Jump to content

Quebec 101 bashing


myata

Recommended Posts

On 12/15/2021 at 6:29 PM, QuebecOverCanada said:

Montreal is Québec land and is French speaking.

And by the way you can have Gatineau. We offer it to you.

I'm pretty sure your version of Quebec is not going to look like the separated Quebec, there has already been many discussions over all of this separation BS, English Canada would be crazy if it allowed Quebec to isolate the Atlantic , which means as already discussed last referendum a corridor between  provinces linking Ontario with the Atlantic region, it would also mean that all indigenous lands be ceded to the federal government. 

Besides Quebec has been given vast chunks of lands in the north to preside over because it was convent, that land is not Quebec but Canada's. What is it you think your entitled to ? and what do you think Canada is willing to concede to...are to different things. And while Justin may give you the keys to the store, others may not be so willing. 

History has clearly shown separation of countries rarely ends well, by that i mean normally it ends with civil war, my question is what does Quebec bring to the table in regards to military units or equipment... That could not be quickly over come... The last time this happened not all French speaking units where on Quebec's side of things...a full 1/3 of French units or more are from English Canada serving in French units to learn the language by submerging themselves into it via Quebec.. And to be honest their are some French Canadians serving in English units. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ignorance is bliss" - Cypher (Matrix)

 

 

On 12/15/2021 at 10:44 AM, ironstone said:

At that time years ago when the Taliban were forced out in Afghanistan, do you remember seeing the images of so many women thrilled to not be forced to wear the burka anymore? The burka was still present during those years but it wasn't as bad as under Taliban rule.

No. You are avoiding the context. Even if the Talibans were not having the power, it was still dangerous for women to not wear it. The mentalities did not totally disappeared right away. Compare this as if you are a woman wearing a very short tight skirt in the most dangerous place of New York city. Although it is legal to do it, it is most likely possible that there would be no police officer to make sure the law is still respected and applied. Also, when a woman is forced to wear something like that for so long, it has psychological effects that can last even if the obligation is gone. It removes their confidence, their security feeling and their "pudeur" (I do not how to translate that one... modesty? decency?). Basically, even if they are officially free, they are not inside their head, not ready for this. When you see your sisters, cousins, friends getting raped and killed for many years just because they are not wearing, nor not wearing it well, it kinda mark you for quite a while.

 

 

 

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 12:19 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

The best way to protest Bill 21 would be for all of the teachers, men and women, to show up for work wearing a hijab. Is the government going to remove them all from teaching?

You definitely do not understand what is going here. The huge majority of people are in favor of this law. Otherwise, that law wouldn't exist.  Plus, we know it's a setup. The only one that is doing discrimination here, is the religion. She can work without that religious symbol. Therefore, the problem is the religion, or to be more precise, that version of that religion. The majority of Muslims here agree with the law. Many other countries, either Europeans or Africans, do have more severe laws. Your conception of the place of the religion and the secularism is very anglo-centered.

Quote

It shows solidarity. If you discriminate against one of us, you discriminate against all of us. It would be even better if everyone who opposed Bill 21, wore an hijab, a cross and a Star of David, not just teachers.

You really don't get it. They would score in their own net.  The role of secularism and religion are different in Quebec.

Quote

Freedom of Religion is the most important freedom we have.

Look, I will explain it to you. Open your mind and pay attention. I am not saying that to convince you of my opinion. Just to help you figure out how it works here.

Freedom of religion is also important in Québec. Anyone is free to choose and practice the religion of its choice. The difference with french and english Canada, is the coverage of the practice of a religion. For us, the place of the religion is only in the field of spirituality. If your religion tells you to wear this and that, you are 100% sure that the society will not bother you if you are in a cult location or in a context of private life. But if you are working or playing a role for the public, it is different. You are not in a context of private life. You are out of the scope of the spirituality. No matter what your god thinks, if we say that you cannot wear a religious symbol during a sport game, or during your work, or while attending a public school, then you can't. Your god is not above our society. This is the major difference between us. Because you see the religion above everything, while we keep it within the scope of spirituality and private life. Now you see why secularism is important to us. It's two different fundamental visions. I think it is ok to disagree. I totally disagree with your vision but, I respect your choice. 

Quote

It is a question of modesty.

I do not think you understand how violent this phrase is. It means women have to be modest, otherwise the men are justified to do whatever they want. Women have to step down and accept their inferiority and their fate. That is exactly what this "modesty" is all about.

Edited by Benz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2021 at 3:29 PM, suds said:

In 2017, the Quebec liberals pass Bill 62 which required government service workers (when dealing with  the public) to have faces uncovered. It also required the public (when dealing with those same government workers) to uncover theirs as well.  In 2019, the CAQ pass Bill 21 (basically an extension of Bill 62) to ban the wearing of religious symbols in most public sectors. 

No. It is the opposite. In only few public sector. Police, Judge, Teacher and Prison guard. That's it. Any other job, private or public are not involved. Only jobs in position of authority. If you want to know what is going on in french canada, do not feed on english medias.

