Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Benz

Elizabeth May wants to fight against Québec

Recommended Posts

If May rides her anti-B21 stance like Secretariat she could actually cost Trudeau a lot of votes outside of Quebec.

She's going straight after the idolatrous sycophant horde who can't get enough of his virtue-signalling. IE, his base.

If she just had a selfie game she could probably double the number of seats that the Greens have lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WestCanMan said:

If May rides her anti-B21 stance like Secretariat she could actually cost Trudeau a lot of votes outside of Quebec.

She's going straight after the idolatrous sycophant horde who can't get enough of his virtue-signalling. IE, his base.

If she just had a selfie game she could probably double the number of seats that the Greens have lol.

She's got a Pequite right in her ranks.

Pierre Nantel

"Of course I'm a sovereignist, everyone knows, and that's always been the case," ~ Pierre Nantel

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-nantel-green-party-sovereigntist-1.5281661

Vive le Quebec libre is everywhere.

pierre-nantel-f%C3%A9vrier-2017-1600x120

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 4:07 PM, Dougie93 said:

She's got a Pequite right in her ranks.

Pierre Nantel

"Of course I'm a sovereignist, everyone knows, and that's always been the case," ~ Pierre Nantel

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-nantel-green-party-sovereigntist-1.5281661

Vive le Quebec libre is everywhere.

pierre-nantel-f%C3%A9vrier-2017-1600x120

Ottawa is loaded with french separatists. Why are they not in Quebec and trying to separate instead of working for the federal government and taking money from the rest of Canada, the Canada that they hate to be a part of and want to get away from? Right now the french of Quebec have it both ways. If they cannot get to separate just yet then they can at least run Ottawa and try to piss off the rest of English Canada while stealing the ROC tax dollars. The big question here is when will the Anglophones in the ROC wake the bloody hell up? The ROC  has had pretty much more french PM's than English ones. The Anglophones especially in  Ontario appear to want to keep it that way. Go figure. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the sad love fest between the separatists and Ottawa, or should I say, look at separatist Ottawa.  Separatism is I guess, “cool”, except when the nativists start banning religious dress in publicly funded employment, an outright infringement of religious freedom.  

May is right to make an issue of this.  Good for her.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

. . . an outright infringement of religious freedom.  

May is right to make an issue of this.  Good for her.   

Entirely constitutional in Canada,   Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter are subject to the Notwithstanding Clause.

This was very deliberately written in, to give Quebec a veto.

The only thing which could overrule it, would be Disallowance, literally the power of the Queen to overrule the Canada Act itself.

Nothing more Canadian than Les Deux Solitudes.

Elizabeth May, as a Yankee from Connecticut, surely must be invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America in the face of Canadian independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bill 21 can be challenged and defeated.  New legislation can be tabled to make it illegal.    This should absolutely be an election issue.  Scheer will look the other way to keep enough of the alt-right crowd as supporters.  On that I disagree with him.  If Trudeau is as progressive as he claims to be, he should go after Bill 21 once re-elected.   May has guts on this issue.  Mind you, she’s not worried about winning an election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bill 21 can be challenged and defeated.  New legislation can be tabled to make it illegal.    This should absolutely be an election issue.  Scheer will look the other way to keep enough of the alt-right crowd as supporters.  On that I disagree with him.  If Trudeau is as progressive as he claims to be, he should go after Bill 21 once re-elected.   May has guts on this issue.  Mind you, she’s not worried about winning an election.  

I bet there all Anglo politicians will pander to their wholly Americanized de facto republican English Canadian base.

But I seriously doubt any of those parties will enact legislation in the face of it as it would backfire in Quebec outside of Montreal.

Meanwhile Elizabeth May is the one with the openly Quebec Sovereignist in her party, so kind of amusing to see her running against herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the absurdity of Canada.  Much of the heart of Canada is Quebec.  The original Canadas were partitioned Quebec.  I used to find myself agreeing with Gilles Duceppe’s Bloc critiques of the ruling party.  Again though, it doesn’t matter because they can never form a federal government.  Being a federalist ultimately means playing with the big kids.  Quebec is great and all.  Alberta good too, but the action is national.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

I bet there all Anglo politicians will pander to their wholly Americanized de facto republican English Canadian base.

But I seriously doubt any of those parties will enact legislation in the face of it as it would backfire in Quebec outside of Montreal.

Meanwhile Elizabeth May is the one with the openly Quebec Sovereignist in her party, so kind of amusing to see her running against herself.

May has so much guts on this issue, she allows openly Quebec Sovereignist in her party.

Guts all over the place, lulz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can be a sovereigntist and against Bill 21, but more sovereintists in Quebec support it than federalists.  It’s a pure laine thing.  Tribalism.  Xenophobia. 

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

One can be a sovereigntist and against Bill 21, but more sovereintists in Quebec support it than federalists.  It’s a pure lain thing.  Tribalism.  Xenophobia. 

If Quebec was sovereign, then it wouldn't be against Bill 21, it isn't against it now either.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

If Quebec was sovereign, then it wouldn't be against Bill 21.

I strongly disagree.  It would be even less multicultural and more closed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I strongly disagree.  It would be even less multicultural and more closed.  

You can disagree all you want, they are still going to ban religious headware at their leisure. As part of Canada, or apart from Canada, makes no difference, you can't stop them.

If they remain in Canada, they will invoke the notwithstanding clause, if not Quebec isn't going to vote against it and without votes in English Canada, legislation to prevent them from doing so ain't going to get passed.

Quebec agreeing with you on this is a pipe dream, as is English Canada being able to force your vision on them.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

  Tribalism.  

Rumsfeld called them; Regime Dead Enders.

The First Amendment shall free all the slaves everywhere in the end, hallelujah.

"No force in history has done more to advance the human condition than American freedom." ~ Big Daddy Trump President of Canada.

mag-ap-trump-washington-773.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I disagree.  Cyrus of Persia liberation of Jews, Fifth Century BC Greek democracy, Emperor Constantine defeats Maxentius, King John accepts Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, French Revolution, freeing of slaves in British Empire in 1832 (not yet in US), defeat of fascism, establishment of UN, rise of peacekeeping, rise of civil rights, end of Cold War...There have been many advancements.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well I disagree.  Cyrus of Persia liberation of Jews, Fifth Century BC Greek democracy, Emperor Constantine defeats Maxentius, King John accepts Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, French Revolution, freeing of slaves in British Empire in 1832 (not yet in US), defeat of fascism, establishment of UN, rise of peacekeeping, rise of civil rights, end of Cold War...There have been many advancements.  

Regime Dead Enders do not support advancements, they in fact fascistically rally against advancements, even if they are inevitable, as you do.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all about advancements, but I don’t think the current US path is doing that, at least the political leadership.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m all about advancements, but I don’t think the current US path is doing that, at least the political leadership.  

The current US path id doing it better than anyone in the world. You not liking Trump doesn't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m all about advancements, but I don’t think the current US path is doing that, at least the political leadership.  

6 to 3 at the SCOTUS, States Rights ftw.  Yeehaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Obviously a matter of opinion.  

Some opinions are more informed than others. Whether we agree which opinions are more informed or not.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 

6 to 3 at the SCOTUS, States Rights ftw.  Yeehaw.

Yeehaw! 10A FTW.

ACB going to lay the smackdown on all their candy asses.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeehaw! 10A FTW.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,  for the win.

Trump_Jackson-WEB-1024x711.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,  for the win.

Trump_Jackson-WEB-1024x711.jpg

 

 

Andrew Jackson Knows. Yeehaw!

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...