More hypocrisy in English Canada

[trydegrau]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=a19d022a-4abf-4077-a4b0-ab1df2bea46e
France's Royal stirs Quebec sovereignty debate
'We are free,' Dion says
Hubert Bauch, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, January 23, 2007

MONTREAL - Jean Charest, Stephane Dion and Stephen Harper all told a leading candidate in the French presidential election to not interfere with Canadian affairs -- especially the issue of Quebec independence.

Segolene Royal, the French Socialist Party candidate, indicated support for the sovereignty movement after she met briefly yesterday with Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair, who is visiting France.

Asked where she stands on the question of Quebec's independence from Canada, Ms. Royal replied she favours "the sovereignty and liberty" of Quebec.

Mr. Boisclair was delighted with the endorsement. "I think the French have understood our message and are even sympathetic," he said.

Mr. Charest, the Quebec Premier, suggested Ms. Royal ought to butt out.

The provincial government had invited Ms. Royal to visit Quebec, Mr. Charest said, but she declined -- and as far as he knows, she has never set foot in the province.

"The future of Quebec will be decided by Quebecers, no one else," Mr. Charest said.

In Quebec City, Mr. Dion, the federal Liberal leader, ripped into Ms. Royal's statement, describing it as interference.

"The problem with her declaration is that we are free," Mr. Dion said. "We have been free longer than the French because we had responsible government while they were still in the midst of debating empires and revolutions.

"So Canada is a pioneer of freedom and will always be, and will always work in great friendship with France to see that the cause of liberty advances in the world."

Asked if a statement such as Ms. Royal's can harm federalism in Canada, Mr. Dion said: "It hampers her own credibility. I don't understand. We do not interfere in the affairs of a friend country. We do not wish for the dismantling of a friend country. Canada does not wish for the dismantling of France. France certainly does not wish for the dismantling of Canada."

And the Prime Minister issued a terse two-paragraph statement about Ms. Royal's comments yesterday afternoon.

"Experience teaches that it is highly inappropriate for a foreign leader to interfere in the democratic affairs of another country. We look forward to marking the 400th anniversary of the founding of Canada at Quebec City with the next President of France," the statement said.

"We expect in turn that the next President will display an understanding of our shared history, and the respect for Canada and Canadians that such an important partnership requires."

Mr. Charest spoke to reporters after a meeting of his caucus in Montreal to prepare strategy for the Quebec election expected this year. He also put to rest speculation that one of his backbenchers, Pierre Descoteaux, might defect to the PQ.

Mr. Descoteaux, who described himself as probably the most nationalist member of the Liberal caucus, said in an interview with Radio-Canada last week that he was approached about switching, but decided to stay with the Liberals, even though he might vote yes in a future referendum on sovereignty, as he did in the last one in 1995.

Mr. Charest said he spoke with Mr. Descoteaux and confirmed he would stay with the Liberals despite his nationalist leanings.

"The important thing is that Mr. Descoteaux is a Liberal who will campaign with us and play a role with the team," he said.

This was particularly interesting:

We do not interfere in the affairs of a friend country.

I thought "I beg your pardon??"; How often does Canada allow itself to make statements and pass judgment on Americans and their policies? Of course, they wouldn't want to think about that, they'd suffer a logic overload from the apparent hypocrisy of such a statement.

The media has been branding Royal's statement as unimportant, (since she's not Canadian she's not entitled to have an opinion on Canada or Québec)...Yet it's been making the rounds on all the english news shows and publications...
The truth is, comments are always welcome when they are positive about Canada, but the minute a statement goes against the anglophone majority in this country, the media and the federalist politicians get their knickers in a twist.

More hypocrisy brought to you courtesy of the federalist movement...

 

[halubtsi]

Re: More hypocrisy in English Canadia

There's a huge difference between Canadian officials making statements about US policies when they affect Canada. The Maher Arar case, trying to get Canadian pariticipation in Iraq (and subsequent attacks from the Conservative media in the US), softwood lumber, etc...These are what Canadian officials would usually make statements about. However, Canada has never said: "We believe in the independence and liberty of Texas." That's meddling in internal politics. That's why Canada has never made statements about the Basque region in Spain, or the relationship between Corsica and France. It's common knowledge that the Basques want to separate from Spain, and that Corsica wants its independence from France. However, those are internal matters for the Spanish and French States.

Mme Royal is being derided for her comments because, whether you want to acknwoledge this fact or not, Quebec is not recognized internationally as an independent state. It is a constituent part of Canada. Canada is recognized as a sovereign state in international relations, not Quebec. Therefore, comments supporting the secession of a province, state or territory from the Sovereign State (in this case, Canada) is meddling in internal Canadian politics.

If the Quebecois wish to withdraw from the Federation, that is their right. Every province in Canada has the right to pull out of the Federation, if the majority of its residents so wishes. But until Ontario becomes independent, any support from a foreign country for a Free and Independent Ontario will be viewed as meddling in internal Canadian matters.

If Mme Royal has made a statement on Quebec sovereignty, we should ask her about Texan & Hawaiian independence, Basque Separatism, Mindanaoan sovereignty and Corsican self-determination. Is she willing to talk about affairs that really only implicate the US, Spain and the Philippines? My guess is that she'd say NOTHING regarding Texas, Hawaii, the Basques or Midanao because they're internal affairs. She would have strong words about Corsica, no doubt...but that's an internal French matter. So why did she say anything about Quebec? Because, just like some of the older Brits still look at Canada as a colony, the older French still look at Canada (and specifically the Province of Quebec) as a colony. I don't know how many times I was called "notre cousin!" when I was in France and they mistook me for being a Quebec resident. Just as I got "oh, how are things in the colonies?" from the older Brits.

 

[Nishin]

Re: More hypocrisy in English Canadia

What the hell does Segolène Royal have to do with Québec??
She should be concentrating on separatist corsica and basque country (which I doubt she agrees with) instead me thinks... <_<

 

[trydegrau]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Québec have diplomatic status in France? If any country is entitled to comment on Québec, it would likely be France.

And Flash, did you see the numbers on the 95 referendum? they were pretty damn close. Compare them to the previous referendum, and you'll see that the trend indicates that we will likely bring home the next one. And what do the first nations have to do with Québec separatism? They're rights and claims are barely respected in other provinces, I don't expect it to be any different in Québec. In any case, if the first nations want to break off and become Canadian territories in and of themselves, that's their decision.

Aside from which, it's not as if Royale said what she said out of the blue, it had a little something to do with Boisclair's visit, just because Canadians don't welcome the comments, doesn't mean Boisclair and Québeckers don't.

 

[VICTORIADON]

^ I know you are baiting me and I am not going to take the bait.

 

[Kurn]

Hasn't anybody learned about fuzzy logic yet?
Big thing in Japan.
Yes, it's a computer science topic. But soooo useful for such political purposes.
Recommended: Fuzzy Logic, by McNeill and Freiberger, 1993/Touchstone Books.

 

[trydegrau]

^ I know you are baiting me and I am not going to take the bait.

then why are you here?

 

[VICTORIADON]

to witness the opinions of some.

 

[Aaron]

And Flash, did you see the numbers on the 95 referendum? they were pretty damn close. Compare them to the previous referendum, and you'll see that the trend indicates that we will likely bring home the next one.

The 1995 vote was held before the Clarity Act became law in Canada. Since then (2000), the requirements for a Province to secede from Canada have been tighted.

The House of Commons now determines if a referendum question is acceptable, and has the right to refuse negotiations if it in fact decides that the question does not meet the requirements. If the question is approved, the House then decides whether or not the people's opinion is clearly expressed. To do this, the House takes into account both voter turn-out, and the size of the majority.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it is in fact NOT the right of any Province to cease to be part of Canada by its own authority: there is no provision in neither the Constitution of Canada, nor anywhere in international law that grants it.

So, a 51% vote just won't cut it. If the question is approved by Parliament, and if the House decides that a clear enough majority has been demonstrated, then negotiations will follow involving every legislature and the Federal Government. The results of those negotiations are far from predictable... seperation still won't be guaranteed at that point. The Government is only obligated to neogotiate secession, not grant it.

It just isn't as simple as "taking it home."

 

[halubtsi]

It depends on what you mean by having diplomatic recognition. Taiwan has diplomatic recognition around the world, BUT no one acknowledges its sovereignty. Anyone who has any kind of relation with Taiwan akcnowledges China's claim on Taiwan. You will never hear France say anything about Taiwanese sovereignty, despite them both having "diplomatic presence" in each others countries. Based on diplomatic protocol, because Quebec is a Canadian province, Ségolène Royal had no business making a public statement about dismantling an internationally recognized sovereign state. She has every right to her opinion, but as a foreign official who speaks with some degree of authority she's not supposed to make public statements that deal with the internal politics of other countries. It was a mistake on her part, and she will have to pay for it. Already, her opponents in France are showing that she would be an incompetent President based on her foray into the internal politics of a friendly foreign country. I think she has come to realize that international politics and domestic politics are two entirely separate games with their own sets of rules.

