The NDP and Quebec's Self-Determination

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]My opinion?

Q1: unacceptable.
A mealymouthed demand for a carte blanche, based on 6 layers of qualifications.[/b]


Did you understand that this question - if approved - could not lead to separation without a further referendum? That it was only a request for a mandate to start negotiations? If you understood that, why is it unacceptable???

quote:

[b]Q2: conditionally acceptable.
Only if the aforementioned offer to Canada is concrete and available for consideration and critique when the referendum is called.[/b]

And so, if the 1995 referendum had passed (which it almost did), you would have denied Quйbec the right to exercise its sovereignty because the voters didn't demand to see the offer before voting "yes"?

torontoprofessor

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
It's nice to have foreigners looking after our interests and making sure we don't fuck up.
[/b]

Foreigners?

ETA: When in Paris, Moscow or Rome, I am a foreigner. When in Vancouver, Montreal or Iqaluit, I am not.

[ 23 October 2008: Message edited by: torontoprofessor ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by torontoprofessor:
[b]

Foreigners?

ETA: When in Paris, Moscow or Rome, I am a foreigner. When in Vancouver, Montreal or Iqaluit, I am not.
[/b]


So you would like a vote in the next referendum, right? You have formally complained about being denied a vote in the previous two? Let me know how that works out for you.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I lived 3 consecutive years of my life as a resident of Quebec. In many places (including Canada) this would qualify me to apply for citizenship - and dual citizenship is allowed in Canada.

In your opinion, unionist, should I have a vote in any future referendum?

torontoprofessor

torontoprofessor:

Foreigners?

ETA: When in Paris, Moscow or Rome, I am a foreigner. When in Vancouver, Montreal or Iqaluit, I am not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

unionist: So you would like a vote in the next referendum, right? You have formally complained about being denied a vote in the previous two? Let me know how that works out for you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing I said suggests that I would like a vote in any provincial referendum in any province or territory in which I do not reside.

When visiting Vancouver, I am not a foreigner. Nonetheless, I would not want to vote in any British Columbia referendum (or any BC election, or any Vancouver mayoral election, etc.).

When visiting Iqaluit, I am not a foreigner. Nonetheless, I would not want to vote in any Nunavut referendum.

When visiting Montreal, I am not a foreigner. Nonetheless, I would not want to vote in any Quebec referendum.

May I ask three questions? (Background: I am a Canadian citizen residing in Toronto.)

(1) When visiting Vancouver, am I a foreigner?
(2) When visiting Iqaluit, am I a foreigner?
(3) When visiting Montreal, am I a foreigher?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I would say that you have a degree of foreignness in all three of the questions asked, with significant more degree in Nunavut and Quebec.

Consider your questions if you were an English citizen from Bristol. Would you be a foreigner in Scotland? Wales? Northern Ireland? South Africa?

Sometimes the complexities of nationalism cannot be reduced to such simplistic questions.

torontoprofessor

Of course, there are borderline cases. Consider, in 1979, a citizen of West Germany visiting her relatives in East Germany: is she a foreigner? Plausibly a borderline case. Similarly with a Belgrader, in 2008, in Pristina.

As for "degrees of foreignness", I experience a degree of foreignness not only in Iqaluit and Montreal, but also in Barrie, Ontario. But it would be bizarre for a Barrian to describe me as a "foreigner" despite some degree of foreignness. And (see my general line of reasoning below), I would say that while in Montreal, Vancouver, Iqaluit, Moosonee or Pickering, I am not a foreigner (despite a degree of foreignness).

When the borders of a nation-state (not a nation, but a nation-state) are clearly recognized both internationally [i]and[/i] internally, by all relevant parties, then it seems to me simply incorrect to describe citizens in that nation-state as "foreigners" relative to other parts of that nation-state. To call me a "foreigner" while I'm in Montreal strongly suggests that I am no longer in my own country. Some Quebeckers might believe that, and might want to make that very point: while in Montreal, you, torontoprofessor, are not in your own country. I would be surprised to find out that this is unionist's view (but maybe it is).

As for your questions, I would say that a British citizen from Bristol is not a foreigner in Scotland or Wales. What about Northern Ireland? Well, the Republic of Ireland, one of the key players, does not recognize Northern Ireland as part of the UK. So that would be a borderline case. What about South Africa? Certainly a foreigner (unless she has South African citizenship for some reason).

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]I lived 3 consecutive years of my life as a resident of Quebec. In many places (including Canada) this would qualify me to apply for citizenship - and dual citizenship is allowed in Canada.

In your opinion, unionist, should I have a vote in any future referendum?[/b]


No.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by torontoprofessor:
[b]Nothing I said suggests that I would like a vote in any provincial referendum in any province or territory in which I do not reside. [/b]

Excellent. I now understand that your entire intervention is only to debate the meaning of the word "foreigner".

As long as you agree you have no right to participate in Quebeckers' decision as to how or whether to exercise their self-determination, I have no problem with whatever terminology you choose to use. "Honoured colleague", perhaps, instead of "foreigner" - ok?

quote:

[b]When visiting Montreal, am I a foreigner?[/b]

Of course not. You're a Canadian, and Montrйal is part of Canada.

But when Quebeckers are deciding their future (which, if you care to scroll back, is what started this discussion and the use of the word "foreigner"), you are most definitely not allowed to participate. You are, for that purpose, as "foreign" as a Nepalese citizen and resident. That's because Quйbec enjoys the inalienable right to self-determination.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Does that just apply to me, or to anyone in my situation? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Does that just apply to me, or to anyone in my situation? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]

You could vote if you changed your name very slightly to Fиves au Lard Tunderin' Jeezus.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I often think I am a stranger in a strange land. If you can grog that?

I find this a fascinating debate without any real substance. Divorce is a good analogy in this case. I firmly believe in the right of any partner to leave their spouse immediately. That is a unilateral decision. However the terms of the divorce settlement are not something that can be the announced unilaterally without risking spending years in court and fortunes on lawyers.

So sure Quebec has the unilateral right to secede but not to set the terms of secession.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I often think I am a stranger in a strange land. If you can grog that?[/b]

Methinks you mean "grok".

quote:

[b]So sure Quebec has the unilateral right to secede but not to set the terms of secession.[/b]

I have never heard [b][i]anyone[/i][/b] suggest that Quйbec has the right to "set the terms of secession".

But if you think people in Ottawa - or in this thread - acknowledge Quйbec's "unilateral right to secede", then I invite you to re-read the posts about Quebeckers "tearing apart my nation".

The Clarity Act does not recognize Quйbec's unilateral right to secede. Hence, progressive people must demand its repeal, along with a positive affirmation of that right. Don't you agree?

ETA: Can we [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008096]co... the discussion here[/url] before the thread is closed? Thanks.

[ 24 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

jrose

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked