[Goober911]

PostFactum PostFactum:

Well, I've read MeganC post, and realized that you don't know about what cities and places I'm talking about, so I've made a map. Red points are cities I'm talking about.

Thanks- I bookmarked it.

[martin14]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

When Canada was founded in 1867, our constitution granted provinces authority to protect their unique culture and language. Quebec has passed laws to protect the French language. And recent polls of Ukraine posted to this discussion show 70% of people in eastern Ukraine favour one united country, but a significant portion don't. That sounds like the same proportion in Quebec who want separation. They're a minority, but a significant minority.

We had our FLQ crisis in 1972, with terrorists, a government official murdered, soldiers on our streets. The RCMP (Canada's federal police) found the FLQ were planning to bomb the largest building in Montreal; they had explosives to do it, but RCMP stopped them. We didn't have a superpower on our borders threatening to invade. In fact, the United States wanted us to resolve it, but they didn't interfere. However, French President Charles de Gaulle did give a speech encouraging the separatists in 1967. But he kept silent during the crisis in 1972. So we have "been there, done that".

Federalism isn't so bad. As long as it includes a guarantee that the regions will not under any circumstances separate, that Russia will not annex.

You simply cannot compare the separatist movement in Ukraine with Quebec.

Maybe if you threw in the USA ready to invade and annex Quebec, providing money,
agitators and spies, and military threats, then maybe.

That's an utter fail, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

[PostFactum]

martin14 martin14:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

When Canada was founded in 1867, our constitution granted provinces authority to protect their unique culture and language. Quebec has passed laws to protect the French language. And recent polls of Ukraine posted to this discussion show 70% of people in eastern Ukraine favour one united country, but a significant portion don't. That sounds like the same proportion in Quebec who want separation. They're a minority, but a significant minority.

We had our FLQ crisis in 1972, with terrorists, a government official murdered, soldiers on our streets. The RCMP (Canada's federal police) found the FLQ were planning to bomb the largest building in Montreal; they had explosives to do it, but RCMP stopped them. We didn't have a superpower on our borders threatening to invade. In fact, the United States wanted us to resolve it, but they didn't interfere. However, French President Charles de Gaulle did give a speech encouraging the separatists in 1967. But he kept silent during the crisis in 1972. So we have "been there, done that".

Federalism isn't so bad. As long as it includes a guarantee that the regions will not under any circumstances separate, that Russia will not annex.

You simply cannot compare the separatist movement in Ukraine with Quebec.

Maybe if you threw in the USA ready to invade and annex Quebec, providing money,
agitators and spies, and military threats, then maybe.

That's an utter fail, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

At least Quebec is not separating with weapons and massacres. There are just few clowns who make parliament more hilarious.

[Goober911]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

When Canada was founded in 1867, our constitution granted provinces authority to protect their unique culture and language. Quebec has passed laws to protect the French language. And recent polls of Ukraine posted to this discussion show 70% of people in eastern Ukraine favour one united country, but a significant portion don't. That sounds like the same proportion in Quebec who want separation. They're a minority, but a significant minority.

We had our FLQ crisis in 1972, with terrorists, a government official murdered, soldiers on our streets. The RCMP (Canada's federal police) found the FLQ were planning to bomb the largest building in Montreal; they had explosives to do it, but RCMP stopped them. We didn't have a superpower on our borders threatening to invade. In fact, the United States wanted us to resolve it, but they didn't interfere. However, French President Charles de Gaulle did give a speech encouraging the separatists in 1967. But he kept silent during the crisis in 1972. So we have "been there, done that".

Federalism isn't so bad. As long as it includes a guarantee that the regions will not under any circumstances separate, that Russia will not annex.

A strong Fed Govt, with languages (2) as official, some autonomy, very little for the provinces.
Ethnic Russian-Ukrainians need to have those rights written into any constitution. Same with education.
The major issue is corruption. Then the economy & jobs.
Otherwise it falls apart, and as PF states, separation is down the road.

[Winnipegger]

PostFactum PostFactum:

At least Quebec is not separating with weapons and massacres. There are just few clowns who make parliament more hilarious.

In 1970 they did.

And Canadian history wasn't always so peaceful. When Canada was first being formed, we had major border disputes with the United States. The northern half of the state of Maine was originally part of the Canadian province of New Brunswick. And the United States wanted the western border much farther north, one American senator had a slogan "54 40 or fight!" That meant he wanted the western border to be 54 degrees, 40 minutes north. That would put all farm land within the United States. We would only get forest, too cold to grow any crops. But we didn't give in, our ancestors argued strongly. The border ended up as 49 degrees. Over 90% of the Canadian population in the west is south of 54°40'. But Canada was a colony of Britain at that time. The British Empire was a superpower at that time, the United States was a major power, but not yet a superpower. So we were a pawn between two major powers.

