From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:13:51 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <switzer.717596120@honte> switzer@alpha.uleth.ca (Dean Switzer) writes:
>beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>>>randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
>>>
>>>: What we need is leaders who will
>>>: not give Quebec leaders the illution that an amicable separation is possible. 
>>I hope you clearly understand that this IS ACTUALLY PROMOTING CIVIL WAR!!!
>
>I'm having a rough time picturing in my mind exactly who would go to war
>against who in the event of a "civil war"? At most it would be a
>delightful posturing event. While Quebec is "laying seige" to the rest
>of the country, what is it going to do for spare cash?

Civil war does not necessary begin with 2 camps each fighting the other
with guns.  In our case, it may begin because:

Someone presents the situation as normal or expected (call this promotion).
When Joe Clurk says that a NO will mean civil war, he is actually promoting
civil war (one reason is that a NO is a NO to an agreement that solves
nothing).  This situation is similar to violence on TV.  Yesterday, a
17 year teenager tried to kill her mother with the help of 2 more teenagers.
This followed 2 Quebec TV series with similar scenes (see the idea of
perception of Dallas or Columbo as foreigh shows : reduce the idea of
violence as locally accepted, but not to a big extent).  If you show that
violence is normal, you likely increase probability of violence.  If you
show fun as normal, you likely increase probability of jokes.  If you show
having a car as normal, you likely increase sales of cars.  Marketing.

Then, there may be some violence, like burning home of neighbor because
you know they voted NO and NO is bad; like striking someone in the bus
because he is carrying a NO sticker.  PM and Joker Clark said it, these
are bad men and shall be punished.  This is how the violence increases
and lead to civil war.  And this is more likely to occur when it is possible
to identify two camps from language : just like in Northern Ireland, religion
is used to identify two camps.  Thus,  having firstly individuals promoting
violence against target people, having various actions leading to conditions
to favor development of violence, etc.  See what happened in L.A. recently.
Not a civil war, just a lot of violence.  But they needed the army.
One thing that stopped most possibilities of civil war in USA because of
violence is that no group is related to power (you won't see something like
a government with majority of blacks and simultaneously violence by blacks
protesting against racism against them).  But, in Canada, francophones
are related to Quebec government.  

I hope there will be no civil war.  I just say that Joker Clark and Malrunney
are promoting such events as likely to occur and they do this to have the
agreement accepted and to pretend later to be re-elected on that basis.
While it is a dummy (i.e. without matter) agreement that solves nothing.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !