La question referendaire
Bosse Dominique
popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) writes:
>mur...@macpro.ca (Murray Kastner) wrote:
>>Je pense que la plupart des electeurs pensent comme moi. C'est la raison
>>que les separatists ont trouve necessaires de "mislead" and "hoodwink" les
>>electeurs avant la dernieres refrendum. I think that the polls taken then
>>showed that one-third of the people thought they'd still have Canadian
>>passports and that they'd still use Canadian money.
>Well to be fair about this, an independent Quebec could use Canadian
>currency. Just as Canada could American currency. The rub is that,
>unlike the existing situation, there would be no Quebecers at the Bank
>of Canada, and so no Quebec influence in monatary policy... just like
>if Canada were to use American currency.
>But as for the 30% of Yes voters who thought that Quebec would still
>be a Canadian province after a Yes win, you are correct. Sad but true.
I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
That would have lasted several months, perhaps
over a year, and frankly, there would have been
an outside chance that Canada would have come
up with a real understanding of the traditional
demands of Quebec and that there would have
been no total secession.
Now call me names all you want, but if you
really insist on saying that any newly
sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
either French or English understood the
question because he voted NO and I didn't
understand because I maintain that Quebec
would still have been in Canada, what can
I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
--
Murray Kastner
In article <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Bosse Dominique) wrote:
> >But as for the 30% of Yes voters who thought that Quebec would still
> >be a Canadian province after a Yes win, you are correct. Sad but true.
>
> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
> That would have lasted several months, perhaps
> over a year, and frankly, there would have been
> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> been no total secession.
You obviously missed reading the speech M. Parizeau had prepared in
anticipation of a YES win. You are oblivious to anything that runs counter
to your own wishful thinking. Fortunately, the free flow of information
prevents widespread ignorance of issues these days.
> Now call me names all you want,
I wouldn't call you a spreader of hate and hateful as you so often do
anyone who deigns to disagree with you. I am merely pointing out the error
in your thinking and what you may have missed.
> but if you
> really insist on saying that any newly
> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> either French or English understood the
> question because he voted NO and I didn't
> understand because I maintain that Quebec
> would still have been in Canada, what can
> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
Matter of point of view. I find the attitudes of the power-lusting elites
in the PQ to be arrogant and contemptible.
It's over, Dominique. You are being naive because I think you know better.
The last polls confirm it. M. Parizeau understood this when he decided to
throw in the towel. The economy won't permit risk with people's future,
regardless of what the hard-liners and idealogues want.
Feel free to use your standard epithets but the fact remains that I may
have more compassion and caring for the average Quebecois than you. You
seemingly would run high risks in pursuit of anachronistic tribalism.
I am given to understand that M. Parizeau will issue a statement on October
30th in the LaPresse. It should be interesting. Frankly I prefer Parizeau
to Bouchard; at least he was honest in stating his true feelings. I may not
like him but I respect his integrity; not something I can say for many.
,\\urray
--
popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca
bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Bosse Dominique) wrote:
>>But as for the 30% of Yes voters who thought that Quebec would still
>>be a Canadian province after a Yes win, you are correct. Sad but true.
> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
> That would have lasted several months, perhaps
> over a year, and frankly, there would have been
> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> been no total secession.
Read Bill 1 if you are interested in history.
Read Parizeau's "victory" speech that was taped the day before the
vote to see what Parizeau's plan was. What do you think Parizeau was
talking about when he told the diplomats in that private meeting that
once Quebecers voted Yes we'd be like lobsters in a pot (a comment
which Parizeau never denied saying).
I'm sorry that you too were mislead. But when Bill 1 says that the
national assembly of Quebec will declare Quebec sovereign (i.e., UDI),
and when Parizeau tells Quebecers that they are on the way to
secession (in the victory speech), its pretty darn clear what is going
to happen next.
The wisdom of the separatists is that they hide their plan with nice
words like sovereignty, which people take to mean "more powers". Now
who would argue with having "more powers"? That's the positive spin
they put on it. They make it seem like a "new deal" within Canada. A
sort of Meech Plus. But when the real word is used - secession -
Quebecers massively reject the option in opinion polls.
That's why the PQ used the word sovereign last year. Not only that,
but they managed to trick people like Dominique into thinking this was
just another negotiation round. That the partnership proposal would be
accepted by what was left of Canada (even though they never showed
anyone what the proposal was going to be).
And what's even sadder is that a year later, now that we've all had
time to reflect on the referendum question, that Dominique *still*
believes that Quebec would have remained a Canadian province.
> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> really insist on saying that any newly
> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> either French or English understood the
> question because he voted NO and I didn't
> understand because I maintain that Quebec
> would still have been in Canada, what can
> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
>--
Pierre Baril
<bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>
Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: world
Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> really insist on saying that any newly
> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> either French or English understood the
> question because he voted NO and I didn't
> understand because I maintain that Quebec
> would still have been in Canada,
Hey, pick on someone your own size eh! :-)
Un gars.
Sean Maguire
[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
Actually, I don't think you are one of the 30%. I think everyone knows that
that would have been the case for a certain amount of time....say...
> That would have lasted several months, perhaps
> over a year,
....yeah...that's about right.
> and frankly, there would have been
> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> been no total secession.
No way. You know and I know that Canada could have come up with just
about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> really insist on saying that any newly
> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> either French or English understood the
> question because he voted NO
?????????
> and I didn't
> understand because I maintain that Quebec
> would still have been in Canada,
in the short-run, of course! In the medium run (say 2 years), no way!
> what can
> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Maguire, M.P.A. Student Number of days 'til I see my wife: 19
Email address: spma...@chat.carleton.ca
Web Page >>> http://chat.carleton.ca/~spmaguir
This has been a public service announcement brought to you by Kraft,
maker of Velveeta, America's best-loved petroleum-byproduct cheese
substitute. Nothing tastes more like Velveeta than Velveeta, except
more Velveeta, or really gross cheese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Warner
In message <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA> -
bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Bosse Dominique)28 Oct 96 16:49:33 GMT writes:
:>
:>popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) writes:
[snip]
:>>But as for the 30% of Yes voters who thought that Quebec would still
:>>be a Canadian province after a Yes win, you are correct. Sad but true.
:> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
:> with contempt.
*** I place you among the misleaders (for whom I do have
some contempt) not among the 30% who when polled said
in effect, yes I was misled. The question was indeed
fradulently deceptive, as indeed is what you say below:
For me, there was no doubt
:> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
:> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
:> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
:> That would have lasted several months, perhaps
:> over a year,
*** For a second or so after the blast, the Federal Building
in Oklahoma was still standing. Then eventually gravity
caused the collapse. So, one could say that it was still
standing immediately after the blast; but all hell broke
loose shortly thereafter. The same would have happened
if the vote had been YES.
and frankly, there would have been
:> an outside chance that Canada would have come
:> up with a real understanding of the traditional
:> demands of Quebec and that there would have
:> been no total secession.
*** Not a snowball's chance in hell. That's just my opinion
but I've travelled a fair bit in ROC. The politicians
that made the mistake would have been quickly tossed out.
:> Now call me names all you want, but if you
:> really insist on saying that any newly
:> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
:> either French or English understood the
:> question because he voted NO and I didn't
:> understand because I maintain that Quebec
:> would still have been in Canada, what can
:> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
:> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
*** He would naturally have been harder to fool than the
30% who were duped by a deceptive question - and said so
when polled. He would have more practical experience
of how really rotten politicians can be in poor little
countries, and he -- not being in any way a member of
the pure wolly flock lulled by the success of past
"knife to the throat" tatics -- would have seen the
deception -- and did in overwhelming numbers.
The arrogance here is in asking a deceptive question
and the people who did it deserve contempt -- not the
30% of the public who were duped and said so when polled.
Wes
Bosse Dominique
spma...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Maguire) writes:
>[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
I don't get that newsgroup, so why should I post
there and no read the follow-ups?
>Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
>> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
>> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
>> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
>> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
>> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
>Actually, I don't think you are one of the 30%. I think everyone knows that
>that would have been the case for a certain amount of time....say...
Precisely: the question asked would have forced
me to answer yes, just like the 30% who did.
You cannot know what was in their minds, it's
just your superior attitude that makes you so
sure they were stupid and/or ignorant.
>> and frankly, there would have been
>> an outside chance that Canada would have come
>> up with a real understanding of the traditional
>> demands of Quebec and that there would have
>> been no total secession.
>No way. You know and I know that Canada could have come up with just
>about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
>And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
What would have been the PQ's selfish concern?
To get reelected. You don't get reelected by
pissing off the population.
What would have been the BQ's selfish concern?
I leave that for your homework.
>> Now call me names all you want, but if you
>> really insist on saying that any newly
>> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
>> either French or English understood the
>> question because he voted NO
>?????????
The federalists keep accusing the YES voters
of not having understood the question but the
possibility that some NO voters didn't have a clue
is rejected off-handedly all the time.
>Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
You don't mean to be, for sure, but you
end up holding views that imply a considerable
dose of contempt and arrogance towards francophones.
--
G.C.
In article <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA says...
>
>spma...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Maguire) writes:
>
>>[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
>
> I don't get that newsgroup, so why should I post
> there and no read the follow-ups?
>
read any follow-ups here.;)
>>Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
>
>>> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
>>> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
>>> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
>>> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
>>> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
>
>>Actually, I don't think you are one of the 30%. I think everyone
>>knows that that would have been the case for a certain amount of
>>time....say...
>
> Precisely: the question asked would have forced
> me to answer yes, just like the 30% who did.
> You cannot know what was in their minds, it's
> just your superior attitude that makes you so
> sure they were stupid and/or ignorant.
>
What's with this "superior attitude" comment? As for what
was in their minds, wasn't the poll trying to clarify what
they may have felt the referendum question meant to them?
