🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fawzi-1710961421490001@news1.vir.com>, fawzi@vir.com (Fawzi) writes:
>In article (Dans l�article) <DzBy98.6rs@blaze.trentu.ca>,
>rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote (�crivait)�:

You again Fawzi?  I'm trying to celebrate :)!!

>> It's not a justification of democracy- using your logic, I could return to the
>> debates where genocide could be justified by democratic consensus.  Surely
>> you're not advocating that, if the majority of Quebecers wish to use you as a
>> guinea pig and inject you with the ebola virus for testing, that it's a valid
>> decision.  No, democracy didn't become before individual rights- individual
>> rights came before democracy.  I suggest you have a look at the early
>> proliferation of democracy- what you're saying is "obvious" is not true
>at all.
>
>So tell me, what determines what is your individual right or not...  By
>what laws, aside from the ten commendments, are determined your individual
>rights.

Well, as it was according to thinkers like Locke, Benthem and Mill among
others, individual rights superceded government power as it related to their
maintaining their wealth, their right to maximize their pleasure, etc...  Now
of course, there are some grey areas....but their views on an issue like
citizenship would likely be very firm because moves to seize anything (whether
land, money or citizenship) by the government would infringe on their ability
to maximize their pleasure.  Even if the majority wanted to secede, such
individuals would oppose it on the principle that the government was infringing
on the rights of the individual to maximize his/her pleasure....and thus it
would be seen as evil and wrong.  So in short, if we accept this as the focus
on individual rights, only when Quebec could secede without seizing the
citizenship of Federalists, and thus diminishing their happiness without their
consent, could it respect the outcome of the vote.

Personally, I preferred John Stuart Mill- he believed that any decision which
affected the individual was for the individual, while if the individual's
decision affected the collective, then he had to obey the laws of the society. 
Again though, in such a situation, the collective could not impose it's will on
the individual unless it conformed to his own will.  So again, the answer to
whether Quebec could secede or not would be "no," although I think that J.S.
Mill's beliefs could justify partitioning areas which wished to be independent
if it didn't affect those that wish to remain.

For my part, I think that this is one issue (citizenship) that Quebec must
first negotiate before it can declare sovereignty....if for no other reason
than the fact that the vote for sovereignty isn't "overwhelming."  If 75% of
Quebecers voted to secede (in Croatia and Slovenia, the votes were over 80% to
secede), then you would convince me that Quebec could go about sovereignty
with only minor discussions on debt, assets, etc....  However, if only 55% or
so vote to secede, that still means that over 3 million would lose their
citizenship against their wishes if Quebec didn't negotiate such provisions.

>And isn't it one's individual right to have sex whenever and wherever he
>wants.  Yet, you can't have sex in the middle of the street.

That, as J.S. Mill would say, would be a situation where the individual's
actions would affect the community.

>And as for the morality of democracy, I would tend to believe that it is
>trusted that democracies have more common sense than individuals... 

Common sense is not the issue here- it's whether democracy gives society the
right to act on behalf of individuals against their wishes.  That is what we're
discussing here- whether or not democratic consensus can strip an individual of
his/her citizenship without his/her consent.  If your government decides it
wants to steal your car, and it holds a referendum to justify such a big move,
would you accept it?  Or would you demand compensation?  Or your car back?
>> 
>> Nothing provocative about calling Quebecers "an ethnic group-" it's called a
>> matter of perception!
>
>Exactly.  And it is precisely that perception, that has led Quebec to
>where it stands now.
>
So we must accept your way of looking at it?   We can't have an idea of our
own?

>> Not at all- I have eluded to your perception that Quebec is, without question,
>> a statist, Francophone existance.....and that those who happen to be quite
>> distinct themselves are condemned to something other than a nation. 
>Let's take
>> the Anglophones- in relation to the surroundings (Quebec), they speak a
>> distinct language, most have a different religion than the Francophone
>> majority, and most would say that they too have institutions to protect, and
>> are centred in specific geographic zones.  They don't actively control the
>> official gov't, but they have a political party geared to their
>representation,
>> institutions fighting for their rights (Alliance Quebec, QPAC, etc...)- all of
>> which differ considerably from the position of minorities in either Canada or
>> the US.  Now, what is your justification for denying them the status of
>nation?
>> 
>> I bet you'll say that they don't control their own state, right?  Of course, I
>> could hint at an injustice perpetrated in the Eastern Townships many
>years back
>> which maliciously ended the forming of a region/state of Quebec from
>> encompassing the Anglophone "nation."  
>
>There you go again.  You ask me a question, answer it yourself, and apply
>judgment from your own answer.  ...Interesting discussion.
>
Well, if you'd answer it differently, then go ahead and do so.  

