Are we witnessing the death of the Bloc Québécois?

[jbg]

I'd be glad to see BQ down with the so-called "fringe parties" which it should have been to begin with...

Good riddance

At last we agree. Perhaps their members and MP's should share the fate of Pierre Laval (link), another noted faithless Frenchman. Pierre was a traitor to his country; the Bloc are traitors to theirs.

[Peter F]

Perhaps their members and MP's should share the fate of Pierre Laval another noted faithless Frenchman. Pierre was a traitor to his country; the Bloc are traitors to theirs.

Perhaps they would...if they were an American political party. But they're not.

[TCCK]

YAY, the death of the BQ as a party!

May all Canadians cheer in extacy!!

(And this comes from someone whos family came to this land on the first French settlment boat. I am French Canadian in heritage but I do not appreciate all the special focus the Quebecois get all the time.

WE ARE ALL CANADIANS, so deal with it and become one nation, skip the SEPERATE NATION inside a nation attitude and for those Canadian First NAtions " Get over it, get a job and deal with the fact you are Canadians now, so act like one and contribute positively to our society. I am tired of the drain on our country because they refuse to integrate into Canadian society but just want everything handed to them.

(Yes I know that is not true for all, I have good friens that are Canadian Aboriginals, I have an adopted cousin that is one, my wife has 5 adopted aboriginal cousins and they are ALL AWESOME POSITIVE members of our Canadian society, that is not the norm though!!)

Okay fire away with your insults because I spoke my mind and truth!!

[jbg]

Perhaps they would...if they were an American political party. But they're not.

If you believe in having a country you should not have rebels in the HOC. In the US, when Southern states seceded, their Senators made long, gracious speeches of farewell, since they were leaving well-loved, long standing colleagues. But they left. That was the point.

[August1991]

As much as I wish they would, I don' think the BQ will go away.

I tend to agree, P Puck. The BQ may go away but the desire for Quebec sovereignty or independance will not. Quebec will always be a distinct society.

The Quebec National Assemby voted unanimously against the Constitution of 1982. If Canada has any chance to survive as a country, at some point in the future, a federal PM will have to negotiate a new Constitution to include a broad spectrum of politicians and ordinary people from French-speaking Canada. For the moment, Canada is a failed State. English-speaking Canadians have a Constitution; French-speaking Canadians do not.

"Canada" is a work in progress and "Canada" is not and never will be a country, in the sense that many English-speaking Canadians imagine. Such is our country.

So, no. The BQ will never go away.

Edited September 26, 2008 by August1991

[Peter F]

... In the US, when Southern states seceded, their Senators made long, gracious speeches of farewell, since they were leaving well-loved, long standing colleagues. But they left. That was the point.

the key phrase being: "...when the Southern states seceded..." . Until that occurred their Senators were making many long gracious speaches but not about farewell.

So you see, having secessionist politicians is perfectly fine in both our nations.

[jbg]

the key phrase being: "...when the Southern states seceded..." . Until that occurred their Senators were making many long gracious speaches but not about farewell.

So you see, having secessionist politicians is perfectly fine in both our nations.

Let me clarify. Those were farewell speeches. Having secessionists is not fine here. You face military defeat or lethal injection here.

[jbg]

If Canada has any chance to survive as a country, at some point in the future, a federal PM will have to negotiate a new Constitution to include a broad spectrum of politicians and ordinary people from French-speaking Canada.

Plenty of Cabinet members, effective control over national elections, and domination of the civil service under the OLA isn't enough?

For the moment, Canada is a failed State. English-speaking Canadians have a Constitution; French-speaking Canadians do not.

Not like Somalia.

[Smallc]

How can one of the most prosperous countries in the world be a failed state?....and how can Quebec courts interpret the Charter and draw from it if it doesn't apply to French Canada? I realize Quebec never signed it, but it seems to be used there.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Smallc

[CANADIEN]

At last we agree. Perhaps their members and MP's should share the fate of Pierre Laval (link), another noted faithless Frenchman. Pierre was a traitor to his country; the Bloc are traitors to theirs.

And of course, those who vote BQ are just Frenchmen, not canadians, right? Which would make them traitors to a country that's nnot theirs. Whatever.

[CANADIEN]

How can one of the most prosperous countries in the world be a failed state?....and how can Quebec courts interpret the Charter and draw from it if it doesn't apply to French Canada? I realize Quebec never signed it, but it seems to be used there.

Hear Hear

[CANADIEN]

Plenty of Cabinet members(...)

Five out of 31 in the last Cabinet... which is less in percentage that Quebec's percentage of the country's population

effective control over national elections(...)

with 23% of the vote?

and domination of the civil service under the OLA

How dare we learn English instead of just assimilate?

