From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:28:08 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.721338407@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Ok. Do I hate individuals in Quebec? Absolutely not.
>>Do I hate the nationalists in Quebec for blackmailing Canada. Yes.

>Nationalists in Quebec DO happen to be individuals that live in
>Quebec.  They may make up a majority of Quebeckers.  You've answered
>the question that I asked.

If you think nationalists are in the majority, why hasn't Quebec
seceded yet? I don't think they will.

If you mistake my detesting the collective politics of nationalists
blackmailing Canada for anything else, thats your problem.

>>>When you start talking about BC separating, that's not something
>>>Quebec chose.  That's something YOU are choosing.  The separation of
>>>BC would have surprisingly similar effects on Canada to the separation
>>>of Quebec.
>>
>>>So, what's immoral for Quebec is perfectly acceptable for BC?
>>
>>The proper response for BC to Quebecs separation -- if Quebec MP's,
>>PM , Senators, senior civil servants etc are not removed from office
>>-- is to separate unilaterally and immediately. It would be stupid to
>>stay.

>You wouldn't even give them time to clear their desks first?

No.

>Employers are typically required to give their employees at least
>two weeks notice.  You seem to be redefining "fair" in such a way
>that there's no choice but for BC to separate.

You know nothing about modern coporate firing techniques.
The modern technique is to call all employees to be fired to a
meeting, call everyone else to another meeting, and then fire the
firees and escort them to their desks for cleaning out. Thats how they
did it here at SFU in my department last year.

It is shocking, but it prevents the fired employees from disrupting
the workplace or sabotaging it for that matter.

>Separation is a pretty unusual reason for firing, but I think
>waiting a few days before BC would consider separating wouldn't be
>likely to hurt guys badly.

If Quebec unilaterally claimed Ruperts land and disavowed
responsibility for the National debt it would cause real problems.
There are hundreds of similar scenarios.

>And you still haven't explained why it's immoral for Quebec to
>separate, and it's supposed to be OK for BC to separate.

I didn't say it was immoral for Quebec to separate.
I think it is stupid. But id they do it, then acting anything less
than decisively would be equally stupid.

>>>If it is right for Canada to be ruthless towards a separatist Quebec,
>>>then why should Canada NOT be ruthless towards a separatist BC?
>>
>>Since your argument is to be *not* ruthless, why threaten BC with
>>ruthlessness? Why kill the messenger?

>You've been arguing ruthlessness all along.  I'm just suggesting
>that there ought to be consistent treatment to separatist provinces.
>What's appropriate treatment for Quebec ought to be appropriate
>treatment for BC.

>If Canada is going to be ruthless to Quebec if they separate (your
>position), then by the same token, Canada should be ruthless to
>British Columbia if they separate.  Fair is fair.

Sounds ok to me.

Anybody who plans unilateral secession must prepare for such an
eventuality.

>BC is hardly a "messager," in this case.  If BC decided to
>separate, that is your choice, and your action.

>I would prefer to try to arrange both on more favorable terms,
>personally.  Consistently favorable.

>>>"They started it" isn't an acceptable answer, by the way.
>>
>>Yes it is. I wouldn't be talking about it if was not a possiblity and
>>if they hadn't initiated it. It wouldn't even come up in converstion
>>or thinking.

>I think that the idea of Quebec separating is not too dissimilar to
>the idea of jumping off a cliff.  I don't think it's a wise idea AT
>ALL.  I don't think that those that propose separation have
>carefully thought it through, because there are SO many pitfalls
>involved.

Agreed.

>If they do it, then (for their sake AND mine, as a Canadian) I hope
>that it is a carefully thought out process.

Agreed.

>There's the classic saying "If someone else decides that they're
>going to jump off a cliff, is that a good reason for you to jump
>too?"  It may appear a little facetious, but I think it applies
>here.

>I would think that in considering something like secession that you
>would try to do better than be a mere "copycat."

>I don't think that you ought to consider separating just because
>of the situation in Quebec.  If you separate, it should be because
>YOU WANT TO LEAVE CANADA.

>If you separate, then the primary effect is that you leave Canada.
>You should only do it if you actually WANT TO LEAVE.

If Canada acts decisively when Quebecs intentions are definite -- the
likely scenario is the PQ winning on a campaign of secession -- then
BC should stay. If Quebeckers are allowed to continue running Canada,
as you seem to accept, then we should leave.

>>>If people let anger rule their decisions concerning "separation", they
>>>WILL make irrational decisions, and big things (like pension funds)
>>>will get trampled on and lost along the way.  Pension funds are merely
>>>one example; I'm sure there's others.
>>
>>If you think British Columbians will *allow* Quebeckers to negotiate
>>for us or rule us after a PQ government is elected with a *mandate*
>>for secession, then you are being irrational.

>Perhaps I'm ignorant about the way British Columbians think; I didn't
>make it past Calgary visiting relatives this summer.  I'm supposed to
>hit BC next year.

>Perhaps British Columbians are thinking irrationally about this due
>to hatred towards Quebec nationalists.  Perhaps not.  Perhaps you
>speak for all British Columbians.  Perhaps not.

Only 2/3.

>Perhaps other British Columbians would rather wait until Quebec
>actually DECIDES to secede, rather than pulling a "knee-jerk"
>reaction immediately after a PQ government gets elected.

Again, I made it clear. If the PQ campqaigns on a secession platform
then a majority of Quebeckers have already voted to leave if the PQ
wins.

Thats when English Canada must act.


>If British Columbians or anyone else lets anger/hatred determine
>their decisions, then they are likely to make irrational decisions.
>And people who make decisions based on hatred refuse to accept that
>they are acting irrationally.  I've seen it happen far too many
>times, and it hurts the one that hates at least as badly as the one
>that is hated.

>It would be a sad thing if British Columbia helped to break up the
>country simply out of anger.  It would be sad if British Columbia
>acted too quickly and unilaterally.  British Columbia would "throw
>sand" as it were in the economic gears of the various regions of
>Canada, doing unnecessary damage to everyone including themselves.

It might be sad. It would be sadder for Canada to dither while
Quebeckers ran both Ottawa and Quebec City when Quebeckers had already
voted to leave.

I also think a ruthless pre-election strategy would prevent such a PQ
victory. Make Quebeckers aware of the price *before* voting for a
secessionist government. 

Stop telling them everything will be ok.

It won't be.




-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics