From: tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:45:50 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr13.211132.17557@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.151614.24133@bmerh2.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>>>I accept that there is a Quebec nation within Canada. I reject the 
>>>concept of english-canadian nation.  
>>>
>>No. There is no "Quebec nation within Canada".  There is however a
>>province called Quebec in Canada which has some properties different
>>from the others (which for some reason beyond any rational human being's 
>>comprehension, must be recognized formally in the constitution).  The 
>>same however can be said about all provinces.  Each province has unique 
>>or distinct properties.  These too could be formally captured in the
>>constitution, but they are not crying like babies.
>
>
>Well I guess it depends on whether we should take YOUR word for it,
>or ask the people of Quebec.
Take mine as well as most TROCians, and MANY people of Quebec for
that matter.

>A majority of the population of Quebec consider themselves a nation
I guess you buy everything the newspapers, media, and politicians say.
Several of my Quebec friends tell me this is not so.  They also say
likewise of their communities and friends.  Granted this is not
the whole population of Quebec, but it is a grass roots acid test.

>(as do the majority within Scotland and Wales) and thus they are a nation.
>You don't really have any say in whether a people consider themselves
>a nation or not. Neither do I.
I most certainly do.  And so do you, but if you choose not to have a
say, then that's your business.

>Would you argue equally that the Scots are not a nation, because you
>don't like the idea? (Remember that a nation need not form a separate
>nation state.)       
Ok Frank, let's add more flies to this already sticky ointment.
The Scots are a people with distinct properties from other tribes.

>>Canada must be united across ALL provinces and be bound by the
>>constitution to survive as one nation.  Strong central government
>>is required to administer and manage the common national agenda.
>
>Unity based on what? A denial of how the constituent parts feel about
>themselves? If other provinces (or other forms of community prefer
>to think of themselves as nations) they have every right to do so.
Unity based on responsibility to the current and future welfare of
the inhabitants of the nation.  I realize this is asking you to
consider other points of view, especially responsible ones.
The constituent parts must be recognized for their uniqueness, but
the constituition is not the place.  The national constution must
recognize, first and foremost, what we have in common and unites us
from coast to coast.

>The right of all peoples to self-determination (including secession, if
>they so desire) is an internationally recognized phenomenon.
nonsense.

BTW.  Is your name Robin or Frank, or neither?  Make up your mind.

Tony.
--
[Tony Cifelli              ][Phone:    613-765-2798   ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research    ][FAX:      613-765-4777   ][for the opinions      ]
[P.O. Box 3511, Station C  ][Internet: tcifelli@bnr.ca][expressed herein.     ]
[Ottawa, On. K1Y 4H7 CANADA]["Still looking for a dramatic quote to put here!"]