The United States did invade Canada in 1812. They tried to annex Canada entirely. But Canada was still a colony of Britain at that time, so again Britain sent their army to defend Canada. British forces counter attacked deep within the United States, while Canadian militia defended Canadian territory. British officers at that time thought Canadian militia was incompetent, and since Americans learned out to defeat British during their war of independence, they thought Canadian militia would be easy. They were wrong. Canadian militia used the exact same tactics as American army, and fought very well. In fact, Canadian militia knew the terrain, because it was their home. That was enough, they won. Amazingly, American schools teach that they won the war of 1812. They did not gain any territory, in fact Canada captured Detroit. The British ordered Canada to give it back as a concession.

The last dispute with the United States was over Alaska. When the United States bought "Russian North America" from Russia, and renamed it "Alaska". The Canadian province of British Columbia pointed out all of the Alaska pan handle was their territory. It wasn't Russian, they couldn't sell it. Canada was a young country at that time; we weren't a colony, but the British insisted on negotiated with the United States on our behalf. The British didn't argue the pan handle was Canadian territory, they just argued how far inland. They negotiated a compromise, half way between the border the British drew vs the American claim. As a result, the Canadian government told the British to get out. They wouldn't let the British negotiate any treaty for Canada ever again. We would handle our own affairs.

[martin14]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

PostFactum PostFactum:

At least Quebec is not separating with weapons and massacres. There are just few clowns who make parliament more hilarious.

In 1972 they did.

PF, just ignore this guy, he hasn't got a clue.

[Winnipegger]

martin14 martin14:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

PostFactum PostFactum:

At least Quebec is not separating with weapons and massacres. There are just few clowns who make parliament more hilarious.

In 1972 they did.

PF, just ignore this guy, he hasn't got a clue.

Rude. You didn't live through it, did you?

Canada wasn't always so peaceful. And just in 1995 I ran into a Quebec separatist. It was in Calgary, a western province that is all English. But this Quebec person was vehement, angry, claimed Quebec would separate. And bitter that Canada declared martial law in Quebec in 1972. I'm constantly amazed at how many Québécois ignore the fact the Quebec government demanded it after one of them was murdered.

[PostFactum]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

PostFactum PostFactum:

At least Quebec is not separating with weapons and massacres. There are just few clowns who make parliament more hilarious.

In 1972 they did.

And Canadian history wasn't always so peaceful. When Canada was first being formed, we had major border disputes with the United States. The northern half of the state of Maine was originally part of the Canadian province of New Brunswick. And the United States wanted the western border much farther north, one American senator had a slogan "54 40 or fight!" That meant he wanted the western border to be 54 degrees, 40 minutes north. That would put all farm land within the United States. We would only get forest, too cold to grow any crops. But we didn't give in, our ancestors argued strongly. The border ended up as 49 degrees. Over 90% of the Canadian population in the west is south of 54°40'. But Canada was a colony of Britain at that time. The British Empire was a superpower at that time, the United States was a major power, but not yet a superpower. So we were a pawn between two major powers.

The United States did invade Canada in 1812. They tried to annex Canada entirely. But Canada was still a colony of Britain at that time, so again Britain sent their army to defend Canada. British forces counter attacked deep within the United States, while Canadian militia defended Canadian territory. British officers at that time thought Canadian militia was incompetent, and since Americans learned out to defeat British during their war of independence, they thought Canadian militia would be easy. They were wrong. Canadian militia used the exact same tactics as American army, and fought very well. In fact, Canadian militia knew the terrain, because it was their home. That was enough, they won. Amazingly, American schools teach that they won the war of 1812. They did not gain any territory, in fact Canada captured Detroit. The British ordered Canada to give it back as a concession.

The last dispute with the United States was over Alaska. When the United States bought "Russian North America" from Russia, and renamed it "Alaska". The Canadian province of British Columbia pointed out all of the Alaska pan handle was their territory. It wasn't Russian, tit's hey couldn't sell it. Canada was a young country at that time; we weren't a colony, but the British insisted on negotiated with the United States on our behalf. The British didn't argue the pan handle was Canadian territory, they just argued how far inland. They negotiated a compromise, half way between the border the British drew vs the American claim. As a result, the Canadian government told the British to get out. They wouldn't let the British negotiate any treaty for Canada ever again. We would handle our own affairs.

it's just small conflicts. 1812 was too long ago to compare with. World was another. You are strong country, you often don't like your cops, but I'm sure they will not sell country in hard momont.

[Winnipegger]

PostFactum PostFactum:

it's just small conflicts. 1812 was too long ago to compare with. World was another. You are strong country, you often don't like your cops, but I'm sure they will not sell country in hard momont.

True. But Canada currently has 35.3 million people, Ukraine has 45.4 million. Less without Crimea, but still more than Canada. Canada has a lot of territory, second only to Russia. That gives us a lot of resources. But Ukraine can do a lot, can be strong.

The population in eastern Ukraine wants rights for the Russian language. They want some autonomy. Crimea was called an "autonomous region" before it was annexed. How did that work? Were they equivalent to a province?

[martin14]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Rude. You didn't live through it, did you?

I am old enough.

The actions a few terrorists do not compare to the situation in Ukraine.

Did 25 - 30% of Quebeckers support the FLQ, demonstrating in the streets,
aiding them in their activities ?

You bet your ass they did NOT.


Your little history lesson has no relationship at all to what's going on in Ukraine.



None.


Nothing.


Absolutely Zero.





Not in language relationships.

Not in culture.

Not in the numbers of people participating.

Not in the actions / reactions of government officials, city police and military.

Not in the actions / reactions of neighbors.

Not in history.



I repeat. Absolutely NOTHING.


Rude ? You deserve it, to snap you out of your delusions.

$1:

Canada wasn't always so peaceful. And just in 1995 I ran into a Quebec separatist..

OMG how did you survive the trauma of it all ?

[Winnipegger]

@martin14: I don't think you realize how close Canada came to civil war. During the 1995 referendum, Jacques Parizeau was premier of Quebec. He claimed all military bases in Quebec would be owned by Quebec after separation, all solders stationed there would be their soldiers, and all military equipment. Including the CF-18 fighters in Bagotville. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no they won't, Jacques Parizeau said yes they will. In fact, Jacques Parizeau went to Bagotville to convince the soldiers to switch allegiance. Parallels to Fort Sumter in the United States. When the southern United States wanted to succeed, they started an action through their Supreme Court to do so peacefully. The south claimed the military base called Fort Sumter. American President Abraham Lincoln sent soldiers from the north to ensure they don't. So southern forces attacked Fort Sumter. That is started their Civil War. When Jacques Parizeau went to Bagotville, he duplicated all those events. But Jean Chrétien didn't react, instead focussed on winning the referendum. That was smart. Most Canadians don't realize how close we came to civil war.

[2Cdo]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

@martin14: I don't think you realize how close Canada came to civil war. During the 1995 referendum, Jacques Parizeau was premier of Quebec. He claimed all military bases in Quebec would be owned by Quebec after separation, all solders stationed there would be their soldiers, and all military equipment. Including the CF-18 fighters in Bagotville. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said no they won't, Jacques Parizeau said yes they will. In fact, Jacques Parizeau went to Bagotville to convince the soldiers to switch allegiance. Parallels to Fort Sumter in the United States. When the southern United States wanted to succeed, they started an action through their Supreme Court to do so peacefully. The south claimed the military base called Fort Sumter. American President Abraham Lincoln sent soldiers from the north to ensure they don't. So southern forces attacked Fort Sumter. That is started their Civil War. When Jacques Parizeau went to Bagotville, he duplicated all those events. But Jean Chrétien didn't react, instead focussed on winning the referendum. That was smart. Most Canadians don't realize how close we came to civil war.

And all the serving officers told "Parasite" to go fuck himself. Nowhere even close to a civil war, as over 90% of Quebec troops that I know would NOT fight for Quebec.

You are right out to lunch here.

[ShepherdsDog]

We had more chance of having a civil war over the Chunky Soup big fork spoon controversy

[Winnipegger]

Hey! I'm trying to tell PostFactum he's not alone. We understand and sympathize. To show how Canada resolved our trouble, and how Ukraine can learn from our experience. Pushing "we win, you lose" will only cause conflict. Finding understanding between all sides is how conflict is resolved. Those fighting want rights for the Russian language, and want more autonomy. Those fighting to keep Ukraine whole want a single nation. Both can be achieved, it doesn't have to be "we win, you lose".

Again from Canadian history, Quebec separtists still bring up the battle of the Plains of Abraham. That was a battle in 1759, between British forces and French. More than a century before Canada became a country. It was part of the extension into North America of the Seven Year's War. Quebec separtists are still resentful that they lost. So a military conflict is not the way to build a nation. You don't want that in Ukraine.

The reason Putin hasn't invaded is he doesn't want another Afghanistan. Statements like "You are right out to lunch here" are not helpful. To build a nation, there's no such thing as "win/lose". It's either win/win or lose/lose. Yes, you have to stop those who want to forge ballots. Yes, you have to re-capture occupied government buildings. But if you're respectful to those in eastern Ukraine who speak Russian, then fewer will fight against you.

[Jabberwalker]

BTW, It was Quebec in 1970. I was there. I also served with Francophones in the 1970s and the subject of Quebec sovereignty rarely came up but I do remember a Quebecois Killick indicating that he was in fact sympathetic to the sovereignty cause(obviously not rabidly). We remained friendly, always. I would wonder if he still feels that way. Canada has responded correctly to the sovereignty threat from Quebec by allowing them more autonomy in certain cherished areas. Our federation is structured in such a manner that it is possible to be flexible. The United Kingdom should tear a age from our book and find a middle position shy of full devolution of Scotland and Wales.