Anglo-Canadians' are terrified of the Bloc

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

Brian White wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Keep Dion out of your cabinet. He is incompetent, unprincipled, and justifiably hated by many Quebeckers.

( Except the leadership of the bloq who signed an agreement to elect him as prime minister!).  

A remarkable development that sailed right by many English-speaking Canadians. A tribute to Duceppe putting, um, Canada ahead of party. 

saga saga's picture

George Victor wrote:

What are people's thoughts on this under-analysed current in the new coalition craze?



The CPC play this to the francophobe population - which just happens to be one of their supporting social groups. But, then, who ever accused them of  being open-minded progressives?


The francophobes seem to mostly live in Alberta, and they are Harper's base.

We just laugh it off, but it is still a live hatred with them, and very ugly, imo.

Harper's dance between his francophobe supporters and his need for support in Quebec is at least a bit 'amusant', but in reality, his pandering to ethnic bigotry makes me want to ....!!!


panhead wrote:
 This might be a productive sentiment in a largely homogenous nation, but in a Canada which is a tapestry of cultures, I find the idea antiquated and distasteful, which are both inferior sentiments to the guarantee of a highly decentralized federation which will never be in a position to exercise its self-determination. As I said, if Canadians prefer this route, then Quebec should claim its sovereign status along with any other takers. If not, then faux progressive parties like the Bloc should be removed from Canadian Parliament as they obviously hold no allegiance for the institution, the people it represents, or the flag it flies. 

 Well, I find your entire post distasteful. The idea that people can't vote for whoever they like for parliament is totalitarianism, pure and simple.  

martin dufresne

"Quebec should claim its sovereign status..."

Uh, OK.

saga saga's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

"Quebec should claim its sovereign status..."

Uh, OK.

They already have ... at least in the French version. It didn't make it into the English version though. All those darn complications with Aboriginal title and rights to the land ... 'terra nullius' it was not ... kinda threw a monkey wrench into the 'separation' idea, so sovereignty was born and has already been declared.

It just remains to work out the details, but I don't se anyone rushing to do that. 

And I haven't noticed the sky falling ... 



"The idea that people can't vote for whoever they like for parliament is totalitarianism, pure and simple.  "


It's really not a totalitarian sentiment. Voting for the Bloc is not dissimilar to choosing to vote for a foreign party to sit in Canadian parliament imo.

Simply for the reason that the party has interests that are entirely seperate from parliament and the nation it represents. I'm not denying anyone their right to a democratic process, only stating that there is a fine line between that process and travesty which we seem to have already crossed.

I would have no objection to such a party sitting in the national assembly of Quebec if it is ever sovereign, as long as it was elected. Until then, it only seems logical to me that all members of parliament who are payed by ALL Canadian taxpayers should at least pretend to have the best interests of ALL Canadians at heart, be they new immigrants, first nations, or anyone else, and not just the proponents of regional nationalist ambitions.


panhead wrote:
... all members of parliament who are payed by ALL Canadian taxpayers [b][i]should at least pretend[/i][/b] to have the best interests of ALL Canadians at heart...

You mean, they should follow your example?


This is very funny. While I'm not a Bloc supporter and have never voted for the party (I've always "wasted" my federal vote on the NDP), my first memories of Gilles Duceppe were of working on union organising drives at Montréal hospitals, and then hotels. In workplaces that were overwhelmingly "immigrant", including many "new immigrants", fighting for fair pay and respectful working conditions for these people.

Duceppe has also been very vociferous about the deplorable living conditions of Aboriginal people here, in particular of an Alqonquin band in northwestern Québec enduring Third-World living conditions.

The Scottish National Party has 7 MPs in the UK parliament, by the way.


Even more hilarious is the notion that MPs must have "the best interests of all Canadians at heart". That would empty out the place fast. I'm confident, however, that by "Canadians", panhead means "panhead".

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

And Plaid Cymru has 3 MPs in at Westminster, Sinn Féin 5.


...and in Spain the Catalan nationalists have lots of seats and regularly participate in coalition governments at the national level. There are also Basque nationalists, Galician nationalists and Canary Island nationalists that all have MPs.

In Finland there is a Swedish peoples party that only represents the interests of the Swedish speaking minority. In Belgium there are parties in parliament that are only there to promote the autonomy of the Flemish or Walloon areas. This is all vefry routine. 


And Balad and the United Arab List hold seven seats in Israel's 120-member Knesset.

Oh, hang on a second, the central elections committee has just banned both parties from running in the next election, on the grounds that they don't recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

So panhead is right after all - we have a model of democracy that we can follow here.

Not to mention Pat "Panhead" Martin, member for Winnipeg Centre, who introduced [url=][color=red]the following motion #219 [/color][/url] in the House in September 2006:

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre) — That, in the opinion of the House, no member of the House of Commons shall sit therein and that no funds shall be made available to the member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions unless he or she takes an oath or makes a [b]solemn affirmation of loyalty to Canada[/b] in addition to the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty provided for in the Constitution Act, 1867.

That would eliminate not only the separatists, but also the socialists (who don't believe in monarchy). Only Stephen Harper and Pat Martin would remain. I'm fine with that. A Quiet Revolution.



Its considered a foregone conclusion that the Supeme Court in Israel will overturn the election committee ruling and that Balad and the United Arab List will be allowed to participate afterall - this ritual happens in almost every election - doesn't make it OK, but it will be overturned.

If I was a BQ MP, I wouldn't have a problem swearing an oath of loyalty to Canada. Oaths are just empty words anyways. They already have to swear allegiance to the Queen and they just do it. In any case, I would the attitude that as long as Quebec is part of Canada - I as a federal MP am loyal to Canada. The day Quebec becomes an independent country with no special to the rest of Canada - I will automatically cease to be an MP so my oath of loyalty to Canada will become moot.


Long enough.


Topic locked