Should Quebec be Independant Thread

[Raisin Bran]

can't we do It backwards?

Get rid of the feds and keep the provinces?

 

[History_Buff]

No, because then Canada would cease to exist. And it would make very little sense, as we would never be able to co-ordinate well enough on items like the military and healthcare, leaving us to be swallowed up by the Americans. NOBODY wants that.

 

[Temy]

The only last question is: why would Ontarians keep Quebec in its current state? People from the West and the Maritimes know that they would do better without the transfer payments (feds to provinces) but the transfer payments problem would be from feds to cities should Quebec's independance be effective.

 

[Snakelover]

No, because then Canada would cease to exist. And it would make very little sense, as we would never be able to co-ordinate well enough on items like the military and healthcare, leaving us to be swallowed up by the Americans. NOBODY wants that.

Yup. I'm sure you Canadians; Quebec and the rest, don't want housing in every plot of unsettled land, including natural disaster areas. People put housing on top of landfills and faults in the U.S.!

 

[Nick Garai]

Do you mean because Quebec is the only French-Speaking Canadian Country? If so, I guess it should be independent or part of France, kind of like an alliance with France. I believe the only true Canadian countries are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Yukon territory, and Northwest Territories, oh, and British Columbia. IMHO, besides Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia dont look very Canadian, they seem more British. If anything, maybe Newfoundland and Nova Scotia should form a nation, maybe with Quebec.

In other words...I think Quebec should be independent. It is more unique than the other Canadian provinces.

Hate to say it, but BC is not really a "part" of Canada. All we do is contribute lots of money to the Federal Government to help Ontario. We're a cash cow for the heart of Canada. IF (and IF) Quebec ever does leave, All of Canada dissolves to become smaller states. BC has always been the "Western" province.

 

[emzie]

Hate to say it, but BC is not really a "part" of Canada. All we do is contribute lots of money to the Federal Government to help Ontario. We're a cash cow for the heart of Canada. IF (and IF) Quebec ever does leave, All of Canada dissolves to become smaller states. BC has always been the "Western" province.

Note to self: when traveling outside of Ontario, identify self as American.

 

[sysyphus]

Hate to say it, but BC is not really a "part" of Canada. All we do is contribute lots of money to the Federal Government to help Ontario. We're a cash cow for the heart of Canada.

That's a joke right?

 

[Raisin Bran]

Is BC people really talking actively about independance?

Note to self : France dosen't give a crap about Quebec.

 

[DarthCycle]

This is a rant. Feel free to reply intelligently and I will do the same. Flame me and I won't even bother to read your whole post.

I am a Quebecois. I speak, think and live in French. I love my culture and I'm proud of our French heritage. I am an economic liberal and a socialist in regards to education and health. Do I want Quebec to become a country? No.

In the era prior to 1960, it made sense. The social infrastructure was poor. Education was provided by the church. Ressources and business were mostly owned by non Quebec parties.

Today, as in 2006, it makes no sense at all. To me at least.

"Quebec to Quebecer!" they shout in the streets. Please define Quebecer. Does that mean a white french speaking individual? In montreal, you're a minority buddy. And by the way, I'm part of that exact minority. I will always say no to anything that ressembles to cultural schizophrenia and/or semi-organized ethnic cleansing program.

"We want to control immigration" they say. Sure thing buddy, did you know the Quebec government controls immigration laws for anyone that wants to live in Quebec?

"We want to control the money we pay to the Federal government" they say. Oh yeah sure, try to convince me you're going to do a better job than any Quebec governement of the last 20 years.

They say the economy will do better when Quebec is a country. Please explain how. And try to convince me that Quebec economy isn't doing great today. Quebec as a Canadian province is probably not doing as good as some other provinces like Bristish Columbia (losts of Asian fund coming in), Alberta (linked to oil ressource) or Ontario (most populated province of Canada). Perhaps, but how is Canada responsible for that lower performance?

You think Canada current legal infrastructure makes it hard for Quebec economy to flourish? Think again. Imagine a Quebec company that want to conduct business with the US or the rest of Canada. Bring in the international lawyers team to investigate proper business code. Quebec is a country now, you need to do all this from then on.

They say that Quebec will be greener when it is a country. Ah, of course. You know what, most people I know who consider themselves ecological friendly don't even try to recycle most of the stuff they put in their garbage. They drive huge cars/trucks when they could take the mass transit to go to work, but hey, they prefer the comfort of their car. Yes, the environment is very important but please let me drive my 300hp SUV to work, the road is too bumby for my comfort zone.