>Now to answer your question, I'm not denying them anything.  How could I
>deny them something that they don't even ask for?

Ah....I see.

>And aside from that point, they have no legal institutions that are
>specific to their culture, they do not elect, as a minority, a sovereign
>authority, and they do not reside on a define territory that they could
>call theirs.  They are a cultural minority, just like any other minority
>in the world.
>
But do cultural minorities comprise a people, a nation?  Is everything examined
in the recognized sense- in such circumstances, unitary Spain would deny the
existance of the Basques.  Would you accept this as a relevant conclusion?

>> Which is?  Why don't you answer shortly?  ARe they a nation?  Do they have the
>> same rights as Quebec?
>
>Because there is no short answer.  And yes.  And yes, as soon as we have
>negociated as nations what is portion of the territory is theirs and what
>is ours.
>
Oh, I see.....so they are subject to negotiating with a "nation" which
outnumbers them by roughly.....100 times?  Perhaps this is why they refuse to
leave in the first place, eh?

>> But the Anglophones don't share the same language, have distinctly Anglophone
>> institutions, share a similar culture with other Anglophones throughout
>Quebec,
>> but perhaps not with Francophones, etc....  So are they not a part of the
>> Quebec nation?  Or are they against their will?  Or perhaps they are a nation
>> of their own?  
>
>I believe they are part of the Quebec nation, being contributing members
>of Quebec's culture, and being Quebec citizens.
>And it is not a question of will or not.  Are'nt sovereignists part of the
>canadian nation against their will?
>
Not according to you....they are a part of the Quebec nation within the
Canadian country.  

>> I can't...it's not in memory any longer- but I am not quizzing you so much as
>> your "nation."  Your nation's leaders have said that Northern Quebec cannot
>> secede- your opinion, if you refuse (as you have) to give it, becomes
>> irrevelant when I consider the "common interests" of your nation.
> 
>I did not refuse to give my opinion.  Again, you assume intentions from

You did earlier.....you told me to read your posts.  I cannot.  

>me, which I do not have.  I have sent an answer relative to this question,
>and strange as it may seem, I don't enjoy writing the same paragraphs over
>and over.  Perhaps a look at Dejanews would help.
>
Funny....you don't seem to mind the language issue.

>And to answer the other aspect of your question, I agree with the
>government on this point.  Until, they have negociated the portion of
>territory that is theirs to call their nation, they canot in my opinion
>seceede.  And when they do, if they do, I would just like to know why
>they'd rather function under the authority of Canada rather than Quebec's,
>that, and why they'd renounce to their sovereignty altogether.
>
The way it's been told to us, they have switched hands so many times without
their consent that they are determined to control their own destiny- and will
not be subject to the whims of a politician wishing to alter their condition
against their consent again.  Quebec has not sought their consent, and the
point of the referendum was to prevent the argument of democratic consensus
from denying them their right as a First Nation on this continent.  In short
Fawzi, forcing them to negotiate anything is the equivalent of forcing Quebec
to negotiate partition- and forcing them to justify their sovereignty, or who
they surrender it to before you let them go is the equivalent of forcing Quebec
to justify why it wishes to become sovereign.

>> But in one way or another, you often manage to equate them to those ends. 
>> Sure, in the end you remark once in a while that a Canadian has produced a
>> thoughtful post and the like- but these are one in a million.
>
>Didn't know I hit my millionth already...
>
Congrats buddy :)!
>> 
>> I don't call myself "Anglo"- at worst, I am an Anglophone....though I feel I'm
>> Canadian first and foremost without "English" as a prefix (which
>Quebecers seem
>> to love so much).
>
>Because it is language that distinguishes us... Or haven't you noticed...
>
If that's the basis of your comparison, then I'd say the ends were formulated
before the means were established.
>
>No, but medias don't tend to report on political discourses that aren't a
>little bit provocative, and they tend to focus on negative aspects of
>things rather than on positive ones.
>Also, I guess politicians believe it is easier to build a consensus
>against something, than for something.  I believe also that they are wrong
>in this aproach, but right in the attention that they want to get...
>
Of course, doesn't that challenge the fundamental principle of your "common
sense" that democracy seems to hold over individual opinion?  If the
"democratic" consensus is reached through negative rather than positive
aspects, then it holds far more vindictiveness (my opinion) than common sense.

>> when one votes on sovereignty, one should be voting on the positives it will
>> bring, and not the negatives that the past regime was "responsible" for.
>
>I somewhat agree.
>But the will to accomplish sovereignty does come from the restrictions of
>the actual federal system...
>
I don't doubt this....nor do I doubt that some reasons for sovereignty are very
noble and pure- what I fear is reactionary voting.  
>> >
>> And you don't believe we have tried?  Sure....Quebecers have different
>> aspirations- but then here's a BQ MP on television to basically condemn us as
>> xenophobes!  Or there's Bouchard to blame us for not setting aside our own
>> aspirations and supporting Meech!  The list goes on and on- and if you don't
>> think that such images don't eventually harden even the most sympathetic
>> individuals, then you really don't understand people too much.
>
>Oh please, a tear comes to my eye... And that's irrelevant of the last 30
>years of negociating.

No need to be so nasty....I'm making a point that reactionary justifications
and the like lead to infighting and reactionary judgements- on both sides of
the fence.  If you wonder why the debate becomes less civil, I'll gladly tell
you that people are sufficiently pissed off.  As for irrevelance- is
sovereignty a movement for people, or a popularity contest for politicians?  Is
direction for Quebec more important that emotional speeches, or does it work
the opposite way?  

>After all of the insults that went off and that are still going (as you
>can see in Mell's posts).  Separatists have been sexists, racists,
>xenophobes, ethnocentricts, as soon as any single word taken out of
>context could be interpreted in such a way, I think its only fair that our
>politicians give others a taste of their own medicine.  And actually I

Yeah well....restraint or not, the fact is that after a break, it's not
Canadians who have been requesting a partnership.  

>believe they have used a lot of restraint not to do it any sooner.
>
Actually, they've done it since the BQ has got to Ottawa- very seldom have they
represented Canadians in opposition.  No, and since we're on the subject, I
find it rather irresponsible (like most of the adjectives I've used on you,
this is hardly an insult) of you to call it restraint when I've already
remarked about how the impulse to achieve sovereignty in Quebec has been to
attack Canada.  
>> 
>> Really?  Funny you should bring that up- because a year ago, not only was I
>> promoting Quebec nationhood, but I was also supporting an idea to create a new
>> national flag, include Quebec in the name of the country, etc....  Even after
>> the referendum, I was arguing for such concessions- and I still believe
>them to
>> this day.....even if my convictions have been seriously weakened by the
>> unwillingness of your province to even discuss some of these issues with us. 
>> Quebec doesn't want to talk, and quite frankly, I've grown tired of trying to
>> promote any ideals that I once held for a union of mutual respect and
>> friendship.
>
>I was giving you a taste of your own medicine...  By answering my own
>question and then judging you by my answer...

Let's get one thing straight....I don't know you, and I haven't judged you- at
least not to the point that I will associate x,y and z with you whenever I see
your name.  As for your giving me a taste of my own medicine....well, if you
choose to see it as such....

>As for your answer, it is very generous of you to consider giving to
>Quebec what it never asked...  Did you actually consider the idea of
>giving it what it asks for?  A more than symbolic recognition of its
>nationhood?
>
"Not only was I promoting Quebec nationhood."  Well, if you choose to see it as
symbolic- though I'm startled that you've once again gone about concluding
something on such an issue- especially when you've never asked me what I
believe "nation" entails.  It wasn't symbolic, my friend- it was revamping the
Maastrict treaty with a firm commitment to the entity that was created.