Wednesday, March 7, 2012

'P' is for Partition...Are We There Yet?

When I first started writing this blog I never fathomed that I'd ever write a serious piece about partition.
It just seemed too radical and impossible a concept to be taken seriously.

But as time marched on and circumstances changed, it has become clear that an independent Quebec would be an extremely hostile environment for Anglo society and particularly the English language.

The recent witch hunt that sought to root out those few unilingual Anglos working in the National Bank or the Caisse de Depot is a clear warning of things to come and reminiscent of the bloodlust displayed by ordinary citizens incited to action by revolutionary leaders during the French revolution.
Scenes of a hysterical mob, hunting down aristocrats, carting them off to the guillotine, all for the sick edification of a mob bathing in an orgy of revenge, in a sportive and festive atmosphere is not much different from scenes played out in the Roman Colosseum where Christians were fed to the lions!

Later on this year, when Randy Cunneyworth will be relieved of his duties as coach of the Montreal Canadiens, shuffled aside with full pay (to keep quiet), solely because of his unilingualism, there will be a grand fete in the streets by French language militants celebrating another victory over les maudits anglais.
Mark my words, this is the path we are embarked upon.

Gone are the days of Rene Levesque and the ideal of an independent Quebec, respectful and inclusive of anglophones and minorities, a dream replaced by the dogmatic world of assimilation, where room for the English language and ethnic diversity no longer exists, victims of extremism, dogmatism and resentment.

Over-reaction?...... sadly I think not.

In the old days, the raison d'etre for sovereignty was the economic emancipation of French Quebec, but with that goal already accomplished with nary a shot fired, a new rationale was invented, this one based on the notion that the English language threatens the very existence of French Quebec society.
Today, the sovereigntist narrative tells us that Quebec needs immigrants to survive, but as long as they have the choice to assimilate into the Anglophone community, French will always be a second choice, even with the necessary, but not always successful coercive measures, meant to steer them towards the righteous path.
Without sovereignty and the elimination of that choice, French society is bound to anglicize over the long term.

And so, despite  the fact that most Francophone Quebecers don't hate Anglophones and would like to see them remain part of an independent Quebec, when push comes to shove, it's the militant minority pushing an anti-English agenda, that will impose itƒass views.

Can English survive in an independent Quebec?

No it cannot, it is that simple.
A newly independent Quebec would see to the elimination of the last of our English language rights, be it in the National Assembly, the courts, the job market, the schools, the hospitals and the marketplace.

To those who believe differently, all I can ask is, if not, what is the point of sovereignty?

Under these circumstances Anglos would be left with the decision to leave their home or give up their heritage and language and for most, who are planning a future, the decision to go will be natural, much to the smug satisfaction of militants who can finally rejoice in hammering the last nail in the coffin of English influence in Quebec.

This was the scenario that I envisaged for the Anglo community facing a YES victory in either of the last two referendums.
But since then, things have changed rather dramatically.

Ever since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, Quebec society has been defined by the French/English dynamic, but the chasm between the two nations has largely been replaced by the new reality, that which incorporates immigrants into the social equation.

Today, the vast majority of all new immigrants settle in the Montreal area and assimilate almost evenly between French and English cultures.
But language aside, the fact is, Montreal has become a multiethnic, multicultural community, similar to Toronto or Vancouver, while the rest of Quebec (RoQ) remains lily-white, French and Catholic.
There's no doubt that the city of Montreal and the RoQ have undertaken, by accident or design, different evolutionary paths, redefining the term of "Two Solitudes" as described by Hugh MacLennan.

As sovereigntists freely admit, their vision of an independent Quebec is in direct conflict with multiculturalism, something that now defines what Montreal has become.
And so separatists look to sovereignty to wind back the clock.

Those who propose the new sovereignty, demand that Montreal returns to what the rest of the province has remained, and that all immigrants not only be forced to adopt French alone, but abandon their heritage as well, assimilating into the culture of poutine and hockey.
Sorry to be cruel, but such is the case.

So let us be honest and admit that this new independent Quebec breaks faith with the old covenant of two founding nations, and to believe that English Quebecers will blithely accept their change in status is beyond wishful thinking.
How would Francophone Quebecers react to the unilateral elimination of French rights by a pan-Canadian referendum and the declaration by Canada's Parliament that French no longer has status anywhere in the country, including Quebec?
Would they blindly accept their new status, would they pack up their belongings and move to France or would they seek a rupture from Canada through the independence of the province of Quebec?
I think most of you will agree that the choice of Door Number Three is the likeliest of scenarios.

For Anglo Quebecers, the question is essentially the same. In the face of the elimination of their cultural and language rights should they blindly accept their fate, move to Canada or seek a physical rupture from Quebec?

And so the subject of Partition is not as far-fetched as we are led to believe and whether it realistically offers a viable  resolution to the conflict between multi-ethnic and multicultural Montreal and the traditionally homogeneous culture of the  RoQ is a matter for discussion.

We're going to tackle the question of partition over a series of posts in the next little while, which I hope will stimulate some interesting debate.
Over the question of partition, I can offer no inside perspective, only a personal opinion that can serve as a platform for readers.

The question that today's post addresses, is whether the concept of partition, that is, the creation of an eleventh province out of Montreal, is legitimate, fair or legal.

That's it.

I'd like readers to restrict their responses to this aspect of partition question, as we will be discussing, borders, politics, referendums, monetary issues, etc. etc. in future posts.

Now to launch this debate, I'll share my views and start with a partial presentation of the Declaration of Independence of the United States, one of my favorite inspirational documents.

It is a brilliantly conceived and finely crafted declaration that sets out the grievances of the colonies and sets forth succinctly, justification for independence;
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..... Read the rest
I highlighted in yellow the basis of my position, which is, legalities aside, the idea that when a government loses the consent of the people to be ruled, there is no more legitimacy.

Now as for legal questions of partition, I've noticed of late that there are quite a few comments posted surrounding the issue of partition.
It seems that the Comment Section is pushing for a debate. So be it.

I've always maintains that this blog is a collaborative effort and I as editor, write stories meant to stimulate discussion.
Those who have been long time participants know that this is not a vanity blog where only opinions agreeing with my position are published.

For those who submitted comments about partition recently, I'd appreciate if you'd re-post them here, so that they can be included in the debate.

To those Francophones deeply offended and outraged at the notion of having their beloved Quebec carved up like a turkey, (federalist will enjoy the irony of that,) I'd appreciate if you'd tell us why the breakup of Canada is legitimate, but not the breakup of Quebec.

Now I understand that the legitimacy of partition, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but just the same, it will be interesting to hear all opinions from all sides, which I promise will be treated respectfully as long as we all engage in fair debate without descending into the anarchy of name-calling.

Remember, comments to this post should be based on one issue alone...we'll deal with the rest later.

What are the legal arguments of partition?
Is partition legal or not, and if not legal, is partition morally justified anyway??

I look forward to your contributions.

210 comments:

  1. > it has become clear that an independent Quebec would be an extremely hostile environment for Anglo society and particularly the English language.

    If by "hostile" you mean that French-Canadian ethnolinguistic supremacism will finally get what it considers its just desserts...

    > The recent witch hunt that sought to root out those few unilingual Anglos [...] is a clear warning of things to come and reminiscent of the bloodlust displayed by ordinary citizens incited to action by revolutionary leaders during the French revolution.

    And what are you and the readers of this blog doing about it? Whining about it, instead of going here and here and commenting (en français), tackling head on the media purveyors of the incitement. This was the problem 40 years ago and it's still the problem today. ACT!

    > Scenes of a hysterical mob, hunting down aristocrats, carting them off to the guillotine, all for the sick edification of a mob bathing in an orgy of revenge [...]
    Don't you realize it's always the same hundred or so militants whose names, faces, and gripes keep coming up? Start with the upper ranks of SSJB and Impératif Français and you'll soon realize this movement's key agitators consist of a core network that keep getting more than their fair share of airtime from a willing and complicit francophone media. Where are the anglo-rights people? Why don't pro-bilingual or pro-choice ever appear on the "reportages"? Something's definitely amiss.

    >Gone are the days of Rene Levesque and the ideal of an independent Quebec, respectful and inclusive of anglophones and minorities, a dream replaced by the dogmatic world of assimilation, where room for the English language and ethnic diversity no longer exists, victims of extremism, dogmatism and resentment.

    Wow Editor, you really must have been smoking the reefer as you wrote today's post. Lévesque was the only one who possibly believed in those lofty ideals of respect and inclusiveness. His own "garde rapprochée", populated by the Laurins, Parizeaus, Marois, Malavoys, and Beaudoins were and continue to be all about extremism, dogmatism and resentment. Like it or not, "Québécois" nationalism is to a large degree defined as anti-Englishness rather than simply pro-Frenchness.

    >To those who believe differently, all I can ask is, if not, what is the point of sovereignty?
    Your question is ass backward. You should be asking WHAT DO NON-FRENCH-CANADIANS AND OTHER EXTREME FRANCOPHONES HAVE TO GAIN FROM SEPARATION. And if I've said it once, I've said it a million times, it's not "sovereignty" (which connotes control, part of which we already have by virtue of our federal system), it's "separation" (the effect the "grand projet" will truly have).

    ReplyDelete
  2. >Today, the vast majority of all new immigrants settle in the Montreal area and assimilate almost evenly between French and English cultures.
    You sure that's what it is, and not that of ALL immigrants settled since the Quiet Revolution, half have gone French, the other half English (with most of the French gains occurring since roughly the 1980s)?

    >For Anglo Quebecers, the question is essentially the same. In the face of the elimination of their cultural and language rights should they blindly accept their fate, move to Canada or seek a physical rupture from Quebec?
    I don't really care, since I speak both languages and my gripe is about civil liberties, freedom of expression, and resentment of false phantoms raised by political demagogues. Nonetheless, I think if Quebec separation is seen as inevitable and the separatists want to get the highest percent support possible, the hard core anglos need to vote OUI in exchange for guarantees that the newly-independent Quebec will come into being with a federative structure (just as Canada has now) wherein "provinces" like Montreal can have their own local "provincial" parliaments and be free to pass their own language laws, which can be diametrically different from those of the majority of the "country".

    >The question that today's post addresses, is whether the concept of partition, that is, the creation of an eleventh province out of Montreal, is legitimate, fair or legal.
    I'm still against it for the same reasons I'm against separatism. But if separatism had to carve up Canada, especially with what I would anticipate would be an under 60% majority, I think the Quebec government should take a good look at what an over 40% population of malcontents can do to its stability. A fifth column just under half the size of your total population is quite a massive column indeed! This would seriously harm and undermine the potential new country, and this would be unfair to partisans on both sides. Legal, I'd say no, on the basis of Section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, since I doubt that both the House of Commons AND the National Assembly would agree on partitioning Quebec (at least at first).

    >I highlighted in yellow the basis of my position, which is, legalities aside, the idea that when a government loses the consent of the people to be ruled, there is no more legitimacy.
    In your wide-eyed admiration, you also seem to overlook the fact that democracy is really little more than the tyranny of the majority and seldom if ever has anything to do in practice with lofty principles of equality. You also naively believe that media, spin, manipulation, and fear can't be successfully used to manufacture consent... which is kind of ironic, given your previous dealings on the social implications of the French-English divide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the YES side would win the next referendum, a partition can only happen with Quebec's consent, as is clearly stated in the Canadian constitution. During the initial talks of separation, Quebec is still part of Canada and therefore must abide by the rules. However, once Quebec becomes independent, nothing stops a militant anglo rights from demanding that a certain area of the new Republic of Quebec secede.

    I personally see no reason the Canadian govt would want to negotiate a possible partitioning when it clearly does not suit their interests. They'll use partitioning and minority rights as a bargaining chip, nothing else. We have two choices: we can either make a deal with the separatists and agree that we'll be granted our own administrative region (kinda like the French minority in Canada has Quebec) or become a militant minority and make threats until we get what we want (like Quebec has done for 50 years).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... or we can wait for it not to matter anymore as Montreal grows beyond the island and more of the GMA becomes bilingual to the point that it doesn't really make a difference to anyone.

      The separatists have always wanted to kill what Montreal has always been and remake it in their own image. This is as shameful as the willful desire to assimilate francophones and ought to be denounced, reversed, and a bilingual haven take its place.

      This should be even truer, however ironic, in an independent Quebec.

      Delete
    2. Apparatchik,

      In this hypothetical discussion we have (it is hypothetical since I do not believe that Quebec will be independent in my life time), it is assumed that the separatists will form the government. Once they have the power, why would they leave Montreal be more bilingual? I would expect that the new government will issue laws - no matter how Machiavellian - that attempt Montreal to be part of the Quebec of their dreams.

      Delete
    3. My point is just that, Troy. That French-only Montreal only exists in their wettest of dreams. Not even Paris would be French enough for these people who have never broken free of the bucolic French-Canadian village life of their forbears.

      Fortunately, many of us appreciate the cosmopolitan nature of cities (even if it is the biggest French-majority one in the hemisphere), and applaud those who integrate both within our local culture and language as well as our dominant continental one.

      Also the hypothesis ought to be challenged regarding the government being formed only by separatists. Just under half would likely be less than thrilled (to say the least), and that makes for a dangerous ride if the majority OUI teeters just north of 50%+1

      Delete
  4. Editor,

    "Can English survive in an independent Quebec?"

    I am not sure if my comment is fully on topic but let me twist that question. Can French as it is now survive in an independent Quebec?

    That I can answer and the answer is a resounding no. Without the economy of scale of Canada, French will lose its relevance in North American market. Therefore, rather than making the investment to serve such a small market, I predict that major companies not based in Quebec will just forfeit it. As well, French Quebecers will be forced to understand English more since all communications across the borders need to be in English as the buffer previously provided by Canada is now gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't really say I'm moved by the emotional nature of "endurancist" arguments. "Will the kids be raised Jewish?" "Will English/French survive?" "Will there be white people in the 23rd century?"...

