Log in

View Full Version : What's your opinion of FLQ?



The Moron Slayer
4th March 2006, 03:09
I was wondering what most of you think about the 'FLQ'(Front de libération du Québec)? For those who don't know abot the FLQ; they wanted seperation of the province of Québec from Canada and a marxist government in Québec, they were socialist, militant and highly anti-US. They had planned to blow up the statue of liberty! But they were terrorists.
I personally hate them with passion but those feeling could have to do with me being a canadian, so what do others think about them?

Body Count
4th March 2006, 09:17
Originally posted by The Moron [email protected] 4 2006, 03:37 AM
I was wondering what most of you think about the 'FLQ'(Front de libération du Québec)? For those who don't know abot the FLQ; they wanted seperation of the province of Québec from Canada and a marxist government in Québec, they were socialist, militant and highly anti-US. They had planned to blow up the statue of liberty! But they were terrorists.
I personally hate them with passion but those feeling could have to do with me being a canadian, so what do others think about them?
Don't know much about them.

When you say "they were terrorist" you're saying that they were focoist? And didn't have support from Quebec?

I mean, if they are just another Weather Underground or something, then they probably wouldn't have been able to do much good.

But the idea they have sounds decent.....at least from what you described.

Nothing Human Is Alien
4th March 2006, 09:52
What would you being a Canadian have to do with you hating a Quebecois Marxist-nationalist group?

Body Count
4th March 2006, 10:49
Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 4 2006, 10:20 AM
What would you being a Canadian have to do with you hating a Quebecois Marxist-nationalist group?
Chauvinism.

Nothing Human Is Alien
5th March 2006, 10:33
Right, that's what I was attempting to get at in my rhetorical question. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

EwokUtopia
19th June 2006, 05:32
The FLQ is far too nationalist for me to support them. They see Quebec as being a nation for Francophones, completely forgetting that French Quebecois are at very best the second residents of that land. There are still the decendants of the indigenous peoples of what is now called "quebec", but these are an afterthought to the FLQ. The Quebecois right to autonomy comes second to the rights of First Nations self determination, of which they are still denied. Unfortunately, it looks like the Quebecois seperatists have a far better chance at soveriegnty than the First Nations do.

bayano
19th June 2006, 07:19
i agree with ewok, but with a lot more sympathy for the flq, which i saw traces of i visits to quebec and in former sympathizers living in the states. i think they were a good, legit, leftist group, and not terrorists. i think in the west, armed political groups are often called terrorists bcuz of a socialized sense of hegemony, normalcy and stability of the current system, which is of course false but temporarily appears real.

Ander
19th June 2006, 19:13
I was reading about the FLQ and the October Crisis the other day. The FLQ kidnapped a bunch of politicians and the government declared martial law.

EwokUtopia
19th June 2006, 21:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 04:20 AM
i agree with ewok, but with a lot more sympathy for the flq, which i saw traces of i visits to quebec and in former sympathizers living in the states. i think they were a good, legit, leftist group, and not terrorists. i think in the west, armed political groups are often called terrorists bcuz of a socialized sense of hegemony, normalcy and stability of the current system, which is of course false but temporarily appears real.
Yeh, it is rather reminicent of another time. Once upon a time, members of the French and Dutch resistance to Nazi Imperialism were dubbed terrorists as well. It is by no means a new buzz word, just a different language to frighten people with its use. I am not wholly opposed to the FLQ, indeed, I have far more sympathy for them than I do for the Bloc Quebecois, who are for the most part ubernationalists that pay lip service to socialism. Still, even the bloc is by no means the worst party we have, and If i lived in quebec, I would vote for them before I vote conservative, liberal, green, and I would flip a coin to vote bloc or NDP. But I am an Ontarian.


note: I dont vote because I think it will change a thing, I vote because it gives me arguing rights with people who cling to mainstream political beliefs. That having been said, the Canadian electoral system is far superior to that of our barbaric neighbours to the south (no offense to any americans here, I mean your systems are barbaric by comparison) in that we dont have a choice between the same damn thing but with a different animal. It is much more 3rd party friendly up here.

bayano
20th June 2006, 19:25
i agree with almost everything said in ewok's above quote, minus some PC stalinist criticisms i have about the uses of the words barbaric (originally a racist term relating north africans with savagery) and american (since canadians like yourself and latin americans like me are also americans).

