Provincial Seperation

[tml12]

Let's go with instead of paying their share of the debt (though we could do that too)... also refund your equalisation. Now Quebec could never leave.

And Alberta would likely get a cheque.

Now THAT is funny...

[Charles Anthony]

extracted from the The Kadr problem again -- Is this really a problem thread

It does not make a difference whether the person has the means at the current time to carry out the threat -

Prove that it does not make a difference.

To secure a conviction at trial, the Crown must prove that the person making the threat did so knowingly. That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.

http://www.defencelaw.com/utter-threats.html

Thank you for quoting somebody else that agrees with your preference. Luckily for you, they have the state to enforce their goals. Now, we can be sure that anybody who is perceived by the state to make a threat will be crushed by the state regardless of whether that person is capable of carrying out that threat or not.

Now, to complete your argument, all you have to do is prove that a unilateral declaration of independence is a threat of violence. Your quote does not say that it is and you have yet to prove that connection -- although, you have repeated the statement.

A UDI has nothing to do with 'self determination' - it is about one state supplanting another.

That depends on who is declaring it.

If you really have a problem with state coercion then you should criticize federalists and separatists equally since both groups are unapologetic 'statists'. Supporting a UDI by separatist groups suggests that you have no problem with the concept of coercion by wannabe states provided they support your political objectives.

I would rather be beaten with a stick than with a baseball bat. Thanks for the choice.

Groups that wish to break up the country have a legal options available to them so there is no justification for a UDI. Of course seperatists groups will complain that the legal options are too cumbersome and would likely require that they sacrifice too much.

I would say that separatists are not obligated to be ruled by people other than by themselves -- particularly much less by people outside of their province. By the way, can you identify what one of your acceptable "legal options" might be?

That argument is equivalent to a bank robber who justifies the theft because it takes too long to make less money working in a legimate job.

Your example is more ridiculous than mine but can I quote you on that nevertheless?

[Hydraboss]

So this thread has been going for about four months, and the tally stands at 60% in favor of seperation as posed in the original poll questions.

So let's change it up. Of those people who voted "yes" to allowing seperation, should Alberta be allowed to seperate if a referendum got, say, 50%+1? Let's assume that the province assumes it's share of debt and CPP liability. If you're from Alberta and even if you don't want to seperate, should the province have this power?

[Riverwind]

So let's change it up. Of those people who voted "yes" to allowing seperation, should Alberta be allowed to seperate if a referendum got, say, 50%+1? Let's assume that the province assumes it's share of debt and CPP liability. If you're from Alberta and even if you don't want to seperate, should the province have this power?

50%+1 is way too low for a major and unreversable change. Most democracies require 60%+ approval for those kids of changes.

[geoffrey]

So this thread has been going for about four months, and the tally stands at 60% in favor of seperation as posed in the original poll questions.

So let's change it up. Of those people who voted "yes" to allowing seperation, should Alberta be allowed to seperate if a referendum got, say, 50%+1? Let's assume that the province assumes it's share of debt and CPP liability. If you're from Alberta and even if you don't want to seperate, should the province have this power?

If we have to shoulder debt that we have already paid for and no equalisation is refunded to us... then I say we stay in Canada and just stop paying our taxes until they kick us out.

[jbg]

I guess I am focussing only on the practicalities. Although I never thought of it that way before, I concur that a unilateral declaration of independence is technically the same as a declaration of war.

It should be. Then again members of a party dedicated to ripping the country apart should be swinging from nooses, not sitting on Parliament Hill overlooking the Rideau Canal; or maybe they should be under its ice in January.

Whether it be Quebec or Alberta, I am convinced that there will be little hostility. It is in everybody's commercial interest to be peaceful.

You cannot long run a country that way. To quote Abe Lincoln (link):

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

[jbg]

Deleted

Edited November 1, 2007 by jbg

[no queenslave]

Deleted

That is your best post of your understanding of Canadian politics.

[jbg]

That is your best post of your understanding of Canadian politics.

No, it was an edit of th epost above it. I was trying to combine two posts in one post-writing box and botched the job.

I'll admit, as everyone knows, I'm a Yank and certainly do not know much about Canada. Your lack of knowledge shows as well.

[Hydraboss]

So someone finally resurrected this poll. I was wondering if and when this would ever happen.

I wonder if the numbers will change with all the new posters on the board. The numbers are encouraging for me when you look at the total number of people supporting separation in some manner.

[no queenslave]

No, it was an edit of th epost above it. I was trying to combine two posts in one post-writing box and botched the job.

I'll admit, as everyone knows, I'm a Yank and certainly do not know much about Canada. Your lack of knowledge shows as well.

"a Yank and certainly do not know much about Canada" Mine is not a lack of knowledge but a lifelong experience of dealing with politicians and the courts. What is written and what actually is happening are 2 different things; all you understand is the propaganda ; but have no personal experience in dealing with the corrupt Canadian system. How many Canadian tax court cases have you sat in to experience how different the system works as to how it is written and suppose to work.

[jbg]

...but have no personal experience in dealing with the corrupt Canadian system. How many Canadian tax court cases have you sat in to experience how different the system works as to how it is written and suppose to work.

