Bakunin

You've heard eureka guys, :angry: stop trying to think by yourself guys ! Let him tell you the fact ! Don't contest what he say, he doesn't need actually to provide sources, documentation or any kind of proof to what he say, he have THE gift ! He's gifted, he knows what is right and what his wrong... He's right and your wrong !

On the contrary. Finally there is a very intelligent and capable leader ready to take the reins and to outline very rational reasons for going. There are plenty of rational reasons for separation. In fact, I see no other reason other than emotion for Quebec to remain a part of Canada. No offence but you seem a lot more emotional about this than separtists like Bakunin. Sorry, what rational reasons? Having a leader that is willing to lead Quebequers off the proverbial cliff is not a rational reason. Canada is a politicial an economic construct that exists today. It is not perfect but it more or less works - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is a very rational/pragmatic reason for Quebequers to work with the existing political framework. (BTW - the fact that politicians in democratic country disagree on different policy issues does not mean the system is broken - it means the system is working as expected). You seem to share the illusion that separatists have that breaking apart a modern integrated economy like Canada is a trivial thing to do. It is not: any attempt, no matter how good the intentions are, will create economic disruptions that far out weigh the 'emotional' benefits of being king of your own little island. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually im not a separatist im a confederalist but since canadian federal politics is stuck and there are no hope specially with the liberal, we don't have the choice to make a move. As for rational reason there are tons, we can't face up the problem we have right now in this rigid federalism. First, healthcare is a mess, the cost are growing 2 times faster than the economy growth and soon the baby boomers are going to fill the hospital its clear we won't be able to do anything about it in a federation since the federal isnt paying its 50% share like it was suppose to be. Second, immigration is not entering fast enough in quebec, if we want to face the demographic deficit we are going to have to increase immigration. The problem is that many immigrant don't even know that there are french people in canada, the federal government must either fully let quebeckers take care of quebec immigration or either target more immigrant from the french community. Third, we want to be able to have our voice in the international community actually we had to pass trough france to make sure the onesco get to regularize cultural goods and not the omc. We also want to be able to talk about free trade agreement. Four, there are tons of duplicate services right now between the federal and the quebec government, we are talking of about 1-2 billions of duplicated services. A sample is the duplicated taxes report wich cost on its own half a billion. Five we are tired to have to fight up to the supreme court for basic stuff has getting our own parental insurance system. We can also talk of the fiscal imbalance wich could be fix with an "opt out" option but the federal refuse that compromise. That "opt out" with compensation option is vital for quebeckers. A veto right over constitutional change is also something quebeckers, ontario, the west and the atlantic should get. A new constitution is also need, one that would be suitable enough for us to sign it. the federal government has to stop provocking the province. the deal with municipalities is a sample of federal lack of respect torward the province.

can you provide proof, document or anything ?

Sovreignty is something evry country or nation has. Its not specific to quebeckers.

A majority of french quebeckers do but thats not the point, once a majority of quebeckers do like the poll are showing, then its gonna count. Now what do we do about it ? pretend its not legitimate, that thei aren't resonable ? who could pretend its not legitimate ? The one that benefit from the status quo ? I can't see your point with this argument ? before 1760 how much english where in quebec ? 0 ? If english quebeckers leave its because they can get better job and integrate easyer in ontario or usa... It will always be like that, evry time we will educate ppl in english, they will leave quebec. What are we suppose to do about it ? You see thats the kind of racist comment i was talking about.French was ALLOWED to retain its status. What are we ? prisonners ? animals ? we can't decide for ourself ? we have to ask permission to exist ?