[Peter F]

How can one of the most prosperous countries in the world be a failed state?....and how can Quebec courts interpret the Charter and draw from it if it doesn't apply to French Canada? I realize Quebec never signed it, but it seems to be used there.

As I understand it, the Quebec courts apply the Canadian Charter (if relevant) when it comes to cases concerning Federal law (criminal law would be part of that). When the cases before them concern Quebec civl law then they apply the Quebec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne.

See Tremblay vs Daigle for example of an interesting mix of the Canadian Supreme Court interpreting the meaning of the Quebec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, and why (in that particular case) the Canadian Charter of Rights did not apply and why the Quebec charter did.

[Peter F]

Let me clarify. Those were farewell speeches. Having secessionists is not fine here. You face military defeat or lethal injection here.

I understand. In the USofA people are killed for doing what we allow in Canada. I promise not to behave in such a manner should I ever become an American citizen.

Til then blow it out ur arse.

[White Doors]

I understand. In the USofA people are killed for doing what we allow in Canada. I promise not to behave in such a manner should I ever become an American citizen.

Til then blow it out ur arse.

aww.... now it's part of the left wing definition of Canadiana - WE have a seperatist party and the USA doesn't. Ergo, WE are better...

And they wonder why they are losing the election..

[Peter F]

aww.... now it's part of the left wing definition of Canadiana - WE have a seperatist party and the USA doesn't. Ergo, WE are better...

And they wonder why they are losing the election..

And Jbg is doing what? Invoking American history and practice as an example for us to follow. We shouldn't be Canadian, according to him - at least not Canadien - we should be like Americans.

and because I disagree I'm anti-American? Must we agree with everything Americans say? Is that your point?

Lordy.

Why this need for American approval?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Peter F

[blueblood]

And Jbg is doing what? Invoking American history and practice as an example for us to follow. We shouldn't be Canadian, according to him - at least not Canadien - we should be like Americans.

and because I disagree I'm anti-American? Must we agree with everything Americans say? Is that your point?

Lordy.

Why this need for American approval?

Because national unity is not a problem in the US...

[jdobbin]

Because national unity is not a problem in the US...

Really? Palin's husband was an Alaska separatist.

[blueblood]

Really? Palin's husband was an Alaska separatist.

Is there a political party in congress dedicated to the seperation of a particular area of the US???

[kengs333]

Is there a political party in congress dedicated to the seperation of a particular area of the US???

I don't see what difference that makes. People of a certain ilk will find there way into mainstream parties and try to push their agenda that way. That's what Harper has done. That's what many western seperatists and right-wing extremists did with the PC before breaking ranks and forming the Reform Party and other more fringe parties.

[Peter F]

Is there a political party in congress dedicated to the seperation of a particular area of the US???

Of course not. They'd be killed if they ran for such positions. Who knows? Perhaps some have already been killed by the US government for doing so. I doubt if jbg would be able to provide an example of this government policy. I suspect because there is no such policy as he alleges.

But that could be my anti-americanism coming out...

[CANADIEN]

As I understand it, the Quebec courts apply the Canadian Charter (if relevant) when it comes to cases concerning Federal law (criminal law would be part of that). When the cases before them concern Quebec civl law then they apply the Quebec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne.

See Tremblay vs Daigle for example of an interesting mix of the Canadian Supreme Court interpreting the meaning of the Quebec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, and why (in that particular case) the Canadian Charter of Rights did not apply and why the Quebec charter did.

Each Province has its own Human Rights legislation; interistingly enough, the Federal Government still has two(!) (the Bills of Rights and the Human Rights Code), separate from the Charter.

Although in the case of Quebec the difference between the provincial law and the federal Charter is due in part to the fact the Quebec legal system founded on civil law as opposed to coomon law, the main difference is not there.

Prrovincial and federal laws cover areas not covered by rhe Charter. For example, the federal Bill of Rights still protects property rights at the federal level, even though they are not mentioned in the Charter. Also, the Charter applies to the actions of GOVERNMENTS ONLY, not individuals, unlike the federal and provincial laws; for example, if a condo developer in Ontario refuses to sell a unit to a gay couple, that action is not unconstitutional, but the couple could still sue under the province's Human Rights Code.

[jbg]

Because national unity is not a problem in the US...

With some minor exceptions you've got that nailed.

[jbg]

Of course not. They'd be killed if they ran for such positions. Who knows? Perhaps some have already been killed by the US government for doing so. I doubt if jbg would be able to provide an example of this government policy. I suspect because there is no such policy as he alleges.

But that could be my anti-americanism coming out...

People are killed for treason, not for advocacy.

[fellowtraveller]

The supreme irony would be Catholic Quebec giving a majority government to an Anglophone, Protestant Albertan.

Speaking as an Albertan, I see Harper as being from Toronto.

Why?

Because he is from Tornton.