non-French-Canadian death will make front page news.

xpost

everyone can see it's a limbaughesque commentary: the guy have contempt for the truth in the communicational process = he have contempt for the other.

J-Rock, maybe you didn't mean anything by it, but the tone feels like dismissive contempt to me. It has this "they're wrong and crazy (and possibly racist)" eye-rolling vibe. "I don't think that anyone really even knows anymore"? Then in the next breath, "The modern separatist movement depends entirely on lies"? So do you (aka everybody apparently) know or don't you know the reasons behind the separatist movement?

Since I don't think anyone here has stated that they are separatists, you probably will not find satisfactory answers on this thread, because no one should be putting words in other people's mouths. This is not about the pros and cons of separation, this is about contemptuous phrasing that does not really encourage people to engage in a meaningful discussion.

Don't mean to be picking on you, dude, but c'mon.

See also: Nuit des Longs Couteaux concerning the constitution act 1982, Trudeau vs. Levesque and so on.

It's pretty complicated, and not just about a recognition of the obviously distinct culture. Part of me wants to say that it also might be the shortest route to the creation of a functioning social democracy in North America; god knows it's not going to happen in any sovereign state containing Alberta. A lot of left-leaning anglo voters are already drawn to the PQ's politics, except for the pesky sovereigty part.

see, this to me is so pernicious. it's pure short sightedness; 'damn i don't want to break up the fucking country but these guys agree with me on taxes!'

also numb3rs i'm not an economist, but the economic case against separatism is widely reported. this excerpt sums it up for me:

"The Ontario economy is almost twice the size of the Quebec economy ($372-billion vs $193-billion). As the recent labour mobility agreement on construction workers proved, Quebec is far more dependent on access to the Ontario market than Ontario is on Quebec's. When Quebec shut Ontario construction workers out of Quebec construction sites, and Ontario answered with a ban on Quebec workers, Premier Lucien Bouchard quickly acquiesced.

On the other hand, Ontario would happily let a sovereign Quebec withdraw from the national Employment Insurance program. From 1989 to 1994, the report observes, Ontario contributed $11.3-billion more to unemployment insurance than it received; Quebec received $7.4-billion more than it paid. At the time, Ontario was enduring the worst recession in 60 years. We probably could have used the money."

(from a column by Globe & Mail columnist John Ibbitson, http://www.vigile.net/00-1/ontario-hurt.html)

and culture can be important to the state, but it's not always the best reason to change the lines on the map. and don't call me internet man.

as a separatist, I have to say this is the aspect that interests me the most about sovereignty for the Québécois nation. I like to think about what will be the new constitution of Québec, would appreciate the help of people who also think this new country have the potential to be the avant-garde of progressive views on civil rights and liberties. It's a country that is routinely voted among the best on Earth to live in, indeed, and it could be even better.

The bolivarian constitution could be relevant, especially the alter globalization angle. I know young people here are interested in sovereignty as long as it is concerned with bridging the gap between global problems and global solutions.

Patrick after reading the first three-quarters of this thread: "fuck that, let's get the fuck out of this country"

One constant issue between Quebec and Canada (when it comes up) is that of war. Going back to 1899, with the Boar war, Quebec has always been on the reluctant side to commit to wars beyond our boarders. They didn't want to fight some imperial battle on another continent, they fought against a draft in the following world wars and they were right to do it. Even today who knows where Canada would stand without Quebec's clout over policy. We could have signed onto the ICMB shield with the U.S. - we could be in Iraq. I'm certain without Quebec at least one of those two would have happened.

Haha, Quebec didn't want Chretien, but you guys kept on re-electing him. You can keep him.

I think you are reading what you want to read and are setting up a no-win situation for anyone who expresses a federalist opinion, i.e. "I don't like Quebec" = "justification for seperatism" and "I want Quebec to be part of this country" = "condescending, demeaning attitude toward Quebec" = "justification for seperatism".

"I want Quebec to be part of this country (so fuck you separatists)" = bad

I'd hazard that Chretien's defeat of Paul Martin for leader in 1990 was greatly helped by his Frenchness. Keeping the Bloc at bay is always been a major consideration within the Liberal party. Without the separatist movement he might still be plain old Mr Chretien, humble board member of TD Bank and the Brick.

Sorry, but I see very little distinction between those two statements. Being a federalist automatically implies disdain for seperatists, there is no grey area there.

For instance, I can apply what you wrote to the following:

"I don't like Stephen Harper" = a valid political opinion
"I don't like Stephen Harper and I think he's an asshole" = bad

Doesn't make sense, does it? OTOH, this would be bad:

"I don't like Stephen Harper and I think he's an asshole and everyone from Western Canada who likes him is a racist fuckwit" = bad

But nobody is boldly stating that "seperatism" = "racism", because it isn't, although certainly no discussion of seperatism can take place without deciding on definitions of cultural identity (re: Parizeau's infamous remark, what it means to be "distinct" and other discussions of that type that we've had on this thread).

(not that my opinion makes any great difference in any of this - I've been living in the US for 4 years).

Wait a minute, come to think of it, saying that "I disagree with you" is the same as "I disagree with you therefore you are an ass" is just plain bonkers.

"I think you are reading what you want to read and are setting up a no-win situation for anyone who expresses a federalist opinion, i.e. "I don't like Quebec" = "justification for seperatism" and "I want Quebec to be part of this country" = "condescending, demeaning attitude toward Quebec" = "justification for seperatism".

OTM!

"yeah leaving aside the part where i said i wasn't a separatist myself"

Immediately after which you expressed how you understand how some people are. "Hey, I'm not a racist, but I understand why some people wouldn't want to live in the same neighbourhood as the (fill in ethnic group of your choice)." Not exactly a compelling denunciation.

I only caught the last minute of it -- shit!!

my parents are candian. i was canadian until i was 19 when i lost my dual citizenship. my father harbors strong ill feelings towards the french canadians mostly due to their refusing to serve in WWII when his own father served in both WWI and WWII. of course my mother is french canadian. don't even bring up maurice richard scoring fifty goals in fifty games while all the best anglo-canadian players were off at war.

Yes, but unfortunately they feel the need to wear baggy leggings, jesters hats, fingerless gloves and Planet Hollywood denim jackets all the time.

and he broke Joe Malone's single-season record of 44 goals, which was established during the 1917-18 campaign... hey, i heard there was a war during that time too!

"I am here to tell you that the question of Quebec's political future is by no means settled," Duceppe told attendees at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"A sovereign Quebec will be a win-win outcome for Quebecers, Canada, the U.S. and the world — for everyone except those who are nostalgic for a Canadian dream that no longer exists."

During a two-day visit to the U.S. capital, Duceppe said his intent was to brace the United States for a 'Yes' vote in a third referendum on Quebec sovereignty, even though no such vote is planned.

He listed what he considers the virtues of an independent Quebec from an American perspective, and even likened the protracted fight for sovereignty to the historic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

"When the wall of Berlin collapsed, it was a lot of decades, but that hour will not come if people did not fight hard in the past for quite a few decades," he said. "It's not a straight highway; there's curves."

this guy is delusional, right?