>>> and frankly, there would have been
>>> an outside chance that Canada would have come
>>> up with a real understanding of the traditional
>>> demands of Quebec and that there would have
>>> been no total secession.
>
>>No way. You know and I know that Canada could have come up with just
>>about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
>>And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
>
> What would have been the PQ's selfish concern?
> To get reelected. You don't get reelected by
> pissing off the population.
>
> What would have been the BQ's selfish concern?
> I leave that for your homework.
>
Hmm, are you saying that a "new country" isn't what the PQ
and BQ really want?
>>> Now call me names all you want, but if you
>>> really insist on saying that any newly
>>> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
>>> either French or English understood the
>>> question because he voted NO
>
>>?????????
> The federalists keep accusing the YES voters
> of not having understood the question but the
> possibility that some NO voters didn't have a clue
> is rejected off-handedly all the time.
>
I have never claimed this, only that without a clear question,
that the right to claim that a majority of the population really
wants to separate(with no guarantee of dual citizenship, open
borders, etc.) isn't the way to create a "new country". To truly
create a "new country" with as little upset as possible, the terms
of secession need to be understood on both sides first.
>>Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
>
> You don't mean to be, for sure, but you
> end up holding views that imply a considerable
> dose of contempt and arrogance towards francophones.
>
I do not feel any contempt or arrogance toward Francophones.
I wish I could say the same from you in regard to Anglophones,
whatever their origin.
G.C.
Gilles Rioux
Wes Warner <w...@servtech.com> écrivait :
> In message <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA> -
> bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Bosse Dominique)28 Oct 96 16:49:33 GMT writes:
> :>
> :>popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca (Darryl Levine) writes:
>
> [snip]
> :>>But as for the 30% of Yes voters who thought that Quebec would still
> :>>be a Canadian province after a Yes win, you are correct. Sad but true.
>
> :> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> :> with contempt.
>
> *** I place you among the misleaders (for whom I do have
> some contempt) not among the 30% who when polled said
> in effect, yes I was misled. The question was indeed
> fradulently deceptive, as indeed is what you say below:
>
> For me, there was no doubt
> :> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> :> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> :> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
> :> That would have lasted several months, perhaps
> :> over a year,
>
> *** For a second or so after the blast, the Federal Building
> in Oklahoma was still standing. Then eventually gravity
> caused the collapse. So, one could say that it was still
> standing immediately after the blast; but all hell broke
> loose shortly thereafter. The same would have happened
> if the vote had been YES.
>
> and frankly, there would have been
> :> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> :> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> :> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> :> been no total secession.
>
> *** Not a snowball's chance in hell. That's just my opinion
> but I've travelled a fair bit in ROC. The politicians
> that made the mistake would have been quickly tossed out.
>
> :> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> :> really insist on saying that any newly
> :> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> :> either French or English understood the
> :> question because he voted NO and I didn't
> :> understand because I maintain that Quebec
> :> would still have been in Canada, what can
> :> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
> :> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
>
> *** He would naturally have been harder to fool than the
> 30% who were duped by a deceptive question - and said so
> when polled. He would have more practical experience
> of how really rotten politicians can be in poor little
> countries, and he -- not being in any way a member of
> the pure wolly flock lulled by the success of past
> "knife to the throat" tatics -- would have seen the
> deception -- and did in overwhelming numbers.
>
> The arrogance here is in asking a deceptive question
> and the people who did it deserve contempt -- not the
> 30% of the public who were duped and said so when polled.
>
>
> Wes
Après avoir contemplé cet Himmalaya d'intelligence à propos de cet
Everest de supercherie que représentait la question référendaire, j'ai
quand même un petit motton qui me trotte dans la tête:
Un grand nombre de journalistes étrangers sont venus couvrir cet
évènement. Ai-je manqué quelque chose - je n'ai lu aucun commentaire sur
la difficulté de la question.
Une bande d'ignorants?
--
Gilles Rioux, rue Saint-Urbain
popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca
gri...@cam.org (Gilles Rioux) wrote:
>> The arrogance here is in asking a deceptive question
>> and the people who did it deserve contempt -- not the
>> 30% of the public who were duped and said so when polled.
>> Wes
>Un grand nombre de journalistes étrangers sont venus couvrir cet
>évènement. Ai-je manqué quelque chose - je n'ai lu aucun commentaire sur
>la difficulté de la question.
>Une bande d'ignorants?
>Gilles Rioux, rue Saint-Urbain
Not ignorant, just lazy. I was personally incensed by CNN who
continually showed poll results (the week before) will the question:
"Do you agree Quebec should separate" on the screen. That was not the
question asked in the poll. Every poll shows consistantly that that
question garners about 30% support. While the Oct.30 question would
have lead to the same result as the CNN version of the question, CNN
erroneously led viewers to believe that the question was that
straighforward. No it is not surprising that their reporter didn't
even know about the formulation of the question and how the PQ polls
had shown how support for their option increased when the word used to
describe their plan changed as follows:
separation ---> independence ---> sovereign country ---> sovereign
---> sovereign with partnership
In short, the media (at least CNN) messed up.
But why even look to the media. Why can't you acknowledge that up to
30% of Yes voters understood from the question that Quebec would
continue to be a Canadian province after a Yes win. And the 14% of Yes
voters who believed that the "agreement signed on ..." was an
agreement with Canada. Wes has already showed how the question is
misleading in the way the sentences runs. Why can't you just admit
that Quebecers were tricked by the PQ? The facts are there.
Benoit Salvail
popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca wrote:
> even know about the formulation of the question and how the PQ polls
> had shown how support for their option increased when the word used to
> describe their plan changed as follows:
>
> separation ---> independence ---> sovereign country ---> sovereign
> ---> sovereign with partnership
>
> In short, the media (at least CNN) messed up.
>
> But why even look to the media. Why can't you acknowledge that up to
> 30% of Yes voters understood from the question that Quebec would
> continue to be a Canadian province after a Yes win. And the 14% of Yes
> voters who believed that the "agreement signed on ..." was an
> agreement with Canada. Wes has already showed how the question is
> misleading in the way the sentences runs. Why can't you just admit
> that Quebecers were tricked by the PQ? The facts are there.
Vous avez bien raison concernant la question référendaire. Bien que les
péquistes continuent d'affirmer que la question était comprise de tout le
monde et qu'effectivement, beaucoup de gens ont voté sur la base de la
question «êtes-vous pour ou contre la souveraineté du Québec».
Cependant, le raisonnement ci-haut est aussi correct sur la base des
sondages puisque l'apparition du mot «indépendance» dans la question fait
curieusement descendre l'appui à la souveraineté de 20%.
Ce qui est intéressant toutefois, c'est la propension des leaders
péquistes à tenter d'amener la population à voter en faveur de la
souveraineté par une astuce, comme l'a si candidement expliqué Jacques
Parizeau. Une tactique de ce genre pourtant, répugnait le fondateur même
du PQ, René Lévesque (selon Claude Morin) qui y voyait des relents de
propagande et de manipulation. Est-il possible que le PQ ait oublié les
valeurs de celui qui l'a mis au monde?
luc...@ibm.net
In <552ths$3...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, spma...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Maguire) writes:
>[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
>
>> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
>> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
>> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
>
>that would have been the case for a certain amount of time....say...
>
>
>> over a year,
>
>
>> and frankly, there would have been
>> an outside chance that Canada would have come
>> up with a real understanding of the traditional
>> demands of Quebec and that there would have
>> been no total secession.
>
>about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
>And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
Et si, apres une offre formelle d'Ottawa, on devrait repasser aux urnes? C'est
le genre de clauses que le Canada pourrait demander s'il prennait un tant soi peu
au serieux nos referendums. Si Johnson avait voulu participer quand il a ete
invite a le faire, il aurait pu demander ca.
>> Now call me names all you want, but if you
>> really insist on saying that any newly
>> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
>> either French or English understood the
>> question because he voted NO
>
>?????????
>
>> and I didn't
>> understand because I maintain that Quebec
>> would still have been in Canada,
>
>in the short-run, of course! In the medium run (say 2 years), no way!
>
>> what can
>> I say: that's exactly that kind of arrogance
>> and contempt that's fueling nationalism.
>
>Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sean Maguire, M.P.A. Student Number of days 'til I see my wife: 19
>Email address: spma...@chat.carleton.ca
>Web Page >>> http://chat.carleton.ca/~spmaguir
>
>This has been a public service announcement brought to you by Kraft,
>maker of Velveeta, America's best-loved petroleum-byproduct cheese
>substitute. Nothing tastes more like Velveeta than Velveeta, except
>more Velveeta, or really gross cheese.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucie F. luc...@ibm.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mes commentaires n'ont aucune autre pretention que d'exprimer mon
opinion de citoyenne.
Je n'ai pas grand chose a perdre, peu a gagner et ABSOLUMENT rien a
prouver.
Pour les etudes scientifiques...ca coute plus cher.
Wes Warner
In message <1996102921...@dynamicppp-161.hip.cam.org> -
gri...@cam.org (Gilles Rioux)Tue, 29 Oct 1996 21:32:38 -0500 writes:
[snip]
:>> The arrogance here is in asking a deceptive question
:>> and the people who did it deserve contempt -- not the
:>> 30% of the public who were duped and said so when polled.
:>>
:>>
:>> Wes
:>
:>Après avoir contemplé cet Himmalaya d'intelligence à propos de cet
:>Everest de supercherie que représentait la question référendaire, j'ai
:>quand même un petit motton qui me trotte dans la tête:
:>
:>Un grand nombre de journalistes étrangers sont venus couvrir cet
:>évènement. Ai-je manqué quelque chose - je n'ai lu aucun commentaire sur
:>la difficulté de la question.
:>
:>Une bande d'ignorants?
*** No. Just deceived like the 30% of Quebec
Francophones said they were also. It really
was a great deception, (if one is into
that kind of thing).
There is a darker side to the success of
the deception and that is the complicity in it
of the NO-side led by the "knife to the throat"
or "profitable federalism" Quebec Liberal Party,
and the like minded camp in the Federal Liberal Party.
The NO-side knew that the question was deceptive,
and also knew from polls that in fact the public
was indeed being deceived. Yet the NO-side declined to
play this card. They could have said LOUDLY and OFTEN
-- there is NO "association agreement' with Canada,
even a secret one, and the 'agreement' mentioned in
the question does not include Canada. (That they chose
not to is evident by the 30% deception rate.)
If the NO-side had made news of the point that the
question was 'fraudulently deceptive' -- as they knew it was --
then the international media would have picked up on
the news. That they did not (as you say above) is
simply an indicator that it was not news. The NO-side
made the choice to keep the deception 'not-news'.
If there had been a YES, then the "knife to the throat"
boys would have had a field day -- they would then have
discovered that guess-what perhaps the question was a bit
misleading, so really there should be another round of
"knife to the throat", then another referendum. The PQ
would then have reluctantly agreed that they too would
like to play another round of "knife to the throat" and
perhaps dumped Mr. P as a demonstration of how terribly
important it was that Canada make concessions. ###
It all was a power game for the benifit of about 5,000
to 10,000 'notables' in Quebec who have made a profitable
career out of political blackmail at everyone else's
expense. They are running a good-cop bad-cop con game.
The difference between the PQ and the PLQ is for show
not for real.
Wes
### In my opinion -- (but who really knows)--
It is a good thing the YES outcome projected
above did not happen. The "knife to the throat"
boys would have faced a very hard line and
concessions would not have been made.
Sean Maguire
> >[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
> I don't get that newsgroup, so why should I post
> there and no read the follow-ups?
I wasn't complaining about you here, but rather the person who started the
thread....
> >Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
> >> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> >> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
> >> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> >> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> >> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
> >Actually, I don't think you are one of the 30%. I think everyone knows that
> >that would have been the case for a certain amount of time....say...
> Precisely: the question asked would have forced
> me to answer yes, just like the 30% who did.
> You cannot know what was in their minds, it's
> just your superior attitude that makes you so
> sure they were stupid and/or ignorant.
Hien? Let me say this again:
The question implied:
a) Quebec would continue to send M.P.s to Ottawa, at least until the
facade of "an offer" was made to Canada, as stated in the question.
and then
b) Quebec would become sovereign. As in not a part of Canada.
Negotiations on the outstanding issues, such as assets and debts, etc.
would have commenced thereafter. No more M.P.s in Ottawa.
I mean, I really am not one of those who foams at the mouth (Hello,
Equality Party) over the wording of the question, because it should have
been fairly clear what actually was going to happen in the event of a YES.
Remember the 1980 referendum? THat question was ridiculously long, and
yet everyone knew what was implied....Quebec sovereignty at some point in
the future, probably sooner rather than later.
> >> and frankly, there would have been
> >> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> >> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> >> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> >> been no total secession.
> >No way. You know and I know that Canada could have come up with just
> >about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
> >And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
> What would have been the PQ's selfish concern?
> To get reelected. You don't get reelected by
> pissing off the population.
But they would not have pissed off the population by making an offer that
would be a) easily and quickly rejected by the ROC, and b) consistent with
PQ policies, which are to attain sovereignty.
> What would have been the BQ's selfish concern?
Actually, the BQ's only concern at the 1993 election was to set the stage
for Quebec sovereignty within their mandate. Remember "les trois periodes":
1st) BQ wins many seats
2nd) PQ wins election
3rd) Referendum victory
> I leave that for your homework.
No thanks, I've got more than enough. :)
> >> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> >> really insist on saying that any newly
> >> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> >> either French or English understood the
> >> question because he voted NO
> >?????????
> The federalists keep accusing the YES voters
> of not having understood the question but the
> possibility that some NO voters didn't have a clue
> is rejected off-handedly all the time.
Well, not me. I'm afraid that I am sometimes quite pessimistic about
the intelligence of the average voter in North America (Quebec, Canada,
U.S.A., anglo-, franco-, or allo-) which I believe to be pathetically low.
Gee, maybe I am arrogant or contemptuous.
> >Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
> You don't mean to be, for sure, but you
> end up holding views that imply a considerable
> dose of contempt and arrogance towards francophones.
Just voters in general, actually. See above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Maguire, M.P.A. Student
gilbert germain
Benoit Salvail wrote:
> Cependant, le raisonnement ci-haut est aussi correct sur la base des
> sondages puisque l'apparition du mot «indépendance» dans la question
Et Parizeau qui revient hanter la province,un an plus tard,avec ses
idées gauchistes soutenues par G.Larose et probablement par Lorraine P.
Gilles Rioux
G.C. <cha...@jumppoint.com> écrivait :
> In article <bossed.8...@alize.ERE.UMontreal.CA>,
> bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA says...
> >
> >spma...@chat.carleton.ca (Sean Maguire) writes:
> >
> >>[noted the trimmed newsgroups line...mcgill.general???]
> >
> > I don't get that newsgroup, so why should I post
> > there and no read the follow-ups?
> >
> If you don't trim the newsgroup line, you will be able to
> read any follow-ups here.;)
>
> >>Bosse Dominique (bos...@ERE.UMontreal.CA) wrote:
> >
> >>> I was one of the 30% you keep discussing
> >>> with contempt. For me, there was no doubt
> >>> whatesoever that Quebec would still be a
> >>> Canadian province after a YES vote. Our
> >>> Quebec MP's would still have been in Ottawa.
> >
> >>Actually, I don't think you are one of the 30%. I think everyone
> >>knows that that would have been the case for a certain amount of
> >>time....say...
> >
> > Precisely: the question asked would have forced
> > me to answer yes, just like the 30% who did.
> > You cannot know what was in their minds, it's
> > just your superior attitude that makes you so
> > sure they were stupid and/or ignorant.
> >
> What's with this "superior attitude" comment? As for what
> was in their minds, wasn't the poll trying to clarify what
> they may have felt the referendum question meant to them?
>
> >>> and frankly, there would have been
> >>> an outside chance that Canada would have come
> >>> up with a real understanding of the traditional
> >>> demands of Quebec and that there would have
> >>> been no total secession.
> >
> >>No way. You know and I know that Canada could have come up with just
> >>about anything and it would have been rejected by Parizeau and Bouchard.
> >>And they would have had a democratic basis to reject it, to.
> >
> > What would have been the PQ's selfish concern?
> > To get reelected. You don't get reelected by
> > pissing off the population.
> >
> > What would have been the BQ's selfish concern?
> > I leave that for your homework.
> >
> Hmm, are you saying that a "new country" isn't what the PQ
> and BQ really want?
>
> >>> Now call me names all you want, but if you
> >>> really insist on saying that any newly
> >>> sworn-in citizen with no knowledge of
> >>> either French or English understood the
> >>> question because he voted NO
> >
> >>?????????
> > The federalists keep accusing the YES voters
> > of not having understood the question but the
> > possibility that some NO voters didn't have a clue
> > is rejected off-handedly all the time.
> >
> I have never claimed this, only that without a clear question,
> that the right to claim that a majority of the population really
> wants to separate(with no guarantee of dual citizenship, open
> borders, etc.) isn't the way to create a "new country". To truly
> create a "new country" with as little upset as possible, the terms
> of secession need to be understood on both sides first.
>
> >>Am I arrogant or contemptuous, Dominique?
> >
> > You don't mean to be, for sure, but you
> > end up holding views that imply a considerable
> > dose of contempt and arrogance towards francophones.
> >
> I do not feel any contempt or arrogance toward Francophones.
> I wish I could say the same from you in regard to Anglophones,
> whatever their origin.
>
> G.C.
Cette incompréhension chronique des motivations des souverainistes de la
part de G. C. me semble assez répandue. Il ne peut - ou ne veut ? -
admettre que le besoin d'avoir un pays ne passe pas par le besoin de
rejeter l'autre.
au...@cam.org
In <55c5aj$j...@noc.van.hookup.net>, cha...@jumppoint.com (G.C.) ecrivait:
>In article <199610311...@dynamicppp-92.hip.cam.org>, gri...@cam.org
>says...
><Snip>
>>Cette incomprihension chronique des motivations des souverainistes de la
>>part de G. C. me semble assez ripandue. Il ne peut - ou ne veut ? -
>>admettre que le besoin d'avoir un pays ne passe pas par le besoin de
>>rejeter l'autre.
>If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that
>Anglophones seem to believe that they are being rejected because
>Francophones in Quebec want their own country? I would disagree
>with this.
Ca commence bien...
Pourquoi tu te ne limites pas aux anguilles du Dakota du nord demeure, aussi,
un mystere.
Alain
Gilles Rioux
<popa...@po-box.mcgill.ca> écrivait :
> gri...@cam.org (Gilles Rioux) wrote:
>
> >> The arrogance here is in asking a deceptive question
> >> and the people who did it deserve contempt -- not the
> >> 30% of the public who were duped and said so when polled.
> >> Wes
>
> >Un grand nombre de journalistes étrangers sont venus couvrir cet
> >évènement. Ai-je manqué quelque chose - je n'ai lu aucun commentaire sur
> >la difficulté de la question.
> >Une bande d'ignorants?
