🚀 go-pugleaf

In article (Dans l�article) <542mk8$afi@Vir.com>, atp@vir.com (Michael
Mell) wrote (�crivait)�:


> You mocked my statement that there is no right of a nation to
> democratically secede a political unit from a sovereign nation.  You
> believe that as a 'nation' you have this right only by sheer will of a
> majority in this unit.

Exactly.

<...> 
> You yourself would have to agree that should Quebec gain a sudden
> inflow of immigrants, and if these immigrants did not associate
> themselves with your 'nation', as most do not,  that it would shift
> the majority against separation, probably forever.

That is not my main concern.  Wether they associate with the nation or not
is irrelevent.  What is, is that they learn and use french thus insuring
the survival of a francophone nation within north america.  That is what
is most important, the rest is politics.
 
> Although you have not allowed any other group in Canada to be called a
> nation, with the possible exception of the Acadians, we'll ignore the
> potentially racist and obvious arrogance of the statement and accept
> the premise in general and apply it.  

Avant de me traiter de raciste tu devrais citer exactement ce que j'ai
dit, je risquerais de te traiter de menteur.

 
> It would imply that any group which decides to call themselves a
> nation in Quebec could therefore apply the same formula and break from
> Quebec.  In your own words you've granted this right to the Indians
> once they've negotiated from Quebec what would be their lands.

Un groupe ne peut pas d�cider de s'appeler lui-m�me une nation, il en est
une ou il n'en est pas une.  La nation r�sulte d'un fait... pas de la
d�cision d'un groupe.

 
> For what is the partition of Quebec but the separation of political
> units from a higher government.  Any differences with the separation
> of Quebec from Canada can only be rhetorical.
> 
> The partition of Quebec.  The partition of Canada.  Breakups hither
> and yon all based on a majority ethnic population in any particular
> area at any particular time.
> 
> Since this ideology means, by definition, the destruction of any
> stable political unit there is no country in the world that would
> accept it.

Tu bases tout �a en pr�tendant qu'un groupe "d�cide" ou ne d�cide pas
d'�tre une nation.  Comme si c'�tait un acte d�lib�r�.  On est ou on est
pas une nation.  Et il est question ici du droit des nations de
s'auto-d�terminer, pas des groupes ou des r�gions.

 
> Let's recap.
> 
> 1. You call yourself a 'nation' but refuse to recognize any other
> group with the exception of the Indians and possible the Acadians even
> if this group has had ancestors here in the New World for as long as
> you.

Je n'ai jamais dit �a.

> 2. You believe that any country with has a 'nation' unit defined
> within can be subject to a simple vote by that 'nation' to secede from
> the sovereign nation.

Oui.

> Anyone who feels strongly about their country, whether it be Canada,
> France, Russia, or Nigeria should strongly oppose you.  Your formula
> will seek to disrupt any stable political unit.  Applied, it would
> have devastating and long term affects on any ability to grown and
> develop a stable economy.

Pas si les gens ont la maturit� de laisser aller un peu de leur
souverainet� et de se n�gocier des associations �conomiques et politiques.
Comme le fait l'Europe en ce moment.


> The only way in which this model can be applied would be to limit the
> 'nations' country to only those of the nation.  In this way there
> could never be vote to separate the country again.
> 
> Read it again.  In order to establish a stable regime you must make
> your nation pure.   The stability of your new Quebec relies on the
> purity of the French race in your borders.  Those who do not recognize
> themselves as part of your 'nation' could, by applying your formula
> for separation, break up your country.

Ta supposition est compl�tement capot�e.  Les groupes ethniques qui
appartiennent � une nation et qui ne sont pas des nations comme telles
font partie de la nation.  Elles assurent sa richesse culturelle, etc.

 
> Separation isn't racist by definition.  But your formula for
> separation smacks of the worst racism ever demonstrated on the planet.
> 
> Racist.


Tu r�alises que tu attribues �a � 60% des francophones qu�b�cois.  Alors
tu crois vraiment que 6 francophones sur dix que tu croises dans la vie de
tous les jours sont racistes?
Tu insultes en basant tes justifications sur des suppositions que tu
inventes et auxquelles tu croies.  C'est compl�tement capot�.  Surtout que
je n'ai jamais rien dit qui puisses appuyer ta fabulation.  T'as tout
invent� �a tout seul?
Bon, pis je continue pas sur le reste, tu poursuis dans ta fabulation...




Et ce qui est le plus triste ici, c'est que les anglophones qu�b�cois
sains d'esprit qui lisent �a savent que c'est faux.
Et pourtant ils ne disent rien, ils laissent faire ces gens qui
construisent pierre par pierre une muraille d'animosit� fond�e sur le
mensonge entre nous.  Et ce faisant, ils se rendent aussi coupables qu'eux
devant cette dangereuse propagande faite de mensonge et de haine qui
grandit entre nos deux communaut�s.

Je ne demande pas qu'on d�fende la souverainet�, mais que quand un
imb�cile appartenant � une communaut� excr�te un mensonge diffamant. 
Qu'il y ait des gens de cette m�me communaut� qui le d�mentent, au lieu
d'accepter passivement, ce qu'on sait �tre un mensonge.




Fawzi.