Quote

While Bill 62 is disproportionately aimed at one religion, Bill 21 is aimed at all religions and although somewhat less discriminatory is far more reaching in scope.  2/3 of Quebec citizens support Bill 21 and would have to assume that number includes a large number of school teachers as well. I see nothing wrong with wearing a hijab (headscarf in particular, or as long as the face is showing) or the wearing of religious symbols if kept to a certain number and size. 

You are more arbitrary than us. :D

Quote

My opinion is that while Bill 62 makes a certain amount of sense, Bill 21 is a perfect example of government overreach.

Again, you flirt with arbitrary. Take it from another angle. What is the goal here. It's to make sure that the person in position of authority is impartial. There are no existing way that we can assure that it won't happen with people not wearing symbols. However, we are 100% sure that will happen with people that refuse to remove its symbol. If you are that much indoctrinated that you are ready to sacrifice your entire career for a religious symbol, it is then 100% sure that if you are place into a situation where you have a conflict with the rules of the society and the rules of your religion, you will choose the side of your religion. It is against secularism and that is why bill 21 exists.

It is a matter a perception. We have nothing against people wearing a religious symbol, the problem lies with those who CAN'T remove it. We just do not want that people that CANNOT remove their symbol, to NOT be placed in situation of authority.

The bill has no discrimination. Anyone from any religion can do the job, without the symbol. The discrimination comes from the other way around. It's specific religion versions that forbid their own people to not do the job. These are the facts.

Quote

Trying to balance freedom of religion with the idea of 'laicite' which implies a 'secular state' or 'neutral state' can be a tricky one. So is trying to balance freedom of religion with our idea of equality between the sexes. Trying to be respectful of all religions and beliefs especially when they conflict can be next to impossible at times. 

See it from another angle again. The religion organisation is one thing, the people believing in it, is something else. No matter what religion you believe in, I must respect you and your belief. I do not need to agree, I may think god does not exist, it does not matter. Every one must respect any one's belief. However, what I think of a religion, is all free game. I can say whatever I want about a religion. No matter how cruel my opinion is. As long as I respect the people who believe in it.

Quote

The Quebec government claims that one of the reasons for Bill 21 (not to mention incorporating it into the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was to avoid lawsuits.

No. Maybe you are refering to the withnonstanding clause?

Quote

In my opinion i can see the law applying to such individuals as police officers and judges.  In other words, those who are given the power of using coercion over others. I personally don't see where teachers fit into all this.

Although it is not handle in the criminal law, it is not allowed for a teacher to have sex with a student even if that student is major, 18+. Why? Because the teacher is in position of authority. As simple as this. For the very same principle, teachers must not wear such symbol. Teachers are in position of authority and children are easy to influence. We must make sure the teacher is able to draw a line between its religious rules and the society's rules... and of course, choose the rules of the society, even if it is against its belief. If you can't remove your symbol, you can't make the right decision once you face such conflict.

Edited by Benz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'm pretty sure your version of Quebec is not going to look like the separated Quebec, there has already been many discussions over all of this separation BS, English Canada would be crazy if it allowed Quebec to isolate the Atlantic , which means as already discussed last referendum a corridor between  provinces linking Ontario with the Atlantic region, it would also mean that all indigenous lands be ceded to the federal government. 

Over my dead body. It doesn't work like that. I know you guys still think you OWN them, but you don't. Quebec treats its natives differently. For us, they are nations. Not your nations. The federal is not legitimated to interfere and we will not accept that.

Quote

Besides Quebec has been given vast chunks of lands in the north to preside over because it was convent, that land is not Quebec but Canada's. What is it you think your entitled to ? and what do you think Canada is willing to concede to...are to different things. And while Justin may give you the keys to the store, others may not be so willing. 

Quebec has created Canada along with NB, NS and Ontario. Not the other way around. Once we are sovereign, the federal can't do anything. We are going to ask the other provinces, do you accept that the federal talks under your name? If the provinces say yes, the the federal will represent the interests of the province. End of the story.

Quote

History has clearly shown separation of countries rarely ends well, by that i mean normally it ends with civil war, my question is what does Quebec bring to the table in regards to military units or equipment... That could not be quickly over come... The last time this happened not all French speaking units where on Quebec's side of things...a full 1/3 of French units or more are from English Canada serving in French units to learn the language by submerging themselves into it via Quebec.. And to be honest their are some French Canadians serving in English units. 

You definitely do not measure how laughable Canada's army (english and french) is in this world. The first ones to jump into the bandwagon will be those have interests to create instability so near of USA and the last thing the Americans  want, is a bloody conflict just next to its border. If a violent conflict occurs, here are the steps to come:

1) USA tells Canada to F--- --F and let it go. No war next to my back yard. Then the canadian's prime minister will pee in his pants first, then sign up peace and a reasonable sepatation deal with Quebec. Not because they like us, they don't give a ---- about us. They just don't want to get the whole international community's attention in their neighborhood. They are ending few international conflicts right now because they want to focus on the next biggest explosive one, Asia. 

2) If no one understands the message, USA will just conquer all of us in no time and put a s--- load of effort and time spending to make it diplomatically acceptable to the rest of the world. "We did not want them to kill each others, so we conquered them". And then European countries and few others will want some garanties, as an hypocrite way to stick up their noses into our politics.

If you take the path of violence, there no other scenario. Just to see you thinking that you may play this game and the kind of outcome you expect, shows how much you are nothing but just a joke.

Among all the possible scenarios of an after winning YES, the only scenario that scares me, is this last one. I am definitely not afraid of a little beaver like you playing king of the hill . But the big southern neighbor, it's a different story. It's definitely not in my wish list to become an American. No offense to them personally, it's the values and the way their society works. That's why even though I want independance, I'd rather be very negociable with Canada.

Edited by Benz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please try to argue that allowing to expose children to gender-specific face covering (I don't mean a reasonable head scarf) is not exposing them to extreme gender bias, continuously and possibly, for years? Extreme because men just never seen with it, ever it is as binary as it gets.

So, you're arguing equality while allowing extreme gender bias in education, from the earliest age before they could understand and make sense of it? How much logic and common sense in this argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 6:51 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Oh gosh...let's deal in hypotheticals.

:D

I figured we'd be in silver spacesuits on the the Moon by now.

We would probably see men and women living on Mars already if it were not for all of those evil satanic get rich schemes globalists bankster billionaires that were responsible for starting the many dozens of small and big wars that we have been living with for so many years. The trillions of taxpayer's tax dollars that have been blown on wars could have been better spent and used to help fight poverty and hunger. 

From covid to climate change to wars, it has been the billionaire bankster cabal class of morons that have made every humans life on earth miserable as hell. I may start to sound like a am a socialist here but maybe it is high time to end people who can amass billions and are able to use those billions to influence our useless politicians and the media to help create more poverty, hunger and wars. 

😷

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 5:43 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

I loved ol' Rene.

Avez-vous une cigarette 

Possibly the best politician Canada has ever had.

First he fooled the separatists into thinking he agreed with them, all to have the ability to bring about the social change he wanted 

But just for campaign financing he should be lauded 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

In our "French" class, the teacher was a mean, haughty young lady from Quebec, who liked to wear a leather skirt. Madame Pfife. She did not speak English particularly well. She would yell at us for saying things incorrectly.

Called me an "idyote" on more than one occasion.

That's because the best francophones are Acadian,  hahahahaha

But seriously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'm pretty sure your version of Quebec is not going to look like the separated Quebec. 

They don't really want to be separate, the only actual proposition that came out of the PQ (Bouchard during the 95 referendum)still expected to to keep Canadian currency, military and infrastructure payments,  the words they use are souveraineté association

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 2:00 AM, Benz said:

Over my dead body. It doesn't work like that. I know you guys still think you OWN them, but you don't. Quebec treats its natives differently. For us, they are nations. Not your nations. The federal is not legitimated to interfere and we will not accept that.

 

We have had this discussion more than once, but reality is this,  First nations are a federal responsibility period, have they done a good job f*** no, they suck at it. This has nothing to do with your dead body.... But it does not change anything on any side...Do you think they would give up any of it's treaty rights, to join the new Quebec. and what is the plan for those that do not want to join the new Quebec ?

Quote

Quebec has created Canada along with NB, NS and Ontario. Not the other way around. Once we are sovereign, the federal can't do anything. We are going to ask the other provinces, do you accept that the federal talks under your name? If the provinces say yes, the the federal will represent the interests of the province. End of the story.

Hey i have said in the past Quebec is as Canadian as any other province, and without it Canada would cease to be whole and would end up with dozens of new countries... You give the provinces to much power, and credit,  It is the Federal government that owns the resources required to "force" change... And regardless of whether you become sovereign or not There will need to be a full discussion agreed by both sides to many things , currency, borders, First nations, St Lawrence sea way and many more, and if they can not find compromise in political talks, then it comes down to finding a solution by military means. I don't make the rules here, but i have been to dozens of countries that have separated and broke into violence...we do not want to go that way trust me.  

Quote

You definitely do not measure how laughable Canada's army (english and french) is in this world. The first ones to jump into the bandwagon will be those have interests to create instability so near of USA and the last thing the Americans  want, is a bloody conflict just next to its border. If a violent conflict occurs, here are the steps to come:

Me and you can talk for days about how combat effective our military is or is not, and while it is not capable of waging war with a near peer, or even a well equipped 3 rd world army, it is capable of over running Quebec in the matter of days...The US is not going to interfere in any internal conflict, as long as it stays conventional and does not interfer with any US interests including trade. It may harden it's borders , but this is not going to be a protracted conflict that is for sure. You might of misread the US intentions or how far they are willing to go...and who's side they will support. 

Quote

) USA tells Canada to F--- --F and let it go. No war next to my back yard. Then the canadian's prime minister will pee in his pants first, then sign up peace and a reasonable sepatation deal with Quebec. Not because they like us, they don't give a ---- about us. They just don't want to get the whole international community's attention in their neighborhood. They are ending few international conflicts right now because they want to focus on the next biggest explosive one, Asia. 