FidelCastro
24th June 2006, 05:33
Originally posted by The Moron [email protected] 4 2006, 01:10 AM
I was wondering what most of you think about the 'FLQ'(Front de libération du Québec)? For those who don't know abot the FLQ; they wanted seperation of the province of Québec from Canada and a marxist government in Québec, they were socialist, militant and highly anti-US. They had planned to blow up the statue of liberty! But they were terrorists.
I personally hate them with passion but those feeling could have to do with me being a canadian, so what do others think about them?
They're more than terrorists, they executed a political figure for fuck sakes. They also staged a terrorist attack on Canadian soil. They were the only group to ever cause a Prime Minister to declare Marshall Law and that is why I respect Pierre Elliot Trudeau a heck of a lot. I hate those cock suckers because they do not represent Canadian unity, and frankly, I cannot support that. I love Quebec, why would I want them to separate.

FidelCastro
24th June 2006, 05:33
Originally posted by The Moron [email protected] 4 2006, 01:10 AM
I was wondering what most of you think about the 'FLQ'(Front de libération du Québec)? For those who don't know abot the FLQ; they wanted seperation of the province of Québec from Canada and a marxist government in Québec, they were socialist, militant and highly anti-US. They had planned to blow up the statue of liberty! But they were terrorists.
I personally hate them with passion but those feeling could have to do with me being a canadian, so what do others think about them?
They're more than terrorists, they executed a political figure for fuck sakes. They also staged a terrorist attack on Canadian soil. They were the only group to ever cause a Prime Minister to declare Marshall Law and that is why I respect Pierre Elliot Trudeau a heck of a lot. I hate those cock suckers because they do not represent Canadian unity, and frankly, I cannot support that. I love Quebec, why would I want them to separate.

FidelCastro
24th June 2006, 05:33
Originally posted by The Moron [email protected] 4 2006, 01:10 AM
I was wondering what most of you think about the 'FLQ'(Front de libération du Québec)? For those who don't know abot the FLQ; they wanted seperation of the province of Québec from Canada and a marxist government in Québec, they were socialist, militant and highly anti-US. They had planned to blow up the statue of liberty! But they were terrorists.
I personally hate them with passion but those feeling could have to do with me being a canadian, so what do others think about them?
They're more than terrorists, they executed a political figure for fuck sakes. They also staged a terrorist attack on Canadian soil. They were the only group to ever cause a Prime Minister to declare Marshall Law and that is why I respect Pierre Elliot Trudeau a heck of a lot. I hate those cock suckers because they do not represent Canadian unity, and frankly, I cannot support that. I love Quebec, why would I want them to separate.

Forward Union
24th June 2006, 16:41
I hate them too, I have a strong opposition to all nationalists.

rebelworker
25th June 2006, 18:48
Well as someone who has been living in Quebec for the last 10 years I figured I had better weigh in on this one...

The FLQ were very similar to the WUO, mostly angry young people who were not really involved in the mass struggles that were going on at the time.

They proclaimed socialism, and had some limited ties to the Black Panther Party(this was from what I have heard from antecdotal evidence initiated by the Panthers who saw the Quebecoise correctly as an opressed minority waging revolutionary struggle at the time). I think there were far more interesting things going on in the labour/communist movement at the time but again, history is written by petty burgeoise intelectuals so the Iniversity students stole all the thunder...

The sad legacy of the FLQ is that although at the time they were very left wing and anti imperialist, the people who have been active here are now very right wing, anti immigrant and anti communist.

I think many canadian youth oppose the legacy of the FLQ for the same reason as many american youth I have talked to opoesed the Panthers, that is Chovanism/subcontious racism.

The seperatist movement has been very influencial in the left here, with the unions being some of the biggest bases of support for quebec seperarism, but this has also had serrious negeative impacts with the unwillingness of the union leadership and much of the intelegencia to be openly critical of the seperatist parties(bloc and PQ).

I will include a recent NEFAC article written by members from quebec city that articulates our position on "the national question".

Notes on the National Question (http://nefac.net/node/1998)

Ferg
30th June 2006, 17:47
FLQ are losers because they represent separation from Canada (where I'm from), however, a group like the IRA represent unity and the end of oppression. That's why I hate the FLQ.

Marion
2nd July 2006, 21:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:48 PM
FLQ are losers because they represent separation from Canada (where I'm from), however, a group like the IRA represent unity and the end of oppression. That's why I hate the FLQ.
Out of interest, why do the IRA represent "unity"? The republicans want unity for Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, the loyalists argue they want to retain unity for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, so they both argue they want unity. Unless I've misunderstood what you're meaning by the term??

Comrade Marcel
3rd July 2006, 05:52
For the "comrades" who said they hate FLQ because they wanted sovereignty for their nation; you're straight up fucking KKKanadian nationalists, and fuck you.

The land known as Kanada is made up of many oppressed nations denied their sovereignty. Communists should lay their priority on the First Nations people winning their struggles. We should not allow Quebec nationalism to ever take priority over the First Nations. In that sense, the FLQ was chauvinist. Also, back in those days ('60s-'70s) Quebec was a lot more oppressed by Anglo Kanada - all the bosses were Anglo. Now Quebec has it's own bourgeoisie as compradors of KKKanadian bourgeoisie. This is how the Kanadian bourgeois bought off Quebec, and some would argue (such as PCR-RCP(OC)) that Quebec is even an imperialist country in itself now. That said, Quebec is still a nation of people which deserve the right to build it how they choose. The absolutely least important thing for communists is what so-called "Kanadians" think about Quebec. Fuck white-KKKanada!

For the "comrade" that says Quebec isn't all Francophone; have you ever even been to Quebec? Only in Montreal will you find 50% English and 50% French speakers. The rest of Quebec is about 90% French.

And for the "comrade" calling himself FidelCastro who likes PET; FUCK PET. This martial law was a nice excuse for the RCMP and CSIS to arrest over 1,000 leftists - not just in Quebec - all over KKKanada. Many people involved with the party I support were arrested and held for periods of weeks to months with no explanation, many lost their jobs/apartments/etc because of this. PET was a complete tool of Anglo-Kanadian imperialism and a fucking reactionary anti-communist POS.

FLQ were NOT terrorists. Since when was targeting politicians terrorism? IMO attacking coroporate buildings, political and military sights is NOT terrorism. Bombing subways and food courts is, but then again western imperialist armies are slaughtering civilian zones all the time well we eat drink and live like petty-bourgeois workers; on their blood.

Comrade Marcel
3rd July 2006, 05:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:48 PM
FLQ are losers because they represent separation from Canada (where I'm from), however, a group like the IRA represent unity and the end of oppression. That's why I hate the FLQ.
You are a sadly missinformed individual, "comrade".

Avtomatov
3rd July 2006, 07:12
I hope Quebec seperates. I will move to montreal. The conservatives will never win in quebec. I hate alberta.

Morag
6th July 2006, 20:07
So two cells of four people each decide to bomb shit and kidnap a few politicians, kill one of them, and assume the revolution will start that way... and we're supposed to approve? Why is this type of arrogance supported by anyone? It worked a bit like that in Cuba, but the material conditions were very very different and Castro et al. had a lot of support. But we're talking about the random use of terrorism by a miniscule group that no one had really heard of until they caused a national crisis by kidnapping people. If they had been a serious threat to capitalism, I should hope they would have been organising within the working-class before they began their "revolution." How was what they did at all useful to the end goal of a revolution overthrowing capitalism?

It wasn't.

Ferg
13th July 2006, 04:28
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 02:53 AM
For the "comrades" who said they hate FLQ because they wanted sovereignty for their nation; you're straight up fucking KKKanadian nationalists, and fuck you.

The land known as Kanada is made up of many oppressed nations denied their sovereignty. Communists should lay their priority on the First Nations people winning their struggles. We should not allow Quebec nationalism to ever take priority over the First Nations. In that sense, the FLQ was chauvinist. Also, back in those days ('60s-'70s) Quebec was a lot more oppressed by Anglo Kanada - all the bosses were Anglo. Now Quebec has it's own bourgeoisie as compradors of KKKanadian bourgeoisie. This is how the Kanadian bourgeois bought off Quebec, and some would argue (such as PCR-RCP(OC)) that Quebec is even an imperialist country in itself now. That said, Quebec is still a nation of people which deserve the right to build it how they choose. The absolutely least important thing for communists is what so-called "Kanadians" think about Quebec. Fuck white-KKKanada!