I'm amusing you haven't seen how many normal Louisianians (I'm guessing that's not what they're called!) live. There are many French speaking people there and even a few French-only speaking people - What is this, people speaking a language other than English in the US? Never! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have never went there, from what ive heard it wasn't really french anymore, im happy to hear what you say, im surprized to hear there are french-only speaking people. It would be great to know what % is french over there

i was talking about the language used, correct me if im wrong but now its pretty much only english. it may have a strong historical culture with buildings, touristic center and maybe a small part of the way of living that evry state has but its no more french, it naturally became english because of the need to learn english and prolly because the educational infrastructure became mostly english with the help of governmental policy and now they live the same way of living other american do.

louisiana was once french, i guess in southern usa, its more about immigration than a real culture. Once immigrant scolarize and integrate usa, they adopt the american culture, they don't have choice if they want good job and to be part of the american way of life. For sample in quebec, adult immigrants choose at 55% english for scholarisation for cegep and university, once they get good education they often leave to go stay in ontario, they never truly integrate the quebec society except if they choose french education. Its also harder to find good english jobs or at least its easyer outside quebec. Nation building is something powerfull, its the researched "way of living" wich bring evryone toghether, evryone to one big culture.

They invented this myth, billingualism... Right now, the modern model for country's are nation states. Canada wasn't one nation, it was british colony in north america and amerindian and innus and etc.. So they build the canadian nation, it worked pretty well except in quebec. why ? because there are no big french community outside quebec and they are completly disconnected from us and unorganised except acadia. The canadian nation building worked for english quebeckers tough. Trudeau's vision to include quebec to the canadian nation building was billingualism wich doesn't work very well. If the media would talk against billingualism, they would be agreeing that quebec is different than canada and therefore destroying the myth of THE nation. here are some number from stat canada about bilingualism: Anglophone billingual in canada: 9% Francophone billingual in canada: 43,4% Anglophone billingual outside quebec: 7,1% Francophone billingual outside quebec: 85.1% Francophone billingual in quebec: 36.6% Anglophone billingual in quebec: 66,1% Profile of languages in Canada Distribution of language wich show it clearly: English / french / other Newfoundland and Labrador: 98.4% 0.4% 1.1% Prince Edward Island: 93.9% 4.3% 1.5% Nova Scotia: 93.0% 3.8% 3.0% New Brunswick: 64.7% 32.9% 1.7% Quebec: 8.0% 81.2% 10.0% Ontario: 71.6% 4.4% 23.7% Manitoba: 75.8% 4.1% 19.9% Saskatchewan: 85.7% 1.9% 12.2% Alberta: 81.8% 2.0% 16.0% British Columbia: 74.1% 1.5% 24.3% Yukon Territory: 87.1% 3.1%9.5% Northwest Territories: 78.1% 2.6% 19.0% Nunavut: 27.6% 1.5% 70.8% ---------------------------------------- Mother Tongue, Percentage Distribution Different tongue also mean different media wich also mean different culture, music, movies, way of living and thinking, history, international friends community. Thats what people must understand, french quebeckers don't hate canadian, they just don't want to be a canadian minority, they want to be able to live their life the way they want just like canadian don't want to be part of america. It can be done with a provincial status but not with a strong federal government, why ? because the french quebeckers can't accept to see quebec become a canadian puppet wich they can't control.

Right now there is very good chance for the next quebec pm to be andre boisclair who his gay, i heard ppl mostly opponent use it as an argument not to vote for him, i was shocked. There is also a woman, pauline marois that could win. The media wich like story like that keep asking if quebec is ready for a woman or a gay PM. I guess its ok to ask the question once but not to make it like a negative point. I wanted to know if people here are seeing this as a negative point and qould make it an issue. It was a very hard question to formulate.

