From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:22:33 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Apr14.154550.24896@bmerh2.bnr.ca> tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:
>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.

Actually ;most people in Canada accept that Quebec has certain *characteristics*
usually assumed to be linked to language and culture, and to the extent
that the term Distinct is batted around all the time. Within Quebec, a clear
majority accept their nationhood, to the extent that the provincial legislature
is called the National Assembly.
Now whether or not most people recognize what is abundantly clear (or whether
they hedge their bets behind obsure ideas like distinctness, I don't
really care.
My method of analysis is not a new one; in fact it is a couple of hundred
years old. Just because ethnicity is POPULAR these days and nations
are being ignored doesn't mean I should follow suit, surely?!
I point is that I reject your analysis, whether or not a majority
of people accept it.



>>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.
>                 

No I don't buy mucy of what is in the paper. In fact, it is YOUR
concept that is popular in the press, not mine. So perhaps I should
accuse you of blindly following the WORD of the media!? 
I certainly won't ask your friends for directions either, even
if they have a map.


>>(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. 

OK, let me rephrase the point I am making.
Whether or not you want to accept the nationhood of ANY people, those people
ultimately will decide their own fate. If they decide to secede, for 
instance, they have every right to do so, by international law. If you
try and stop them, you will be in breach of that law and should expect 
a little hostility. Your attitutde is big state chauvinism and is
defined as reactionary as hell.  In your opinions do big states define
which nations are nations? Might is right....??

>
>>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.
  

No, the Scots are anybody who lives in Scotland. From whatever *tribe*.
But it's good to see you volunteer the old tribal nationalist
idea. Back in the dark ages. Are you into pogroms and family feuds too?


>>>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.

Says who?

>BTW.  Is your name Robin or Frank, or neither?  Make up your mind.
 
You see, I have the right to self-determination here too.
And it doesn't really matter whether you want me to make up my mind
or not.
Do you find that frustrating?

Frank.