Honoring A Traitor, Jaques Parizeau

[Michael Hardner]

Let's even go as far as breaking all of Canada up. Any problem there?

No, I have heard of these before

[drummindiver]

Yet, people like you get into dramatic hysterics about Parizeau being a traitor and all this other nonsense, when he operated in peaceful and democratic terms.

Yet people like me? Dramatic hysterics?

You mean, people who debate on a debating forum, but have an opposing view than yours?

[overthere]

I don't see how Parizeau betrayed Canada or is a traitor.

He never worked for Canada, he was purely representing his province and culture. He never accepted any kind of subordinate role for Quebec.

And his 'vision' of the Quebec separatiste movement being somehow poisoned by immigrants was- in his perspective- entirely valid.

To take Quebec out of Canada Parizeau had to distinguish and define the province as being different from rest of Canada. Different language, different culture, and eventually a different country.....

Elsewhere in Canada multiculturalism is celebrated and promoted, we are all one big homogenous happy bunch coming from many different places.

That would not begin to work for Parizeau and the PQ. If Quebec is the same big homogenous bunch of happy campers, why would they want to leave?

No, he had to draw a line between Quebec and the rest of Canada- and demonstrate a difference. And being Francophone was the line in the sand. It came very, very close to working. It was a deliberate and effective strategy that very nearly achieved his goal.

Smart guy.

There is no doubt he would have unilaterally declared Quebec an independent nation the morning after a successful referendum. It must have been profoundly crushing to come that close and fail.

[cybercoma]

Well in this case, let's do that for Ontario? Screw the rest of Canada, let's go it alone. I am now calling for a separatist movement in Ontario. How well do you think that would be received? Let's even go as far as breaking all of Canada up. Any problem there?

Do it. That's your right. If you think there's political will for Ontario independence then start the movement.

[cybercoma]

Yet people like me? Dramatic hysterics?

You mean, people who debate on a debating forum, but have an opposing view than yours?

No. I mean people who use ridiculous hyperbole to lambast someone who was looking for political autonomy for a largely distinct society in Canada. One that has been distinct since before Confederation and that gave the British Crown pause because they had no idea how they would keep them from revolting hundreds of years ago as well. Québec is distinct from the rest of Canada. That much is obvious to anyone who has ever spent 30 seconds there. That he fought for independence in a peaceful, democratic, and completely non-violent way makes him an example that others should aspire to. Since, as you keep ignoring, the alternative around the world and throughout history is violence and bloodshed. I don't care that you have a different opinion. I'm giving you my reason for thinking your opinion is stupid. Edited June 9, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

So the semantics over what he meant was well known.

You may interpret the semantics any way you like, but he didn't say what was quoted above. Whether or not he's a nice man is great for people who read dime store novels, I suppose.

[Michael Hardner]

According to wiki, a traitor is someone who commits *treason*, defined in Canada as:

Canada[edit]

Section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada has two degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason."^%5B10%5D However, both of these belong to the historical category of high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist in Canadian law. Section 46 reads as follows:

High treason

(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her; (b ) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; (b ) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada; © conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b ) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b ) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada to do any of the above outside Canada.

The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to 14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(b ) or (e) in peacetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

[msj]

Yet, people like you get into dramatic hysterics about Parizeau being a traitor and all this other nonsense, when he operated in peaceful and democratic terms.

Gotta agree with CC and Michael on this one regarding the meaning of traitor etc...

However, for the record, I see where drummindiver is coming from and do not think he is being "dramatic" or "hysterical" on this issue so, once again, CC, why the need for yet more ad hominems just because somebody disagrees with you?

[drummindiver]

No. I mean people who use ridiculous hyperbole to lambast someone who was looking for political autonomy for a largely distinct society in Canada. One that has been distinct since before Confederation and that gave the British Crown pause because they had no idea how they would keep them from revolting hundreds of years ago as well. Québec is distinct from the rest of Canada. That much is obvious to anyone who has ever spent 30 seconds there. That he fought for independence in a peaceful, democratic, and completely non-violent way makes him an example that others should aspire to. Since, as you keep ignoring, the alternative around the world and throughout history is violence and bloodshed. I don't care that you have a different opinion. I'm giving you my reason for thinking your opinion is stupid.

lol.

Distinct societies are a dime a dozen. Maybe Greek town in Toronto will want autonomy next?

If being distinct from the rest of Canada is the only reason you need to use our tax dollars to break apart our country, we are obviously doomed as a country. If you have travelled anywhere beyond your computer screen, you would have noted every province is different, and in every province there are different regions, and in every region there is difference of opinions with different ethnic groups claiming different rights and wants. Where do you suggest we draw the line?

Thanks for your continued confirmation that you indeed cannot debate in a civil manner.

[cybercoma]

lol.

Distinct societies are a dime a dozen. Maybe Greek town in Toronto will want autonomy next?