Well that is going to depend on the President of the US is it not, remember the last Separation vote in which US airforce personal took procession of Canadian F-18 that were suppose to be on exercise in the US ordered there by YUP our PM, as well as most of the 5 th Brigade sent to new York state just prior to the vote...the US also restricted them to the base.

And your right they do not give a rats ass about what happens up here, nor would they want to get involved in any military actions we had, and if they did just what side do you think they would be involved with...Nor do they give a shit what the inter national community thinks about them or what is happening in our yard...unless it spilled over the border , not going to happen...I mean in reality dealing with our conflict would not even exceed calling out their national guard. 

Quote

2) If no one understands the message, USA will just conquer all of us in no time and put a s--- load of effort and time spending to make it diplomatically acceptable to the rest of the world. "We did not want them to kill each others, so we conquered them". And then European countries and few others will want some garanties, as an hypocrite way to stick up their noses into our politics.

Again the US does not care about what others think including the EU. as for Canada's sake i think this would be a much better outcome, we have already proven we are to divided to make this nation work. I would not bet on the US taking any military action against Canada, unless it was out of control...so don't count on the big guy saving Quebec any time soon. 

Quote

f you take the path of violence, there no other scenario. Just to see you thinking that you may play this game and the kind of outcome you expect, shows how much you are nothing but just a joke.

Once again this is not me, doing anything, this is me see dozens of other nations that took the same route and failed, more like 95 % and some how you think because we are Canadians that is not going to happen. There would have to be a whole lot of compromise on both sides before anything happened. But as you keep saying there will not be any compromise, then don't even bother to come to the table, as there is only one other option that is conflict...The last thing i want is to have war touch Canada, i have already seen what the results are...and we don't want to go there, but there are 2 options diplomatic or via the military, that is how government solves problems... You seem to think that we as a nation are above all that shit, but we are not even close... 

Quote

Among all the possible scenarios of an after winning YES, the only scenario that scares me, is this last one. I am definitely not afraid of a little beaver like you playing king of the hill . But the big southern neighbor, it's a different story. It's definitely not in my wish list to become an American. No offense to them personally, it's the values and the way their society works. That's why even though I want independence, I'd rather be very negotiable with Canada.

Let me be clear there is no winning for either side regardless of the outcome, not for Quebec or Rest of Canada, yes you will have your own nation, and Canada for the most part will be divided in 2 for a short period of time.. 

It is not me you have to worry about my friend, the last thing i want is to fight other Canadians over what i think is not the best option  i think that is pretty much the same opinion as the ROC, my balls are not any bigger than yours, and while your not afraid of Canada's military members, they should pause you for a minute, to rethink any military options, they are some of the best trained soldiers in the world with a full 1/3 of them with combat experience...not many untrained forces stand a chance with those odds. Thats not me puffing up my English chest because i think Quebecor's are weak they do after all come from the same stock as i do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 6:05 PM, SkyHigh said:

Interestingly enough most of the territory north of Québec city is federal land that was "given" to the province via a long term lease 

I request a copy of that "lease". 🙄 

The reality is, the federal divided Rupert's land and give it to the existing provinces no lease. It's now part of the integrity of the provinces.

Quote

They don't really want to be separate, the only actual proposition that came out of the PQ (Bouchard during the 95 referendum)still expected to to keep Canadian currency, military and infrastructure payments,  the words they use are souveraineté association

It was the proposition for the short term. Of course, if the outcome of negotiations turn out otherwise, we would not insist. The sovereignty project did not depend on it.

Although a majority of Québécois wants sovereignty, alot of sovereignists are open for partnership. Again, if possible. The actual EU is an important example of that. Not necessarily the exact scenario we wanted but, something like that. Since the beginning, Quebec is more in favor of a confederacy type of federalism rather than a centralized federal system as of now. Of course, if the ROC has no interest for it, total separation prevails. That was the official position of the PQ. "We are going to offer it, but they want it, then no deal, just split off."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 1:01 PM, Army Guy said:

We have had this discussion more than once, but reality is this,  First nations are a federal responsibility period, have they done a good job f*** no, they suck at it. This has nothing to do with your dead body.... But it does not change anything on any side...Do you think they would give up any of it's treaty rights, to join the new Quebec. and what is the plan for those that do not want to join the new Quebec ?

Do you think Quebec would offer them less than the federal actually does? Quebec has given the Cree more than ever gave. The federal never wanted to consider them as real nations and never wanted to talk with them as a nation. Therefore, they cannot pretend to be talking for them. Because they don't even recognize them and still think they can own them.  If they would have signed some sort of sovereignty recognition and territory concession, then the natives might have something to lose. But it's not the case. Ottawa is making it pretty easy for Quebec to separate and bring the natives with them. The deals are not difficult to match up. Since Canada is also one of the only 4 states that refuses to sign up the UN's aboriginal convention, they would be in a very bad position to go and cry a river at the international community.

