Velkommin til Nýfundnaland
posted by WJM @ 6:30 PM
labradore
"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.
"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.
35 Comments:
The Prime Minister of Iceland is visiting. So what. Get over it.
It will provide another opportunity for Danny and his Minions to advance their crypto-separatist, "Iceland-is-a-country", "we're-just-like-Iceland", "if-only-we-were-more-like-Iceland" rhetoric.
That's what.
When are the Premiers of the three territories going to get an invite for an official visit to Labrador, I wonder?
One of the Premiers was invited to HV-GB by Nunatsiavut Government [correct me if I’m wrong] and he had major trouble with his vocabulary/attitude towards women.
That’s not to say the other two would not have better control over their emotions and language, I’m sure they do. But it does sort of put a damper on that possibility for awhile.
Why would Paul Okalik's comments put a damper on that possibility?
If you have to ask the question you would not understand the answer
Try me.
Why would the fact that Paul Okalik is, in particular, a knob, prevent an invite going out to territorial premiers, from any of the territories, in general?
Gordon Campbell is a knob, too, but he got an invite to Newfoundland.
It will provide another opportunity for Danny and his Minions to advance their crypto-separatist, "Iceland-is-a-country", "we're-just-like-Iceland", "if-only-we-were-more-like-Iceland" rhetoric.
You mean that it might encourage Newfoundland and Labrador to consider variations of its current relationship with Canada? Is that so dangerous? What if a representative from Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia visited the province? Should people in this province ignore parallels to their own history or situation? Should we only welcome those who have submitted to political structures as if they are divine law?
When are the Premiers of the three territories going to get an invite for an official visit to Labrador, I wonder?
Why not an official visit to Newfoundland and Labrador?
You mean that it might encourage Newfoundland and Labrador to consider variations of its current relationship with Canada?
No, I mean it might encourage nationalist Newfoundlanders make dubious comparisons and make ridiculous assertions of fact.
Is that so dangerous?
Not if it's based on facts, no. Generally, though, it isn't.
Should people in this province ignore parallels to their own history or situation?
Not at all.
That would include, perhaps, how Maine used to be part of Massachussets, non?
Why not an official visit to Newfoundland and Labrador?
Because the official state visits by the Prime Minister of this country, or the Teasack of that one, only ever seem to go to Newfoundland.
That's why.
dubious comparisons and make ridiculous assertions of fact.
Which dubious comparisons and ridiculous assertions of fact?
Not if it's based on facts, no. Generally, though, it isn't.
How is what not based on facts? The dubious comparisons and ridiculous assertions mentioned above? Please expand.
That would include, perhaps, how Maine used to be part of Massachussets, non?
Oui, it would.
Because the official state visits by the Prime Minister of this country, or the Teasack of that one, only ever seem to go to Newfoundland.
Hadn't you been writing about Premiers of Territories not the Teasack in question?
Which dubious comparisons and ridiculous assertions of fact?
Dubious comparisons to Iceland, Ireland, or Norway, mainly.
Ridiculous assertions like "Canada controls our resources" or "we get short-changed in federal jobs".
How is what not based on facts?
The Newfoundland nationalist rhetoric is not based on facts.
How? By not being based on facts, that's how.
Hadn't you been writing about Premiers of Territories not the Teasack in question?
Yip.
Since the Teasack only ever goes to Newfoundland, perhaps the territorial Premiers should only go to Labrador.
Dubious comparisons to Iceland, Ireland, or Norway, mainly.
Can you give an example of some of these comparisons beyond just the entities involved?
Ridiculous assertions like "Canada controls our resources" or "we get short-changed in federal jobs".
Doesn't the Federal government control offshore resources, which in this province are a significant part of the economy?
The Newfoundland nationalist rhetoric is not based on facts.
Too general. Give some examples of this rhetoric.
Since the Teasack only ever goes to Newfoundland, perhaps the territorial Premiers should only go to Labrador.