 

[trydegrau]

The House of Commons now determines if a referendum question is acceptable, and has the right to refuse negotiations if it in fact decides that the question does not meet the requirements. If the question is approved, the House then decides whether or not the people's opinion is clearly expressed. To do this, the House takes into account both voter turn-out, and the size of the majority.

I'm sure the Americans waited for the British Parliament to agree before going ahead with secession...There are many Quebeckers, myself included, who don't think it's the federal government's place to decide how a province is to hold it's referendum.
and, if we had to consider voter turn-out and the size of the majority every time a federal election was held, we'd be lucky to have a majority ever again. (again, hypocritical)

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that it is in fact NOT the right of any Province to cease to be part of Canada by its own authority: there is no provision in neither the Constitution of Canada, nor anywhere in international law that grants it.

If the people of Quebec decide to separate, the supreme court of Canada will cease to carry any legal weight here. Let me remind you that Canada is a confederation, the provinces chose to join willingly and they can chose to leave it willingly as well. No province is bound forever to the confederation of Canada.

So, a 51% vote just won't cut it. If the question is approved by Parliament, and if the House decides that a clear enough majority has been demonstrated, then negotiations will follow involving every legislature and the Federal Government. The results of those negotiations are far from predictable... seperation still won't be guaranteed at that point. The Government is only obligated to neogotiate secession, not grant it.

Again, you are under the mistaken impression that (once we decide to go forward with it) we will wait for the federal government's permission to declare sovereignty. ROFLMAO.

It just isn't as simple as "taking it home."

Once the decision is made, things will move forward, weather the rest of Canada agrees with it or not, so I would argue that it is. But in this case we will have to agree to disagree.

It might be more fun to confine the questions simply to those areas where there is a direct French "interest". Along with Corsican self-determination, one might ask if she would favour the return of sovereignty to the French half of Navarre? The annexation of the territories of Bouillon & Sedan was likely illegal under international law, and was done without the consent of those peoples. Would she favour returning them to their prior status as independent states? Would she favour the return of Haiti to French control? After all, that once was an integral part of France. The "sale" of the Louisiana territory was possibly illegal (on both sides) and was certainly done without the knowledge and consent of its residents. Should that be undone? There is also the matter of Brittany. I believe the treaty which joined Brittany to France contained clauses guaranteeing the return of independence & sovereignty to the province, should certain conditions come about. Those conditions have, I believe, come about. Is she prepared to divest and withdraw? Is she prepared to return sovereignty to Avignon?

One could go on, but I believe the point has been made.

While you might make a good point, the topic of this discussion is not the French state itself, it is comments from Royal and the Anglo Canadian reaction to it.

I'm gonna pretend you didn't say Aboriginal peoples don't have a say in Quebecs Seperation and that Aboriginals rights are not recognized by most provinces.

Do you really want me to look up all the press articles regarding aboriginal rights and how they have been ignored? You only have to look as far as Oka.

It depends on what you mean by having diplomatic recognition. Taiwan has diplomatic recognition around the world, BUT no one acknowledges its sovereignty. Anyone who has any kind of relation with Taiwan akcnowledges China's claim on Taiwan. You will never hear France say anything about Taiwanese sovereignty, despite them both having "diplomatic presence" in each others countries. Based on diplomatic protocol, because Quebec is a Canadian province, Ségolène Royal had no business making a public statement about dismantling an internationally recognized sovereign state. She has every right to her opinion, but as a foreign official who speaks with some degree of authority she's not supposed to make public statements that deal with the internal politics of other countries. It was a mistake on her part, and she will have to pay for it. Already, her opponents in France are showing that she would be an incompetent President based on her foray into the internal politics of a friendly foreign country. I think she has come to realize that international politics and domestic politics are two entirely separate games with their own sets of rules.

While it is true that diplomatic status does not equate sovereignty, the comment was made in relation to the fact that our status with them gives them certain leeway about making comments on the future of Québec.

Ségolène Royal had no business making a public statement about dismantling an internationally recognized sovereign state.

You are right. But specifically, she made comments about Quebec sovereignty, not the dismantling of a sovereign state. The point of her statement was not "let's split Canada into pieces", it was about Quebec sovereignty. Just because it implies dividing a state, doesn't mean that that is the intention or point of her statement.

Honestly, I'll never understand why English Canadians are so adamant that Québec should stay within the confederation. You come down during the referendum on busses paid for by the federal gov't (a real people's movement ) to say "We love Québec!") but the rest of the time, Anglo Canada pisses and moans about Québec's politics, language laws, the french people themselves (See Don Cherry) and just about anything else that doesn't make us identical to Anglo Canada.

