Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Chrétien & Dion explain the Clarity Act

Jean Chrétien and Stéphane Dion, Canada's crack national unity experts, were sent to the UK and Spain to advise those countries on how to deal with their growing separatist threats.

We have obtained the transcripts of their meeting with David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK.

It should be noted that Chrétien and Dion are the masterminds behind Canada's unity building Clarity Act.1

DC: Hello Mr Chretien and Mr Dion, Thank you for coming and helping us with our separatist problem.

JC: Hello, Mr Cameron. Don't worry, we're like the Ghostbusters except it's for separatists... Who you ganna call, eh? Haha!

SD: Good one, Boss!

DC: Yes, well... We're glad you're here. We know you passed some groundbreaking legislation, the Clarity Act, in Canada which lays down the ground rules for these separatist bastards so that they cannot cheat their way to independence.

SD: Yes, we redefined the very meaning of word "clarity". I feel we achieved a clearer kind of clarity.

DC: Clearly!

JC: That's right, mon Stéphane. And we put those separatists in their place, eh? I love putting separatists in their place. I consider it the job Canadians hired me to do... So what would you like to know Mr Cameron?

DC: Well, let's start with the "clear question" part of the act. How do you define that?

JC: We don't, of course. That's the idea.

SD: If I may Boss? We feel that any indication in the question of a willingness to negotiate a partnership or to keep mutually beneficial ties or of just being reasonable in general might lead people to believe that they are dealing with rational adults who would negotiate independence in good faith. We feel that this is misleading. We want people to see us as the kind of psycho who threatens to kill his girlfriend if she even thinks of leaving. That's why we threatened to cut Quebec up if it ever leaves.

DC: I see. Well, I think the question in the Scottish referendum is quite clear: "Should Scotland be an independent country?". So I don't think we can do much on that front.

JC: Oh, I don't know. Maybe I think Scotland "should" be an independent country but I don't want it to be independent. How do I vote then? It's not clear... I'm confused!

SD: Exactly! Also, "an independent country" is not very clear. Which independent country? Maybe that country is the UK. Who knows what the voter really intends when he votes YES. You know, people aren't too bright.

JC: Good point, mon p'tit Stéphane... Also, the question doesn't say when. Maybe I think Scotland should be an independent country 200 years from now. Again, how do I vote? I'm confused and I forgot my glasses. I think "Do you really want to destroy the bestest country in the world?" would be a clearer question from the standpoint of clarity, I believe.

DC: I see we called the right people. We hadn't thought of any of this.

JC: Well, we have a lot of experience dealing with the separatists. I remember during the 1980 referendum, I was talking to Claude Ryan, he was the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party at the time. That guy, you know, he was so pompous and aloof. When you were in his the presence, you felt you were in front of a bishop. You felt like you had to get on your knees and kiss his bague2...

DC: ?
Kiss his what?

JC: Anyway, what were we talking about?

DC: Maybe we should move on to a "clear majority". I have to admit, I'm not too clear on what you mean here. What do you consider a "clear majority", Mr Chretien?

JC: Oh, I don't know. That's something you establish after the referendum and it's usually 5% more than the result if the YES side wins. But personally, I think 75% is pretty clear if the question is clear. What do you think, Stéphane?

SD: Well, Justin Trudeau recently put the bar at 66%.

JC: Oh, Justin... he's always been weak on the separatists, not like his father. His father knew how to deal with separatists. A couple of kidnappings and you declare martial law, send in the army and start rounding up all the separatists. That's the way you do it.

DC: But didn't one of the hostages die?

JC: Yes, well, Trudeau was making a political point, you see... Look, if you want to make an omelet, you have to crack a few eggs, right? And if your omelet is national unity then you've got to crack a few separatist heads. Am I right, Stéphane?

SD: You're right, Boss! Are you familiar with the Shawinigan Handshake, Mr Cameron?

JC: Anyway, Laporte got a bridge named after him. He's a martyr for national unity now... almost a saint. People hardly even mention his mafia ties nowadays so we did him a big favor by hanging him out to dry like that.

DC: OK, well... Do you have any other advice for us?

SD: Have you compared Scottish nationalists to Nazis yet?

DC: Yes, we had some of our lackeys in the media take care of that.

JC: Good! Pepper spray?
I ❤ Franco

SD: Boss, I'm afraid we have to catch our plane to Madrid now.