For the "comrade" that says Quebec isn't all Francophone; have you ever even been to Quebec? Only in Montreal will you find 50% English and 50% French speakers. The rest of Quebec is about 90% French.

And for the "comrade" calling himself FidelCastro who likes PET; FUCK PET. This martial law was a nice excuse for the RCMP and CSIS to arrest over 1,000 leftists - not just in Quebec - all over KKKanada. Many people involved with the party I support were arrested and held for periods of weeks to months with no explanation, many lost their jobs/apartments/etc because of this. PET was a complete tool of Anglo-Kanadian imperialism and a fucking reactionary anti-communist POS.

FLQ were NOT terrorists. Since when was targeting politicians terrorism? IMO attacking coroporate buildings, political and military sights is NOT terrorism. Bombing subways and food courts is, but then again western imperialist armies are slaughtering civilian zones all the time well we eat drink and live like petty-bourgeois workers; on their blood.
l find it interesting that you can accuse PET of being an oppressive ruler yet your Sub name is a Neo-Maoist of sorts. Mao Tse-Tung was much more oppressive than Trudeu was. He only oppressed Canadians for a week. He eventually let those leftists go too. He also was the one that put through legislation on Universal Healthcare. PET is definatly Canada's best Prime Minister. Also, this was Canada's first terrorist attack. What the fuck is Pierre Trudeau supposed to do? Sit by and do nothing or give into their demands? If you think that then you truly sir, are an idiot. I am of the belief that you never negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because if you give into their demands, you tell all the other terrorists that they can win.

Ireland was different because the acts of aggression were from the English and the Irish were retaliating. Bloody Sunday went from peaceful to bloody and all the blame lies on the British.

And another thing man, Quebec is not, was not, and never will be an oppressed province since nearly every single fucking Prime Minister is from Quebec. If you want oppressed Canadians, go to the Maritimes, we still got it good, just not as good as everyone else. We the butt of the jokes in Canada because we're regarded as simple minded folk. That man who the FLQ murdered, was not a threat to them, he had done them no physical harm and therefore should not have been killed. He was an innocent. Innocents are always off limits.

Morag
13th July 2006, 09:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:29 AM
And another thing man, Quebec is not, was not, and never will be an oppressed province since nearly every single fucking Prime Minister is from Quebec. If you want oppressed Canadians, go to the Maritimes, we still got it good, just not as good as everyone else.
I sincerely disagree that Quebec was not an oppressed province. Just because members of it's upper-class became Prime Ministers, well, it is the second most populated province, and always has been (since post-Confederation). Until the 1940s, Montreal had the highest level of infant mortality in the British Empire, next to Bangalore; the poverty rate was appalling, akin to the Irish slums in New York or Chicago. The French speaking population were looked upon with scorn, derision and utter hatred by the anglophones; think about the conscription crisis in the First World War, the "zombies" in the second. My grandfather was a Francophone from Manitoba who moved to Ontario, and then, in disgust at how he was treated, moved to Seattle because at least there it was the Chinese they hated. Still, though, until the 1970s and Silent Revolution, Montreal was the commercial and manufacturing centre of Canada- after the Francophones began to take power in a real way, when the trade unions demanded real improvements, all that went to Toronto. Coincidence? No.

Comrade Marcel
13th July 2006, 11:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:29 AM
l find it interesting that you can accuse PET of being an oppressive ruler yet your Sub name is a Neo-Maoist of sorts.
I'm glad you find it interesting, since you are a bit of a stupid fool, I'll try to explain it to you.

There is a huge difference between oppressing people in the name of capitalism and imperialism, and oppressing people in the name of socialism. I support the dictatorship of the proletarian and I support socialism. I want enemies of both to be oppressed.

Putting that aside, how "oppressive" Mao was is irrelevant to the conversation, since he was the leader of the Chinese people. The Chinese people should chose their destiny and overthrew Mao if he was oppressive to them. This is the First Nations, Quebec and Kanada and we are talking about those who are in the power structure here.


Mao Tse-Tung was much more oppressive than Trudeu was. He only oppressed Canadians for a week.

Actually, he oppressed mostly Quebec people during that week, but every single day he was in power was capitalism and colonialism; and therefor oppression towards many people, a continuation of oppression that has existed in Kanada since it's foundation. Not to mention imperialist domination of other nations.