I know what the rest of the Country is really afraid of, it's about losing their standing, their position in world affairs. Becoming a smaller country in territory, population and in terms of the economy, that terrifies the english. Not to mention losing the most open and diverse culture in the country. If we were to separate under Boisclair, we'd be the first country in North America with an openly gay Prime Minister.

 

[MizuRyuu]

do you really think that if Quebec separate by itself, that the rest of the world will recognize it?? aside from possibly France, most other country will ignore Quebec as a nation and probably still with it as a province inside Canada. Since I am assuming that if Quebec becomes a nation, they will have their own passport, I am wondering how they will get foreign countries to recognize the passport.... Certainly, Canada won't.... and mostly likely, the United States won't either due to its friendship with Canada...


i'm just wondering, how does Quebec expect to pay for and maintain all the services provided by the federal government if it separate?? last I check, Quebec has been receiving large sums of money every year from equalization from the federal government to maintain the average Canadian standard of living.... I really hope Quebec isn't expecting that the federal government will offer any money if it decides to just leave..... I still remember reading about how during the last referendum, Quebec wants to separate completely from Canada in every way but still be attached financially....

 

[halubtsi]

She may not have explicitly supported the dismantling of Canada, but it was implied when she spoke about Quebec Sovereignty. Again, it's not her place to say anything regarding Quebec sovereignty because it is a contentious INTERNAL issue. France has no claim on Quebec and thus has no business making statements about Quebec. Otherwise, the US, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines and every other country in the world should be able to make comments about Quebec sovereignty.

As for "Quebec's status with France" there is no special status. Quebec is not recognized by France as a sovereign country. France has NO SAY in the future of the province of Quebec. If you can argue that the Canadian Federal government, nor the 9 other provinces of the Federation of which Quebec is a member, has no say in Quebec's future, then France definitely should have no say. Unless Quebec thinks that it is somehow a province of France.

I don't know why Anglo-Canadians don't want you to leave. But Franco-Canadians are protected by the presence of Quebec on the Federal scene. That should come as no surprise. And regardless of what you may think, Quebec, as THE Franco-Canadian province, has a duty to protect the Franco-Canadian population that live outside of Quebec...(Since they really are your cousins...grâce à Père Labelle)

 

[trydegrau]

do you really think that if Quebec separate by itself, that the rest of the world will recognize it?? aside from possibly France, most other country will ignore Quebec as a nation and probably still with it as a province inside Canada. Since I am assuming that if Quebec becomes a nation, they will have their own passport, I am wondering how they will get foreign countries to recognize the passport.... Certainly, Canada won't.... and mostly likely, the United States won't either due to its friendship with Canada...


i'm just wondering, how does Quebec expect to pay for and maintain all the services provided by the federal government if it separate?? last I check, Quebec has been receiving large sums of money every year from equalization from the federal government to maintain the average Canadian standard of living.... I really hope Quebec isn't expecting that the federal government will offer any money if it decides to just leave..... I still remember reading about how during the last referendum, Quebec wants to separate completely from Canada in every way but still be attached financially....

I guess the weed really is that good in Vancouver. There are so many things wrong with what you said that I won't even bother, I don't have all my life to debate this with you.

She may not have explicitly supported the dismantling of Canada, but it was implied when she spoke about Quebec Sovereignty. Again, it's not her place to say anything regarding Quebec sovereignty because it is a contentious INTERNAL issue. France has no claim on Quebec and thus has no business making statements about Quebec. Otherwise, the US, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines and every other country in the world should be able to make comments about Quebec sovereignty.

As for "Quebec's status with France" there is no special status. Quebec is not recognized by France as a sovereign country. France has NO SAY in the future of the province of Quebec. If you can argue that the Canadian Federal government, nor the 9 other provinces of the Federation of which Quebec is a member, has no say in Quebec's future, then France definitely should have no say. Unless Quebec thinks that it is somehow a province of France.

I never said France (or any other country) recognized Québec as a sovereign country, I thought I already made that point, what's wrong with your english? Do I need to quote myself??

About that inexistant special status...
An exerpt from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Canadian_relations#Tensions_over_the_status_of_Quebec)::

Master Agreement

The first step towards Quebec developing an "international personality" distinct from that of Canada, viewed by many as a stepping stone towards full independence, was for Quebec to develop relations with other "nations" independent from those of Canada. This effort began in earnest following de Gaulle's return to power, when France and Quebec began regularly exchanging ministers and government officials. Premier Lesage, for example, visited de Gaulle three times between 1961 and 1965.

