Even Freaking Montenegro Is Independent- Why Not Quebec?

Great Debates
21

Another factor which has not been mentioned is that most of the other examples have some history of being independent states. Scotland was its own kingdom - indeed, ITS King because the king of England - and was an independent kingdom for centuries prior to the current edition of union. Montenegro was once an independent state. the Czech and Slovak states have histories as independent entities. Through various political means, violent and or peaceful, they were merged into o0ther states.

Quebec has never been an independent entity of any sort; prior to the British conquering Canada during the Seven Years’ War, Quebec was a colony of France under absolute control of the imperial government. Quebec has no historial identity as an independent state; there is no “good old days” or history as a proud and independent kingdom that Quebec separatists can call upon.

Indeed, Quebec’s identity is intrinsically bound up in the creation of Canada. It wasn’t grafted onto Canada, it was an integral part of the creation of the country.

22

[QUOTE=astorian]
If you really wanted to declare independence, you could have done it a long time ago. Ottawa wasn’t going to send troops to force you back into union.
[/QUOTE]

I actually wonder about this assumption. At a minimum, Canada would certainly have a compelling interest in protecting the citizenship rights of those in Quebec who wanted to retain their Canadian citizenship.

23

[QUOTE=astorian]
Ottawa wasn’t going to send troops to force you back into union.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t be too sure. The northern portion of Quebec was originally granted to the confederated Dominion of Canada after being purchased from the Hudson Bay Company by the British government . These lands were transferred to Quebec jurisdiction in 1898 and 1912, concluding with final adjustments in 1927.

These lands were granted to the Confederation of Canada. Furthermore the residents of these lands are primarily the Cree people who do not share the political aspirations of Francophone cultural secessionists.

As Trudeau once said, “If Canada is divisible then Quebec is divisible”.

Canada might allow the original Quebec to separate, but there is no way that they will allow the resource rich former Rupert’s land to cede to an independant Quebec.

24

Well…

the Happy Hooker said that the men in Montenegro have the largest yoohoos of all other Europeans. :eek:

25

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Indeed, Quebec’s identity is intrinsically bound up in the creation of Canada. It wasn’t grafted onto Canada, it was an integral part of the creation of the country.
[/QUOTE]

I want to emphasize this and tangentially lament how often it’s forgotten, by both sides.

26

[QUOTE=astorian]
I’ve been hearing you TALKING about independence from Canada since I was a little kid. And yet, 40 plus years later, you’re no closer to independence than you were in 1961, when I was born.
[/QUOTE]

They got damn close in 1995, losing the referendum by only 1%.

27

[QUOTE=astorian]
Dear Quebecois:

Truth is, if you REALLY wanted independence, you’d have had it by now.

So, why the pretenses? Is it just a way of extorting perks and concessions from the English-speaking provinces? If so, are you as astonished as I am that theyt haven't caught on to the scam yet?

[/QUOTE]

As a French-speaking Quebecer who has worked and fought for Canadian unity, I could get huffy and angry at your suggestion that the whole of Quebec is involved in a scam to “extort” stuff from you, but sometimes with people like you, Astorian, a little humour works best.

So you have found us out! In 1961, all six or seven million French-speaking Quebecers got together and hatched the following plot. A guy named Pierre Trudeau would work his way into federal politics, and a guy named Rene Levesque would start a separatist movement. They would appear to be bitter enemies with entirely different visions of Quebec and its place in Canada, but believe me, we Frenchies are all in this together. We stick together, just like the Jews in the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. There were no French-Canadians named Johnson, Ryan, or Blackburn or Wagner at the meeting, presumably, because how could we trust them as French Canadians. So Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson and Quebec Editor Claude Ryan were not invited.

One side would threaten to secede, the other side, in the federal government, would give Quebec “everything it wanted”. (Yeah, right, like the night nine English provinces got together and took away Quebec’s veto protection in patriating the Constitution. Isn’t it great to get “everything” you want? Or when Quebec bent over backwards to accept the Meech Lake accord only to have English Canada tell it to get stuffed?)