JC: Oh, look at the time. I'm sorry David but we have to go help the Spaniards. I don't know why they need us when they had the great Generalissimo Franco. He was the master of national unity.

DC: Well, thank you both for your help. I think we now have a clearer understanding of what referendum clarity is thanks to you gentlemen...

1- Why the Clarity Act is anti-democratic

2- NB: bague is the French word for ring, pronounced like "bag"... (This is an actual Chrétien quote)


  1. « Simplement, la question »
    Une question claire pour monsieur Stéphane Dion de Aislin (alias Terry Mosher) en 1995.
    L’identité québécoise a atteint, en novembre 2010, un niveau historique de 60% !
    Alors, commente Jedwab, “ce qui m’inquiète est que la totalité des groupes de moins de 65 ans se sentent très détachés du Canada”. Jack est, comme chacun le sait, un fédéraliste convaincu. Il a de bonnes raisons d’être inquiet.

  2. Le référendum volé, Les Intouchables, 2005, 205 p.
    Robin Philpot
    Le 30 octobre 1995, après une campagne référendaire exaltante marquée par un vaste mouvement de liberté mobilisant tous les secteurs de la population et défi ant les pronostics les plus sombres, le Québec n'a manqué que 54 000 voix pour devenir un pays indépendant. Donc ce n'est que partie remise. Mais fini, la naïveté!
    Ce n'est plus un secret. Le gouvernement du Canada à volé le référendum du 30 Octobre 1995. Voici un petit montage effectué sur le vol de notre pays. On y entend notammant André Boisclair, Gilles Rhéaume et Robin Philpot.

  3. Veritas: while you do make many valid criticisms towards Jean Chretien, Stephane Dion, the Trudeaus and other federalists, there remains a nagging question. What will an independent Quebec do if, say, the Cree and other First Nations people decide that they wish to remain to Canada?

    Will the army of the new Quebec republic use force against them? As many other people have pointed out, the First Nations tribes are wards of the federal government in Ottawa. If Quebec used military force against aboriginal people to keep them in the newly-independent Quebec, would Ottawa not be obliged to send Canadian soldiers to defend them?

    1. Jacques, there is no part of Quebec's territory that is only conditionally part of Quebec. All of it is entirely part of Quebec.

      Before Sovereignty

      As long as Québec is part of Canada, its territory cannot be modified without the consent of the National Assembly. The Canadian constitution is very clear on this point: this guarantee was enshrined in the Constitutional Act of 1871 and has never been challenged since.

      This guarantee would obviously continue to hold during the transition period following a “Yes” victory in a referendum, while the Québec government would seek to reach a partnership agreement with Canada. During this negotiation phase, Québec would still be part of Canada and the Canadian constitution would apply as before.

      After Sovereignty

      At the end of the transition period set by the National Assembly, when Québec would become sovereign, the Canadian constitution would cease to apply within Québec's territory. Québec's territorial integrity would then be guaranteed by well-established principles of international law.

      According to these principles, Québec's borders as they were before it became sovereign would be the borders of the new state. The established rule in international law is uti possidetis juris, which basically means “You keep what you already have.”

      This rule has been rigorously applied in all recent cases in which states have attained sovereignty. For example, when the republics of the former Soviet Union became sovereign states, they kept their territory; indeed, respect for established borders was one of the international community's main criteria for recognizing the new states.

      In short, neither the other provinces nor the federal government could use the opportunity to reduce or modify Québec's territory without its consent.

      Treaty obligations of the Canadian government regarding the aboriginal people of Quebec would be passed on to the government of Quebec after independence just as the British had passed them on to Canada.

      Canada does not recognize the right of aboriginal people to chose which country they wish to belong to. Could the Mohawks chose to bring all their territory under one flag, the American flag? Would Canada respect their will if they chose this? Of course not. Canada could not therefore recognize this right for Quebec's aboriginal people. Read: http://global-economics.ca/dth.chap7.htm

      The aboriginal people of Quebec make up only 1% of the population. I believe it is far more feasible for Quebec to accommodate their demands and aspiration than it ever will be for Canada. So, while you are dreaming up these hypothetical situation, why don't you imagine the one where an independent Quebec and its First Nations come to an historic arrangement that sets off a First Nation uprising across Canada demanding for the same conditions...

    2. Veritas: it may be a hypothetical situation, but I'm not making it up. First Nations people in Quebec and in other Canadian provinces have indeed been known to use force when they felt their rights were being excessively infringed upon. The Canadian army was called in to end the Oka crisis in Quebec, for example.