 

Quote

Hey i have said in the past Quebec is as Canadian as any other province, and without it Canada would cease to be whole and would end up with dozens of new countries... You give the provinces to much power, and credit,  It is the Federal government that owns the resources required to "force" change... And regardless of whether you become sovereign or not There will need to be a full discussion agreed by both sides to many things , currency, borders, First nations, St Lawrence sea way and many more, and if they can not find compromise in political talks, then it comes down to finding a solution by military means. I don't make the rules here, but i have been to dozens of countries that have separated and broke into violence...we do not want to go that way trust me.  

Good, then there will be real negotiations this time. Not like the last ones where English Canada can slam the door in the face of Quebec and get away with it. With a mandate of sovereignty from its population, Quebec will be able to negotiation on common basis with Canada.

Quote

Me and you can talk for days about how combat effective our military is or is not, and while it is not capable of waging war with a near peer, or even a well equipped 3 rd world army, it is capable of over running Quebec in the matter of days...The US is not going to interfere in any internal conflict, as long as it stays conventional and does not interfer with any US interests including trade. It may harden it's borders , but this is not going to be a protracted conflict that is for sure. You might of misread the US intentions or how far they are willing to go...and who's side they will support. 

As I said, the last thing the USA want, is an open conflict on its northem border. They won't interfere, to make sure it doesn't give any idea to anyone else to do so as well. But they will interfere is someone else is doing so. They will do whatever they think must be done to make sure negotiations are going well and get solved asap.

Quote

Well that is going to depend on the President of the US is it not, remember the last Separation vote in which US airforce personal took procession of Canadian F-18 that were suppose to be on exercise in the US ordered there by YUP our PM, as well as most of the 5 th Brigade sent to new York state just prior to the vote...the US also restricted them to the base.

And your right they do not give a rats ass about what happens up here, nor would they want to get involved in any military actions we had, and if they did just what side do you think they would be involved with...Nor do they give a shit what the inter national community thinks about them or what is happening in our yard...unless it spilled over the border , not going to happen...I mean in reality dealing with our conflict would not even exceed calling out their national guard. 

So, bottom line, military conflicts won't occur.

Quote

Again the US does not care about what others think including the EU. as for Canada's sake i think this would be a much better outcome, we have already proven we are to divided to make this nation work. I would not bet on the US taking any military action against Canada, unless it was out of control...so don't count on the big guy saving Quebec any time soon. 

I never said that. USA always think of its best interests first... or should I say, USA only think about its best interests.

Quote

Once again this is not me, doing anything, this is me see dozens of other nations that took the same route and failed, more like 95 % and some how you think because we are Canadians that is not going to happen. There would have to be a whole lot of compromise on both sides before anything happened. But as you keep saying there will not be any compromise, then don't even bother to come to the table, as there is only one other option that is conflict...The last thing i want is to have war touch Canada, i have already seen what the results are...and we don't want to go there, but there are 2 options diplomatic or via the military, that is how government solves problems... You seem to think that we as a nation are above all that shit, but we are not even close... 

One thing for sure, the negotiations won't be easy and will last longer than we would like. I am not saying that it can't end up bad, it will always be a possibility. But I have been thinking about it more than once and I fail to see a point where it would be an advantage for one side to go for violence rather than trying to negotiate. Even among the most radical ones, there is nothing that is worth to go there.

Quote

Let me be clear there is no winning for either side regardless of the outcome, not for Quebec or Rest of Canada, yes you will have your own nation, and Canada for the most part will be divided in 2 for a short period of time.. 

It is not me you have to worry about my friend, the last thing i want is to fight other Canadians over what i think is not the best option  i think that is pretty much the same opinion as the ROC, my balls are not any bigger than yours, and while your not afraid of Canada's military members, they should pause you for a minute, to rethink any military options, they are some of the best trained soldiers in the world with a full 1/3 of them with combat experience...not many untrained forces stand a chance with those odds. Thats not me puffing up my English chest because i think Quebecor's are weak they do after all come from the same stock as i do...

You bring it down to the individuals. I am not saying I am not afraid of a very well trained soldier who would attack me. I am saying that I am not afraid he would attack me. The army wouldn't fire the trigger even if the most anti-Quebecois would be sitting on the Prime Minister's seat. The October crisis did not end up well for Trudeau and the Québécois became fearless of the federal after that. It had the exact opposite effect than he was looking for. Politicians are sometimes stupid but, they are bright enough to figure out that the more you are violent toward another nation, the more your justify its sovereignty and freedom.

There is a possible scenario that could happen. The other provinces will be more than interested with an option Quebec will propose and they will tear down the federal to replace it with less centralized system. Ottawa always managed to avoid this by using the other provinces against Quebec but, Quebec was not sovereign. If Quebec is sovereign, it's a major game changer in the context. I wouldn't bet on that, but it is a possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Benz said:

1.   Do you think Quebec would offer them less than the federal actually does? Quebec has given the Cree more than ever gave. The federal never wanted to consider them as real nations and never wanted to talk with them as a nation. Therefore, they cannot pretend to be talking for them. Because they don't even recognize them and still think they can own them.  If they would have signed some sort of sovereignty recognition and territory concession, then the natives might have something to lose. But it's not the case. Ottawa is making it pretty easy for Quebec to separate and bring the natives with them. The deals are not difficult to match up. Since Canada is also one of the only 4 states that refuses to sign up the UN's aboriginal convention, they would be in a very bad position to go and cry a river at the international community.

