Secession

[dawna]

Hal:

A study of recent Canadian Constitutional history suggests that Quebec is highly likely to continue in it's campaign for secession and that there is a serious possibility that it will succeed. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has been placed in an excruciating constitutional position, it has publicly recognized Quebec secession as a major and current threat to Canadian Constitutionalism. I believe that the situation with Quebec is an interesting and contemporary example of secession.

The Party Quebecois was founded in 1968 (political party dedicated to the separation of Quebec) and in 1976, the first Parti Quebecois government was elected. In 1980, a referendum was held in Quebec seeking a mandate for the government of Quebec to negotiate a new status with the rest of Canada called "sovereignty-association." That proposal was defeated by approximately 60% to 40% of the Quebecers who voted in the referendum.

An important agreement was achieved between Canada and nine of it's provinces late in 1981 and although Quebec representatives had been involved in the negotiations leading up to the agreement, they did not sign the final arrangement. However, Quebec does remain legally bound by the Constitutional amendment that followed the political agreement - this has remained a source of dissatisfaction amongst many Quebecers.

Although the Parti Quebecois was defeated in 1985 it was elected again in 1994 and 1998, despite two failed attempts to amend the Constitution in 1990 and 1992. Quebec has been at this for a very long time. It's desire to separate from Canada is fuelled by an intense ethnic and cultural feeling which draws upon deep wells of historic resentment. Quebec's passion and vision is based on the actual sense of being a nation first.

There is a very different feeling out west - a much different agenda than that of Quebec with the wesetern provinces mostly wanting their interests adequately represented. There are no distinct values separating the rest of Canada - we are Canadians first.

I have included a letter written by Stephan Dion, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, to the Premier of Alberta, which is more representative of how Canadians truly feel regarding secession:

"The Honourable Ralph Klein
Premier of Alberta
Room 307, Legislature Building
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B6

Dear Premier,

I know you are a committed Canadian and how much Albertans love their country. For this reason, I am writing to address any misunderstanding that your recent comments may have created about your unwavering attachment to Canada.

I am sure you will agree that nothing justifies secession – or the threat of secession – in Canada. Nothing justifies such a threat, whether in Alberta, in Quebec or anywhere else in our great democracy.

Secession is a very grave act whereby an international border is established between fellow citizens who thus cease to be fellow citizens. There is no justification in our democracy for transforming Canadians into foreigners in relation to one another.

Since the end of the Second World War, whenever secession has occurred, it has been in the context of decolonization or following the break-up of totalitarian empires, where fundamental rights have been violated. This bears no resemblance to the context of a well established democracy such as Canada.

Nowhere in the world is the spectre of secession raised with regard to an international protocol on the environment, or a wheat board, or a firearm registry program. Albertans who oppose Kyoto, the Canadian Wheat Board or the Firearms Act are no less Canadian than other Canadians. Albertans who support those federal policies are no less Albertan than other Albertans.

Both our governments are working to develop the best policies for our country. In the process, we sometimes have disagreements, which we have to overcome as best we can. But it would be unfair to Canada to call into question its very existence simply because our governments have disagreements. Other democracies do not do so.

I have lived in France and in the United States. I have met many French and Americans who strongly disagreed with policies of their national governments. I have never met any who, as a result, called into question their belonging and attachment to their country. There is no reason for things to be any different in Canada.

I hope you will clarify that fundamental difference between love for one’s country and opinions about one’s governments, as Premier and party leader, whenever the spectre of separation is raised.

"Don’t slay the messenger," you say (Calgary Herald, February 19, 2003 p. A1). But, this is the point, you are more than a messenger – you are a leader. And a leader must say that the threat of secession is morally wrong in a democracy.

As you yourself have previously stated in an open letter on February 9, 2001: "The existence of tension in a federal system however, is not a sign of irreconcilable differences – it is inevitable and exists in all federations."

As for our current disagreements, let us continue to work towards resolving them for the benefit of Albertans and all Canadians. That is what our fellow citizens expect of us, in this Canada in which we all believe.

Sincerely,
Stephan Dion"

Christopher Humes is of course entitled to his opinion but let's remember that he is using his forum as art critic to venture into the world of " politics and global affairs." As for Francois Ducros' comments two years ago regarding the President, she rightfully resigned from her position, and in truth Hal, we all house morons cleverly disguised as idiots.

As Canadians, we are often the brunt of international ridicule and we share our own brand of redneck jokes i.e. beer swelling, toque wearing, moose killing lumberjacks living out our existence in primitive cabins and igloos on a wasteland of ice and snow. For the most part, we suck it up and laugh along with the rest of the world- we're too polite to do otherwise. As understated as we are, we still get pretty excited when almost any American show makes reference to their neighbours to the North.

We are a country full to the brim with optimism, a sense of limitless possibilites, much natural wealth, no enemies, and an intense love of freedom. Anti-American stupidities exist everywhere and Canada is one of the few countries whose attitudes has increased favourably towards the U.S. and not decreased, since 9/11.

Dawna

[hawglips]

Dawna, thanks for your insightful comments.

Real life real time secession issues are always interesting to me. They give us a frame of reference and a real-ness that isn't available from the pages of books. Now matter how hard I try, it's inevitable that looking back at 1860 with the benefits of 20/20 hindsight and with the handicap of the colored lenses of my modern attitudes will keep me at arms length.

Hal

[unionblue]

A thought concerning the idea of secession.

If the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity, and a minority...is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government...for some other man or society may dislike another law and oppose it with equal propriety until all laws are prostrate, and everyone will carve for himself.

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

A thought in response.

Leaving someone isn't at all the same thing as dictating to them. Otherwise, every person who walks out on their spouse is no better than a wife (or husband) beater.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

You will have a hard time convincing me that the leaders of southern rebellion are even remotely in the same category as a wife (or husband) beater.

Besides, the above thought was not my own, but that of George Washington and his comments on those who defied the government during the Whiskey Rebellion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

If I understand him correctly, Washington was arguing that a minority cannot dictate to a majority while remaining part of the same nation. That is not at all the same thing as saying that the act of departure from a political union is in itself an act of violence – which is the gist of the coercionist case in 1861, insofar as I understand it.

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

Yes, and your point being? (And, no, Bill, I don't buy that the South became a separate country/nation/kingdom/housewife/etc., so I do not consider the South's rebellion an act of departure, and I do consider acts of violence did take place and the South did commit such acts. And I'll bet money Washington was saying the same thing.)

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

You might not buy the idea that the seceding states became a separate nation but you must surely concede that they wanted to become one, and so there was definitely an attempted “act of departure”.

And so the question is whether such an act of political departure has to be answered with violence. The line consistently taken by those on your side of the fence is that war was “inevitable” after secession. That is to say, the invading party (the U.S.A.) was effectively left without a choice in the matter. Strange to say, this bald assertion is never followed by a detailed explanation of how exactly the U.S. Government was deprived of its freedom of choice of action. (I picture German tanks rolling over the Polish border in September 1939, and the tank commanders leaning out of their turrets to shrug their shoulders and tell the Poles “So sorry…we just couldn’t help ourselves.”)

As far as I can see, that freedom of choice did indeed remain. The firing on Sumter was a limited military response to a limited U.S. military incursion on C.S. soil. It undoubtedly enflamed public opinion in the North, but it did not make inevitable the Lincoln administration’s decision to conquer and destroy the Confederate States.

As far as you’re concerned, it all comes down to slavery. And as far as I’m concerned, it all comes down to U.S. imperialism. The people who took the decision to wage war on the C.S.A. were impatient for the U.S.A. to become a world power as quickly as possible and believed (wrongly, in my opinion) that the loss of territory in the South would slow down the process. It all comes down to the blatant pursuit of power for its own sake and the promotion of the interests of a political party which, by its own definition, only aspired to represent one region of the old union.

Bill

[thea_447]

Well said, Bill, well said.

[hawglips]

I picture German tanks rolling over the Polish border in September 1939, and the tank commanders leaning out of their turrets to shrug their shoulders and tell the Poles “So sorry…we just couldn’t help ourselves

I cannot avoid noticing that the reasons used for that invasion were eerily similar to the ones Lincoln used for his:

A. Hitler: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5.45 A.M. we have been returning the fire...I will continue this struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured." - Sep. 1, 1939

Hal