The NDP and Quebec's Self-Determination
Sat, 2008-10-18 15:40
#1
The NDP and Quebec's Self-Determination
Sat, 2008-10-18 15:40
#2
I have always found this to be too devisive to even bother talking about but should the NDP and the Bloc consider a union? a unite the left drive nobody would expect from canadas only leftist parties. I think that the old Social Chauvinist line aught to be challenged. A independent Quebecois republic wouldnt be the end of the world and many in the bloc consider actual seperation a moot issue now after two defeats its mostly about the right to self determination. something Canada used to have as a value. as far as I can tell the Bloc has few views that conflict with our own at all and in the absence of a mass presence in Quebec and the possibility of Gilles Duceppe in our full fledged caucus (eventually as leader as he has been many peopkles favorite since he came into the spotlight). Perhaps a new party based on the firm left of the spectrum, a full fledged social democratic party. probably named something like Left Bloc of Canada & Quebec.
Sat, 2008-10-18 16:10
#3
No. Although they have many Social democrat Leanings, (and Duceppe in his younger years was even a marxist), there is way too much baggage attached to the Bloc....within the party you have staunch conservatives, (the pure lein/wool as they call themselves)but still separatists and that alone would stop a union. Furthermore, any party that would openly associate itself with the Bloc in that way would be dead meat in the ROC. Besides, the progressives went to the Bloc mainly to stop Harper. Most pundits had them on their death bed before Harper shot himself in the foot. Besides, the federalist vote is no longer a one party (i.e Liberal) option..as Muclair and the Conservatives have demonstrated. The NDP has to Continue building on it's beach head in Quebec, and keep plugging away at that progressive support that has in the past gone to the Bloc now mostly by default. Before the arts cut/throw kids in jail move the NDP were competitive in at least 2 other Montreal ridings. Much of our support evaporated to the Bloc after the Harpo blunder. Even still, the NDP has a presence in Quebec unheard of possibly ever in modern history. The NDP is now considered a serious option, and they have momentum.
Sat, 2008-10-18 16:11
#4
The NDP won't be going far in Quebec as long as they back things like the Clarity Act and explicitly identify as "federalists."
Sat, 2008-10-18 16:36
#5
Pogo
I think that there may be an opportunity for Bloc MP's to cross the floor and run for the NDP. Especially if the party starts to implode and re-election as a Bloc member becomes impossible.
Sat, 2008-10-18 16:39
#6
We've been hearing for about 10 years now how Quebec is "tired of separatists" and how the Bloc is going to disappear or implode...don't bet on it happening any time soon.
Sat, 2008-10-18 19:19
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]The NDP won't be going far in Quebec as long as they back things like the Clarity Act and explicitly identify as "federalists."[/b]
The NDP supporting Federalism and the Clarity Act has nothing to do with their support levels. Both the Liberals and Conservatives win much more support in Quebec and still suport these policies.
The some members have to stop thinking that by completely unengaging Quebecers will support them. Joe Clark tried this and got nowhere. Though our policies must be based around not going into provincial territory either.
The NDP simply doesn't appeal to the Leftist sovereignty movement and more to the upper class traditional federalist Left like in Westmount, Outremont, and a couple others.
Sat, 2008-10-18 21:26
#8
Interesting. I can see one issue being that the NDP is defined by political ideology (although that is getting watered down) and the Bloc is more or less defined by one question. Although there is likely some overlap, there would be a lot of people in the Bloc who oppose the NDP ideology (or at least whatever the NDP claims as ideology these days).
I don't think such a union would be possible though. The contradiction of supporting self-determination while serving in a federalist party in a federal parliament would probably be too much. I know a lot of parties worldwide which do support self-determination for various regions don't operate in those regions but generally have a coalition partner they can count on. It would be nice if the Bloc and NDP were to work together on some progressive issues, although associating with the Bloc could harm the NDP in the rest of Canada.
Regarding a new party, on the provincial level I am very impressed by Quebec Solidaire and would be happy to vote for them if I lived in Quebec.
Sun, 2008-10-19 01:18
#9
quote:
Originally posted by genstrike:
[b] The contradiction of supporting self-determination while serving in a federalist party in a federal parliament would probably be too much.[/b]
It's not a matter of supporting self-determination, it's a matter of supporting one particular outcome of self-determination. You do see the difference don't you? The federalists in Quebec firmly support self-determination - just a different outcome from the PQ and BQ.
Even if the BQ had the same socio-economic agenda as the NDP (which it doesn't), any alliance between the two would be fatal to the NDP both inside and outside Quebec.
[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]
Sun, 2008-10-19 07:57
#10
quote:
Regarding a new party, on the provincial level I am very impressed by Quebec Solidaire and would be happy to vote for them if I lived in Quebec.
I would say the smae. wonder if there would be enough overlap to associate with them perhaps. Also I want to say I am not jumping ship on the NDP in Quebec just exploring alternate strategies.
Sun, 2008-10-19 07:57
#11
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Max is one of our more erratic conributors. Back to back posts can be completely wrong...
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]The NDP won't be going far in Quebec as long as they back things like the Clarity Act and explicitly identify as "federalists."[/b]
...and then absolutely right:
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]We've been hearing for about 10 years now how Quebec is "tired of separatists" and how the Bloc is going to disappear or implode...don't bet on it happening any time soon.[/b]
The Clarity Act is history, Max; both within Quebec and without. And in my experience 'federalist' is not a dirty word in Quebec, except with the most hardcore of separatists - the ones who are generally unconcerned with issues of democracy and social justice; those who are primarily chauvinist and often xenophobic.
The NDP wasn't getting (or after) their votes anyway.
Sun, 2008-10-19 09:47
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]The NDP won't be going far in Quebec as long as they back things like the Clarity Act...[/b]
But we don't. The Sherbrooke Declaration, which we adopted by a 95% majority at the 2006 Convention, explicitly states that our standard for a Quebec referendum is 50%+1 on a question to be set by the National Assembly. That's more than satisfied the Bloc/NDP leaners I've spoken to.
[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: montrealais ]
Sun, 2008-10-19 23:37
#13
quote:
Originally posted by montrealais:
[b]But we don't. The Sherbrooke Declaration, which we adopted by a 95% majority at the 2006 Convention, explicitly states that our standard for a Quebec referendum is 50%+1 on a question to be set by the National Assembly. That's more than satisfied the Bloc/NDP leaners I've spoken to.[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: montrealais ][/b]
IIRC, the Sherbrooke Declaration was surprisingly silent on the Clarity Act. You're right, it's main tenet was that it supported a 50%+1 definition of a referendum win. But with all the specific problems that people in Quebec have with the Clarity Act, Sherbrooke was not exactly a major departure from the NDP's previously schizophrenic attitudes on Quebec, self-determination, and the Clarity Act.
The Clarity Act should be thrown out, or radically changed.
[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: skarredmunkey ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:17
#14
M. Spector
quote:
As in past elections, the New Democratic Party was not a serious contender in Quebec, largely because of its perception as a Canadian nationalist party. Although its platform claimed to recognize “the national character of Quebec” and opposed federal spending on “new programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction”, its proposals on “Canadian federalism” were little more than bromides about such things as the “unique role and responsibilities of the Quebec National Assembly”. Among its “key priorities” were support for “Our Canadian Cultural Identity”, with no reference to the need to defend the French language and culture.In fact, when Impйratif franзais, a French language rights group, polled the federal parties on their views during the campaign, neither the NDP nor any of its candidates responded — while the Bloc provided detailed answers describing its own record and making concrete proposals for positive measures at the federal level.
The NDP undermined its own memberships’ convention resolutions in support of Quebec’s right of self-determination when its MPs voted in 2000 to support the Chrйtien-Dion “Clarity Act”, giving Ottawa the power to override a Quebec referendum vote for secession. That decision, which shocked many Quйbйcois, continues to block the party’s electoral prospects in Quebec. Its only victory this year was the re-election of one MP, an Anglophone ex-Liberal running in a multicultural Montrйal riding.
The NDP in Quebec lacks the identification with the trade unions that it has in English Canada. The Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ), the largest union central, endorsed the Bloc and some Bloc candidates were prominent FTQ activists. A four-page pamphlet explaining the FTQ’s position stated that the choice in the October 14 election was “between two diametrically opposed visions of society”.
“Despite the nice words on the recognition of Quebec as a ‘nation’, none of the federalist parties in Ottawa — and especially not the Conservatives — has undertaken to entrench this in the Canadian constitution. Without that commitment, all the motions voted in Ottawa are just symbolic.
“The Bloc’s presence in Ottawa shows that English Canada is still not prepared to accept in fact that Quebec is a nation....”
[b]Events in the last five decades have demonstrated over and over that Quebec workers, as they develop political consciousness, do so in a nationalist context that sees Quebec sovereignty as the framework for resolving their social problems.[/b] This has important implications for the left in both Quebec and English Canada.
