Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

New leader of the NDP - A Sepratist?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 451
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We will have to agree to disagree here. The Clarity act while a Law in Canada is not part of the Constitution.
It is a law that simply codifies one of the many unwritten Constitutional conventions. You are playing dishonest semantic games by focusing on the law itself. Even if the clarity act was repealed the governments would still be bound by its terms.
Link to post
Share on other sites

When has the pesky constitution or that ignored document called the Charter Of Rights And Freedoms ever got in the way of personal or political agendas?

That is my point. No one who wants to leave this country is going to care what a piece of paper says. Dancer thinks they will though, you know just like the Americans when the British told them they couldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my point. No one who wants to leave this country is going to care what a piece of paper says. Dancer thinks they will though, you know just like the Americans when the British told them they couldn't.

The Amercan founders were not poor persecuted slaves - they were free enterprizers..they wanted what the British elite had - their own operation - their own ability to keep the profits of their own labour. So they broke away and started their own buisness called American INC..which as a company still exists...I would adhere to the constitution gladly and to the Charter - as long as those in authority did also - but they don't and that is the problem - No one dares put the feet of the authorities to the fire. We have a good system - and good laws but no real law enforcement - without the enforcement of laws they are just paper..the courts and the governement are really not big on enforcement - unless that enforcement gives power to them and their friends - It is not a fair playing field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dancer thinks they will though, you know just like the Americans when the British told them they couldn't.
The Americans were willing to spend 8 years in a war with the British over the issue. I don't think anyone wants a war which means everyone will be constrained by what the law says. i.e. the west island of Montreal declares that they are still part of Canada then what is Quebec City going to do? Invade? Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americans were willing to spend 8 years in a war with the British over the issue. I don't think anyone wants a war which means everyone will be constrained by what the law says. i.e. if parts of Montreal declare that they are still part of Canada then what is Quebec City going to do? Invade?

Let everyone seperate if they must - and all have their egotistical atonomy...It will be just like a married couple who set up two households and call it a divorce - Yet the marrried couple continue to share the same bed on occassion - have lunch together and the estranged wife might do old hubbies laundry if he is civil and polite...it will all work out - this talk of a war is stupid - we have all been at war since time began - The conflict just keeps changeing shape and colour - bikering is part of human nature that must be curbed when ever possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my point. No one who wants to leave this country is going to care what a piece of paper says. Dancer thinks they will though, you know just like the Americans when the British told them they couldn't.

You still playing stupid? You know the clarity act isn't about forcing a province to remain in Canada, yet for some strange reason known only to yourself, you play dumb about that.

Great Method acting by the way!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the clarity act isn't about forcing a province to remain in Canada

It's not?

I don't think there is something that was ever 'clear' about the 'Clarity Act', which deserves its name as much as le fromage 'Petit Qu├ębec'. It's advertised to be about establishing conditions under which Canada would negotiate the secession of one of its consituant provinces but clearly, it really isn't it. Does it explain what is a clear enough question for a public consultation on independence? No, which is a problem considering any question can arbitrarely be deemed 'not clear enough' following a referendum. Does it specify what exactly is a 'large enough majority'? Is it 60%? 70%? Who knows? Just as arbitrarely, any majority can be deemed not large enough. It's as if I told you, heres one thousand dollars, you can get it if you jump high enough. That you try your hardest and beat your own personal record isn't going to help : I had in mind to keep that thousand dollars, however high you get I will decide wasn't enough.

The Clarity Act serves the very purpose of forcing a province to remain in Canada. It manages to impose conditions that not only aren't revealed, but don't even actually exist.

Edited by Vineon
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Clarity Act serves the very purpose of forcing a province to remain in Canada. It manages to impose conditions that not only aren't revealed, but don't even actually exist.
If there was a referendum Quebec separatists naively assume that the international community would immediately recognize a UDI by Quebec under any terms. However, all of the precedents are based on examples where secession was an illegal act. In the case of Canada secession is not illegal but must negotiated. The Clarity Act is about establishing a negotiating position for Canada that the international community will acknowledge as reasonable. As long as Canada's position is perceived to be reasonable there will be no recognition and no indepedence for Quebec unless Quebec wants to start a war.
Link to post
Share on other sites

More working class geeks seeking fame - fortune and power. What's with people that belong to the communist party and ride along under the NDP banner - Do they not realize that this idealogy killed millions upon millions of people in a number of nations that embraced hard core socialism?