Lesage's statement to the Quebec National Assembly that the French Canadian identity, culture, and language were endangered by a "cultural invasion from the USA," which threatened to make Canada a "cultural satellite of the United States" mirrored exactly the Gaullists concern for France's cultural survival in the face on an English onslaught. In this light, France and Quebec set about in the early 1960s negotiating exchange agreements in the areas of education, culture, technical cooperation, and youth exchange. The federal government of Lester B. Pearson, which had just appointed a Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and was taking other steps to ensure the place of French within Canada, would not stand for a province usurping a federal power (foreign affairs), and so signed a Master Agreement with France in 1965 that allowed for provinces to cooperate directly with France, but only in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (such as education). It was not envisioned at the time by the federal government how much this agreement, and the doors it opened, would come to haunt them in the coming years.

I don't know why Anglo-Canadians don't want you to leave. But Franco-Canadians are protected by the presence of Quebec on the Federal scene. That should come as no surprise. And regardless of what you may think, Quebec, as THE Franco-Canadian province, has a duty to protect the Franco-Canadian population that live outside of Quebec...(Since they really are your cousins...grâce à Père Labelle)

Absolute poppycock. I lived in a suburb of Toronto for ten years, and I had to speak english with everyone and everywhere I went. Upon my return to Montreal I noticed the english people here are still, mostly, unilingual, and still expect to be served in English, here, in Québec of all places...I can't even get service in French in a lot of businesses that are owned and operated by English people in English neighborhoods. We have a hard enough time defending our rights in our own land, never mind French people living outside the province, they adapt at least, they learn the language and learn to assimilate, English people here don't bother half as much (I'm not saying this is true of all English people here).

 

[trydegrau]

While it is true that diplomatic status does not equate sovereignty,

There. for your benefit.

 

[Aaron]

I'm sure the Americans waited for the British Parliament to agree before going ahead with secession...There are many Quebeckers, myself included, who don't think it's the federal government's place to decide how a province is to hold it's referendum.
and, if we had to consider voter turn-out and the size of the majority every time a federal election was held, we'd be lucky to have a majority ever again. (again, hypocritical)

If the people of Quebec decide to separate, the supreme court of Canada will cease to carry any legal weight here. Let me remind you that Canada is a confederation, the provinces chose to join willingly and they can chose to leave it willingly as well. No province is bound forever to the confederation of Canada.

Again, you are under the mistaken impression that (once we decide to go forward with it) we will wait for the federal government's permission to declare sovereignty. ROFLMAO.

Once the decision is made, things will move forward, weather the rest of Canada agrees with it or not, so I would argue that it is. But in this case we will have to agree to disagree.

You don't understand, do you? Cleary you want to keep living in a bubble of blissful ignorance: Quebec is bound by Canadian Law on an equal standing with the other Provinces. You don't really have a choice.

 

[trydegrau]

After the heated..."argument" I just had in Hot Topics, I've lost the will to carry this through. If anyone wants to share their final point on this matter, feel free to PM me. I don't feel like arguing or debating anymore, on anything, and I won't be adding anything more to this thread.

 

[halubtsi]

Yes, I realize that you've mentioned that diplomatic status and sovereignty are two different things. But "diplomatic status" is not a legal standing in international law, whereas sovereignty is. Quebec's special diplomatic status with France exists because the Federal government allowed it, not because international law recognizes it. Therefore, the special diplomatic status of Quebec is subordinate to the Master Agreement signed between Canada and France. There are protocols in place regarding international relations, and Mme Royal's comments are out of step with protocol. However, according to your article, France doesn't seem to follow diplomatic protocol all that well anyway. So, my argument is moot. Anything further would be a theoretical discussion about how sovereign states are supposed to conduct diplomatic relations amongst each other.

Yes, I've met some Anglophones from Quebec who spoke no French at all despite living in the province their whole life. But I've also met people in Windsor who have lived in Ontario their whole life and only spoke French. However, the unilingual Francophones in Southwestern Ontario aren't exactly a growing community, so I highly doubt that the unilingual anglophone population in Quebec is growing all that much, if at all. So the whole "under siege" attitude within the province is similar to a linguistic "red scare." The ones who are really in danger of losing their language and culture are the francophones in English Canada.

 

[halubtsi]

Buddy, you should keep adding. Healthy debate is good for all. This is a topic that is of interest to everyone in the Federation. Whether or not they agree with your stance is irrelevant. Anglo-Canadians that live FAR from Quebec may not get the perspective from a nationalist quebecois.

 

[trydegrau]

Im sorry man, my heart's just not in it anymore. It's one thing to have a healthy debate such as this, and it's quite another to be insulted and have outrageous lies put in one's mouth. I'm not gonna stick around to find out what happens next.