Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
Page: 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .. 16 Next »»Rating: Unrated [0]
Yes Ou/or Non?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Tue Nov 22, 2005 @ 5:28pm
mdc
Coolness: 149520
Originally posted by TRASHANDSUICIDE...

So by that same token, Montreal, under some sort of vote COULD also in turn seperate from Quebec, because to not allow us to would be immoral.


yes, that's correct
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide replied on Tue Nov 22, 2005 @ 5:30pm
trashandsuicide
Coolness: 75975
But hey, what do Quebecois politicians know about morality?

*cough cough Duplessis and the padlock law cough cough*
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Tue Nov 22, 2005 @ 5:57pm
mico
Coolness: 151165
Well either way, accoriding to da' news, the new (openly gay/ previously coke addicted) PQ Leader André Boisclair says says he won't submit to federal ground rules for a future sovereignty referendum...

If and when the Parti Québécois forms a government in Quebec, Boisclair said Sunday, it won't be bound by Bill C-20, better known as the Clarity Act. The federal legislation, introduced under the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, sets the conditions whereby Ottawa would recognize a vote for secession.


Saturday, November 19, 2005

MONTREAL -- Newly-minted Parti Quebecois leader Andre Boisclair says he does not consider himself subject to the conditions of the Clarity Act, which defines what conditions would have to be met for the government to enter into negotiations following a referendum.

Boisclair says that the choice to pursue independance belongs to Quebecers, and adds that the National Assembly possesses the necessary legitimacy to carry out this process.

According to Boisclair, independance is not a legal but a political choice, and it is up to citizens to make the choice democratically, rather than through the courts.

Boisclair is set to meet on with regional, executive and youth-wing leaders of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City on Saturday.

© La Presse Canadienne 2005


Although behind all the strong rhetoric, where he continues to say that he will have a referendum as soon as possible, there isn't much backing up as to when this referendum will all be made "possible."

All of this is very similiar to his predecesors like Mr. Bouchard who promised a referendum only if the "winning conditions" were united. Or Mr. Landry argued that a referendum could be held only if he had the "moral certainty" of winning. In the end, both leaders refused to commit themselves to a specific time frame.

And even if it were to be made possible, what kind of economic and political arrangemnet will a new sovereign Quebec have with Canada? Mr. Boisclaire doesn't seem to be giving anyone many, if not, any answers.

Read this article from The Globe and Mail, if your interested about the PQ's stance and movement towards a referendum : [ www.theglobeandmail.com ]

With all this chatter going on about a new Quebec referendum. What are our beloved Liberal leaders doing to quell this new separatist sentiment?
[ www.theglobeandmail.com ]

Don't forget. There ain't no referendum, if there ain't no PQ leader sitting at the head of the table. But do you really want a Liberal sitting there either?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Tue Nov 22, 2005 @ 8:02pm
mico
Coolness: 151165
P.S: I think we need more separatists in this thread.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Nov 22, 2005 @ 10:45pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
I think one person promoting treason is enough thanks..
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Trey replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 3:40am
trey
Coolness: 103470
politics is more fun
through the barrel of a gun
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 10:41am
mr_frog
Coolness: 97805
As described in the Canadian's Criminal code, Treason is:
[ laws.justice.gc.ca ]

Treason and other Offences against the Queen's Authority and Person

High treason


46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason


(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Canadian citizen


(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or (2), a Canadian citizen or a person who owes allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada,

(a) commits high treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) commits treason if, while in or out of Canada, he does anything mentioned in subsection (2).

Overt act


(4) Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 46; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Punishment for high treason


47. (1) Every one who commits high treason is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Punishment for treason


(2) Every one who commits treason is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(a), (c) or (d);

(b) to be sentenced to imprisonment for life if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while a state of war exists between Canada and another country; or

(c) to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years if he is guilty of an offence under paragraph 46(2)(b) or (e) committed while no state of war exists between Canada and another country.

Corroboration


(3) No person shall be convicted of high treason or treason on the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

Minimum punishment


(4) For the purposes of Part XXIII, the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by subsection (1) is a minimum punishment.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 47; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 2.

Limitation


48. (1) No proceedings for an offence of treason as defined by paragraph 46(2)(a) shall be commenced more than three years after the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Information for treasonable words


(2) No proceedings shall be commenced under section 47 in respect of an overt act of treason expressed or declared by open and considered speech unless

(a) an information setting out the overt act and the words by which it was expressed or declared is laid under oath before a justice within six days after the time when the words are alleged to have been spoken; and

(b) a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued within ten days after the time when the information is laid.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 48; 1974-75-76, c. 105, s. 29.


If any of you still speak of treason after this, you are a complete moron.

Get over this and find any other argument than "I think the law is this because it would fit with my opinion, but I don't know what I am talking about!", and argue on the sovereignty, not how you think it's illegal, because IT IS NOT.