> >Gilles Rioux, rue Saint-Urbain
>
> Not ignorant, just lazy. I was personally incensed by CNN who
> continually showed poll results (the week before) will the question:
> "Do you agree Quebec should separate" on the screen. That was not the
> question asked in the poll. Every poll shows consistantly that that
> question garners about 30% support. While the Oct.30 question would
> have lead to the same result as the CNN version of the question, CNN
> erroneously led viewers to believe that the question was that
> straighforward. No it is not surprising that their reporter didn't
> even know about the formulation of the question and how the PQ polls
> had shown how support for their option increased when the word used to
> describe their plan changed as follows:
>
> separation ---> independence ---> sovereign country ---> sovereign
> ---> sovereign with partnership
>
> In short, the media (at least CNN) messed up.
>
> But why even look to the media. Why can't you acknowledge that up to
> 30% of Yes voters understood from the question that Quebec would
> continue to be a Canadian province after a Yes win. And the 14% of Yes
> voters who believed that the "agreement signed on ..." was an
> agreement with Canada. Wes has already showed how the question is
> misleading in the way the sentences runs. Why can't you just admit
> that Quebecers were tricked by the PQ? The facts are there.
Premièrement, peu d'électeurs qui ont voté oui écoutent CNN. Ils
écoutent TVA. Un grand nombre d'électeurs qui ont voté non écoutent CNN
et CTV.
Deuxièmement, tout le raisonnement que vous faites sur les plans du PQ
après un oui vont rester pour toute l'éternité dans le domaine de
l'hypothèse: l'évènement n'a pas eu lieu!
Benoit Caron
G.C. wrote:
> =
> In article <199610311...@dynamicppp-92.hip.cam.org>, grioux@cam.=
org
> says...
> >
> <Snip>
> >
> >Cette incompr=E9hension chronique des motivations des souverainistes d=
e la
> >part de G. C. me semble assez r=E9pandue. Il ne peut - ou ne veut ? -
> >admettre que le besoin d'avoir un pays ne passe pas par le besoin de
> >rejeter l'autre.
> >
> >--
> >Gilles Rioux, rue Saint-Urbain
> =
> If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that
> Anglophones seem to believe that they are being rejected because
> Francophones in Quebec want their own country? I would disagree
> with this. =
Nope, you don't understand him correctly. Francophones, for the most,
share what is called the "national fiber". All of them identify first
to Quebec, not Canada. It is a fact, not a belief... Some of them
(60%)
feel that this attachment should lead to the rise of a new country,
formed
and governed by the will of this nation of quebec.
> The reason many Anglophones I know feel rejected by
> Quebec, is due to the fact that Quebec has never really seemed to
> accept being part of Canada and which has become even more
> evident with the rhetoric expressed during the referendums for
> sovereignty. =
Again, this is the result of history. Having been treated badly on many
occasions (1982 Constitution, Meech Lake Negociations, Charlottetown
referendum)
the people of Quebec simply don't feel welcomed by english Canada. All
attempts to reenter the Constitution by the front door, with dignity and
respect have been rejected by english Canada. Being so, we don't
perceive
Canada as our true country, since it's not been true to us! It is not a =
matter of racial exclusion, even if we are sometimes tempted to believe =
that if someone is not with us, that someone must surely be against us. =
And
this is where the vast majority of the anglophone community is wrong.
=
> Comments like, 'We'll have our country at last'
> and 'Quebec for Quebecois' along with some other comments
> made by government officials in Quebec, just seem to highlight
> the fact that historically, many Francophones have never wanted
> to be part of Canada. This is hard to accept after living
> together in this country for so long.
> =
You are wrong again. Francophones did want to be part of Canada. Else
they would not have voted NO with such a majority in 1980. THey sent
a clear message to federal leaders at this time.
"Please, make room for us in Canada, we want in..."
What happened then? As a reward for having been so docile, Trudeau f...
them real good with Mr. Chretien two years later...At this time, I
wonder
how many of the FRANCOPHONES that voted NO still would have voted on
this =
side afterwards. Now the beliefs and concerns of the francophones have
changed troughout the years. With about 60% of them voting on the YES
side
it seems they have given up trying to be part if Canada...
Of course we've been living together for so long. But has it been a
healthy
relationship for both parties? Sometimes, if a couple ends up breaking
the =
original relationship, they often get to understand each other better
and learn
to respect their differences. Personally, I can't see why english
Canada has
always been so relentful towards Quebec. We are being told that we are
a
NECESSARY CONDITION FOR CANADA'S SURVIVAL, but what about francophones
needs
to assure their own survival in north america? It is not the anglophone
community
who is the minority here in north america, don't you agree? And even if
you
happen to be a minority in Quebec, you still can live all of your life
without =
speaking a single word of french until you die. How ironic, for a
minority!
> G.C.
Regards,
Benoit Caron.
Michel Ouellet
G.C. wrote:
>
> If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that
> Anglophones seem to believe that they are being rejected because
> Francophones in Quebec want their own country? I would disagree
> Quebec, is due to the fact that Quebec has never really seemed to
> accept being part of Canada and which has become even more
> evident with the rhetoric expressed during the referendums for
> sovereignty.
> and 'Quebec for Quebecois' along with some other comments
> made by government officials in Quebec, just seem to highlight
> the fact that historically, many Francophones have never wanted
> to be part of Canada. This is hard to accept after living
> together in this country for so long.
>
You're probably right, if you look only 20-30 years ago... but before?
Every "Québécois" were proud to be "Canadiens français" and if I
read well "Canadiens" means "part of Canada".
So when you said
"...Francophones have never wanted to be part of Canada..."
it's not true. Sorry.
"You live 20 years with your wife... it can split anytime... but man,
you tried! No?"
--
Michel Ouellet
Darryl Levine
Benoit Caron <benc...@total.net> wrote:
>Nope, you don't understand him correctly. Francophones, for the most,
>share what is called the "national fiber". All of them identify first
>to Quebec, not Canada. It is a fact, not a belief... Some of them
>(60%) feel that this attachment should lead to the rise of a new country,
>formed and governed by the will of this nation of quebec.
A new country, huh? Funny that the word "country" wasn't ever used in
the referendum question. And if you speak with some of the
"sovereignists" here they'll tell you that Bouchard was going to get a
"better deal" for Quebec within Canada.
>Again, this is the result of history. Having been treated badly on many
>occasions (1982 Constitution, Meech Lake Negociations, Charlottetown
>referendum) the people of Quebec simply don't feel welcomed by english
>Canada.
If Mr.X doesn't feel welcome, they there is no use trying to convince
him that he really *does* feel welcome. However, I think it is
necessary given the secessionist spin on our recent history to set
some things straight which might demonstrate why he has no good reason
to feel unwelcome. (It's going to have to do with secessionist
misrepresentation of others views).
>All attempts to reenter the Constitution by the front door, with dignity and
>respect have been rejected by english Canada.
First of all Quebec has always "been in" the constitution. Starting
from 1867 until now that has not changed. Now, the mythology of Quebec
being "left out" during the 1981 amending conference is rank
mythology. Levesque was dragging his feet so as not to let the very
popular Trudeau change the constitution (like he promised in 1980) by
giving Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, patriating the
constitution from London, and enshrining French-language minority
rights across the country. Every poll of the day shows the popularity
of the proposed constitution. So Levesque joins the Gang of Eight. He
agrees to their amending formula which gives Quebec NO veto. Was
Levesque *really* in favour of the Gang of Eight's plan for
constitutional renewal? Or was he agreeing to it to sabotage any hope
for a deal so that he could tell Quebecers that Trudeau lied and
wasn't able to bring about the changes he promised in 1980?
Here is how the newspapers reported these events at that time:
As soon as the meeting was adjourned, around noon on Nov. 4, Mr.
Lévesque is quoted as saying: "For us, it (the Trudeau referendum
proposal) seems to be a respectable and extraordinarily interesting
way of extricating ourselves from this imbroglio." To which Claude
Charron, one of his ministers, added: "For us, it is the ideal
solution." Le Devoir reported that "at that point, the Quebec
delegation was jubilant and, at the risk of offending its partners of
the Common Front, did not hesitate to climb on board with Ottawa." (Le
Devoir, Nov. 5, 1981)
The "risk of offending its partners" was not an imaginary one, the
Quebec delegation finally realized in the afternoon of Nov. 4. This
led René Lévesque to repudiate Trudeau's referendum proposal without
any explanation other than saying, "It is all Greek to me." Michel
Vastel, a journalist then with Le Devoir, wrote: "By the end of the
day, the bridges were burning between Lévesque and his former allies."
He added that later, while everyone thought agreements were under
discussion, "a senior Quebec official, who had been asked why he did
not make a last- ditch effort to keep the provinces together, glumly
answered: 'After what has happened this morning, we have lost all
credibility.' '' (Le Devoir, Nov. 6, 1981)
Now, you would think that such a supposed "rejection" of Quebec by
"English Canada" in 1981 would have cause outrage and demands for
secession by Quebecers. You would suppose this, that is, if the story
is framed the way the secessionts like to frame it. The fact is that
Quebecers realised what Levesque's tactic was and realised that the
changes Trudeau was bringing was good for the country.
After the patriation, nationalist sentiment in Quebec did not get
stronger, as it would have been been had Quebecers felt that they had
been the victims of a gang-up by English-speaking Canada. In fact, it
got weaker. In March, 1982, CROP carried out an opinion poll for La
Press and found that 41 per cent favoured either
sovereignty-association or independence. A year later, in March-April
1983, CROP again did a poll, this time for the council on Canadian
Unity, and found that those who favoured sovereignty or independence
had dropped 8 percentage points , to 33 per cent."
Quebecers support of the 1982 Constitution Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 1981 - CROP poll asks Quebecers whether they think Leveque should
have signed.
Yes 42%, No 40%, Don't know, 18%
March 1982 - CROP poll asks whether Quebecers agree with "the position
of the government of Quebec, which refused to sign the agreement."