Hey, 95% of Quebecer believe that city dumps are a shame, we have to do something but please look the other way when I take out my 40lbs of trash per week and 85% of that could be recycled. Sure, Quebec will be a lot cleaner when all of us will form a country. You know what, in Quebec we love our environment so much that in the last 20 years, we were able to pollute 99% of all our rivers and lakes. Quebec is the largest reserve of fresh water in the world, but thanks to our all-mighty love and respect of the environment, most of it is now polluted. 20 years ago, you could drink the water from most rivers.

Me, what do I do? I ride my bicycle to work. Generate less than a pound of trash per week since we recycle all plastic/metal/paper/glass products we use and compost all biodegradable left-over from food. And what about my little speach on the water you say? We use only environementally friendly product to wash the house and our clothes. Try to think about that the next time you do the laundry with Tide or spray that Mr. Clean on your floor.

So for all these reasons and for many others, I say no to an independent Quebec. We have enough problems as it is and I will never sign a blank check to a bunch of idealists that lingers on a dream from the earlier 70's.

 

[De Lorimier]

This is a rant. Feel free to reply intelligently and I will do the same. Flame me and I won't even bother to read your whole post.

I am a Quebecois. I speak, think and live in French. I love my culture and I'm proud of our French heritage. I am an economic liberal and a socialist in regards to education and health. Do I want Quebec to become a country? No.

In the era prior to 1960, it made sense. The social infrastructure was poor. Education was provided by the church. Ressources and business were mostly owned by non Quebec parties.

Today, as in 2006, it makes no sense at all. To me at least.

I'll give you some answers, but you start off with a bang! :

"Quebec to Quebecer!" they shout in the streets. Please define Quebecer. Does that mean a white french speaking individual? In montreal, you're a minority buddy. And by the way, I'm part of that exact minority. I will always say no to anything that ressembles to cultural schizophrenia and/or semi-organized ethnic cleansing program.

Ahh...the good old race card. Calling sovereignists racist is nothing new, yet I'm always surprized to read it. Le Québec aux Québécois was a rally chant back in the 60's. You acknowledged that the situation was different back then and this chant is a good representation of that. But ethnic cleansing? Come on. I take this as a serious offense on your part. Who, in 2006, calls for ethnic cleansing or ignores the fact that immigrants and people of all origins make Quebec a better place? Not even Raymond Villeneuve and the nut-jobs of the MLNQ say crap like that. To be a Québécois, you have one thing to do: live here for a while. That's it, that's all. Calling sovereigninsts racists will get you nowhere and is quite insulting.

"We want to control immigration" they say. Sure thing buddy, did you know the Quebec government controls immigration laws for anyone that wants to live in Quebec?

We already control immigration with the federal government through Immigration Québec. This is a non-issue.

"We want to control the money we pay to the Federal government" they say. Oh yeah sure, try to convince me you're going to do a better job than any Quebec governement of the last 20 years.

I don't personnally think that politicians will all-of-a-sudden do a better job, but I do believe that the job done would be closer to my own aspirations as a citizen.

They say the economy will do better when Quebec is a country. Please explain how. And try to convince me that Quebec economy isn't doing great today. Quebec as a Canadian province is probably not doing as good as some other provinces like Bristish Columbia (losts of Asian fund coming in), Alberta (linked to oil ressource) or Ontario (most populated province of Canada). Perhaps, but how is Canada responsible for that lower performance?

You think Canada current legal infrastructure makes it hard for Quebec economy to flourish? Think again. Imagine a Quebec company that want to conduct business with the US or the rest of Canada. Bring in the international lawyers team to investigate proper business code. Quebec is a country now, you need to do all this from then on.

As I said before, Québec's economy wouldn't be better or worse than it is now. My desire to gain independance has little do with the economical situation we are in as lucky people living in North America.

They say that Quebec will be greener when it is a country. Ah, of course. You know what, most people I know who consider themselves ecological friendly don't even try to recycle most of the stuff they put in their garbage. They drive huge cars/trucks when they could take the mass transit to go to work, but hey, they prefer the comfort of their car. Yes, the environment is very important but please let me drive my 300hp SUV to work, the road is too bumby for my comfort zone.

