What Should be an Example for Quebec

[g_bambino]

_{[magically triplicated post deleted]}

Edited August 29, 2009 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

_{[magically triplicated post deleted]}

Edited August 29, 2009 by g_bambino

[Smallc]

The problem isn't the actuality of secession but the threat of it. Under that hammer, Quebec gets away with some very real suppression of rights of English-speakers. Just as the Confederate States couldn't be allowed to violate the rights of Americans, same with Francophone Quebeckers.

Huh, I learned a new word...

Anyway, I really don't see what rights are being trampled on in Quebec. They were in the past, (and even that was done within the Constitution), but they really aren't now.

[Argus]

I wouldn't say that such a statement is all that true. Though Americans very much think of themselves as one people, they seem to be very divided along partisan lines. Americans are also very much divided along urban and rural lines.

And is this not the situation in Canada, as well? Except we're also divided among linguistic lines, and, to a certain degree, provincial lines.

Ie, people in New York do not resent people in Texas or California. But many in the West resent Central Canada, many in Central Canada seem to have a patronizing contempt for the West. Many in the East resent Central Canada, as well.

[Smallc]

And is this not the situation in Canada, as well?

Where did I say that it wasn't? I was disagreeing with the statement that the US is more united than any country. They are divided in their own way.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say that it wasn't? I was disagreeing with the statement that the US is more united than any country. They are divided in their own way.

True, but they are less "divided" than Canada.....by design.

[Smallc]

I don't agree. Americans are split much more by ideology. They may be less regional (to an extent) and less linguistically divided, but the quote from John Stewart stands.

[Smallc]

Oh, and just to respond to something from earlier, polls show that Quebec Francophones are split down the middle on the issue of sovereignty. Most Anglophones and Allophones are against it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, and just to respond to something from earlier, polls show that Quebec Francophones are split down the middle on the issue of sovereignty. Most Anglophones and Allophones are against it.

Interesting terms are all these "...phones"....a custom terminology for a custom set of issues to go with regionalism and the gravity of Jupiter from the "south"....all trying to pull Canada apart.

[Smallc]

I like how your argument breaks down into jabs when you have nothing to actually say. Americans are divided in their own way as are Canadians. It's a simple fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't agree. Americans are split much more by ideology. They may be less regional (to an extent) and less linguistically divided, but the quote from John Stewart stands.

John Stewart is only as smart as his writers.....ideas about republics or confederations probably escape him in front of a Sony high-def studio camera.

[Remiel]

The problem isn't the actuality of secession but the threat of it. Under that hammer, Quebec gets away with some very real suppression of rights of English-speakers. Just as the Confederate States couldn't be allowed to violate the rights of Americans, same with Francophone Quebeckers.

There is no comparison between the rights that were being violated by the Confederate States and the "rights" that are being violated by the province of Quebec. Pretending that there is, frankly, is incredibly insulting to anyone who has ever been a slave.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Remiel

[Smallc]

John Stewart is only as smart as his writers

Actually, he writes a great deal of his own material, but again, nice non argument.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, he writes a great deal of his own material, but again, nice non argument.

The larger point remains, and invoking John Stewart and his American show format only reinforces the idea that such comparisons are silly and part of the problem. I have long maintained that Canada will never be able to define itself in American terms or un-references. The gravity of Jupiter is hard to ignore, but it can be done.

[Smallc]

This has nothing to do with how Canada defines itself (which should e left to Canadians). This has to do with a strange comparison and some manufactured belief that America is the most united country on Earth.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

This has nothing to do with how Canada defines itself (which should e left to Canadians). This has to do with a strange comparison and some manufactured belief that America is the most united country on Earth.

I agree....but you wouldn't discern such a thing based on many posts here at MLW. Of course, the word "united" does appear in the name, for whatever that's worth. The US has no equivalent to Canada's "Clarity Act" or "Notwithstanding Clause", both of which are a strange kind of "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

[Smallc]

And Canad doesn't have a civil war....maybe you needed a get out of jail free card?

[bush_cheney2004]

And Canad doesn't have a civil war....maybe you needed a get out of jail free card?

But then the US would be like Canada, which has no Abe Lincoln or legacy of "Union".

[Smallc]

We also don't have legacy of civil war....Didn't need an Abe Lincoln it seems. No legacy of union maybe, yet still one country.

[bush_cheney2004]

We also don't have legacy of civil war....Didn't need an Abe Lincoln it seems. No legacy of union maybe, yet still one country.

Right...so there is no expectation of same. It's like partners living together instead of getting married.

[Smallc]

We got married a long time ago. We simply have lovers quarrels from time to time.

[bush_cheney2004]

We got married a long time ago. We simply have lovers quarrels from time to time.

Indeed...some marriages are better than others....many end in divorce after the "lovers" phase has expired.

[g_bambino]

We got married a long time ago. We simply have lovers quarrels from time to time.

True. And, actually, the all-out battle that came of the American "living arrangement" was a major influence on the opinions of the Fathers of Confederation. Part of what led them to choose constitutional monarchy was their perception of it as a middle ground between the absolutism of Czarist Russa and what they thought to be an unworkable republican model in the US, the very nature of which led to the Civil War. Smart men.

_[sp.]

Edited August 29, 2009 by g_bambino

[jbg]

Anyway, I really don't see what rights are being trampled on in Quebec. They were in the past, (and even that was done within the Constitution), but they really aren't now.

The law relating to signs? To education?

Somehow those don't trample on rights?

[Smallc]

No, they don't....not under the Constitution certainly now that they allow other languages on signs.

I think much of this stems from a belief that you have that was until recently displayed in your signature.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc