New leader of the NDP - A Sepratist?

punked · August 3, 2011

Delusional much? Or have you decided to come unarmed to a battle of wits?

I feel like most of what I am saying is going over your head. Which is why I can see you have declared victory, I don't really think others reading this thread think the same. Hey thats just me though.

M.Dancer · August 3, 2011

It is the same as most on the supreme courts and the international courts. No law passed with out the input of or agreement of the people it targets is going to stop those people from doing what they think is right. Why does that not make sense to you? All provinces joined Confederation under the idea that they may if they so choose, then you change the rules on them with out telling them? Sounds kinda unfair. Lucky for Canada and Quebec that we have worked well together and both populations are happy with our system eh?

I can certainly underestand why you would not want to talk about the NPD's position on the Clarity Act, given all the bullshit you have been spewing about 'federalism'..

So I will help you out.

The NPD are against it. They believe Quebec can unilaterally secede from Canada. So do the separatists.

The NPD, like the BQ, are FINO.

punked · August 3, 2011

I can certainly underestand why you would not want to talk about the NPD's position on the Clarity Act, given all the bullshit you have been spewing about 'federalism'..

So I will help you out.

The NPD are against it. They believe Quebec can unilaterally secede from Canada. So do the separatists.

The NPD, like the BQ, are FINO.

No one thinks or has the position that Quebec can unilaterally secede from Canada. This is where you are wrong and Liar again. However if Quebec has the self-determination to secede then how do you expect Canada to stop them? Seriously the discussion the NDP want to have is "how do we make Canada work as a country so we never have to answer this question?" The Question you want to ask is "How do we make Quebec stay no matter what is population and people think and no matter how hard they want to fight for it?" This is typical of Conservatives.

This is the problem with this whole thread. Here you have a Quebec leader who is fighting to make Canada a united country and what do the Conservatives do? They come out and say "If you ever supported the Bloc you can't be a part of the discussion." Well guess what you are now telling a majority of Quebec the government of Canada does not want them to be part of the discussion on how Canada should work and that if they don't like then they should just all stay on as Separatists. Way to unit the country and kill Separatism. Go back to 1995 because I live in 2011 when Quebec threw out the Separatist in favor of a Federalist party because that Federal party engaged the Quebec population.

Edited August 3, 2011 by punked

M.Dancer · August 3, 2011

No one thinks or has the position that Quebec can unilaterally secede from Canada.

The NDP and the PQ do...

The NDP recognizes as well that the right to self determination implies that the Assemblee Nationale is able to write a referendum question and that the citizens of Quebec are able to answer it freely.

The NDP would accept a majority decision (50% + 1) of the Quebec people in the event of a referendum on the political status of Quebec.

http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf

Clarity Act.

House of Commons to consider whether there is a clear will to secede
2. (1) Where the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of the province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms on which that province might cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall, except where it has determined pursuant to section 1 that a referendum question is not clear, consider and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the circumstances, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province that the province cease to be part of Canada.

Factors for House of Commons to take into account

(2) In considering whether there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada, the House of Commons shall take into account

(a) the size of the majority of valid votes cast in favour of the secessionist option;

( the percentage of eligible voters voting in the referendum; and

© any other matters or circumstances it considers to be relevant.

Poor Punked...Federalist In Name Only

M.Dancer · August 3, 2011

However if Quebec has the self-determination to secede then how do you expect Canada to stop them?

I wasn't asking you to itemize the things you don't know, but to tell me the NPDs position on the Clarity Act.

Too late...

NDP leader Jack Layton reopened the unity debate Friday by promising to repeal the federal Clarity Act and recognize a declaration of Quebec independence if sovereigntists win a referendum.

http://regina.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20040529/layton_quebec_040528?hub=TorontoNewHome

If we want to really get into it, Canada is not like America because we are a Confederation where all provinces can leave any time under the Clarity act and before that could leave with a simple vote. That is neither here nor there though.