[url=http://lifeonleft.blogspot.com/2008/10/election-2008-quebec-lefts-challe... more...[/url]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:28
#15
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Read more... [/b]
Why?
There's not a relevant fact to be found on that blog, and the opinions are clearly overblown at best. Suffice it to say that the typical voter has never analyzed history through this man's Marxist lens.
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:43
#16
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Suffice it to say that the typical voter has never analyzed history through this man's Marxist lens.[/b]
That observation hardly "suffices".
The fact that the voters themselves are not Marxists is no reason why a Marxist cannot analyze the results of the election.
Maybe you could make a more substantive criticism, rather than just puttting a dismissive label on the writer?
Mon, 2008-10-20 09:52
#17
quote:
Originally posted by skarredmunkey:
[b]
The Clarity Act should be thrown out, or radically changed.
[/b]
Why bother? It doesn't actually [i]do[/i] anything.
Mon, 2008-10-20 10:07
#18
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]That observation hardly "suffices".The fact that the voters themselves are not Marxists is no reason why a Marxist cannot analyze the results of the election.
Maybe you could make a more substantive criticism, rather than just puttting a dismissive label on the writer?[/b]
He consistently comes to his own conclusions and then extends them to being the perceptions of others (at minimum the trade union movement, often the general population).
Mon, 2008-10-20 15:48
#19
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
[b]Why bother? [The Clarity Act] doesn't actually [i]do[/i] anything.[/b]
No, it just says that Quebeckers are infantile idiots who can't formulate or understand a question relating to their own future and can't be trusted to vote without being vetted and monitored by some smarter people from, errr, Ontario.
What does Quйbec want, anyway? Bunch of spoiled ingrates, eh?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 15:54
#20
quote:
What does Quйbec want, anyway?
I've waited a lifetime for an answer!
Mon, 2008-10-20 15:58
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I've waited a lifetime for an answer![/b]
If only they were honest and straightforward like you real Canadians in Ontario. Oh well. Let me know when your wait is over.
Mon, 2008-10-20 16:03
#22
Krystalline Kraus
quote:
What does Quйbec want, anyway?
I'm sorry, that question isn't quite CLEAR enough, can you rephrase? [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
and what the hell is a "Quebecker" anyway?
Do they ask a lot of questions about Becker's milk?
[ 20 October 2008: Message edited by: statica ]
Mon, 2008-10-20 16:06
#23
Krystalline Kraus
quote:
No, it just says that Quebeckers are infantile idiots who can't formulate or understand a question relating to their own future and can't be trusted to vote without being vetted and monitored by some smarter people from, errr, Ontario.
oh ya....oh ya....well why does a "Quebecker" sound like he's saying the word EGG when you punch them in the stomach?
Mon, 2008-10-20 19:07
#24
[url=http://www.ftq.qc.ca/modules/nouvelles/nouvelle.php?id=1786&langue=fr]The General Council of the FTQ recommends voting for the Bloc:[/url]
quote:
The Bloc has defended our values and the interests of Quebec in Ottawa."We have a surfeit of reasons to support the Bloc Quebecois which has been a faithful ally in the House of Commons of Quebec workers, the unemployed and the poorest people. No other party has so defended our values and the interests of Quebec in Ottawa."
[url=http://www.ftq.qc.ca/librairies/sfv/telecharger.php?fichier=5228]Why the FTQ recommends support for the Bloc.[/url]
quote:
The Federal Election of 14 October will undoubtedly be the most important in a long time because the choice will be between two diametrically opposed visions of society.In Quebec, the choice will be between the Bloc and the Conservatives.
The workers of Quebec will have the choice between a right-wing party centered on the values of individualism, laissez-faire economics and militarism, a party favoring the more affluent, and a social democratic party based on the values of solidarity and fairness between generations, a party with a "bias in favour of the workers."
Wed, 2008-10-22 02:53
#25
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
[b]Why bother? It doesn't actually [i]do[/i] anything.[/b]
The Clarity Act does have the potential to do something, specifically
[LIST][*]to give the federal government the upper hand in determining whether or not people in Quebecois know what they are voting on.[*]to determine what the referendum question should look like before or after the referendum takes place.[*]to dictate "terms of secession" to Quebec[*]giving the House of Commons enormous powers over what constitutes a "majority" and what constitutes a "clear will"[*]giving provinces and even political parties a large and undue role in the negotiations process and the terms of secession[*]a role for the senate[*]to give the federal government an unfair advantage by allowing them to factor in such things as % of eligible vote and "any other matter" it deems important.[/LIST]It's a complete bastardization of self-determination norms in international law and the Secession Reference.
