U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Quebec Independence a Legitimate Movement?
Yes 106 66.67%
No 53 33.33%
Voters: 159. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2014, 05:06 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,096 posts, read 6,339,233 times
Reputation: 12463

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
It is in all probability going to be a long time before there is another referendum...
In our country, we learned what results any efforts such a referendum should have. Virginia voted during early April to secede and the Virginia legislature seceded the state on or about April 17, 1861. We all know what happened then.

To me "referendum" is also known as "treason."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2014, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,188,974 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
LOL...sorry could not resist

From one who has suffered the slings and arrows of auto-correct as well.
Well can't blame auto-correct lol.. I just type fast and really can't be bothered with a typo here or there or some grammatical mistakes... I like the C/D community but not trying to impress with precision - if people glean something from my ideas that is great, if not well, Meh...

btw did I incorrectly spell something again..Pasteur ok maybe that one - think I got Constitution right this time no... See I have French on my mind as in a French Chemist/Microbiologist.... Be gentle with me I thought I did ok last time.. Please Nat - don't tell me you're an English Teacher
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,727 posts, read 8,817,501 times
Reputation: 7344
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Well can't blame auto-correct lol.. I just type fast and really can't be bothered with a typo here or there or some grammatical mistakes... I like the C/D community but not trying to impress with precision - if people glean something from my ideas that is great, if not well, Meh...

btw did I incorrectly spell something again..Pasteur ok maybe that one - think I got Constitution right this time no... See I have French on my mind as in a French Chemist/Microbiologist.... Be gentle with me I thought I did ok last time.. Please Nat - don't tell me you're an English Teacher
No I'm not an English teacher...just thought I'd add a little levity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 05:46 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,271,817 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
In our country, we learned what results any efforts such a referendum should have. Virginia voted during early April to secede and the Virginia legislature seceded the state on or about April 17, 1861. We all know what happened then.

To me "referendum" is also known as "treason."
1) Canada is not the USA. It is a different state with different laws.

2) The Confederate States attacked the US federal government at Fort Sumter, SC . Quebec has not raised an army, let alone attacked the Canadian federal government.

3) Things were done differently in the 1800's. The Canadian bid for independence in the late 1830's was also brutally crushed. It is a different era, the 21st century, not the mid 1800's.

4) Virginia willingly joined the US. The Quebecois are united with the rest of Canada due to being conquered by them by force. The Canadians of 1754-63 did not exactly hand over their country on their own volition.

5) Most importantly, today the independent Canadian government allows a democratic vote on Quebec's independence. Democratic secession is very legal according to the Canadian federal government.

In short, Quebec's political situation can not reasonably be compared to the Confederate States of the mid 1800's.

