🚀 go-pugleaf

In article (Dans l�article) <522qkd$9hq@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
tshoults@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca (Tim Shoults) wrote (�crivait)�:

> Fawzi (fawzi@vir.com) wrote:
> : In article (Dans l�article) <51usd9$1v1@hendrix.postino.com>,
> : danny@hendrix.postino.com (Danny Aldham) wrote (�crivait)�:
 
> 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.

I feel your point of view is slightly biased here, and of course I don't
share it.

> 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.

It will be the outcome (I mean peaceful, if there ever is sovereignty for
Quebec), if people stop thinking of it as a best-case outcome, but as the
only case outcome.

<...>
> : 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...

The person was comparing this conflict with Ireland or Bosnia.  I live in
Montreal and have never seen a thrown rock or a violent protest. 
Journalists from all over the world have returned home with their tails
between their legs, because they had almost nothing to report during the
whole referendum campaign.  This is very far from a vicious conflict.

 
> : 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?

It will all depend on the sense of responsibility of our politicians :-/. 
As they have put the word separation in your mouth, they also spread the
view of a country's destruction.
Separation is a means sovereignty or independance is the end.  And it is
to denigrate that end that politicians have reduced it to separation or
destruction of a country or whatever else euphemism, when all it is, is a
change of political status with economic ties maintained.
The state of Qu�bec already has almost all of the constituants of a
country, except its sovereignty.  So it won't change much for canadians
(...If complete free trade and economic ties are maintained of course, but
I wouldn't want someone to see implications of a threat here...).


> How will the negotiations over debt, federal territory,
> defense and trade agreements and currency work out?

Like any negotiation with a neighbouring state.  With some agreements and
some disagreements, and we don't see the american army invading BC because
of disagreements on wood trading.
Canadians have always been highly civilized, I don't see why that should
change. 

> How will the natives
> of northern Qu�bec respond?

If things are put back in perspective to them, peacefuly I'm sure.  How is
being a nation inside the country of Canada different from being a nation
inside the country of Quebec.  Do native people feel that canadian?
But, that is a whole other issue.  That would certainly require its own thread.

<...>
 
> 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..."

You're already using 8 bit caracters to put an accent on the "e" of Qu�bec
even before coming here, which in my opinion denotes a certain respect for
french. (Not that if you hadn't put an accent would mean less respect but
an accent is always nice to hear...)
And this respect for things that surround them is chararcteristic of
canadians; justice, rights and freedom, institutions, democracy.  And this
is part of our comon heritage and no political outcome is going to change
that.  So, not to worry...


<...>
> 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.

The garantees are democracy and respect for law and justice.  And the kind
of comment your making here sounds vaguely like a politicians comment
implying that even the values I stated above won't hold after an eventual
Yes win.  And to imply that is simply demagogic.


> : > 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.
<...>

You (conveniently?) cut out the rest of my post where I explain how it
does.  So here it is again.

"Because when you evoke the possibility of it based on the result of a
democratic vote.  You're implicitely making a threat.
And what's more you give justification to those who do not want to respect
the democratic vote of the people.  You're telling them that if they
respect the choice, that the people will have democraticaly made, war
might be a possibility.
Thus your comments are calling for a non-respect of democracy, which is a
very good premice to war."

And the question is not to refuse to talk about it.  But to refuse to
consider it a possibility, because it is blowing the sovereignty issue
completely out of proportion.  And making the concept more acceptable to
many who still feel (as I do) that such a possibility is unthinkable (war
that is, not sovereignty).
And the only reason I can think of to evoke such a possibility is either
to threaten, or to pursue stupidly this distateful, irresponsible, and
disloyal scare tactic. 

Fawzi

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