Wed, 2008-10-22 04:50
#26
Thanks, skarredmunkey, for having more patience than I did with an ignorant post.
Wed, 2008-10-22 05:20
#27
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
Originally posted by skarredmunkey:
[b]It's a complete bastardization of self-determination norms in international law and the Secession Reference.[/b]
Is it?
quote:
(a) In international practice there is no recognition of a unilateral right to secede based on a majority vote of the population of a sub-division or territory, whether or not that population constitutes one or more "peoples" in the ordinary sense of the word. In international law, self-determination for peoples or groups within an independent state is achieved by participation in the political system of the state, on the basis of respect for its territorial integrity.(b) Even where there is a strong and sustained call for independence (measured, for example, by referenda results showing substantial support for independence), it is a matter for the government of the state concerned to consider how to respond. It is not required to concede independence in such a case, but may take into account the national interest and the interests of all those concerned.
(c) Even in the context of separate colonial territories, unilateral secession was the exception. Self-determination was in the first instance a matter for the colonial government to implement; only if it was blocked by that government did the United Nations support unilateral secession. [b]Outside the colonial context, the United Nations is extremely reluctant to admit a seceding entity to membership against the wishes of the government of the state from which it has purported to secede. There is no case since 1945 where it has done so.[/b]
Where the parent state agrees to allow a territory to separate and become independent, the terms on which separation is agreed between the parties concerned will be respected, and if independence is achieved under such an agreement, rapid admission to the United Nations will follow. But where the government of the state concerned has maintained its opposition to unilateral secession, such secession has attracted virtually no international support or recognition.
(d) This pattern is reflected in the so-called "safeguard" clause in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970. In accordance with this clause, a state whose government represents the whole people on a basis of equality complies with the principle of self-determination in respect of all of its people and is entitled to the protection of its territorial integrity. The people of such a state exercise the right of self-determination through their equal participation in its system of government.
[url=http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/97crawford.htm]source[/url]
The Clarity Act is a recognition of the enormity of the problem of rending the nation. Further, I see the Clarity Act as an attempt (if imperfect) to balance the needs of the so-called 'Rest of Canada', the possibility of a legal and peaceful secession in Quebec, and the fact of a large minority within the province who would prefer to remain in Canada.
[b]There is no international law to follow.[/b] Thus the need for some blueprint, as we have determined that we are ready to accept that Quebec has a right to self-determination. That right exists only within the Canadian context. In much of the rest of the world, it is probably viewed as a very exclusive privilege they enjoy.
I am neither disputing that right, nor claiming that the right balance was struck with the Clarity Act. But I am saying that agreed upon rules are required, and that it is better than nothing - and not horribly bad for a first attempt.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]
Wed, 2008-10-22 05:35
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]
The Clarity Act is a recognition of the enormity of the problem of rending the nation. [/b]
Which "nation" is that?
And have you noticed that the "Clarity Act" was adopted by Canada - not Quйbec? And that all Quйbec political parties reject it?
It's nice to have foreigners looking after our interests and making sure we don't fuck up.
It's especially heartwarming, as a Quйbec anglophone, to know that there are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in Toronto Ottawa who will protect my interests and other minorities against the savage backward ignorant majority in Quйbec.
I would actually like to thank you personally, LTJ, for taking time out of your busy schedule to worry about my rights. Where would I be without you?
Oh wait, the Clarity Act was sponsored by that paragon of Canadian wisdom - the man who has his finger on the pulse of Canadians and Quebeckers alike - the great and universally respected, Steve Dion!
I take back all my sarcasm, without exception.
Teach us clarity, o ye mighty non-Quebeckers! Save us from ourselves! Deliver unto us freedom, enlightenment, and democracy!
Aw shit, there goes the sarcasm thingy again.
Wed, 2008-10-22 05:40
#29
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Nothing much to respond to, without being trite and insulting in return.
Wed, 2008-10-22 05:46
#30
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Nothing much to respond to, without being trite and insulting in return.[/b]
This is simple. Either Canada has a right to veto Quйbec secession, or it doesn't. Where do you stand, in one or two words?
Wed, 2008-10-22 05:50
#31
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Shall we play a game of false dilemmas?
Would you like me to cut off your hand, or your foot?
Wed, 2008-10-22 07:17
#32
I don't understand, Lard. A state is not a human being.