What actually *is* asymmetrical federalism? Are there any actual principles, or is it just a catchphrase? In practice, it seems to mean Paul Martin does whatever is politically expedient to avoid confrontations with provinces east of Manitoba and west of Ontario. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well first when you want to make such a change in federalism, you write it in the constitution normally. Asymetrical federalism is a flexible federalism. It mean that a province can opt out of any pan canadian program if they want. This is what the quebec federalist are asking since over 25 years. First they asked with lévesque and ryan in the 1982 constitution but trudeau being an ass refused. then they tried with murloney in the 1990'swich agreed and it was written in the meech accord, but the accord failed then the liberal provincial made a report called the allaire report wich was giving an amount of time for the federal to act and put it in the constititution or else they would held on a referendum on sovreignty, in other word many peolple in the provincial liberal where tired after such time lost. At that time the yes option for sovreignty was receiving 66% in the pool. But the provincial liberal party chickened out and tryed to make another accord called the charlestown accord but it was a very bad accord and there where no asymetrical federalism in that accord only stupid stuff like saying quebec is distinct, only words... then quebeckers voted agaisnt because the accord wasn't giving enough and the rest of canada voted against because for them it was giving too much.. and robert bourassa the (PM) left. So in other word, what happend in quebec is 2 movement 1 sovreignist that tryed 2 referendum and lost em both. On the other hand there are the federalist that tryed 2 time to change canadian federalism to bring on assymetrical federalism and failled 2 time. So thats why quebeckers never signed the constitution, because we want a reform and thats why quebec sovreignty movement will never die and continue to be strong, because no change as been done since 1982 and we are still waiting for a change.

If there are any quebecker interested in boisclair's candidacy, here is the conference presse he made friday: http://www.andre-boisclair.org/salledepres...eo_AB050617.asx

The comission did is work, it showed the population what was behind the last 10 years of politics, but the majority of the population prefered to close their eye instead of seeing the reality. Thats partly why canada will explode, because evrytime we have to face problem, we refuse to see em and act. Thats true for our healthcare system, thats true about getting rid of the liberal party, thats also true about canadian unity and alot of other problem. People just scare too easily about change... terrified about getting a conservative government, terrified about changing our healtcare system and etc... Just like the american...

Quebec as a lot more reason to be sovreign torward canada than canada as reason to be sovreign torward the usa. The question is more how we want this sovreignty, there is one party that want asymetrical federalism(PLQ) wich the federal governement only accepted once for healthcare. Another party, formed because the (PLQ) wasnt enough decisive and strong torward canada, propose an autonomous states within canada a bit like (china/hong kong) (ADQ). another party propose that we form a country (PQ) then deal nation to nation. They pretty much all failed at least twice in 45 years.

He is definatly the best candidate right now, he his young, confident and not afraid to say what he thinks. He his a good debater too. Its also highly probable that the next election the pq will win and make another referendum, the only thing im worried about is if they make a referendum, i hope they know what they are doing and that they are sure to get a good margin, something like 60%+ He just have to convince 5-10% more of the population, i think he could get that from the young, and the baby boomers if he does a good PM job.

I agree i had a hard time to write down the question, maybe its not clear. I didnt want to make it a ideology debate like pq vs plq. I guess a better question is if ppl would be shocked and maybe vote against him because of that.

I was asking that because the most interesting candidate in the leadership course of the pq is gay. First i thought evryone was mature enough not to consider it as a negative element but somehow, i just can't beleive what i heard on another forum anyway im glad that the poll doesn't seem to be as much divised like the gay marriage and people seems to have a common sens.

-------------------------- I just want to know if it would affect you.

Lol, I miss Reagan, i would agree if we would have an urss like government but thats not the case, we arent educated by the states, we are educated by educator wich are all different. They all have different opinion but teach us all the same fact. We must adapt to the new world where parent doesn't have as much time as before with their career. Its sad but its the reality.

this is exactly what i think too, except for the fully funded things and free right(wich is bad philosophy imo), i think the private sector can get its share too specially if the public system end up in a mediocre system. But one thing is sure, first it will cost alot more than what the federal think it will cost. Second, its clear that the federal will screw this up cause they clearly have no idea of what they are doing, the only thing they are thinking of right now is to get re-elected...

lol, the cpc just have to immitate the liberal and get a quebec chief. Its seems its the only way to gain support in ontario...