      That's why I'm fundamentally in agreement with your premise. Sink or swim, artifices and delusions be damned.

      Delete
  5. As seppie would say: it's anglouille season:

    http://www.facebook.com/RadioCanada.RiveNord?sk=wall

    The fact that our national broadcaster encourages this sort of vigilantism and one-sided participation is appalling. Anybody on Facebook willing to take this on?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'll try and keep it simple (fat chance, I know...), since I'm obviously one of the causes for this new article by the editor.

    It seems to me that the dividing line between federalists and separatists runs also along linguistic, ethnic and geographical lines. Now, I've been put right on the ethnic issue: I'll accept that it's not just the descendants of Hélène Desportes that want independence, but all those who adopted French as their ONLY language of choice. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers who do not speak anything other than French is in favour of separation, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of Quebec is in favour of remaining Canadian. Geographically, this group is dominant in the land between (and including most of) the Island of Montreal and the Outauais Region (with localised exceptions, before anyone jumps on my head), possibly making inroads in Laval, thanks to the spillover from Montreal, but I wouldn't count on it.

    Notice: I'm not going to "claim" any particular area since I've found plenty of disagreement on the likelyhood of which side would be taken by which town, although I maintain that the outcome of the 2004 de-amalgamation referendums can point to a clue of the likely position of the cities involved (considering what's the remaining linguistic majority in the municipalities from which they de-amalgamated). But that's by the by.

    My point is: the issue of separation has frozen the vote along ethnic lines and compromised the good governance of the Province of Quebec as most citizens won't vote for a Party that holds a position they don't agree with on the issue of Separation, thus often ending up voting against their (long term...) interest in many other respects. Also, the situation created has caused the politics of Independence drift towards a politics of De-Anglicisation that has no legitimacy in a democratic and tolerant society, with some peculiar situations arising from it, foremost among them the requirement for immigrants to the bilingual areas of Quebec to integrate ONLY in the French part of society, possibly (I speculate) for the purpose of forcing the anglophone and bilingual parts of society to wither away*. I find this unacceptable: call it soft ethnic cleansing, call it naked land grab, nobody should be forced to leave their home, nobody should lose their job or their money for speaking their own language in public or in their business, especially as it's the most diffuse of the two national languages and it's spoken fluently by half the population of Quebec, regardless of which is the Mother-Language. It also seems clear to me that those who can cope or are not directly affected by this issue do not see anything wrong with such policy (with due exceptions).


    (Continues...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Continues from above post)

      Whilst I didn't have an issue with an Independent Quebec where Montreal's bilingualism was not threatened, I do have a huge issue with the disappearance of bilingualism from Montreal by imposition (it wouldn't be a problem if such disappearance occured for natural causes, e.g. assimilation, but not the kind of assimilation that occurs in the "If you don't like it, leave" fashion: you can't say that to someone born and raised in the same place as you). Therefore I do believe that it's in the mutual interest of both Francophone Separatists and their multilingual Federalists counterparts to part ways. As someone said: better being good neighbours than bad lovers. This way, those Quebeckers that object to legislation like Bill 101 can repeal it, without the rights of their unilingual Francophone counterparts (who, I suppose, benefit from such legislation) being trodden on, and live their lives as they see fit. On the other hand, current Quebecois legislation would have a greater legitimacy and less negative implications, as it would apply to a French-only Province instead of a bilingual one. So, I do not see what negative consequences such partition would have on French Quebec, other than making it a more cohesive society, which isn't a bad thing in any book.

      Notice that I don't particularly care whether this leads to independence or not: whatever happens next in this scenario, will leave the smallest possible number of prisoners of fortune. It might even make the eventual Independence of Quebec a less traumatic event, with better subsequent relations with Canada.

      * I mentioned in the past how movements for Equality (a generally fair aim for any part of society) get transformed by their own victim mentality. I'll repeat what I think: those who want equality think of it as enjoying the same rights, so, legitimately, the Quiet Revolution was for the purpose of putting French and the Francophone Canadians on equal footing with English and Anglophone Canadians. That's perfectly legitimate and (I'll spell it out, just to make it clear that I've got no bones with it) DAMN RIGHT! However, victim mentality means that Equality is no longer seen as having equal rights, but as a continuous effort to reduce the rights of those perceived as oppressors and increase those of the perceived victims. This way, there is no need to verify if Equality has actually been achieved, nor there is a need for the activism to stop as there is no achievement of a goal that can be seen as "mission accomplished". Hence the transition from Pro-French to Anti-English in many aspects of life and politics in Quebec: equality has long been achieved, but so long as it is defined by how much one group gains and how much another group loses, without ever checking whether they actually have achieved equal status, there is no limit to how far you can push this kind of enterprise.

      Delete
    2. I'll try and keep it simple

      Sorry, I didn't mean to be patronising. I meant: "I'll tray and keep it short".

      Not that THAT went well...

      Delete
    3. "Try", even...

      I'll shut up now.

      Delete
    4. Hence the transition from Pro-French to Anti-English in many aspects of life and politics in Quebec: equality has long been achieved, but so long as it is defined by how much one group gains and how much another group loses, without ever checking whether they actually have achieved equal status, there is no limit to how far you can push this kind of enterprise.

      Well put. That's in fact PRECISELY where modern Quebec nationalism (and the Quiet Revolution that enabled it) loses my own sympathy, advocacy, and support.

      Delete
  7. no meaningful partition can be achieved without armed rebellion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does the same hold true for separation as for partition, in your estimation? In either case, how?

      Delete
    2. No, because we in ROC really don't care anymore if they go or not, and we'd have the $8.5 billion of unnecessary transfer payments as a consolation. Besides, after a "Yes" vote, when the true cost of separating became evident, I suspect there would be protests in the streets demanding that the vote be overturned.

      Delete
    3. Quebec would also get to keep the 45 billions they send to Ottawa every year, chances are they woudn't cry too much about equalization payments.

      Delete
    4. Then they's have to spend them providing what Ottawa provides now, but without the economies of scale. If they receive Equalisation it's because they are NOT a nett contributor to the Federal coffers.

      Delete
    5. That's now how federal transfers actually work.

      Federal revenues are of approx. 250 billions. 15.4 billions of these are given back to the provinces in equalization payments. 57.4 billions are given in total transfers. The Federal government is the net gainer of federal revenues from every province. There is not a single province that receives more in transfers than it sends to ottawa.

      Of course, Quebec may or may not benefit from the rest of the federal spending (about 280 billions total), which include paying for nation parliament, environment, fisheries, revenue agencies, veterans, pensions, crown corporations, defense, etc... according to its priorities and such.

      Some of these things are things Quebec would have to pay for itself (Defense). Some of them are things that Quebec would not have to pay for (Quebec currently pays for two parliaments while it would only have to pay for one under its own rule, then there's fisheries in the maritimes and BC, natural parks in Alberta, etc..). It's not clear to me that they are better off now sending 45 billions to Ottawa and getting 17 back (7 in transfers) than they would be if they got to keep all 45 billions and spend it on things they actually care about.

      Delete
    6. There is not a single province that receives more in transfers than it sends to ottawa.

      You do realise how nonsenisical this statement is? Where do you think Ottawa spends the extra money? Madagascar?

      I hear there is a heated debate going on between Ottawa and the provinces about Health spending, with Ottawa footing most of the bill and the Provinces asking for even more. What Ottawa spends for the whole of Canada, it spends for every Province. Just because there isn't an expense chapter with the name of a Province on, say, Defense or Pensions, that doesn't mean that the Provinces do not receive the money, just thet the Provincial administrations are bypassed.

      Delete
    7. Ottawa spends the rest of the money according to its own priorities, and its own agenda. Like I noted, this may or may not be of use to each individual province. BTW, your example of health transfers does not work, because health transfers are already acknowledged as a federal transfer and so are part of the 57.4 billions previously mentionned.

      "Just because there isn't an expense chapter doesen't mean that the Provinces do not receive the money"

      It's exactly what it means. People who receive the money are federal employees, doing things for the sake of the federal. It has nothing to do with the provinces, other than the income and sales taxes the province are making off of that federal employee.

      If a province were to declare independance, some of these services may be taken over by the province; others may be taken down entirely depending on the priorities of the new-fledged country.

      Delete
  8. Un autre dossier intéressant:

    "L'anglais favorisé sur le chantier du CHUM"

    http://tinyurl.com/6pqjlfz

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also never really considered partition as being something that would happen. But, as todays topic points out, the Montreal area and the Rest of Quebec are on different paths. Especially in matters of culture and ethnicity. In normally function political entities, this would not matter. As the government would be in place to serve all the people. And especially in helping the population in further growing its economy. But not Quebec. Quebec is trapped in a state of ethnic and linguistic craziness. It does not understand how to serve all its population. No matter what their language or ethnicity is. So in that matter, Quebec is a failed state, province. It cannot function without being racist towards it's minorities. It basically uses the law to remove other peoples rights. And if that doesn't work to their satisfaction, then then create political entities, government agencies, and use the media and the unions to bully these minorities.

    If these patterns of behaviour do not change, then a day will come when Montreal and the surrounding areas will have no choice but to breakaway from Quebec. I would prefer that the political class of Quebec smartens up and changes its ways. But, the attacks on minorities has increased of late. Obviously no one in power has any balls to stand up and say this is incorrect. And that a continuation of such behaviour only helps hurt Quebec in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 1

    Salut!

    I am one of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement advocates. I find it amazing that the mere mention of the movement’s working title witch started only three or four blog articles ago, has garnished so much interest that The Good Editor decided to dedicate this present article on our 11th Canadian Province. Merci a vous tous.
    I went back only on two articles and retrieved some pertinent posts as Editor asked. I think they will be sufficient to bring us back o a few weeks ago when the beginning of the separatist end started…



    Anonymous1 Mar 1, 2012 10:29 PM

    Editor,

    Such is the nature of this maze we're all in, that we spin around the same axel! I therefore, can only begin to comment on this new article the way that I did at the end of the preceding one.

    I must confess that no matter how we try to rationalize it, for the most part the country works! Our problem is that we forget to separate the separatists from the rest of us who have actually embraced each other’s culture. We don’t want to war but remember; the best warriors are those who want war the least! And with that, I must repeat my last post in your previous article...


    Again you Sepeis make it sound like there will be a clean break. Boy, are you ever wrong!!

    Canada played Russian roulette enough times already. There’s no way this will happen again, especially with you separatists loading the gun. The Clarity Act is law. Just as you separatist tell us that your unconstitutional Room 101 segregation law can create hatred but must be obeyed, so will the Clarity Act be obeyed. If you don't like it, leave. One thing is certain; you'll never get all the territory. Already there are several regions with movements preparing to officially request becoming integral parts a The New Canadian Province...

    By the way, you are not dealing only with landed immigrants here. You are trying to wipe out one of the founding nations. They may have marginalized themselves in the past by unsuspectingly accepting the nomenclature of “English Community", but that's over too! A Victorious Founding Nation will only be pushed so far!!

    Mon Ami, the time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!



    Tony KondaksMar 1, 2012 08:54 PM
    Anonymous: you better hope that the NDP is not the government of the day when Quebec leaves because if they are, Quebec WILL leave with all its territory intact.

    That, my friend, is the irrefutable implictions of the Sherbrooke Accord.



    Anonymous1 Mar 1, 2012 10:02 PM

    Tony, my friend,

    The Sherbrooke Accord is the agreement signed on June 12, 1995. It was signed by three separatists and is unconstitutional!!
    They dared include it in the divisive referendum as though it was an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec City. Disgusting to think there would not have been a civil war over such deception had they stole just a few more votes.

    Remember?
    Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

    Well we have a question of our own;

    Do you agree that Montréal should become a Province of Canada after having made a formal offer to Quebec for an economic and political partnership within the scope of the will defending the future of Montréal and the agreement of July 1, 1996?

    And btw, with that opportunistic turncoat Thomas Mulcair at the helm, you can be sure the NDP will b the NDPQ and lose its national status. Even if there are flakes in that party, there are enough people who would see through UncleTom’s trickery and would stop him.

    You may think that your book has convinced us to give up, but you miscalculate what Country means!!
    What makes you think that we will not have already created LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mulclair is a huge scumbag. I saw in a recent gazette article with many comments about how anglos regretted voting NDP.

      Delete
  11. Part 2

    adskiMar 2, 2012 11:54 AM

    Anion 10:02PM: "The Sherbrooke Accord is the agreement signed on June 12, 1995. It was signed by three separatists and is unconstitutional!! "

    Signed by three separatists. Interesting to know. I think I still remember the scene. Bouchard, Parizeau, Dumont all sitting down, with the ass-kissing brownnoser JF Lisee passing the document around for each one of them to sign.

    I always wondered what this "agreement signed on June 12, 1995" was. Now knowing this, I can't believe that these dweebs put it in the referendum question and phrased it so as to imply that this June 12 "agreement" was within a scope of "a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership". Talk about a blatant attempt to confuse people into thinking that this "agreement" was somehow struck with Canada. Of course the apologists for the question will say that all the details were in the "booklet" sent to everyone residing in Quebec, but why couldn't there have been a clear question plus the booklet? Why a convoluted question plus the booklet? The booklet, may I add, that the govt correctly gambled that the ignorant population, which doesn't read anything, wouldn't read.

    I can't believe the feds didn't get involved to dispel this manipulation. But maybe they couldn't. If my memory serves me right, the govt of Quebec framed the referendum law so as to prevent the feds from getting involved in any way.

    Well, as I said before, I'm not so much opposed to Quebec "leaving" the rest of the country (leaving it alone that is, and ideally leaving in a cut up condition), but thank god for the Clarity Act anyways. Last thing I'd want is for these manipulative schmucks to get away with proverbial murder, like they could have back in 1995.