It's really sad that you play into the bourgeois tradition of letting bourgeois politicians off the hook for oppression, but blame individuals when it comes to socialism. Very western chauvinist of you; not surprising since you sounded like a Kanadian/white nationalist from the get-go.


He eventually let those leftists go too.

Sure, after weeks of interrogation, finger printing, terrorizing, collecting data, etc. But that's not the point anyways. If they were any sort of threat, would they have been let go? Of course not. And by your own logic (forthcoming in this reply) it was the right thing for him to do, so why is it not right for the dictatorship of the proletarian? Or do you just like western capitalism better?

This is the typical "white man's burden" of imperialist country workers, and unfortunately, it even comes out of the poorer provinces (Quebec and Maritimes).


He also was the one that put through legislation on Universal Healthcare.

Actually, you need to get your facts and history straight. Health care was first established in New France (Quebec).

Generally Tommy Douglas gets credit for pioneering health care in Kanada; but realistically it was pushed forward by masses of people, including doctors, farmers, workers and even communists. These bourgeois politicians simply gave in to demands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#History


PET is definatly Canada's best Prime Minister.

PET is dead, so how can he be the best? If you are arguing he was the best, I'm certainly not going to disagree that he was good for a bourgoeis system. But WTF does that mean to communist?

It means this:http://www.firstfoot.com/Kulture/Images/dogshit.gif

BTW, have you ever even read anything by PET or on the national/Quebec question in Kanada? If not I can suggest some readings for you.


Also, this was Canada's first terrorist attack.

How was it a terrorist "attack"? A "terrorist attack" usually defines a non-demostic source as the instigator, well this attack took place inside Quebec/Kanada and was instigated by Quebecois, and therefor counts as a domestic terrorist act.

Also, it was not the first one. The first one was in 1969 by FLQ and the result was not martial law; martial law was a year later with the kidnappings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terro...tacks_in_Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks_in_Canada)

Plus, I persynally wouldn't count it as terrorism because they went for military and political targets. However, they didn't have mass support so it was fringe. But in Marxist definitions it must be both a non legit target and have no mass support to be terrorism. Or do you just prefer Bush, CNN and Fox definitions?


What the fuck is Pierre Trudeau supposed to do? Sit by and do nothing or give into their demands?

Well, of course he wouldn't. But what does this have to do with approx. 1,000 leftists that had absolutely nothing to do with the FLQ, except maybe that some of them supported Quebec sovereignty?


If you think that then you truly sir, are an idiot.

Someone here is definately an idiot. :lol:


I am of the belief that you never negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because if you give into their demands, you tell all the other terrorists that they can win.

You sound like Harper. But guess what? Your full of shit. Quebec is it's own nation, so the issue is not as simple as that. We are talking about a nation oppressed and occupied for a long time. Arresting 1,000 others who had nothing to do with it is hardly going to stop fringe insurgencents though, is it?


Ireland was different because the acts of aggression were from the English and the Irish were retaliating. Bloody Sunday went from peaceful to bloody and all the blame lies on the British.

Of course it is different. Every situation is different, but to say that the aggression/oppression was not coming from Anglo-Kanada is pretty damn ignorant. Also, who cares where the blame should lie? The situation is quite simple, when a nation is not granted sovereignty then the people have a right to fight for it, by any means necessary.


And another thing man, Quebec is not, was not, and never will be an oppressed province since nearly every single fucking Prime Minister is from Quebec.

First of all, that's not even true. The majority of PM's through history where not French-Kanadian. Check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Ministers_of_Canada

Second, even if it was true it means fuck all. The majority of oppressed nations have domestic born leaders but they sell out their nation to imperialism. Brain Mulroney was born in Quebec, WTF does that tell you?!?


If you want oppressed Canadians, go to the Maritimes, we still got it good, just not as good as everyone else.

This is of course true, but irrelevant, because Quebecors aren't Kanadians, they are Quebecois.


We the butt of the jokes in Canada because we're regarded as simple minded folk.

Many Martimers are simple minded folk. This doesn't mean that they are stupid or unintelligent, just that they are living in conditions that have them thinking a certain way, and the bourgeois want them this way. They are a massive source for the fish industry and also make up a large percentage of the armed forces/navy.


That man who the FLQ murdered, was not a threat to them, he had done them no physical harm and therefore should not have been killed. He was an innocent. Innocents are always off limits.

