🚀 go-pugleaf

Fawzi (fawzi@vir.com) wrote:
: In article (Dans l�article) <51usd9$1v1@hendrix.postino.com>,
: danny@hendrix.postino.com (Danny Aldham) wrote (�crivait)�:
: > 
: > : If there ever is violence, bigots like you who can't make the difference
: > : between a simple change of political status and throwing violent comments,
: > : will be to blame.
: > : And people like you, and the one before you, who hunger for violence and
: > : want to kick ass before even trying to understand what motivates the other
: > : side, are the most dangerous threat to the integrity of your precious
: > : nation, either with or without Quebec...
: > : Try to think about it without bursting to many braincells... 
: 
: 
: > I don't know where you get any of these ideas from my post. I was trying
: > to calmly and rationally discuss a real possibility.
: 
: I don't know how you can possibly discuss calmly and rationally about what
: you consider a real possibility.
: 
: First, what you don't seem to realize, and this is what is so infuriating,
: is that by considering it a real possibility and by spreading that idea,
: you are making it a possibility.
: And to give you a very simple example: No one would have thought of making
: a bomb from an atom, if no one would have considered it a real
: possibility.
: 
: Second, by making such statements you and others who think like you, are
: implicitely making threats.
: What M.Pickell stated is as close as you can get to the "Go ahead, make my
: day!" type of statement.  And you seem to agree with him.
: But you are a bit more devious in your statement... You're saying:"Well,
: Quebec wants to become an independant state?  Well you know it could mean
: war don't you?"

Are we discussing whether Quebec should separate or what might happen if
Quebec separates? I hear wires crossing here...
In the former instance, threatening conflict in the event of separation is
the same kind of dastardly scare-tactics that nearly cost the No side a
victory in what should have been a cakewalk last October. In the latter,
conflict is a worst-case potential outcome, but just as legitimate and as
worthy of consideration here as peaceful separation, the best-case outcome
of a Yes vote.
I'm barging into this thread under the assumption that we're discussing
the latter. To be honest, I'm sick of discussing whether Qu�bec should
separate. My interest here is in the situation when the die is cast, not
whether it should be cast.
: 
: Please compare what is comparable.  You are comparing Canada with a
: conflict that's over a century old and with countries who've had centuries
: of animosity and conflicts.

If there wasn't a long-standing conflict in Canada, the sovereignty debate
would most certainly not be taking place...

: In Canada we have always, in the modern era, resolved our conflicts in
: respect and in democracy.  And always the results of our democratic
: processes have been respected.

Yes, thank God. But when you throw something entirely revolutionary into
the mix, i.e. separation, all bets about how Canada and Qu�bec work are
off. To most intents and purposes, past behavior goes out the window as an
effective way to predict the process. We can only guess at the outcomes:
how much anti-Qu�bec animosity will there be in the rest of the country
after separation? How will the negotiations over debt, federal territory,
defense and trade agreements and currency work out? How will the natives
of northern Qu�bec respond?
If these things work as they so often have in the past - by negotiation
- then so much the better. This is what the Yes side tried to sell in
October: stability and tradition. "Oui et �a devient possible." But
predicting possible conflict - Canada/Qu�bec or First nations/Qu�bec - is
just as legitimate a prognostication as predicting a peaceful negotiated
settlement, because we have no precedent for an action of this magnitude.
When we talk about possible outcomes, we're not trying to scare a result
out of anybody (OK, at least I'm not - I admit that this was a tactic used
by the No side in OCtober, one that backfired nearly fatally): we're
trying to find a place for this event in our thinking.

 : And again, it is by comparing us with absurd situations that you
are : promoting the idea that the possibility of war applies to Canada.

Calling an outcome absurd is not a defence. It sounds more like an
unwillingness to consider something for fear it might happen. I think that
when we look at "Oui et �a devient possible," we have to take it at face
value. Yes and _everything_ becomes possible, not just the peaceful and
happy outcomes predicted by the Oui camp. 

If sovereignty happens, speaking as a future Quebecer (I plan to move
there in two or three years),I pray that all of the sovereigntist
predictions about a rosy future come true. But I can't help but wonder
"what if..."

: The issue of sovereignty is not what made my emotions "boil over".  What
: did is that there is people like you who actually believe that a change of
: political status of a portion of your country makes war a possibility.
: Quebecers of a sovereign Quebec will not go out and strangle your children
: and rape your wives for heaven sakes!  It will change absolutely nothing
: to the way you live: There won't be less money in your pocket, you'll
: still have your home, you'll still feel canadian.  So what's the big deal?
: Quebecers won't close down english schools or close down english radio
: stations, every acquired right of any minority in a sovereign Quebec is to
: be respected...  So again what's the big deal?

Like I said, this is one outcome, and definitely the best-case scenario.
But unless you've got a crystal ball, it's not necessarily the future. All
bets are off after a Yes. The kind of certainty you express is admirable
as an example of belief in your cause, but sincerity and hope are not
guarantees. Sadly, there are none.
 : 
: > As a father, war is the last thing in 
: > the world I would want to see. But I do not believe that talking about war 
: > makes it more likely.
: 
: It does.

Refusing to talk about it does not make it less likely. The spectre of
conflict will cloud this issue in the minds of many, whether we want it to
or not.

-- 
__________________________________________
Tim Shoults
News Editor, University of Alberta Gateway
(403) 492-1483, Fax (403) 492-4643   
http://www.ualberta.ca/~tshoults
------------------------------------------