Separation vs. Sovereignty

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

This is my first post here, so let me start by saying the last thing I wish to do is to incite a flame war.

I registered to this forum because it is the first one that came up when googling "politics canada forum". I felt the need to express myself to the what is often called "the other solitude", in light of what I consider the insidious spilling of the political discourse and discussion into what I perceive, rightly or wrongly, as Québécois-bashing. I wish to make two points.

1) There is a valid and important reason we in Quebec use the term sovereignist rather than separatist. The latter implies a desire to secede based on hatred of another party, here English Canada. The second implies the desire of a population, considering itself a people, for autodetermination and the possession of all the powers necessary to dictate its own destiny. This distinction is important because many English Canadians I have spoken to somehow believe Quebec secessionists wish independence *because* of English Canada. In the tradition of René Lévesque, I and I believe most sovereignists support this option because we wish to take full control of all political powers to control the destiny of our corner of the world, not because of a hate for Canada.

2) Why are the Bloc members of Parliament considered second-class MP's? Do they not have the exact same legitimacy as any other MP, and has the Bloc not been fully respectful of Canadian parliamentary traditions and processes over its almost 20-year existence? Does nobody outside Quebec realize that this denigration actually contributes to the division of Canada, rather than the opposite?

Again, I am hoping for some levelheaded, intelligent discussion. Canada has a tradition of respect in politics, for the most part, and at this point we are all Canadians. I think there needs to be more respect in our political discourse, and a lot of what I hear and read coming from English Canada over the last few days is lacking in the area of respect.

Why is that?

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

If a Canadair Challenger carrying the entire bloc party crashed into a barren mountain side, it would be a sad day for the Canadair sales team.

To wit, why separatists prefer sovereigntists? The same reason why car salesmen prefer pre-owned to used car....to make the idea more appealing to those who quite naturally would not want a divorce from what is considered one of the best nations in the world.....but in the end sovereigny is independance and separation and Quebec would be on it's own and bankrupt. So in order to sell financial ruin they call it a pre owned nation...

ThatGuy · December 4, 2008

Montreal would join Ontario or else they would lose the Habs!

I actually agree with you for once as well Danceypoo

Edited December 4, 2008 by ThatGuy

ThatGuy · December 4, 2008

We could take this all the way back to the Plains of Abraham if you would like.

The British were victorious yet decided to allow the French to remain and be fully intouch with their culture and religion. What is stopping you from doing whatever you want in Quebec as it is?

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

"Separatist" is a word that is not representative of the impetus behind "l'indépendance du Québec". I am not afraid of that word, nor for that matter am I afraid of the word "separatist", although I think it is semantically improper. What I am saying is that using that charged word ("separatist") is a way to whip up support based on hate, and I think that is a lowly political move especially given the fact that in this case the Conservatives have recently been in the current position of the Liberals... The debate is flying low, I think we should all work to raise its level to mutually respectful levels.

In that sense, I don't see much of that in this thread so far...

Edited December 4, 2008 by Phacochere

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

"Separatist" is a word that is not representative of the impetus behind "l'indépendance du Québec". I am not afraid of that word, nor for that matter am I afraid of the word "separatist", although I think it is semantically improper. What I am saying is that using that charged word ("separatist") is a way to whip up support based on hate,

No, it is descriptively apt.

Sovereignty is a word used to whip up support based on stupidity. An independant Quebec is a banana republic dependant on foreign aid....tell the old folks that it won't be that way...bein non guy, c;est pas separation, c;est sovreignty n'ect pas? the transfer payments will still come, we wil be an independant quebec in a united canada....

Ummm...no...Quebec will be cut loose an free to go the way of Iceland.

Smallc · December 4, 2008

First, I believe the Bloc has every right to be in Parliament and to have their say.

Second, they disgust me because of their ultimate goals to break up this amazing country.

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

No, it is descriptively apt.
Sovereignty is a word used to whip up support based on stupidity. An independant Quebec is a banana republic dependant on foreign aid....tell the old folks that it won't be that way...bein non guy, c;est pas separation, c;est sovreignty n'ect pas? the transfer payments will still come, we wil be an independant quebec in a united canada....

Ummm...no...Quebec will be cut loose an free to go the way of Iceland.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion as far as the fate of an independent Quebec, although for the record I obviously think you are dead wrong. However, Sovereignty is a word that underscores the highly democratic nature of the Quebec indepedence movement. I think the misunderstanding (and condescension) you demonstrate helps explain my point, so thank you.

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

The one benifit to the rest of canada in regard to an independant Quebec is travel time. Normally it takes hours to get to a decent 3rd world nation. Why bother flying to Mexico to spend those US$$ on cheap trinkets..with an idependant quebec, they will be bankrupt and cash starved and will be more than willing to share their quaint culture and cariboo for next to nothing....kids will clog in the streets for a few spare trente sous....girls we vie for your attention...it will be marvelous. le sovereigny quebecois...

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

First, I believe the Bloc has every right to be in Parliament and to have their say.
Second, they disgust me because of their ultimate goals to break up this amazing country.

What is so amazing that would be lost if Quebec were to secede? I guess for one thing the political paradigm of federal politics would shift to the right somewhat, but what besides that?

I think in time Quebec indepedence would actually contribute to bringing together the old English and French Canada by eliminating the abcess that has been plaguing Canadian and Quebec politics since forever, and that will continue if the status quo continues...

