Even Freaking Montenegro Is Independent- Why Not Quebec?

Great Debates
61

Funny, y’know, I’ve always been sympathetic to the FrancoCanadians in sight of the many abuses that were committed against that community… It was your argumentation of the concept that Québec is legally and morally entitled to by its lone self be the “equal” in veto power to any other 4 provinces together, by dint of being the “disadvantaged minority”, that I found unfederalist and that I wished to challenge.
[/QUOTE]

The point I was making is that the US has a well-established amending formula a couple of centuries old and it is pretty clear how it works. So if Puerto Rico joined as the 51st State, OF COURSE it would be ridiculous for it to want some different power over constitutional change because it is Spanish-speaking. I was not suggesting that Quebec should have an actual “veto” because it is a “disadvantaged minority”.

“Veto” by the way is a funny word, becuase most of the time it exists invisibly. For example, you may be surprised to learn that there is NO veto provision at the UN. The Charter simply says that the decisions of the Security Council must be unanimous. How many times did you read, especially in the cold war, that the Soviets or the US “vetoed” something? All they did in reality was exercise a perfectly legitimate right NOT to vote for something they disagreed with. What were they supposed to do, vote for a resolution that goes against their stated position?

What you may not realize is that Canada had NO amending formula for its constitution until the 1980s, because Canadians could not agree on one. But it was always understood that Quebec, as a major province and a founding part of the country, should have some say over constitutional change.

Now, when the big push came to come up with an amending formula at a conference in Ottawa, Pierre Trudeau, who personally loathed Quebec Premier Rene Levesque and wanted to see him humiliated, got together with the nine English provinces behind his back and came up with a formula that sounds very fair on paper. It says that an amendment to the constitution, besides being passed by the Federal Parliament, must be approved by seven out of 10 provinces having 50% of the population.

There is not a word about veto. But look at the reality. Canada is really four regions. The four western provinces, gigantic Ontario with 40% of the population, Quebec with about 25%, and four Atlantic Provices with less than 10%.

Now, the formula could have been arranged any number of ways, of course. The idea is always to make it difficult but not impossible to change the constitution of a country. The idea is to make sure that even those who oppose an amendment will probably end up accepting it in their heart of hearts because such a large majority supports it. They could have said that an amendment must have the support of all provinces having moe than, say, 15% of the population, plus at least one western and one Atlantic province. In that way, no amendment that is absolutely repellent to these two regions could pass. That way Quebec would have had its “veto” if you wish to call it that.

So the next morning at the conference in the 1980s, Quebec was isolated and told the formula would be seven out of 10. So now, the four western provinces can effectively veto anything. The four Atlantic Provinces can do so as well. Ontario, with its huge population, can pretty much block anything at a number of levels. But Quebec? Forget it! If you want to pass anti-Quebec, anti-French amendments to the Constitution, go ahead. All you need is seven of the nine Anglo provinces. Not impossible. And Quebec can’t do a bloody thing about it.

My delusionist, revisionist view of history leads me to add that when Levesque got back to Quebec City, the ENTIRE legislature, including all federalist, pro-Canadian members, including English-speaking representatives in the Quebec legislature, UNANIMOUSLY condemned the thorough fucking-over that Quebec had gotten. You can look up the resolution on the Quebec web site, I suppose, if you want to see it.

62

Dear modertor: I am not complaining, I am just amused and curious. How do you suppose the present thread led to ads at the end for “dog-proof trash cans”. Are we being subtly told that we are all talking trash? :smiley:

63

Then I assume I must hate my nephew and my other Jewish relatives. Funny, I thought I loved them. By the way you may be interested to know that until recently, when Quebec decided to go to non-confessionality in ALL schools, Quebec was the only place outside Israel that had publicly supported Jewish schools. Or google Ezekiel Hart, the Jewish politician who was twice elected by Quebecers but refused his seat by the British in the 1840s.

