1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

Why the Quebec should be a country. Do you agree?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by MilaHot, Jul 4, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    But it doesn't violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
    But anyway, they won't win it. Because the law is NOT violating any right or freedom.
    Canadian's Charter of Rights and Freedoms violated the Quebec's rights many times, and they never got punished for it, so... if the Quebec's law gets challenge and the court rule in their advantage, we see the Federal corruption at its best lol
    And I looked into it. The First Nations don't challenge the use of Bill 96. Its just the english tribes that want to not be touched by the Bill 96, but they want it to apply to all others lol They KNOW the Bill is necessary, they just want an exemption from it because the english First Nations' students have enough trouble already at school

    But anyway, it was changing the topic AGAIN.
    I told many times, keep it on topic, please. About the Quebec becoming a country or not.
    Don't make it into Quebec bashing. You know better, I keep telling people to stay on topic and they always change the topic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2022
  2. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    OK. If you want to keep that narrow a definition of the topic range, then I think you have your answers.

    I see no further point in keeping the thread open.
     
  3. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    But I think the Quebec should become a country based on the Self-determination of peoples' right, recognized by the international law as a jus cogen law. So no, there is NOTHING Canada could do if the Quebec voted to become a country, based on this law. If Canada violated that international law, they could face much problem, legally, and morally
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2022
  4. happycamper

    happycamper Account Deleted

    I think that Quebec should be a Country on her own. Actually I do not, but if that is where your heart lies, then maybe it is time.
     
    MilaHot likes this.
  5. TittyKitty

    TittyKitty Communudist Catgirl

    If it were that simple, Catalonia would be a separate country already. Reality has a lot more going on, and more laws than that are applicable. "International Law" is not an absolute in most legal systems, and primarily exists by ratification of individual countries.

    Moral arguments tend to be just as two-sided. One person's right to free love is to another something that no-one can morally consent to.

    I agree that there are big problems culturally between Quebec and other parts of Canada federally. I disagree that independence is the solution to those problems, idealistically or realistically.
     
  6. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    If the Quebec becoming free and independant is not the solution, what is, then? To keep being exploited, insulted, sacrificed, by Canada forever? To let Canada use us as a scapegoat, to continue to suffer from their racism and xenophobia? To have Canada destroy the culture and language of the Quebec until the Quebec is nothing more than another copy of the other Canadian provinces?
     
  7. TittyKitty

    TittyKitty Communudist Catgirl

    Not at all! But independence could reinforce that racism and xenophobia, when it is something that needs to be eliminated.

    There are other battles to fight here.

    Start with the things you are complaining about, rather than what you imagine the cure-all to be. Build your culture. EXPORT it, like your southern neighbours have become so good at.

    Lobby and support the other provinces to assert their own individuality, to recognise and build on their own unique pieces of heritage. Lobby for tourism campaigns within Canada highlighting those points of uniqueness in each place so Canadians from ALL provinces can see them and respect each other.

    English may be "the language of commerce", but French is "the language of love". It should be as much a part of the national identity as English. Promote it. Your French heritage is important and awareness of its entanglement with Canada's history as a whole is worth reminding people of.

    There is a path forward here that involves building rather than breaking. This is a relationship like any other, and "leave" is not the only option.

    ... Or you could just burn the bridges, isolate yourself from the rest of Canada, and be the target of racism and left out of international treaties as "just a minor country who is expected to fall in line with international norms" forever.

    These are just the views of an Australian who has their own battles to fight at state and federal levels, but you asked.
     
  8. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    We try. But Canada also send propaganda about us in the world. Everytime you hear about the Quebec, its from Canada, and its often half-truths of lies. Just look at author JJ McCullough, a racist anti-quebec man, who spreads lots of lies about the Quebec, and yet pretends that Canada is better.
    And do you know why its Canada's propaganda that is accepted south of us, in the USA? Because they read english articles, written by english writters. What the French Canadian minority writes, they don't give a fuck.
     