    Tony KondaksMar 2, 2012 01:36 PM

    Anonymous writes:

    "The Sherbrooke Accord is the agreement signed on June 12, 1995. It was signed by three separatists and is unconstitutional!!"

    Just for clarity's sake, I don't think Anonymous is claiming that the actual Sherbrooke Accord was created in 1995 but that a Quebec bill was passed on that date that the Sherbrooke Accord drew its inspiration from. I say that because the Sherbrooke Accord -- an NDP official policy paper -- was officially created on May 7, 2005…..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Part 3

    Adski,

    A few weeks ago, I believe you asked what was the agreement signed on June 12, 1995 and I meant to answer you. Sorry that I didn't, but your asking again, does demonstrate how our politicians played Russian roulette with our lives. When I say that it’s disgusting to think there would not have been a civil war over such deception had they stole just a few more votes, I think you can see how that could have happened. After the vote, the separatist leaning Marketing company Leger and Leger carefully framed a survey question to yes voters and still discovered that of those who voted yes, 32+% of them believed that there would not have been a separation if the yes won.

    Can you imagine what French Canadians would have done if they found out how we were wronged? It’s no wonder the office of Lucien Bouchard sent personalized letters to soldiers of French descent to defect from Canada and join the new Quebec “army”.

    Despite the many terrible insults shared by all of us on this site, I believe few of us on either side could accept, “winning” in such a deceptive way.

    You may wonder why some people on this site seam more wounded by the separatist’s racism than others. Well it is because we understand the damage of that racism more. We are not bothered by the competition of two languages in a bilingual country or by immigrants coming here to find a better life and to help make our lives better. BUT, to be trumped by our leaders who played a game where a peaceful society would end up in such a disgusting way? And to add to it that it was the ethnic vote and even repeat it by singling out The Greeks The Italians and The Jews?
    What kind of violence inciting leaders are these?

    Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge! It is for this reason that our group, and other fast growing groups are poised to ask for the affirmation of the new PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL. We shall demonstrate how arguments used by the separatist AGAINST Canada, can also be used by us FOR Canada. The difference is that we wouldn’t need trickery for it. We’ll get a CLEAR Majority asking a simple question.

    The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.
    We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

    You asked if the agreement of July 1, 1996 was a document that you could inspect which was more than the unsuspecting French Canadians who were almost ripped from their country did. Well I can tell you that the two questions below are a demonstration of how people can be fooled.

    I think you can see by my zeal, that I have never been more disgusted, offended. Or disheartened over anything as I have been over this crime. The rest of this part of the story, I’ll be glad to tell you in further posts.


    Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?


    Do you agree that Montréal should become a Province of Canada after having made a formal offer to Quebec for an economic and political partnership within the scope of the will defending the future of Montréal and the agreement of July 1, 1996?


    PS Tony thx for clearing that Sherbrooke Accord thing, but the truth is that there never was an Ottawa/Quebec City agreement.

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part 4





    Anonymous1 Mar 2, 2012 08:58 AM

    Actions?
    As posted above, already there are several regions with movements preparing to officially request becoming integral parts of The New Canadian Province of Montreal...
    How's that for action?

    A Victorious Founding Nation will only be pushed so far!!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!



    Anonymous3 Mar 2, 2012 03:54 PM

    Whether there is any partitioning of an independent Quebec will play itself out on a political level and not on a legal level, no matter what Thomas Franck et al say. Just take a look at Kosovo. None of what has happened there (its independence and then its de facto partitioning) has anything to do with international law.

    Quebec will most likely not be partitioned, but it is not impossible. Just imagine Natives setting up roadblocks, occupying a hydroelectric dam or some bridge. How would Quebec deal with that? With force? Is it impossible that Canada would feel compelled to step in?

    AnonymousMar 2, 2012 03:56 PM
    You speak of a partition that would happen automatically if Québec secedes. However it is possible to have a referendum (you know which one, the one what's-her-face proposed - referendums by popular initiative) within a certain administrative part of Quebec to go back to Canada, is it not?



    Anonymous3 Mar 2, 2012 04:20 PM

    Oh, and I forgot to mention the issue with the borders of Labrador. There is no way, ever, Canada would agree to the borders Qc claims.



    Anonymous1 Mar 2, 2012 07:13 PM

    M. Sécessionniste,

    C'était qui qui a voté NON en 80 et en 95 alors?

    Separating separatists from the French Canadian is what is needed because even if you claim that the movement of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is a separatist one, you fail to understand that it is not breaking up our country. it is to prove that the Quebecois Separatist is xenophobic, ethnocentric and, thank God, a minority that does not represent French Canadians!

    Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge! It is for this reason that our group, and other fast growing groups are poised to ask for the affimation of the new PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL. We shall demonstrate how arguments used by the separatist AGAINST Canada, can also be used by us FOR Canada. The difference is that we wouldn’t need trickery for it. We’ll get a CLEAR Majority asking a simple question.

    The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.
    We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 5

    adskiMar 3, 2012 06:02 AM

    The same 1992 report ruled that as Quebec is not divisible, neither is Canada. Quebec would not get an ok from the UN because it does not meet the criteria of a colony, the necessary condition for the UN to ok a secession. Separatist lawyer Daniel Turp tried to challenge that second part of the ruling claiming Quebec was a colony, but failed to convince the panel.
    Separatists often quote the 1992 ruling, but only partially. They tend to omit the part that concerns the whole of Canada.



    adskiMar 3, 2012 06:19 AM

    Quebec would not get the ok to break up another UN recognized state, that is.

    UN decisions are not always carved in stone though. Power (ex the US) and determination can make the UN change its mind. Quebec separatists are very determined. So should become Montreal separatists. I have a feeling that Montreal separatists would be a numerous group, all they need is to get organized. It's also obvious what effect the concept of Montreal's separation has on the 'separatist' and 'federalist' Québécois (with both separatists and the 'concerned-for-Canada' federalists essentially being indistinguishable from each other).

    Personally, I would love to see those who want to leave to finally leave (and not just talk about it), and those who are threatened to be left to stop trying to bend over backwards to hold on (this goes for both Canada vis a vis Quebec, and Quebec vis a vis Montreal). Groups of people do drift apart over time, and if we have drifted so far apart, maybe a political remodeling would be in order.



    Le sécessionnisteMar 3, 2012 07:09 AM

    @JP
    As long as Québec is part of Canada, its territory (present-day territory, seems I need to specify) can't be modified without an approval by the Assemblée Nationale (under the 1871 canadian constitutionnal law). After independance, the territorial integrity of Québec is assured by international law. It is actually an important part of the equation for the international recognition of a new country that the territory remains intact (utipossidetis juris).

    Mind my language, but talking Québec partition is simply put "de l'enculage de mouche". Find a study, a report, anything with an ounce of credibility to assert your claims.

    Document published by the government of Québec in 1997: http://actionsouverainiste.org/fluxrss/la-partition-du-quebec.html
    (no need to highlight the fact its "highly biaised" being diffused on a separatist website)

    @Troy
    5 international constitutional law experts were hired for answering precise Québec questions. Why would they risk their own credibility for laws that don't concern them in any way? Or are you presuming the authors were paid to arrive to these conclusions?

    @adski
    Can you quote the parts of the 1992 report confirming your post?



    adskiMar 3, 2012 10:00 AM

    'L'integrite territoriale du Quebec dans l'hypothese de l'accession a la souverainete' by Franck, Higgins, Pellet, Shaw, Tomuschat
    pp. 377-452

    'The right of peoples to self-determination is a very general principle, which has as a consequence always and everywhere the right for the community involved to participate in it's future, but this does not suffice to provide a basis for the right of a people to accede to independence, to the detriment of the state to which it is attached, EXCEPT IN COLONIAL SITUATIONS.'

    In response to Turp's motion, the panel reiterated:

    '...one cannot reasonably maintain that it (the Québécois) is a colonial people, nor that it is deprived of the right to its own existence within the Canadian whole, nor to participate in democratic life.'

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 6


    Le sécessionnisteMar 3, 2012 11:01 AM

    Adski,

    Thank you for taking the time to share the lines you were referring to, honestly. While the right to self-determination is still a fairly vague concept (Unterberger, 2002; tinyurl.com/8yyktrc), I highly doubt, a Québec Oui majority wouldn't get the international recognition it needs to become a country. Yet, as you state it in your comment above, the entire process needs to be "sans reproche".



    JPMar 3, 2012 03:21 PM

    @Le secessioniste:
    "Find a study, a report, anything with an ounce of credibility to assert your claims."

    http://canadachannel.ca/HCO/index.php/Stéphane_Dion_-_Open_Letter_to_Lucien_Bouchard

    With all due respect to your belief that Quebec's provincial borders are protected by international law based on the principal of "uti possidetis juris" this is simply a principle applied prior to an independence agreement, which may, or may not, be used when boundaries of a new state party are ultimately agreed. In the end, boundaries would need to be agreed in a pragmatic manner by Canada and Quebec, (not to mention the USA who will have some very strong views on the subject) and these may differ from the boundaries as at present.

    If you check the www you will find that there is much discussion on this subject and that what Jacques Brassard states in your attached link is in many respects an opinion designed to reassure the "soft" yes sovereignty vote. Also, with regard to the five experts, you need to realise that the points made are yes/no type points, and are not comprehensive viewpoints of these experts with full explanations or limits or assumptions. In reality, it will be very challenging for an independent Quebec to keep a northern region comprising mostly indigenous people who are not "Quebecois" and who do not wish to be part of an independent Quebec state. It will be similarly so with respect to a western Quebec region most of whose population have expressed their wish through municipal referendums to remain part of Canada.

    One last question if you do not mind. Have you, or your family members or friends, ever experienced limitations to your education, career, or life opportunities which could be resolved or significantly improved if Quebec were to separate from Canada?



    Anonymous4 Mar 3, 2012 09:37 PM

    Blah Blah Blah
    We don't need to wash our dirty laundry in the UN and other countries' courts. we can do it in house, à la Canadienne/Québécoise.

    Poster wrote a good bace for a realizable solution..

    The beauty of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is that it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.

    Vive la Province Canadienne de Montréal...



    The Quebec PartitionMar 4, 2012 10:17 AM

    Troy, JP, adski and Seppie: you seem to make too much out of a legal opinion, but there are more ways to skin a cat. In my lifetime I've seen two Germanies become one, Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, the Soviet Union splinter into a couple of dozen different countries, Yugoslavia being torn by a civil war into another half dozen countries, and even Canada went from having only two territories to having three. I'm not sure what the legal opinions given prior to any of those events were, but I'm happy to bet a fiver that not all of them were favourable to the changes that followed. The good thing about lawyers is that if you don't like what they say, you can always hire one who says what you like...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part 7

    adskiMar 4, 2012 12:17 PM

    Quebec Partition, I agree with you about the lawyers, and contrary to the 1992 panel's ruling that neither Quebec nor Canada are indivisible, I believe that both are. I think that the RoQ does not fit in Canada, just like Montral does not fit into the RoQ.

    Google 'Quebec partition' and go to the Wikipedia article about it to see what ridiculous excuses Quebec separatist use against it. I mean one is literally that Canada is divisible because it's not a real nation, while Quebec is not divisible because it constitutes a nation. Really really arbitrary stuff.

    As for the 1992 ruling, yes, no matter how distinguished the lawyers were, there were only 5 of them, they convened only once, were handpicked by Parizeauvey al., and in the end they ruled for indivisibility of Canada as much as Quebec. So we can either take that ruling in it's entirety, or not at all, as in both Canada and Quebec are not indivisible. Of course QC separatists would like to use it partially and selectively, but they are known for wanting a cake and eating it too and we cannot let them have any double standards ANYMORE.
    Your examples of break ups and mergers, often against the UN, show that UN's will can be overridden in response to changing events. So if a selective interpretation of a one time ruling by 5 judges is all they have, then they don't have very much. And just like Parizeau said that Quebec will simply 'ignore' the clarity act, then we have to take a page from this and give them a bit of the same - we simply have to learn how to ignore their nonsense. We already have plenty experience at that too, in regards to their language laws.



    Tony KondaksMar 2, 2012 01:47 PM

    I thank the editor for this post on "critical mass".

    It is essential for everyone to understand the implications of the critical mass concept because it refutes that perennially told bugaboo "Quebec anglophones are the best treated minority", something used, along with other myths, to justify the human rights abuses contained in the hate law/race law Bill 101 against individuals in Quebec and against Quebec's anglophone community.



    Tony KondaksMar 4, 2012 02:08 PM

    Anonymous:

    If and when you ever get "La province Canadienne de Montreal" you will have, as a province of Canada, the right to opt into section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    This is the section that deals with official languages of Canada and its federal and provincial legislatures.

    I suggest that you become familiar with it. Why? Because you need to be able to ask what exactly it is that you want...and I assume that you will want both English and French as the official languages of the province you propose.

    Here is the text of section 16:

    16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Part 8

    Anonymous1 Mar 4, 2012 09:20 PM

    Tony,

    Thanks for helping out with your input.
    We do know what we want and we have the right people to get things done.

    The name LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL is but a working title. The real name will most likely be one or two bilingual words. Feel free to make suggestions.

    The working title is used mostly because we are well aware that we did not win that referendum alone. We also do not have any problem with our French Canadian Brothers. We want to attract those who are NOT racists from all sides and we know that the majority of them will be French Canadians. It is as a thank you that we use the French version of the working title. Besides, it feels good to know that it shows the separatists what they are about to lose.

    Your attempt to tie us up in federal provincial separation legalese by calling it partition doesn’t scathe us, for our movement is legally doable. Separation referendums have nothing to do with what we want because it is not an act of treason to ask for an affirmation of jurisdictional citizenship from The Governor General and from our country Canada!