And of course, we know that anti-semitism in the 1920s and 1930s was exclusive to Quebec. Or was it? While you are googling, look up the infamous and shameful "none is too many " quote regarding potential Jewish refuees fleeing Nazi persecution. Was that said by an anglophone or a francophone? Look it up.

By the way, I never wrote a book comparing Merdecai Richler’s grandmother to a breeding sow, but he did me that favour.

64

So during all the time that Meech Lake was in the news, discussed on TV, on radio talk shows, in bars, I NEVER ONCE heard anti-French and anti-Quebec sentiments being expressed? I have never heard one westerner after another call a talk show to say “Let those f____ing Quebecers go, and go riddance?” I tell you, I am really suffering from delusions here!

65

Suppose Canada breaks up, and Quebec becomes a nation. What would the results be? Quebec would stop paying taxes to the federal government, but would not receive federal funds. Economy: Quebec is linked in to the USA markets, so no big changes. Costs; quebec would have to set up embassies around the world, UN, etc., also would have to have its own armed forces (big expense). Rest of canada: the country is now divided (the maritimes, labrador, Newfoundland now isolated from ontario and western Canada-would quebec allow transit without customs? my guess is they would.
result of Independent Quebec? No big changes, just another flag at the UN, and higher taxes in Quebec.

66

It wasn’t a personal vendetta. Trusdeau wanted his Legacy (The repatiration of the Constitution adn the Charter of Rights) The Gang of 8 broke because,
A) Chretien was a great after hours negotiator,
and
B)Levesque went to bed and was to be undisturbed. He let himself get caught flatfooted.

Sure there was some betrayal but it wasn’t as some attack on Quebec. Politicians did what politicians do… look out for their own personal needs. Chretien, on behalf of teh Prime Minister made some consessions including teh Notwithstanding clause.

And in the 27 years since how many times has that happened. In fact if you want to talk about political power Quebec still has its sway in the form of the Bloc in Parliment. Where has Quebec actually found itself disatvantaged in Confederation in recent history?

Yeah, except for the fact that there is a little thing from the 1980 Constitution called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Which would require invoking the Notwithstanding clause to be invoked to make such laws. Quebecors will be familar with that little clause because it is invoked to keep Bill 101 alive and thriving.

Despite fear mongering there has never been any movement to dismantal official Bilingualism, protection of French language rights or Quebec for that matter.

Quebec at one time had a right to distrust English Canada but that day is long gone. The Rest of Canada has caught up and guarenteed all the rights Quebecois initially desired. Now there is a push for quasi indepenence based on what? I mean really where is this huge imaginary gulf between Quebec and Canada?

And be completely honest here, Quebec has not been fighting for the rights of Canadian francophones but for Quebecois. They couldn’t give a damn about those in Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitobia or Labrador for that matter.

This has always been an excersise in provincial power not french language/cultural rights.

67

I did not say that… Sure there were idiots espousing that. But there was and is no organized movement to screw over Quebec!

Are there no bigotries in Quebec? Don’t you have some idiots refering to “noiries”? Does that mean the provice of Quebec is racisit? Absolutely not. It means there are idiots who speak out loud.

68

Kingpengvin, an anglophone sittting comformtably among 325 million other North American anglophones, his language 100% secue and taken for granted, has the nerve to tell seven million Quebecois holding on for dear life as a language group what their survival strategy should be. In point of fact, Rene Levesque once asked the anglo provinces if they would be willing to supply their French minorities all that Quebec supplies its English minority in terms of government services, official use of their language in the courts and legislature, a complete educational system up to and including university, etc. Most of the anglo provinces had a fit and told him to mind his own business and take care of his own province.

Ontario has no law about signs? Since when do you need one? Take for example highway 401, the main road from Montreal to Toronto. You stop at a Tim Horton’s or any other service stop 10 km from the Quebec border and not one fucking sign is in French. Not so much as a bloody “Hommes” on the washroom door. On a highway that is travelled by millions of francophone Canadians every year.