Innocent??? He was a fervent anti-nationalist and spokepersyn for the Anglo-bourgeois oppression. He was also the fucking minister of labour, inacting policies directly related to worker's oppression in Quebec! How you can call this scoundrel an innocent is beyond me.

Comrade Marcel
13th July 2006, 11:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:28 AM
I sincerely disagree that Quebec was not an oppressed province. Just because members of it's upper-class became Prime Ministers,
Exactly. And we are not just talking about members of the upper-class, but members of the upper-class who are pro-Federalist, and most likely benefitted from it!

It's not like Lucien Bouchard or Gilles Duceppe got elected PM. :rolleyes:

Comrade Marcel
13th July 2006, 13:06
Readings on the First Nations, Quebec and Kanada and the National Question (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52629).

Ferg
16th July 2006, 02:01
Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Jul 13 2006, 08:37 AM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Jul 13 2006, 08:37 AM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 01:29 AM
l find it interesting that you can accuse PET of being an oppressive ruler yet your Sub name is a Neo-Maoist of sorts.
I'm glad you find it interesting, since you are a bit of a stupid fool, I'll try to explain it to you.

There is a huge difference between oppressing people in the name of capitalism and imperialism, and oppressing people in the name of socialism. I support the dictatorship of the proletarian and I support socialism. I want enemies of both to be oppressed.

Putting that aside, how "oppressive" Mao was is irrelevant to the conversation, since he was the leader of the Chinese people. The Chinese people should chose their destiny and overthrew Mao if he was oppressive to them. This is the First Nations, Quebec and Kanada and we are talking about those who are in the power structure here.


Mao Tse-Tung was much more oppressive than Trudeu was. He only oppressed Canadians for a week.

Actually, he oppressed mostly Quebec people during that week, but every single day he was in power was capitalism and colonialism; and therefor oppression towards many people, a continuation of oppression that has existed in Kanada since it's foundation. Not to mention imperialist domination of other nations.

It's really sad that you play into the bourgeois tradition of letting bourgeois politicians off the hook for oppression, but blame individuals when it comes to socialism. Very western chauvinist of you; not surprising since you sounded like a Kanadian/white nationalist from the get-go.


He eventually let those leftists go too.

Sure, after weeks of interrogation, finger printing, terrorizing, collecting data, etc. But that's not the point anyways. If they were any sort of threat, would they have been let go? Of course not. And by your own logic (forthcoming in this reply) it was the right thing for him to do, so why is it not right for the dictatorship of the proletarian? Or do you just like western capitalism better?

This is the typical "white man's burden" of imperialist country workers, and unfortunately, it even comes out of the poorer provinces (Quebec and Maritimes).


He also was the one that put through legislation on Universal Healthcare.

Actually, you need to get your facts and history straight. Health care was first established in New France (Quebec).

Generally Tommy Douglas gets credit for pioneering health care in Kanada; but realistically it was pushed forward by masses of people, including doctors, farmers, workers and even communists. These bourgeois politicians simply gave in to demands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#History


PET is definatly Canada's best Prime Minister.

PET is dead, so how can he be the best? If you are arguing he was the best, I'm certainly not going to disagree that he was good for a bourgoeis system. But WTF does that mean to communist?

It means this:http://www.firstfoot.com/Kulture/Images/dogshit.gif

BTW, have you ever even read anything by PET or on the national/Quebec question in Kanada? If not I can suggest some readings for you.


Also, this was Canada's first terrorist attack.

How was it a terrorist "attack"? A "terrorist attack" usually defines a non-demostic source as the instigator, well this attack took place inside Quebec/Kanada and was instigated by Quebecois, and therefor counts as a domestic terrorist act.

Also, it was not the first one. The first one was in 1969 by FLQ and the result was not martial law; martial law was a year later with the kidnappings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terro...tacks_in_Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks_in_Canada)

Plus, I persynally wouldn't count it as terrorism because they went for military and political targets. However, they didn't have mass support so it was fringe. But in Marxist definitions it must be both a non legit target and have no mass support to be terrorism. Or do you just prefer Bush, CNN and Fox definitions?


What the fuck is Pierre Trudeau supposed to do? Sit by and do nothing or give into their demands?

Well, of course he wouldn't. But what does this have to do with approx. 1,000 leftists that had absolutely nothing to do with the FLQ, except maybe that some of them supported Quebec sovereignty?


