seabee

If the Bloc was made illegal, then the federal government would, in all justice, have to cease getting any tax money from the Québécois. No taxation without representation.

Before going any further, it might be a good idea to have the opinion of a constitutional lawyer to see if it is possible for the federation to kick one of its provinces out. My guess is that it is not.

Ethnic vote? Reminders of Parizeau.

How do you explain that national media and entire political organization all gang up on one party, if this is really the case. on this, good night. Communicate with you, if necessary, later.

Maybe true, but aren't all other political parties doing the same, all over the country? Aren't the conservatives also doing it, as a judge just decided today? If, as seems likely, the CPC forms only a minority government tomorrow, will that not mean that the majority of Canadians, whether in the RoC or in Québec, also believe those "dirty little rumours"? link to the judge's decision: link

«Got any other dirty little rumours you'd like to spread?» All I did was to inform people about what Québécois perceive the Harper government. And in politics, perception is everything. If the perception is incorrect, it is Harper's job to correct it. If he has not succeeded, it is neither your fault nor mine.

Since the beginning of his mandate, Harper has accumulated numerous errors as far as Québecois are concerned. To name a few, from the top of my head: Increased warfare in Afghanistan, which the majority of Québécois oppose Attempt to criminalize abortion, while they believe in free choice. Attempt to abolish gay marriage, while Québec was, in 1977, the third government in the world to make discrimintation on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. The religious overtones, while Québec, since the 1960s, has relegated religion to the privacy of the home or dedicated public places. The concept of the "Québécois nation", which is nothing but a nicely wrapped gift box, absolutely empty and with no legal meaning nor any practical application. A fool's gold. Increased jail terms for young offenders, while they believe prevention and rehabilitation gives better results in the long run. Cuts in cultural funding, which is a direct attack on its distinctiveness. The muzzling by Harper of its ministers. and a few more, which do not come to mind right now. The Bloc is perceived as a rampart against an attack at Québec's culture. And even Jean Charest, formerly known as "Captain Canada", has openly agreed with that, along with a few of his ministers.

I heard excerpts in french of his speech on the news. From what I understand, what he meant is that there are a sufficient number of ridings in the RoC where the swing vote is may still favor Harper that he might still get a majority; Québécois should do their utmost to avoid this by avoiding to spread the vote too thin among the other opposition parties that could let the CPC slip through. As far as the Bloc is concerned in Québec, he has no reason to be desperate. All analysts and observers agree that the Bloc has little chances of losing more than one or two seats, but that he is more likely to gain a few more. As for the CPC in Québec, very little chances of any gain, but probably a few losses, maybe as many as five.

There is indeed a problem of possible conflicts of interest for anyone with dual citizenship. Yet many countries allow it and recognize it. I am not too sure why. If Canada were to stop allowing double citizenship, would it do it for all its citizens, or only for certain citizens? In the latter case, would that not be discriminatory?

Less than a week before the election, Harper has a lot of convincing explanations to give. Probably he should now forget forming a majority government, or maybe even a minority won.

As far as Québec and the british monarchy is concerned; In 1964, when the Queen came to Québec, the city, it resulted into a riot, referred to as "le samedi de la matraque". In 1967, when she came to Montréal for Expo 67, she did so on her Royal yatch. She landed on the expo site, temporarily declared international territory. She never set foot on Québec, the province, territory. Last year, some people asked the PM to invite her to Québec's 400th anniversary. He refused, saying that he could not guarantee her security.

Even though I would not use the same type of language that Whowhere has used in his last post, the fact is that each point he makes can be very well defended. In fact, it would take a whole book to defend it, just using period documents. Among the many books that you could find interesting, you could read John Knox "The Siege of Québec"; Knox was in Wolfe's army; his description of what happened in Québec during the winter after Wolfe's victory will be a good start to understand why the English already had to be very nice to the Canadiens. Also, Fred Anderson's "The War that made America" (a very good video adaptation was made from it, both available from PBS) is a study on how the War of Conquest of Canada led to the creation of the separatist movement in the british colonies in America and force England to be very generous to the conquered to avoid seeing their new conquest join the separatists. I can suggest a lot of other good references about that time period.

As of now, La Presse, RDI, Radio-Canada, CTV and the CBC tv have talked about it and how to see it. Considering that the video shows three big stars in Québec, all well loved, for a decade or more, this is likely to have an impact on Harper. This video is only a preview, as it announces a large show by numerous artists who denounce the culture cuts. The full video will be released the next day. Even Charest has denounced these cuts.

This can do a lot of damage to the CPC among francophones in Québec

Could it not be argued that a Dominion, which Canada is, is an autonomous colony?

At time, it seems that people from Hérouxville are accaparating this forum.

Some commentators think that the forthcoming U.S. elections are in Harper's mind. Should Obama win, this may push the conservatives out of fashion in Canada.

People don't want an election, but are proud to live in a democracy. Gp figure. Furthermore, they want to impose democracy to other countries. But they don't want an electon.

I would not be surprised that people will blame smokers for the smog; they are such easy scapegoats.

The main reason why the English language is so popular is because of its simplicity. After all, if even the anglo-Americans can speak it, it has to be simple.

Canadien At one point, I thought of entering the debate, but on the other hand, I could see how this person is making itself, or whatever, rather ridiculous, at least on this issue. Il s'auto-pelure-de-bananise, si on me permet l'expression. Et il/elle va probablement me dire que ce néologisme est d'origine abénaquis.

What is this forum coming to. I agree with Leafless and Canadien. How can that be? Probably not going to last. A one-night stand. Kind of fun, though.

Just as the show started, someone walked on the stage waving a big Québec flag. A troublemaker? a protester? a disgruntled "separatist"? None of the above. It was Sir Paul McCartney. On the big TV screens on each side of the stage and on the background, the fleur-de-lys appears often. Just before singing "Yesterday", Sir Paul changed vests to wear one with fleur-de-lys. Not once did he use the word Canada. And no dead maple leaf. Québec is in Canada? Tell that to Sir Paul.

I don't totally disagree; but I would rather say mixing history an religious history. A subtle difference, I agree, but nevertheless a significant one. However quoting a religious book as if it were another evidence for a given fact crosses the thin line.

The second anyone mixes history and religion, then he looses all credibility. I know; God told me so!