    Critical Mass. gerrymandering. Where numbers warrant. Etc..

    I suggest you do some research on this approach. You will notice that most of the laws are in place for it. This is why it’s doable and why even if it never happens, the separatists, at the least, may feel some empathy.


    We hope we’ll never need to do it, but in order to resist that hateful cult that has crippled our country and shamed French Canadians for much too long, we will!

    And btw, your rights ARE constitutionally guaranteed.

    Welcome to Montréal, welcome to CANADA!!

    VIVE LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL!!



    The Quebec PartitionMar 5, 2012 01:54 AM

    New Brunswick is officially bilingual and subsection 16.3 is there as a sort of "advertisement" to strongly encourage any of the nine provinces that are not officially bilingual to do so.

    Is this something that you want for your proposed province...'cause I'm not sure.

    Tony, you're a seemingly intelligent person (and I don't mean that to sugar-coat a subsequent insult), but I struggle to understand why you appear to believe that any attempt to remove certain restrictions must be coupled with the need of meddling in order to impose other restrictions on other Provinces. Personally I'm in favour of less restrictive legislation and more freedom. Not interested in sticking it up to the French in Quebec nor (if you've read my proposal) the English in Ontario, nor am I interested in a Nationwide revolution. There is a problem in the region between Ottawa and Montreal: I'm happy to see a solution to that problem. Everything else is just an unnecessary distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Part8.5

    Anonymous1 Mar 5, 2012 10:07 AM

    Tony,

    You are not the only one who has strategies. LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement is not about only English people. We are about Canada and Canada means Welcome! You seam to be basking in the cold info that you wrote in your destroy Canada book.

    The when and how we’ll have The 11th Province is our concern because it is base on Love Of Country, not what can I get for free out of this place.

    The time will come and it will from places you’ve not considered because in your mind CanadaMustEnd. Are there separatists on all sides?



    Tony KondaksMar 5, 2012 05:02 PM

    Anonymous:

    "Love of country"? I'm sorry to inform you of this, Anonymous, but the feeling isn't mutual. You see, Canada has f**ked you over for the past 40 years.

    If Canada and "love of country" is the horse you want to hitch your wagon to, good luck to you.

    Look. I would be the first person on board if I truly believed your 11th province had a snowball's chance in hell of becoming a reality. But it doesn't.

    May I suggest you read my book? Because I can't imagine that you have reading the comments, above, that you have made about it. And if you do read it, I suggest you will find information in it that will be invaluable to you even if you reject its premise because you can still use said information to further your own 11th province project.



    Anonymous6or3 Mar 5, 2012 05:58 PM

    Man, you are so fixated on your book. There is a life beyond your book, you know.

    Yours is just one way of looking at the issue, but not the only way. How about a contingency in which the Natives, prevented from joining Canada, start blowing up Hydro Quebec dams in order to mess with Quebec's power grid as well as province's major source of profits? Ever thought of that? You haven't because you haven't thought outside the box to consider violence.

    Separatist movements exist all over the place. One less or one more won't hurt anyone. It's just another way of looking at a rather complex situation, made more complex every year with growing immigration and population aging. so when people throw ideas around to open up the realm of possibilities, you don't have to sneer just because something doesn't fit in your rigid grand scheme.
    ----------

    Now Lets Play Ball...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Partition would become feasible only when the western Corridor to the Ontario border from Montreal Island has a majority Anglo Allo population. Dorion and Vaudreuil are rapidly changing demographics. Also Southwest Quebec still has a large anglo minority. If more Anglos and allos moved there the demographics would change quite fast where a corridor the United states would also be feasible. Also taking back all land awarded to Quebec during confederation would be ideal as well. Quebec losing its Hydroelectric jewels would really be an eye opener for the seppies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally, I wouldn't stand for that. I wouldn't want the theoretical New Province to be a French-free zone, nor would I want the Nordiques to be robbed, however much I disapprove of their politics. You don't need an Anglo-Allo majority because you're not planning a retaliatory ethnic cleansing, because bilingual Francophones are, generally, allied to the Anglos and the Allos and because there's about one million unilingual Francophones that are pro-Federation. All you need is to make a convincing case and, while there would be some (on a purely theoretical level) scope for creating an independent territory (á-la Nunavut) out of the North of Quebec, that seems the kind of vindictive attitude that will make you lose friends and allies where you need them.

      Delete
    2. it will definitely become feasible in about 20-25 years from now....no matter what seppie says..

      Delete
    3. What are you saying man? do you really think QC would be able to become a country once the 11th Province is formed? There's no way they'll let Montreal go and that's the beauty of it! Empathy!!
      One of my students asked me why do some people harm helpless animals? And another student said, because they lack empathy!
      What's good for the Canadian Goose...

      Delete
    4. Anonymous Mar 7, 2012 06:37 AM

      Seppie's own feelings are the last and the least of my concerns. Having said that: because I despise what the Nordiques are doing, I don't want to ape their behaviour. I'll stand for justice, not retaliation.

      Anonymous Mar 7, 2012 06:43 AM

      I don't really care if Quebec becomes a Country or not. So long as all those who live there are happy with the decision, then it really is their business only. The problem arises when there are two million captive Anglos and Allos. If there is a Partition, there is no such problem.

      Delete
    5. The Quebec PartitionMar 7, 2012 06:31 AM

      You get it, and that's great!
      LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL Movement has grown so quickly and so much because it is not about language, race or revenge. It's about CANADA!

      The Movement's working title, LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL, is used mostly because we are well aware that we did not win that referendum alone. We also do not have any problem with our French Canadian Brothers. We want to attract those who are NOT racists from all sides and we know that the majority of them will be French Canadians. It is as a thank you that we use the French version of the working title. Besides, it feels good to know that it shows the separatists what they are about to lose.

      Delete
    6. @The Quebec parititon,

      Well an anglo and allo majority would be needed to actually get a Pro partition vote. There are many Pro Canada francophones that vote no for seperation but many of them are also pro bill 101. A new province would by necessity have to be bilingual despite an allo and anglo majority. On the other hand i wonder how Quebec would react to the parts of a Partitioned Quebec calling for sovereignty association. The seppies would be so confused and angry having their own terminology used against them.

      Delete
    7. And that's the point of TheMovement! As has been stated in one of the 8Parts above, through empathy, the people will bring the pumps self-serving Pauline Antoinette Ruling Crass to its knees. No one wants to lose Montréal, not even Toronto!

      “Quebec separation must never happen because the basis for the movement still remains jealousy, racism and revenge! It is for this reason that our group, and other fast growing groups are poised to ask for the affirmation of the new PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL. We shall demonstrate how arguments used by the separatist AGAINST Canada, can also be used by us FOR Canada. The difference is that we wouldn’t need trickery for it. We’ll get a CLEAR Majority asking a simple question.”

      Delete
  20. Partition, like any sociopolitical process, can either gain or lose legitimacy. It all depends on how the separation is carried out.

    If tricks are played, like in 1995, partition would have a lot of traction in the populace (allo and anglo for sure, but what about the francos who voted oui having no idea that it meant separation?). It also wouldn't be hard to sell it to the international community, once the tricks are exposed.

    The major question to settle is this: is Quebec's separation form the RoC a popular will, or a "political project" (Parizeau's term) of the ruling elites? I personally think if it were the former, it would have happened a long ago. The reason why it hasn't happened is because it's the latter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Désolé mais j'habite à Montréal et je n'aurais pas accepté la partition. J'aurais exigé que ma maison soit partie du nouveau pays du Québec ! Vous voyez bien que c'est complètement idiot comme raisonnement.Allez relire ce qu'est supposé être une fédération... Le Québec n'est pas régit par le gouvernement fédéral et possède ses propres institutions et un territoire propre. Ne vous en déplaise, Montréal est bel et bien au Québec.

      Delete
    2. ben,on va t'forcer a te relocaliser au Quebec quand la partition aura ete faite. pi comme ca, tu pourra vivre ta petite vie de paysan dans ton petit patelin de st-clinclin:)

      Delete
    3. Désolé mais j'habite à Montréal et je n'aurais pas accepté la partition du Canada.

      J'aurais exigé que ma maison soit partie du Canada!

      Vous voyez bien que la sécession du Quebec est complètement idiot comme raisonnement. Allez relire ce qu'a été decidé par une commission de L'Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) en 1992 - le Canada n'est pas divisible parce que le Quebec n'est pas une colonie.

      Le Canada n'est pas régit par le gouvernement provincial du Quebec et possède ses propres institutions et un territoire propre. Ne vous en déplaise, Montréal est bel et bien au Canada.

      Delete
    4. "Ne vous en déplaise, Montréal est bel et bien au Canada."

      Pourquoi on n'y voit pas de drapeaux canayens comme dans toutes les villes canayennes?Étrange non?

      Delete
    5. You don't see them because as someone mentioned before that displaying a Canadian flag is a political statement. And who wants all the harassment that come with that? I don't. But I made a point of being out of Qc on Jean Bapstiste day and Downtown on Canada Day.

      Delete
    6. I have seen plenty of Canadian flags in Quebec.

      Delete
    7. Re: "...but what about the francos who voted oui having no idea that it meant separation?"

      Answer (really a no-brainer and whoever voted oui not knowing what the above meant really have NO brains): IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE!

      Delete
    8. Il faudrait que plusieurs relisent le renvoi de la Cour Suprême du Canada sur la sécession du Québec en 1998. ''Saisie de la question de savoir si le Québec pouvait unilatéralement déclarer son indépendance, la Cour suprême a déclaré à l'unanimité dans ce renvoi qu'une déclaration unilatérale d'indépendance est inconstitutionnelle tant du point de vue du droit constitutionnel canadien qu'au point de vue du droit international. Un amendement constitutionnel rendrait la sécession possible. La Cour ajouta cependant que le Québec peut tenir un référendum sur la sécession et, avec une question claire et une majorité claire qui serait en faveur de la sécession, le reste du Canada, en pareil cas, aurait l'obligation constitutionnelle de négocier les termes de l'accession du Québec à l'indépendance, dans le respect des grands principes de base, soit la primauté du droit, le fédéralisme, la protection des minorités et la démocratie. '' Obligation de négocier, vous comprenez ?

      Delete
  21. Je ne voudrais pas être un anglo ou un allo de Montréal au cours la prochaine décennie,ho que non!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. Down with anyone who doesn't respect l'etat Quebecois.

      Let's throw poutine at them.

      Delete
    2. Afin d'éviter les fautes d'orthographe reliées aux accents,vous devriez vous munir d'un clavier français.

      Delete
    3. yeah a keyboard that will be useless in few decades from now...nice try though with your reply:)

      Delete
    4. Oh allophone, c'est ta langue qui va être useless in few decades comme tu dis. Va falloir que tu travailles plus fort pour te faire passer pour un anglo, ça serait pas in *a* few decades? Un oubli? Pourtant je reconnais ton style et tu fais des fautes qui trahissent que t'es ni francophone ni anglophone). Qu'est-ce que je dit là? Elle est déjà useless ta langue maternelle, peu importe c'est quoi. Ton accent pseudo-anglo, il est comment? Pauvre déraciné, tu n'as pas eu le droit de fréquenter l'école anglaise et tu ne seras jamais considéré comme un des leurs ni comme l'un des notres. Tu es une minorité dans un ensemble de minorités qui n'ont pas de racines ici et seront toujours divisés et minoritaires. Ça va prendre bien plus que quelques décennies pour accumuler des millions d'immigrants.
      Pendant ce temps nous continuerons d'être biens vivants et notre langue aussi. La majorité ne veut pas "switcher", ça c'est pour les minorités déracinées. Pauvre toi, tu ne seras jamais parfaitement assimilé à l'anglais, toujours cette trace d'accent et en passant, tu les aimes mes accents ÉÀÈÙÊÔË ?

      Y'avait pas un article dans the Guhzette à propos des écoles anglos forcées de changer pour des claviers français? Même pas capables d'empêcher ça pis ça parle non seulement de partition mais de déportation de séparatistes. Non, c'est vrai, dans la réalité y'a des gens déportés d'ici desfois (comme ailleurs au Cadenas/Canada) et ça s'adonne qu'ils sont tous immigrants comme toi ;)
      Tandis que la citoyenneté reste la même pour les séparatistes. Nous avons les mêmes droits. C'est la loi. Comme la loi sur les claviers accentés. Pouvez pas la changer. C'est à Québec que ça se décide et vous avez pas une grosse présence dans notre belle capitale. C'est propre, sécuritaire, chômage très bas (demande à Statistique Canada), rien à voir avec Montréal. Pourtant je comprends pas: je croyais que les immigrants, eux, l'avaient l'affaire ou du moins c'est ce qu'ils disent? Pourquoi la ville quasiment 100% Québécoise est supérieure à la ville quasiment à moitié non-Québécoise?

      Delete
    5. Effectivement beaucoup d'allos déconnectés sur ce blogue.Soit des trolls ou des morons qui cherchent la merde.Quand y'a des importés...Vous connaissez la suite.

      Delete
    6. Attention faut quand même pas insulter tous les immigrants.
      Ceux qui se joignent à nous y'a pas de problème.
      Le problème c'est ceux qui choisissent de s'installer dans le seul état/province d'Amérique du Nord où le français est la langue de la majorité mais insistent pour vivre en anglais, à la canadian.
      Si la même chose se produisait dans leurs pays d'origine évidemment ça les rendreraient furieux.
      Rien à voir avec les bons immigrants qui s'intégrent.

      Delete
    7. Tout à fait daccord anon 2:54 pm.

      Delete
    8. to Anonymous Mar 7, 2012 01:27 PM and Anonymous Mar 7, 2012 01:42 PM

      You make it clear and obvious that it's you Seppie that posts all those comments...no need to fool us...

      Delete
    9. No I'm 01:27 PM and 02:54 PM.
      Ask the administrator to check IPs or something if you don't believe me.
      I'm not interested in arguing with myself.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous @ 01:27

      You kiss your mother with that mouth?

      Delete
  22. Je ne voudrais pas être un anglo ou un allo de Montréal au cours la prochaine décennie,ho que non!

    On s'en Chris! Et NON is the word of Freedom! Oui, mon voeux, is for that pre-revolutionary cross-dressing monarch whose banner you worship!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "On s'en Chris! Et NON is the word of Freedom! Oui, mon voeux, is for that pre-revolutionary cross-dressing monarch whose banner you worship!"

      Démonstration plutôt éloquente de la langue hybride des outaouin.Quel étrange langage.

      Delete
    2. "Démonstration plutôt éloquente de la langue hybride des outaouin.Quel étrange langage."


      Declaration of a cripple-minded pure-lain inbred that obviously have a great lack in intellectual knowledge here above...

      Delete
    3. @ 08:16 AM « Démonstration plutôt éloquente de la langue hybride des outaouin.Quel étrange langage. »

      Pourquoi insulter les Québécois habitant l'Outaouais à cause d'un non-Québécois (il se considère sûrement pas Québécois alors venez pas dire que c'est moi qui est raciste) haineux qui y habite ?
      C'est triste ce genre de divisions régionales surtout que ça part de quelqu'un qui ne fait pas du tout parti du même peuple que toi et moi (les non-pure-laines sont bienvenus à se joindre au peuple Québécois mais pas ceux qui nous insultent) mais la majorité des gens en Outaouais en font parti et qui parmi eux dirait les trucs anti-Québécois qu'il dit ? Ils sont visés par ces insultes aussi.

      Si c'est celui que je pense, il a déjà dit « ta maudite race pure laine à marde » ou un truc du genre (et ensuite est venue une insulte anti-Outaouais) et là il dit « pure-lain inbred » alors c'est clair que c'est un allophone ou un anglophone, d'ailleurs il a déjà fait des fautes de français très suspectes, le genre que pas mal juste quelqu'un dont ce n'est pas la langue maternelle peut faire mais même avec un français impeccable, quand tu dis ce genre de choses c'est sûr que t'es pas inclut dans le groupe dont tu parles.
      Oui il y a des anti-séparatistes en Outaouais mais là on parle d'un anti-Québécois, pas la même chose, Québécois anti-Québécois c'est aussi absurde que juif anti-sémite. Bref, avec la loi 101 les minorités qui nous aiment pas peuvent nous le dire dans notre langue. Y'en a plein des comme ça dans les écoles montréalaises. Pas tout le monde et évidemment que malgré ça je suis pro-101. Évidemment, c'est toujours nous les racistes, il faut se faire traiter de maudite race consanguine et ne pas se poser de questions.

      Delete
    4. Buddy, get your head out of the gutter. There’s no such race as Quebecois! How racist do you have to be to renounce being French so you can make a new race?
      And stop whining you Peuple Conquis idiot. You make me ashamed of my heritage!

      Delete
    5. French Canadian Nationality has been different than Metropolitan France since at least the 18th century...

      Delete
    6. "You make me ashamed of my heritage!"

      Habiter au Canada anglais et n'avoir que l'anglais comme langue maternelle, tout un bel héritage français à laisser à ses descendants. C'est ton cas? Peux-tu lire ceci sans traduire?

      Plastic Paddies pour les Irlando-Américains et Plastic Frenchies pour toi.

      Un anglo avec un nom français (mal prononcé, desfois même mal écrit) ça reste un anglo.
      Un franco avec un nom anglais/irlandais/écossais/etc ça reste un franco.
      Tu vois, c'est pour ça que c'est plus logique d'utiliser le terme Québécois. La majorité retrace la majorité de ses ancêtres en France mais faut ajouter à ça un mélange de d'autres origines.
      Renounce being French? Pas question de renoncer aux contributions étrangères non plus donc oui un nouveau peuple (pas une race), le peuple Québécois.

      Delete
    7. Oups, mélange d'autres pas de d'autres.
      Devrait me relire et peut pas éditer.

      Delete
    8. Et Je suis montréalais!!!

      Delete
  23. "Je ne voudrais pas être un anglo ou un allo de Montréal au cours la prochaine décennie,ho que non!"

    Moi non plus,j'ai l'impression qu'ils (allos/anglos) ont des tendances masochistes.Plus ils vont s'afficher,plus ils seront dénoncés par les médias,plus les Québécois ressereront les règles.Comme on dit par chez nous:Ils devraient la jouer "low profile".Il ne faut vraiment pas connaître le Québec pour agir de la sorte.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Je suis d'accord avec monsieur OQLF. L'État Québécois doit agir.

      Préparons la poutine, puis on attaque.

      Delete
    2. @ OQLF (aka Seppie, 101 ou 401, Anonymous on occasion, Press 9, Dartagnan, etc.) at 7:48 AM,

      I see that you're replying to yourself again. You're a dishonest piece of sh*t, like most separatists. All of your comments are easily distinguishable. You might as well be leaving your fingerprints.

      Delete
  24. "Préparons la poutine..."

    Les contraventions seront beaucoup plus salées. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Les contraventions seront beaucoup plus salées. :)"

      Actually its not a big possibility because unless the poutine is donated there won't be enough left over from the monthly welfare (bien etre social, aka le BS) check for the MMF and RPQ types to use in their protests.

      Delete
  25. Toussaint Louverture dit ''A newly independent Quebec would see to the elimination of the last of our English language rights, be it in the National Assembly, the courts, the job market, the schools, the hospitals and the marketplace.

    To those who believe differently, all I can ask is, if not, what is the point of sovereignty?''

    Je crois que la souveraineté va rendre officiel ce que l'on sait déjà, le Québec est une société à majorité française en Amérique du nord et que pour assumer pleinement son destin, le Québec doit siéger aux Nations-Unies et être reconnu comme pays ! Les anglophones, c'est-à-dire les 8% de la population conserveront les institutions qui les desservent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. but Montreal is completely the other way around, so you better deal with the fact that it being separated from ROQ, will render official of what we truly are, without any of your typical close-mindedness you constantly exhibit.

      Delete
  26. The editor writes:

    In the old days, the raison d'etre for sovereignty was the economic emancipation of French Quebec, but with that goal already accomplished with nary a shot fired...

    Come again?

    Perhaps "shots" weren't "fired" but bombs were. And don't think for a minute that the specter of violence hasn't set the agenda for the sovereignty/language debate in this province right up to the present day (and will continue to).

    And I'm not just referring to the FLQ bombings of the 1960s or the October crisis of 1970. Indeed, violence brought us the 1995 referendum!

    Another Victim of Terrorism

    Are you not all aware that it was terrorist activity that set in motion all the events that brought this country to within a whisker of the "yes" side winning in 1995?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too have mentioned that English will not disappear in a completely independent Quebec because they are surrounded by an English-speaking North America, and further away, a Spanish-speaking Central and South America, and a Portuguese-speaking Brazil that has about 25 TIMES QUEBEC'S POPULATION.

      Even the United States of America has a Spanish-speaking population that is ALMOST FIVE TIMES the French-speaking population of Quebec.

      Now, if the Quebec economomy completely closes itself off to English, Spanish and Portuguese, that should be OK. They can trade with France that recently had its Standard and Poor's bond rating lowered, the poverty-stricken French African nations, or Haiti, the poorest of all nations in the Western Hemisphere. BONNE CHANCE AVEC ÇA, QUÉBEC!

      Delete
    2. "if the Quebec economomy completely closes itself off to English, Spanish and Portuguese"

      Absurd. It's not like Parizeau, who studied economics in London, would have been in favor of such a thing.
      Separatist premier Bernard Landry even speaks fluent Spanish (and Spanish is taught optionally in many schools even in virtually totally French regions) and was in favor of closer relations with Latin America.
      You don't even need a significant English-speaking population (I mean, native English speakers) to trade with other countries. It's called English as a second language.

      Delete
  27. The editor writes:

    Can English survive in an independent Quebec?

    No it cannot, it is that simple.
    A newly independent Quebec would see to the elimination of the last of our English language rights, be it in the National Assembly, the courts, the job market, the schools, the hospitals and the marketplace.

    To those who believe differently, all I can ask is, if not, what is the point of sovereignty?


    The point of sovereignty is to grant a people who want a nation their own nation.

    This is a great discussion and a great post by the editor, but I categorically reject the his analysis that English will disappear in an independent Quebec; indeed, I believe the exact opposite!

    I won't go into the reasons for why I believe this will be so because I've done that ad infinitum on this site already (and for those that missed it, you can read more about it at the discussion Won't the absence of Bill 101 hurt French Quebec?)

    You've bought into the myth that this is all just about repressing English. Yes, this is a big part of it and, certainly, the agenda of the militant faction, as described by the editor in his post, is spot on.

    But the editor also is quick to tell us that "that most Francophone Quebecers don't hate Anglophones and would like to see them remain part of an independent Quebec..."

    Cooler heads will prevail in an independent Quebec once they have their own boundaries to protect the nation that they want. If an independent Quebec aspires to be accepted into the family of nations, they won't be able to oppress their minority. As Daniel Latouche observed: "Provinces and states can have such restrictive language and cultural laws (such as Bill 101 and Bill 178), but full-fledged nation-states, those who aspire to play among the big boys (and the big girls) of international relations, cannot afford to be caught with such restrictions on their hands."

    And, besides, do you really think it could get any worse than the present day violation of rights? Com'n, 500,000 of us have already left.

    No, this is all about getting a nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to mention, that with 100% control of its citizenship requirements, Quebec could require that immigrants learn french before they can be naturalised (as is common in most other countries whose immigration laws I've bothered to read), thereby voiding many of the most convincing concerns about anglicization.

      One could argue that in that case, many aspects of bill 101 would be relaxed, though I still don't see an independant Quebec providing public education in english to its immigrants.

      Delete
    2. "If an independent Quebec aspires to be accepted into the family of nations, they won't be able to oppress their minority."

      Of all the UN-recognized nation states, about all of them oppress their minorities to a degree. Some do it more, some less. Quebec would continue its passive-aggressive oppression through petty, life-inconveniencing, laws and would continue to cover its ass by the use of a massive PR apparatus whose function is to sanitize the image of these laws.


      "And, besides, do you really think it could get any worse than the present day violation of rights?"

      Easily.

      Delete
    3. Here you go again Tony with your brand of separatism. The myth is believing that there is a nation here. What crap. You put a few high crass bigots together and they brainwash us into renouncing being French. Disgusting!!
      Are you sure you’re not an NDPQ Thomas ally?

      Delete
    4. All that's required for nationality is self-recognition. You don't get to negate the identity of others.

      Delete
  28. So far as I can tell, the mouvement "LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL" is limited to a single guy copy-pasting the same parts of his ramblings on every thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...make that "an anonymous single guy...

      Delete
    2. You've got to be kidding. do you really need more than one person to pass the message? The editor wrote this piece for us to discuss TheEleventhProvince! and btw, I've noticed that Seppie has multiple identities and you're making an issue that on an AnonymousEditorSite, Anonymous is wronging folks?

      Let's stay on message. How do we prove to our French Canadian Brother how the seps have robbed them of the future!!

      Delete
    3. I do actually, you sound like a crazy person with a megaphone telling the masses that the revolution has come.

      Delete
    4. Is the megaphone bilingual?

      Delete
  29. I think an offer of sovereignty association from anglo and allo parts of Quebec might be accepted by Quebec government because they would have no real choice. Especially if other parts of the province clamour for it as well especially for the Northern cree and inuit dominated areas that have most of Quebecs hydroelectric crown jewels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Northern cree and inuit dominated areas that have most of Quebecs hydroelectric crown jewels."

      Well your northern crees and inuits don't dominate Hydro-Québec that's for sure.
      Not many anglo employees either.

      Do you seriously think Hydro-Québec will just hand it all over for free?
      Seize the dams, you're going to say? In that case they could always apply a scorched earth policy.
      Sure that would be a problem but your "anglo and allo parts" would suffer a blackout too.

      This is ridiculous. Anglos have complained about bill 101 since the 1970s and have made partition threats well you west island people have had decades to join Ontario. Why hasn't it happened yet? Oh right, partition only in the even of separation. Wouldn't it be easier to change provincial borders while still in the same country? Bill 101 wouldn't apply there anymore if it was Ontarian soil. Why haven't they done it yet? Why haven't the crees and inuits joined Ontario or Nunavut or whatever?
      I don't believe in partition. In the event of separation, anglos will probably just do what they have done for decades after the PQ took power and leave.

      Delete
    2. Now that I think about it, the whole blackout thing, I wonder what Parizeau's plan was back in 1995. Surely he must have thought about it. He was ready to declare independence so surely he had a plan.

      Delete
    3. "In the event of separation, anglos will probably just do what they have done for decades after the PQ took power and leave."

      Alléluia!Mais beaucoup trop beau pour être vrai,quoique la prochaine décennie en sera une de filtration.
      Vous voyez le résultat lorsque nous laissons entrer n'importe qui sur notre territoire,deux semaines après leur arrivée et il menacent de faire sauter nos installations hydro-électriques...Quelle racaille comme le dit si bien Sarkozy.

      Delete
    4. Tony, isn't that what the 11th province is about? Make the province while Quebec is in Canada? And why are you constantly separating us by using terms like Anglo when the posts say we want to live together without the racists?

      Delete
    5. "This is ridiculous. Anglos have complained about bill 101 since the 1970s and have made partition threats well you west island people have had decades to join Ontario. Why hasn't it happened yet? Oh right, partition only in the even of separation. Wouldn't it be easier to change provincial borders while still in the same country? Bill 101 wouldn't apply there anymore if it was Ontarian soil. Why haven't they done it yet?"