 

2.  Good, then there will be real negotiations this time. Not like the last ones where English Canada can slam the door in the face of Quebec and get away with it. With a mandate of sovereignty from its population, Quebec will be able to negotiation on common basis with Canada.

As I said, the last thing the USA want, is an open conflict on its northem border. They won't interfere, to make sure it doesn't give any idea to anyone else to do so as well. But they will interfere is someone else is doing so. They will do whatever they think must be done to make sure negotiations are going well and get solved asap.

So, bottom line, military conflicts won't occur.

I never said that. USA always think of its best interests first... or should I say, USA only think about its best interests.

3... One thing for sure, the negotiations won't be easy and will last longer than we would like. I am not saying that it can't end up bad, it will always be a possibility. But I have been thinking about it more than once and I fail to see a point where it would be an advantage for one side to go for violence rather than trying to negotiate. Even among the most radical ones, there is nothing that is worth to go there.

4.   You bring it down to the individuals. I am not saying I am not afraid of a very well trained soldier who would attack me. I am saying that I am not afraid he would attack me. The army wouldn't fire the trigger even if the most anti-Quebecois would be sitting on the Prime Minister's seat. The October crisis did not end up well for Trudeau and the Québécois became fearless of the federal after that. It had the exact opposite effect than he was looking for. Politicians are sometimes stupid but, they are bright enough to figure out that the more you are violent toward another nation, the more your justify its sovereignty and freedom.

There is a possible scenario that could happen. The other provinces will be more than interested with an option Quebec will propose and they will tear down the federal to replace it with less centralized system. Ottawa always managed to avoid this by using the other provinces against Quebec but, Quebec was not sovereign. If Quebec is sovereign, it's a major game changer in the context. I wouldn't bet on that, but it is a possibility. 

1.   You know the federal government does not give a shit about it's indigenous population, that much all Canadians know, it does not matter what Quebec offers them, the feds will maintain they are federal government responsibility, and use that as a excuse to provoke Quebec into a weaker stance. Or they will give them to Quebec and null and void all treaties with them...Canada also does not give a crap about the UN and it's orders, take a look at indigenous children compensation. Canada is fighting them in court.. after the UN told them to pay up...

2.  You say real negotiations will happen , why do you think that tell me what Quebec has done to change it's position at the table. The last time this was Quebec's demands, full access to Canadians currency, it wanted all military equipment already in Quebec, all federal infra structure, None of the federal debt and much much more. 

but they really did not have anything to offer back, other than a promise to allow a free unrestricted travel through the province...and would not restrict any people from leaving...

Canada did not them using our dollar, not that it would be worth a whole lot after being torn apart by separation, like i said before no military equipment was on the table. they were willing to give all federal infra structure...

The last time they were not going to be any negotiations, they moved all French speaking ground forces into NY state once there they were restricted to base... all F-18 were flown into the states and then taken and put under US Airforce care...so much for them being neutral.... 2 CMBG was but on combat alert, less than 24 Hours to move, where we did not know , but we were told this would be a real live ammunition was being flown in... this was a couple days before the vote, if the vote had gone wrong, what do you think would have happened...Quebec would have woken up to a military occupation, while Canada took what it wanted by force...and that was done by Chretien   if they were willing to do that back then, assist with a military take over of Quebec, what makes you think they would not do that today... it is in their best interest to get this over as quickly as possible.  

3. diplomatic talks will go on as long as they are progressing once they become stalled or pointless then the next option is military option...their are only 2 options one or the other, the federal government holds the high ground, and won't easily give up things unless they are getting what they want first...if you think they have the people best interest in mind ask the mohawks that where at OKA. And i agree with you 100 % that violence has solved very little and once you declare it, there is no going back and people will die. Thats how conflict works, and the longer it goes on the more bitter it gets , hates takes over and revenge rears its ugly head...

4.  Your over confident, but it will happen quickly and violently while most of Quebec sleeps they will hit key or destroy communications nodes( TV, Radio, intra net ), arrest key political figures, take over key infra structure like major airports, sea ports, block major highways and lock down major cities...lock up any military bases or reserve buildings police stations, there is a lot to do, but it should be able to get most of it done in less than a week...it is mind numbing just how quickly it can go...Quebec will have nothing to defend itself with, and don't think for a minute the people will rise up and dig out the hunting rifles...because the people will be in shock.. All Canadians will be in shock...

5. becoming sovereign does not happen when the last vote is counted, there are many things that have to happen before that...what I'm not exactly sure.. what i do know is we were stood down after the vote came back positive for Canada, i could only guess at what would have happened if Quebec separated. you don't put close to 8000 troops on alert because it looks cool or we were worried Quebec would attack Canada the same night...