      Of course, Canada and the U.S. wouldn't recognize it if the Mohawks in the U.S. and Canada were to declare their own "Mohawk Republic", just as Spain and France wouldn't recognize a "Basque republic" that was formed out of Spanish and French territory. As well, Iraq, Iran and Turkey will not recognize an independent "Republic of Kurdistan."

      With Quebec, it's a bit different however, since Quebec has historically been a province of Canada, even if you don't like to admit that. It may be a special region with nation-like traits, but it has largely been a Canadian province nonetheless. A comparison with Catalonia in Spain would be more accurate, than talking about Canada vis-a-vis the U.S.

      Sure, it would be nice to imagine that the First Nations people in Quebec would deal with the transition peacefully (in the event of Quebec independence), but again, what if they don't? Many First Nations people in Quebec have indicated that they would rather deal with Ottawa than with an independent Quebec, even though they might not care much for the Canadian federal government, either.

      If the army of the new Quebec Republic were sent to crush any violent uprisings by the Cree, Inuit or Mohawks, for example, there could indeed be calls for Ottawa to send Canadian soldiers to defend the First Nations peoples.

    3. Jacques, I don't think you understood the point I was making with the Mohawks. Anyway, this is a silly exercise. Look, I get it. You're trying to make the point that independence is scary and bad things could happen... Most things worth doing aren't easy. Why don't we just assume that everyone will respect the law, including international law instead of wasting our time dreaming up these "what if" scenarios?

    4. Veritas: Thanks for your reply. However, I note your comment "Most things worth doing aren't easy." What exactly do Quebec separatists hope to achieve with separation? How will it make Quebec more culturally or economically secure? They'll have to forego equalization payments, and they'll be responsible for at least a quarter of the federal debt. And, if they refused to accept responsibility for it, then their credit rating would utterly collapse.

      I can also see a mass exodus of anglophones, allophones and even francophones in the event of separation. I recall visiting Quebec in the early 1990's, and there were "A Louer" and "A Vendre" ("For Rent" and "For Sale") signs everywhere. I've heard that the economy picked up after 1995, and that it isn't so bad right now, but one can see that kind of thing happening again.

    5. Jacques, first a few points: There was a serious economic recession in the early 90s that had nothing to do with Quebec independence. Second, Quebec's part of Canada's debt is negotiable. Don't forget, if we get a quarter of Canada's debt we also get a quarter of Canada's assets.

      As for why Quebec needs independence, that is what I'm trying to explain with this blog and its related Facebook page. If you simply don't see the value of independence then I suggest to try convincing your fellow Canadians that Canada should become the 51st state of the US. Who knows, maybe the Americans will offer you a fistful of cash for your sovereignty? But I assume that your independence is not that cheap and worthless... But ours should be!

      Read how Jane Jacobs explains why Quebec needs independence.

    6. Veritas: actually, I was interested in the Western Canada Concept Party, which was started by the late attorney Doug Christie, of Victoria, B.C. Basically, Mr. Christie argued that it would be a good idea to try to form a Western Canadian nation out of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and possibly Manitoba, if the latter could be brought on board.

      Personally, while I am generally fond of Quebec, I don't see the value of forcing them to stay in Canada at any cost. I also resent some people telling me that I was bigoted for not supporting ill-defined, blank cheque "distinct society" clauses which are intrinsically unfair to other provinces, as they are too vague and open-ended, and could be later interpreted to give unfair privileges to Quebec, simply because it's a majority-francophone province.

      During the debate before the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, I recall watching a TV programme which showed town hall meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland. One gentleman said, "Why isn't Newfoundland and Labrador a candidate for 'distinct society' status? We speak a dialect of English which isn't used in other Canadian provinces, and we have the same kinds of problems with unemployment that Quebec has. We also had the same kind of dominance by the Roman Catholic Church in the past, and other Canadians often poke fun at us as much as they do to francophone Quebecers and other French-Canadians."

      I personally know Newfoundlanders and even Nova Scotians who were really angered by Lucien Bouchard, when he said, "Canada doesn't need Newfoundland." One Newfoundlander told me, "Lucien really needs to get off his damn high horse."

      On one of your blog entries, you correctly point out that in Italy or Brazil, a parents cannot expect their child to receive a publically-funded education in a foreign language. No, of course not, and of course, it's reasonable to expect that publically-funded education in Quebec be entirely in French, with exceptions made for the traditional Anglophone communities and First Nations people.

