CNN wrote: TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stunning motion recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada has reignited a debate over the divisive issue, with some supporters cautiously viewing it as a bold political step while critics described it as a recipe for tearing apart the country.
Harper's comments in Parliament seemed to pre-empt a planned motion by the Bloc Quebecois that states the French-speaking province is a nation. The wording of that motion, however, does not include the words "within Canada," leaving federalists worried it could be misinterpreted.
Ok people. What the hell? Are you finally getting some sense up there?
"We're family friendly. So long as your family sits around the hearth at night getting nostalgic about beastiality and honey-laced rimjobs." - Gilmore
I don't see how that's sensible -- I rather see it as political suicide.
Liberals will see it as giving considerable ammo to separatists, and the only reason the Conservatives are in power at the moment is because a lot of liberals were fed up with the Liberal party's constant fuck-ups. To adopt this separatist view, albeit in a veiled (read: two-faced) way is bound to rub them the wrong way.
On the other hand, separatists will either see that as an insult, as a given nation should not be dependent upon another. In a way, this could be interpreted as Quebec being Canada's colony or vassal state. And even if you choose not to interpret it that way, the officially recognized "Quebec is a nation" bit makes it a lot easier to later try for sovereignty.
Of course, that's the critical view of the matter. But if you want to go into the principles of it, you could say that by this declaration Harper has indeed made it unethical for Quebec to stay a part of Canada. As Immanuel Kant basically said in his Perpetual Peace essay, it's unethical for a given people and nation not to have its own State, as the governing State is then treating this people as a means to achieve the State's own ends.
Of course, as most philosophers, Kant was an idealist, but there is some truth in the need for independent states for independent nations.
We're actually the primary exporters of oil to the U.S. The Democrats claiming Iraq was all about oil are just right. Dubya was only securing an alternate source of oil in case Quebec gains sovereignty, in which case we would most likely gouge the hell out of prices to pay America back for dissing Molson beer.
Suddenly it all makes sense, doesn't it?
Last edited by Jan on Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