In Ottawa, capital of a “bilingual” country, you see federal government signs in both languages. But go one block south of Parliament Hill on Sparks Street and tell me how many bilingual signs you see. But if Quebecers try to make French the predominant language of signs in Quebec, gad sir, what an outrage!

The federal government puts up bilingual signs at its installations across Canada. I have never once heard a Quebecer write or complain that this was a waste of his tax money. But what happens when the feds put up a bilingual sign on Alberta?

You guys want cites? Here’s an interesting read. “Bilingual today, French Tomorrow” by J.V. Andrew. It is about the plot to make Canada all French. Chapter 1, entitled “The Conspiracy” says that (the Prime Minister from Quebec)
“without firing a shot,. . . . will have taken more of the Earth’s surface for his race than did Napoleon, Alexander the Great and all the Roman Emperors combined.”

Lest you think this is a marginalized crackpot, his book was praised in the Toronto Sun as representing a definite trend in English Canada’s thinking. The book sold extensively in wastern Canada especially.

Here is another cite. Just last week, a letter to the Ottawa Citizen complained about the rudeness of French-Canadians who do not all switch to English when an Anglo is present. The writer wanted to know if we had never heard that it is rude to speak a foreign language in front of someone who does not understand it. French has been spoken in Canada since 1608, but it is a “foreign” language.

Want any more cites? I can supply them.

69

Cites mean you have to give us a link to the items so that mwe may actually get to view and study them. Not just throw off random names and hope we agree.

You dismiss my view but offer nothing of substance that shows an active attempt by government to destroy the French language in Canada. You sit there with a paranoid bunker mentality and have no clue that the truth is no one really gives these issues much of a second thought outside of Quebec because there is no issue. We don’t want to destroy French.

You are also wrong about French services outside of Quebec. In Ontario alone my Francophone friend has had all government services (including court) for him In French, His schooling was in French and there two french Channels in this provinceif hwe wished to view french only programing. In fact all essential services are open to him in his native tounge. These services are provided for a minority that is only the 10th largest in this province. By the way Highway 401 is biligual from The boarder to Cornwall.

Tell me sir, how is this an active attack on the francophone? How is this an undermining of their culture or language.

Sheesh, all this hand wringing about how you are clinging to life is nonsense! Quebec culture is quite vibrant and thriving. Teh French language is not any more dead than it was when the quiet revolution began.

I enjoy my trips there and most of the people, who are a great bunch of people. At least until I get into true soverignist territory where I’m being treated as an invading foriegner in my own country. Hell, and I’m even a Habs fan!

Do you actually go out and meet your fellow Canadians or do you find the worst examples based on propaganda and assume the worst of us, friend?

70

Well, you tell me; you’re the one who bases your impression of the rest of Canada in part on social attitudes held in the 1880s. Should you be judged the same way? I leave that to you, but I think the answer is obvious, isn’t it?

If you think I was actually saying you hate Jews, you really missed the point, dude.

But let’s deal with another error:

Dude, this is totally, one hundred percent false.

The UN Security Council DOES give a veto to the five permanent members; the United States, Russia (or the old USSR), France, the UK, and China. The statement that the US or the USSR veteod a motion is in fact completely accurate; they could, and did, veto many Security Council motions.

There is no requirement that Security Council motions be passed unanimously by ALL members; if one of the ten non-permanent members votes against a motion, it still passes. However, the five Permanent members do, in fact, get a veto. That’s what it amounts to, so why deny it?

Take it up with Tim Horton’s. That is, and should be, a matter between them and their customers, not the government. If you want signs in French, kick up a fuss with the folks posting the signs. Money talks.

In any case, Tim Horton’s washrooms don’t have any words on them at all, they have symbols.