      However, here's a difference between Quebec and Brazil (I don't know about Italy): Brazil aggressively promotes multiculturalism and considers it a virtue. Yes, everyone in Brazil must learn Portuguese in order to be a citizen; nonetheless, they also strongly encourage the learning of not only English, but also Spanish, Italian, German, Arabic, Japanese, French, Russian, Hebrew and other languages.

      Witness the case of the Sikh PMs who weren't allowed to enter the Quebec Provincial Assembly if they had "kirpans" (ceremonial daggers which adherents of the Sikh religion often wear). I can understand the safety concerns, but what if those MPs only had blunt kirpans which were incapable of being used as weapons? Would they still have been allowed in? I believe one PQ member said, "Multiculturalism is a Canadian virue, but not a Quebec one." How do you feel about that?

    7. Jacques, what you need to understand is that French-Canadians, from the start, saw Canada as a bi-national state. Even though it was clear that we weren't equals, we still saw Canada as a partnership between two nations and Quebec was seen as the unofficial representative of all French-Canadian interests on the federal level. I believe English Canadians also understood the bi-national nature of Canada at first. Now they tend to deny it and see us as somehow crazy for believing such a thing.

      French-Canadians continued to believe in this vision of Canada despite that fact that French schools were banned throughout English Canada. All this really came to an end with Trudeau's constitution which saw Canada as a uni-national country with two languages and some vague, ill-defined multiculturalism. There was no longer any recognition of Canada's duality and Quebec was no long the seat of power of a nation but an administrative unit like any other province.

      Newfoundland is distinct from Alberta like Main is distinct from Texas. That's not the point. They did not enter into confederation with a certain understanding of their place in it which was later changed without their consent. It's not that we see ourselves as special, we simply see ourselves as a distinct nation. This fact is not recognized in the constitution. We do not exists in the constitution. It reminds me of how, until recently, Kurds were not even recognized to even exist in Turkey. They were called mountain Turks. They were Turks who just spoke funny.

      You say "Brazil aggressively promotes multiculturalism and considers it a virtue". How exactly? Could you even define what multiculturalism is? It's such a nebulous term that seems to mean different things to different people. Quebec is multicultural in the sense that people from many different cultures live here and they all bring something of their native cultures. That's great but we simply want French to be the common language in Quebec like English is the common language in Ontario.

      This is often portrayed as us wanting to force immigrants to eat Poutine, watch hockey and listen to Gilles Vigneault, which is utter nonsense. We are simply less inclined to make exceptions for the culture or religion of newcomers. Maybe this is from a history of being dominated by another culture, who knows. An example of this was the Sikhs who came to speak to the National Assembly. There is simply a rule, which applies to everyone, against entering weapons in the National Assembly. There are rational reasons behind this rule. The Sikhs refused to part with their weapons for irrational religious reasons. Who should yield is this case? Personally, I don't see any sane reason for not wanting to part with their knives for a little while. I believe that our laws and traditions should trump those of newcomers. If I went to live in their country I would make an effort to respect their culture and traditions. I would not try to change them to accommodate me.

    8. Jacques : « What will an independent Quebec do if.. First Nations people decide that they wish to remain to Canada? »

      The point of the question is ?? .. Find a pretext to keep our nation submitted to anglo-imperialists.

      Jacques doesn't care about the Natives. I he he did he would underline that the Crees in Québec have a much better life than those in Ontario because they live in Québec, because they have signed the most advanced treaties that a Native nation ever reached with a modern state : 1) La Convention de la Baie-James and 2) La Paix des Braves.

      Hence, while the Ontarian Crees live in misery reservations with no hope while the Québec Crees have had all their quality of life indicators largely improved during the last 40 years and they are now starting more and more business **because they live in Québec**

      So, the much more relevant question about Natives should be : When Québec gets rid of the anglo-imperialist dictatorship, what will the roC do if Ontarian Crees and other roC First Nations people decide that they wish to join the new free state and be treated with respect instead of remaining into misery reservations ??

  4. Veritas: vous faites plusieurs arguments raisonnables a l'egard de Jean Chretien, Stephane Dion, Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, et d'autres federalistes. Pourtant, il reste une question problematique a poser. Que ferait un Quebec independant, si par exemple, les Cree et d'autres peuples autochtones decidaient de rester au Canada, et de ne pas se joindre avec une Republique Quebecoise?