    Rubber duck 2 likes this.
  9. MentorA

    MentorA Trusted Member

    "For the record:" Obviously you have not understood, what I have written before at all. To make it easier for you: You arguing in a framework of thinking that is being called Anglo-Saxon for a description of a certain expression of economic acting. It could be called e.g. "blue", "seven", "board", "spicy" or "chicken wing", but it is not; the terminus is an association to the spreading of this kind of economics under countries, that have in common to have been linked to Britain in some way in history. Would the terminus be e.g. "blue", "seven", "board", "spicy" or "chicken wing" it would be totally useless to tell, I am not "blue", "spicy" or no "seven", "bord" or "chicken wing", it does not refer to me. It would be ridiculous just in the same way, to argue I do come from Central Africa, therfore I can not be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc.

    You argue with thoughts, arguments, ideas, concepts or conclusions out of the economic structuring/way, that is named Anglo-Saxon-Economics - you are a part of it and you have to accept, to be described by it. Of course, you might be criticising it in other positions, but then still you are still criticising your Anglo-Saxon-Economics from within it. To get away with something else, you will have to change your thinking (what would make you change your argueing).

    Personally, I am no social market, I am an integral person, but my economic argumentation is to be identified to the economic system called "Social Marketing".

    Normans: You are totally right. In France they do refer to a minor region at the northeastern coast, the Normandie (Names with "de" like in "de Wall", "de Beuquelaer", "de la Croix"). They could settle there, because the reign of influence by the surrounding kingdoms were too weak. The same way, as they did, when they settled in Sicily, invaded Jerusalem the first time (Tankred was a Sicilian Norman), founded major fortified marketing places in Russia and Ukraine before those countries even existed.

    By chance, the Normandie is an historic example of what I have said earlier, splitting of Quebec could weaken the area and make third Protagonists appear. Just to finish off the point by picking what somebody wrote earlier: then Quebec could not only "be in the way", your economic action could be much more dependant to it, e.g. like your success (refinancing) could flow there or your profit could be used for protecting against it, or quite some other possibilities. In most cases that would make it much harder for everybody surrounding the area to earn money. (Just a weird idea - what would be changing, if Quebec wanted to join the EU? - Do not argue, why this could not be possible, take it as an weird idea for an approach towards the economic problems, I am trying to address. There could be much worse than that.) That alone/the threat of that alone makes me wonder, why no majority climbs down the ladder and argues decently. The most simple answer to that probably will be, the majority does not understand what they are up to (dreaming of being in the best system of the world and the majority creating the ruling *raising my hands into the sky with a blush, shaking my head cluelessly*). Just the mere possibility of this, was an other contribution to the shock reaction I had, when I read this thread first.
     
  10. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    If they meant an economic system perpetuated by England, then why didn't they say English or British. If they meant all of the countries under Britain, why not say Commonwealth. Saying Anglo-Saxon is not a proper descriptor for areas that are being referenced. It is a trait that is shared by many people who are not British and there are a majority of people, in the Commonwealth that are not Anglo-Saxon. Using Anglo-Saxon is like saying that only the straight white males are at fault. As I said, in a previous pot, I'm not Anglo-Saxon either. In fact going back at leased 6 generations, there is no Anglo-Saxon blood in my heritage, probably more but I have no concrete proof.
     
    pussycat likes this.
  11. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    A reply to the posts of @MentorA

    I somewhat resent the term "Anglo Saxon" being used in this context. (Not that I have anything against the people of England, or their descendants, which is what the term really refers to).

    First, to us it, especially in the case of a nation like Canada, which has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world, is being extremely disrespectful to those people who built this country.
    The "non-French" in Canada are not just English. We are Scottish, Irish, Ulster Irish, Italian, German, Finnish, Ukrainian, Polish, Greek, Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, West Indian, West African, Guyanese and let's not forget our First Nations People. Apologies to anyone I left out.

    Second, the term "Anglo" is used by a certain group of people to refer to "whites" in the same way some white people might use the N word to refer to their "black" neighbors. I would hate to think that's what you had in mind when you made your posts.
    Phrasing it differently.....

