NationStates Jolt Archive

Probably one of the more famous secessionist movements in the world is the "Québec Libre" movement. The Quebecois position is simple; Quebec is vastly different then, well, anywhere else in the western hemisphere, and to preserve Quebecois culture and lifestyle, the Quebecois must have their own state. As Wikipedia puts it...

"With a sovereign state, Quebec sovereigntists believe that the people of Quebec will be better equipped to foster their own economic, social, and cultural development."

And...

"The idea of sovereignty for Quebec is based, according to its proponents, on historical and sociological evidence that Quebecers are a people and a political nation, that they have democratic control over a state of their own, but that inside the Canadian federation as it currently stands, this state does not have the constitutional powers needed by the Quebec government to be the normal national government of all Quebecers"

Unlike quite alot of the other secessionist movements in the world, this one actually has a very large chance of actually happening. In the last vote on the matter (in 1995), the matter was decided by barely 1% of the population (around 25,000 peoples). The trend has shown that the movement is gaining more and more support each vote(in the first votes in was barely 30%, way back when), and with a planned vote in 2008, the chance that we'll soon be welcoming a new state to the United Nations before the decade is out is a very, very real possibility.

So, what do you think on the matter? Do you believe that the Quebecois deserve their own state, if it is what the majority of the population wishes? Do you believe that even if the Quebecois vote to secede, they shouldn't be allowed to leave Canada? Or could you really not care less?

(Poll up soon)

They can leave the confederation, as long as they take Harper with them!

If the Canadians hate em as much as Americans then let em leave. The only bad thing is one more French nation in the UN.:headbang:

I find it sad because Quebec being it's own country will separate the country in half and eventually destroy Canada. Quebec is a central part of Canada, and evne though the province is different, it's a central part of our heritage and why we're such a diverse country.

"The idea of sovereignty for Quebec is based, according to its proponents, on historical and sociological evidence that Quebecers are a people and a political nation, that they have democratic control over a state of their own, but that inside the Canadian federation as it currently stands, this state does not have the constitutional powers needed by the Quebec government to be the normal national government of all Quebecers"


This sounds like they're saying "we're mad because we're not given special treatment, and our culture is superior to that of Canada and so unique that it merits a state unto itself". If anything, this blatant ethnocentrism is very unattractive and places me in opposition to independence.

They're the only ethnic group in North America that I think is seriously pushing for independence from a state solely because theu think their culture merits special attention. Selfish and conceited if you ask me.

Sorry Quebec, but it's your own damned fault for letting the British take Canada. Now you're stuck with your mistake.

Sorry Quebec, but it's your own damned fault for letting the British take Canada. Now you're stuck with your mistake.

What I don't get is that they actually supported you when we invaded during our two little wars...

I cannot understand the mind of a Frenchman. I really can't. These are the people that invented the guillotine as a "humane" punishment.

What I don't get is that they actually supported you when we invaded during our two little wars...

I cannot understand the mind of a Frenchman. I really can't. These are the people that invented the guillotine as a "humane" punishment.
Yay, I've always wanted to be mistaken for a Frenchman!

God, I really do hope they leave. It's very difficult to make the political process work when provincial power is institutionalized, and one province doesn't even want to be there. It's like dragging a screaming infant to a grocery store. I'm thinking of running as a Bloc candidate here in Ontario when the next-next federal election rolls around.

What I don't get is that they actually supported you when we invaded during our two little wars...

I cannot understand the mind of a Frenchman. I really can't. These are the people that invented the guillotine as a "humane" punishment.

Well you have to admit it was a far sight better then the alternative.

Being tied to two posts and then having all your bones systematically broken with iron rods.
Being tied to a water wheel.
Being tied faced done on the ground and beaten to death.

Hmm, never realised, the French really liked to tie people to things.

Yay, I've always wanted to be mistaken for a Frenchman!
If only all our dreams were so easy to acheive.
*Fantasizes about being mistaken for an arab sheik*

Yay, I've always wanted to be mistaken for a Frenchman!

Your a Quebecois?

I am unmoved. And I am from Quebec. If they pull a boner and leave, I'll be demanding my dual citizenship to go along with my property in Quebec. I might not live there because you can't reasonably expect to find work as a highly-skilled, perfectly bilingual Anglophone, due to incipient linguistically-based prejudice, but I'll be Goddamned if anyone takes my property - not to mention my right to be there, to live there, to be Anglophone there - even if it means I'll have to re-learn what it's like to be poor there, to be disenfranchised there, to be patronized and bullied and shut up out of sight and out of mind there.

Because no matter how highly they may think of themselves, the reality of Quebec is not some ideal utopian Francophone society; it reeks of cultural and ethnic xenophobia, it feeds on bullying and provoking ethnic minorities, and it promotes select forms of ignorance as virtues while radically rewriting the entwined histories of New France, Upper and Lower Canada, and eventually Ontario and Quebec to suit paranoiac, revisionist fantasies of martyrdom.

And if they go, I'll go right along with them, if only to serve as an ugly reminder of a gentle and brotherly past forsaken in the name of narcissism.

This sounds like they're saying "we're mad because we're not given special treatment, and our culture is superior to that of Canada and so unique that it merits a state unto itself". If anything, this blatant ethnocentrism is very unattractive and places me in opposition to independence.


What did you expect. They are French :p

If the South couldn't do it during the 1800s, then I am **** well against it for Quebecois.

I am unmoved. And I am from Quebec. If they pull a boner and leave, I'll be demanding my dual citizenship to go along with my property in Quebec. I might not live there because you can't reasonably expect to find work as a highly-skilled, perfectly bilingual Anglophone, due to incipient linguistically-based prejudice, but I'll be Goddamned if anyone takes my property - not to mention my right to be there, to live there, to be Anglophone there - even if it means I'll have to re-learn what it's like to be poor there, to be disenfranchised there, to be patronized and bullied and shut up out of sight and out of mind there.

Because no matter how highly they may think of themselves, the reality of Quebec is not some ideal utopian Francophone society; it reeks of cultural and ethnic xenophobia, it feeds on bullying and provoking ethnic minorities, and it promotes select forms of ignorance as virtues while radically rewriting the entwined histories of New France, Upper and Lower Canada, and eventually Ontario and Quebec to suit paranoiac, revisionist fantasies of martyrdom.

And if they go, I'll go right along with them, if only to serve as an ugly reminder of a gentle and brotherly past forsaken in the name of narcissism.

Just wondering, are you an ethnic French Canadian? Not that it matters to me at all, but I take it that Anglophone Quebeckers aren't the most loved people in the area.

If only all our dreams were so easy to acheive.
*Fantasizes about being mistaken for an arab sheik*
You're not...?

I'm also kinda shocked that so many people are voting for the "if they try to leave, we should stop them by force" option. I thought you Canadians were a peaceful folk, not warriors like your southern neighbors, who would send an army to put down any talk of secession (although, in our defence, our constitution didn't say the South could secede if it wanted).

I can just see the Canadian Army tanks rolling into Montreal...

You're not...?

*slaps Rotovia-*

Show more respect! :p

Do not mind him effendi, he is French.

*slaps Rotovia-*

Show more respect! :p

Do not mind him effendi, he is French.
Then I will show him some mercy, only chop off one of his testicles.
And you, you who stick your tongue out in my presence! Have the offending organ removed at once!

EDIT: But wait, he is French! That he means he has no testicles. Damn, I have been foiled again by the Western Imperialist Dogs! I must retreat to my harem for consolation, someone find about 8 of my wives.

I'm also kinda shocked that so many people are voting for the "if they try to leave, we should stop them by force" option. I thought you Canadians were a peaceful folk, not warriors like your southern neighbors, who would send an army to put down any talk of secession (although, in our defence, our constitution didn't say the South could secede if it wanted).

I can just see the Canadian Army tanks rolling into Montreal...

Already happened. The October Crisis.

And, Canadians are nowhere near being the most peaceful of people. Looking through our history, there's the genocide of Beothuks, the internment of Japanese-Canadians, fascist groups in Quebec etc.

Then I will show him some mercy, only chop off one of his testicles.
And you, you who stick your tongue out in my presence! Have the offending organ removed at once!

OH NOES FIDDLEBOTTOMS R T3H HIJACKING T3H THREADZ!!!!11111!!1!1111one!1!!!

Really though, unless you plan to run for president of Quebec and decide to chop off everyones right testicle, I don't see how this relates to the topic at hand.

Of course, we are talking about you, and since normal rules don't apply to you, I guess I should just go jump in my grave now.

This sounds like they're saying "we're mad because we're not given special treatment, and our culture is superior to that of Canada and so unique that it merits a state unto itself". If anything, this blatant ethnocentrism is very unattractive and places me in opposition to independence.

They're the only ethnic group in North America that I think is seriously pushing for independence from a state solely because theu think their culture merits special attention. Selfish and conceited if you ask me.
Well. I am not often in agreement with your politics, but I am with you all the way on this one.

Already happened. The October Crisis.

And, Canadians are nowhere near being the most peaceful of people. Looking through our history, there's the genocide of Beothuks, the internment of Japanese-Canadians, fascist groups in Quebec etc.

*gasp*

Your country lied to us! Everyone here thinks you're our peaceful, liberal, pot-smoking northern neighbors! You have excelent propaganda people.

Also, the October Crisis didn't happen after a democratic vote for independence. It happened after a bunch of crazy terrorists got out of hand. The Canadian government had moral justification; they wouldn't have it if they did it after the free and fair voting.

Really though, unless you plan to run for president of Quebec and decide to chop off everyones right testicle
<snip>
I wouldn't be suprised...

Wait...aren't there other provences that have French heritage?

Wait...aren't there other provences that have French heritage?

New Brunswick does, but not as much. Plus it's really small, and there is a substantial Irish population there as well.

...they wouldn't have it if they did it after the free and fair voting.

The South seceded after 'free and fair' voting, and there's no Confederated States of America anymore, now is there?

New Brunswick does, but not as much. Plus it's really small, and there is a substantial Irish population there as well.
Thats what I though too. I wonder, what would happen to New Brunswick if Quebec really does succeed?

Just wondering, are you an ethnic French Canadian? Not that it matters to me at all, but I take it that Anglophone Quebeckers aren't the most loved people in the area.
No, I was an ethnic Scots Quebecer, of a long line of ethnic Scots Quebecers, 7 generations, since roughly 1800. They too are "Anglophone" but formed a unique part of Quebec's cultural, political, and even technological history - a history that a concerted effort on the part of successive Quebec governments has begun to alter and distort. Place-names are being translated to French equivalents and other names are being replaced entirely with French names deemed suitable by some office in the provincial bureaucracy.

My family was forced to leave Quebec - there was no illusion of a choice to be made, it was either go while remaining gainfully employed, or stay and join the ranks of the unemployed. Excuse me, but I know what it's like to be denied goods and services - not because I demanded or even politely asked to communicate in my native tongue, not because I spoke English at all - I've felt discrimination firsthand because the French I spoke wasn't properly-accented Quebecois Joual, because I had the temerity to speak French with a moderate Anglo accent.

And that alone makes me so mad I'll never let them get away with leaving my family, my history, and their land's history behind.

Wait...aren't there other provences that have French heritage?

Manitoba and Ontario have significant French populations. Also, most of Louisiana has historical connections with New France; for example, New Orleans was discovered by explorer Lasalle who founded the city of Lasalle on Montreal Island.

Really though, unless you plan to run for president of Quebec and decide to chop off everyones right testicle, I don't see how this relates to the topic at hand.
That is my second lifes ambition. I'm going to start on it right away, not that I've gotten the shiek thing out of the way.
Of course, we are talking about you, and since normal rules don't apply to you, I guess I should just go jump in my grave now.
Sound plan from a sound man.
I'll leave you all to, er, whatever it is you do, in peace and relative harmony with no more threadjack.

I wanna know exactly how Quebec would be different from Canada. I'm assuming an independent Quebec would be just as liberal/socialist as Canada is now. So what's the point? So you can just have one language on the Coke cans?

Then I will show him some mercy, only chop off one of his testicles.
And you, you who stick your tongue out in my presence! Have the offending organ removed at once!

that sounds like an old testament bible verse...

The South seceded after 'free and fair' voting, and there's no Confederated States of America anymore, now is there?

Touche.

But did the U.S constitution say that they could secede? And who started the fighting? I remember this little fort in Charleston bay by the name of Fort Sumter...

*gasp*

Your country lied to us! Everyone here thinks you're our peaceful, liberal, pot-smoking northern neighbors! You have excelent propaganda people.

Also, the October Crisis didn't happen after a democratic vote for independence. It happened after a bunch of crazy terrorists got out of hand. The Canadian government had moral justification; they wouldn't have it if they did it after the free and fair voting.

Our country is good at lying. :P It's true that we're very liberal though...9/10 of my friends hate Bush and the rest don't care at all.

Hmm...that's true. Though, I doubt tanks will roll if it was a fair vote...our current gouvernment has little to no backbone at all and the Tories will probably be too squeamish to do anything at all if they are elected.

No, I was an ethnic Scots Quebecer, of a long line of ethnic Scots Quebecers, 7 generations, since roughly 1800. They too are "Anglophone" but formed a unique part of Quebec's cultural, political, and even technological history - a history that a concerted effort on the part of successive Quebec governments has begun to alter and distort. Place-names are being translated to French equivalents and other names are being replaced entirely with French names deemed suitable by some office in the provincial bureaucracy.

My family was forced to leave Quebec - there was no illusion of a choice to be made, it was either go while remaining gainfully employed, or stay and join the ranks of the unemployed. Excuse me, but I know what it's like to be denied goods and services - not because I demanded or even politely asked to communicate in my native tongue, not because I spoke English at all - I've felt discrimination firsthand because the French I spoke wasn't properly-accented Quebecois Joual, because I had the temerity to speak French with a moderate Anglo accent.

And that alone makes me so mad I'll never let them get away with leaving my family, my history, and their land's history behind.


Well that sucks. I'd say more, but it would feel somewhat shallow on my part to comment, since although I have seen my fair share of descrimination, I haven't had any of the type you are referring to commited against me.

If Quebec leaves what happens to all those weapons of mass destruction?! Are we going to have to invade and make sure they are not sold to terrorist?! These easily could be America's next war! ;)

There are far too many complications for the Quebecquois to actually leave Canada.

1. Native Quebecers are not even regenerating themselves. Right now, Quebec is growing through forced immigration by an agreement between Quebec and Canada.

2. Many Quebecers believe that they could have their own country and sovereignity association with the rest of Canada. Fat chance.

3. Pierre Trudeau pushed through the concept of bilingualism, whereby French was installed on all manufactured products and instructions right along with the English. Because of bilingualism, the French culture has grown in other parts of Canada and French immersion classes are now very popular. Say goodbye to bilingualism if Quebec leaves.

4. The next referendum must be based on a "clear" question and not like the previous one. Chretiens Liberals established the Clarity Act for that reason.

5. A simple majority of 50% plus 1 will not win the day.

6. If Quebec separates, many native Indians (who claim more than 85% of the land) want to stay in Canada. Now you have a major civil problem.

7. Same as above but instead it is the many Anglophones who might want to separate say Montreal from Quebec. at any rate, it is clear that there will be mega problems politically from within the new country.

8. Quebec would have to repay her share of the National debt.

9. Quebec currently receives more in transfer payments from Ottawa than it pays in. This means between 8 and 9, Quebec would have a sizeable debt and a shortfall in revenue.

10. Many Canadian companies with head offices in Quebec would leave.

11. Currently, immigrants to Quebec must send their children to French schools if neither parent has English as their mother tongue. If Quebec leaves, then immigrants would probably choose to locate in Canada, where they would have more freedom in regards to language.

I believe the benefits to Quebec to remain in the Canadian Confederation far outweigh separation. From what I understand, only 35 to 40% of Quebecers are hard core separatists, which makes sustained separation somewhat impractical.

I would prefer that Quebec remain a viable part of Canada, and if the notion of separatism was put to rest, the country as a whole would prosper far more than it does now.

If they wanna leave let them leave, but they have to realize that if Canada is divisable then so is Quebec, most of the northern regions of the province and Montreal I believe as well are pro-Canadian, so why should the nutty Franco-nationalists be able to force those people out of the nation?

http://ca.geocities.com/matthewspurrell/quebecnation.GIF

Theres your independant Quebec.

Theres your independant Quebec.
Not even that much of it, either. Motreal, Hudson, the Eastern Townships would all elect to remain Canadian territory, as would the Gatineaus.

bumpness.

If the Canadians hate em as much as Americans then let em leave. The only bad thing is one more French nation in the UN.:headbang:
What makes you think Canadians hate Americans, because that is simply not the case?

Canadians may not like the Bush administration but that does not translate into hate for Americans on the whole.

I cannot understand the mind of a Frenchman. I really can't. These are the people that invented the guillotine as a "humane" punishment.
It is humane and quick (as far as any execution can be), although not pretty. The French didn't really invent the idea, either - variations on the guillotine existed elsewhere in Europe long before the French revolution (look up the "Halifax gibbet" or Scottish "maiden", for example).

Im looking at some of these names of people voting that Quebec should seperate from Canada... most are not from Canada.

This sounds like they're saying "we're mad because we're not given special treatment, and our culture is superior to that of Canada and so unique that it merits a state unto itself". If anything, this blatant ethnocentrism is very unattractive and places me in opposition to independence. No, they are saying that they are DIFFERENT than the rest of Canada, and that the way things are currently, their unique culture (unique, not superior) will not be protected.

It's not too far away from what First Nations people are fighting for, though we're more willing to exist within a Federal framework.

New Brunswick does, but not as much. Plus it's really small, and there is a substantial Irish population there as well.
New Brunswick is the only bilingual province. Officially bilingual I mean.

There are francophone communities sprinkled all around Canada. Towns with french signs everywhere in rural Alberta...Saskatchewan, Manitoba. It's kind of weird.

in other parts of Canada and French immersion classes are now very popular. Say goodbye to bilingualism if Quebec leaves.


That would not happen if Quebec were to leave. New Brunswick would still be officially bilingual, and francophones are protected in the Charter, no matter where they live. It's not that easy to suddenly drop an official language, and there is plenty of francophone political power OUTSIDE of Quebec.

That would not happen if Quebec were to leave. New Brunswick would still be officially bilingual, and francophones are protected in the Charter, no matter where they live. It's not that easy to suddenly drop an official language, and there is plenty of francophone political power OUTSIDE of Quebec.
What I am suggesting is a strong and determined backlash by English Canada IF Quebec opted for sovereignity. I am well aware of the Francophone influence outside of Quebec, but I do believe that a wall would go up with Quebec's departure. I further believe that there would be a strong cry from the federal politicians to drop the bilingualism aspect of the Constitution.

However, these are just my beliefs, but based on what I posted before, I do not believe that Quebec will be leaving Canadian Confederation any time soon. It is my dream that someday, Quebec will sign the Constitution and the country will move forward and prosper more than one can imagine.

If that's what the people in Quebec want, then that's what they should do.

And if people in Canada want to fight about it, and have a civil war, then that's what they should do.

What would happen to the poor Atlantic provinces?

What would happen to the poor Atlantic provinces?
They would die of boredom.

Canada has something in common with almost every other nation on the earth: the ones with lots of money and power makethe decisions. Not us.

Jacques Pariseau put it best right after the last referendum:
"Big business and the ethnic vote won the referendum."

While it was a shockingly impolitic thing to say, it was true. The oligarchy will not allow Quebec to secede because it would cause too much economic turmoil and a subsequent loss of power for the rich and powerful who have invested in Quebec.

This is why I voted for 'couldn't care less', because I realise that I have no say in the matter.

There are far too many complications for the Quebecquois to actually leave Canada.

(snipped to those I diagree with)

3. Pierre Trudeau pushed through the concept of bilingualism, whereby French was installed on all manufactured products and instructions right along with the English. Because of bilingualism, the French culture has grown in other parts of Canada and French immersion classes are now very popular. Say goodbye to bilingualism if Quebec leaves.
You'll find there's going to be a lot of opposition to this. In a couple of generations maybe, but not right away.

5. A simple majority of 50% plus 1 will not win the day.
And why not? At which point do you put the bar? 60%? Why change the rules of a referendum for this particular referendum? Are you willing to see your pet isuue be voted on in a referendum but needing 75% to pass?

10. Many Canadian companies with head offices in Quebec would leave.
You don't know that. In fact, it is pure speculation. I've yet to hear of any president of a big company say that they'll move in the event of a separation.

11. Currently, immigrants to Quebec must send their children to French schools if neither parent has English as their mother tongue. If Quebec leaves, then immigrants would probably choose to locate in Canada, where they would have more freedom in regards to language.
That law is bogus if you ask me. But what makes you think Quebec won't relax it's stance on immigration?

Personally, I've seen far too much death and destruction caused by a government not recognizing that a people want to leave, or at least not giving them the chance. The Kashmir Issue, Bangladesh, etc. I'm not sure that a Quebecois state would be viable, but if the majority of the people wish it, let them have it. It's not worth creating centuries of violence over it. Besides, if it ISN'T viable, it will slowly come creeping back to join Canada.

And why not? At which point do you put the bar? 60%? Why change the rules of a referendum for this particular referendum? Are you willing to see your pet isuue be voted on in a referendum but needing 75% to pass?


And the funniest thing is, those who advocate 50% +1 isn't enough, and wouldn't be a clear majority, can never be bothered to define what a clear majority would be.

Sounds like someone needs to think a little harder on the issue before opening their mouths, and that includes Paul Martin and all those advocates of the law on clarity.

Personally, I've seen far too much death and destruction caused by a government not recognizing that a people want to leave, or at least not giving them the chance. The Kashmir Issue, Bangladesh, etc. I'm not sure that a Quebecois state would be viable, but if the majority of the people wish it, let them have it. It's not worth creating centuries of violence over it. Besides, if it ISN'T viable, it will slowly come creeping back to join Canada.
I don't think there's much a chance of such violence happening in the eventuality of an independant Québec. Canada has too much credibility to lose in the face of the UN and the international community if they act rashly.

Besides, I'm pretty sure France would get involved if such a thing came to pass. And let's be realistic, neither France nor Canada wants an armed confrontation. And it would be one that Canada couldn't win anyway.

I don't think there's much a chance of such violence happening in the eventuality of an independant Québec. Canada has too much credibility to lose in the face of the UN and the international community if they act rashly.

Besides, I'm pretty sure France would get involved if such a thing came to pass. And let's be realistic, neither France nor Canada wants an armed confrontation. And it would be one that Canada couldn't win anyway.

I know, but the amount of people advocating stopping Quebec seperating by using force is distrubing to me.

Currently, 45.16% of those polled are for the seperation of Quebec (either by alot or at least has no qualms against it), with 40.32% against it (either militantly against it, or upset about it but wouldn't be willing to go to violence over it). Pretty close, I say.

Besides, I'm pretty sure France would get involved if such a thing came to pass. And let's be realistic, neither France nor Canada wants an armed confrontation. And it would be one that Canada couldn't win anyway.

One wonders whether the US would get involved if a civil war were to occur so close.

I know, but the amount of people advocating stopping Quebec seperating by using force is distrubing to me.
But those are empty threats, I'm sure of it.

Quebec's independance from Canada is SO not worth starting World War 3 over.

One wonders whether the US would get involved if a civil war were to occur so close.
Technically, it wouldn't be a civil war per se. If Québec decided to secede and Canada decided it didn't like it, it would amount to a war of occupation.

Technically, it wouldn't be a civil war per se. If Québec decided to secede and Canada decided it didn't like it, it would amount to a war of occupation.

That's what the Confederacy said during the American Civil War, and we still call that a civil war.

That's what the Confederacy said during the American Civil War, and we still call that a civil war.
Tsk, you crazy Americans ;)

One wonders whether the US would get involved if a civil war were to occur so close.

I dunno, I guess we'd stay neutral. However, if I were president at the time, I would see a golden opportunity to get the rest of the Oregon Territory, so that Alaska and the main 48 would FINALLY be connected.

I had a plan for this, actually, lemme see ifin I can be finding it...

I dunno, I guess we'd stay neutral. However, if I were president at the time, I would see a golden opportunity to get the rest of the Oregon Territory, so that Alaska and the main 48 would FINALLY be connected.

I had a plan for this, actually, lemme see ifin I can be finding it...

Do you think so? With a war raging so close to the heavily populated Northeast and Great Lakes regions? I don't think we'd be ABLE to be neutral if a civil war lasted for any considerable period of time. We'd get drawn into it by one side or the other, I'm almost certain.

Do you think so? With a war raging so close to the heavily populated Northeast and Great Lakes regions? I don't think we'd be ABLE to be neutral if a civil war lasted for any considerable period of time. We'd get drawn into it by one side or the other, I'm almost certain.

Who'd we support?

I personally would say screw 'em both and just annex Canada once and for all.

Who'd we support?

I personally would say screw 'em both and just annex Canada once and for all.

I think it would be like how we got into WWI. We'd support whichever side didn't attack us first, pretty much.

And you have to imagine if there really was a bloody, extended civil war between the two factions, they'd both want the US on their side.

Technically, it wouldn't be a civil war per se. If Québec decided to secede and Canada decided it didn't like it, it would amount to a war of occupation.

Which as a Canadian, I'd be more than happy to be on Canada's side. Quebec leaves over my dead body. I also know I'm not the only one who thinks like this. There was a lot of talk about a civil war between Canada and Quebec back in 1995 had they won the yes vote. Of course they confused that crap out of Quebec with the question so bad, half the people didn't even know what they were voting for.

If it ever happens again, it HAS to be a yes or no question. I don't see Quebec going any where any time soon though. But if they think they're breaking up my country, think again.

Oh and btw, yes of course it would be a civil war. Doh!

Which as a Canadian, I'd be more than happy to be on Canada's side. Quebec leaves over my dead body. I also know I'm not the only one who thinks like this. There was a lot of talk about a civil war between Canada and Quebec back in 1995 had they won the yes vote. Of course they confused that crap out of Quebec with the question so bad, half the people didn't even know what they were voting for.

If it ever happens again, it HAS to be a yes or no question. I don't see Quebec going any where any time soon though. But if they think they're breaking up my country, think again.

Oh and btw, yes of course it would be a civil war. Doh!

I'm not getting into this with you, seeing how last time I almost choked from apoplexy over my keyboard. Let's just agree to disagree :p

Let's just agree to disagree :p

Okay. :)

Which as a Canadian, I'd be more than happy to be on Canada's side. Quebec leaves over my dead body. I also know I'm not the only one who thinks like this. There was a lot of talk about a civil war between Canada and Quebec back in 1995 had they won the yes vote. Of course they confused that crap out of Quebec with the question so bad, half the people didn't even know what they were voting for.

If it ever happens again, it HAS to be a yes or no question. I don't see Quebec going any where any time soon though. But if they think they're breaking up my country, think again.

Oh and btw, yes of course it would be a civil war. Doh!

I think I would drive to the border and take random potshots at people on both sides at night, just to get them to start shooting at each other in earnest.

And you have to imagine if there really was a bloody, extended civil war between the two factions, they'd both want the US on their side.

Then again maybe we'd like to settle it without outside interference.

'Twould be a tad stupid to fight over independance only to have US troops come and occupy us. :( Kinda defeats the purpose of the debate.

I think I would drive to the border and take random potshots at people on both sides at night, just to get them to start shooting at each other in earnest.
Evil bastard :p

Assume that separation of Quebec would lead to civil war in Canada (which I think is an extremely unlikely scenario). If the Americans intervened, Canadians and Quebecois would both stop fighting each other and turn their guns on the Yanks. I can't see why France would get involved. They've had no presence in Canada since 1756 (or thereabouts, whenever the Seven Year's War ended). Quebec is distinct from France. Plus, France has its own social problems.

If Quebec did secede, I hope the federal government would not be passive. A separate Quebec is bad for Canada. Actually, it's bad for everybody because if two nations (three when you count Aboriginals) cannot live together peacefully in the same state here, where can they do so?

What would happen if certain segments of Quebec voted Non, say in Montreal and the Eastern Townships?

IIRC, France doesn't have much more than the FFL in terms of projecting military power abroad.

Its simple, really. Abolish the concept of nations and replace them with independent communities for every ethnicity. Or just kill off any minorities that complain too much.

:)

I found my plans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8095488&postcount=1) for if a Canadian civil war breaks out!

(Granted, they weren't MADE for that purpose, but I can still apply them if that happened)

Pour qu'on puisse voir un Quebec libre, nous devons tuer le meme de Canada!:)

Readin your comments was really funny. Thanks!

First impression; you guys are stupid, immature freaks.

Second impression; Americans are dumber than I thought. And trust me, I thought they were pretty dumb to begin with.