Last edited by hobbesdj; 12-20-2014 at 06:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 06:43 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,096 posts, read 6,339,233 times
Reputation: 12463
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Did you correct my spelling of Constitution - seriously people, I type a whole bunch of as some say 'rants' cut me some damned slack will ya... People are too serious in here... We are partaking in a casual forum here.. I feel like some of y'all think you are a Professor who needs to correct every last thing.. PUHLEASE
I thought maybe it indeed was correctly spelled in Canadian, the language apparently spoken by Chretien and Dion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 06:52 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,096 posts, read 6,339,233 times
Reputation: 12463
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
1) Canada is not the USA. It is a different state with different laws.
True. Except no nation can allow part of it to join when things are bad and then leave at will. Also as I keep on pointing out the minority has rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
2) The Confederate States attacked the US federal government at Fort Sumter, SC . Quebec has not raised an army, let alone attacked the Canadian federal government.
I personally doubt that if the Deep South states were the only ones that went out we would have mounted a full-scale war, indeed by some measures bloodiest in U.S. history. Once border states such as Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina (Arkansas, though out belatedly, was not really a border state) went out the entire country was in play. In fact U.S. government papers were moved to New York City in case Washington, D.C. fell to the rebels. That's how bad things were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
3) Things were done differently in the 1800's. The Canadian bid for independence in the late 1830's was also brutally crushed. It is a different era, the 21st century, not the mid 1800's.
William Lyon Mackenzie King was a very different animal from John Macdonald. And Britain was not anxious for an instant replay of 1772-1783 with the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
4) Virginia willingly joined the US. The Quebecois are united with the rest of Canada due to being conquered by them by force. The Canadians of 1754-63 did not exactly hand over their country on their own volition.
In 1866 Quebec very willingly asked to participate in the Confederation process. They were not dragged in kicking and screaming
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
5) Most importantly, today the independent Canadian government allows a democratic vote on Quebec's independence. Democratic secession is very legal according to the Canadian federal government.
You mean the Clarity Act? The 1995 vote certainly would not have complied since no one could figure out if sovereignty-association was independence or a fine-turning of the provincial relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
In short, Quebec's political situation can not reasonably be compared to the Confederate States of the mid 1800's.
It's not that different. A lot of problems would be solved if neither Quebec nor other provinces were free to stir the pot at will. What happens to Canada if Alberta takes its oil money either to itself from independence or becomes a 51st or 52nd state (to balance Puerto Rico since we generally admit states in pairs in such a way as to maintain the political party balance)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
3,916 posts, read 3,054,026 times
Reputation: 2594
I think it's a legit movement. I don't know much about Canadian politics and/or the issues on both sides of the separatists argument. Maybe this was said before I don't know since I haven't read 42 pages, but I think geography has the greatest influence here since Quebec is in the middle 1/3 of Canada. If they became a separate country Canada would have an "east" and "west" However, if Quebec province was on the end of the coast (east or west) I think it would be a done deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,524 posts, read 2,271,817 times
Reputation: 2168
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
True. Except no nation can allow part of it to join when things are bad and then leave at will. Also as I keep on pointing out the minority has rights.
Regardless of your feelings on what a nation can or can not do, Canada offers Quebec the opportunity to democratically achieve independence as long as "a clear majority" support it. These are the standards as applied by the Canadian federal government.

Can you point out some ways that the anglophone minority "has no rights"? I find this to be an interesting statement as I attended an English language university full of anglophones who certainly "had rights".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
William Lyon Mackenzie King was a very different animal from John Macdonald. And Britain was not anxious for an instant replay of 1772-1783 with the United States.
What are you getting at here? William Lyon Mackenzie King governed Canada during WWII. During the Patriotes Rebellion, the Canadien attempt at independence (initially peaceful) was crushed by the authorities. Today, in 2014, the Canadian federal government has no intention of physically attacking Quebec separatists. Times change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
In 1866 Quebec very willingly asked to participate in the Confederation process. They were not dragged in kicking and screaming
Quebec was presented with an offer. Remain a single colony of the British Empire, or join the Canadian Confederation and enjoy greater power of your own destiny. To the French Canadians it was sold as a pact between two equal nations, the creation a bi-cultural state; in English Canada it was presented as the unification of four colonies. In the words of Papineau it was "the least harmful option". Some tidbits about the Confederation vote in Lower Canada:

- Only men 21 and older who possessed property could vote
- The clergy threatened eternal damnation without the possibility of absolution for those who voted against Confederation (and this they carried out), as a result about 40% of voters did not appear
- In three ridings candidates of the Reds were kidnapped on the day of the vote; making the conservative candidate the automatic winner
- In two ridings the Red candidate was bought off by the conservative candidate. Without a Red candidate, and withdrew his candidature during the nominal call.
- Officers in charge of a riding had the power to "disenfranchise", or annul the votes of, a parish. Without explanation, the conservative officers in charge of three liberal ridings in Kamouraska did just that.
-40% of voters did not show up, due to threats from the church and general apathy

Yet despite all of this, a whopping 45% voted against confederation. And of course we only need to look at the case of Nova Scotia to see what would happen if you opposed confederation. Voters opposed confederation? No problem, just hold another vote until you get the results you want!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
You mean the Clarity Act? The 1995 vote certainly would not have complied since no one could figure out if sovereignty-association was independence or a fine-turning of the provincial relationship.
The Clarity Act was passed in the years after the 1995 referendum. In the 1995 referendum 51% for "oui" was acknowledged by the Canadian federal government as a victory for the sovereignty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
It's not that different. A lot of problems would be solved if neither Quebec nor other provinces were free to stir the pot at will. What happens to Canada if Alberta takes its oil money either to itself from independence or becomes a 51st or 52nd state (to balance Puerto Rico since we generally admit states in pairs in such a way as to maintain the political party balance)?
This is up to the Canadian government to decide. They have decided that Quebec can legally seperate if they support of the clear majority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 07:55 PM
 
342 posts, read 396,868 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
regardless of your feelings on what a nation can or can not do, canada offers quebec the opportunity to democratically achieve independence as long as "a clear majority" support it. These are the standards as applied by the canadian federal government.

Can you point out some ways that the anglophone minority "has no rights"? I find this to be an interesting statement as i attended an english language university full of anglophones who certainly "had rights".



What are you getting at here? William lyon mackenzie king governed canada during wwii. During the patriotes rebellion, the canadien attempt at independence (initially peaceful) was crushed by the authorities. Today, in 2014, the canadian federal government has no intention of physically attacking quebec separatists. Times change.



Quebec was presented with an offer. Remain a single colony of the british empire, or join the canadian confederation and enjoy greater power of your own destiny. To the french canadians it was sold as a pact between two equal nations, the creation a bi-cultural state; in english canada it was presented as the unification of four colonies. In the words of papineau it was "the least harmful option". Some tidbits about the confederation vote in lower canada:

- only men 21 and older who possessed property could vote
- the clergy threatened eternal damnation without the possibility of absolution for those who voted against confederation (and this they carried out), as a result about 40% of voters did not appear
- in three ridings candidates of the reds were kidnapped on the day of the vote; making the conservative candidate the automatic winner
- in two ridings the red candidate was bought off by the conservative candidate. Without a red candidate, and withdrew his candidature during the nominal call.
- officers in charge of a riding had the power to "disenfranchise", or annul the votes of, a parish. Without explanation, the conservative officers in charge of three liberal ridings in kamouraska did just that.
-40% of voters did not show up, due to threats from the church and general apathy

yet despite all of this, a whopping 45% voted against confederation. And of course we only need to look at the case of nova scotia to see what would happen if you opposed confederation. Voters opposed confederation? No problem, just hold another vote until you get the results you want!



The clarity act was passed in the years after the 1995 referendum. In the 1995 referendum 51% for "oui" was acknowledged by the canadian federal government as a victory for the sovereignty.



This is up to the canadian government to decide. They have decided that quebec can legally seperate if they support of the clear majority.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2014, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,987 posts, read 27,469,615 times
Reputation: 8627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guytar1220 View Post
PROGRESS! Qualifying sovereignists as narrow-minded , language paranoiaques, closed to others, uneducated is a progress!?! evolution compare to Richler ok, but certainly not progress!! This is certainly not by bashing separatists and exacerbating anglo Montrealer bias that it's going to be any good for anyones cause. He is just not talented enough to create substance and use populist strategy to sell tickets on behalf of sensitive issues, a poor personage

Yes, it is progress. He is dialoguing with us on our turf in our language as if he was one of us, because he is one of us.

The base idea is not to achieve groupthink where everyone thinks the same (the PQ is great and can do no wrong, God bless the OQLF...), it's to be able to have debates with everyone who lives here on the same terms. Not to have people like him and Richler living a parallel reality. Sugar Sammy may have views you and I do not like but he is in our reality, not outside of it.

BTW Sugan Sammy has always said he was in favour of the school provisions of Bill 101 because without them he says he would never have learned French and grown up almost like a stranger in his own city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top