    It had better not be.
     
  12. transposition

    transposition Trusted Member

    That would cut Canada in half. Imagine the logistics
     
  13. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    Well, that wouldn't be the Quebec's problem. After all, Canada's been screwing up the Quebec for a long time, so Canada would have to deal with it
     
  14. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    That is why I asked you to look at the map. Canada will not let Quebec leave while this looms over them, up to the point of military action. When that happens, it will be Quebec's problem. If you are willing to go to war, then go for it. If you don't want to go to war, then I suggest you try a different solution.
     
  15. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    Canada would have to, because they respect the right of Self Determination of the Peoples.
    Canada would not start a war
     
  16. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    Canada will say nice things and appear to be very reasonable as long as any threat of separation is just a lot of talk.

    If it ever got serious, Canada would send in the army and end it. That's how we work.
     
    Incs likes this.
  17. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    Canada would not start a war.
    Canada will spend lots of money to make fake promises, to say "Don't leave, we love you, really! When we were calling you assholes or racists, it was just rough love, don't leave us". And if we are stupid again and stay, as soon as it will be over they'll start insulting and bossing us AGAIN, they would start all the bad things that make us want to leave as soon as we would have said "Okay we stay"
    Canada is like an abusive partner. When you are together, they abuse you, insult you. When you threaten to leave, they go all sweet. And as soon as they know you don't leave, the abuse starts again.
    So no, Canada would not start the Army. Self Determination of the Peoples is a RIGHT that is respected in Canada. If they start a war in the Quebec, it'll turn full civil war, because HALF of the Canadian Army is from the Quebec, made of Quebecers. It wouldn't look good for Canada.
    And anyway, Clown Trudeau wouldn't have the balls for it, he's not a tyrant like his father
     
  18. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

  19. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    Yes, Quebec is "ultra-sensitive." But, sensitive in the way indigenous Canadians are sensitive when someone brings up controlling their education, given the residential schools experience. There's a legacy of discrimination and prejudice that someone from that group understands all too well.
    Indigenous people aren't the only group that the anglophone majority tried to aggressively assimilate in Canadian history. Yes, Quebec is sensitive, because these sloppy prejudicial comments about Quebec happen often.
    The Potter debacle comes on the heels of another anti-Quebec diatribe, printed in the Washington Post. Political commentator J.J. McCullough wrote a piece headlined, "Why does 'progressive' Quebec have so many massacres?"
    The piece, in very sloppy fashion, tried to explain why six high-profile murders in the province since 1984 can be attributed to a dark, racist and corrupt history in the province. The author's unfounded correlation and causation would never pass any introductory statistics class.
    Watch the media discourse. Whenever something bad happens in Quebec - especially involving minorities or racism - a convenient narrative sounds: "We knew it all along, Quebec is a racist or hateful place."

    Quebecers are all still blamed for Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau's post-sovereignty-referendum words in 1995, in which he blamed "money and the ethnic vote." The blame remains even though he immediately resigned and was universally criticized within Quebec.
    Anti-Quebec prejudice is one of the last remaining acceptable bigotries in this country.

    The larger question of why French Canada is sensitive about these attacks requires a look at Canadian history. Although the Quebec Act of 1774 allowed French Catholics to preserve their language, religion and culture, it didn't take long for anglophone Protestant settlers to say they wished French Canadians would disappear.
    Lord Durham's 1839 Report on the Affairs of British North America expressed a preference for Upper and Lower Canada to unite into a single province, in order to assimilate the French. Durham also couldn't resist insulting the French.
    Flip forward to the unjust treatment of the mainly French-speaking Metis and their leader Louis Riel.
    Or flip to the Manitoba Schools Question in the late 19th century, where accommodating French students was deemed too much.
    Now when francophones act to preserve their unique character within North America, they are attacked as hateful by the same society that sought their assimilation for years.

    No wonder we French Canadians are sensitive. Just read our history.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2022
  20. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    Well, no one answer that last part lol
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.