Indйpendantistes in Quйbec don't want to "rend" your nation - they want what they see as their own nation. And ALL Quйbec political parties, whether federalist or sovereignist, agree that in any event it is our decision.
We do not belong to you. That applies as much to the QuйbйcoisEs who favour free membership in a federal state as those who oppose it.
Wed, 2008-10-22 07:43
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Shall we play a game of false dilemmas?Would you like me to cut off your hand, or your foot?[/b]
I'll take that as a "no, Quebeckers do not have a right to self-determination without interference by non-Quebeckers". Now we can agree to disagree. And now you, and others, can deepen your understanding as to why various political formations have never have any influence in Quйbec despite decades of effort.
Is it an inherent flaw of human nature - that we can always recognize and sympathize when people are treated with condescension, disrespect, marginalization, disenfranchisement, oppression, exploitation, enslavement - [b][i]except when the guilty parties are us?[/i][/b]
Wed, 2008-10-22 07:45
#34
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
These games are silly. You can deny my nation as artificial, and I yours as imaginary, but respect would get us all further.
Wed, 2008-10-22 07:56
#35
Lard, I said no such thing. That was Lucien Bouchard's stupid comment about English Canada, and I'm not Lucien Bouchard, nor have I ever voted for him. (though all states, and all nations, are "artificial" to some extent).
But yes, this does sound curiously like a denial of the right to self-determination.
Wed, 2008-10-22 08:04
#36
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Semantic games again. Anyone denying separation would rend my nation asunder is simply denying its existence.
Wed, 2008-10-22 08:37
#37
Well personally I find the "my nation" stuff a bit hard to take whether referring to Canada or to Quйbec. They don't belong to you or me; they belong to rich guys (and some gals) in bespoke suits.
Wed, 2008-10-22 08:43
#38
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Is it an inherent flaw of human nature - that we can always recognize and sympathize when people are treated with condescension, disrespect, marginalization, disenfranchisement, oppression, exploitation, enslavement - [b][i]except when the guilty parties are us?[/i][/b][/b]
Well said. Quebec of course should have the right to secede but the devil will always be in the details. If you think there are no details to negotiate if the people decide to separate then you are mistaken IMO. Like who owns the federal buildings and the federal debt and whose army is it in Quebec anyway. These are real issues not imaginary ones.
As a BC'er I see the problem being the Quebec people choosing separation and then the Ontario and Quebec MP's cutting the baby in half. The idea that their is a rest of Canada in a separation scenario is rather absurd. At that point in time there will be very strong regional and cultural interests that need to be in play and they are not just those of Quebec.
Wed, 2008-10-22 08:56
#39
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
quote:
But yes, this does sound curiously like a denial of the right to self-determination.
How so? Where do you think you can read that into anything I have said?
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:00
#40
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Quebec of course should have the right to secede but the devil will always be in the details. If you think there are no details to negotiate if the people decide to separate then you are mistaken IMO.[/b]
There are always details to negotiate in life. But is the sovereignty of both parties contingent on the successful prior resolution of those details?
Anyway, the Clarity Act doesn't deal with those details. It says that Canada will decide how and when Quйbec can secede. That stand is unacceptable for progressive people. It is the very reason I left the NDP in the 1970s (in addition to: contempt for membership decisions as expressed in convention).
I believe that the interests of the Canadian people, and the people of Quйbec, are best served within a federation. But I will enthusiastically side with the separatists against anyone who denies the reality of our nation and its unfettered right to determine its own destiny.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:06
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]How so? Where do you think you can read that into anything I have said?[/b]
You claim to "not dispute" Quйbec's right to self-determination (whatever you may mean by that phrase), but then say:
quote:
[b]But I am saying that agreed upon rules are required, and that it is better than nothing - and not horribly bad for a first attempt.[/b]
Wrong. The Quйbec people never agreed to enter Confederation in 1867; they never agreed to the Constitution in 1982; and they do not require your agreement to get out.
Besides the fact, as you may or may not have noticed, that the Clarity Act is "agreed upon" by precisely no Quйbec political party. So far from being a "good start", the Clarity Act is an insulting and condescending piece of crap. It stands as the ultimate condemnation of Steve Dion as being an ignoramus in human and political matters.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:23
#42
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Wow. So very, very wrong. In the first place:
quote:
When the vote was taken in the Legislative Assembly of the United Province of Canada on the Confederation project, about 40% of the members from Quebec voted against it. Nearly half of the newspapers of the province were opposed to Confederation. This not only reflects the great reluctance of Quebecers for Confederation but also supports the idea that the majority rallied behind Confederation, albeit without enthusiasm.