This is one option that could happen,  today is a different world, different time, different people, who knows, what could or could not happen what i do know is the odds are not with you in regards to separation. i have said before i can count on one hand the nations that separated with out conflict.. and man can turn into a bunch of sick fuc**** in a short period of time...once its started they never really come back, there is always graveyards filled with constant reminders of days that once were...and ones that they will never see again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1.   You know the federal government does not give a shit about it's indigenous population, that much all Canadians know, it does not matter what Quebec offers them, the feds will maintain they are federal government responsibility, and use that as a excuse to provoke Quebec into a weaker stance. Or they will give them to Quebec and null and void all treaties with them...Canada also does not give a crap about the UN and it's orders, take a look at indigenous children compensation. Canada is fighting them in court.. after the UN told them to pay up...

The canadian federal government does not give a shit about Australia's aboriginals as well. So when Québec becomes independent, the indigenous of Quebec is not its concern anymore.

 

Quote

2.  You say real negotiations will happen , why do you think that tell me what Quebec has done to change it's position at the table. The last time this was Quebec's demands, full access to Canadians currency, it wanted all military equipment already in Quebec, all federal infra structure, None of the federal debt and much much more. 

but they really did not have anything to offer back, other than a promise to allow a free unrestricted travel through the province...and would not restrict any people from leaving...

Canada did not them using our dollar, not that it would be worth a whole lot after being torn apart by separation, like i said before no military equipment was on the table. they were willing to give all federal infra structure...

The last time they were not going to be any negotiations, they moved all French speaking ground forces into NY state once there they were restricted to base... all F-18 were flown into the states and then taken and put under US Airforce care...so much for them being neutral.... 2 CMBG was but on combat alert, less than 24 Hours to move, where we did not know , but we were told this would be a real live ammunition was being flown in... this was a couple days before the vote, if the vote had gone wrong, what do you think would have happened...Quebec would have woken up to a military occupation, while Canada took what it wanted by force...and that was done by Chretien   if they were willing to do that back then, assist with a military take over of Quebec, what makes you think they would not do that today... it is in their best interest to get this over as quickly as possible.  

What I mean by real negotiation is, slamming the door in our face won't be an option anymore.  Like 1981 and Meech 1990. For the rest, you have been misinformed. We do know that it's normal to share the debt if we share the assets. The only time you could have heard of us not sharing the debt, is if someone on Canada's side would have said "no negotiation", ok then, keep your debt as well.

Quote

3. diplomatic talks will go on as long as they are progressing once they become stalled or pointless then the next option is military option...their are only 2 options one or the other, the federal government holds the high ground, and won't easily give up things unless they are getting what they want first...if you think they have the people best interest in mind ask the mohawks that where at OKA. And i agree with you 100 % that violence has solved very little and once you declare it, there is no going back and people will die. Thats how conflict works, and the longer it goes on the more bitter it gets , hates takes over and revenge rears its ugly head...

You over estimate the federal. The other provinces won't be easy on the Prime Minister, in particular if he is coming from Quebec like Trudeau. If Quebec would have said yes in 1995, Jean Chretien would have been in a very weak position. His failure would probably lead him to resign. Keeping the shit together would be a very difficult challenge for the PM.

Quote

4.  Your over confident, but it will happen quickly and violently while most of Quebec sleeps they will hit key or destroy communications nodes( TV, Radio, intra net ), arrest key political figures, take over key infra structure like major airports, sea ports, block major highways and lock down major cities...lock up any military bases or reserve buildings police stations, there is a lot to do, but it should be able to get most of it done in less than a week...it is mind numbing just how quickly it can go...Quebec will have nothing to defend itself with, and don't think for a minute the people will rise up and dig out the hunting rifles...because the people will be in shock.. All Canadians will be in shock...

The consequence on Canada's economy would be too devastating. It would be absolutely impossible to go back to status quo and the country would be broken forever. Because if you think the people will just be quite and obedient after something like that, it means you still have alot to learn about Quebec. I know the federal is  capable to be idiot but, not to that point.

Quote

5. becoming sovereign does not happen when the last vote is counted, there are many things that have to happen before that...what I'm not exactly sure.. what i do know is we were stood down after the vote came back positive for Canada, i could only guess at what would have happened if Quebec separated. you don't put close to 8000 troops on alert because it looks cool or we were worried Quebec would attack Canada the same night...

This is one option that could happen,  today is a different world, different time, different people, who knows, what could or could not happen what i do know is the odds are not with you in regards to separation. i have said before i can count on one hand the nations that separated with out conflict.. and man can turn into a bunch of sick fuc**** in a short period of time...once its started they never really come back, there is always graveyards filled with constant reminders of days that once were...and ones that they will never see again. 

If you think the Québécois are not brave enough to stand against the threat of silly canadian politicians that do not have a legitimate mandat to raise violence from its own population, it means you do not know much about us. The federal had to give up on all strategies based on fear because it doesn't work anymore. That is why they did the love-in as last desperate attempt to convince just enough people to save their skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Benz said:

You over estimate the federal. The other provinces won't be easy on the Prime Minister, in particular if he is coming from Quebec like Trudeau. If Quebec would have said yes in 1995, Jean Chretien would have been in a very weak position. His failure would probably lead him to resign. Keeping the shit together would be a very difficult challenge for the PM.