Yes 32%, No 48%, No opinion 20%
June 1982 - GALLUP poll asks Quebecers whether in the long run the
constitution would be "good thing for Canada",
Yes 49%, No 16%, Don't know 35%
These polls clearly show that support for "sovereignty" was on the way
down and support for the new constitution was on the way up. So when
secessionists defiantly proclaim that "Quebec" didn't agreed to the
constitution, let's be sure distinguish between the "government of
Quebec" and the "people of Quebec". The former didn't agree. The
latter did.
Now, to deal with your contention that "all attempts to reenter the
Constitution by the front door, with dignity and respect have been
rejected by english Canada", let me make some points clear:
(1) As I mentioned "Quebec" was never out of the constitution.
(2) Brian Mulroney was a supporter of the 1982 Constitutional
amendements.
(3) Brian Mulroney only adopted the secessionst view of 1981 as his
own in order to give the PCs a way to tap into the Quebec vote -
something which Trudeau had always prevented the PCs from doing nearly
14 years.
(4) Brian Mulroney worked out the Meech Lake Constitutional
Amendements with Bourassa. On June 3, 1987, the Canadian government
and the nine English-speaking provinces said Yes to Meech and signed
the Meech Lake Accord. Throughout Canada, the English press was
generally in favor of it.
(5) In Quebec, French opinion-leaders generally said No to Meech. Only
18 per cent of the experts who spoke to the parliamentary commission
set up by the Bourassa government in April 1987 said Yes to Meech - 70
per cent were against it. As for groups and associations, 19 per cent
were in favor of Meech and 81 per cent were against it.
(6) On Jan. 23, 1990, after Bourassa told the National Assembly that
Meech was only the first round that there would be more demands from
Quebec, and after he used the notwithstanding clause to ban English
signs, seven of nine English-speaking provinces and the Canadian
government still supported Meech. Two provinces had yet to take a
definitive stand, because of the hesitancy of one premier and the
opposition of one native member of the Manitoba legislature.
How can one seriously conclude, as Lucien Bouchard does, that it is
"English Canada" who "rejected the hand offered by Quebec in 1990" and
who "simply said No to Meech"?
>Being so, we don't perceive Canada as our true country, since it's not been true to us!
>It is not a matter of racial exclusion, even if we are sometimes tempted to believe
>that if someone is not with us, that someone must surely be against us.
>And this is where the vast majority of the anglophone community is wrong.
As I have tried to illustrate, the perception that you have of Canada
have been based upon many misrepresentations of history told to
Quebecers by the secessionists whose *aim* is to have Quebec secede
from Canada. (Remeber when Parizeau told the LA Times that all he
would need to win the referendum would be a handful of Ontarians
stepping on the Quebec flag?) Now I agree that if the things the
secessionsts said about were true maybe Quebecers should secede! The
story they tell is one in which Quebec has been rejected, humiliated,
violated, isolated, and pushed around. What I have tried to show is
that the facts just don't bear out there conclusions. The secessionist
tries to stir your emotions with half-truths, and misrepresentatons of
facts in order to convince you that your country is not your country.
If I've managed to convince you of anything here today, I hope its to
think carefully about what the secessionists are telling you and to
always remember what they aim is.
>Personally, I can't see why english Canada has always been so relentful
>towards Quebec. We are being told that we are a
>NECESSARY CONDITION FOR CANADA'S SURVIVAL, but what about francophones
>needs to assure their own survival in north america?
What are those needs? Specifically?
> It is not the anglophone community
>who is the minority here in north america, don't you agree?
Let's get our geography straight. North America INCLUDES Quebec.
In North America (as a whole) the anglophone community are in the
majority.
In Quebec the francophone community is in the majority. What I am
always amazed by if the failure of Quebec nationalists to acknowledge
the overwhelming predominence of the French-language within Quebec
(80% mother tongue & spoken by 94% of all Quebecers). French is secure
in Quebec, and thus, in North America by extension.
>And even if you happen to be a minority in Quebec, you still can live all of your life
>without speaking a single word of french until you die. How ironic, for a
>minority!
Sure you can live. But what kind of life would it be? You can live in
Florida and speak only Spanish, but you lose out on apportunities.
That's why 60% of anglophones are bilingual in Quebec.
>Benoit Caron.
Darryl Levine
Yvan Dutil
Michel Ouellet wrote:
> You're probably right, if you look only 20-30 years ago... but before?
> Every "Québécois" were proud to be "Canadiens français" and if I
> read well "Canadiens" means "part of Canada".
> So when you said
> "...Francophones have never wanted to be part of Canada..."
> it's not true. Sorry.
> "You live 20 years with your wife... it can split anytime... but man,
> you tried! No?"
> Michel Ouellet
Si vous connaissiez un peu mieux l'histoire vous seriez que les
bon canadiens-francais on passez les 2 derniers siecles a se battre
continuellement avec les anglais...
Yvan Dutil
Michel Ouellet
Ah !!! Voilà où c'est blessant...!!!
SI JE CONNAISSAIS UN PEU MIEUX L'HISTOIRE!!!!! Ouf... tu viens de
frapper un "noeud" mon ami. De quoi veux-tu parler? De la bataille
entre les français et les anglais ou la fierté les "Canadiens-francais"
de faire parti du Canada lors des deux derniers siècles? Il faut se
faire une idée car les deux questions sont très différentes.
Oui, il y a eu bataille entre français-anglais, sur une base régulière
lors des deux derniers siècles... mais la question était différente et
ma réponse en était une sur LA QUESTION, non sur une supposition.
Si vous connaissiez mieux un peu mieux votre français...
Regardez à la page 315 du Petit Larousse , 3ieme mot: démagogie...
--
Michel Ouellet
Suzanne Fortin
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Yvan Dutil wrote:
> Michel Ouellet wrote:
>
> > You're probably right, if you look only 20-30 years ago... but before?
> > Every "Québécois" were proud to be "Canadiens français" and if I
> > read well "Canadiens" means "part of Canada".
> > So when you said
> > "...Francophones have never wanted to be part of Canada..."
> > it's not true. Sorry.
>
> > "You live 20 years with your wife... it can split anytime... but man,
> > you tried! No?"
>
> > Michel Ouellet
> Si vous connaissiez un peu mieux l'histoire vous seriez que les
> bon canadiens-francais on passez les 2 derniers siecles a se battre
> continuellement avec les anglais...
>
> Yvan Dutil
Il faut nuancer ces propos.
Dans les deux derniers siecles, les Canadiens Francais se sont allier
avec les Canadiens Anglais, et contre. Pensons a l'Eglise qui s'est mis du
bord des dirigeants durant le 19e siecle. Ou le duo Baldwin-Lafontaine.
Ou Laurier. Ou Trudeau. Chaque politicien pro-Canada avait leurs
supporteurs parmi les francophones du Quebec.
Il ne faut pas voir l'histoire d'un bord. Sinon, ca devient de la propagande.
Suzanne Fortin Quebec, QC, Canada *DO NOT SEND ME COMMERCIAL E-MAIL*
******************************************************************************
Joignez-vous a notre equipe! Get involved!
La campagne pour l'equite fiscale Fall Campaign for Fair Taxation
des Jeunes neo-democrates du Canada New Democratic Youth of Canada
1-888-995-6392 1-888-995-6392
Tout le monde doit payer sa juste part. We must all pay our fair share.
Site web: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp/fr Website: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp
Luc Richard
Une anti-propagadiste me faisait rouler en bas de ma
chaise en écrivant, qui d'autre ? Suzanne Fortin :
>
> Suzanne Fortin WROTE:
>
> Il ne faut pas voir l'histoire d'un bord. Sinon, ca devient de la propagande.
>
> Suzanne Fortin Quebec, QC, Canada *DO NOT SEND ME COMMERCIAL E-MAIL*
> ******************************************************************************
> Joignez-vous a notre equipe! Get involved!
> La campagne pour l'equite fiscale Fall Campaign for Fair Taxation
> des Jeunes neo-democrates du Canada New Democratic Youth of Canada
> 1-888-995-6392 1-888-995-6392
>
> Tout le monde doit payer sa juste part. We must all pay our fair share.
>
> Site web: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp/fr Website: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp
Héhéhéé...
un chausson avec ça ?
--
Luc @ Anjou
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lucanjou/homepage.htm
Le Nationalisme et le Patriotisme ne sont pas des maladies honteuses !
Luc Richard
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Luc Richard wrote:
>
> > Une anti-propagadiste me faisait rouler en bas de ma
> > chaise en écrivant, qui d'autre ? Suzanne Fortin :
> > >
> > > Suzanne Fortin WROTE:
> > >
> > > Il ne faut pas voir l'histoire d'un bord. Sinon, ca devient de la propagande.
> > >
> > > Suzanne Fortin Quebec, QC, Canada *DO NOT SEND ME COMMERCIAL E-MAIL*
> > > ******************************************************************************
> > > Joignez-vous a notre equipe! Get involved!
> > > La campagne pour l'equite fiscale Fall Campaign for Fair Taxation
> > > des Jeunes neo-democrates du Canada New Democratic Youth of Canada
> > > 1-888-995-6392 1-888-995-6392
> > >
> > > Tout le monde doit payer sa juste part. We must all pay our fair share.
> > >
> > > Site web: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp/fr Website: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp
> >
> > Héhéhéé...
> > un chausson avec ça ?
>
> j'accorderai un peu plus de merite a tes propos.
Hep ! trop cultiver,(comme une patate) madame la majeure, je m'excuse...
;-)
Suzanne Fortin
G.C.
In article <327B89...@pop.hip.cam.org>, lbg...@pop.hip.cam.org says...
>
>G.C. wrote:
>>
>> If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that
>> Anglophones seem to believe that they are being rejected because
>> Francophones in Quebec want their own country? I would disagree
>> with this. The reason many Anglophones I know feel rejected by
>> Quebec, is due to the fact that Quebec has never really seemed to
>> accept being part of Canada and which has become even more
>> evident with the rhetoric expressed during the referendums for
>> sovereignty.