(PS: The clarity act is bull shit, this act is not even clear itself. The act itself will be used if the YES wins, to be like the federal government wants it to be, because they want a question that afraid people).
Thank you.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 11:46am
neoform
Coolness: 340370
TREASON!

Don't worry though, we all think you're a moron for wanting to drag half of quebec's population along unwillingly into making quebec it's own nation.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 12:02pm
mr_frog
Coolness: 97805
as I think you are a moron because you are even not able of being a bit objective.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 12:04pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
*i'm* not able to be objective?

You're the one being totally hypocritical. You want quebec to seperate from canada, but say that montreal should not be allowed to seperate from quebec..

nice try.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 12:16pm
mr_frog
Coolness: 97805
HEY MORON!

DID YOU READ WHAT I SAID IN LIKE 4-5 POSTS?

let's resume, only cuz you don't want to read:
1) Montreal = not an entity, it's a island, multiple cities.
2) MRC, Regions and Municipality DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER to take this kind of decision
3) Once sovereignty will be done, Canada won't be able to act inside the interior politic of Quebec, as it cannot act and take decision inside other sovereign States.
3) The only possible way that this could be done, you will need to be able to vote and adopt a law and the Chambre des Communes in Quebec, so for this you would either needs serious allies (in Quebec) or a politic party that have the majority of the deputies and the Chambre des Communes. And for this, you would need to have deputies all around Quebec, since Montreal alone isn't enough.

That's how it works, there's NOTHING HYPOCRITICAL in what I am saying.
The confederation gives rights to the provinces that cities do not have, since cities respond directly from the province, and the provinces do not respond to the federal, as part of the Canada's Confederation.

What don't you understand?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 1:00pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
I understand completely.

A given body of people want to seperate. (this is quebec, and montreal)

Saying that montreal can't seperate from quebec is retarded.

You know what? I think Canada should revoke all of quebec's rights to have it's own governing body, and that right should be shifted to Ontario. That way it would be just as impossible (as you say) for quebec to seperate as it would for montreal to seperate. Cause hey, if you don't have a governing body that was given permission by the federal government, there's NO WAY you could EVER try and succeed eh?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 1:27pm
mr_frog
Coolness: 97805
indeed, yes, that's how the democratic system by representation works.

The other choice would be to start a revolution, but this might also be called treason.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 3:29pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
Really? that's how the democratic system works? By ignoring the laws that exist and attempt to suceed illegally? damn.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 4:09pm
mdc
Coolness: 149520
its not illegal.. its unconstitutional
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 5:48pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
If something is unconstitutional, can you do it within the boundaries of law?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mr_Frog replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 6:52pm
mr_frog
Coolness: 97805
hey my little lawyers, can't you argue on something else? Why, except the fact that you are anglophones, don't you want Quebec to be a sovereign State?

Don't give me any "I think that's the law, if not, WTF"-answers, because it's not your "I think I know the law"-arguments that will stop the PQ from doing a refendum and people to vote for or against it.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 7:27pm
mico
Coolness: 151165
Originally posted by MR. FROG...

hey my little lawyers, can't you argue on something else? Why, except the fact that you are anglophones, don't you want Quebec to be a sovereign State?


To as blunt as possible. I really don't believe that Quebec would be able to survive on its own without the rest of the confederation.

Not only that, but I feel it is selfish on the part of the 45%-55% of Quebecers -wether they are anglo, franco or allo- to remove Quebec from the rest of Canada. I say this only because all of Canada -western and eastern- would suffer aswell by the secession of Quebec.

I truly believe that Quebec (and Quebecers as a whole) would do better by changing its attitude -rather than seceeding- if they want to make progress.
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 8:01pm
neoform
Coolness: 340370
Originally posted by MR. FROG...

hey my little lawyers, can't you argue on something else? Why, except the fact that you are anglophones, don't you want Quebec to be a sovereign State?


Simply because there is no justified reason or need to do it. To preserve quebec culture?? The culture in quebec is not under attack, if it changes it's because the people in quebec want it that way. Quebec has a sweet deal right now in canada, it gets all of the attention and benefits.

Having quebec be on it's own would just result in problems (yes, short term.. and quite possibly long term). Short term being 10 years.. but that's 10 years i wouldn't want to spend here, and i'm sure a lot of others feel the same.

Why destroy something so good?
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Wed Nov 23, 2005 @ 11:36pm
nothingnopenope
Coolness: 201930
If you start dividing up Canada it's a lot easier for the US to take over us.

Plus it will harm the Maritimes who will have this big independent country in between them and the rest of Canada. Plus I'm sure there would be arguments over who owns Labrador for the next 100 years...

The separation of democratic countries is not in fashion now, just look at the EU... People are more interested in close ties. Parizeau showed us the real face of the referendum debate in 1995 when the PQ lost: xenophobic nationalism.
Yes Ou/or Non?
Page: 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 .. 16 Next »»
Post A Reply
You must be logged in to post a reply.