NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/can/politics/9719

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky can.politics:9719 soc.culture.canada:8549
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!sparta.uwaterloo.ca!tdwebste
From: [e-mail] (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject:  Re: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:21:56 GMT
Lines: 113

In article <13485@audetf> [e-mail] (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
>>Your parallel does not correspond.
>
>Of course it corresponds.

I provided the bases behind my oppinion in the two paragraphs that
followed. How can you expect me to see your point it you don't provide
bases for your oppinion?

>>The separation of Quebec from Canada would break Canada up, so Canada
>>would nolonger exist. Two new countries would be formed neither of which
>>is Canada. If one part maintained the name it still would not be Canada.

My point was what the new countries would not enjoy any of the power and
benefits of the previous one.

>I can argue that before the british decided to steal Canada from the
>french, Canada WAS what is now Quebec (and even Ontario and the
>Maritimes). It didn't stop them from using the word "canada" for the
>new country.

What was the purpose of these statements? Are you trying to dig up
history to justify your ill feelings towards anglophones. This sort of
retorric (sp) is the cause many wars and much unrest. Let the past rest
with the dead! Lets remember who stoled the land from the indians. Based
on your logic every right claim for yourself, you must also give to all
indians. I doubt that you would like to see Oka as an independent state
with its own armed forces. The only solution for all of us is to adjust
to the present situation in our world.

[....]

>I see only one possible solution, that could be one any of the two
>sides of the "independance" issue. A strong centralized federal
>government will not work for Quebec. It's up to the other province to
>decide if they share enough in common to make such a system work for
>them. Assymetrical federalism would be the only hope for a unified
>Canada if the other provinces decide that they need such a unity in
>Canada, a unity that Quebec is not interested to.

What is assymetric federalism? Why does Quebec need this? Canada is a
diverse country with large and small minority groups. Any provisions for
minorities should not be done on case by case bases. However general
provisions should be set out to allow them to seek their own destiny.
Case by case allowances leads to over regulation and unfair treatment of
some minority groups.

(I want to your justification for this request.) Provisions for cultural
development are understood. (how much power does Quebec need to protect
its culture.)

>If, on the other
>hand, the other provinces decide that the Confederation of Province
>approach is more appropriate, then a major decentralization of power
>to the provinces will be needed.

As I see it the shareholders of Quebec Inc are not pleased with the
management of the holding company and feel they can be as productive
on there own. (I have used these terms because Quebec's demands go
beyond cultural and show heavy economic overtones.) Please feel free to
correct me.

[....]
>the current trend continues. CSQ underestimated greately the feeling
>of alienation that took over quebecois after the rejection of Meech.

For the reason why Meech lake failed, I refer you to case by case
allowances. It is CSQ oppinion that Meech lake Agreement was flawed.
Many people did support eventhough it was flawed. This feeling of
alienation is sad. Soon misunderstanding leads to intolerance.
(Act 1, Meech) Mulroney rolles the dice, "DAM!, snake eyes"
He becomes the most distained P.M in ever. Wonders why all of Canada is
not dumb enough to be fooled by his lies.
(Act 2, CA, better document) Mulroney lies again. How could it be he
gasp, "snake eyes again"
(Act 3, Stay turn for more botched bungling)

>It is not forgotten. The other possible side of the solution  would be
>a smooth transition to independance, with of course major cooperation
>between the two on grounds of common interest. This is a sort of
>extreme assymetrical federalism. Personnaly, I think that this option
>will eventually prevail, but I am not shutting the door to the other
>ennumerated, provided that they are done well.

You believe a smooth transition to independance is possible?!
CSQs (Canada sans Quebec separatist) just doesn't see it that way.
Don't kid yourself there is no such thing.

>>I also agree that blaming Quebec for all the problems of Canada is a
>>little rediculous. Just as rediculous is Quebec blaming all of its
>>problems on Canada.
>
>RIdiculous indeed.

[....]

Purhaps we are getting somewhere. We agree on this.

I believe in controlled anarchism. Where everyone can seek their own
destiny provided you don't impose it onto someone who doesn't want it.
Laws are used to stem corruption and punish acts against society.
Regulations are few and applied uniformly, most importantly can be
repeal when they out live their value.

This is a little simplistic. However maybe it is a time for some
carefull thought. Complex problems aways have many solutions. Think
before you decided that you have found the only one "separation".

-Tim.


I SPEAK FOR MYSELF.