If you think that then you truly sir, are an idiot.

Someone here is definately an idiot. :lol:


I am of the belief that you never negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because if you give into their demands, you tell all the other terrorists that they can win.

You sound like Harper. But guess what? Your full of shit. Quebec is it's own nation, so the issue is not as simple as that. We are talking about a nation oppressed and occupied for a long time. Arresting 1,000 others who had nothing to do with it is hardly going to stop fringe insurgencents though, is it?


Ireland was different because the acts of aggression were from the English and the Irish were retaliating. Bloody Sunday went from peaceful to bloody and all the blame lies on the British.

Of course it is different. Every situation is different, but to say that the aggression/oppression was not coming from Anglo-Kanada is pretty damn ignorant. Also, who cares where the blame should lie? The situation is quite simple, when a nation is not granted sovereignty then the people have a right to fight for it, by any means necessary.


And another thing man, Quebec is not, was not, and never will be an oppressed province since nearly every single fucking Prime Minister is from Quebec.

First of all, that's not even true. The majority of PM's through history where not French-Kanadian. Check for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Ministers_of_Canada

Second, even if it was true it means fuck all. The majority of oppressed nations have domestic born leaders but they sell out their nation to imperialism. Brain Mulroney was born in Quebec, WTF does that tell you?!?


If you want oppressed Canadians, go to the Maritimes, we still got it good, just not as good as everyone else.

This is of course true, but irrelevant, because Quebecors aren't Kanadians, they are Quebecois.


We the butt of the jokes in Canada because we're regarded as simple minded folk.

Many Martimers are simple minded folk. This doesn't mean that they are stupid or unintelligent, just that they are living in conditions that have them thinking a certain way, and the bourgeois want them this way. They are a massive source for the fish industry and also make up a large percentage of the armed forces/navy.


That man who the FLQ murdered, was not a threat to them, he had done them no physical harm and therefore should not have been killed. He was an innocent. Innocents are always off limits.

Innocent??? He was a fervent anti-nationalist and spokepersyn for the Anglo-bourgeois oppression. He was also the fucking minister of labour, inacting policies directly related to worker's oppression in Quebec! How you can call this scoundrel an innocent is beyond me. [/b]
For what ever reason you support Mao is pointless, you support Mao, who was ruthless, cruel, and oppressive to the extreme.

Quebec isn't an occupied nation, it was part of the fucking confederation. Quebec wouldn't survive as it's own country, it's to dependant on the rest of the country. There isn't a gigantic culture difference either because French is commonly spoken in New Brunswick and Ontario. I think you been smoking to much of that crystal meth, besides, we let Quebec decide if they wanted to seperate, they said no. So you lose!

Morag
16th July 2006, 03:56
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:02 PM
Quebec isn't an occupied nation, it was part of the fucking confederation. Quebec wouldn't survive as it's own country, it's to dependant on the rest of the country. There isn't a gigantic culture difference either because French is commonly spoken in New Brunswick and Ontario. I think you been smoking to much of that crystal meth, besides, we let Quebec decide if they wanted to seperate, they said no. So you lose!
Yes, I felt so assured after the last referendum that such an overwhelming majority of Quebec wanted to stay in Canada!

And how about a bit of evidence to support your claim that Quebec can't survive on it's own? As far as I can see, countries that couldn't survive on their own had none of the industry, infrastructure, education, natural resources and absolute pigheadedness of Quebec and the Quebecois (said with love).

Comrade Marcel
17th July 2006, 17:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:02 PM
For what ever reason you support Mao is pointless, you support Mao, who was ruthless, cruel, and oppressive to the extreme.


It's typical of someone who knows nothing of the topic, but wants to run their mouth, to reply with a red herring. But, whatever. I'll bite this one time, and if you want to continue a conversation about Mao after then start a new thread.

I'll repeat what I said before. First of all, saying Mao "was ruthless, cruel, and oppressive to the extreme" is just your opionion unless you have some facts to back it up.

That said, my opinion is that Mao wasn't ruthless, cruel and oppressive enough towards enemies of socialism. If he was, we might not have "market-socialism" in China right now and we would probably have a socialist Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia with India on the verge of revolution.