The consequence on Canada's economy would be too devastating. It would be absolutely impossible to go back to status quo and the country would be broken forever. Because if you think the people will just be quite and obedient after something like that, it means you still have alot to learn about Quebec. I know the federal is  capable to be idiot but, not to that point.

If you think the Québécois are not brave enough to stand against the threat of silly canadian politicians that do not have a legitimate mandat to raise violence from its own population, it means you do not know much about us. The federal had to give up on all strategies based on fear because it doesn't work anymore. That is why they did the love-in as last desperate attempt to convince just enough people to save their skin.

Do you really think that all the provinces care enough about Quebec to support them in separation...i think your reaching, i also think they will watching closely because they are waiting to do the same. If Quebec would have said yes in 1995, the Quebec yo know and love would not be the same place...Chretien was the one to order the military option , why do you second guess the PM's will to use everything in his power to stop any separation...

This is one of those areas where you fuck if you do or fuc* if you don't Canada's economy is going to take a hit regardless. And ive said that already nothing will be the same ever.. Yes lots of Quebecor's are not going to like it, but what choice do they have, except it or fight. And if you think the Government is not capable then you don't know your own government...they don't know what the outcome is going to be, all they know is they have 2 options diplomacy or military action they have made these choices before.

Listen i'm not here to debate who is going to be brave or will do this or that... If they make the decision to take the military option you will wake up to a whole new Quebec under military rule.. hunting rifles are not match for tanks and armoured vehicles, helos and fighter jets.....And i do know people trust me not many Quebecor's are going to want to fight.. after seeing the army in their front yards...

Ask OKA if they are afraid to use that mandate. If you think it was the love in that saved you you might be right, but what i do know is well over 8000 troops where ready to storm your front door, and the only thing that stopped them was that vote... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, RedDog said:

I agree but obviously the money has to be paid back, primarily to Alberta.

 

Quebec was one of those places you fled to if you were a rich French guy-ee circa 1789. Plenty of old money.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/23/2021 at 7:15 PM, Army Guy said:

Do you really think that all the provinces care enough about Quebec to support them in separation...i think your reaching, i also think they will watching closely because they are waiting to do the same. If Quebec would have said yes in 1995, the Quebec yo know and love would not be the same place...Chretien was the one to order the military option , why do you second guess the PM's will to use everything in his power to stop any separation...

This is one of those areas where you fuck if you do or fuc* if you don't Canada's economy is going to take a hit regardless. And ive said that already nothing will be the same ever.. Yes lots of Quebecor's are not going to like it, but what choice do they have, except it or fight. And if you think the Government is not capable then you don't know your own government...they don't know what the outcome is going to be, all they know is they have 2 options diplomacy or military action they have made these choices before.

Listen i'm not here to debate who is going to be brave or will do this or that... If they make the decision to take the military option you will wake up to a whole new Quebec under military rule.. hunting rifles are not match for tanks and armoured vehicles, helos and fighter jets.....And i do know people trust me not many Quebecor's are going to want to fight.. after seeing the army in their front yards...

Ask OKA if they are afraid to use that mandate. If you think it was the love in that saved you you might be right, but what i do know is well over 8000 troops where ready to storm your front door, and the only thing that stopped them was that vote... 

oh the province won't do something for Quebec, they would do something for themselves.

If the yes would have win in 1995, Chrétien would have probably resign. He was blamed by its own fellows for the course of the referendum. He played the hard line until the others slap him and tell him to play nice. Out of sudden, at the very end, Chrétien made alot of promises. He respected none of them, of course, but he did them anyway.

If Chrétien would have failed, the ROC would never trust him to speak in their name. You think at that moment the rest of the country would have speak in one name and easily rally behind someone just like that? Of no sir. The country was already very divided. Let me remind you that when the federal was sneaking in the competencies of the provinces regarding the health funding, Chrétien failed at it once again. Although 8 provinces including Alberta bent the knee to him, Ontario did not and they sided with Québec.  Mike Harris was not the kind of guy to fear Chrétien. He did not do it to please Québec. He did it for the best interests of Ontario. Several times, whether it is during the referendum or after, Ottawa tried to make Ontario say they would shut the door to Quebec after a winning yes but, Ontario never accepted to prostitute itself like that. On the contrary, Ontario rather stated that regarding the economy, it would be business as usual. Not because Ontario loves Quebec or any kind of feeling. Just because it is against their best interests.

There is no economical consequences for English Canada to kick Québec out of the constitution fold and slamming the door every time but, breaking ties and plunge the area into a military conflict, it would have devastating consequences to the other provinces as well and there is no way one PM would get the legitimacy to do that. I rather expect the collapse of the federal. 

I know I did not convince you. You just need to know that you place yourself in a mindset where you think Canada will be very united into a military course of action that has nothing to do with the actual Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...