But that’s yet another lie. Nobody with a serious opinion on the matter minds Francophones putting up French signs. **The issue was the government using force to prevent people from expressing themselves in the language of their choice (not just English.) **

If Quebecois want to put up signs in French only, by all means do so. It’s your damned sign. What people objected to what the government infringing upon the freedom of expression - a perfectly valid objection given how important freedom of expression is to a free country. Consider the true counter-example; if the government of Ontario banned the use of signs in French, Ontarians would go fricking berzerk. Why, I’d picket Queen’s Park myself.

As to your cites, sure, there’s lunatics in Canada. So?

71

This thread is getting boring, but it does illustrate one fact. English and French in this country simply cannot understand one another. I think RickJay and the others have amply illustrated that. I am sorry we never heard from Ambrosian, the OP, who started with the charming allegation that we Quebecers are out to “extort” you, because I would ask him one question. For years I heard about a Quebec Mafia running Ottawa because there were a lot of Quebecers in cabinet. Why no mention of a Western mafia or an Alberta mafia? Because you see them as your countrymen, and not us. It is that simple. See you around this will be my last post on this thread. Have a nice life, Rickjay and others.

72

It’s a shame that you haven’t seen your way to making clear and reasonable arguments. I, for one, would have followed them closely. You’ve devoted your energies to making appeals to emotion and illogical statements whilst ignoring perfectly valid questions from some other posters. You can’t convince anybody that way; all you can do is confirm your already established prejudices.

73

Welcome to the world of Federalist sovereignist relations.

To be honest I have always found the Quebec sovereignist’s arguments are essentially emotional appeals that do not stand up to the facts. There is a weird illogic they follow where they believe the rest of Canada is the same Canada of the 1950s and 1960s. That is a group of English speaking folk who wish nothing better than to rule over them as second class citizens with the ultimate aim of similating them.

That may have been true a half a century ago but things have changed quite a bit since then. Well everything but them. They have a golden dream based on an elite who wished to rule a nation of their own back in the 1970s.

Sadly the seperatists are actually the biased ones. Remember Perizos speech in 1995 about “money and the ethnic vote”? A seperate Quebec would likely be a nasty little nation that would mirror the Canada they belive exists.

But hell how can you argue with a group (just to be clear SEPERATISTS not all Quebcors or francophones) who believe they can be a free independant state that is still economically and militarily tied to this nation. Uhhhh yeah!

74

Dude, I understand you fine. And you know what? I think you’ll be back.

You still have not answered the two questions I asked, though.

75

I guess RickJay is a prophet because I am back for a final final posting. Let me be brief. The reason I am leaving for good is:

I am sick and tired of debating with a bunch of Anglos who have not the slightlest idea what it is like to be us and will never understand, even if I kept explaining for the next 100 years. You are not a minority language group in North America and your language is the most secure on Earth. So I guess you have lots of time to preach to others about labguage laws and signs and what not.

If I want to see three or four Anglos dumping on a Franco and sanctimoniously telling him what reality is (their version) I can look at Canada. I don’t need to create a microcosm of our fair land here on this message board.

By the way, it is spelled Parizeau, not Parizo. The name appeared in about 5 billion headlines (that is a rhetorical exageration, don’t do the math and write back that it is impossible). But hey, you cant be expected to master something that complicated in a “foreign” language, can you?

Just for the record, I am still NOT a separatist. In fact I still fight against separatism in Quebec and hope to see it definitively defeated. Stuff like Meech makes it harder, much harder, but I fight on. We came together because of a colonial conquest in 1759, and we are stuck with each other.

As my last comment, a little story. I remember speaking to my Mother-in-Law, who is southern Ontario English, about how I would like Quebecers just once to be asked a real and clear referendum question about separation, not some namby-pamby flim-flam job, so that the concept of separation can be voted down by a resounding majority. She listened politely to everything I said and then asked sweetly “Wasn’t all that settled on the Plains of Abraham?” In other words, we had lost all decision-making power 250 years ago.

I shruged, sighed, and changed the subject. I have never brought the issue up with her again. Sometimes, it is best just to shut up. Which is what I am doing now, RickJay. For good.