So oh maven of all things Canada....if Jack repeals the clarity act, will we be more like americans?

:lol: :lol:

punked · August 3, 2011

Again tell me how you keep a population which is determined to leave a country in that country? Don't tell me the Clarity act does that because if you believe that then there are many countries who could have saved many lives by just writing a law. Seriously this is what you believe? Wow Conservatives.

M.Dancer · August 3, 2011

Again tell me how you keep a population which is determined to leave a country in that country?

And again, I am not interested in the things you don't know about....or a question that has no bearing on the purpose of the Clarity Act.

Oleg Bach · August 4, 2011

Ha ha - the NDP have no leader...that was a very short lived triumph.

punked · August 4, 2011

And again, I am not interested in the things you don't know about....or a question that has no bearing on the purpose of the Clarity Act.

Yah gotcha. Never mind speaking of realities and international law we would rather talk about the Clarity act. Again if the majority of some population is determined to leave a country no piece of law is going to stop them. Guns might stop them but some law wont and this is the reality you ignore.

You do know that the main sticking point of the Clarity act is that Quebec does not support the Constitution part of the legislation right? So lets get back to that question. Do you agree with Harper and the Bloc that the Constitution does not need to followed or with the NDP and the key to a Federation that you must follow it?

Edited August 4, 2011 by punked

punked · August 4, 2011

Ha ha - the NDP have no leader...that was a very short lived triumph.

We have a leader you might not like her, but you aren't a member.

Alta4ever · August 4, 2011

wow look 23 pages of complete and utter bulls__t. Glad to see things haven't changed much in my absence.

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

Yah gotcha. Never mind speaking of realities and international law we would rather talk about the Clarity act. Again if the majority of some population is determined to leave a country no piece of law is going to stop them. Guns might stop them but some law wont and this is the reality you ignore.

If we want to really get into it, Canada is not like America because we are a Confederation where all provinces can leave any time under the Clarity act and before that could leave with a simple vote. That is neither here nor there though.

Care to make up your mind? Do you support the clarity act and its purpose, do you understand the piurpose of the act or do you understand the act and not support the act.

You can have time to contact your handlers if you think the question is too hard.

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

Where you supported Harpers Firewall letter which clearly does not support the Equalization section of the Constitution. Unless do you want to make it clear right now you do not support Harpers past stances on Alberta with holding Federal payments which are clearly laid out in the Constitution. If so and you think Harper's past was just as bad as the NDP leaders please come out and say and we will move on.

So among the other things you wish to itemize as not knowing about is the constitution? There is nothing in Harpers letter that would violate the constitution, but of course you know that....but being the type of person you are...you would rather be dishonest about it.

punked · August 4, 2011

Care to make up your mind? Do you support the clarity act and its purpose, do you understand the piurpose of the act or do you understand the act and not support the act.

You can have time to contact your handlers if you think the question is too hard.

I don't accept the premise because I live in the real world. You can not keep a population which is determined to leave a country in a country with a piece of paper. You can do it with guns and blood. I guess in your world America still belongs to Britain right?

punked · August 4, 2011

So among the other things you wish to itemize as not knowing about is the constitution? There is nothing in Harpers letter that would violate the constitution, but of course you know that....but being the type of person you are...you would rather be dishonest about it.

He clearly advocates stopping Equalization payments and "letting the courts" decide if it is legal and if it isn't then Alberta has the money to pay. It is quite obvious this to anyone who has read the Equalization part of our constitution that this advocating against the intent of Federation.

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

I don't accept the premise because I live in the real world. You can not keep a population which is determined to leave a country in a country with a piece of paper. You can do it with guns and blood. I guess in your world America still belongs to Britain right?

Then you acknowledge you don't know what the clarity act is about..

Fine...I accept your ignorance of the act, and your including it in a post to differentiate ourselves from the US, as part of the real world.

Edited August 4, 2011 by M.Dancer

punked · August 4, 2011

Then you acknowledge you don't know what the clarity act is about..

Fine...I accept your ignorance of the act, and your including it in a post to differentiate ourselves from the US as part of the real world.

Got it because I don't think a Law which makes it so 7 provinces which represent 50% of the population can all vote to not let a determined peoples leave a country I must not know what the Clarity act is about. Again that is the portion which most take issue with. Not that part that the question should be clear or that a clear majority which represents all peoples of the region should agree to leave.

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

He clearly advocates stopping Equalization payments and "letting the courts" decide if it is legal and if it isn't then Alberta has the money to pay.

I take then you have not heard of the opting out formula

It is quite obvious this to anyone who has read the Equalization part of our constitution that this advocating against the intent of Federation.

And you include yourself in this erudite group? Can they explain the Clarity act and its purpose to you? you?

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

Got it because I don't think a Law which makes it so 7 provinces which represent 50% of the population can all vote to not let a determined peoples leave a country I must not know what the Clarity act is about. Again that is the portion which most take issue with. Not that part that the question should be clear or that a clear majority which represents all peoples of the region should agree to leave.

If that is the case, why did you cite it in a post? Do you have no respect for the Constitution? Because what you are saying is, the constitution is worthless, can be ignored and shelved.

Is that just your opinion or the opinion of the NPD?

punked · August 4, 2011

I take then you have not heard of the opting out formula

Yah that would be great if we lived in 1959 however we live in a post 1982 Canada and equalization became part of our Constitution at that point. Face it your boy Harper is more like the Bloc then the NDP leader.

And you include yourself in this erudite group? Can they explain the Clarity act and its purpose to you? you?

I have no idea what you are asking. Clarity means nothing to me because it will never have to used. Well I mean that is if your party doesn't get its way of creating a more divided Canada. My party keeps trying to talk about winning conditions where we all come ahead and you guys keep insisting on thumbing your noise at the French population and shouting "We don't accept your leaders, even your Federalist ones, and you are not allowed to engage." I see why you see a need for it, it is because you want to punish French Canada but you still need a way to keep them in the country. I get that.

punked · August 4, 2011

If that is the case, why did you cite it in a post? Do you have no respect for the Constitution? Because what you are saying is, the constitution is worthless, can be ignored and shelved.

Is that just your opinion or the opinion of the NPD?

I will say this one last time. Clarity is not part of the Constitution of Canada.

M.Dancer · August 4, 2011

I will say this one last time. Clarity is not part of the Constitution of Canada.

Good for you. Do you have any more irrelevancies? Do you wish to cite the Clarity act again to show how different we are from the US?

I will only say this once.

Aboriginal peoples are part of the constitution.

Thanks for coming, you have been a good sport. Better luck next time.

TimG · August 4, 2011

I will say this one last time. Clarity is not part of the Constitution of Canada.

Wrong. The Liberals asked the SCC for advice on what the Constitution says the Clarity Act codifies that advice in law. It was largely a political excercise because even if the Clarity Act did not exist the SCC would rule based on its principles if a case came before them.

Oleg Bach · August 4, 2011

We have a leader you might not like her, but you aren't a member.

.

It's not a case of like or dislike. It is more of a case of what you see is what you get. Already you refere to her as the "leader"..Jack is not dead yet and stranger things have happened in regards to the resurrrection of the human body and spirit...to bad the NDP were not a party of faith - faith would keep Jack alive! You say that I am not a member - I may share more of your views than you imagine.

punked · August 4, 2011

Wrong. The Liberals asked the SCC for advice on what the Constitution says the Clarity Act codifies that advice in law. It was largely a political excercise because even if the Clarity Act did not exist the SCC would rule based on its principles if a case came before them.

We will have to agree to disagree here. The Clarity act while a Law in Canada is not part of the Constitution. Let's hope we never have to find out.

Edited August 4, 2011 by punked