What's the parallel between the Teasack and the territorial Premiers? They don't seem to me to be comparable positions at all. If only visiting Newfoundland is good enough for Teasacks (of the Liberal and Conservative persuasions both) why wouldn't it be good enough for Territorial Premiers? Have the Territorial Premiers been clamouring for the opportunity to visit Labrador in particular? What's stopped them from going on their own? Would, or wouldn't, it make sense for them to go on their own?
Are you trying to suggest that Labrador is, IN FACT, a territory of the same rank as NWT or Yukon or Nunavut and should receive the same attention and relationships? If so, would it make sense for a provincial government that doesn't actually recognize Labrador as being a separate territory outside of its provincial boundaries to entertain negotiations, collaboration and relationships based on the notion that Labrador IS a separate territory outside of its provincial boundaries? Oh Great Champion of Labrador put yourself in Great Leader's shoes for just a minute!
Also, what if the Teasack were a Federal Liberal Teasack - would that make any difference? Would he make a point of visiting Labrador more often? Has that been the case in past for Liberal Teasacks?
Can you give an example of some of these comparisons beyond just the entities involved?
Sure. Danny and others keep invoking the "Celtic Tiger" theme relating to Ireland. Ireland has a much denser, geographically contiguous, and more urbanized population than Newfoundland; Ireland doesn't have a Labrador; Ireland is much closer to large European markets than Newfoundland is to the North American equivalents; Ireland has significant agriculture.
Phoney comparison.
Doesn't the Federal government control offshore resources
Nope. The federal government shares control of the offshore with the province. The offshore cannot be developed in any way other than those which obtain provincial government approval.
Too general. Give some examples of this rhetoric.
Too easy: "Ottawa [or whoever else] controls our resources", "Quebec redrew the Labrador boundary", "we give everything away", "Ottawa gave the offshore area to St. Pierre", "Quebec stole the Upper Churchill", "foreigners destroyed the fishery and we had no part in it", "equalization is a ripoff", "Ottawa collects more oil (gas, mining) royalties than we do", etc., etc.
The NewfNat discourse is rife with misinformation and outright lies.
What's the parallel between the Teasack and the territorial Premiers?
They are heads of outside governments of models that nationalists — Newfoundland in the one case, Labrador in the other — emulate or think they'd like to emulate.
If only visiting Newfoundland is good enough for Teasacks (of the Liberal and Conservative persuasions both)
Liberal and Conservative Teasacks?
Do you know what I mean by "Teasack"?
Have the Territorial Premiers been clamouring for the opportunity to visit Labrador in particular?
No idea. Have Irish or Icelandic leaders been clamouring to visit Newfoundland in particular? I don't know that either... just that they were invited, and they did, and that there was a larger political purpose behind it.
What's stopped them from going on their own?
Nothing. Okalik was in Labrador earlier this year, in fact.
Are you trying to suggest that Labrador is, IN FACT, a territory of the same rank as NWT or Yukon or Nunavut and should receive the same attention and relationships?
No, I'm trying to suggest that to make that suggestion is just as valid as the NewfNat and Danny Williams suggestion that "we" should be an independent country like Ireland, Iceland, or Norway.
Danny keeps making those comparisons, and creating events which give him excuses to make those comparisons, at every opportunity.
Why?
And then why not allow Labrador nationalists to do the same, mutatis mutandis?
If so, would it make sense for a provincial government that doesn't actually recognize Labrador as being a separate territory outside of its provincial boundaries to entertain negotiations, collaboration and relationships based on the notion that Labrador IS a separate territory outside of its provincial boundaries?
Why not? Canada doesn't recognize that NL is outside of its national boundaries; that doesn't stop Glorious Leader from making people think that way, though.
Why is separatism a virtue for Newfoundland, but a vice for anyone else?
Also, what if the Teasack were a Federal Liberal Teasack - would that make any difference?
Really — do you know what Teasack means?
