"SOVEREIGNTY WILL BE DONE IN QUEBEC!"

Peter F · May 16, 2011

Of course that perception has no basis in fact - it is a delusion created by seperatists who need an 'enemy' to justify their existance. Nothing Canadians could ever do would satisfy the demands of people like Benz because they have no interest in renewing the federation. They want to create the 'winning conditions'. The fact that some people buy into this 'victim' narrative does not make it true.

Yah yah, I get it. Nothing Benz says is true or even honest. Everything he says is to be ignored because You actually know what he really thinks.

'a delusion' to justify being a seperatist? You're a blind fool with no concept of what being a Qebecois means to Qebecois.

Quebecers need no excuses to justify thier emotional attachment to thier nation. The 'victim' narrative is actually a true state of affairs in this country. Just like the 'victimization' of Americans by Al-queda. Victimhood is a real thing and a motivating thing. The victim narrative of

seperatists is real because if it wasn't there'd be no seperatists. But that doesn't quite fit in to your narrative does it?

Seperatists, in your narrative, have nothing to lament or wish was otherwise. They're just makin the whole thing up outta the blue!

What planet are you on? Quebec's structural problems are the worst in the country.

oh I think not

Don't take my word. Look at what Lucian Bouchard has to say:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20061019/quebec_bouchard_061019/

"I said that Quebecers work less than Ontarians, less than Americans, and that the best way to create more resources, to sustain and support these social programs we are so proud of, is to work more,'"

"A year ago, Bouchard was among a group of high-profile Quebecers to release a manifesto that warned of the dangers of the province's crippling debt and its stagnant birthrate."

Yeah, same mantra thats been going on for years and years and years. Hell, ever since the establishment of Quebec Hydro - or saskpower for that matter. Debt! Debt! Yet somehow we all manage. Quebec will manage just fine. The problems Bouchard speaks of can be overcome can they not? Yes they most certainly can.

A "little" thinner? A fight over borders or debt would create a crisis that would last a generation or more. Everyone would be alot worse off. And for what: an opportunity to find out the seperatists were lying and and problems Quebec has has nothing to do with the federation but are simply a reflection of problems within Quebec society.

Well obviously that would bug your ass, but it wouldnt bother too many seperatists; They will have achieved what they have been dreaming of for generations - and for what? A soveriegn Quebec nation! I know that don't mean squat to you. Perfectly understandable that you see absolutely no value in that. But you are a fool to assume Seperatists are lying and seek separation soley to cover up some nebulous problem within Quebec society.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Peter F

TimG · May 16, 2011

Victimhood is a real thing and a motivating thing. The victim narrative of seperatists is real because if it wasn't there'd be no seperatists. But that doesn't quite fit in to your narrative does it?

Fear and anger are great motivators too. That does not mean we should celebrate the use of them. More importantly, the victim narrative of seperatists (as with most victim narratives) is a complete fabrication intended to distract people from the real issues and focus attention on an outsider that can be villified.

Yeah, same mantra thats been going on for years and years and years. Hell, ever since the establishment of Quebec Hydro - or saskpower for that matter. Debt! Debt! Yet somehow we all manage. Quebec will manage just fine. The problems Bouchard speaks of can be overcome can they not? Yes they most certainly can.

The problems would be magnified tenfold as a result of the much higher interest rates that would follow an separation. And there is a the nasty little issue of currency. Will Quebec be borrowing in its own or in a foreign currency. Right now it has the luxury of borrowing in its own. After separation - probably not. That would turn Quebec into the ward of the IMF unless there are major cuts government spending.

Lastly: sure the problems can be solved but not as long as separatists distract the discussion by trying blame all of Quebec's problems on the federal government. Dealing with the problems requires that Quebec accept that it is already in control of its own destiny and it only has to exercise the powers that it already has.

Well obviously that would bug your ass, but it wouldn't bother too many separatists;

But it would bug most soft nationalists who put a much higher importance on economic stability. That is why it has been tough to get the 'winning conditions'. Edited May 16, 2011 by TimG

Shwa · May 16, 2011

Look, the Jésuites did indeed tried to convert the aboriginals and even assimilate some and that is imperialist. But... beside the Jesuits, the french were not in New France to destroy the aboriginals and take their land like the British did.