Third impression; I am from Montreal. That's in Quebec, by the way. I had a class this semester entitled "Quebec politics", and learned all about the secessionist movement (I was already well aware of it, of course, having grown up here, but we delved into it a lot more).
Anyway. If Quebec were to have a referendum (in 2007 by the way, not 2008) and win by a comfortable majority, only then would they be able to separate. First of all, they would need to negotiate the separation with the Federal government, as well as the rest of the provinces. They can't just have a vote and secede. A lot of people think that, but it's not true.

A few years ago the Federal gov. submitted a reference to the Supreme Court (for your idiots out there, that means 'a question of very high importance, and they want the court's ruling).
The court concluded that 1- Quebec cannot legally secede because it would go against federalism, and the underlying principles upon which the Canadian constitution is built.
2- Quebec CAN secede because it's impossible to ignore a majority vote in a referendum.

Therefore, like I said, if the YES side won, the Qc. gov. would have to negotiate secession with the Feds and the other provinces. And trust me, it would be FUCKING messy because of everything that falls under Article 91 of the constitution (that means everything that is controlled by the Federal gov) including; the airports, money, etc. They'd have to negotiate on all that and it would take a HELL of a long time to agree on.

In conclusion, seperation is not the best way to protect the culture that we have here. There is already law 101, L'Office de la langue francaise, and many other laws and institutions that make it their business to protect the culture here. Christ we even have a language police.

And also, just like in 1980 after the first referendum, a lot of Anglophones from Montreal will hit the road if Quebec decides to secede, and that WILL NOT be good for the economy.

-Myles from the nation of Theomako.

IIRC, France doesn't have much more than the FFL in terms of projecting military power abroad.
What they do have is lightyears better than what Canada has. I'm told they have an airplane carrier or two, which is more than we can boast about.

'Course, what would we do with an airplane carrier anyway?:rolleyes:

I'm also kinda shocked that so many people are voting for the "if they try to leave, we should stop them by force" option. I thought you Canadians were a peaceful folk, not warriors like your southern neighbors, who would send an army to put down any talk of secession (although, in our defence, our constitution didn't say the South could secede if it wanted).

I can just see the Canadian Army tanks rolling into Montreal...


Yes but the US Constitution also didnt say it could not...so basically it was a State's Rights thing!

What they do have is lightyears better than what Canada has. I'm told they have an airplane carrier or two, which is more than we can boast about.

'Course, what would we do with an airplane carrier anyway?:rolleyes:

Their single, expensive, nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" can only carry about 50 aircraft, and I'm imagining Canada easily has more than that which it could operate from land bases.

Besides, when did France last win in a war by itself?

Their single, expensive, nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" can only carry about 50 aircraft, and I'm imagining Canada easily has more than that which it could operate from land bases.

Besides, when did France last win in a war by itself?

Oh great irony of ironies! Charles de Gaulle was the person who uttered the words that are the title of this thread :D

Oh great irony of ironies! Charles de Gaulle was the person who uttered the words that are the title of this thread :D
Indeed. The irony is delicious.

I'm not getting into this with you, seeing how last time I almost choked from apoplexy over my keyboard. Let's just agree to disagree :pdont be a pussy :D

BTW... do you have a link of that previous debate?

I think I would drive to the border and take random potshots at people on both sides at night, just to get them to start shooting at each other in earnest.LOL:D ...I can actualy see you doing that...:mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

Then again maybe we'd like to settle it without outside interference.

'Twould be a tad stupid to fight over independance only to have US troops come and occupy us. :( Kinda defeats the purpose of the debate.

I'm sure in the beginning neither side would want the US involved. But say it drags on for years and years, and it ends up costings hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives with no end in sight. I think that eventually, if the war continues without any definitive conclusion, both sides would start considering soliciting the US for support, if only to end the war in their favor. Sooner or later both sides would get desperate enough to ask for foreign support, from the US and from Europe as well, I'd imagine. And it would be silly to assume the US would come and occupy Canada. The US can't even effectively occupy Iraq; how could we hope to do so to the second largest nation in the world? The US would most likely enter the war just to regain normalcy on their borders. No one wants a decade-plus long war right next to them. I know there are some minor island disputes currently between the US and Canada; perhaps the US would support a side if they offered to cede those islands.

Clearly this is a ridiculous idea, but really, so is the idea that Quebec and Canada are going to engage in a extended civil war, whether or not Quebec secedes.

If the Americans intervened, Canadians and Quebecois would both stop fighting each other and turn their guns on the Yanks.

What if the US were asked to intervene on behalf of one of the factions? Clearly the opposing side would fight the Americans, but the side that asked the US to join surely wouldn't.

....
Anyway. If Quebec were to have a referendum (in 2007 by the way, not 2008) Yes Quebec will win the Next referendum...No It wont be in 2007/8...

think 2010/11...after the Liberal Party loses the Provincial election.

I'm a mixture of English, French and Aboriginal descent from the West. The quebecois have largely self-identified themselves as a people and a "distinct society", and so independence from Canada would be an expression of their sovereignty, should they desire it. Were I to live in Quebec I would vote for secession, as I do not feel that our federal government is as close enough to the people of Quebec to really serve their interests and be a proper, democratic expression of their will. Of course, should they choose otherwise (as they have in each referendum so far), then that would be an expression of their sovereignty, and they would, of course stay.

The main reason I find this acceptable and not ethnocentric is that it involves self-identification (distinct society) and self-determination (a free referendum), and so is based upon the principles of democracy, that each person and people can determine their own fate.

I'm also kinda shocked that so many people are voting for the "if they try to leave, we should stop them by force" option. I thought you Canadians were a peaceful folk, not warriors like your southern neighbors, who would send an army to put down any talk of secession (although, in our defence, our constitution didn't say the South could secede if it wanted).

I can just see the Canadian Army tanks rolling into Montreal...
I'll be damned if I am going to let them break this Country in half and destroy our economy all to satisfy their egotisical whim to be their own little country, oh ,look at me , look at me, i'm special, not fucking likely buddy. What they don't say is they want to adapt our currency, sure you can have our currency when you assume your share of the national debt, no, didn't think so. You think your whining on the international stage is going to get you anywhere like it does now.A big fat NO. The only other Country that might give a shit is France and they have their own problems I have to stop now because i am ready to fucking go over to Hull and punch out a le pequiste.

Yes Quebec will win the Next referendum...No It wont be in 2007/8...

think 2010/11...after the Liberal Party loses the Provincial election.

Well, the Parti Quebecois is aiming for one in 2008 (The 400th anniversary of Quebec, right?)

Pour qu'on puisse voir un Quebec libre, nous devons tuer le meme de Canada!:)

It seems to be working pretty well so far. All this regionalism is really hurting united, multi-cultural Canada.

Well, the Parti Quebecois is aiming for one in 2008 (The 400th anniversary of Quebec, right?)
May I ask a couple of simple questions?

I notice that you are living in Panama (although you reference Boston), and have voted yes as to Quebec separation. What is your reasoning for starting this thread and supporting separation?

May I ask a couple of simple questions?

I notice that you are living in Panama (although you reference Boston), and have voted yes as to Quebec separation. What is your reasoning for starting this thread and supporting separation?
Simple: to throw a spanner into somebody else's political gears and marvel at the ensuing chaos. Same reason every bloody American starts these bloody threads.