If being distinct from the rest of Canada is the only reason you need to use our tax dollars to break apart our country, we are obviously doomed as a country. If you have travelled anywhere beyond your computer screen, you would have noted every province is different, and in every province there are different regions, and in every region there is difference of opinions with different ethnic groups claiming different rights and wants. Where do you suggest we draw the line?

Thanks for your continued confirmation that you indeed cannot debate in a civil manner.

Tax dollars that Quebec itself has contributed, considering it makes up a large proportion of federal revenues.

[drummindiver]

Tax dollars that Quebec itself has contributed, considering it makes up a large proportion of federal revenues.

From 2005/06 (as far back as publicly available Finance department data goes) up to the present year, Quebec has received $56.7 billion or 54 per cent of the $107.4 billion the federal government spent on equalization.

[drummindiver]

Tax dollars that Quebec itself has contributed, considering it makes up a large proportion of federal revenues.

The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services notes that Ontario taxpayers account for 39 per cent of federal tax revenues but the federal government spends only 34 per cent of its revenues in that province.

Some of that difference makes sense. A province with higher unemployment than Ontario is not likely to contribute as much, proportionally, into federal coffers. But it begs this question: are promises made by Quebec’s political class defensible when they also cost other Canadians more money?

Answer: Not likely. Let’s compare Quebec with the three main “have” provinces under the equalization formula and do so on two Quebec campaign promises: tuition rates and hiring more doctors. Also, let’s add Ontario for reasons just noted, (I’ll exclude Newfoundland for reasons of space.)

Quebec’s undergraduate tuition rates were just $2,519 this past year. That was: 38 per cent of what an Ontario student paid ($6,640); 44 per cent of the cost to a student in Alberta ($5,662); 45 per cent of what a Saskatchewan student paid ($5,601); and 52 per cent of what a B.C. student shelled out ($4,852).

On physician ratios, in 2010, British Columbia and Alberta had 213 and 211 general physicians respectively per 100,000 people; the numbers for Ontario and Saskatchewan were 189 and 169. Meanwhile, the Quebec ratio was 224 general physicians per 100,000 people.

Canadians, especially in provinces where taxpayers are net contributors to federal coffers, should pay close attention to the Quebec election. After all, they’ll be paying for a chunk of any expensive promises eventually delivered to Quebec’s voters.

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/

[drummindiver]

Tax dollars that Quebec itself has contributed, considering it makes up a large proportion of federal revenues.

OTTAWA - Canadians have given Quebec a quarter of a trillion dollars in equalization payments since 1957, half of all the money the program has handed out. Over that span of more than 50 years, Quebec has always been the biggest beneficiary, and has never been a net contributor to equalization.

When we do the math we find that Quebec has contributed about $107 billion of $510 billion since 1957. Since it has received $253 billion, it comes out $146 billion to the good, which amounts to inhabitants of the province getting back $2.36 for every dollar they've paid in. Some ripoff.

[cybercoma]

From 2005/06 (as far back as publicly available Finance department data goes) up to the present year, Quebec has received $56.7 billion or 54 per cent of the $107.4 billion the federal government spent on equalization.

How much money do Quebeckers pay in federal taxes?

[cybercoma]

Spoilers: They pay more into the pot than every other province besides Ontario.

Edited June 9, 2015 by cybercoma

[dre]

Well in this case, let's do that for Ontario? Screw the rest of Canada, let's go it alone. I am now calling for a separatist movement in Ontario. How well do you think that would be received? Let's even go as far as breaking all of Canada up. Any problem there?

OF COURSE theres no problem with that. I happen to think it would be a bad idea, but a group of people wanting political independence from another group is not a problem, and free people have the right to entertain such a notion or seek to achieve it.

Are the Americans traitors? The Scottish? The Kurds? Tibetans? Tiawaanese? Chzecknians? Are Canadians traitors for seeking political independance from the UK? How about the rest of the commonwealth? All treasonous traitors?

No... nation states are in many cases arbitrary lines established hundreds of years ago. Nobody owes them anything at all. And theres a lot of movement towards decentralization into nations of smaller distinct communities and more and more countries all the time. People dont like to be governed by people that are thousands of miles away and disconnected from the real challenges they face.

[WestCoastRunner]

It's not mean spirited. He was a traitor to Canada. But, out of curiosity, what label would you throw on Parizeau? A patriot?

I don't buy into throwing labels on people. He was exercising his rights in a democratic society as has been explained in this thread plenty of times. He's not a traitor.

[Michael Hardner]

From 2005/06 (as far back as publicly available Finance department data goes) up to the present year, Quebec has received $56.7 billion or 54 per cent of the $107.4 billion the federal government spent on equalization.

Sorry - I didn't see that called out on the page, and given that Quebec has received less than Ontario since 2011 I don't get how this is possible. Can you explain what your 54% source is ?