Would he make a point of visiting Labrador more often? Has that been the case in past for Liberal Teasacks?
At least in the case of two of the past three Liberal Prime Ministers of Canada, yes. (Not sure about Pearson or Turner, so that statement excludes them.)
To my knowledge, none of the past four Conservative Prime Ministers of Canada, including the incumbent, have visited Labrador while in office. In fact, the Conservatives have tended to pretty well ignore Labrador, other than during by-elections in the federal riding.
Sure. Danny and others keep invoking the "Celtic Tiger" theme relating to Ireland. Ireland has a much denser, geographically contiguous, and more urbanized population than Newfoundland; Ireland doesn't have a Labrador; Ireland is much closer to large European markets than Newfoundland is to the North American equivalents; Ireland has significant agriculture.
The comparison is not that we are identical demographically, geographically, politically or economically - the comparison with Ireland is about what can be done when attitudes change. Ireland was rural, poor and undeveloped - and was losing population at a quick rate - up through the 60's until they had a positive change in attitude towards business, trade, development, education etc etc. This is a question of ATTITUDE. You can go on all day about how Newfoundland and Labrador are so significantly different from Ireland but you have missed the point completely. Lots of people in the province like to make a social or cultural comparison between the province and Ireland (which you have dealt with effectively in past posts) but this is about, once again, ATTITUDE - which can be held anywhere by anyone.
Not a phoney comparison. I would say comparing Labrador to Yukon, NWT or Nunavut is a phoney comparison considering that Labrador is a part of a province and is not a territory.
Nope. The federal government shares control of the offshore with the province. The offshore cannot be developed in any way other than those which obtain provincial government approval
You're only talking about oil - Ottawa also controls fisheries.
Also, co-jurisdiction over oil only does so much good. When the province raised the issue of fallow-field legislation last year Harper and his government ignored it. Having one hand bound doesn't make for the most effective bargaining unit (which is what the Federal and Provincial governments should be together) when dealing with oil companies that aren't similarly bound.
Too easy: "Ottawa [or whoever else] controls our resources", "Quebec redrew the Labrador boundary", "we give everything away", "Ottawa gave the offshore area to St. Pierre", "Quebec stole the Upper Churchill", "foreigners destroyed the fishery and we had no part in it", "equalization is a ripoff", "Ottawa collects more oil (gas, mining) royalties than we do", etc., etc.
You're right most of this is bunk.
How about these ones:
"Ottawa controls some of our most resources including our fisheries, and does not always support the province's will when it comes to developing the oil industry"
"foreigners had a great hand in destroying the fishery and Ottawa has made a habit of doing too little too late when it comes to defending, preserving or promoting the healthy of the resource"
The NewfNat discourse is rife with misinformation and outright lies.
How about some of these items:
"I don't feel Canadian"
"I would rather Newfoundland and Labrador have some sort of autonomous relationship with Canada, as Catalonia has with Spain"
"Smaller less populous provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador need a elected, effective and equal Senate to ensure that their political will is represented to some degree. Without such a Senate I believe it would be better for Newfoundland and Labrador to separate from Canada or seek vastly different Terms of Union with Canada than those that exist.
They are heads of outside governments of models that nationalists — Newfoundland in the one case, Labrador in the other — emulate or think they'd like to emulate.
You've already separated Newfoundland and Labrador in your mind. Remember that nothing has happened yet in that regard.
So you think the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, a PROVINCE, should start inviting the Premiers of TERRITORIES to Labrador to cultivate exchanges and relationships, AS IF LABRADOR WERE A TERRITORY?
Let me propose a parallel situation. The Prime Minister of Canada (or the Teasack as I now like to call him) invites leaders from Scotland, Corsica, and Catalonia to Quebec to discuss ways in which Quebec (as a now autonomous state of its own......even though....it's not) might learn from and emulate these territories which either have a great degree of autonomy or are actively seeking it. Does that sound realistic to you?