>> Comments like, 'We'll have our country at last'
>> and 'Quebec for Quebecois' along with some other comments
>> made by government officials in Quebec, just seem to highlight
>> the fact that historically, many Francophones have never wanted
>> to be part of Canada. This is hard to accept after living
>> together in this country for so long.
>>
>> G.C.
>
Hmm, so the Quiet Revolution, which started more than 30 years ago,
was the result of proud French-Canadiens that were happy to be part
of Canada as a whole for the previous 99 or so years?
>Every "Québécois" were proud to be "Canadiens français" and if I
>read well "Canadiens" means "part of Canada".
>So when you said
>"...Francophones have never wanted to be part of Canada..."
>it's not true. Sorry.
>
Actually, I said "many Francophones". As for your belief that
Quebec had accepted being part of Canada, why then the insistence
of not wanting to be part of the "British" court system when in
fact, the territory that was Canada was under the British crown
and would be under British laws? Do you deny that there have
always been Francophones in Quebec that have always wanted their
own country and have felt denyed this by the Treaty of Paris and
the subsequent BNA Act of 1867?
G.C.
luc...@ibm.net
>> Peut-etre quand tu obtiendras ton bac en histoire (j'ai une majeur)
>> j'accorderai un peu plus de merite a tes propos.
>
Mon pere etait meilleur a l'ecole que le tien!!!!!
Une chance qu'il n'y a pas juste les detenteurs de bacc. qui ont le droit de vote!
P.S. vous pouvez tenir compte de mon opinion si ca vous tente, ou pas, si ca
vous tente pas, je vais la donner quand meme. J'en ai un bacc. mais ca ne
vous regarde pas, a moins que vous soyez un employeur potentiel.
La pseudo elite intellectuel est en train de me faire regretter mes etudes!!!!
Suzanne Fortin
On 4 Nov 1996 luc...@ibm.net wrote:
> >> Peut-etre quand tu obtiendras ton bac en histoire (j'ai une majeur)
> >> j'accorderai un peu plus de merite a tes propos.
> >
> >Hep ! trop cultiver,(comme une patate) madame la majeure, je m'excuse...
>
> Mon pere etait meilleur a l'ecole que le tien!!!!!
>
> Une chance qu'il n'y a pas juste les detenteurs de bacc. qui ont le droit de vote!
> P.S. vous pouvez tenir compte de mon opinion si ca vous tente, ou pas, si ca
> vous tente pas, je vais la donner quand meme. J'en ai un bacc. mais ca ne
> vous regarde pas, a moins que vous soyez un employeur potentiel.
>
> La pseudo elite intellectuel est en train de me faire regretter mes etudes!!!!
Quand meme Lucie. La personne a qui je me suis adresse a fait une erreur
au plan historique. Etant donne que j'ai une certaine expertise, je peux
apporter certaines nuances. Ils y en a qui se sont moques de mes propos,
mais ils sont sans fondements. Je suis prete a ecoute tout argument, dans
la mesure que la personne est prete a nuancer, et etre receptif a des
nuances.
Benoit Caron
Darryl Levine wrote:
> =
> Benoit Caron <benc...@total.net> wrote:
> =
> >Nope, you don't understand him correctly. Francophones, for the most,=
> >share what is called the "national fiber". All of them identify first=
> >to Quebec, not Canada. It is a fact, not a belief... Some of them
> >(60%) feel that this attachment should lead to the rise of a new count=
ry,
> >formed and governed by the will of this nation of quebec.
> =
> A new country, huh? Funny that the word "country" wasn't ever used in
> the referendum question. And if you speak with some of the
> "sovereignists" here they'll tell you that Bouchard was going to get a
> "better deal" for Quebec within Canada.
> =
Well, this is not how it occured to me in the first place. Undoubtedly, =
Quebec was to become a distinct country if it separated from ROC.
> >Again, this is the result of history. Having been treated badly on ma=
ny
> >occasions (1982 Constitution, Meech Lake Negociations, Charlottetown
> >referendum) the people of Quebec simply don't feel welcomed by english=
> >Canada.
> =
> If Mr.X doesn't feel welcome, they there is no use trying to convince
> him that he really *does* feel welcome. However, I think it is
> necessary given the secessionist spin on our recent history to set
> some things straight which might demonstrate why he has no good reason
> to feel unwelcome. (It's going to have to do with secessionist
> misrepresentation of others views).
> =
> >All attempts to reenter the Constitution by the front door, with digni=
ty and
> >respect have been rejected by english Canada.
> =
> First of all Quebec has always "been in" the constitution. Starting
> from 1867 until now that has not changed. Now, the mythology of Quebec
> being "left out" during the 1981 amending conference is rank
> mythology.
Rank mythology is how you describe this? Then how do you describe
the total majority (minus 8) of deputies at the National Assembly
voting a resolution going against what Trudeau was planning to do?
I mean both liberal and "pequistes" were against this Federal project.
Is this what you call rank mythology. I call it federal bullshit.
> Levesque was dragging his feet so as not to let the very
> popular Trudeau change the constitution (like he promised in 1980) by
> giving Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, patriating the
> constitution from London, and enshrining French-language minority
> rights across the country. =
Come on man, enriching French-language minorities outside Quebec...
What rights are we talking about here. Besides the right to be =
assimilated, there ain't nothing great in Canada's actual constitution
for these people...
> Every poll of the day shows the popularity
> of the proposed constitution. So Levesque joins the Gang of Eight. He
> agrees to their amending formula which gives Quebec NO veto. Was
> Levesque *really* in favour of the Gang of Eight's plan for
> constitutional renewal? Or was he agreeing to it to sabotage any hope
> for a deal so that he could tell Quebecers that Trudeau lied and
> wasn't able to bring about the changes he promised in 1980?
[snip snip cut cut]
I've read the same articles and agree with them...
> =
> Now, to deal with your contention that "all attempts to reenter the
> Constitution by the front door, with dignity and respect have been
> rejected by english Canada", let me make some points clear:
> =
> (1) As I mentioned "Quebec" was never out of the constitution.
> =
Then why so many attempts to regulate the situation by former
prime ministers? If everything was right, then why did Mr. Bourassa
attempted a renewal with Mr. Mulroney?
> (2) Brian Mulroney was a supporter of the 1982 Constitutional
> amendements.
> =
Agreed..
> (3) Brian Mulroney only adopted the secessionst view of 1981 as his
> own in order to give the PCs a way to tap into the Quebec vote -
> something which Trudeau had always prevented the PCs from doing nearly
> 14 years.
> =
Trudeau was our "enfant ch=E9ri", but nonetheless a two-faced politician.=
> (4) Brian Mulroney worked out the Meech Lake Constitutional
> Amendements with Bourassa. On June 3, 1987, the Canadian government
> and the nine English-speaking provinces said Yes to Meech and signed
> the Meech Lake Accord. Throughout Canada, the English press was
> generally in favor of it.
Then why didn't it work out in the end? Suckers like Wells, Harper,
Carstairs
and the rest fucked up what was probably the last chance for a
federalism
renewal! How they messed up this thing!
> =
> (5) In Quebec, French opinion-leaders generally said No to Meech. Only
> 18 per cent of the experts who spoke to the parliamentary commission
> set up by the Bourassa government in April 1987 said Yes to Meech - 70
> per cent were against it. As for groups and associations, 19 per cent
> were in favor of Meech and 81 per cent were against it.
> =
So! If it was so bad for QUebec, as you seem to suggest, then why other
priovinces went against it in the end? Maybe it was not to bad after
all...
> (6) On Jan. 23, 1990, after Bourassa told the National Assembly that
> Meech was only the first round that there would be more demands from
> Quebec, and after he used the notwithstanding clause to ban English
> signs, seven of nine English-speaking provinces and the Canadian
> government still supported Meech. Two provinces had yet to take a
> definitive stand, because of the hesitancy of one premier and the
> opposition of one native member of the Manitoba legislature.
> =
> How can one seriously conclude, as Lucien Bouchard does, that it is
> "English Canada" who "rejected the hand offered by Quebec in 1990" and
> who "simply said No to Meech"?
> =
Who the fuck finally said no to Meech? Wasn't me cause I was hoping
for it to finally put an end to this identity thing for Quebec inside
Canada, not as a separate nation.
> >Being so, we don't perceive Canada as our true country, since it's not=
been true to us!
> >It is not a matter of racial exclusion, even if we are sometimes tempt=
ed to believe
> >that if someone is not with us, that someone must surely be against us=
=2E
> >And this is where the vast majority of the anglophone community is wro=
ng.
> =
> As I have tried to illustrate, the perception that you have of Canada
> have been based upon many misrepresentations of history told to
> Quebecers by the secessionists whose *aim* is to have Quebec secede
> from Canada. =
I've voted liberal until Bourassa resigned. Don't try to convince me =
with that type or arguments, they don't hold. The aim is not secession =
but sovereinty (can you make the difference? Guess not!) As I said, it
is a matter of National Fiber, nothing else.
> (Remeber when Parizeau told the LA Times that all he
> would need to win the referendum would be a handful of Ontarians
> stepping on the Quebec flag?) Now I agree that if the things the
> secessionsts said about were true maybe Quebecers should secede! The
> story they tell is one in which Quebec has been rejected, humiliated,
> violated, isolated, and pushed around. =
Has it not been so? WHen Canada was first united, Haut and Bas Canada, =
The "Haut Canada" extended its debt to Bas Canada (Qu=E9bec) and debt fre=
e
qu=E9b=E9cois just happened to get hundreds of dollars per capita in publ=
ic
debt put on their hands. This money served the purposes of english
loyalists
who modernized their agricultural equipments and machinery.