      I'm all for it. Where do I sign? If nothing else, at least I pay less taxes.

      Delete
    6. If it were feasible, it would be a reality already.
      It's always "if Canada is divisible then so is Quebec" but somehow Quebec is indivisible while still in Canada. It doesn't make sense. Even way before the 1970s, why wasn't there any partition?
      Because it's all a lie. Politicians know very well partition is pretty much impossible but they lie about it to scare people.

      Remember the USSR with its 15 republics? Think of them as provinces. The USSR was a federation and so is Canada. Russia didn't keep any part, no matter how small, of any republic. They all gained independence with their borders unchanged. There's plenty of regions with Russian (or Russian-speaking) majorities: eastern and southern Ukraine, eastern Estonia, northern Kazakhstan, etc.
      This is Russia I'm talking about. Russia isn't exactly peaceful yet it didn't try to keep any of it. Twenty years later, the situation is still the same.

      Then there's Yugoslavia. Serbs in Croatia didn't get to join Serbia. Same thing for Serbs in Bosnia and Croats in Bosnia. Wars and some republics with different borders were proclaimed (and never recognized) but ultimately all the borders of all the countries that came out of Yugoslavia are the same as they were within Yugoslavia.

      In 2006, when Montenegro, which has a lot of Serbs, voted for independence (they won with only 56%, which according to Canada isn't a clear majority) and the areas that voted against didn't get to join Serbia.
      Serb majority in northern Kosovo? Forget about it. Kosovo is indivisible apparently just like all the other countries I've mentioned.

      Delete
    7. "Even way before the 1970s, why wasn't there any partition? Because it's all a lie. Politicians know very well partition is pretty much impossible but they lie about it to scare people."

      I suppose nobody felt they needed to do so.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous asks me:

      “Tony, isn't that what the 11th province is about? Make the province while Quebec is in Canada? And why are you constantly separating us by using terms like Anglo when the posts say we want to live together without the racists?”

      For several reasons:

      1)I separate the terms because, in law, we have different civil rights; to me, it is hypocrisy to NOT talk of anglos and francos in separate terms; give me back equal rights and I'll be the first to refer to everyone as "Quebecers" and sing Koombayah.

      2) Anglos, allos, and francos vote in specific patterns. If you know the demographic make-up of a riding, chances are you can predict how that riding will vote. This especially holds true in sovereignty referendums. See my book for all the studies done on all by Pierre Drouilly。He has studied the voting patterns along linguistic lines for the past 30 years. It is especially invaluable for those of you who aspire to form a partitioned or 11th province; knowing where the three linguistic groups live will help you predict how they will vote on it. And you won't be able to sensibly draw boundary lines without it.

      3) We are two solitudes. Our respective communities each have, in the words of Reed Scowen's first book, "a different vision." Ours is a vision of the individual over the collective and theirs is a vision of the collective over the individual with the emphasis on the tribe having dominance over all others (some call it xenophobia). It is such a different vision that I believe each solitude should have their own country (or at least control over their own destiny if they share a country)。

      4)I like my English ghetto and make no apologies about it。 I speak a not bad French and am happy to when I am not coerced。But it's my choice。I want to live in the Montreal I grew up in in which there were no language laws。I love Montreal but the Montreal I love is an English-speaking ethnic Montreal where Jews, Greeks,Italians,and French all lived together and all got on together。Except for the French, we all went to and were welcome to the same school (and some French of course joined us).

      Delete
    9. Tony, what you wrote immediately above, item #3, this wa reiterated by the late Claude Ryan when he wrote a 3rd Millennium manifesto for the PLQ, circa 2004, not long before he died. The English translation was entitled Liberal Values in a Contemporary Quebec. Ryan reiterated the Quebec political philosophy (not uniquely the PLQ philosophy) of collective rights trumping individual rights.

      In the late 1980s, former CBC heavyweight Patrick Watson narrated a ten-part documentary entitled The Struggle for Democracy, and it featured a wide range of different countries and their governments from truly free democracies to despotic dictatorships. There was an episode entitled The Tyranny of the Majority that in a real sense reviewed collective rights over individual rights, so unfortunately what Quebec has been doing is not unique. Sadly, my recollections of the episode are weak. All I remember of the episode was a woman fighting the (independent) Irish (Eire) Government in order to legally get an abortion.

      This is one philosophy where Quebec and the "Real" Canada part the ways.

      Delete
    10. Remember the USSR with its 15 republics? Think of them as provinces. The USSR was a federation and so is Canada. Russia didn't keep any part, no matter how small, of any republic. They all gained independence with their borders unchanged. There's plenty of regions with Russian (or Russian-speaking) majorities: eastern and southern Ukraine, eastern Estonia, northern Kazakhstan, etc.
      This is Russia I'm talking about. Russia isn't exactly peaceful yet it didn't try to keep any of it. Twenty years later, the situation is still the same.


      What's the status of Russians in these countries? Was there a vote to re-join Russia? (I'm not going to pick on the fact that the ENTIRE population of the former Soviet Union is Russian-speaking because Russian was taught everywhere in the Soviet Union and it is still taught now as a lingua-franca, as well as a second official language for just about every former Soviet country)

      Then there's Yugoslavia. Serbs in Croatia didn't get to join Serbia. Same thing for Serbs in Bosnia and Croats in Bosnia. Wars and some republics with different borders were proclaimed (and never recognized) but ultimately all the borders of all the countries that came out of Yugoslavia are the same as they were within Yugoslavia.

      Might have something to do with the convenience of existing administrative infrastructure, handy to have after 10 years of war...

      In 2006, when Montenegro, which has a lot of Serbs, voted for independence (they won with only 56%, which according to Canada isn't a clear majority) and the areas that voted against didn't get to join Serbia.
      Serb majority in northern Kosovo? Forget about it. Kosovo is indivisible apparently just like all the other countries I've mentioned.


      Was there ever a vote to partition Kosovo? Was there ever a vote for the Serbian majority regions to re-join Serbia? The thing about democratic legitimacy is that the only answer that matter is that given to the specific question being asked, not what it means implicitly. Or you could have a referendum on increasing prison terms and implicitly re-introduce the Death penalty off the back of that. I'm sure even you can see the disconnect.

      On the other hand, Czechoslovakia split democratically, and Italy went from 95 provinces to 102 without acquiring any new territory, and the less said about British counties the better...

      Delete
    11. Tony, what you wrote above, item #4, this is the vision of LA PROVINCE CANADIENNE DE MONTREAL, except there is a higher proportion of French Canadians. It has existed and will exist again.
      Bienvenue, Welcome..
      Montréal, Canada!

      Delete
    12. Czechoslovakia did not split democratically. It split off according to the backroom dealings of politicians when popular desire for seperation was at 36% in both Bohemia-Moravia and Slovakia. There was no referendum or plebiscite. It's about as undemocratic as it comes, though people like to ret-con their history. Who wants to admit that the split was done by politicians against the will of the people? Much better to spin it.

      If Quebec and Canada had acted like Slovaquia, then René Levesque would have argued that his being elected Premier of Quebec was mandate enough to separate, Trudeau would have agreed, and there would have been a negotiated separation in 1981 without any kind of referendum whatsoever. Minorities in Montreal and RoC would have had no choice but to accept the separation of Quebec's territory in its integrality. A Separatist dream, if there ever is one.

      I'm getting tired of people stating their rosy-eyed narrative of the world as fact without doing any kind of research whatsoever. Since people here tend to react with anger and disbelief when faced with facts that don't fit their worldview, and are too intellectually lazy to do their own research, let me supply you with Slovakia's own internet page. (http://www.slovakia.org/sk-faq.htm)

      Q: Was the 1993 separation democratic and amicable?

      The separation of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia, which is referred to as the 'Velvet Divorce' and occurred in 1993, was executed in a democratic and largely uneventful way. Consequently, this clean breakup has been a model for other peoples who wish to forge their own identity via the nation-state. For example, leaders in the province of Quebec in Canada have studied the division of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic and hope to attain a similar separation.

      There has been some debate as to whether the breakup was truly democratic. Although the decision was made b both Czech and Slovak leaders who were elected by the citizens of each part of the nation, no question about separation was ever posed to the people of Czechoslovakia. The mandate to separate came through representative democracy rather than a direct plebiscite. There are indications that the majority of the public opinion in both parts of the country was against the break-up. Considering that Czechoslovakia on two occasions (1918 and 1945) and Slovakia once before (1939) were created in a dictatorial and wholly undemocratic way, namely by oligarchs and external fiats, the separation of Slovakia in 1993 was comparatively more democratic than both previous separations and conglomerations. Indeed, it was argued that Czechoslovakia was no more a true nation state than the USSR or Yugoslavia. Such geo-political constructs, which were masterminded by a small minority of citizens and glued together by force, were fundamentally flawed due to the domination of one ethnic group. As such, many historians argue, they were destined to fail.

      My emphasis added. They are quick to claim it was democratic and due course, but admit themselves that no referendum was asked, and that the majority of both parts of the country were against it. Rather, they argue that it was "comparitively more democratic" than its creation. You be the judge of how "democratic" that is.

      Delete
  30. There is nothing I would like more than for us to have our own "11th province" carved out of the western part of Montreal. I would be the first one in the door and its biggest supporter if I thought for one minute that under the current circumstances it had a snowball's chance.

    But it is the height of naievite to think for one minute! that anyone on the federal side -- and they will be the main players on "our side" at the break-up-of-Canada negotiating table -- will be sticking up for your interests and trying to get you partitioned territory.

    Nor will anyone on the federal side work for an 11th province while Quebec remains within Canada.

    Yes, the Feds will most certainly invoke and use partition as a negotiating tool as part of the various items on the table to be discussed, but partition will only be used to get the ROC what they want...not what you want!

    Please. Think about it for a minute. There will be umpteen items up for discussion in the breakup: National Debt, free trade, defense, etc. I dare say that your lot in life will be way, way down on their list of priorities as to what is important to them. Ottawa hasn't done diddly-squat for you up to now...why in the world would you think that at a time when independence is imminent and issues much more important to them are at hand that they will suddenly have an epiphony that your interests are important?

    On the federal negotiator’s list beside “Non-Francophone rights in an independent Quebec” will be written: “expendable, use as fodder to procure concessions on everything else.”

    And remember: you anglos will have already stated at the ballot box that you want Quebec to separate intact because you will, as always, like the good, little sheep that you are, vote overwhelmingly for the Liberal Party of Quebec. And the Liberals' stated policy is clear: that Quebec gets to separate intact...and don't think for a minute that this won't be invoked by the separatist negotiators!

    Here is just a little taste of the dynamic that will take place at the negotiating table: <a href="https://docs.google.com/View?docid=dg6n6657_179d3drz8dg>Liberal Package Deal</a>. I urge you to think a little about how things will unfold, what the players involved will want for themselves, and how this will manifest itself in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, here's the link (I hope it works this time...I'm a newbie at this!):

      Liberal Package Deal.

      Delete
    2. Tony: "and don't think for a minute that this won't be invoked by the separatist negotiators!"

      Brrrr...I'm shaking in my pants.

      Will poutine be served during the proceedings?

      Delete
    3. Tony, You're so wise and capable of knowing how your masters will act when the 11th Province begins, can you tell us, the 6/49 #s for tonight?

      Delete
    4. Try these lucky numbers and see if you win:

      5,7,39,41,45,46

      Delete
  31. @tony kondaks

    What is the alternative to Quebec liberals? I am no fan of the Quebec liberals and vote them in as the least worst party. Look at the demographics on Montreal Island, it had alot to do with the Quebec Liberals being in power making Montreal as a stable city where English speakers from the rest of Canada actually moved in and many local anglos and allos stayed in larger numbers then moving out. I think with a 2nd term for Quebec liberals the anglos and allos numbers will go up especially in the crucial areas like west of Montreal island. Wait until the 2011 census numbers come out for Montreal island.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another liberal term?
      They have only a minority of safe ridings. Either it will be a PQ government or a CAQ one. The great majority of the Francophone majority do not want to vote for the corrupt liberals. They are third place in the latest polls. It will be their worst election ever.
      Liberal party will become basically a party mostly for minorities. Just look at what happened to the federal liberals. They have a long history but things are changing now. Francophone federalists can vote for the CAQ but minorities won't vote for the latter because it has some formerly separatist members and François Legault has spoken of freezing immigration a few months ago.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous asks me:

      “What is the alternative to Quebec liberals?”

      Start your own party。

      Call it something like “The 11th province party” or “Quebec West” or something like that。

      BUT DON'T MAKE THE MISTAKES THE EQUALITY PARTY MADE!

      1) Make it clear that you are a one issue party and one issue party only. That way, when people vote for you it is clear to everyone that it is the one issue that they are voting for...and the one issue, of course, is that a vote for your party is a vote for an 11th province either within Canada or to be partitioned from Quebec in the event of separation.

      2) Make it an unbreakale rule of the party never, EVER to utter the words "Parti Quebecois", "PQ", "Pauline Marois", or anything else connected to the PQ.

      3) Always only refer to the Liberals。Make THEM the enemy (because they are!)。Always
      refer to the Liberals as the "separatist Liberal Party of Quebec" (because they are!).

      4) Create the dichotomy for the ballot box as being a choice between STAYING IN CANADA = 11TH PROVINCE PARTY and SEPARATING AND NO PARTITION = LIBERALS. If you talk about the PQ, you will be working for the Liberals and the only dichotomy set up in the voters' minds at the ballot box will be: PQ=SEPARATION and LIBERALS= STAYING IN CANADA.

