Yes Ou/or Non?
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 5:29pm |
 Coolness: 339870 | Shit, this website doesn't comply with Bill 101! Noah's gonna get fined for not having all text be in english and french and the english be exactly half the size of the french (just to rub it in all those stupid english people's faces that they're second-class citizens). |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 5:41pm |
 Coolness: 65750 | thats how you feel? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 6:41pm |
| Coolness: 339870 | Nah, i was posting someone else's oppinion. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 6:56pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | une chance parce que je trouvais que c'était bien triste ton histoire... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 7:11pm |
 Coolness: 150665 | This is a letter that I found awhile back on some anti-everything website.
This is what pretty much incited me to start this thread. What do you think. Letter to progressives in English Canada: No, it's not a tempest in a teapot 18 mai 2005 by Pierre Dubuc Dear friends, Those of you who are inclined to reduce the sponsorship scandal to a mere tempest in a teacup have a short-sighted and highly imprudent grasp of the political situation in Canada. If it were only a question of dollars and cents, the sponsorship scandal would no doubt appear almost insignificant compared to that of the fire arms registry. However, as the present parliamentary crisis attests, this is above all a political scandal. Judging from the English-Canadian press, it appears that the wake-up has been brutal for those who believed that the issue of Quebec separation had been laid to rest on October 30, 1995. Nightmare scenarios were evoked: a landslide win by the Bloc in the next elections, followed by a victory by the Parti Quebecois and the holding of a new referendum. Seen from Quebec, we get the distinct impression that "a spectre is haunting Canada" - to paraphrase a famous expression - but rather than communism, that spectre is separatism. English Canada did not take the 1995 referendum too seriously, but that will never happen again now that it knows it could lose. So, the editorialists and columnists wheel out the heavy artillery: Plan B, the Clarity Act. The only thing they haven't done is brandish the threat of the partition of Quebec's territory, but that shouldn't be long in coming. For those of you unable to closely follow the Quebec political scene, we can assure you that the sovereignty movement is once again on the march. Quebeckers are gleefully tuning in to RDI (Radio-Canada) – a television channel whose mandate is to “promote Canadian unity” – to hear the revelations of the Gomery Commission on the dirty sponsorship money that was intended to combat the “separatists.” Not even all the imagination in the world could have invented such a boomerang effect. But that is only one aspect – the least important – of what is going on in Quebec. Half-way through its term, the Charest government is already one of the most unpopular in history. Its neo-liberal platform set out to weaken labour and social organizations and to dismantle the Quebec State through privatizations, thus crushing the backbone of the sovereignty movement. But instead, the Charest government has succeeded in reinvigorating social movements in Quebec. One year ago, 100,000 workers took to the streets of Montreal to mark May 1st. This year, the confrontation increased a notch with the holding of a series of day-long strikes by public sector employees seeking the renewal of their collective agreements. On May 6, over 35,000 teachers marched in the streets of Quebec City. This spring, nearly 200,000 CEGEP and university students held a strike to protest against the government’s reform of the loans and bursaries program. It was the largest student strike in the history of Quebec, and this in a province with a rich history of student unrest. The political character of these movements confirms Quebec’s need to have its own social project, a project that can only be realized within an independent Quebec. Quebec sovereignty constitutes the most profound democratic demand of the Quebec populace and stands at the forefront of all its aspirations and struggles. This explains why, in a recent poll, 54% of Quebeckers pronounced themselves in favour of sovereignty. The social situation in Quebec against the backdrop of the current political crisis in Canada heralds a major confrontation, with all the risks that implies. Canada has been rendered ungovernable Since its creation in 1867, Canada has always been torn between powerful conflicting forces, both internal and external. While other federations have evolved toward greater centralization, Canada has always been too centralized for Quebec and not enough for Ontario. Great Britain, and later the United States, supported the provinces’ demands to weaken Canada, a competitor nation. Historically, federal political parties have played a fundamental unifying role. This has been the case of the Liberal Party, which has traditionally dominated Canadian politics. Whenever the wearing effects of being in power became too obvious, the Conservatives moved in, giving the Liberal Party time to reinvent itself. In order to move into power, the Conservatives had to ally themselves with Quebec nationalists. Diefenbaker’s Conservatives sought the support of Duplessis, while Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives benefitted from René Lévesque’s policy of “beau risque” (worthwhile risk). But ever since the creation of the Bloc Québécois in 1990, following the failure of Meech Lake, whose aim was to repair Pierre Trudeau’s 1982 constitutional coup de force by bringing Quebec into the Confederation “with honour and enthusiasm,” there has no longer been the possibility of an alternative to the Liberals in the form of a majority Conservative government with a base in Quebec. The struggle between Conservatives and Liberals – and the financial groups they represent – is now being waged within the Liberal Party, with the consequences we all know. The Liberal Party is in tatters and will be crushed in Quebec ridings with a francophone majority in the next election. Consequently, Canada is at risk of winding up with an Italian-style government – that is, a succession of minority governments without a solid base in Quebec, that are prepared to sell-out the country in order to stay in power – as Paul Martin is currently doing – thus feeding the centrifugal forces that are tearing this country apart. Canada has been rendered ungovernable and only a major reform based on the hypothesis of the accession of Quebec to sovereignty can provide a possible way out of the current crisis. English-Canadian progressives must abandon all hope of satisfying Quebec’s aspirations with vague constitutional reforms modelled on the Meech or Charlottetown accords. Instead, they should start reflecting on the possible shape of a Canada without Quebec and on the possible relations between the two countries. Quebec and Canada vs. the United States – Same struggle! Of course, we are well aware that this approach is not presently on English Canada’s agenda, and it is with great concern that we apprehend a rise in “Quebec bashing” on the part of federal parties in a desperate bid to win a majority of seats in English Canada. No one will be surprised if the Liberals decide to make the question of “national unity” a central issue in the next federal election, and we in Quebec recall very well that the Reform Party was the first to brandish the threat of Quebec partition. However, we have watched with some stupefaction as Jack Layton has climbed up on the Liberal battle horse and accused the Conservatives of allying themselves with the separatists. Is it because Buzz Hargrove recommended that he leave Quebec to the Bloc Quebecois that Mr. Layton now feels authorized to campaign in English Canada on the back of Quebec? The English-Canadian left should call Mr. Layton to order before his remarks poison relations between progressives in both nations. We understand the complexity of the situation facing English-Canadian progressives and their concerns at the possibility of a Conservative win. We had the same concerns regarding the ADQ in Quebec. But we do not believe that the Liberals constitute an alternative, either directly or through the NDP. We understand your desire to defend Canadian progressive values against the rise of the American-inspired right and to safeguard the independence of English Canada against its absorption by the United States. In these times of globalization, the protection of the English-Canadian identity is a just cause. We know that progressives in English Canada still harbour a lot of resentment towards Quebec nationalists, whom they hold responsible for Canada’s adherence to the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is true that this agreement would not have been possible without the Parti Québécois’ support of the Mulroney government and that it subsequently rallied Quebec’s nationalist elites. But English Canada too easily forgets that this position was adopted out of vexation following the failure of the 1980 referendum. We must remember that, during this referendum, the government of René Lévesque had proposed “a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations,” in order to stand up to the United States. English Canada fought this sovereignty-association proposal tooth and nail, preferring to maintain Quebec in the same state of subjection it has been in since the conquest of 1760. Today, Quebec is not pro-American, and it is certainly not pro-Bush. The massive demonstrations held in the streets of Montreal to protest against the war in Iraq made this clear in a spectacular way. On three occasions, in the dead of winter, over 150,000 people took to the streets of Montreal while tens of thousands more demonstrated elsewhere in Québec. In proportion to the population, these were the largest protests in the world. Some day, former Prime Minister Chrétien’s memoirs will no doubt reveal that these protests played a crucial role in his decision not to participate in the war. Mr. Chrétien feared that the government of Bernard Landry would take advantage of the opportunity to bring the issue of Quebec independence to the table. Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Landry could not have been unaware that the first motion in favour of independence was tabled in the Quebec National Assembly by J. N. Francoeur during the conscription crisis in 1917. Towards a federalist coup de force? We invite progressives in English Canada to undertake a careful analysis of the current political situation. Faced with the present impasse, we cannot exclude a federal coup de force. But this will only accelerate the course of history and raise the issue of Quebec independence with even greater intensity. The hour of truth is near. And the crucial question is: what will be the reaction of progressives in English Canada if Quebec opts for national independence? Will they take the side of the repressive forces in English Canada or will they support the inalienable right of the people of Quebec to choose their future? A progressive alternative is inconceivable without the sovereignty of Quebec, and the sovereignty of Quebec opens the door to this alternative. Pierre Dubuc Editor of l’aut’journal and Secretary of Syndicalistes et progressistes pour un Québec libre (SPQ Libre – trade unionists and progressives for a free Quebec) a political club within the Parti Québécois [ www.lautjournal.info ] |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 7:29pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | i'm sure its pretty interrestin mico but i just can't read all of that post in english.. Do you have a french version? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 7:36pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | au pire si ten a pas je vais demender a mon chum de me le traduire :P |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Spinner replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 7:54pm |
 Coolness: 77375 | Interesting.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 8:06pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | ouin jai oublier le g :( |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 8:09pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | bleh tu le sais que chu pas bonne en anglais la... :( |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 8:48pm |
| Coolness: 150665 | Non, pardon, il n'ya pas une version en anglais.
Ce n'est vraiment pas trop interestant a mon avis, sauf que la langague qu'il utilise pour la seperation est tres fort. Sa me r'appelle un peut d'un NAZI. Ca c'est la raison que je l'ai poster. Des article comme ca me fait peur. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» kwickStah replied on Thu Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:14pm |
| Coolness: 65750 | l'agressivité est une preuve d'ignirance je crois ou de perte de contrôle.. mmmm j'pourrais utiliser sa dans ma dissertation en philo... *se gratte le menton* |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 12:34am |
| Coolness: 339870 | When quebec seperatists don't get their way in the federal government, they pick up their toys and go home. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:45am |
 Coolness: 75475 | But it's ok because their toys suck, they're the last kids to get the Super Nintendos.. they're still stuck with the NES and Atari. I still have no opinion on the matter, if my life changes for the worse... I'll move. It'll be a shame, but fortunately we live in a democracy, and if it happens, it means that most of the people in my area want it it to (yeah, 50% + 1 is cutting stupidly close)... and so it happens. I mean.. Bush is an idiot, but he was elected, sooo.. if you're American you either put up with him and fight him when you can, or leave the country. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:51am |
| Coolness: 339870 | I wonder what land quebec will attempt to claim in the event of a "seperation".. almost all of it belongs to the natives. hahaha.
quebec can say bye bye to it's natural resources. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 3:58am |
 Coolness: 71640 | belong
be long |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Spinner replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 6:08am |
| Coolness: 77375 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
I wonder what land quebec will attempt to claim in the event of a "seperation".. almost all of it belongs to the natives. hahaha. quebec can say bye bye to it's natural resources. Man ,wtf u talking about..... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:37am |
| Coolness: 149020 | the natives in quebec, made a statement that if quebec separates from canada then so will they separate from quebec
if anyone is a distinct society its them |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Spinner replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 10:53am |
| Coolness: 77375 | When natives will wake up and see that federal is screwing them by buying them whit there own money...The tables will turn....
How old is that statement? U think that from here to 2008 ,federal wont screw up again? We just seen the tip of the iceberg... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Fri Dec 16, 2005 @ 12:13pm |
| Coolness: 339870 | Dude, till martin, the past 4 PM's have been from Quebec. What in the hell makes you think any Quebec based federal government will be ANY better than the current one? |
Yes Ou/or Non?
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Cumbre de Página ] |