> What I have tried to show is
> that the facts just don't bear out there conclusions. The secessionist
> tries to stir your emotions with half-truths, and misrepresentatons of
> facts in order to convince you that your country is not your country.
> =
I did not need them at all to finally feel that way. Being called a
fucking
frog that wanted to break Canada apart last summer in Toronto, I wonder
where
mt true interests really lie.
> If I've managed to convince you of anything here today, I hope its to
> think carefully about what the secessionists are telling you and to
> always remember what they aim is.
> =
I am not stupid enough to believe anything, from either side. Some
people
just cannot get it that the people that voted Yes were not all assholes
and
drug addicts, loosers, drop outs, and what else...We can make an opinion
based upon how english Canada reacts and acts towards Quebec! It is not
always beautiful you know. And I am not talking about politicians but =
normal people who call you names because your native language is french!
> >Personally, I can't see why english Canada has always been so relentfu=
l
> >towards Quebec. We are being told that we are a
> >NECESSARY CONDITION FOR CANADA'S SURVIVAL, but what about francophones=
> >needs to assure their own survival in north america?
> =
> What are those needs? Specifically?
> =
Mostly, language and cultural protection. How can we assure that living
in french will uphold in North America for so many years to come? I
mean, =
we are less than 7 millions in an anglophone population of over 400
millions!
Getting new immigrants who choose to live in Quebec have their children
go to =
a french school is one step ahead. Helping them integrate the french
community
is another. Not assimilation, but cooperation.
> > It is not the anglophone community
> >who is the minority here in north america, don't you agree?
> =
> Let's get our geography straight. North America INCLUDES Quebec.
> =
> In North America (as a whole) the anglophone community are in the
> majority.
> =
> In Quebec the francophone community is in the majority. What I am
> always amazed by if the failure of Quebec nationalists to acknowledge
> the overwhelming predominence of the French-language within Quebec
> (80% mother tongue & spoken by 94% of all Quebecers). French is secure
> in Quebec, and thus, in North America by extension.
> =
Apart from silly word games...I meant that radicals like Galgaflop are
not totally right when they make those nasty recriminations and attacks
against language laws and politics. If some people were to fear
assimilation
it is not the anglo community of Montreal (since I am half part of it, I
can gauge that thing right.)
> >And even if you happen to be a minority in Quebec, you still can live =
all of your life
> >without speaking a single word of french until you die. How ironic, f=
or a
> >minority!
> =
> Sure you can live. But what kind of life would it be? You can live in
> Florida and speak only Spanish, but you lose out on apportunities.
> That's why 60% of anglophones are bilingual in Quebec.
> =
I agree that most of the young anglophones are bilingual and they
express
some real respect towards french in general. Not so from the elders...
Regards, =
Ben.
Jean-René Levesque
Un historien détraqué du nom de Michel Ouellet écrivait :
>
>> You're probably right, if you look only 20-30 years ago... but before?
>> read well "Canadiens" means "part of Canada".
>> So when you said
>> "...Francophones have never wanted to be part of Canada..."
>> it's not true. Sorry.
>
>> you tried! No?"
>
>> Michel Ouellet
>Si vous connaissiez un peu mieux l'histoire vous seriez que les
>bon canadiens-francais on passez les 2 derniers siecles a se battre
>continuellement avec les anglais...
>
>Yvan Dutil
Ca fait combien de temps qu'on essaye? On est tous tannés, et la souveraineté
est notre seule issue, que ce soit pour nous, les québécois, ou pour les
canadiens, qui ne comprennent pas grand chose de ce qui se passe... Au
dernière nouvelle, ils pensaient que la souveraineté, c'était notre nouvelle
marque de pâte à dent...
Papineau, aka Jean-René Levesque...
La page des souverainistes :
http://www.cedep.com/~jabba/jean/québec.htm
Benoit Caron
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
> =
> Il ne faut pas voir l'histoire d'un bord. Sinon, ca devient de la propa=
gande.
> =
> Suzanne Fortin Quebec, QC, Canada *DO NOT SEND ME COMMERCIAL E-=
MAIL*
> ***********************************************************************=
*******
> Joignez-vous a notre equipe! Get involved!
> La campagne pour l'equite fiscale Fall Campaign for Fair Taxat=
ion
> des Jeunes neo-democrates du Canada New Democratic Youth of Cana=
da
> 1-888-995-6392 1-888-995-6392
> =
> Tout le monde doit payer sa juste part. We must all pay our fair sha=
re.
> =
> Site web: http://fed.ndp.ca/fndp/fr Website: http://fed.ndp.ca/f=
ndp
La seule propagande icitte, c'est ta signature de 40 lignes, fatiguante, =
=E9coeurante et franchement inutile (au Qu=E9bec on se fout du NPD, =E0 p=
art
quelques
illumin=E9s qui croient que le fric pousse dans les arbres), et qui en
plus, est
=E9mise =E0 partir d'un site universitaire! Ton petit commerce de capita=
l
politique
on s'en passerait grandement tu sais!
Salut ma ch=E8re, =
sans amertume j'esp=E8re.
Benoit Caron.
luc...@ibm.net
In <Pine.SOL.3.91.96110...@hermes.ulaval.ca>, Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>
>On 4 Nov 1996 luc...@ibm.net wrote:
>
>> >> Peut-etre quand tu obtiendras ton bac en histoire (j'ai une majeur)
>> >> j'accorderai un peu plus de merite a tes propos.
>> >
>> >Hep ! trop cultiver,(comme une patate) madame la majeure, je m'excuse...
>>
>> Mon pere etait meilleur a l'ecole que le tien!!!!!
>>
>> Une chance qu'il n'y a pas juste les detenteurs de bacc. qui ont le droit de vote!
>> P.S. vous pouvez tenir compte de mon opinion si ca vous tente, ou pas, si ca
>> vous tente pas, je vais la donner quand meme. J'en ai un bacc. mais ca ne
>> vous regarde pas, a moins que vous soyez un employeur potentiel.
>>
>> La pseudo elite intellectuel est en train de me faire regretter mes etudes!!!!
>
>
>Quand meme Lucie. La personne a qui je me suis adresse a fait une erreur
>au plan historique. Etant donne que j'ai une certaine expertise, je peux
>apporter certaines nuances. Ils y en a qui se sont moques de mes propos,
>mais ils sont sans fondements. Je suis prete a ecoute tout argument, dans
>la mesure que la personne est prete a nuancer, et etre receptif a des
>nuances.
Je comprends ce que tu veux dire, mais n'oublie pas Suzanne que la *perception*
que l'on a de l'histoire est au moins aussi importante, sinon plus, que la realite
historique... C'est pour ca que tu veux etre historienne, non? Pour offrir ta propre
version des faits historiques? C'est tout a fait legitime, mais certains auront toujours
une perception differente de la tienne, et c'est bien ainsi, sinon, il n'y aurait pas
d'avancement de la science...
Darryl Levine
Benoit Caron <benc...@total.net> wrote:
>> First of all Quebec has always "been in" the constitution. Starting
>> from 1867 until now that has not changed. Now, the mythology of Quebec
>> being "left out" during the 1981 amending conference is rank
>> mythology.
>Rank mythology is how you describe this? Then how do you describe
>the total majority (minus 8) of deputies at the National Assembly
>voting a resolution going against what Trudeau was planning to do?
>I mean both liberal and "pequistes" were against this Federal project.
>Is this what you call rank mythology. I call it federal bullshit.
The vote that the PQ took in the Quebec legislature was crafted to get
Liberal support by including the fact that "distinct society" was not
included in the agreement. Ryan and the Liberals were on record for
supporting the inclusion of a distinct society clause and so had to
agree that its exclusion from the text was wrong.
But I would be remiss if I did not also point out that 38 members of
the legislature - led by Mr. Ryan - out of 108 had voted on Dec. 1,
1981, against a PQ resolution which, for all practical purposes,
slammed the door on the current efforts to seek compromises.
So again I ask what Levesque's real motivation was. Did he want to
compromise in early 1981 when he agreed to give up Quebec's demand for
a veto by accepting the Gang of Eight's formula? Did he realise that
he had been caught in his own game when he saw Trudeau compromising to
the Gang of Eight's demands, and so sought to break up the alliance by
accepting Trudeau's referendum proposal? And later on, after he had
miscalculated, did he leave open the possibility of compromise as did
Mr. Ryan and the Quebec Liberals?
>> Levesque was dragging his feet so as not to let the very
>> popular Trudeau change the constitution (like he promised in 1980) by
>> giving Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, patriating the
>> constitution from London, and enshrining French-language minority
>> rights across the country. =
>Come on man, enriching French-language minorities outside Quebec...
>What rights are we talking about here. Besides the right to be =
>assimilated, there ain't nothing great in Canada's actual constitution
>for these people...
<here is what the constitution that the PQ says was "imposed" on
Quebec... the horror...>
-----------------------------------------------------
Langue d'instruction
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :
a) dont la première langue apprise et encore comprise est celle de la
minorité francophone ou anglophone de la province où ils
résident,
b) qui ont reçu leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en français ou
en anglais au Canada et qui résident dans une province où la
langue dans laquelle ils ont reçu cette instruction est celle de la
minorité francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou l'autre cas, le droit d'y faire instruire leurs
enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans cette langue.
Continuité d'emploi de la langue d'instruction
(2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant a reçu ou reçoit son
instruction, au niveau primaire ou secondaire, en français ou en
anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instruire tous leurs enfants,
aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
Justification par le nombre
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens canadiens par les paragraphes (1) et
(2) de faire instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorité francophone ou anglophone
d'une province :
a) s'exerce partout dans la province où le nombre des enfants des
citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier à leur
endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de l'instruction dans la
langue de la minorité;
b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de
les faire instruire dans des établissements d'enseignement
de la minorité linguistique financés sur les fonds publics.