76

I apologize for the mispelling and the assumption that you may be a seperatist.
However, I will not withdraw the comments on how the rhetoric of French assimilation and anhilation is just fear mongering and has no basis in reality.

You do not have this sort of outcry from say The Acadians of New Brunswick, at least not that I’m aware of. I honestly think that the fears have been used by those in Quebec who are against reasoned debate with the rest of Canada.

Better to assume that the rest of Canada Hates you and all dealings are a non starter, than to work out differences.

I have known many non Quebec francophones and non of them seem any where near as alarmist as to their fate in Canada. There must be a reason for that.

Yes, there was once a history of bigotry against French Canada, yes there are hose who still espouse those stupid ideas, there are also those who espouse anti semitism and racsist bigotry, but all of those folks are the sad deluded minority and don’t represent their communities as a whole.

As I posted before 100 000 Anglophones poured into the streets of Montreal in 1995 to show they care. Why are those folks intetions insignificant compared to the handful of callers on talk radio and one Mother in law?

77

Who is “you”?

Nobody in this thread spelled anything “Parizo.” You’re the only one so far to type that word.

You’re now making up misspellings to get angry about. That’s just bizarre.

78

No, that was kingpengvin that misspelled, and he owned up to it in his last post. Let’s not all get more agitated than we need to, folks.

Y’know, in spite of our earlier clash, I can “get” where Valteron is coming from, since, as a Puerto Rican and consequently an American Latino, my whole life is spent immersed in the politics of “identity” and redress of historic wrongs. It’s not comfortable.

79

Ah, I was searching for “Parizo,” not “Perizo,” my mistake.

80

Wow, I leave for a two-week vacation in New Brunswick and I miss all this fun! :wink:

Seriously, I think a lot of Valteron’s posts have been interesting and match my experience and viewpoint. I think many of you should listen to him and try to understand what he is saying, instead of downplaying the anti-Quebec sentiment that does exist in English Canada, and responding that “you Quebecers do it too!” True, he has been quite emotionate, but I must admit also feeling strong emotions while reading this thread, which is why I feel I must respond. I will try to do so in a cooler way. However, I will not talk about the Meech Lake Accord, as I was too young when it happened to remember about it first hand, and I will also try not to talk about old grievances that don’t really matter anymore (the fight against French in the Western provinces in the 19th and 20th centuries, the antisemitism in Quebec in the 30s, etc.)

Okay, where to start to explain why there is a strong separatist movement in Quebec, but that hasn’t been successful until now, even though a lot of other (much poorer) countries have sprung into existence since the last few decades? Let’s start by explaining why there is a separatist movement in the first place. It is kind of hard to explain to English Canadians, because their concept of Canada is different from the nationalist (separatist or federalist) Quebecer’s, and even harder to explain to Americans such as astorian. Ever since I had disagreements with Cerowyn and Leaffan, with them claiming that Quebec is not a nation and that there is no way anyone can think otherwise, while to me it is quite obvious that Quebec is a nation, it goes without saying that it is, and it goes even better saying it, as the National Assembly of Quebec did unanimously by way of a motion in (I think) 2002, I have been reading books to try to clarify my thoughts. And I found interesting the book Impossible Nation - The Longing for Homeland in Canada and Quebec, by journalist Ray Conlogue. It is a flawed work, containing many spelling mistakes and even a few factual ones, but the author’s point still stands strong and reflects my thoughts well. I suggest you read it, if you haven’t (or criticise it if you have), but the gist of the work is that the Canadiens have had a sense of their nationhood since the Conquest of 1760 and maybe even before. It persisted while English-speaking people started immigrating in Canada while still seeing themselves as mostly British. At some point, English Canadians started realising that they weren’t British anymore, what with the many Ukrainian and other immigrants (already mentioned by Gorsnak) coming to build Canada with English as a common language. At the same time, they started fearing the overwhelming cultural power of the United States, a neighbour with which they share a language and which could very well assimilate them. So they started building a romantic nationalism of their own. And this required building it around the idea of Canada as two founding peoples, English and French, living in harmony with each other everywhere in Canada. But there were many things going against this view, for example:
[ul]
[li]the French and English don’t live in harmony everywhere in Canada. Quebec is mostly French, which the rest of Canada is mostly English, with a few exceptions, and most Canadians don’t ever use the other official language and might not even know it well, and[/li][li]why should Quebecers agree to fuse their own national consciousness, which has already existed for centuries, with the new found national consciousness of “Canadians”?[/li][/ul]