Want to know what will happen in the futur ? look in quebec, first they will have to put in 3 time more money then they tought just to have a basic childcare system, then they will find out that evryone will want to use it and that the system will have to grow to apease the demand. The government won't have enough money so they will create a waiting list system and there will be a waiting line of 3 years in dense populated area. then when the system will be proven to be a complete faillure and costing too much, the federal government will drastically cut spending in the system and let the province try to clean up the mess with money they don't have.

Ok a fast answer even if i know this is going nowhere. Well whatever, ill take your word if you say now that the quebecker has their place and right in this country im happy to hear it ! its possible i misinterpreted what you wrote in the past. You just seems to be such angry at the french all the time so what was the name of your organization. In my view, i see "New france" getting conquered by the american british, then they called it the province of quebec. from that "what is left of new france = quebec". Then the british installed a regime and english & american business mens came. At that point quebec stopped to grow or at least to get french immigrant. It became a society isolated from the rest of the world. Then we got many english immigrant the goal being to assimilate the province. What i think you clame is that there where english people on (quebec 1760's teritorry) before and while it was called "new france" hmm i don't know about that but first its not on the map, second i wonder how they could have lived side by side and with the french and organised themselve, third they definatly did not have a role in the new france administration. In other word what i see is a conquered society disconnected from the world for many years and an administration that failed to asimilate them either because they where too much different or because the french where not educated enough to learn english well. That small society under the church power slowly started to build a province with duplessis and american businessman and when he died evrything exploded, the french population started to open themselve to the rest of the world and builded a nation. Wheither you like it or not, you must admit that we builded a nation with his own culture and way of living different from the rest of canada. Unfortunatly, its quite clear that when we decided to build a nation and a culture and wanted it to be structurate, the english community slowly lost the politic, economic and cultural control. I perfectly understand them to vote "no" for a referendum because they are canadian. We surely understand that they are more canadian than quebecker.This is partly why im a confederalist, i want evryone to be happy. They aren't, but quebec as the spirit of a nation. I beleive we can be part of 2 nations. just like the amerindian for sample. Not a superior culture, just a culture like the other and a nation like the other. In my vision, canada was meant to be a confederation of british colony. not a consolidation and fusion. So starting from that are the province a federal creature ? or the federal a provinces(old colony) creature ? it seems to have changed from time to time and i guess thats why we need either to define it clearly in order to save canada or to let a referendum decide it.

Eureka, i won't reply cause we both know this discussion is going nowhere "we already played in that movie ". you show your version of the history i show mine and thats it. Id like to quote you where you said we should be just be happy to exist but it was on the older forum wich seems to be erased, if i remember well its a thread that ended in a history discussion and you where talking about how the english were good with us, too good and etc... As for your organization, what was it called ? equality party ? alliance quebec ? rcmp ? ---------------------------- Ok here is a video of an interview with André boisclair wich i hope will be quebec next prime minister (its in french). its the 17 august 2004, when he leave the pq to go finish his well i don't know how its called in english, its "maitrise" wich is after a bachaloreat. http://www.radio-canada.ca/Medianet/RDI2/A...408172100_1.asx

You often said that quebec should have been crushed while the conquest, that we should happy about just to exist... Your reason where always pathetic... we all know that quebec is the result of the conquest of new france... You where always unable to provide valid quote, and when i was showing you some wheither it was britsh, american or else, you where claiming it was separatist bullshit... I know its what you think... considering he got 76% of the vote and that pauline marois and his friend voted against landry, those hard liner were a small minority. yeah right, rene levesque, lucien bouchard, pierre marc johnson, bernard landry, gille duceppe, and a vast majority of the party are all ignorent people ? no they are rational people just like a canadian can be rational when he say he don't want canada to be part of usa. You know the "no" side cheated, it has been proved... they used 10 time more money than the yes side... and they gave citizenship night and day during the month fo the referendum... they gave so much citizenship this month that it was bigger than all the other month combined... Maybe its time you tell us what was your organization what you did and etc...?