Recours en cas d'atteinte aux droits et libertés
-----------------------------
>> (1) As I mentioned "Quebec" was never out of the constitution.
>Then why so many attempts to regulate the situation by former
>prime ministers? If everything was right, then why did Mr. Bourassa
>attempted a renewal with Mr. Mulroney?
Bourassa had been an advocate of sovereign-associate states since the
1970s. After Mulroney delievers his Sept-Isles speech, written by
Bouchard and which Mulroney delivers verbatim, he does a 180 degree
turn on his view of the 1982 consitution. He adopts the separatist
mythology of 1981. He says Quebec was "left out" and so must be
"brought back in". Quite an opportunity for him to put his mark on the
constitution. In his effort to be like Trudeau (whom everyone
respected - minus the separatists who hated him for other reasons), he
would invent a problem (actually borrow in from the separatists) so
that he could fix it. In fact, it is amazing that Mulroney ever did
that.
If you read the opinion of Mulroney at the time and saw what his
positions were, it is incredible that he could have gotton into bed
with the separatists. When he took control of the PC from Clark, he
was widely perceived in Quebec as another Trudeau - someone who
rejected Clark's decentralized vision of Canada. I can't be certain
but I think Mulroney's desire to be PM was so strong that he formed
alliances with those who could help him win - the PQ. The PC
organization in Quebec was pathetic. It was mostly thanks to the PQ
organization that Mulroney was able to take Quebec from the Liberals
who had dominated.
In short, that is why a "renewal" was attempted by Mulroney.
>> (4) Brian Mulroney worked out the Meech Lake Constitutional
>> Amendements with Bourassa. On June 3, 1987, the Canadian government
>> and the nine English-speaking provinces said Yes to Meech and signed
>> the Meech Lake Accord. Throughout Canada, the English press was
>> generally in favor of it.
>Then why didn't it work out in the end? Suckers like Wells, Harper,
>Carstairs and the rest fucked up what was probably the last chance for a
>federalism renewal! How they messed up this thing!
You just answered your own question. In June 1987 all ten premiers
agreed to the deal at the PM's retreat at Meech Lake. The problem was
that they gave themselves 3 years! to ratify the accord - enough time
for a few governments to change. What ended up happening? Seven of
nine English-majority provinces ratified the accord with only 2 more
provinces remaining, but with time running out.
In Manitoba the minority government of Gary Filmon managed to get
albeit reluctant support from the Saskatchewan Liberals who had been
pressured by Mulroney to accept the deal, or else Canada would fall
apart. They didn't like the deal in Manitoba, but were willing to hold
their breath and approve it. What they didn't expect was a one-man
fillabuster in the form of Elija Harper who was upset that native
concerns were not part of the Meech amendments. Had more time been
given to ratify the accord, the vote would have taken place and
Manitoba would was ratified the amendments. But Bourassa absolutely
rejected giving an short extension to Manitoba so that they could
overcome this unforseen procedural problem.
As for Newfoundland, it was no secret that the new premier Wells has
serious reservations with the deal. However he too made it clear that
Newfoundland would not be the only province to not ratify the
amendments. In other words, if Manitoba doesn't approve them, then
the amendments cannot pass, so since we're not crazy about them
anyway, we just won't even vote on it. If Manitoba does approve them,
then we too will hold our breath and be the 10th province to ratify
the amendments.
So to return to your point, it didn't work out in the end because of
the filabuster of Harper. The House and Senate in Ottawa, along with 7
of 9 English-speaking provinces ratified Meech Lake. Another was
trying to but ran out of time. And the last, seeing that the accord
was dead anyway, simply didn't vote. How anyone could see this as a
rejection of "Quebec" by "English Canada" is beyond me.
>> (5) In Quebec, French opinion-leaders generally said No to Meech. Only
>> 18 per cent of the experts who spoke to the parliamentary commission
>> set up by the Bourassa government in April 1987 said Yes to Meech - 70
>> per cent were against it. As for groups and associations, 19 per cent
>> were in favor of Meech and 81 per cent were against it.
>> =
>So! If it was so bad for QUebec, as you seem to suggest, then why other
>priovinces went against it in the end? Maybe it was not to bad after
>all...
The nationalists have you good... Why do you imply that whatever is
good for Quebec is bad for Ontario, or Alberta, or New Brunswick, or
the others? The separatists love to create this impression. It is like
their idea that if you vote No you are voting for "Canada" and if you
vote Yes you are voting for "Quebec". So if you are a true Quebecer
you will vote for "Quebec". Nonesense. It is what is called in logic
the fallacy of the excluded middle - that you have to choose between
Quebec OR Canada. It is a false choice. We still have both thanks to
"money and the ethnic vote".
>> As I have tried to illustrate, the perception that you have of Canada
>> have been based upon many misrepresentations of history told to
>> Quebecers by the secessionists whose *aim* is to have Quebec secede
>> from Canada. =
>I've voted liberal until Bourassa resigned. Don't try to convince me =
>with that type or arguments, they don't hold. The aim is not secession =
>but sovereinty (can you make the difference? Guess not!) As I said, it
>is a matter of National Fiber, nothing else.
Sovereignty=Secession. Here's a question: Why did Lucien Bouchard
tell President Clinton during his visit to Ottawa on February 23, 1995
words to the effect of: "This is what a separatist looks like", in
reference to himself. In fact, that comment lead Prime Minister
Chrétien to tell Lucien Bouchard in the House of Commons: "Dites aux
québécois ce que vous avez dites aux Americains, et vous allez manger
une belle." [Sidebar: The "manger une belle" line was used in a Yes tv
add during the referendum to try and pursuade Quebecers that Jean
Chrétien was anti-Quebec by implying that he wanted Quebecers to
"mager une belle".]
What do you mean by National Fiber?
>> (Remeber when Parizeau told the LA Times that all he
>> would need to win the referendum would be a handful of Ontarians
>> stepping on the Quebec flag?) Now I agree that if the things the
>> secessionsts said about were true maybe Quebecers should secede! The
>> story they tell is one in which Quebec has been rejected, humiliated,
>> violated, isolated, and pushed around. =
>Has it not been so? WHen Canada was first united, Haut and Bas Canada, =
>The "Haut Canada" extended its debt to Bas Canada (Qu=E9bec) and debt fre=
>e
>qu=E9b=E9cois just happened to get hundreds of dollars per capita in publ=
>ic
>debt put on their hands. This money served the purposes of english
>loyalists who modernized their agricultural equipments and machinery.
Benoit, I wont even try and defend injustices done to French Canadians
150 years ago. But I hope you will also admit that things have changed
since that period. That the Canadian government is officially
bilingual. That bilingual packaging is required on all products in
Canada. That minority language rights are guaranteed in the
constitution. That the role Quebecers play in the federal government
is immense - whether its the fact that the last three major PMs were
all from Quebec, or that there are preportional to the amount of
Quebec MPs in the Liberal party, more Quebecers in cabinet than any
other province, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
is from Quebec... etc. Not to mention the record number of
English-speaking Canadians who are enrolled in French-immersion in the
other provinces. Now you may dismiss all this and tell me that
francophone are still assimilating themselves in the rest of the
country, but at least have the honesty to admit that is is happening
IN SPITE of the good faith efforts of the federal government, and not
because of it.
>> What I have tried to show is
>> that the facts just don't bear out there conclusions. The secessionist
>> tries to stir your emotions with half-truths, and misrepresentatons of
>> facts in order to convince you that your country is not your country.
>I did not need them at all to finally feel that way. Being called a
>fucking frog that wanted to break Canada apart last summer in Toronto, I wonder
>where mt true interests really lie.
Look, I could also tell you how I feel when I read grafitti that says
"Anglo go home", or "maudit anglais", or "le quebec aux quebecois", or
the premier of my province blaming me for "notre" loss and then
talking about how "nous" will have our revenge on them. Does it make
me any less of a Quebecer. Hell no. Screw Parizeau and his hatred. No
one is going to deny me of a place in my province, or my country.
>> If I've managed to convince you of anything here today, I hope its to
>> think carefully about what the secessionists are telling you and to
>> always remember what they aim is.
>I am not stupid enough to believe anything, from either side. Some
>people
>just cannot get it that the people that voted Yes were not all assholes
>and
>drug addicts, loosers, drop outs, and what else...We can make an opinion
>based upon how english Canada reacts and acts towards Quebec! It is not
>always beautiful you know. And I am not talking about politicians but =
>normal people who call you names because your native language is french!
I know that the reason why people voted Yes is because of insecurity.
They feel that because French is in the minority on the continent, the
place where it is in the majority should be separate from the rest of
it. That doesn't mean that they hate the other provinces, only that
they don't trust them. And it is exactly the secessionist mythology of
how the English can't be trusted that I am trying to expose and show
why they are factually incorrect. For instance, something like 70% of
all Yes voters believe that Quebecers give Ottawa more in taxes than
they receive back in transfers to Quebec City, and services to
Quebecers. The exact INVERSE is true. But when the mythology
instructs you that "English Canada" offer Quebec contempt, then one
just naturally assumes the type of factually incorrect things that 70%
of Yes supporters believe. That is why Parizeau was so hoping for
some idiots in Brockville to stomp on the Quebec flag again because it
fed the mythology that the English show us no respect and can't be
trusted. In short, the sexessionists appeal to emotion, not reason.
>> >needs to assure their own survival in north america?
>> What are those needs? Specifically?
>Mostly, language and cultural protection. How can we assure that living
>in french will uphold in North America for so many years to come? I
>mean, =
>we are less than 7 millions in an anglophone population of over 400
>millions!
Article Unavailable
David Nicholson
Popa (ou Moma, je sais pas trop) ecrivait:
> Wes has already showed how the question is
>misleading in the way the sentences runs.
Wes n'a demontre que son propre meprise, comme d'habitude.
David