Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 He tried to break up the country. It's the most clear-cut definition of a traitor as it gets. Let me repeat for you: A traitor is someone who commits treason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitor_(disambiguation) I then quoted above, from Wiki, the Canadian definition of treason which comprises acts of violence, or of leaking secrets, neither of which Parizeau is accused of: 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. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Rue Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) The term traitor Michael H.is not limited to the legal definition in the criminal code. It's often used in language to describe someone who betrays a cause, a state or even a friend. You really want to engage people in semantics and tell them they can only use words in their strict legal sense? Is that your role now? Dictator of how we use words?Hmmmm? Do you impose that as moderator or participant? This need to make rulings on how to use a word well what is that about? More to the point you rely on wikepedia to tell you how to define treason under the Criminal Code of Canada? Get real. The word "treason" if you want to use it in its strict legal meaning has no meaning until a Judge interprets and applies it in relation to the particular circumstances of each case. There is no one size fits all definition, not even in law. By the way go fight with Merriam Webster, Cambridge,Oxford.They all have it wrong in their dictionaries. Clearly the poster and others are using it in the sense of him trying to break up the country. Edited June 10, 2015 by Rue Quote
Rue Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 West he did nothing illegal in Canadian law but to many of us his trying to break up the nation is considered an act of treason. Try understand the people accusing him of treason are not limited to Canadian law. They are using it in a subjective context. By the way in some nations what he did would get his head chopped off. Can you guess? Uh no not the US, Israel, Canada. Oh come on I will give you a hint.....could have qualified in Northern Ireland at one point, for sure in Sharia law states today, definitely in Nigeria (Biafra) Pakistan at one point (until India made it impossible for them to take back East Pakistan), oh come on now Vietnam, Korea, France, on and on. All depends on the degree of force the person calls for. Hell even in Canada Louis Riel was defined as one legally at one point. See my point? Betrayal is often called treason. That is how the word is used in ordinary language. Its narrow legal definition depends on the interpretation and application of law by a Judge matching it to the particular circumstances from the facts of each case. Its not a one size fits all definition that is designed in law to restrict its use outside law and never was. For many Parizeau was a douche. (that's French) He was a douche because he called for the breaking up of Canada, a country where many French Quebecers as well as English speaking ones died for their country in WW1, 2, Korea. He remains a traitor to me. To tell me I should have no loyalty to Canada is a crock.My father fought for Canada. Canada provided me all he freedoms and rights my ancestors could only dream of. Don't tell me betraying Canada is not treason. On the other hand, I promise I won't tell you or suggest to tell you he violated the Criminal Code and yes he never broke one law. (lol I am sure he got his speeding tickets thrown out and at one point he got in trouble for trying to bring in too many cigarettes duty free-shame) Quote
PIK Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Not only that , you have to be very careful how you use the word ''arab'' or otherwise you get called a racist. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Not only that , you have to be very careful how you use the word ''arab'' or otherwise you get called a racist. Well, yes, this should be obvious. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 The term traitor Michael H.is not limited to the legal definition in the criminal code. It's often used in language to describe someone who betrays a cause, a state or even a friend. Yes, and when we use words outside their common use, or definition it can be called out as such, which is what I did, as a poster not a facilitator. By the way, there's a new thread in the support forum for those kinds of questions which is a better place for those discussions. More to the point you rely on wikepedia to tell you how to define treason under the Criminal Code of Canada? Get real. The word "treason" if you want to use it in its strict legal meaning has no meaning until a Judge interprets and applies it in relation to the particular circumstances of each case. There is no one size fits all definition, not even in law. What a strange leap that was. From "treason can mean what I want it to mean" to "a judge may decide to interpret treason to be whatever he wants". Very odd. The fact is: words mean things. If you want to call somebody a traitor, a monster, or a birthday cake you may but people might actually question it. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Bryan Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 As has already been pointed out earlier, his actions in no way fit any generally accepted definition of the word. As has already been pointed out, his actions very specifically fit exactly the definition of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor?s=t noun 1.a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust. 2.a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Spoilers: They pay more into the pot than every other province besides Ontario. ..and get back more than any one.By a huge margin. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 As has already been pointed out, How is it a betrayal if I declare my belief that I should not be a part of the government that controls my land, my community or my nation ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 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 ? Quebec receives approx double what Ontario gets...including the years you specify .http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/equalization-payments-make-for-unequal-services-study "Quebec has been receiving equalization payments since the program was set up in 1957. It is the largest provincial beneficiary, receiving almost half of the $14.8-billion in federal transfers in 2011-2012". http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/quebec-is-like-a-social-assistance-recipient-says-new-oil-lobby-head?__lsa=9631-faa1 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/19/ontario_big_loser_in_equalization_payments_budget_watchdog_says.html "Overall, the percentage change in total transfers for fiscal year 2014-15 are: Newfoundland and Labrador (+0.5); Prince Edward Island (+4.7); Nova Scotia (+1.2); New Brunswick (+5.0); Quebec (+9.9); Ontario (-3.2); Manitoba (+0.2); Saskatchewan (+4.2); Alberta (+26.8); British Columbia (+1.0); Yukon (+4.3); Northwest Territories (+5.9); and Nunavut (+4.2)." Quote
PIK Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Well mike then that person should give up everything he gets from the government, starting with health care. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Quebec receives approx double what Ontario gets...including the years you specify... receiving almost half of the $14.8-billion in federal transfers in 2011-2012". From your own link, once again: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp 2011-2012 Total federal support to Quebec: 17,292 Total federal support to Ontario: 17,335 It's 1/2 way down the page. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) ..and get back more than any one.By a huge margin.What's your point? The equalization formula is the same for every province and the federal government has obligations to spend on things like military bases, which Quebec has several. They also have a large population than the other provinces, other than Quebec, so it makes sense that the government would spend more there. But this is all a digression from the point. Your complaint is about federal money going to referenda. My point is that that federal money IS Quebec's money. Edited June 10, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 As has already been pointed out, his actions very specifically fit exactly the definition of the word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traitor?s=t So you were able to find it in the dictionary, thats one thing. Applying it to the real world is the next thing. Quote
Big Guy Posted June 10, 2015 Author Report Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) On the question of Quebec sovereignty, I was watching a Rick Mercer Show repeat where Jann Arden was his guest. She stated: "I got a map of Canada tattooed on my ass. When I fart, Quebec separates." Not sure if that supports or opposes an independent Quebec. Edited June 10, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) From your own link, once again: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp 2011-2012 Total federal support to Quebec: 17,292 Total federal support to Ontario: 17,335 It's 1/2 way down the page. From your own link, once again: http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp 2011-2012 Total federal support to Quebec: 17,292 Total federal support to Ontario: 17,335 It's 1/2 way down the page. "And there's the matter of equalization, which is separate from transfers. Quebec has come under criticism for being the biggest beneficiary of equalization over the last five decades and never being a net contributor. Of the $510 billion splashed across the country since 1957, Quebec has received $253 billion and has contributed $107 billion, a QMI Agency probe uncovered this year. In 2012-13, the government is doling out about $15 billion in equalization, including $7.4 billion for Quebec. Quebec will contribute $2.9 billion." Edited June 10, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
Bryan Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 How is it a betrayal if I declare my belief that I should not be a part of the government that controls my land, my community or my nation ? Advocating for the break up of the country that you are a citizen of. What part of that is not fitting in your head? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 "And there's the matter of equalization, which is separate from transfers. Quebec has come under criticism for being the biggest beneficiary of equalization over the last five decades and never being a net contributor. Of the $510 billion splashed across the country since 1957, Quebec has received $253 billion and has contributed $107 billion, a QMI Agency probe uncovered this year. In 2012-13, the government is doling out about $15 billion in equalization, including $7.4 billion for Quebec. Quebec will contribute $2.9 billion." Transfer payments are only one piece of federal spending. You're only ignoring the rest of it because recognizing the total amount of revenues the government collects and the total amount of their expenses undermines your claims. Quebec is the second largest contributor to federal revenues. That's all that matters when you make the claim that the referenda are paid for by the rest of the country. They're not and further still you continue to misunderstand transfer payments as you have since you joined the forum in December and as you did from your old account before that. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 So you were able to find it in the dictionary, thats one thing. Applying it to the real world is the next thing. ..because dictionaries's don't what,define words and their meanings used in every day situations? Yes, their sole purpose is decorative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm Quote
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 Transfer payments are only one piece of federal spending. You're only ignoring the rest of it because recognizing the total amount of revenues the government collects and the total amount of their expenses undermines your claims. Quebec is the second largest contributor to federal revenues. That's all that matters when you make the claim that the referenda are paid for by the rest of the country. They're not and further still you continue to misunderstand transfer payments as you have since you joined the forum in December and as you did from your old account before that. Yes, they pay the second most. As they are the second most populous. To say they pay for referendums (referedi, referenda ?) themselves is incorrect. Quebec does not impose a referendum tax. Their taxes go in the coffers, as do ours. As a side note, CC, I will expect an apology for your flagrant lies about my joining, and about my previous account. I have used one name only while using these forums, and your flagrant personal attack is repugnant, even by your standards. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 ..because dictionaries's don't what,define words and their meanings used in every day situations? Yes, their sole purpose is decorative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm I understand the meaning of the word. Just dont see how it applies to JP. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 I will not apologize for your oversensitivity. A personal attack would be calling you names and insulting you. You have no reason to find what I said insulting. As for the topic, you've done nothing to show the cost of the referenda or anything. You simply said Quebec doesn't pay for it, yet you recognize that the cost comes from federal revenues to which Quebec contributes more than every other province but Ontario. Not sure what more needs to be said on it, your position isn't defensible. Complaining about tax money spent on referenda is a non-starter. And besides, like I've said repeatedly, if you're against the democratic route, the alternative is with guns and bombs. Quote
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I will not apologize for your oversensitivity. A personal attack would be calling you names and insulting you. You have no reason to find what I said insulting. As for the topic, you've done nothing to show the cost of the referenda or anything. You simply said Quebec doesn't pay for it, yet you recognize that the cost comes from federal revenues to which Quebec contributes more than every other province but Ontario. Not sure what more needs to be said on it, your position isn't defensible. Complaining about tax money spent on referenda is a non-starter. And besides, like I've said repeatedly, if you're against the democratic route, the alternative is with guns and bombs. As I've said repeatedly, and to which dictionaries also say, is that anyone looking to usurp your country is a traitor. Obviously you have no clue how tax revenues are divided up, or you would not make the claim we don't help support referendums. Your referenda is incorrect, btw. As to your flagrant lies about my previous persona on this forum, you are placing prejudices on me based on your false assumptions, then passing them off as fact. I don't think taking umbrage by false accusations is being sensitive. edit spelling Edited June 10, 2015 by drummindiver Quote
drummindiver Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 I understand the meaning of the word. Just dont see how it applies to JP. You said you were glad he found it in the dictionary. You then said it didn't equate to use in the real world. You did not, however, argue the validity of the definition. Which is what JP is. Quote
overthere Posted June 10, 2015 Report Posted June 10, 2015 I will not apologize for your oversensitivity. A personal attack would be calling you names and insulting you. You have no reason to find what I said insulting. As for the topic, you've done nothing to show the cost of the referenda or anything. You simply said Quebec doesn't pay for it, yet you recognize that the cost comes from federal revenues to which Quebec contributes more than every other province but Ontario. Not sure what more needs to be said on it, your position isn't defensible. Complaining about tax money spent on referenda is a non-starter. And besides, like I've said repeatedly, if you're against the democratic route, the alternative is with guns and bombs. as in our personal lives/finances, the net is more important than the gross. On that basis, Quebec has done very well indeed from our fiscal system. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.