      5) Eventually, if you stick to the above and it is the ONLY message you put out, even the anglo media will start to ask the Liberals the hard questions,like: “Hmmm,now that the 11th Province Party mentions it,your policy, Mr。Charest,DOES state that Quebec must separate intact。What about that?" Eventually, it will get through to the voter the danger of voting Liberal,that it is equivalent to losing the right to partition and stay in Canada。

      6)Hammer away at the above like cult members。Go door to door like the grassroots movement you need to become。And just stick to that one message because that is all that's going to be on people's minds anyway:Do I want to stay in Canada or don't I?

      Destroy the choice that's been up to now which is between the Liberals and PQ. If you succeed in doing that -- and, yes, it can be done -- you'll get 20-30 seats.

      Very doable.

      Delete
    3. Amen to that!

      Delete
    4. Well done Tony, and after Charest's repetitive QC is FR (only) BS, and his drunken love of the discriminatory racist law we know as la loi 101, I am all for this - I'd prefer to call it the Nuestria Party (as in New West, and also referring to the area Brittany and Normandy formerly were know as - vaguely border-wise).

      Delete
    5. Qui sera le chef de ce nouveau parti?Les braves,un pas en avant! :D

      Delete
    6. Seppie, since we've been talking about this for a while, what do you think the pros and cons of such a proposal are? Too easy sniping from the sidelines: care to tell us why you think it's a bad idea or are you going to do your usual disappearing act whenever you're asked to qualify your position? At this stage, who's going to be the leader is kind of irrelevant, but since you've missed out on a good opportunity to keep shtum, please, do use this platform to expose your vision.

      Delete
  32. "I think with a 2nd term for Quebec liberals the anglos and allos numbers will go up..."

    - La loi 101 doit être respectée, dit Jean Charest

    http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2012/03/07/004-charte-huntingdon-charst.shtml

    Hmmmmm...Les élections approchent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeap of course its about elections. One more term for Charest and Montreal will be out of Pur laines grasp forever.

      Delete
    2. One more term for Charest and Montreal will also have another boom!!

      Delete
  33. SOMETHING NOT ADDRESSED TO DATE (from Mr. Sauga)Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 6:22:00 PM EST

    Nobody has considered the possibility that should Quebec separate, will the ROC even want a partitioned jurisdiction? If not, what will the partitioned state do? If so, will the French language be tolerated?

    The way I see it, if Quebec separates, the ROC will have a backlash against everything Quebec, especially everything French. I for one would welcome English as the "official" language of this partitioned jurisdiction and f**k French. I would no longer be interested in supporting the SRC, TFO or any of that! If private enterprise wants to attempt creating a French TV station or network, that's fine, but I don't think it would be feasible outside Quebec.

    If French TV is to exist outside Quebec, that too is fine but if AND ONLY IF subscribers have to pay for it completely themselves. No taxpayer revenues WHATSOEVER!. Kiss obligatory bilingual packaging goodbye! I'm not one iota interested in paying one red cent more for packaging for bilingual reasons UNLESS Quebec absorbed every penny of the extra costs (and they'd want French-only packaging).

    If Anglos and Allos want a partitioned jurisdiction, they're most welcome if they accept the fact English would become the ONLY official language. As for New Brunswick, notwithstanding their constitutionally guaranteed bilinguality, they too would have to pay for their own French media, packaging, etc. or the province would have to agree to cover it all by themselves. With only 1/3 or so of New Brunswick being French-speaking, you can be sure the other 2/3 of New Brunswickers would have a very colourful rebuttal for that! If Acadians want to form a separate Acadia, they can kiss THEIR equalization payments bonjour, not to mention their OAS cheques, EI benefits that many collect 40 weeks a year, etc.!

    Still want to separate, Quebec? GO FOR IT, BABE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mississauga Guy,

      In the event of Quebec separation, I would think that the Constitution will be revised. All the assumptions we have regarding Canada, including OAS and EI, may not be valid anymore.

      Instead of going like The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland becomes The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I think Quebec separation will make Canada going more like The Soviet Union becomes The Russian Federation.

      Delete
    2. In actuallity Mr. Sauga is correct. There would no doubt be a huge backlash effect and Quebec and the French would be targetted. All the past animosities would come to surface without political correctness, and the ROC would hold Quebec responsible for all the past 50 years of problems not limited to the lingustic divide (read Parizeau, Duceppe, bill 101, FLQ, etc etc). The divorce would not be civil as there would be a need for payback. Yep, just human nature to take vengeance.... Maybe not a good trait but a trait nonetheless. I am sure it would be shared by the Quebecois against the ROC, but their voice and power would be very limited in scope due to relative numbers and the fact that many in Quebec would abdicate to the ROC to save their livelyhoods. Isn't anarchy a wonderful thing!!!

      Delete
    3. ...to Troy 7:53PM: Re your comments: Huh? What R U talking about? En anglais, svp.

      Delete
    4. Interestingly enough, in the 70's there was a movement in New-Brunswick that wanted to part the province in two, create an Acadian Province and a RONB province. It didn't get much traction.

      One could imagine that in the event of a Quebec Partition, parts of Canada might want to Partition and join Quebec as well. If francophones of NB would be fucked in a backlashing ROC, they would be interested in that.

      Delete
    5. Actually, might be the case. There is quite a language debate going on the NB at this time (Dieppe mandated bilingual signs for example). I could believe that in the event of separation some communities in NB which are majority french may see benefit in becoming part of Quebec should the ROC cancel programs such as the OLA , after a hypothetical separation of Quebec.

      Delete
    6. Mississauga Guy,

      My point is that, some of the opinions that advocate Quebec expulsion from Canada - yours included - work under assumption that post-separation Canada will be structurally the same as pre-separation Canada (minus the presence of Quebec, of course). That is the model of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland becoming The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      My hypothesis is that it may not be the case. Post-separation Canada may be a substantially different country altogether. This is the model of The Soviet Union becoming The Russian Federation. Therefore, all socio-political assumptions based on current conditions may not be valid.

      Delete
    7. When NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it was declared the largest free trade area in the world. The economic agreement reached among three nations, Canada, USA and Mexico was considered a potential economic giant due to the strength of one of the world's largest trading partners, Canada and the USA. Mexico could only benefit from this union. From a language perspective it was determined that all goods and products imported and exported in North America must include the three principal languages spoken by the population which is English, French and Spanish.

      Delete
  34. @anon 3:48 actually the serbs of Bosnia and Croatia do have their sovereign jurisdictions after having their own states.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republika_Srpska

    Kosovo still has serb controlled enclaves, that are controlled by serbia.

    Also russia actively interferes in many of the former republics with large russian minorities and even ones that don't have any.

    The biggest difference between Quebec and the above situation is there are not many if any pur lainers that will actually fight for partition. If the cree, Mohawks or any native group declares independence from an independent Quebec there is nothing Quebec can do about it. Maybe at the point even ANglos and allos will go for partition.

    The FLQ were a bunch of cowards that worked well against unarmed and unprepared targets. When the Canadian army came into the province there was no attempt to take on the Canadian army in anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  35. While there are good points regarding partition of Quebec, both for and against that idea (I still think that the idea for it makes more sense), I do think that they are moot. You see, the discourse of Quebec partition is relevant only in the context of Quebec separation from Canada. For I think that Quebec will not achieve its independence in my lifetime - maybe another 60 years - I can not see this idea is bought by the powers inside and outside of Quebec.

    Therefore, I would think that we shall cross the partition bridge when we get to the separation river. Until then, efforts should be directed towards the inequality in rights between language groups.

    ReplyDelete
  36. All this great rhetoric and thought for absolutely nothing.

    Quebec will never separate...They simply cannot afford this fantasy.

    Currently 255 Billion in debt with only 7 Million people. The separatists and language zealots know full well the realities of the situation. Without the ROC, Quebec with separation would become a banana republic in short order (well, in reality they are a banana republic now).

    A great creative bluff....

    Imagine, Quebec with their new independance (a pipe dream) would have many problems including currency valuation. What would be their credit rating...likely close to zerio with consequence that any further borrowing would be at interest rates which would cripple their economy (remember..they go with their debt).

    ITS REALLY ALL A BUNCH OF BS...and your are all full of BS with rhetoric and false reasoning of something that will never happen.

    Partition..only without separation. And that ain't likely too happen any time too soon

    Welcome to your new world of poverty in Canada at the mercy of the ROC who continue to dole out equalization that has you addicted. Of course, they will dole it out only in obtaining your continued abeyance to their wishes.

    Sorry folks, you put yourselves in this situation...

    Unbelievable to listen to the BS on this blog over someting that will never be a reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Much as an injection of reality in this hypothetical discussion is always welcome, the case remains that the staus quo is simply unacceptable. Whether the outcome is the actual partition of Quebec, the destabilisation of the grip of the French Hegemonists or the right for local administrations to repeal Bill 101 (á-la Huntington), anything that redresses the balance of power and brings to the fore the fact that Quebec is NOT a French province but a bilingual one, and that Quebec's Anglophones, Allophones and bilingual Francophones must enjoy the same rights as the unilingual Francophones is going to be an improvement on the current situation. Sitting on your backside acting cool and cynical might just get you laid if you meet a partner with low self-esteem, but it won't change anything. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if you like things as they are...

      Delete
    2. Thanks M.Partition! That is what it's all about!
      Montréal, QC Canada

      Delete
  37. That should be "with separation" or the threat of same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fail to grasp that an eleventh province would do as well as any Canadian one and the hateful separatists in QC would shape up fast, given how pissed the people would be for losing Montreal.
      You see, no separation. on the other hand, maybe the Quebec People will realize that their sick leaders need to go for Montreal to stay!

      Delete
  38. can you heard the drum of civil war?

    dum dum dum dum

    dum dum dum dum

    Dum Dum Dum Dum!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you mean

      dumb dumb dumb dumb

      

dumb dumb dumb dumb

      

Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb!

      Delete
  39. 41.8 million only for Duceppe...
    Keep it up guys, seems that everything is working well, and we afford to loose more money in the future.
    We afford to loose hundreds of millions on this, but we cannot sustain a growth of 300 $ a year for tuition even if we would still pay less than anybody else in Canada. Makes sense.

    Vive la stupidit é!!!



    "Duceppe lost his seat in last May's federal election, but the federation said his career in federal politics — performed while dedicated to the cause of Quebec sovereignty — has cost taxpayers a total of $41.8 million."

    "To the recipient of a $2.9-million pension, the gift of a grateful nation, for a lifetime of devoted service toward breaking it up, a man who put his party's historian on the taxpayer's payroll to write a book . . . the man who put his party's executive director on the parliamentary payroll even though taxpayers subsidize his party, the Bloc Quebecois, to the tune of $23.5 million, the envelope please — the suspense is killing me — everybody's favourite separatist, Gilles Duceppe,"

    Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Gilles+Duceppe+wins+lifetime+achievement+award+government+waste/6265387/story.html#ixzz1oWzekJuV

    ReplyDelete
  40. Partition is a great idea, ask the Irish,Koreans,Palestinians,Vietnamesse,Yemenis,my hand is getting tired

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But your brain has barely got out from its slumber! How many of these partitions have occurred with popular consent (think of a number smaller than one!) and how many have been forced on the populations? Next you're going to say that a horse is better than a hockey puck?

      Delete
    2. Je vais dire juste une chose dans votre langue.

      ''Just Do it.''

      j'ai bien hâte de voir des angryphones sortirent dans les rues pour se donner une province ''indépendante'' du Québec.

      Je vais tellement savourer l'ironie de la situation.

      Delete
    3. Angryphone? Moi? The only one who comes across as angry and irrational is you, Mr Seppie/OQLF/Justin/Anonymous etc.

      Oh, and it's not MY language either.

      Delete
  41. I think it would be a good idea to seperate Montreal to annex with St Pierre and Miquelon - partition off most of Quebec - to stay in Canada. I am thinking that France would then like the Francophones to take French lessons so they could speach French "properly" - not the poor derivative they now speak.

    The attitude of the militants is such that I would think they couldn't even get along with the government of those French islands. I think they are happiest when they are unhappy. There is no pleasing them.

    I can just see them insisting that Canada pay off their debt before they leave....since it's "Canadian debt" and not theirs....which doesn't make sense....but then nothing does with them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @TQP

    Vous n'êtes pas fatigué de passer pour un imbécile sur ce blogue avec vos idées de clown sur la partition de notre État ?La blague a été drôle la première fois mais maintenant... :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Care to qualify your comment? I'm not sure what joke you are talking about, it's almost as if you're getting kinda nervous...

      Delete
    2. Nerveux à quel sujet?Il n'y a même pas l'ombre d'un parti pro-anglouille au Québec et même si c'était le cas,vous vous feriez botter le cul comme les précédents,surtout ces temps-ci.

      Delete
    3. I see... without anglos in Quebec you'd lose your job!

      Also, when did you exactly kick anyone's "cul"? Look in your pocket, find a coin and tell me whose face is on the "head" side... If there is anyone left speaking French in North America, you owe it to the charity of the various persons who wore that crown, or you'd have been easy pickings for the Yanks, and you know it!

      Delete
    4. Alors ce parti,c'est pour quand?En passant la vieille britannique ne vous sera d'aucun secours,vous avez plus de chances avec les orignaux.

      Delete
    5. Classy! Oooh! That hurt almost as much as having cotton wool thrown at me!

      Anything INTELLIGENT to say? We've already established that I don't like you and you don't like me!

      Delete
    6. "Anything INTELLIGENT to say?"

      Et vous?

      Delete
    7. Just look at any post I have not addressed directly at you and feel free to explain in thorough detail the reasons for your disagreement. Your turn to stick your neck out!

      Delete
    8. Actually, Mr OQLF, the notion put forward by TQP I have heard it more often lately, in different circles. The idea is that GMA should be more autonomous within Quebec rather than totally separated, even without Qc becoming a country. However always the discussion ends up with "Better not rock the boat". The overall consensus is the GMA is the engine of QC's economy and an enormous part of the business people feel that ROQ is keeping the city down. In the the event that the boat would be rocked by the Seppies I am sure that there is more than enough population to make this happen.