Let me see if I can guess; you are likely treated as a tax protester, without good faith arguments for positions taken on returns? Like this group (link)? Or these (link)?

[no queenslave]

Let me see if I can guess; you are likely treated as a tax protester, without good faith arguments for positions taken on returns? Like this group (link)? Or these (link)?

let me guess you are a fraud saying you are an american ;when you are a canadian government paid poster posting government propaganda.

I haven't filed tax returns for over 20 years, and know more about the corrupt tax system than you ever will be willing to learn..

[jbg]

let me guess you are a fraud saying you are an american ;when you are a canadian government paid poster posting government propaganda.

I haven't filed tax returns for over 20 years, and know more about the corrupt tax system than you ever will be willing to learn..

Calling me a fraud? Strong language. I'm afwaid. Vewy afwaid.

[WestViking]

let me guess you are a fraud saying you are an american ;when you are a canadian government paid poster posting government propaganda.

I haven't filed tax returns for over 20 years, and know more about the corrupt tax system than you ever will be willing to learn..

The entity of 'Canada' actually came into being under the Constitution Act of 1841, and Canada consisted of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. Unfortunately the new entity proved to be ungovernable, and staggered through no less than 12 different governments in a span of 15 years. By the 1860s politicians were desperate to break the impasse and this was a powerful motivator towards confederation of the provinces which formed the British North American colonies. Framers of the BNA Act were not unfamiliar with the problems of governing a pair of provinces under one parliament, and had the advantage of referring to the US constitution, which they rejected as a model.

[jbg]

I finally voted in the poll, and am shocked and dismayed to see 60% supporting separation rights. Those "rights" are inconsistent with democracy.

[jbg]

.... and had the advantage of referring to the US constitution, which they rejected as a model.

I love my country, but Rube Goldberg could like the US Constitution as a model. It works only because of the civil society that the US has developed, and as most know, that wasn't always true. We wound up fighting a war to preserve the principal that the Union was inviolate.

[M.Dancer]

I finally voted in the poll, and am shocked and dismayed to see 60% supporting separation rights. Those "rights" are inconsistent with democracy.

But the majority disagree......a paradox? Maybe, but Lincoln wasn't necessarily a democrat.....personally while I abhor the values of the confederacy I have always believed they were just in their goal to succeed and it was the federals who fought for tryanny.

[jbg]

But the majority disagree......a paradox? Maybe, but Lincoln wasn't necessarily a democrat.....personally while I abhor the values of the confederacy I have always believed they were just in their goal to succeed and it was the federals who fought for tryanny.

But it's the ultimate paradox of liberty necessarily accompanying order. Countries described as "anarchic", such as Lebanon, Somalia et. al. are invariably "unfree" countries.

Liberty and democracy demand adherance to a social and governmental compact, that includes cohesion. Only very unusual situations, such as the split of the Czechs from the Slovaks, are consistent with democracy. In the case of Quebec, for instance, the problem is large English-speaking enclaves that would swiftly become very uncomfortable without having at least some Canadian protections.

[M.Dancer]

In the case of Quebec, for instance, the problem is large English-speaking enclaves that would swiftly become very uncomfortable without having at least some Canadian protections.

The fact that they are large, and powerful (economically and politically) ensures that they would not be too uncomfortable.

In recent memeory you forgot the de-evolution of the USSR and specifically the baltic republics....but even so, the harsh reality, that most of us already intuitively know, you cannot force people to stay in a relatiopnship without tragic consequences. The Amewrican civil war still stands as the bloodiest conflict in their history. Only a fool would be unwilling to learn from other peoples blunders.

[jbg]

The fact that they are large, and powerful (economically and politically) ensures that they would not be too uncomfortable.

Obviously not too powerful if Quebec English-only speakers have to struggle with French-only road signs, changed names of places they live, and French-only schools (yes, I know in theory that isn't the case but they don't make getting an English education for the kids easy).

In recent memeory you forgot the de-evolution of the USSR and specifically the baltic republics....

From a dictatorship, post-military conquest. That's more like the American revolution than anything else.

but even so, the harsh reality, that most of us already intuitively know, you cannot force people to stay in a relatiopnship without tragic consequences. The Amewrican civil war still stands as the bloodiest conflict in their history. Only a fool would be unwilling to learn from other peoples blunders.

And it was worth it to stay together.

[Hydraboss]

So if so many people are against provincial separation, why does this poll stagnate at 60% in favor? There appear to be a great number of posters that even get to the point of anger over the idea of succession, yet the numbers stay constant.

Do we just call this poll closed and accept the results as is?

[Smallc]

So if so many people are against provincial separation, why does this poll stagnate at 60% in favor? There appear to be a great number of posters that even get to the point of anger over the idea of succession, yet the numbers stay constant.

Do we just call this poll closed and accept the results as is?

Yo do realize that the people on here do not represent the population as a whole, right.

[Hydraboss]

You mean the 57 people that voted in this poll aren't the same as 30 million plus? Nope, never knew that.

[no queenslave]

Yo do realize that the people on here do not represent the population as a whole, right.

Do you know the constitution belongs to the people not the politicians ' and they only represent themselves in any constitution changes ; on a one vote per person equal to all the other million people.