Hey, 95% of Quebecer believe that city dumps are a shame, we have to do something but please look the other way when I take out my 40lbs of trash per week and 85% of that could be recycled. Sure, Quebec will be a lot cleaner when all of us will form a country. You know what, in Quebec we love our environment so much that in the last 20 years, we were able to pollute 99% of all our rivers and lakes. Quebec is the largest reserve of fresh water in the world, but thanks to our all-mighty love and respect of the environment, most of it is now polluted. 20 years ago, you could drink the water from most rivers.

Me, what do I do? I ride my bicycle to work. Generate less than a pound of trash per week since we recycle all plastic/metal/paper/glass products we use and compost all biodegradable left-over from food. And what about my little speach on the water you say? We use only environementally friendly product to wash the house and our clothes. Try to think about that the next time you do the laundry with Tide or spray that Mr. Clean on your floor.

Yeah, ok. That part is clearly ranting. Allrighty then. But to be fair, I'm starting to wonder who "they" are. You're not talking about sovereingnists there, just people who don't actually care for the environment. This has little to do with the debate of this thread.

So for all these reasons and for many others, I say no to an independent Quebec. We have enough problems as it is and I will never sign a blank check to a bunch of idealists that lingers on a dream from the earlier 70's.

It's funny, cause I was born in 1980 and I don't consider myself to be an idealist stuck in the 70's. You're pretty insulting. Nobody's asking to sign a blank chech to anyone. You think an independant Québec would suddenly become a haven of socialist pelleteux-de-nuages? Think again. Mario Dumont and his cronies aren't going anywhere!

 

[Commodore]

I don't think I'd use the word "should", but I voted for the 3rd choice. I do think if that's what they want, then fine. But, they should do it or not and then STFU and live with whatever the decision is.

Exactly my sentiments on the matter. As a matter of fact, I think any state/province/county/ should be allowed to break away from its mother country, if that is what an overwhelming majority of its citizens want.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I have never been to Quebec. I have never been east of Cold Lake in Canada, Houston in the United States. I have never seen the east coast, and I harbour no great desire to do so. That being said, I have no great desire to see the west coast either, I'm perfectly happy living here and paying a paltry $250 a month for a house that would cost me $2,000 a month in Vancouver.

That being said, I love my Quebec brothers and sisters. I harbour ill will only to those who wish to cause harm and suffering. I wish to continue to call Quebecers my countrymen and to do so until the day I die. The will of the people, however, is tantamount to divine influence to me, and must be carried through. If the will of the Quebec people should ever manifest itself in separation, so be it. The people of Quebec exist as surely as the people of British Columbia or Viet Nam or Uzbekistan, even if only because of a line on the map. If they desire to continue to be a part of Canada, I celebrate that desire. If they desire nationhood, I celebrate that desire, if a little reluctantly.

Long live the people.

 

[DarthCycle]

Ahh...the good old race card. Calling sovereignists racist is nothing new, yet I'm always surprized to read it. Le Québec aux Québécois was a rally chant back in the 60's. You acknowledged that the situation was different back then and this chant is a good representation of that. But ethnic cleansing? Come on. I take this as a serious offense on your part. Who, in 2006, calls for ethnic cleansing or ignores the fact that immigrants and people of all origins make Quebec a better place? Not even Raymond Villeneuve and the nut-jobs of the MLNQ say crap like that. To be a Québécois, you have one thing to do: live here for a while. That's it, that's all. Calling sovereigninsts racists will get you nowhere and is quite insulting.

There are many-many people that still believe in that good-old "Quebec to Quebecois", implying the white people that have been here for generations. I have friends (in their 30's) from both Montreal and from multiple cities from around the province. The one's that are from outside of Montreal do not live with foreigner (non-white) as their neighbors, have had only a few contact with them during schools (grade school and high school). They would never live in a neighborhood composed of mostly blacks or asians communities. As a matter of fact, would you? Honestly? I know I would since I am. Take Montreal then, the big multi-ethnic center of Quebec. What neighborhood has the biggest ethnic diversity? Notre Dame de Grace / Cote des Neiges. Talk to your white friends and ask them if you or them would live there? How about St-Michel?

The point I am trying to make is that most Quebecois are more racist, or call it ethnically selective, than they think they are. Sure, everybody is very open-minded and tolerant, as long as it is not in their backyard.

Next St-Jean, go walk around in hochelaga-maisonneuve, lasalle, verdun and perhaps you will realize they are a lot more of these "Quebec to Quebecois" than you think.

I don't personnally think that politicians will all-of-a-sudden do a better job, but I do believe that the job done would be closer to my own aspirations as a citizen.