Simple: to throw a spanner into somebody else's political gears and marvel at the ensuing chaos. Same reason every bloody American starts these bloody threads.

So you assume the original poster has the worst intentions? Why can't he have an interest in the issue?

Simple: to throw a spanner into somebody else's political gears and marvel at the ensuing chaos. Same reason every bloody American starts these bloody threads.
Perhaps so, but it seems to have failed in that quest?

May I ask a couple of simple questions?

I notice that you are living in Panama (although you reference Boston), and have voted yes as to Quebec separation. What is your reasoning for starting this thread and supporting separation?

Well, I just figured that since there are alot of Canadians on these boards, this is a topic I could start that could have alot of results (unlike the other ones I have written on the Indian sub-continent. They usually turn into a fight between me an Aryavatra (sp?))

Secondly, I support the seperation because...well, I'm not sure. Y'see, I'm one of those people who are always obsessed with supporting the underdogs. No clue why, I just am. I support Carthage over Rome, Red Sox over Yankees, Pakistan over India, Poles over Germans, Basque seperatists over the rest of Spain, France over England (in the hundred years war), Muslims over Christians (in the crusades)Palestinians over Israeli's... You get the point. I do sometimes support the "winning team" (like Poland kicked a few arses in it's day), but that usually springs from the "team" I choose actually pulling through.

I just think that if the Quebecois want a free Quebec, why the hell not? As I stated before, if the state turns out it's impossible to run, they can come running back to join Canada. Also, it's not as if the Quebecois want to sever all ties with Canada, they want to maintain economic ones, as well as a few others. I wouldn't be surprised if a free Quebec used the Canadian Dolar. I just think it would be stupid to see people die over it, since I've seen my fair share of deaths over people wanting a free state (living in the third world, I've seen it first hand. Not in Panama, o' course, but in Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. With the Bangladesh example, millions died, because Bangladesh wanted to leave Pakistan because their culture was different; rather similar to Quebec now, just Quebec has about 70 million people less than Bangladesh did when it left, and Quebec isn't one of the poorest countries in the world).

Simple: to throw a spanner into somebody else's political gears and marvel at the ensuing chaos. Same reason every bloody American starts these bloody threads.

Real nice. Just because I'm American, you think my sole purpose in life is to fuck up the world? When you've traveled the world like I have, seen the poverty, opression, and hatred I have, you tend to think differently about life. Just today, I visited a school where 400 kids had to share 8 stalls in 4 bathrooms. The roof of the school was made out of tin. Their lunch-room was a mess, and it was the size of my bedroom (which is rather small). None of the rooms had glass windows. The kids were playing with crushed tin-cans, since they had no soccer balls.

And the sad thing is, this isn't the worst school I've seen. Nooooooooooo, not by a long-shot.

And people think I judge books by their covers...

Secondly, I support the seperation because...well, I'm not sure. Y'see, I'm one of those people who are always obsessed with supporting the underdogs.
Most people would not consider that Quebecers are underdogs by any stretch of the imagination. Au contraire mon frere.

Quebecers enjoy many benefits whilst in the Confederation of Canada, as I detailed in an earlier post.

Who do you support in the battle between the insurgents and the US?

Real nice. Just because I'm American, you think my sole purpose in life is to fuck up the world? When you've traveled the world like I have, seen the poverty, opression, and hatred I have, you tend to think differently about life. Just today, I visited a school where 400 kids had to share 8 stalls in 4 bathrooms. The roof of the school was made out of tin. Their lunch-room was a mess, and it was the size of my bedroom (which is rather small). None of the rooms had glass windows. The kids were playing with crushed tin-cans, since they had no soccer balls.

And the sad thing is, this isn't the worst school I've seen. Nooooooooooo, not by a long-shot.

And people think I judge books by their covers...
Why is there so much poverty in Panama?

Real nice. Just because I'm American, you think my sole purpose in life is to fuck up the world? *snips*
That's not what I said, exactly. I responded as I did expressly because there is, and has been, a certain percentage of Americans on NS, who, wishing to in some way lash out at those who most loudly decry their internal politics (and that'd be Canadians, primarily) by highlighting, underscoring, and with luck providing a soapbox for proponents of the single-most incredibly divisive and emotionally-charged issue troubling Canadian Confederation: Separation.

Looked to me as though you were most likely a) an aspiring new member of said contingent, or b) a puppet nation designed for the express purpose of exacerbating very nasty issues for Canadians.

This is an issue I feel a very real, and very personal stake in, for reasons outlined in my previous posts. I'll admit, I'm not a fan of conjecture in this area. But you are correct, I'll own up to painting you with too broad a brush.

My apologies. But understand, for every single Yankee poster with good, or even neutral intentions, there's a dozen or more just looking to find ways to get under the skin of certain Canadians.

My apologies. But understand, for every single Yankee poster with good, or even neutral intentions, there's a dozen or more just looking to find ways to get under the skin of certain Canadians.

My apologies, but after hearing a whole year of complaints from Canadians about every little (or big) thing that the US does wrong, I live for the moment when I hear bad news from Canada.

Just the idea that people are going to have to stand in line in the freeze in January makes me feel warm all over.

My highlight for today comes from a CBC reporter who was being interviewed on BBC World Update - think of it - a reporter being interviewed is considered "news".

The reporter was covering the climate conference, and after hearing the US being lambasted for not signing Kyoto, the reporter said it was essentially moot - most of the nations, including Canada, have not met their promised targets - indeed, according to the reporter, although Canada signed Kyoto, it is doing worse at meeting its targets than the US - apparently, the US has surpassed the targets so far, and it isn't even trying to adhere to the treaty.

Go figure.

Yes, you can be emotional about Quebec. But if it devolves into civil war, I will definitely be making some popcorn and watching it on multiple 24-hour cable news channels.

Thanks for making my point for me, Deep Kimchi.

Thanks for making my point for me, Deep Kimchi.
Call me if you need weapons and ammunition. If there's a civil war in Canada, I plan on making money.

Call me if you need weapons and ammunition. If there's a civil war in Canada, I plan on making money.

And here we see the difference between you and those people you're complaining about, and what makes you a giant ass and them just annoying.

And here we see the difference between you and those people you're complaining about, and what makes you a giant ass and them just annoying.

Really?

Really?

Really.

And here we see the difference between you and those people you're complaining about, and what makes you a giant ass and them just annoying.
I didn't know you found me annoying. I find Deep Kimchi annoying at times, but I didn't think of him ass a giant ass, either.

Why is there so much poverty in Panama?

Because, mi friend, of corruption (Amongst other factors). In Panama City PROPER (where I live), you could swear you were in Miami, just smaller and with more Spanish. There are sky-scrapers, malls, movie-theatres, nice roads, etc. However, seeing how Panama City became rich off banking, and the rest of the country isn't very suitable for banks, the other areas of the country suffer.

And in response to your Insurgents or U.S. question, I support my country. Yes, it goes against my "pro-underdog" stance, but I cannot wish my country destroyed. There are (or were, I'm not so sure) some insurgents who are fighting the U.S. using conventional means and are doing so because they feel the invasion was illegal and they have to defend their homeland. I respect those people. However, the vast majority of the insurgency resorts to tactics such as beheadings and suicide bombings, and are fighting because "it is the will of Allah." Yes, my country screwed up big-time in the war in Iraq, and certain rogue elements (or, as is coming to light, some not-so-rogue elements) have been resorting to tactics not as brutal as those of the insurgents but still pretty darn brutal (but probably more brutal to those being tortured, depends on who you ask), but as a person who lives in a family that represents the United States overseas, I can't help but me patriotic. Another trait that comes with supporting the underdog as that you're the type that holds out 'till the end.

My apologies. But understand, for every single Yankee poster with good, or even neutral intentions, there's a dozen or more just looking to find ways to get under the skin of certain Canadians.

Apologies accepted. I will also apologize, I overreacted a bit. And I totally agree with you, there are a good many of my countrymen who are looking for ways to get you guys angry.

I didn't know you found me annoying. I find Deep Kimchi annoying at times, but I didn't think of him ass a giant ass, either.

Well I don't classify you as one of the Canadians who complain whenever the US does anything wrong, and I would classify someone who wants to profit on the deaths of people because they upset them with things they said a "giant ass".

I didn't know you found me annoying. I find Deep Kimchi annoying at times, but I didn't think of him ass a giant ass, either.

I usually count on being annoying - it's the price you pay for not agreeing with everyone you meet.

That quality itself is what makes most of us on NS have something in common.

Well I don't classify you as one of the Canadians who complain whenever the US does anything wrong, and I would classify someone who wants to profit on the deaths of people because they upset them with things they said a "giant ass".

I'm trying to make the point that civil war is an idiotic idea, but I guess that sarcasm is lost on you tonight.

Let it be noted that I responded to option four in the poll because I am vehemently opposed to ethnic nationalism being permitted to rear its' ugly, 19th-century head in what I still consider to be my home province, in the 21st century.

And I suppose its' due to my strong feelings on the matter that I chose option four. I'd like to think we could wrangle an arrangement, and I'd like to think I couldn't be swayed casually into the use of force to prevent actual separation, but I can't be sure. There are simply too many unknowns at this point to say for certain whether arms would solve anything in this hypothetical scenario.

But I'll never be able to forgive Charles DeGaulle. I spit on his name, and wipe my shoes on his memory. Stupid ass should have kept his ungrateful mouth shut.

Let it be noted that I responded to option four in the poll because I am vehemently opposed to ethnic nationalism being permitted to rear its' ugly, 19th-century head in what I still consider to be my home province, in the 21st century.

And I suppose its' due to my strong feelings on the matter that I chose option four. I'd like to think we could wrangle an arrangement, and I'd like to think I couldn't be swayed casually into the use of force to prevent actual separation, but I can't be sure. There are simply too many unknowns at this point to say for certain whether arms would solve anything in this hypothetical scenario.

But I'll never be able to forgive Charles DeGaulle. I spit on his name, and wipe my shoes on his memory. Stupid ass should have kept his ungrateful mouth shut.

I'm familiar with "I'll Take Credit For Anything Good" deGaulle, but unclear on his role in the whole Quebec thing...

I'm familiar with "I'll Take Credit For Anything Good" deGaulle, but unclear on his role in the whole Quebec thing...
When the French get into internal affairs, it always gets horrible...

Sometime in the 60's or 70's French president DeGaulle visited Quebec and incited the separatist movement. He was never welcome in Canada again, ever.

Sometime in the 60's or 70's French president DeGaulle visited Quebec and incited the separatist movement. He was never welcome in Canada again, ever.

Ah, he must have made a promise of some kind.

I'm familiar with "I'll Take Credit For Anything Good" deGaulle, but unclear on his role in the whole Quebec thing...

Back in 1967, he was visiting Canada for our centenniel, and in a speech from the balcony of Montreal's city hall hollered out: "Vive le Québec Libre". Got everybody all riled up.

The wikipedia entry has the details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#Vive_le_Qu.C3.A9bec_Libre.21

I'm familiar with "I'll Take Credit For Anything Good" deGaulle, but unclear on his role in the whole Quebec thing...
Who do you suppose was the very first moron to shout the phrase, 'Vive Le Quebec Libre', while on a French State visit to Canada, in the midsts of the Quebecois Baby-Boomer protest movement of the 60s? This same man who was only too happy to have his war with Germany won for him, in no small part to the efforts of Canadians?

The man made a spectacular asshat of himself. And fueled the fires that spawned the FLQ, resulting in a campaign of terror that killed several people, maimed others, in response to which Pierre Elliot Trudeau was forced to invoke the War Measures Act.

I have as much love for Charles Degaulle as I would a pubic louse or a cold sore.

Sometime in the 60's or 70's French president DeGaulle visited Quebec and incited the separatist movement. He was never welcome in Canada again, ever.
Well, of course! This alcoholic commie (:D) should have stayed in his republic.

We should not allow these Bolsheviks Separatists to separate!!! Where are the good old Redcoats, who could pwn all rebellions?

(I am from Québec, too.)

sore.
What's a 'sore'?

What's a 'sore'?
Just try Google Imaging the phrase, 'cold sore'.

Just try Google Imaging the phrase, 'cold sore'.
*screams*

AHHHHHHH!!!

*faints*

Who do you suppose was the very first moron to shout the phrase, 'Vive Le Quebec Libre', while on a French State visit to Canada, in the midsts of the Quebecois Baby-Boomer protest movement of the 60s? This same man who was only too happy to have his war with Germany won for him, in no small part to the efforts of Canadians?

The man made a spectacular asshat of himself. And fueled the fires that spawned the FLQ, resulting in a campaign of terror that killed several people, maimed others, in response to which Pierre Elliot Trudeau was forced to invoke the War Measures Act.

I have as much love for Charles Degaulle as I would a pubic louse or a cold sore.

Charles de Gaulle may have been an idiot (It would be like if I went to, say...the United Kingdom, and I was president of the United States, and I yelled "LONG LIVE FREE SCOTLAND!" I understand he was trying to atone for Frances past "sins", mainly surrendering Quebec to the Brits, but I mean come on...), but don't understate his importance in WWII. He may not have had many resources, but with what he had, he did surprisingly well. He was the figurehead needed to unite the insurgents in France. If it weren't for him, I doubt the Canadians would have found a united opposition to Germany in France when they arrived. By the end of 1944, Free French forces numbered over 1 million people, far more than the Canadian forces (not that I'm downplaying Canada's role, but I like to show every side that helped. Especially the Poles. The poor, forgotten Poles...)

Charles de Gaulle may have been an idiot (It would be like if I went to, say...the United Kingdom, and I was president of the United States, and I yelled "LONG LIVE FREE SCOTLAND!" I understand he was trying to atone for Frances past "sins", mainly surrendering Quebec to the Brits, but I mean come on...), but don't understate his importance in WWII. He may not have had many resources, but with what he had, he did surprisingly well. He was the figurehead needed to unite the insurgents in France. If it weren't for him, I doubt the Canadians would have found a united opposition to Germany in France when they arrived. By the end of 1944, Free French forces numbered over 1 million people, far more than the Canadian forces (not that I'm downplaying Canada's role, but I like to show every side that helped. Especially the Poles. The poor, forgotten Poles...)
Frankly LS, after what he did in 1967, I couldn't've have cared if he was the Second Coming. He was an asshat. Period. Whatever else he might have been up 'til that point effectively means zero to me.