[cybercoma]

Sorry - I didn't see that called out on the page, and given that Quebec has received less than Ontario since 2011 I don't get how this is possible. Can you explain what your 54% source is ?

It's irrelevant. Everyone pays federal taxes. The only province that puts more into the pot than Quebec is Ontario. All of this complaining about money spent on referenda is moot. Quebec provides the second most revenues to the federal government out of all the provinces. If Quebec wants to have referenda for secession then they're entitled to do so. Like I keep saying, the alternative is referendum by bloodshed.

[eyeball]

Anyone who advocates for the break up of Canada is a traitor. We need more unity across the nation instead of this divisive mentality via geographical/provincial areas.

There is nothing wrong at all with greater local jurisdiction and autonomy if it's based on distinct bio-geographical areas like watersheds, islands etc. It makes a lot of sense in fact. Ottawa should be facilitating that instead of concentrating more power unto itself. Provincial capitals are no better.

I'd rather live in a Canada that was united around this and in lieu of it I wouldn't be bothered in the least to see the country break up. Ottawa and Victoria have had their chance to make our region a better place and AFAIC only made a mess of things - now they should either follow or just get the hell out of the way.

Edited June 10, 2015 by eyeball

[Derek 2.0]

Just heard on the radio, Giles Duceppe is coming back to lead the bloc.

Here's the link:

Radio-Canada's Daniel Thibeault reports Beaulieu consulted a pollster, who predicted the Bloc could not get more than 20 per cent of the vote in Quebec under his leadership. (It got 23 per cent in 2011, translating into only four seats.)

Under Duceppe, the pollster suggested, the party could win almost 30 per cent of the popular vote.

If a Duceppe led Bloc is able to get ~30% of the left-of-center Quebec vote, as this one pollster suggests, there goes any chance of an NDP Government, or NDP led coalition (which I believe unlikely anyways).........In 2006, the Bloc won 51 seats with ~43% of the vote.

[waldo]

If a Duceppe led Bloc is able to get ~30% of the left-of-center Quebec vote, as this one pollster suggests, there goes any chance of an NDP Government, or NDP led coalition (which I believe unlikely anyways).........In 2006, the Bloc won 51 seats with ~43% of the vote.

the respective 2006/2008/2011 Quebec BQ vote totals/percentages (from 2006/51 seats, to 2008/49 seats, to 2011/4 seats), have never been about sovereignty? The prevailing assessments are that Quebec voters presumed the BQ provincial (candidates only) party was the best party to represent the interests of Quebec... notwithstanding the simple 'protest' vote complement. And in a 2015 election, how would a 2015 "Provincial" BQ party bring any... or anymore... representation for Quebec interests? The latest 308 aggregate May voting results have the NDP @ 35.6% of the Quebec vote, with the BQ @ 16.5%... even more than the Harper Conservatives @ 16.4%.

notwithstanding you relishing anything you might presume to aid your favoured Harper Conservative party , what differences exist between a 2011 decimated BQ party led by Duceppe and a 2015 Duceppe BQ led party, particularly with Duceppe coming in 'at the last minute'? Why would Quebec voters be any more inclined to vote for a '2015 version of Duceppe'?

[Derek 2.0]

notwithstanding you relishing anything you might presume to aid your favoured Harper Conservative party , what differences exist between a 2011 decimated BQ party led by Duceppe and a 2015 Duceppe BQ led party, particularly with Duceppe coming in 'at the last minute'? Why would Quebec voters be any more inclined to vote for a '2015 version of Duceppe'?

To be honest, I haven't got a clue why......My political interest in Quebec waned in the late 80s, and since, Quebec has been a political mistress best avoided for the political right......

With that, I would assume several things that might be a factor. First, no Jack Layton, in that Duceppe might not have been disliked, just not liked as much as Layton. Inversely Mulcair could be seen as a something rotten in Denmark representing the "left" what with being a former Charest cabinet member??

Also, from an extreme left vantage, perhaps for some, today's NDP and Liberals don't respect "Quebec's values"....ie, Liberal support of C-51 and the NDP' recanting on bringing back the LGR??

One thing is certain, both the NDP and Liberals path to power is through Quebec.......a resurgent Bloc won't help their cause.

[Bryan]

I don't buy into throwing labels on people. He was exercising his rights in a democratic society as has been explained in this thread plenty of times. He's not a traitor.

Let's remember that the next time you disagree with the position of one of the posters here.

He was exercising his rights in a democratic society as has been explained in this thread plenty of times. He's not a traitor.

He tried to break up the country. It's the most clear-cut definition of a traitor as it gets.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's remember that the next time you disagree with the position of one of the posters here.

He tried to break up the country. It's the most clear-cut definition of a traitor as it gets.

As has already been pointed out earlier, his actions in no way fit any generally accepted definition of the word.