By the way, extortion is a criminal act whereby a person obtains something he knows he has no right to by the use of violence or threats. On the other hand, considering alternatives in your dealing with another party is NOT extortion. Telling your boss you have thought of leaving his firm for a promotion elsewhere is NOT a criminal act. Telling your spouse you are unhappy with the marriage unless some changes are made is NOT blackmail.

People say that to people every day. Nations and groups say it to other nations and groups.

So maybe the answer to your question is that Quebecrs have debated all aspects of the question, and they are not an organized monolith that got together one day to scam you. Maybe they are honest, sincere people like you, some of whom believe one course would be better, and some of whom believe another course would be better.

But what am I saying? A bunch of Frogs be honest and sincre? Impossible! They must be part of an organized scam designed to extort the very life blood out of you, Astorian. You have found us out!

28

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]

I want to emphasize this and tangentially lament how often it’s forgotten, by both sides.
[/QUOTE]
That was one of the more likeable things about Paul Martin - on more than one occasion I saw news clips of him making just this point.

29

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Or when Quebec bent over backwards to accept the Meech Lake accord only to have English Canada tell it to get stuffed?
[/QUOTE]

Wait, Quebec was bending over backwards with Meech Lake? :dubious:

30

[QUOTE=Rysto]
Wait, Quebec was bending over backwards with Meech Lake? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Hard to tell how people felt about Meech, but Charlottetown was rejected in Quebec by a wider margin than anywhere else except BC and Alberta.

31

[QUOTE=Rysto]
Wait, Quebec was bending over backwards with Meech Lake? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it’s a fascinating claim:

  1. Quebec gave up nothing in Meech Lake; the accord was designed to give Quebec things, and

  2. How did English Canada, exactly, have any say in that at all? I don’t recall voting on it. It died because of a procedural technicality.

32

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Yeah, it’s a fascinating claim:

  1. Quebec gave up nothing in Meech Lake; the accord was designed to give Quebec things, and

  2. How did English Canada, exactly, have any say in that at all? I don’t recall voting on it. It died because of a procedural technicality.
    [/QUOTE]

  1. Robert Bourassa was damned as a trator and a sell-out by millions of Quebecers because he conceded so much in accepting the Meech Lake Accord. But the rest of the country could not see past tehir desire to “put Quebec in its place” rather than to “find a place for Quebec.” The knee-jerk reaction was “if Quebec is for it, I am against it”. It amazes me that this country holds together at all

  2. Meech died because of opposition from English Canada. The average guy in the street knew fuck all about it except that those f____ing Frenchies ain’t gonne get their way.

If I am still a federalist it is in spite of English Canadians like you folks, not because of.

It is not easy to loive in the same country with a population that thinks you are an organized blackmailer.

33

[QUOTE=Valteron]

  1. Robert Bourassa was damned as a trator and a sell-out by millions of Quebecers because he conceded so much in accepting the Meech Lake Accord.
    [/QUOTE]

Is that a fact? You’re telling me that at least 28% of the province denounced him as a traitor? And of those who denounced him as a sell out, how many did so solely because they were separatists and didn’t want any deal at all?

In any event, that’s not what you said. What you said was “Or when Quebec bent over backwards to accept the Meech Lake accord…” What did Quebec propose to give up? Don’t tell me some people called him names, tell me how Quebec “bent over backwards.” You said it, you defend it.

Whose knee jerk reaction was this? How many Canadians felt this way? Exactly where are you getting this information?

Well, no, actually, that’s a lie.

Meech Lake died because it was held up in the Manitoba legislature. Period, end of story. There is nothing else to it. “Opposition from English Canada” has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Who are “you folks,” exactly? What did I do?

You are obviously wholly ignorant of the facts; I suggest you start with at least finding out why the Accord didn’t pass.