Canadians won WW2 ? or played a key part? Someone forgot to tell DeGaulle that if it was not for Canada...he would be speaking German

In France, anyway. Yes. They did play key parts. DeGaulle shouldn't have done what he did in 1967. It was incredobly rude and not at all helpful. It was doubly rude in light of the fact that he became President of France due to the efforts of foreign liberators such as Canada. Rabble-rousing ethnic nationalism while visiting the land of some of your liberators isn't just bad form, it's completely and utterly off-putting.

Charles de Gaulle may have been an idiot (It would be like if I went to, say...the United Kingdom, and I was president of the United States, and I yelled "LONG LIVE FREE SCOTLAND!" I understand he was trying to atone for Frances past "sins", mainly surrendering Quebec to the Brits, but I mean come on...), but don't understate his importance in WWII. He may not have had many resources, but with what he had, he did surprisingly well. He was the figurehead needed to unite the insurgents in France. If it weren't for him, I doubt the Canadians would have found a united opposition to Germany in France when they arrived. By the end of 1944, Free French forces numbered over 1 million people, far more than the Canadian forces (not that I'm downplaying Canada's role, but I like to show every side that helped. Especially the Poles. The poor, forgotten Poles...)
However, you are missing the saddest part of this whole story. Canada, US, and UK forces invade Normandy to free France, and yet many Quebecers didn't want to join the Canadian army to fight "Britain's War", which is kind of ironic when you think about it? Conscription was a hot item back in those days.

... It was incredobly rude and not at all helpful. Depends what side of the fence you are sitting....It was very helpful for the "Quebec Libre" movement.

However, you are missing the saddest part of this whole story. Canada, US, and UK forces invade Normandy to free France, and yet many Quebecers didn't want to join the Canadian army to fight "Britain's War", which is kind of ironic when you think about it? Conscription was a hot item back in those days.

This topic is full of ironies, eh? But that's the nature of human existance itself, no?

Depends what side of the fence you are sitting....It was very helpful for the "Quebec Libre" movement.
Well, Mr. DeGaulle sure as Hell wasn't made President of the Republic by Paul Rose and the FLQ, OceanDrive.

Although I am usually in favour of nation's remaining intact, in this case I support Quebec's movement to be free, unopposed by the government of Canada.

Frankly LS, after what he did in 1967, I couldn't've have cared if he was the Second Coming. He was an asshat. Period. Whatever else he might have been up 'til that point effectively means zero to me.

Hey, I guess one mans Freedom Fighter is another mans, um, asshat.

Y'know, it isn't the same as the actual phrase...

Well, Mr. DeGaulle sure as Hell wasn't made President of the Republic by Paul Rose and the FLQ, OceanDrive.which begs the Question...Who made DeGaulle President?

While I was reading this thread I remembered something from History class many moons ago about conscription in Canada during WW1 andWW2, and i discovered that Borden in 1917 and King in 1939, both introduced conscription under pressure from Great Britain. This was accepted by the English because they felt an obligation to the old country but the French felt absolutely no compunction to fight for France because they felt that France had abandoned them after they got their asses kicked by the British in the 1800's Another instance of the divide that separates French and English that started a long time ago and is not going to go away any time soon.

which begs the Question...Who made DeGaulle President?

The French?

The French?indeed...DeGaulle was the Hero of the French resistance forces...he was the most recognizable French leader at the end of WWII...

to the displeasure of Washington and London...he was the man.

bumparoo!

bump.

The French?

Best answer ever.

indeed...DeGaulle was the Hero of the French resistance forces...he was the most recognizable French leader at the end of WWII...

to the displeasure of Washington and London...he was the man.

So, you know then the following:

1. Prior to the work of the UK intelligence services, there was absolutely NO French resistance. It was all organized, funded, armed, and led by UK personnel. During this time, they used deGaulle as a figurehead.

2. Even so, the French Resistance played little role in the liberation of the country, and its ranks "swelled" dramatically after victory.

3. DeGaulle effectively played no role in combat - he played no tactical or strategic role in terms of being a combat leader. His liberation of Paris was purely symbolic.

4. London effectively created him - why would they be unhappy? Was it perhaps because he was an intolerable ingrate?

Well, Mr. DeGaulle sure as Hell wasn't made President of the Republic by Paul Rose and the FLQ, OceanDrive.Lets see...we have fellow here suggesting that DeGaulle was made President by Ottawa...
So, you know then the following...London effectively created him...
...
and now we have this fellow saying he was created by London (and that the French Resistance was all UK)
...
What is next? someone will swear DeGaulle was a Cyborg created by the KGB? and that all the French combatants were in fact British undercover agents...

Can a 'Yes' vote in a referendum give Quebec independence? Or does it require an act of Parliament to be granted independence?

How will the big embezzlement scandal play into any referendum?

bump again.

Golly Jee, it seems no one cares about Quebec anymore.

bump again.

Golly Jee, it seems no one cares about Quebec anymore.
Ummmm. The vote for supporting Quebec separation is running at 15% and most of those votes are from non Canadians. Apparently, it is not that big of an issue at this time and yet you keep bumping the topic. Take a hint and let it die?

And in regards to your comment, most Canadians care deeply about Quebec.

Quebec cannot legally seperate from Canada. Quebec will never seperate from Canada becuase they cannot survive economically on their own. They want to be a seperate government within the Confederation of Canada

Somebody mentioned Quebec being America's enemy. When Quebec first tried to serperate from Canada in the 80's Prime Minister Trudeau warned the U.S. that they might have a Communist country right on their border. There was a strong Communist movement in Quebec.

I was born in Quebec, and although I have not lived there for 15 years, all of my famiy lives there and I still maintain interest in it's future.

I must agree with the person above me, Quebec would not be able to survive on its on economically, it would collapse utterly, which would be a shame. Now, I am the great nephew of General Vanier, a respected leader during the Second World War, and contrary to popular belief, Canada was very involved in the war, including people from quebec, in fact Canada joined the war FAR FAR before the US.

Anyways, there would be no real point in Quebec becoming a sovreign state nor any advantage. Canada is it's own country, and although there are differences in culture slightly between quebec and much of english canada, it is still a culture all its own that is different than any other nation.

Now, although I am very proud to live in the United States and am GENERALLY happy with the country, I have to say I enjoy Canada better. The country itself is nicer, people really are nicer, everything is just a touch above, however, should quebec and Canada split, this would ruin much of this. Quebec and Canada are interdependent on each other economically and culturally, and would have trouble survivng without each other, though English canada would surely last longer.

Point is, just as the south should not have seceeded, neither should quebec, you are part of a nation, don't like it, change it, you are a citizen and no matter how small, your input matters.

Quebec cannot legally seperate from Canada. Quebec will never seperate from Canada becuase they cannot survive economically on their own. They want to be a seperate government within the Confederation of Canada

Somebody mentioned Quebec being America's enemy. When Quebec first tried to serperate from Canada in the 80's Prime Minister Trudeau warned the U.S. that they might have a Communist country right on their border. There was a strong Communist movement in Quebec.WAHAHAHA...good one
For a minute I tough you were serious...

Golly Jee, it seems no one cares about Quebec anymore.
No, they just don't care about attention-whoring threads... :rolleyes:

It's only a matter of time before the Quebecois leave the federation, and in the next few years, the entire nation will disintergrate peacefully. We'll see a host of new confederations, backbitting, and alliances. I think of it as a theme park for political science where no one gets hurt.