And why would that be? Are we living in a dictatorship now? Last time I check we were living in a democracy and most of us (around 60%) take the time to actually vote for their representative.

Talking about aspiration, Quebec-city as our province's capital and our oldest city should probably be the heart of the sovereignist movement, right? Well then a reality-check is in order now since at the last election most of Quebec city voted for the conservatives: tax break, investment in the military, cut in social programs, cut in environment programs.

As I said before, Québec's economy wouldn't be better or worse than it is now. My desire to gain independance has little do with the economical situation we are in as lucky people living in North America.

Can't agree more

But to be fair, I'm starting to wonder who "they" are. You're not talking about sovereingnists there, just people who don't actually care for the environment.

Go read the bloc Quebecois pamphlet about the sovereign Quebec project. It is quite a good read actually, even if I don't agree with their vision. Sure, "they" talk about important issues but none of them cannot be resolved with Quebec being part of Canada.

It's funny, cause I was born in 1980 and I don't consider myself to be an idealist stuck in the 70's. You're pretty insulting.

Just to remind you of something: today in 2006, the majority of people in their 20's are not sovereignists.

Nobody's asking to sign a blank chech to anyone.

Actually, that is exactly what this whole project is. We're not living under the iron fist of a dictatorship. We're not a community of illeterate trying to fight for our rights and improve our basic human condition. We're living in the 8th richest country of the world. Things are going so well that the people most important issues are (in order): their weignt (how to lose a few pounds), hair loss (for men) or breast enhancement (for women), getting a better paid job, having more vacation time, improving the grass of their front yard and planning to buy a new tv/car/seadoo/bbq or whatever you fancy.

Things are going so well that a few dreamers from the 70's, and a minority from the generations after them, have been collectively dreaming about an utopian society where all our problems will just <wind blows> disappear.

None of the sovereignist will talk about serious issues and the repercutions of embarking on such an endeavour. A prominent figure of the parti quebecois (can't recall her name) was hammered from everyone just for saying that there would be a few years of uncertainty after a vote for separation.

If the sovereignist were honest and fair, they should say something like: "Separating from canada will costs us a fortune, they are so many things that needs to be done in a new country. We ask that each of you give freely the next 2 years of their salary to this project. Collectively, we will be able to to build this great new country of Quebec if everyone of us sacrifices a little. And should the rest of the Canada disagree with us, we would have to take arms and fight for our rights to do so"

If you are not able to answer yes to both of these issues, then you are not asking yourself the right questions about the feasability of this project.

Give me one example of a country that was formed in the 20th century without violence prior or after the event, and that didn't require a massive amount of capital.

 

[De Lorimier]

There are many-many people that still believe in that good-old "Quebec to Quebecois", implying the white people that have been here for generations. I have friends (in their 30's) from both Montreal and from multiple cities from around the province. The one's that are from outside of Montreal do not live with foreigner (non-white) as their neighbors, have had only a few contact with them during schools (grade school and high school). They would never live in a neighborhood composed of mostly blacks or asians communities. As a matter of fact, would you? Honestly? I know I would since I am. Take Montreal then, the big multi-ethnic center of Quebec. What neighborhood has the biggest ethnic diversity? Notre Dame de Grace / Cote des Neiges. Talk to your white friends and ask them if you or them would live there? How about St-Michel?

The point I am trying to make is that most Quebecois are more racist, or call it ethnically selective, than they think they are. Sure, everybody is very open-minded and tolerant, as long as it is not in their backyard.

Next St-Jean, go walk around in hochelaga-maisonneuve, lasalle, verdun and perhaps you will realize they are a lot more of these "Quebec to Quebecois" than you think.

Wow. You're all over the place. Trudeau would be proud. You know a lot of people who are xenophobe, so do I. I wouldn't call them friends though. The fact that some people here are racist, or afraid of living in mixed communities has nothing to do with the validity of the sovereignist movement. To associate both ideas like you do is pure demagoguery.

I live in Rosemont, pretty cosmopolitan area and I have no problem with living alongside people from all over the world. The neighborhood with the biggest ethnic diversity isn't NDG, it's Parc Extension. And no, I wouldn't have any problem living there if it wasn't so far from the downtown area. I choose my apartment for it's location and it's price, not the colour of the skin of my neighbors. Once again, you're pretty insulting.

And why would that be? Are we living in a dictatorship now? Last time I check we were living in a democracy and most of us (around 60%) take the time to actually vote for their representative..

And I'm not saying that we are persecuted or treated badly by Canada. If you knew me you would know that I'm a huge friend of Canada and my Canadian neighbors. Ask most Canadian posters here, they'll tell you the same.

Talking about aspiration, Quebec-city as our province's capital and our oldest city should probably be the heart of the sovereignist movement, right? Well then a reality-check is in order now since at the last election most of Quebec city voted for the conservatives: tax break, investment in the military, cut in social programs, cut in environment programs.

So since the national capital region is more conservative, the sovereignty movement is not valid? Weird logic. You're confusing political alignment with the constitutional issue, big dif.

Go read the bloc Quebecois pamphlet about the sovereign Quebec project. It is quite a good read actually, even if I don't agree with their vision. Sure, "they" talk about important issues but none of them cannot be resolved with Quebec being part of Canada.

When I asked you who "they" are, it's because you're mixing people who aren't environment friendly and xenophobes with sovereigntists. Once again, you're all over the place.

Just to remind you of something: today in 2006, the majority of people in their 20's are not sovereignists.

Show me a poll. Most of my freinds are in their 20's and are sovereignists.

Actually, that is exactly what this whole project is. We're not living under the iron fist of a dictatorship. We're not a community of illeterate trying to fight for our rights and improve our basic human condition. We're living in the 8th richest country of the world. Things are going so well that the people most important issues are (in order): their weignt (how to lose a few pounds), hair loss (for men) or breast enhancement (for women), getting a better paid job, having more vacation time, improving the grass of their front yard and planning to buy a new tv/car/seadoo/bbq or whatever you fancy.

Mixing things up again I see. Tell me how an independant Québec means that our leaders would be free to do whatever they want. How would a yes vote be a blank check. You vote, I vote. We get involved, we can get more involved. There's no blank check.

Things are going so well that a few dreamers from the 70's, and a minority from the generations after them, have been collectively dreaming about an utopian society where all our problems will just <wind blows> disappear.

None of the sovereignist will talk about serious issues and the repercutions of embarking on such an endeavour. A prominent figure of the parti quebecois (can't recall her name) was hammered from everyone just for saying that there would be a few years of uncertainty after a vote for separation.

If the sovereignist were honest and fair, they should say something like: "Separating from canada will costs us a fortune, they are so many things that needs to be done in a new country. We ask that each of you give freely the next 2 years of their salary to this project. Collectively, we will be able to to build this great new country of Quebec if everyone of us sacrifices a little. And should the rest of the Canada disagree with us, we would have to take arms and fight for our rights to do so"

If you are not able to answer yes to both of these issues, then you are not asking yourself the right questions about the feasability of this project.

Give me one example of a country that was formed in the 20th century without violence prior or after the event, and that didn't require a massive amount of capital.

To say that this is a dream of the 70's is to ignore facts and is, once again, pretty offensive. For somebody who made a point of telling others not to flame him in his first post of this thread, you're doing a good job at flaming me.

Two years salary after a yes vote? Explain that one to me. Bringing the concept of a violent separation is nonsense. Only lunatics would fight over this issue.

Pauline Marois was indeed mistreated after saying that a five years period after a yes vote would be more turbulent. So what? I agree with her. other sovereigntist agree with her. Why is the whole movement on trial because some of us have different opinions? I just don't get it.

I can give you an example of a country (Slovakia) who gained independance freely and without problems in the turbulent 20th century but I shouldn't have to since I know that a short period will be more tumultuous. Montenegro is in an independance process and everything's going smoothly afaik. You show a serious lack of good faith when debating this issue. Don't put all sovereignist in the same category because you disagree with some of them.

 

[DarthCycle]

First of all, before I continue our exchange of ideas and perspectives, I would like to congratulate you on the quality of your replies. I've also took note that you feel insulted pretty often, please be aware that this is not my intent. That being said, let's move on

Wow. You're all over the place. Trudeau would be proud. You know a lot of people who are xenophobe, so do I. I wouldn't call them friends though. The fact that some people here are racist, or afraid of living in mixed communities has nothing to do with the validity of the sovereignist movement. To associate both ideas like you do is pure demagoguery.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. The majority of sovereignist are white and french speaking. Or perhaps I've been watching the wrong crowds at the St-Jean. Or how about explaining why almost all deputy from the Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois are white and french (as in their first language) speaking. And from all those elected officials, how many of them are from district with a big ethnic diversity? Coincidence? Surely not, I mean everybody knows that the vast majority of english speaking quebecois or immigrants love the whole concept of Quebec sovereignity (being sarcastic here)...