When I think of socialist idealogs - I go back into my families history and remember that my grand father who from what I understood was a hard working God believing man - a man that employed many and ran a successful enterprize...My grand father was hounded for six years by the communists...who were attempting to convict him of crimes against the state - This was in the early days of the Soviet Union - finally they got a charge to supposedly stick - They took this good and independant man out and shot him...THEN the dead man was put on trail and convicted....all I can say is this was but two generations ago - and my mantra is "never again". To hell with the NDP if they have communists in their ranks. All a communist is - is a person that hates anyone that might be more aware or more intelligent than they - so instead of working things out - they simply kill you - real nice bunch of idiots!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the interm leader of the NDP..she has the persona of a second rate public school math teacher who wants to be principle but does not have the qualifications other than parroting 2+2=4...The NDP needs are real leader - not one inserted in a pandering manner to please - the common working people (what ever that means these days) or to appease seperatists - or communists - or feminists...appeasement of all groups is not the way to go - YOU need a real leader....I really do hope that Jack comes back....I wonder who choose this woman? Certainly it was a decision made by committee and not by Jack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and while I am at it. The tacit shared mindset of the more extreme socialist within the NDP are those that don't believe in boarders - or nations - they are old school Marxist and Trotskites...who hope for a world that functions under the international communist agenda. So as far as this lady being a seperatist - is not quite accurate - she probably believes in the destruction of all of Canada and all nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Clarity Act serves the very purpose of forcing a province to remain in Canada. It manages to impose conditions that not only aren't revealed, but don't even actually exist.

Then if that is the case, it is much like the ambiguous question of separation. How many thought that separation would mean automatic inclusion in Nafta? Or that their EI benefits and transfer payments would continue...?

Canada does not need an army to keep Quebec part of the family, just clarity on what succession would mean...something that separatists have done their very best at not doing.

The purpose of the Clarity act is to prevent a dishonest question, and given an honest question and a positive vote, to ensure that all stakeholders are at the negotiating table....which includes all Quebeckers, the other provinces and the aboriginal peoples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarity Act? Is that to ensure honesty? How can an act do that? It is a little like the guy that pushed the two teenagers in front of a subway train...he pleaded that he was not responsible for his actions and that he was an honest person who deserved a break - He may have said

"I am so sorry - I did not take my DO NOT PUSH PEOPLE IN FRONT OF THE TRAIN PILL TODAY - PLEASE FOR GIVE ME---At least the nut provided the courts with some clarity regarding what his un-intentional intentions were. There has never been anything clear about seperation of Quebec from the Canadian family. No act can provide a real answer as to why or why not they want to leave the confederacy. Kind of like the pissed off husband who wants to dump his wife for a hot looking young babe - but likes to hang out with his original wife because she has more money than the hottie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in her resignation letter to the Bloc she said it was for personal reasons not that she disagreed with the policies of the party. I thought she disagreed with the Bloc's separtist agenda. :blink:

Also it came out that she was a member of a second separtist group.

I think her lack of a strong opinion on Nationalism will do her no favours in the rest of the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if that is the case, it is much like the ambiguous question of separation. How many thought that separation would mean automatic inclusion in Nafta? Or that their EI benefits and transfer payments would continue...?

Last time this came up I had an in-law (no more, thankfully) who lived in Quebec and worked in Ontario. He laughed at the idea he wouldn't be able to work here any more after independence, dismissing it as silly scaremongering by federalists...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time this came up I had an in-law (no more, thankfully) who lived in Quebec and worked in Ontario. He laughed at the idea he wouldn't be able to work here any more after independence, dismissing it as silly scaremongering by federalists...

Yeah, meanwhile Quebec bans Ontario workers from going there to work! I remember when Bob Rae was Premier and he put in a few "tit for tat" laws. Quebec started screaming, not caring how hypocritical it looked!

People everywhere always take the status quo for granted. When it comes to separation, the only time Quebecers took a serious look at the consequences was way back when Trudeau told them point blank " NO EI! NO OLD AGE PENSION! NO COMMON CURRENCY! NO COMMON PASSPORT! NO NOTHING! SEPARATE MEANS SEPARATE!"