    Est-ce que l'armee de la nouvelle Republique du Quebec utiliserait-elle la force militaire contre les amerindiens? Comme plusieurs gens ont deja note, les autochtones sont sous la protection du gouvernement federal d'Ottawa. Est-ce qu'Ottawa ne serait-il pas oblige a envoyer des soldats canadiens pour leur proteger?

  5. re: "Quebec's part of Canada's debt is negotiable." Yes, this is true. However, I take umbrage with some Quebecois nationalists who believe that simply because they are leaving Canada in the event of independence, that Quebec's share of the national debt should simply be erased. If they gained independence and then made that particular claim, Quebec's credit rating would soon make Greece's seem highly enviable by comparison.

    re: the United States. In theory, joining the U.S. wouldn't be bad in a number of respects. I personally don't care about retaining the British monarchy any more than you do, and the U.S. political system is arguably more fair than the one we currently have in Canada. However, I dislike the U.S. gun culture in its current form, and I don't like capital punishment for a number of reasons. I also think that Canada has an overall better social welfare system than the U.S. Perhaps we (Western Canada)could join them as a special U.S. Commonwealth region, similar to Puerto Rico in the U.S., or Hong Kong in China. We'd still be under their jurisdiction, but we'd have a lot of administrative and cultural autonomy as well.

    If Quebec does decide to leave Canada, and then regrets the decision after a few years, I wouldn't be adverse to treating them like the Prodigal Son and welcoming them back. However, I cannot speak for all anglophone Canadians outside Quebec. Also, even I would insist on an end to all the palaver, blackmail and nonsense, if they wanted to return. Assez de conneries et de merde de taureau, enfin.

  6. Veritas: merci pour votre reponse. Yes, I have no problem with the idea that French should be as important in Quebec as English is in Ontario. re: Brazil. I'll have to do a bit more research and get back to you on it, but it's my understanding that they (Brazilians) have been promoting ESL/EFL education as much as some Asian nations have been doing (e.g. Vietnam, China, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.). They also strongly encourage the learning of languages other than English, and they have strong ties not only with other Latin American countries and with Portugal, but also with the U.S., Japan, Lebanon, Italy, Germany, France, etc.

    It's disturbing to see the strong animosity to English shown by some PQ politicians and supporters. There are actually some PQ members who have suggested that if a store clerk in Montreal greets someone in English, then the store should have to pay a fine of $2,000, with half going to the "offended customer", and the other half to the provincial government.

    All right, so suppose you go into a Japanese restaurant or specialty store and the clerk says, "Konnichiwa," or the owner of an Italian place says, "Buongiorno." Should they be fined only half as much ("it's a lesser offense"), or twice as much ("there are fewer allophones than anglophones and out-of-province anglophone tourists in Montreal, so it's an even worse offense")?

    There are also some PQ members who seem to want to go back to the old sign laws, which totally banned anything other than French on commercial signs or on some road signs. Sure, French should always be on all signs, and it should be predominant as well. But, why ban English or anything else on them?

    1. Jacques, if your definition of a multicultural society is one where its people speak several languages then Quebec is the most multicultural province in Canada. There are far more bilingual and trilingual people here than in any other Canadian province.

      "There are actually some PQ members who have suggested that if a store clerk in Montreal greets someone in English, then the store should have to pay a fine of $2,000"... Who Jacques? Do you have a name? A link? You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it. It's so easy to make shit up. Anglos make shit up about Quebec all the time e.g. "Quebec wants to ban the word PASTA!!!"

      Quebec's language laws regulate commercial signs not the spoken language. There are no fines for shop clerks who speak English or those who say "Konnichiwa" or "Buongiorno". I see you're really grasping at straws in your arguments now, Jacques.

    2. Journalist Martin Pelletier (on the Mario Dumont TV show): "If I go shopping and a clerk addresses me in English, then, if there is a witness, I should be able to take them to court and have them fined $2,000. Half for the plaintiff, and half for the government."

      Journalist Pierre Dubruc: "If someone can't ask for a metro ticket in French, let them walk."

      (re: Pelletier's remark. I don't know if he meant if the clerk used a unilingual English greeting, or a mixed French-English greeting such as "Hello, Bonjour," or both. Also, I don't know how he'd feel if someone used a monolingual greeting in an allophone language, such as "Buenos dias","Guten Tag", etc.)

    3. "There are far more bilingual and trilingual people here (in Quebec) than in any other Canadian province."

      I don't know about that. In Vancouver, 52 percent of residents do not speak English as a first language. In Toronto, there are some 250 languages spoken altogether.

    4. Martin Pelletier is not a journalist. He was on some reality TV show but went on to become yet another right-wing "commentator". This guy is not a Sovereignist. I can assure you he does not vote for the PQ and he is certainly not a member of that party. Yet you said "some PQ members" (plural) had suggested his idea. Pelletier is one guy. He's paid to say outrageous things on TV and radio and he has nothing to do with the PQ...

    5. According to Statistics Canada
      42.6% of Quebec residents
      can hold a conversation in more than one language. That is far higher than any other province. Immigrants and especially their children tend to be trilingual in Quebec. For example, the Italian community in Toronto mainly speak English but have retained Italian. In Montreal, the Italian community are generally fluent in English, French and Italian. Yet we get lectured by English Canadians about the value of bilingualism...

    6. Veritas: thanks for your reply. I think that, instead of learning a handful of languages but not speaking any of them particularly well (and I'm sort of guilty of that, as I like learning languages), it's best to just stick to two, or three at the most, and speak and write them well. That is, unless you're an exceptional linguistic genius like the scientist Nikola Tesla, or the character Hans Landa (played by Christophe Waltz) in the Quentin Tarantino film "Inglourious Basterds."

      Some years ago, I read an article in a Quebec magazine entitled "Le Melting-Pot Quebecois" which talked about multicultural Montreal. Now, why does the magazine result in gratuitous anglicisms that even a magazine in France wouldn't use? Why not call the article "Le Crucible Quebecois", as "crucible" is as much a French word as it is an English one? And then in Quebec, there are activists who paint over signs that read "Stop", so that they look like "101." Evidently, the folks who do that don't even know that "Stop" is a perfectly acceptable French word, from the verb "stopper." "Arret" is okay too, but why remove a perfectly good French word, while falsely thinking that it's exclusively English?

      But, I guess, since Quebec French usually uses "la fin de semaine" instead of "le week-end", then that means that the former isn't absolutely loaded with blatant anglicisms and unnecessary English words, while the latter is (I'm being facetious here, or course). I also recall a book from the 1970's entitled "Les Anglicismes Au Quebec." While the book wasn't an especially thick tome, it wasn't really slender either. It provided a fair amount of reading material.

      I look at Quebecois, and I see North Americans who are basically doing virtually everything which most Anglo North Americans (especially most other Canadians) are doing, except that they are doing it with a heavily-anglicized version of French, in general. While there are traces of European French culture in Quebec (such as in the architecture of Quebec City, and in "some" of the food, music, art, religion and customs), one could say the same about Louisiana, where French is somewhat less spoken overall.

      That's why I got a laugh out of Lucien Bouchard saying that Anglo Canada is exactly the same as the U.S. He didn't know what he was talking about.

  7. re: the Sikhs. In Western Canada, there was a controversy about Sikhs wearing turbans in to Legion Halls, as it was thought that headgear of any sort was disrespectful to the Queen. However, there were some people who hypocritically wearing cowboy hats in Legions in Alberta during a local rodeo event, all the while saying that Sikhs should not be permitted to wear turbans in the Legion. As for kirpans, if they are just blunt ceremonial ones which cannot be used as weapons, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed in political assemblies or elsewhere.

    Anyway, Sikhs have long been allowed to wear turbans in Buckingham Palace, or when meeting the Queen. I personally think we should abolish the monarchy in Canada, as it is a remnant of a racist and class-based colonial era. I don't want a Napoleon-like dictatorship either, though. I like what you said about introducing the Alternative Voting system, and curtailing the excessive powers of the Prime Minister.

  8. Veritas: have you read the book "Why Canada Must End" by Tony Kondaks? I haven't read it yet, but I may order it and read it. He also has a website:

  9. I don't fear trouble with the Cree and the Mohawk if Quebec separates. I'm much sure we'll reach an agreement, and perhaps recorgnize their independance too. Recently, Quebec recorgnized a new autonomous government of the Crees, the governemnt of Eeyou Ischee. I'm much certain Quebec Republic could cooexist peacefully with the aboriginals, and we could even create a Peninsular Union where we could share some ressources like hydroelectricity. To me, it's much unlikely to imagine that Quebec would send its army to the Crees. It's not Quebec's style of solving problems.