I am definitively not calling you a racist nor the sovereignist movement as a racist movement either. However, the fact remains that it is mostly composed of one culture: the white french speaking. How come other cultures, specifically immigrants from one or two generations, do not feel compelled to join this movement or social project?

Debatting about racism is not easy because nobody wants to be called a racist or be associated to the concept. And for good reason, there is a lot of prejudice against racism.

I live in Rosemont, pretty cosmopolitan area and I have no problem with living alongside people from all over the world. The neighborhood with the biggest ethnic diversity isn't NDG, it's Parc Extension. And no, I wouldn't have any problem living there if it wasn't so far from the downtown area. I choose my apartment for it's location and it's price, not the colour of the skin of my neighbors. Once again, you're pretty insulting.

As I said earlier, that is not my intent. I'm sure everybody can argue for the right reasons to live in a neighborhood: price, location, quality of living, security, etc... Those are all valid points and I don't deny them.

So since the national capital region is more conservative, the sovereignty movement is not valid? Weird logic. You're confusing political alignment with the constitutional issue, big dif.

Wow, this is a first. So, if I follow you, you can vote for the conservative and be a separatist? Excuse me for just a moment please ... hahahahahaha, good one!

When I asked you who "they" are, it's because you're mixing people who aren't environment friendly and xenophobes with sovereigntists. Once again, you're all over the place.

You're right but everytime I read a pamphet about the possible gain from an independant Quebec, the environment is always a big topic. As if the best way to preserve or help the environment was to be separatist.

Most of my freinds are in their 20's and are sovereignists.

Perhaps because you choose your friends based on commonality: shared interests, shared point of view, etc... You wouldn't be the only one doing that.

Tell me how an independant Qu&#233;bec means that our leaders would be free to do whatever they want. How would a yes vote be a blank check. You vote, I vote. We get involved, we can get more involved. There's no blank check.

Yes there is. Let me introduce an analogy. You want to renovate your house. You feel it's too old and a big revamp would greatly improve your quality of life. However, you won't discuss the details. You know you'd like redo the yard, upgrade to nice big windows, tear down a wall to increase the size of the living room. How much will it cost? No idea. How will you finance it? No idea. What are the necessary milestones for that project? No idea. How long will it take? No idea. How will that affect the relationship with your neighbors? No idea.

Only lunatics would fight over this issue.

You don't break a country into smaller ones just because it would be nice to do so. You do it because it's the only way the ensure survival, stability, self-determination and prosperity. If you won't fight for your cause, then it's not worth it. If you're not willing to sacrifice yourself (financially, physically and emotionnaly) for the gains it would provide the generations after you, then it's definitively not worth it. It's as if the separatists think they can change their world (Quebec and Canada) by sitting in their sofas, discussing with their friends and simply making it all happend by voting on a sheet of paper. That scenario will never happend. Of all the people I know, and that's my limited perspective of course, the separatist are the least militant group I know. "I want my country, but I won't lift a finger for it"

Pauline Marois was indeed mistreated after saying that a five years period after a yes vote would be more turbulent. So what? I agree with her. other sovereigntist agree with her. Why is the whole movement on trial because some of us have different opinions? I just don't get it.

The movement is not on trial, the reaction she caused is. I also completely agree with what she said but I am abashed by the official denial from the party. The majority clearly explained that such topics only hurts the project. Any topics that could hinder the process, such as talking about the risks of such an endeavour, should not be discussed. I, on the contrary, would like to have a lot more of these debate.

I can give you an example of a country (Slovakia) who gained independance freely and without problems in the turbulent 20th century but I shouldn't have to since I know that a short period will be more tumultuous. Montenegro is in an independance process and everything's going smoothly afaik.

You should revize your history because these countries were both part of various forms of Yugoslavia, and that country history is anything but smooth in the 20th century.

You show a serious lack of good faith when debating this issue. Don't put all sovereignist in the same category because you disagree with some of them.

I don't lack good faith, I just happend to have a radically perspective with you on this topic. No movement is homogeneous, no argument there. But I do debate on the official stand of the separatisst movement.

 

[De Lorimier]

First of all, before I continue our exchange of ideas and perspectives, I would like to congratulate you on the quality of your replies. I've also took note that you feel insulted pretty often, please be aware that this is not my intent. That being said, let's move on.

Yeah, I admit I did felt offended pretty fast reading your posts. Calling the sovereigntist movement a silly 70's dream, making a correlation between racism and independantists, establishing an imaginary link between non-environment friendly folks and people like me, ect. It is pretty offensive even if it's not your intention. Moving on!

Perhaps, and perhaps not. The majority of sovereignist are white and french speaking. Or perhaps I've been watching the wrong crowds at the St-Jean. Or how about explaining why almost all deputy from the Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois are white and french (as in their first language) speaking. And from all those elected officials, how many of them are from district with a big ethnic diversity? Coincidence? Surely not, I mean everybody knows that the vast majority of english speaking quebecois or immigrants love the whole concept of Quebec sovereignity (being sarcastic here)...

I am definitively not calling you a racist nor the sovereignist movement as a racist movement either. However, the fact remains that it is mostly composed of one culture: the white french speaking. How come other cultures, specifically immigrants from one or two generations, do not feel compelled to join this movement or social project?

Debatting about racism is not easy because nobody wants to be called a racist or be associated to the concept. And for good reason, there is a lot of prejudice against racism.

"The majority of sovereignist are white and french speaking." I'm going to let you in on a little secret: the majority of Qu&#233;bec's population is white and french speaking. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.

The fact is that Qu&#233;bec is in a very peculiar situation regarding the political alignement of immigrant and allophones regarding the constitutionnal situation. I don't think we can expect everyone coming to Canada to fully understand and analyse our situation right away. The fact is that support for sovereignty from different ethnical communities is on the rise. The children of the 101 law are more integrated in our culture and political system than their parents. Both PQ and Bloc have more candidates from different region of the world that ever. Maka Kotto, Maria Mourani, Vivian Barbot, Osvaldo Nunez, and more are/were all mps for either the Bloc or the PQ. But name dropping aside, the imprtant notion to remember is that the times they are a-changing. There's a normal evolution of our society regarding the integration of immigrants in Qu&#233;bec above their adherence to Canadian society. We're still defining ourselves as a people and more and more N&#233;o-Qu&#233;b&#233;cois are calling themselves Qu&#233;b&#233;cois. We're on the right path.

Why should we be apologetic that the majority of our politicians are representative of the population? Why be ashamed of what we are and always feel the need to excuse ourselves for being what we are? Histoire d'horreur, m&#233;moire poreuse. Nous n'osons m&#234;me plus nous nommer nous-m&#234;mes, nous nous nions.

As I said earlier, that is not my intent. I'm sure everybody can argue for the right reasons to live in a neighborhood: price, location, quality of living, security, etc... Those are all valid points and I don't deny them.

Wow, this is a first. So, if I follow you, you can vote for the conservative and be a separatist? Excuse me for just a moment please ... hahahahahaha, good one!

Believe it or not, it's possible. And federalist to the left also voted for the Bloc in the last two elections to punish the Liberals. My point is that sovereignist are not all socialist. To hint that the independance option is invalid because the national capital is more conservative this day is simply not true.

You're right but everytime I read a pamphet about the possible gain from an independant Quebec, the environment is always a big topic. As if the best way to preserve or help the environment was to be separatist.

Being environment friendly is fashionable these days and the sovereigntist, just like Jean Charest and St&#233;phane Dion know this. So what? I'd rather have people discussing the protection of the environment in their program and future plans that brushing it off as something uninteresting.

Perhaps because you choose your friends based on commonality: shared interests, shared point of view, etc... You wouldn't be the only one doing that.

I do, but not always. I do have federalist friends, mostly anglophones and people from the West-Island and it makes for nice puns and interesting conversations. My point is that saying that the majority of people in their 20's are against the idea of independance is simply untrue. I'll ask you again to show me a poll on the subject if you want to convince me of the contrary.

Yes there is. Let me introduce an analogy. You want to renovate your house. You feel it's too old and a big revamp would greatly improve your quality of life. However, you won't discuss the details. You know you'd like redo the yard, upgrade to nice big windows, tear down a wall to increase the size of the living room. How much will it cost? No idea. How will you finance it? No idea. What are the necessary milestones for that project? No idea. How long will it take? No idea. How will that affect the relationship with your neighbors? No idea..

I agree that some people, mostly party people, have their heads in the sand when it comes to the aftermath of a oui vote. But others don't. How will we pay? The same way we pay for what we do now, through our sale and income taxes. How long will it take? A few years, a constant work. Show me a country who's not constructing itself everyday and I'll show you a stagnant society. The fact is that there is plans for the aftermath. Negociations will Canada will dictate the way things will be going and the PQ has definite plans it its program. The inclusion of members from every party should also help in defining the afetrmath and make sure that no PQ leaders consider a yes vote a blank check of the population.

You don't break a country into smaller ones just because it would be nice to do so. You do it because it's the only way the ensure survival, stability, self-determination and prosperity. If you won't fight for your cause, then it's not worth it. If you're not willing to sacrifice yourself (financially, physically and emotionnaly) for the gains it would provide the generations after you, then it's definitively not worth it. It's as if the separatists think they can change their world (Quebec and Canada) by sitting in their sofas, discussing with their friends and simply making it all happend by voting on a sheet of paper. That scenario will never happend. Of all the people I know, and that's my limited perspective of course, the separatist are the least militant group I know. "I want my country, but I won't lift a finger for it"

You should have quoted my whole sentence. When I say that only lunatics would fight over the issue, it's in response to your allegations that violence could erupt in the aftermath of a yes vote and difficult negociations. I don't agree. We are sensible, logic and peacefull people, on each side. There's a difference between political militantism, wich we already have, and violent militantism, wich I don't agree with.

The movement is not on trial, the reaction she caused is. I also completely agree with what she said but I am abashed by the official denial from the party. The majority clearly explained that such topics only hurts the project. Any topics that could hinder the process, such as talking about the risks of such an endeavour, should not be discussed. I, on the contrary, would like to have a lot more of these debate.

Couldn't agree more, wich is mainly why I don't associate myself with the PQ anymore. The old guard is on its decline but still has a very strong voice in this party.

You should revize your history because these countries were both part of various forms of Yugoslavia, and that country history is anything but smooth in the 20th century.

Oups! Telling me to revise my history while confusing Slovakia with Slovenia. That's cute! Slovakia's independance is the perfect example. Read about the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia fro more information on the subject.

I don't lack good faith, I just happend to have a radically perspective with you on this topic. No movement is homogeneous, no argument there. But I do debate on the official stand of the separatisst movement.

And I didn't know there was such a thing. What's the official stand of federalism? If no movement is homogeneous, what's the official stance of the sovereigntist movement? All I see and read is ideas from individuals and political entites, but nothing official. It's semantics, but I'm sure you do get my point.

 

[emzie]

I'm not as familure with the subject as you two obviously are, but I must ask: what's the difference between a Quebecois racist and a Canadian racist? As I moved out of my apartment at the end of July, a man I had to listen to this man on an elevator who had "served 30 years in the airbourne" and was "born and raised here" complain about "that guy from Peru or something, ****ing immigrants."

When I pointed out that I, too, was an immigrant, it was okay "it's not like you're black"

As much as I don't feel Quebec should separate unless it's on terms fair to Canada, painting the movement as racist ignores the fact that there racists everywhere.

 

[Raisin Bran]

I'm not as familure with the subject as you two obviously are, but I must ask: what's the difference between a Quebecois racist and a Canadian racist? As I moved out of my apartment at the end of July, a man I had to listen to this man on an elevator who had "served 30 years in the airbourne" and was "born and raised here" complain about "that guy from Peru or something, ****ing immigrants."

When I pointed out that I, too, was an immigrant, it was okay "it's not like you're black"

As much as I don't feel Quebec should separate unless it's on terms fair to Canada, painting the movement as racist ignores the fact that there racists everywhere.

I can't really answer your question .... but IMHO there is no difference between a Quebequer racist and a Canadian racist.

I think the Idea of seperatist being racist was inforced by Parizeau's speech at the last referendum.

 

[Che Guava]

DeL/Raisin: I don't mean to sound like a smartass here, but if either of you were given the chance to lead an independant Quebec, what would change? And what changes would require the independence of Quebec as a pre-requisite?

Sorry if I miseed this answer before, it's becoming a long thread

 

[emzie]

DeL/Raisin: I don't mean to sound like a smartass here, but if either of you were given the chance to lead an independant Quebec, what would change? And what changes would require the independence of Quebec as a pre-requisite?

Sorry if I miseed this answer before, it's becoming a long thread

Pretty money without the Queen. I would use Quebec currency for that reason alone. Stupid 20 dollar bill.

... actually that does raise a question: Would Quebec continue to use the CAD, switch to the USD (seeing that Quebec does a lot of buisness with the US), create theirown currency....