No? But earlier you said:

They settled on unoccupied territories and they were dealing very well with the natives. Except of course the Iroquois that were allied with the british and were fighting for them.

Of course, "unoccupied territories" simply means that they determined, through their imperialist mechanisms that if there wasn't a village, it was "unoccupied." Of course, it's called squatting. But exactly WHO was in those unoccupied territories? Why Donnacona et al:

In spring, Cartier invited Donnacona to a feast, also inviting his companions, and seized them. During the journey to France twenty-five died of scurvy.

Of course, kidnapping is different. Right?

I used the Jesuit Relations as a record of those times, but the Fur Trade in New France is a well known example of French imperialism.

Champlain did not want to interfere. However, the Hurons and the Algonquiens posed conditions to trade with them. "If you want to trade with us, you must take our side against our enemies, the Iroquois." Champlain finally help them against the Iroquois and now they could trade. But that was only in the beginning. Later on, the french told them that they will no longer interfere and that was a big mistake because the Dutch then the Brits were providing firearms to the Iroquois and it gave them a big advantage over the others. The Iroquois were beating their enemies badly and it is only when they attacked the french that the french finally intervene again to crush the Iroquois this time. We are now in late 1690, early 1700. The british outnumber everyone on the east coast, the french and all the natives have no choice to teamup against the british and so they did. 1701, le Traité de la Grande Paix. Go see by yourself.

So AFTER Champlain attacked the Iroquois for ECONOMIC (thus Imperial) reasons, THEN the French got busy? LOFL! That is a clumsy attempt at alter-history. Besides, having suffered all those losses, the French and Iroquois signed a treaty. No one was "crushed." Seriously, you need to expand on your basic Canadian history.

Oh really? On the contrary, the british never respected a single one treaty. if so, name me one. All the aboriginals have been concealed into reserves. All of them. I dare you to name me one nation that could preserve its sovereignty from the british imperialism (later american).

Historic Treaties

Regardless, the treaties are still there, they stuck and still provide input to the relationships between First Nations and the Government of Canada.

Yes, because, as I said, France did not care about New France. The leadership was not the same. Louis XIV did want a strong New France colony and was pushing for it Louis XV did not care at all. Under Louis XV, France was on a decline, as oppose as the rise of France under Louis XIV. It got worst with Louis XVI.

Quebecoise were thrown under the bus by their own kind in Europe and they still lament and whine and make laughable excuses about this obvious betrayal. They were cast off as so much useless property. Quebec is - and always has been - an expendable province to France and nothing more. Ever.

You fail. Again and again.

No, I don't think so. Separatiste BS is easy to counteract with facts. It is a game in fact, a sport.

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

Dealing with the problems requires that Quebec accept that it is already in control of its own destiny and it only has to exercise the powers that it already has.

That does seem to be a key fact that separatists have difficulty accepting: Quebec isn't at the mercy of the rest of the country. Regard how Benz adamantly refuses to accept that the constitution is already written in such a way that no amendment to it that would affect Quebec can be made or made to apply to Quebec without the consent of the province's legislature. For him, and other separatists, it just doesn't compute, since there's nowhere for it to slot neatly into the fabricated victim status narrative. Like you say, they need to make up an enemy in order to justify their own existence.

Evening Star · May 16, 2011

Peter, in what ways do you think Quebec is currently being victimized by the country?

Benz · May 16, 2011

Solutions do not exist because you are not trying to negotiate in good faith.

Then prove it. I have exposed the different visions of what Canada should be. Québec vs the ROC. I have explained what we think could join both ends. If I am so away from a good faith, it should be easy for you to prove it. Yet, you lamently fail.

It costs nothing to stick with the status quo.

For you, of course. Because it is your status quo. The one that allows Ottawa to play in our playground. For us, it cost way too much.

Changing the status quo through separation would be an extremely painful process that will leave Quebequers much poorer than they are today.