Quebec isn't an occupied nation,

It certainly is, in two ways:

1.) Control of Quebec is by the Kanadian bourgeois and Quebec compradors. Politicians are their lapdogs. These are the people that call the shots, not Quebecers. This is considered occupatin via imperialist control. Imperialist control is economic and/or political and/or military. In this case, the control is and has been kept with all three.

2.) Quebec is all native land anyways, and First Nations sovereignty is denied in Quebec. This is oldest form of oppression in Kanada, and anyone who denies this is either an idiot or a Kanadian/white nationalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec#History


it was part of the fucking confederation.

How many Quebcois do you know who voted for that? Fuck, it was enacted by the British for fuck sakes.


Quebec wouldn't survive as it's own country, it's to dependant on the rest of the country.

That's bullshit. Quebec has an even bigger economy now then 35 years ago, and it would have been fine on it's own then. I would think that big corporations like Bombardier would tell you something. Do you think Quebec seperating means that Kanada can simply just pack up their industries and leave? Hell no. The people will confiscate the means of production! This is a basic grasp of Marxism.


There isn't a gigantic culture difference either because French is commonly spoken in New Brunswick and Ontario.

There is a big cultural difference. And many French speakers in NB are actually Acadian descedents; a nation that was ethinically cleansed by the British. They have no historical, political, cultural or terroritorial connection to Quebec.



I think you been smoking to much of that crystal meth,

What crystal meth, fuck face? I don't even smoke cigarettes or weed let alone other shit. I don't do narcotics either, just straight up proletarian anti-depressents (booze). But WTF does this have to do with the fact that you ignored 70% of my points?


besides, we let Quebec decide if they wanted to seperate, they said no.

The first part of your sentence "we let" pretty much sums up the validity of the referendums.


So you lose!

Wow, you are really stupid. How do I lose? I'm a Kanadian citizen and therefore my job is to support comrades in the First Nations and Quebec well striving for socialist revolution in the settler state (which would ultimately complement their goal). It's not a win or lose competition, but a class struggle and that doesn't end with some shitty ballats that are worth asswipe, but rather with a hail of bullets.

rebelworker
17th July 2006, 19:05
For the record, I dont support the seperatist movement, But I do recognise a few things.

Firstly as the only person in this discussion who actually lives in quebec, and a extreemly francaphone part of it at that, It is obvious to anyone who has any spent any time here that Quebec is infact a distinct society.

Second, they never joined the confederation, as stated above they were signed up without their consent, military domination is the only reason that quebec is still part of Canada.

Third, THE SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL!, this was all about money being funelled into quebec from the outside to convince quebecers to stay in canada.

Having said that, there are many distinct societies in Canada, The Metis and Acadians are just a few examples.

Quebec is now run by a Quebecoise Burgoise, who will maintain that role if quebec seperates, wont rally solve anything. But the fact is Canadians dont get to decide that, people living here do.

Comrade Marcel
17th July 2006, 20:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:06 PM
For the record, I dont support the seperatist movement, But I do recognise a few things.

Firstly as the only person in this discussion who actually lives in quebec, and a extreemly francaphone part of it at that, It is obvious to anyone who has any spent any time here that Quebec is infact a distinct society.

Second, they never joined the confederation, as stated above they were signed up without their consent, military domination is the only reason that quebec is still part of Canada.

Third, THE SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL!, this was all about money being funelled into quebec from the outside to convince quebecers to stay in canada.

Having said that, there are many distinct societies in Canada, The Metis and Acadians are just a few examples.

Quebec is now run by a Quebecoise Burgoise, who will maintain that role if quebec seperates, wont rally solve anything. But the fact is Canadians dont get to decide that, people living here do.
rebelworker, I don't disagree with you, per-se. It's probably a question of our different ideologies when it breaks down to it. My being a "Stalinist" I of course support the two stages of revolution, the first being a national liberation and the second socialist. I persynally view Quebec seperating as a blow to the Kanadian bourgeoisie and not something that would actually liberate the Quebec masses (well, not materially anyways).

What do you think of RCP-PCR's argument that Quebec is basically an imperialist nation itself? I am kind of struggling with this persynally and I have only been to Quebec a couple of times. If this argument is valid, then should communist still support Quebec seperatism? This is kind of like asking the question should communists support Kanadian sovereignty from the U$. The party I support sort of hints at this, and the CPC is also big on it. I persynallly think that we shouldn't, considering Lenin himself said that imperialism/war should not be supported by the workers.