34

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Meech Lake died because it was held up in the Manitoba legislature. Period, end of story. There is nothing else to it.
[/QUOTE]

Moreover, it was held up by a guy who didn’t care about whether the Quebecois were getting their way, but just about what status the First Nations would have under the new deal. I dunno, maybe Elijah Harper does have something against Quebec, but that wasn’t what motivated his procedural delay tactics according to anything he said to the press at the time.

35

Rick Jay, this is the time of night when I would prefer to sleep “on my two ears” as we say in French (I will not annoy you with the actual French) than to get into an argument. I was around for Meech Lake and I saw the Thousands lined up to hold up Mantioba’s announcement past the deadline, to kill it.

The “distinct society” clause would have meant nothing more than a recognition that we are different while being part of Canada, and that was something good. Anglo paranoia went into overdrive and made that clause a bogeyman that would have Quebec “cramming French down your throats and taking your oil” I was in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta during much of the debate. Although I am French-Cnadian I speak English like a native so most people I spoke to thought they were speaking to an English-Canadian. So I got it with no editing or frosting on it. And what I herd was pretty bad and made me understand the depth of hatred and ill-will there is against Quebec in English Canada.

The most common comment was “Those fucking Quebecers aren’t going to get away with it!”

36

While we are at it, do you have any idea what it is like to be accused of extortion just because you and other French-Canadians are debating your future?

37

Odd. I was in Manitoba at the time as well, and I am an “English-Canadian” (actually Dutch Mennonite by way of Prussia and the Ukraine, but you Quebeckers always like lumping the lot of us anglophones together as if we’re all the same :wink: ), and no one ever said anything remotely like that to me.

And the “thousands” you refer to had nothing to do with the failure of Meech Lake. It was Harper’s vote that was needed and not obtained. Had he changed his mind, what the Manitoban public thought would have been completely meaningless.

38

Let’s see. The nine English provinces (Ontario, Mantioba, Saskatchewan and even Alberta used to have substantial French minorities, but funny how they disappeared through 100 years of being denied schools, government services etc. in their own language.) conveniently fixed it up so that any four provinces have a veto over constitutional changes, since you need seven out of ten to vote for it.
So the four western provinces virtually have one, the four Atlantic Provinces have one, but Quebec, which is the most isolated, feared and despised part of the country, which has the most distinctiveness to protect, which is trying to protect itself from drowning in a sea of English is North America, has no right to a veto. The night you guys gagned up on Quebec took care of that.

Isn’t it wonderful how Quebec gets “everything”? Amazing how well our extortion plots and threats to separate work, oui, non?

39

As I go to bed to dream of other ways to extort you anglos, let me just sum it up this way. Constitutional agreement in Canada is impossible, because any solution that Quebec likes will automatically have the kiss of death in English Canada.

No matter what solution is arrived at by politicians, the professional Quebec-haters will whip up the paranoia and it will fail.

All I can do from my end is fight to get Quebecers to vote against separation. Why bother? Maybe there is something I love about this country that transcends the likes of you.

40

[QUOTE=Gorsnak]
Odd. I was in Manitoba at the time as well, and I am an “English-Canadian” (actually Dutch Mennonite by way of Prussia and the Ukraine, but you Quebeckers always like lumping the lot of us anglophones together as if we’re all the same :wink: ), and no one ever said anything remotely like that to me.

And the “thousands” you refer to had nothing to do with the failure of Meech Lake. It was Harper’s vote that was needed and not obtained. Had he changed his mind, what the Manitoban public thought would have been completely meaningless.
[/QUOTE]

Gorsnak, if you speak any other language as well as English, I would be surprised. Ukranians and others are what you trot out when you want to oppose bilingualism. It would be unfair to somebody’s Ukrainian grandmother to have bilingual services in French. Imposing English on everone is apparently emminently fair.Do you think French-Cnadians are a monolithlic ethnic group? Ever hear of French Canadians of Lebanese, Morrocan, Haitian, and Irish origin? Where do you think names like Claude Ryan and Claude Wagner, Daniel Johnson, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Pierre MacDonald and others in Quebec come from? Do you think English is the only minority group in Quebec?