This, however, is not enough to start a separatist movement. It is true that francophone Quebecers and English Canadians live in two separate worlds, the so-called “Two Solitudes” (even though the word was originally intended to mean the opposite, as matt_mcl can explain better than I), with francophones in the rest of Canada living mostly as minorities trying to preserve their language. (Anglophones in Quebec are, in my impression, mostly living in enclaves of English Canada, cut from the rest of Quebec, with a few exceptions, such as younger, more progressive people such as the aformentioned matt_mcl.) The separatist movement started because until the sixties, francophone Quebecers weren’t “masters of their own house”. Most business was conducted in English, English-speaking people owned most of the means of production and most of the wealth. Francophone Quebecers were really a colonized people. But in the sixties we started an economic and cultural revival which has now made us an advanced and proud people (even though everything is not perfect: the French language, for example, is still in some peril in parts of Quebec, although certainly not as much as before). But then some people started saying that this revival couldn’t be complete until our nation obtained its own nation-state. True, we are now strong economically and culturally, but, for example, we still cannot deal with other countries in other ways than going through the federal government.

This led to the emergence of the separatist movement in Quebec. But this movement still hasn’t been successful in its goal. In both referendums held on the question of independence until now, a slight majority of voters voted against independence. Why is it? I must say that I’m not certain why, although I’m certain there are a variety of reasons (as Valteron pointed, and I must say that I think this sometimes gets forgotten by English Canadians, not all Quebecers are alike and we are not out there to scam you). Some might feel they belong more to the concept of Canada than to Quebec. Some might be more individualistic and not care that much about being part of a nation, any nation. Some, and I think this is one of the main reasons, think that Quebec just doesn’t have the economic means to become independent. Many English Canadian posters to this thread have also expressed this opinion. One reason that indicates that this is an important reason is the reaction in Quebec’s political class to premier Jean Charest’s interview in Paris a few days ago, where he said that yes, Quebec does have the economic means to be an independent country, but that it isn’t in its best interest to do so. André Boisclair, leader of the Parti québécois, the main separatist party, instantly seized on this affirmation by Charest.

I must admit that to some, this last reason why Quebec shouldn’t separate from Canada may seem opportunistic and may be part of the reason why some think that Quebec tries to scam Canada. If we feel we’re a nation and need a nation-state, why should we decide not to do it because we’re afraid of becoming a little poorer? All other countries who have decided to become independent didn’t take the time to compute the effect it would have on their budgets. And indeed, the Parti québécois, by pursuing independence in this way, has alienated some of its supporters, including prominent ones, such as famous playwright Michel Tremblay. But I believe that it isn’t even the main reason why Quebec independence, while remaining a strong opinion, just hasn’t been popular enough to actually achieve it. I think that former Parti québécois premier René Lévesque had it right when he lost the first referendum in 1980. With all the way Quebecers have gone in the last decades, with a cultural and economic revival, they just don’t feel so much that independence is necessary to protect their rights. If Quebec had become independent in the twenties, like Ireland, or up to the fifties, I believe that nobody today would question it. But now there just doesn’t seem to be a pressing need.

On the other hand, there are indications that younger people tend to be more in favour of independence than older folk, and that those who favour independence tend to still favour it when they grow older, so who knows what the future has in store?

If anyone has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.