And as for 1982, the majority of Quebec's members of parliament voted in favor of repatriation. The fact that a separatist government refused to sign on in the end surprised no one. That said, the only reason the negotiations were opened was because Levesque had signed onto the original agreement for repatriation.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:41
#43
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
So, to clarify, unionist:
You believe that Canada should allow Quebec to dictate all terms of separation?
And that creating a prior framework/agreement for negotiation of that possibility is both unnecessary and oppressive?
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:43
#44
Great, LTJ, you have solved the Quйbec problem. I do need to congratulate you on your achievement. It has proved so intractable for so long.
Now perhaps you can work on how Aboriginal people have acquiesced in the abandonment of their hereditary rights, "albeit without enthusiasm".
Meanwhile, just keep on demonstrating, through your posts, why Quebeckers feel the way they do.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:46
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]So, to clarify, unionist:
You believe that Canada should allow Quebec to dictate all terms of separation? [/b]
No, I said negotiations between sovereign nations and states are always necessary. What I said is that if you try to stop Quйbec from seceding unilaterally, buy lots of life insurance first.
quote:
[b]And that creating a prior framework/agreement for negotiation of that possibility is both unnecessary and oppressive?[/b]
Do much bafflegab? Quйbec has a right to secede, tomorrow, period, without preconditions. "Creating a prior framework/agreement" is wonderful. If done unilaterally (like your precious beloved Clarity Act), buy more life insurance.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:52
#46
Lard Tunderin Jeezus
Insults [b]and[/b] threats?
Guess I'm outta here.
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:55
#47
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
[b]Insults [b]and[/b] threats?Guess I'm outta here.[/b]
Seceding? So soon?
Wed, 2008-10-22 09:55
#48
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Canada will decide how and when Quйbec can secede. That stand is unacceptable for progressive people. It is the very reason I left the NDP in the 1970s (in addition to: contempt for membership decisions as expressed in convention).[/b]
That's very interesting. I'm not disputing your perception. I would, however, like to know:
- when in the 1970s the NDP denied, in your view, Quebec's right of self-determination.
- what specific contempt or contempts for convention decisions the NDP (I assume you mean the caucus) showed in the 1970s that drove you out of the party.
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:05
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
That's very interesting. I'm not disputing your perception. I would, however, like to know:- when in the 1970s the NDP denied, in your view, Quebec's right of self-determination.[/b]
[url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/Infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=118&art=681]My pleasure:[/url]
quote:
At a federal convention in Ottawa in 1971, the Quebec delegation wanted to obtain recognition for Quebec's right to self-determination. They were supported by the Party's radical wing, the Waffle Group. The resolution was rejected by a vote of 2 to 1, and the Party reaffirmed its faith in a united Canada. The new leader, David Lewis, said that the NPD-Quйbec and the Waffle would have to accept Party policy as decided by the convention.The NPD-Quйbec included self-determination in its platform during the 1972 federal elections, and was repudiated by the federal Party.
I tore up my card soon afterwards, although this was far from the sole reason.
quote:
[b]- what specific contempt or contempts for convention decisions the NDP (I assume you mean the caucus) showed in the 1970s that drove you out of the party.[/b]
I'm talking about the Manitoba NDP of that period. If you definitely need me to dig back into the memory banks, I'll do so. But why should I, when the disconnect between convention and caucus has continued, provincially and federally, to this very day?
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:31
#50
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]the disconnect between convention and caucus has continued, provincially and federally, to this very day?[/b]
As New Democrats have talked about at great length ever since 1961, and Saskatchewan CCF members talked about at great length ever since 1944.
A resolution was introduced annually at conventions after the 1944 victory demanding that all deputy ministers who were not CCF members be fired, on the theory that they were sabotaging the government's programme. If I'm not mistaken, it passed at least once. Douglas refused, of course.
I was never a member of Ontario's party/caucus liaison committee, but I saw its reports during the 1970s (I think it was) and perhaps 1980s which wrestled with this issue, looking for a definitive statement on just how bound caucus should be by convention decisions. I think they gave up. I have no easy answer either.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]
Wed, 2008-10-22 10:40
#51
remind
Frankly, I think it is time we started discussing self-determination for the west, as well as Quebec. As personally, I am sick and tired of the provinces of ON and PQ, determining our fate out here. Hell, let's break up the whole country, that way everyone's distinct cultural integrity would remain intact.. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]