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

The one benifit to the rest of canada in regard to an independant Quebec is travel time. Normally it takes hours to get to a decent 3rd world nation. Why bother flying to Mexico to spend those US$$ on cheap trinkets..with an idependant quebec, they will be bankrupt and cash starved and will be more than willing to share their quaint culture and cariboo for next to nothing....kids will clog in the streets for a few spare trente sous....girls we vie for your attention...it will be marvelous. le sovereigny quebecois...

Please stop posting in my thread if you will bring nothing to the discussion. Thanks.

ThatGuy · December 4, 2008

Quebec independence would see the destruction of Quebec.

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

I guess you are entitled to your opinion as far as the fate of an independent Quebec, although for the record I obviously think you are dead wrong. However, Sovereignty is a word that underscores the highly democratic nature of the Quebec indepedence movement. I think the misunderstanding (and condescension) you demonstrate helps explain my point, so thank you.

Everything about the nature of separatist demoicracy can be learne from Parizeau ad camille laurent, two poppinjay mini fascists if there ever were any...how many anglophone and allophone votes were denied that day when the separtists almost stole the future of the citizens of Quebec...and who did theyl bame their second defeat on?

Money and ethnics.

Lets not be shy, the BQ and the PQ are ethnic nationalist parties whose democracy is as superficial as the request for respect. Respect means for them to respect them, and as the multu cultural hearings so blatently showed, no respect for those not "quebecois".

charter.rights · December 4, 2008

Quebec independence would see the destruction of Quebec.

Well considering that 90% belongs to the natives I don't think there would be much of Quebec to break up....

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

Please stop posting in my thread if you will bring nothing to the discussion. Thanks.

Sorry chum, don't work that way. I think yoiu can take away that for most Canaidians, separatists are Quislings (well, perhaps Dion is the Quisling) and whave no respect for lemmings .

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

Quebec independence would see the destruction of Quebec.

This means you want to protect sovereignists from themselves? You do so with great vigour, I have trouble believing your position is truly altruistic.

Actually, I think that position is weirdly paternalistic, you don't believe the people of Quebec are apt to govern themselves. Why is that?

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

I think in time Quebec indepedence would actually contribute to bringing together the old English and French Canada by eliminating the abcess that has been plaguing Canadian and Quebec politics since forever, and that will continue if the status quo continues...

Well for one thing, Quebec would be owned by the higest bidder. Be that Canadian or American....it would be interesting....think pre revolution Havana...but with better plumbing.

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

Actually, I think that position is weirdly paternalistic, you don't believe the people of Quebec are apt to govern themselves. Why is that?

Ah the resect for democracy. How often has the idiotic idea of separation been rejected again? Why is that? Do they keep making te wrong choice but the ethnic nationalists know better than the majority?

Smallc · December 4, 2008

A united Canada is important. The idea of Canada is important. We live in what is the best country on earth. We live in a country where we have guaranteed fundamental rights, where people can come and go as they choose and can live as they choose within the law.

Canada is even more than that. The fact that this country can stretch from sea to sea, and that all of the different groups that live here can do so in what is almost complete peace is amazing. Canada is a model for the world, and I am very proud of it - every part of it, including Quebec.

Canada and Quebec apart would not be the same....it is unthinkable.

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

So if I undertsand what you guys are saying, every one of you is for Canadian unity, including Quebec, but you'd rather do without the actual people that live there?

Smallc · December 4, 2008

So if I undertsand what you guys are saying, every one of you is for Canadian unity, including Quebec, but you'd rather do without the actual people that live there?

I never said that. There are people that think that, but there are many more that love this country, its people, and the principles of peace, order, and good government on which it was founded.

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

Ah the resect for democracy. How often has the idiotic idea of separation been rejected again? Why is that? Do they keep making te wrong choice but the ethnic nationalists know better than the majority?

Listen buddy, as you write yourself in your description, you're lost.

charter.rights · December 4, 2008

A united Canada is important. The idea of Canada is important. We live in what is the best country on earth. We live in a country where we have guaranteed fundamental rights, where people can come and go as they choose and can live as they choose within the law.
Canada is even more than that. The fact that this country can stretch from sea to sea, and that all of the different groups that live here can do so in what is almost complete peace is amazing. Canada is a model for the world, and I am very proud of it - every part of it, including Quebec.

Canada and Quebec apart would not be the same....it is unthinkable.

"We live in a country where we have guaranteed fundamental rights, where people can come and go as they choose and can live as they choose within the law."

I think this is where you lose company, chum. The reality is that rights - although outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - are not guaranteed. Long after the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a specific right is protected, people still have to fight through the courts to get recognition of those rights. If they were truly guaranteed then every cop and and judge would be backing people, instead of forcing them to prove it. It has been 26 years since the Charter was repatriated and yet people are still fighting to have the rights included recognized and applied.

Edited December 4, 2008 by charter.rights

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

So if I undertsand what you guys are saying, every one of you is for Canadian unity, including Quebec, but you'd rather do without the actual people that live there?

The majority of the actual people of quebec have continously rejected separation..maybe one day you will repect the democracy that you currently only give lip service to...

Now...if separatists really want their own little 3rd world nation they are free to move to some other 3rd world nation....leave quebec in the modern world.

Phacochere · December 4, 2008

I never said that. There are people that think that, but there are many more that love this country, its people, and the principles of peace, order, and good government on which it was founded.

Ok, thanks, but then why the pandering to the lowest common denominator (I'm actually thinking of someone specific here) rather than rise above the fray and attempt a more unifying discourse? If there is such a majority, why take that tack?