I really don't understand why Anglo politicians since then tiptoe around these issues. Surely they must realize that in the aftermath of any separation English Canada would wreak a terrible political price on any government that appeared to give too good a deal to Quebec. The idea that we would have an amicable divorce is a pipedream! There would be too many emotions, all too strong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand why Anglo politicians since then tiptoe around these issues.
Right now there is no point since there is no referendum and no likelyhood of one any time soon. Why say things that will piss people off when there is nothing to gain? If there was a referendum then I am sure this point will be made forcefully.
Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is not with the fact she was a member of two separatist parties so much as she did not make that fact know and her explanation/excuse is as lame as Jack Layton's excuse for being in the massage parlor.

It is right up there with I smoked pot but didn't inhale.

While I support much of what the NDP stands for, I have never trusted them much and even less now. I simply do not believe anyone with a brain would join a political party whose main plank they do not agree with to support a friend and remain a member for four years.

Does not pass the smell test.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is not with the fact she was a member of two separatist parties so much as she did not make that fact know and her explanation/excuse is as lame as Jack Layton's excuse for being in the massage parlor.

It is right up there with I smoked pot but didn't inhale.

While I support much of what the NDP stands for, I have never trusted them much and even less now. I simply do not believe anyone with a brain would join a political party whose main plank they do not agree with to support a friend and remain a member for four years.

Does not pass the smell test.

Either she's lying about her separtists beliefs OR she's doesn't care to much about the issue. Either way the NDP under her will be un-electable outside of Quebec.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand why Anglo politicians since then tiptoe around these issues. Surely they must realize that in the aftermath of any separation English Canada would wreak a terrible political price on any government that appeared to give too good a deal to Quebec. The idea that we would have an amicable divorce is a pipedream! There would be too many emotions, all too strong.

Well, I have met Quebecers working illegally in Florida who bitch that they cannot speak their native tongue while doing so. It is the Quebec way.

Our politicians all know they need the numbers in Quebec to form a government. It is why Layton has had his nose up their butts for the last ten years. Harper is the first PM ever to be elected without serious numbers in Quebec and we will see how long he lasts.

In the meantime, they continue to take the West for granted. Saskatchewan, the birthplace of the NDP has not one NDP seat, none in Alberta and the provincial NDP in BC can't distance itself from this issue fast enough. The new Liberal Premier continues to point out that the NDP is now a Quebec based party.....it might be what keeps her in office.

Many Westerners believe it has gone on long enough, that BC, Alberta and Sask should band together, separate and gouge the hell out of the East to keep their homes heated in the winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the interm leader of the NDP..she has the persona of a second rate public school math teacher who wants to be principle but does not have the qualifications other than parroting 2+2=4...The NDP needs are real leader - not one inserted in a pandering manner to please - the common working people (what ever that means these days) or to appease seperatists - or communists - or feminists...appeasement of all groups is not the way to go - YOU need a real leader....I really do hope that Jack comes back....I wonder who choose this woman? Certainly it was a decision made by committee and not by Jack.

She was named *interim* leader to make NDP voters in Quebec feel important and because she is the least threatening to the powers that be within the party.

Let's be honest. Jack isn't likely to be back in the saddle real soon...if at all. They do not want anyone to have an edge with what will likely be a nasty and possibly divisive leadership contest. If I read the situation right, the traditional NDP support in English Canada is VERY nervous that the party caucus is now controlled by Quebec. If they are smart they will ride heard on her....but then the NDP has had a smart deficit since David Lewis retired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I have met Quebecers working illegally in Florida who bitch that they cannot speak their native tongue while doing so. It is the Quebec way.

Our politicians all know they need the numbers in Quebec to form a government. It is why Layton has had his nose up their butts for the last ten years. Harper is the first PM ever to be elected without serious numbers in Quebec and we will see how long he lasts.

In the meantime, they continue to take the West for granted. Saskatchewan, the birthplace of the NDP has not one NDP seat, none in Alberta and the provincial NDP in BC can't distance itself from this issue fast enough. The new Liberal Premier continues to point out that the NDP is now a Quebec based party.....it might be what keeps her in office.

Many Westerners believe it has gone on long enough, that BC, Alberta and Sask should band together, separate and gouge the hell out of the East to keep their homes heated in the winter.

How 'bout you do us a favour and pump the oil,make us some money,and,and zip it???

Edited by Jack Weber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...