INTERESTING: Quebec and Vermont, pehaps the first of many?

http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/what-the-kosovo-ruling-means-for-canada-trouble/

What The Kosovo Ruling Means For Canada: Trouble!
by Milan Markovic

*** begin quote ***

The muted reaction was appropriate. International lawyers agree that last week’s decision is mostly notable for what it doesn’t do. The World Court purposely sidestepped difficult questions such as whether the declaration brought about Kosovo’s secession from Serbia and whether nations such as Canada and the United States were legally justified in recognizing an independent Kosovo. The court ruled only that declarations of independence made by separatist groups are not contrary to international law.

*** and ***

What the court did find was that secessionist groups are not obligated to respect the territorial integrity of the country from which they are trying to secede. Nor are they prohibited from unilaterally declaring independence against the will of that country. What, then, is to stop Quebec’s National Assembly from declaring the province’s independence without holding a fair referendum as Quebec is supposed to do under the Clarity Act?

*** and ***

The Kosovo precedent also undermines the notion that Quebec must seriously negotiate its separation from Canada. Under the administrative scheme established by the United Nations Security Council, representatives from Serbia and Kosovo were required to negotiate Kosovo’s final status. The negotiations were fruitless, leading Kosovo to declare its independence. But Kosovo’s representatives indicated from the beginning of negotiations that they would not settle for anything short of full independence and would not tolerate any partition of Kosovo’s territory. Quebec’s leaders may be tempted to take a similar line and declare Quebec’s independence if Canada refuses to acquiesce to these unfavourable terms.

*** end quote ***

Observations and comments:

  1. The Gooferments of the various countries will probably back each other up with respect to “secession”. Can’t let your “sheeple” escape. Can’t let them defy the “law”. Can’t let anyone to be free. On the theory that it’s a “closed club”, those in power will seek to keep the club’s doors closed and locked. After all it’s not like Quebec, wants to join the USA. Or that Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alaska, or others want to join Canada. It’s an “escape” to freedom. From the movie Candhi, “I beg you to accept that there is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power.” They don’t want to lose their power. Even a fraction of it.
  2. You only have the “rights” that you are willing to demand and fight for. So to, you can only have the “state” that you’re willing to fight for. In the case of the big gang that Gooferment represents, you’ll need help. Your neighbors have to be of like mind.
  3. Gandhi is the model for non-violent revolution. Unfortunately, the people he freed are not as wise as he. Few would be. They don’t have true freedom yet. There’s a lot of corruption and poverty there. But it’s their problem.

Ready for the Third American Revolution yet?

It’s coming. Just like the USSR, all empires fail. Some sooner, some later. But they all do.

# # # # #

One Response to INTERESTING: Quebec and Vermont, pehaps the first of many?

  1. Jim says:

    Fast fwd to the year 2035. Separatists in Southern CA (Bakersfield south to the Mex. border) demand a vote to either, (1) form a separate state from CA; (2) form a separate nation free and independent from CA and the USA; join Republic of Mexico. From just the present demographics I think the 3 option will prevail.

    Jim

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,033 other followers

%d bloggers like this: