Honoring A Traitor, Jaques Parizeau

[cybercoma]

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.

And you've not proven anything. Even if you did, my point has been over and over again in this thread that Parizeau sought a democratic means for Quebec's wish for independence. The alternative was war. That you would call someone who avoided a war and looked to settle things in a peaceful way a "traitor" is overly dramatic.

But then again....

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

Overly dramatic appears to be your "thing."

[drummindiver]

And you've not proven anything. Even if you did, my point has been over and over again in this thread that Parizeau sought a democratic means for Quebec's wish for independence. The alternative was war. That you would call someone who avoided a war and looked to settle things in a peaceful way a "traitor" is overly dramatic.

But then again....

Overly dramatic appears to be your "thing."

...and ad hominem yours.

Separatism or war? And you call me dramatic?

[drummindiver]

And you've not proven anything. Even if you did, my point has been over and over again in this thread that Parizeau sought a democratic means for Quebec's wish for independence. The alternative was war. That you would call someone who avoided a war and looked to settle things in a peaceful way a "traitor" is overly dramatic.

But then again....

Overly dramatic appears to be your "thing."

The main flaw in your argument is "Quebec's wish for independance".

Voted on democratically, they have said no. Twice.

My question is, as ever was, how many times do we have to ask the question?

Until whomever gets the answer they want?

And again, at what cost? You say there is no cost, that Quebec itself pays the bill.

I disagree.

To continually have our country in a state of flux, as JP did, is detrimental to our country.

Edited June 10, 2015 by drummindiver

[cybercoma]

The main flaw in your argument is "Quebec's wish for independance".

Voted on democratically, they have said no. Twice.

My question is, as ever was, how many times do we have to ask the question?

Why are you even concerned? The question hasn't been asked for 20 years. Did you know that "lifetime" warranties are typically 20 to 25 years long?

[Michael Hardner]

Advocating for the break up of the country that you are a citizen of. What part of that is not fitting in your head?

The betrayal part. If I promised to you that I would never ever do that, and I did it anyway then maybe you would have a point. The idea that you're supposed to be loyal to a foreign government because you were born within their borders is a strange one.

I am happy to know the people I'm loyal to personally. I'm also loyal to ideas, if that's a thing.

[drummindiver]

The betrayal part. If I promised to you that I would never ever do that, and I did it anyway then maybe you would have a point. The idea that you're supposed to be loyal to a foreign government because you were born within their borders is a strange one.

I am happy to know the people I'm loyal to personally. I'm also loyal to ideas, if that's a thing.

Sorry, maybe I missed something?

Loyalty to a foreign government because you are born within their borders? Does that not imply they are not then a foreign government?

Loyalty to Canada because you were born here shouldn't be strange. (I could go OT here, but I'll refrain).

[Michael Hardner]

Loyalty to a foreign government because you are born within their borders? Does that not imply they are not then a foreign government?

I don't think so.

[August1991]

He stated not long ago separation was still achievable, and that public funds should be utilized to do this.

State money to decimate the state.

State funeral for a person looking to decimate the state.

Talk about hypocrisy.

You claim that Parizeau is a traitor to the "State". But who gets to define what is the "State"? You?

===

The Canadian State has changed several times over the past few centuries. Heck, Parizeau was not even leading a violent mob to create a new State through revolution. (Trudeau, OTOH, managed to change our constitution without critical minority support.)

Edited June 10, 2015 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Americans are traitors too, and I guess they should never be forgiven. If/When they invade us we will have to pledge to the stars and bars immediately or WE will then be traitors.

Right ?

[cybercoma]

The betrayal part. If I promised to you that I would never ever do that, and I did it anyway then maybe you would have a point. The idea that you're supposed to be loyal to a foreign government because you were born within their borders is a strange one.

I am happy to know the people I'm loyal to personally. I'm also loyal to ideas, if that's a thing.

People are also fundamentally misunderstanding federalism. Each province shares sovereignty with the federal government. That's why they each have their own Crown.

[Bryan]

The betrayal part. If I promised to you that I would never ever do that, and I did it anyway then maybe you would have a point. The idea that you're supposed to be loyal to a foreign government because you were born within their borders is a strange one.

I am happy to know the people I'm loyal to personally. I'm also loyal to ideas, if that's a thing.

He was a citizen of the country. He doesn't have to make any promises.

There is plenty of room for you to care or not care that he betrayed the country, for sure, but the fact that he did betray the country is not a matter of opinion, it's objective fact.

[On Guard for Thee]

He was a citizen of the country. He doesn't have to make any promises.

There is plenty of room for you to care or not care that he betrayed the country, for sure, but the fact that he did betray the country is not a matter of opinion, it's objective fact.

Its totally subjective and if you wish to prove otherwise show us were the definition of the word describes what was done that confirms such a conclusion.

[drummindiver]

Americans are traitors too, and I guess they should never be forgiven. If/When they invade us we will have to pledge to the stars and bars immediately or WE will then be traitors.

Right ?

Michael, you are stretching.

If/when we get invaded is not the same.

We did not invade and conquer Quebec. They joined confederation. They are therefore Canadian. If we are overtaken by the American hordes, we are still Canadian.

And to say Americans are traitors? Traitors to whom? England?

Because they fought over land?

[cybercoma]

Michael, you are stretching.

If/when we get invaded is not the same.

We did not invade and conquer Quebec. They joined confederation. They are therefore Canadian. If we are overtaken by the American hordes, we are still Canadian.

And to say Americans are traitors? Traitors to whom? England?

Because they fought over land?

You need to go back further than that.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/durham-report/

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, you are stretching.

If/when we get invaded is not the same.

We did not invade and conquer Quebec. They joined confederation. They are therefore Canadian. If we are overtaken by the American hordes, we are still Canadian.

And to say Americans are traitors? Traitors to whom? England?

Because they fought over land?

Yes, this was New France and they were defeated on something called The Plains of Abraham.

Yes, traitors to England.

Yes.

You could follow your definition, or you could start out with your "gut feeling" then work backwards to devise rules that make you right in the end.

[drummindiver]

Yes, this was New France and they were defeated on something called The Plains of Abraham.

Yes, traitors to England.

Yes.

You could follow your definition, or you could start out with your "gut feeling" then work backwards to devise rules that make you right in the end.

How were they traitors to England?

This wasn't Englands' land. I thought it was FN's?

Anyways, they didn't invade England, did they.

And the Battle of the Plains of Abraham happened what, little over a hundred years before Canada became a country. What's your point with that?

[cybercoma]

How were they traitors to England?

This wasn't Englands' land. I thought it was FN's?

Anyways, they didn't invade England, did they.

And the Battle of the Plains of Abraham happened what, little over a hundred years before Canada became a country. What's your point with that?

The point is that Canadian history didn't start in 1867.

[Michael Hardner]

How were they traitors to England?

This wasn't Englands' land. I thought it was FN's?

Then how could Parizeau be a traitor if it's FN land ? I'm exploring your moral systems here, not mine.

Anyways, they didn't invade England, did they.

No, nor was Quebec going to invade Canada. They were going to separate, just as America did.

And the Battle of the Plains of Abraham happened what, little over a hundred years before Canada became a country. What's your point with that?

They were conquered, so they weren't given the choice to be independent, and now we're back where we started.

I think we can see that the idea of being a 'traitor' is a little more complex than you thought.

[dre]

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 ?

It isnt. Not in any way.

[drummindiver]

"Then how could Parizeau be a traitor if it's FN land ? I'm exploring your moral systems here, not mine."

Is it still FN's land?

btw, the Cree voted, I believe almost 94%, to remain in Canada. That's a huge portion of Northern Quebec. What would the separatists have done, invaded them?

