Agreed with your point there, Putin.

However, to extend Maniac's post towards a more reasonable discussion...
If the Quebecois are going to gain sovereignty via a vote in Quebec, should the same right be granted to first nations?
I'm not sure what the criteria should be. Obviously, as Quebec has a highly functioning government and infrastructure, their independence is much more highly realisable.

I find that you are judging a little bit fast before even knowing the story and the facts here Zmaj. And I'm not even talking about your rudeness.

"Let's cry for the Quebecois. Fuck that. If they have it so bad, they should fight for their rights by any means."

Did you know that there has been two referendum since 1980 to separate from Canada? Or did you know that there are a lot of coalitions to help protect the French fact in Quebec and that there has been a Law created a while back to protect it?

"If they won't fight, it means they're OK or just too lazy."

Read the paragraph above.

Long story short, always try to understand a subject before making comments that are either inappropriate to the situation, or just basically rude. Thanks for the effort!

And, Zmaj, perhaps they do feel the injustice but don't find violence the appropriate answer. There have been referendums where, if Quebec had won, they would have beeng ranted sovereignty.
The separatists lost the referendum by a very small margin.

In fact, I think a non-violent democratic separatist movement is a testament to the Quebecois and not a blemish.

Ha! Putin has beaten me to answer in time!

@Yonni: about the First Nations question, I would agree that it would be relevant to do so due to their past in this country. They really have been the most oppressed nations in Canada, that's true.

I know about the referendums. They decided to stay. In other words, they don't have it so bad. Case closed.

"In fact, I think a non-violent democratic separatist movement is a testament to the Quebecois and not a blemish."

How magnanimous of you.

slyster, are you francophone? And, if you don't mind me asking how do you side on the issue of separation?

The reason why the separatists lost the referenda is because non Francophones are able to vote in them, which to me is absurd. Among the French speakers - separatism would have won.

Not to mention the issue of religion. To tie this with the Dutch/Belgian thread, a Belgian once told me that the only true reason Wallonia and Flanders never split is that they have the same religion. Since this is not the case in Canada, it will be smoldering forever.

Zmaj, I worded that badly but it was in retort to your accusation of them being lazy.

And, yeah, they don't have it as bad as the first nations, or the Palestinians. This isn't nazi Germany or [troll] Stalinist Russia [\troll]. But that doesn't mean we can't strive to improve the situation or discuss their desire to exercise their democratic options.

"The reason why the separatists lost the referenda is because non Francophones are able to vote in them, which to me is absurd. Among the French speakers - separatism would have won."

I know that's your opinion but I find that a very difficult opinion to accept even if just from a pragmatic point of view. Canada is a country of immigrants. Especially centres like Montreal are home to thousands and thousands of immigrants who feel great ties to Canada because of the way that the country invited and accepted them. Not giving them a voice is quite criminal in my opinion.

Taking that stance even further - should the first nations be able to vote for their sovereignty despite the millions of people it would displace? It seems like a harsh stance to take but pragmatism and sympathy of the current generation has to play a role somewhere.

"This isn't nazi Germany or [troll] Stalinist Russia [\troll]."

Or democratic France, where there are officially no minorities.

"To tie this with the Dutch/Belgian thread, a Belgian once told me that the only true reason Wallonia and Flanders never split is that they have the same religion. Since this is not the case in Canada, it will be smoldering forever."

As a Canadian, I assure you that Religion plays a minimal role in this issue.

Lando, not entirely so.
The Catholic schools are publicly funded which is entirely a result of trying to protect Quebecois religion.

Catholic schools are publicly funded in Ontario as well. I would bet pretty heavily that no young people are voting for any religious reason.

Religion is pretty much a non-factor with anyone my age that I have come across. People are not necessarily atheist, but religion barely plays into society these days. In my generation, anyway.

"People are not necessarily atheist, but religion barely plays into society these days. In my generation, anyway."

That's what a lot of people in Sarajevo thought in the 1980s.

Is it really what they thought? I cannot remember the last time anyway under 30 engaged me in any kind of religious conversation. People talk about a lot of other thigns before that .

It's not about discussions. Religious affiliation isn't important in times of peace, but it is a very simple and practical way to define "those others" when things get serious.

Um, Lando, have you looked at anyone who grew up in the town you live in? Religion much?

Not the people my age. Sure, there are like 15 Churches, etc. for 6000 people, but still nobody really talks about it. The old partners at my work lead us in a prayer before we eat at work functions which is weird, but tolerable. Nobody allows their religion to define themselves.

To put it in different terms, people care more if you are a Habs vs. Leafs fan than they do if you are Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Muslim vs. Mennonite vs. Jewish, etc.

I must ask the potentially dangerous question:

Is Quebec, in a manner of speaking, Canada's Scotland, ie, a territory that could/might want to be independent, but was taken into this larger power (the UK for Scotland, Canada for Quebec) and now, maybe, while locally and personally they might want to break away and assert their own identity, economically and politically, perhaps they're stronger as part of that empire?

I'm sure you disagree, Putin--by all means.

But keep in mind I'm posing this question NOT on moral grounds (if it were, then yes, if you could successfully make the case to me that Quebec is an occupied territory--I think we can both agree that Scotland certainly was for its part, so no argument there) but on economic and political grounds instead.

Not whether it's "right" that Scotland/Quebec separate as powers...

But whether it would be better for them (and, indeed, for the UK/Canada) if they were apart...or if both sides are better off economically and politically as one entity, animosity aside?

After all, it seems hard to make the case Scotland would be better economically and stronger as a political entity outside of the UK...

Would Quebec really be more prosperous and politically-powerful outside Canadian rule?

If so--why?

(Question applies to all, not just Putin.)

No, it's not what they thought. Izetbegovic was arrested for writing fundamentalist pamphlets in the late 60s.

"Not giving them a voice is quite criminal in my opinion."

Really, would people feel the same if Israeli settlers in the West Bank were the deciding vote on Palestinian self-determination? The Anglophone minority has been used to undermine Quebec self-determination, and their voting in the referendum overwhelmingly against separation reveals that quite plainly.

It is not like only Francophone people lived their until recently. Quebec is a province, many anglophone people settled there too, many in different places. Many francophone people settled elsewhere. If BC was voting for independence, should only Anglophones be given that right to vote?

If BC were voting should only asian speakers be given the right to vote is more like it.

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

Lol yeah. Vancouver, the biggest Chinese city overseas.

BC & co (especially Manitoba and the Maritimes) already 'solved' that problem by forcibly assimilating Francophone speakers and/or restricting the French language. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You're conflating ethnic enclave vs nation. There is a territorial dimension which is absent in the former that is present in the latter. Self-determination doesn't apply to ethnic enclaves.

Right, but see Czech's point.