We do not beleive so. Even Charest said that an independent Quebec is viable. Although alot of the Québécois beleive it would be in our common interests to stay with Canada, none of them would ever accept the status quo. Continue to offer nothing to see how long the Québécois will tolerate that. It is the best way to promote independence.

Most Quebequers seem to understand this and are willing to live with the status quo because your 'traditional demands' are largely meaningless when it comes to growing the economy and keeping people employed.

I repeat, those demands are coming from the federalists. Robert Bourassa with Meech. They are not my personal demands. It's the whole Québec. Québec keeps on sending a majority of BQ MPs for almost 2 decades and now try the NDP after Layton said the status quo cannot last forever and yet, this is what you think. Speaking of bad faith, you see only what you want to see. :rolleyes:

Dealing with the problems requires that Quebec accept that it is already in control of its own destiny and it only has to exercise the powers that it already has.

The limitations of that power has been capped long time ago. We did everything we could to adapt the system while being just a province among the others. The result is obvious for those with opened eyes.

The status quo prevail, it is the constitution of english Canada and the french are powerless with the current system, your system. Québec now needs its sovereignty. Because like you keep saying, nothing will change, you like the system just as is.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Benz

cybercoma · May 16, 2011

I don't understand why people in the ROC are so adamant about keeping Quebec in the confederation. If they want sovereignty, an amicable solution ought to be sought. When the ROC stomps its feet and sticks its fingers in its ears, this does nothing more than alienate Quebec even further.

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

[T]he french are powerless with the current system...

There he goes again. Quebecers are the only "French" in Canada. Quebec has no power. Quebec is threatened by the nine other provinces and the federal government. The same rehashed crap no matter how much evidence to the contrary is piled before him.

cybercoma · May 16, 2011

There he goes again. Quebecers are the only "French" in Canada. Quebec has no power. Quebec is threatened by the nine other provinces and the federal government. The same rehashed crap no matter how much evidence to the contrary is piled before him.

Quebec as a province is threatened within the current arrangemenet in exactly the same manner as the French in the ROC are threatened without protection for their communities.

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

Quebec as a province is threatened within the current arrangemenet in exactly the same manner as the French in the ROC are threatened without protection for their communities.

Yes, Quebec isn't threatened at all. That's what I've been saying.

cybercoma · May 16, 2011

Yes, Quebec isn't threatened at all. That's what I've been saying.

Why do they want sovereignty then?

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

Why do they want sovereignty then?

Who do you mean by "they"? The separatists? If so, who knows, really? For the leaders, it seems mostly to be self interest. For the followers, it appears they've bought the revisionist propaganda.

Evening Star · May 16, 2011

I don't understand why people in the ROC are so adamant about keeping Quebec in the confederation. If they want sovereignty, an amicable solution ought to be sought. When the ROC stomps its feet and sticks its fingers in its ears, this does nothing more than alienate Quebec even further.

They voted against separation twice. If you see Quebec as a province like the others and believe it should be treated that way, it's hard to accept the conditions that Benz is talking about. It is possible to want QC to remain in the federation but to also bring conditions of your own to the table.

Benz · May 16, 2011

Of course, "unoccupied territories" simply means that they determined, through their imperialist mechanisms that if there wasn't a village, it was "unoccupied." Of course, it's called squatting. But exactly WHO was in those unoccupied territories? Why Donnacona et al:

Of course, kidnapping is different. Right?

Ahhh! Jacques Cartier. That was 66 years before the french came back to colonize the land. Few deecades past between Cartier and Champlain. For some reasons that are still unknown today, the Iroquois were not in Stadaconé anymore.

I grant you that Jacques Cartier was an imperialist explorer. Its journay was a fail and that is probably why the french took so long to get interested to go back in New France again. Happy?

I used the Jesuit Relations as a record of those times, but the Fur Trade in New France is a well known example of French imperialism.

The french traded with the aboriginals. They were not killing them and taking their land.

So AFTER Champlain attacked the Iroquois for ECONOMIC (thus Imperial) reasons, THEN the French got busy? LOFL! That is a clumsy attempt at alter-history.

Really? Then prove it.

Besides, having suffered all those losses, the French and Iroquois signed a treaty. No one was "crushed." Seriously, you need to expand on your basic Canadian history.

The Iroquois were in a very bad situation when the french got on their back. If crush is a too strong word for you, ok, but the point is, the british didn't care and the Iroquois had no choice to sign a peace treaty with the french.

Historic Treaties
Regardless, the treaties are still there, they stuck and still provide input to the relationships between First Nations and the Government of Canada.

Regardless?... I doubt very much it is the word the aboriginal would use. Indeed, the aboriginals are trying to remind our government what they signed long time ago and did not respect.

Quebecoise were thrown under the bus by their own kind in Europe and they still lament and whine and make laughable excuses about this obvious betrayal. They were cast off as so much useless property. Quebec is - and always has been - an expendable province to France and nothing more. Ever.

I see you have Québec very high in your opinion. :rolleyes:

France was a kingdom led by a monarch. He did not care more about its subjects in France than those in Québec. It is why the french threw their monarchy away and became a republic.

More than 200 years later, Canada still subsides the UK's Royal family so, if I were you, I would think twice before making any judgement on the french.

Evening Star · May 16, 2011

Why do they want sovereignty then?

Not everyone's desires are always fair or rational.

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

More than 200 years later, Canada still subsides the UK's Royal family...

Good lord.

Benz · May 16, 2011

Why do they want sovereignty then?

Good question. Why 60% the french in Québec want sovereignty if Canada is so perfect?

According to them, the separatist leader is a guru and we are the faithful lemming followers.

Even for an outsider that has no clue what Canada is would figure there is something wrong with that logic.

cybercoma · May 16, 2011

Not everyone's desires are always fair or rational.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of Quebeckers (polls outside the referenda show a majority desire sovereignty, but disagree on the terms) are irrational. Perhaps what's irrational is the complete unwillingness of the rest of Canada to face this issue. It's irrational to think that not talking about it will make it go away.

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

I find it hard to believe that the majority of Quebeckers (polls outside the referenda show a majority desire sovereignty, but disagree on the terms) are irrational. Perhaps what's irrational is the complete unwillingness of the rest of Canada to face this issue. It's irrational to think that not talking about it will make it go away.

Rejecting ridiculous demands does not necessarily equate with an unwillingness to face the issue.

Benz · May 16, 2011

They voted against separation twice.

The first time, Ottawa made huge promises they did not hold. The second time they again made promises they again did not hold but, the score was 49.4% for the Yes. Can we call that an outstanding win for the No? :rolleyes:

If you see Quebec as a province like the others and believe it should be treated that way, it's hard to accept the conditions that Benz is talking about. It is possible to want QC to remain in the federation but to also bring conditions of your own to the table.

In order to avoid our legitimated conditions, they just ignore who we are. For them, we are just english canadians speaking french.

Benz · May 16, 2011

Rejecting ridiculous demands does not necessarily equate with an unwillingness to face the issue.

Why it is good for everyone in the world but when it is from Québec, it is ridiculous and irrational?

g_bambino · May 16, 2011

Why it is good for everyone in the world but when it is from Québec, it is ridiculous and irrational?

What statement is your question relating to?

Bonam · May 16, 2011

I find it hard to believe that the majority of Quebeckers (polls outside the referenda show a majority desire sovereignty, but disagree on the terms) are irrational.

The majority of people, Quebeckers or otherwise, are irrational. Humans are far more easily governed by emotion than by reason.

Evening Star · May 16, 2011

It's irrational to think that not talking about it will make it go away.

What Bonam said + we're talking about it right now on this thread. The whole country spent Mulroney's second term talking about it. How much more discussion do you want, especially given that, since 1995, there hasn't even been that much initiative from anyone (except perhaps from Layton now?) to reopen the Constitution, whether from Quebec or otherwise.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Evening Star

Peter F · May 16, 2011

Peter, in what ways do you think Quebec is currently being victimized by the country?

The province currently isn't being victimized by Canada. I know Benz speaks of political victimization - but I don't see much of that. The Social victimization of Quebecers for being French-speaking Quebecers is overt and continuous. Just see the way Quebecers are spoken of on these very pages.