"No, nor was Quebec going to invade Canada. They were going to separate, just as America did."

America was going to separate from what? Canada that didn't exist at the time?

"They were conquered, so they weren't given the choice to be independent, and now we're back where we started."

France surrendered, and ceded their holdings (except for a few parts...Quebec not being one of them). Again, over a hundred years before we became Canada. Sorry, that's what happens in war, especially back then. Are you suggesting that because France lost a war in the 1700's that ppl can say they aren't part of Canada now?

Treaty of Paris, 1763...

Article IV of the treaty allowed Roman Catholicism to be practised in Canada.^[21]George III agreed to allow Catholicism within the laws of Great Britain. In this period, British laws included various Test Acts to prevent governmental, judicial, and bureaucratic appointments from going to Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics were believed to be agents of the Jacobite Pretenders to the throne, who normally resided in France supported by the French regime.^[22] This was relaxed in Quebec to some degree, but top positions like governorships were still held by Anglicans.^[21]

Article IV has also been cited as the basis for Quebec often having its unique set of laws that are different from the rest of Canada. There was a general constitutional principle in the United Kingdom to allow colonies taken through conquest to continue their own laws.^[23] This was limited by royal prerogative, and the monarch could still choose to change the accepted laws in a conquered colony.^[23] However, the treaty eliminated this power because by a different constitutional principle, terms of a treaty were considered paramount.^[23] In practice, Roman Catholics could become jurors in inferior courts in Quebec and argue based on principles of French law.^[24] However, the judge was British and his opinion on French law could be limited or hostile.^[24] If the case was appealed to a superior court, neither French law nor Roman Catholic jurors were allowed.^[25]

Many French residents of what are now Canada's Maritime provinces, called Acadians, were deported during the Great Expulsion (1755–63). After the signing of the peace treaty guaranteed some rights to Roman Catholics, some Acadians returned to Canada. However, they were no longer welcome in English Nova Scotia.^[26] They were forced into New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province today as a result of that relocation.^[27]

The French people of Quebec felt great betrayal at the French concession. Commander-in-Chief of the British Jeffrey Amherst noted that, "Many of the Canadians consider their Colony to be of utmost consequence to France & cannot be convinced … that their Country has been conceded to Great Britain

"I think we can see that the idea of being a 'traitor' is a little more complex than you thought."

No, it is not. Being a traitor is not contingent upon distant history. Parizeau was born into modern Canada, with our boundaries. What he did may have been LEGAL, but it's end game was still the destruction of present day Canada. Therefore, traitor.

[Michael Hardner]

"Then how could Parizeau be a traitor if it's FN land ? I'm exploring your moral systems here, not mine."

Is it still FN's land?

That's for you to answer.

America was going to separate from what? Canada that didn't exist at the time?

England. ( They succeeded. )

France surrendered, and ceded their holdings (except for a few parts...Quebec not being one of them). Again, over a hundred years before we became Canada. Sorry, that's what happens in war, especially back then. Are you suggesting that because France lost a war in the 1700's that ppl can say they aren't part of Canada now?

I'm not saying anything - it's YOUR definitions we're looking at here.

You've asked a lot of questions but not answered any. Will you start answering them now ? I have answered enough.

No, it is not. Being a traitor is not contingent upon distant history. Parizeau was born into modern Canada, with our boundaries. What he did may have been LEGAL, but it's end game was still the destruction of present day Canada. Therefore, traitor.

So the Americans are/were traitors then. Ok.

[drummindiver]

"Then how could Parizeau be a traitor if it's FN land ? I'm exploring your moral systems here, not mine."

I've answered all questions, some rhetorically.

"My moral system" is not what we are exploring, but let me elucidate.

I am a proud Canadian. I try to do no harm to ppl or animals. I don't cheat on my significant other or my taxes. I believe ppl that try to usurp Canada are traitors.