      Delete
  43. Wasn't it better before the Reply option was added to the comments board, when comments were stacked on top of each other, with the latest ones appearing at the bottom? I think so.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I am thinking that France would then like the Francophones to take French lessons so they could speach French "properly""

    Allez-vous comprendre un jour que nous ne parlons pas français mais bien Québécois pas plus que vous ne parlez anglais mais globish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Globish is GREAT! The whole world speaks it! No wonder you feel misunderstood!

      Delete
    2. "The whole world speaks it!"

      Désolé...Pas chez nous!

      "No wonder you feel misunderstood!"

      Comme les anglouilles du Québec?

      MDR!!!

      Delete
    3. The rest of the world understands them well... has there ever been a world famous Quebecker who didn't speak English? Answers on a postcard, please.

      Delete
    4. @TQP: I wish there were "like" buttons next to all of your comments. I'd be clicking that key so often it would break.

      Delete
  45. http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Quebec+family+details+nightmare+border+crossing/6206465/story.html

    "Benaouda, who is more at ease in French, says he found it difficult to understand the Arabic translator, because he spoke Egyptian Arabic. And he wonders what the translator told the FBI."

    Seperation will only increase the difficulties for the French speaking Quebecois within English North America. You can't MAKE americans speak Quebecois.

    Oh well. It won't be Canada's problem.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @TQP

    Vous étiez combien dans votre container lorsqu'on vous a expédié dans notre civilisaton?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your civilisation? That would be a good idea! My family is contributing to the process by giving work to so many of you!

      Delete
    2. "My family is contributing to the process..."

      Ils auraient dû vous apprendre la langue de la majorité en même temps.

      Delete
    3. I was extremely keen on that before I came across the likes of you...

      Delete
    4. Vous êtes au Québec pas a winnipeg,y'a de fortes chances que vous rencontiez d'autres seppies (hors de votre ghetto),je vous suggère donc de vous preparer psychologiquement.

      Delete
    5. Which is why I was keen on learning French. However, I am not keen on my kids losing one year of their education while they catch up, when English education is available, nor am I keen on having to choose a French name for my business when most potential clients are in the United States, nor am I keen on having to pay fines or protection money to the likes of you because I do my business in English. I'd be glad to learn French and have a social life in French, but then it depends on the kind of people I end up socialising with: if, when I make the effort of breaking the language barrier I end up talking face to face with people like you, I might well end up reaping the benefits of Quebec's opposition to Mandatory Minimum Sentences... not really the reason I wanted to move there in the first place.

      Up until now I thought bilingualism was a selling point for Quebec. It can still be if the Partition is set in motion and ends up happening in reality. Alternatively, if I wanted to live exclusively in French, there are better places to choose from.

      France, for example.

      Delete
    6. The great thing about living in France and learning THEIR french, you at least will be speaking a dialect that MOST french people in the world speak and understand. Bonus!

      I too, wanted to speak french and learn the language and thought it a benefit. Not anymore. I am now taking Spanish classes. French is dead to me.

      Delete
    7. Acadieman dit: À ''The Quebec Partition Mar 8, 2012 08:45 AM My family is contributing to the process by giving work to so many of you!'' De quels emplois vous parlez ? '' Ceux de crève-faim qui ont servis à l'enrichissement de votre famille ? Les entreprises, ça prend des travailleurs pour que ça fonctionne. Toujours le discours de l'entrepreneur, créateur d'emploi, faisant de la charité en faisant travailler les bonnes gens... Je n'en peux plus... Un, les ancêtres n'avaient pas le choix pour survivre et deux ça faisant l'affaire des possédants d'avoir une main d'oeuvre à bon marché ! La générosité anglo-saxonne, il n'y a que vous qui y croyez !

      Delete
    8. Who ever said that I'm an anglo-saxon? English is NOT my first language, it's just that my French for now is only marginally better than my Swedish as my third one... Other than that, you don't know much about jobs, do you?

      Delete
  47. Premièrement, la très grande majorité des nations qui sont devenu indépendantes ont maintenu leur intégrité territoriale alors ce sera la même chose pour le Québec.

    Deuxièmement, l'ONU respecte le principe de l'intégrité territoriale des nouvelles nations qui deviennent indépendante.

    Troisièmement, nous les Québécois jamais nous ne laisseront le Québec se faire partionner en petits morceaux! JAMAIS nous ne vous laisseront faire, ce n'est pas négociable.

    Le Québec est un peuple et a tout les droits de quitter le Canada s'il le désir. Vous les anglophones aurez les 9 autres provinces et les 3 territoires alors comptez vous chanceux! C'est une question de bon sens. Et nous les Québécois auront besoin de toutes les ressources naturelles du territoire du Québec. Ce territoire nous appartient DANS SON INTÉGRALITÉ!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice try, Seppie!

      Nations merge and split all the time, so do Provinces, so get over it. What ONE PART of the Quebeckers want is not necessarily what the rest wants. The borders of Quebec have been drawn with a ruler on a piece of paper by the British, it can be done again, this time according the will of the people, not all of whom are Habitants. The opinion of NATIVE anglophone and allophone Quebeckers are worth as much as those of any other Quebecker, and the final settlement must reflect that. Finally, even assuming that Quebec is a people, that people does not amount to the whole of Quebec.

      You can keep the Hydros, though. You have to make a living after all.

      (As a side note: one of the original TWO territories split a few years ago...)

      Delete
    2. So confident.

      Pourquoi tous vos grands projets et votre colère se limite juste au blogs internet?

      Car les rues de Montréal et ses environs sont beaucoup trop calme...vous ne trouvez pas?

      Nous pourrions presque croire que ce grand projet de partition n'est que le désir de quelques dizaines de personnes et rien de plus.

      Delete
    3. "Le Québec est un peuple et a tout les droits de quitter le Canada s'il le désir"

      Oui, vous avez un bien raison avec ca. But also, if Quebec is divisable from Canada then Quebec is itself divisable. Please do not forget that the "first nations" are recognized as a distinct people in Canada as is Quebec, and would have the right to as you say "quitter le Quebec" s'ils desir. Of course this will never happen as the debt in Quebec is simply to enormous to even entertain such an enterprise. In essence, Quebec is up the creek without a paddle, so to speak.

      Bonne chance avec votre nouvelle natione Quebecois. :):)

      Delete
    4. @ Un Québécios:

      Why would QC not be divisible? If there are enough people under a certain jurisdiction ready to part ways, why not? The nation of Anglophones within Quebec desire to secede from Québec. Why not? Can you please come back with a logic argument? QC is 1,542,056 km2 - you'll have plenty of space left to play in. So... why would be Qc not divisible?

      Delete
    5. Le Québec est divisible.

      Maintenant nommez moi un seul anglo de votre minorité hétéroclyte prêt à mettre sa tête sur le billot pour la mise sur pied d'un tel projet ou même pour la simple création d'un parti politique.

      Can you please come back with only one name?

      Delete
    6. It is highly unlikely that the Cree nation would want to stay in Quebec in the event of separation. They might take up arms to remain in Canada and could attack the James Bay hydro installations. They wouldn't have to target the dams themselves. They could easily sabotage the hydro lines, which are difficult to defend and which run for hundreds of kilometres.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    8. If separatists are not willing to negotiate the borders of Quebec (among many other issues related to seccession), then they are not serious about seccession - purists - yes, but pragmatists - no.

      It is similarly so with separatists who want to, or believe they can maintain, dual citizenship with Canada and all the benefits while being citizens of an independent Quebec - makes a nonsense of all the separatists' independence arguments. In fact the real referendum that would count is when people are asked to sign up to give up their Canadian Citizenship in exchange for Quebec Passports and Quebec Citizenship. This should be at the heart of the question for separation. If there is not a majority of Quebec residents who wish to sign up their names (and of their dependents) to exchange their citizenship and passport, then they are not serious. If there is a clear majority interested to change their citizenship, then its time to negotiate to allow and facilitate Quebec, or those parts that wish to, to separate from Canada.

      Delete
  48. "Pourquoi tous vos grands projets et votre colère se limite juste au blogs internet?"

    Je l'ai déjà dit anon,c'est un défouloir (crachoire) pour angryphones,rien de plus.Lors de leur dernier "rassemblement" contre la loi 101,ils étaient 5 ou 6,alors.C'est tellement plus facile d'écrire sur un ordi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a look. Seems its not only the angryphones.

      http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/national/201203/06/01-4502973-huntingdon-conteste-la-loi-101.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B4_manchettes_231_accueil_POS1

      Une petite sourire pour toi.

      Delete
    2. I know an Iranian chemical engineer who gets a rough treatment at the border anytime he crosses from ON into the US.

      I guess in this day and age it doesn't hurt to look European. When I told the guy I'm waved through the border with a warm "enjoy your stay" after no more than 3 standard questions, he wasn't very happy.

      It's actually harder to get back into Canada, with the idiots at Canada Customs checking every bill, and trying to account for every hour you've been to the US to make sure you didn't go over your spending limit.

      Delete
    3. J'ai l'impression que tu as raison, Seppie. Il y a les 5-6 mêmes qui viennent ici pour être d'accord entre eux, et ils s'imaginent qu'ils représentent une majoritée silencieuse.

      Si on va sur Stormfront, on trouve le même comportement chez les "White Power", quoiqu'ils sont beaucoup plus nombreux là.

      Delete
  49. "...Amendes jusqu'à 40 000$"

    Dommage que ce soient ses contribuables qui devront payer les amendes et pas le clown Gendron.

    «Tu ne parles pas anglais, je ne t'engage pas, je ne veux rien savoir de toi» -S.Gendron

    Il est plus téméraire que brave.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Laugh all you want about the partition of Montreal but it makes sense. In the 514 we have reached a rather admirable level of harmony. The Two Solitudes are no longer French and English, rather they are Montreal and the ROQ. Quebec Separatists constantly act like they are at war with Montreal and despise everything it stands for. Its time to make a clean break and become our own truly billingual province and clean the stench of Racist Corrupt Quebec off the island. We'll even keep Olympic Stadium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ghost of Ma Joad,

      Question of environment and perception I guess. I've been living, studying, working, going out in Montreal for about a decade now (Plateau, NDG, downtown, name it), while in some neighborhood your perception is certainly true, I still have a hard time seeing Montréal (island) and Québec as two solitudes. The workers pouring in everyday from franco-dominated suburds, students (UQAM and UdeM alone account for 100 000 students)coming in large numbers from Québec regions certainly help in maintaining this link.

      On a sidenote, the east parts of the island are among the most separatist places in Québec. Good luck with the Stadium.

      Cheers,

      Delete
    2. The Ghost of Ma Joad,

      For once, I agree with Le secessionniste. The separatists can have the white elephant known as The Big Owe. Nothing good comes out that stadium, the stadium that celebrates the biggest financial loss in the history of Modern Olympic Games.

      Delete
    3. The Olympic stadium is a total joke and is representative of Quebec as a whole. They should tear it down in order to cut their losses...

      Delete
    4. Ma Joad is much too generous. That toilet bowl, they call a stadium is a monument to the separatists and they should keep it. Unless she sees that there is a small minority of separatists living there and they would flee or live with us. They may in very little time see how not all Francophones are separatists. For just a few racists and a stupid toilet, I guess we shouldn’t lose the eastern part of our Canadian city either. I mean Province.

      Delete
    5. The Olympic Stadium is a monument to the grandiosity of those who run this province. A pretentious architectural flop, essentially.

      An eye witness account: When the Quebecois took over the CN offices in Montreal during the "transfer of economic power" of the 1970's, they immediately took to refurnishing the offices with fancier furniture, and fancy decorations and objects (including silverware). Many people when they climb up a step in the social ladder, feel obligated to flaunt, overcompensate, and act pretentious. Maybe the Olympic Stadium was an instance of this very phenomenon.

      Delete
  51. Interestingly, Montreal has a history of attempted secession dating back to 1822. Always thwarted by the British parliament. At that time 64% of the city's population were of British descent.

    http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/lower-canada

    Apart from the language issues, Montreal as a province makes a lot of economic sense. Toronto is looking at the advantages as well.

    http://www.provinceoftoronto.ca/blog1/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Along those same lines:

      Most people think there have only been two attempts at separation by Quebec: 1980 and 1995.

      But a few years after World War I, the Member of the Quebec Provincial Assembly for, I believe, "Deux Montagnes", presented a motion for the secession of Quebec from Canada. The motion was debated at length before it was withdrawn.

      However, a book was made of the transcripts of that debate (translated into English) which makes for a great read.

      Delete
  52. Looks like Editor was right to dedicate this page to The Eleventh Province. I’ve not seen this much participation on a subject in a long time.

    The interesting thing is that for the first time I’ve noticed most of the seppies worried. Turns out they may have seen things a little differently and found that most of the legal groundwork for the 11th province is in place and the rest is will!

    Separation is difficult and messy, but redrawing the border of a country is nothing more than gerrymandering. That scares the separatists and finally, for some of them who’ve participated in this discussion, there may be some will to be pro French rather than Anti English.

    Things are changing all over. There may be proportional representation in parliament, meaning that Quebec won’t have 75 seats. We have created a third Canadian territory from two. And Toronto is poised to beat us at becoming the 11th province, but we being 12 ain’t too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  53. There will never be a new province made out of parts of Quebec unless the National Assembly (which has very few anglophone members) or legislative assembly as it used to be called agrees.
    It's in the Canadian constitution:

    (a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
    (b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,
    may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/FullText.html

    So you can't have it before independence and as for after independence, well I don't know but there needs to be independence in the first place and many of you guys keep saying that won't happen.
    You should vote for the PQ and vote Yes next time then :D

    ReplyDelete