What would the Teasack say to those people in Quebec who don't wish to have more autonomy from Canada? How would that make sense to him as a leader of a supposed unity?
Liberal and Conservative Teasacks?
Do you know what I mean by "Teasack"?
When I pause on it for a minute I'm guessing you're referring to Taoiseach or whatever the leader of Ireland is called. Whatever the case I've decided to adopt the word for usage in place of Prime Minister*. That's what most Canadian Prime Ministers are to me anyway.
By the way here's my question that you didn't answer:
If only visiting Newfoundland is good enough for Teasacks* (of the Liberal and Conservative persuasions both) why wouldn't it be good enough for Territorial Premiers?
No idea. Have Irish or Icelandic leaders been clamouring to visit Newfoundland in particular? I don't know that either... just that they were invited, and they did, and that there was a larger political purpose behind it.
What's the larger political purpose and how do you know about it?
Well I guess there's nothing wrong with learning from those that are more successful from you - Territorial Premiers included. I don't know why Territorial Premiers haven't been invited to the province - or have they?.
I'm no rabid fan of Danny Williams. If he hasn't invited the Territorial Premiers to the province then I see that as unfortunate.
Nothing. Okalik was in Labrador earlier this year, in fact.
What did the leaders of the Labrador Territory learn from their meeting with him?
No, I'm trying to suggest that to make that suggestion is just as valid as the NewfNat and Danny Williams suggestion that "we" should be an independent country like Ireland, Iceland, or Norway.
Fair enough. I would make it a little more explicit. You tend to put the cart before the horse when it comes to Labrador's territorial status.
Danny keeps making those comparisons, and creating events which give him excuses to make those comparisons, at every opportunity.
Why?
And then why not allow Labrador nationalists to do the same, mutatis mutandis?
I admire countries like Iceland and Ireland. I think that anyone could learn from them. I admire their sense of independence and sense of identity. I think Newfoundland and Labrador could learn a great deal from these countries and their leaders.
I don't see anything wrong with Labrador nationalists doing the same - which they already do under no prohibition from the Great Satan from St. John's. In fact, Labrador nationalists like yourself are hard it and have been for a while.
In fact it always amazes me that the only organized and functioning nationalist party in the province is the Labrador Party (which is running in all Labrador ridings this election and will probably have a breakthrough) and yet you worry about Newfoundland separation.
Name one party in Newfoundland that advocates separation from Canada?
I'm a Newfoundland nationalist and in past have been interviewed about Newfoundland separation. My answer is always that there is no separatist movement. None. There are those who have separatist sentiments but nothing beyond that. The way you get on one would think there's already been a Referendum or two.
Why not? Canada doesn't recognize that NL is outside of its national boundaries; that doesn't stop Glorious Leader from making people think that way, though.
Why is separatism a virtue for Newfoundland, but a vice for anyone else?
Newfoundland and Labrador (a province) is a separate political entity WITHIN Canada. Labrador (a region) is NOT a separate political entity within Newfoundland and Labrador. When Labrador achieves some sort of a different political status within Newfoundland and Labrador and has its own leader. (and parallels the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada) it will finally be able to pull the same stunts that Danny does.
Wait. You're the one who is constantly suggesting and implying that separation is ok for Labrador but not for Newfoundland and Labrador. The question I have for you is:
Why is separatism a virtue for Labrador, but a vice for anyone else?
Also, what if the Teasack were a Federal Liberal Teasack - would that make any difference?
Really — do you know what Teasack means?
Really. You must make yourself laugh a great deal with your witticism about Teasacks and such.
what if the Teasack (Taoiseach or Prime Minister if you wish) were a Federal Liberal Teasack - would that make any difference?
At least in the case of two of the past three Liberal Prime Ministers of Canada, yes. (Not sure about Pearson or Turner, so that statement excludes them.)
Well we all know who to vote for next Federal election. The Glorious Liberals - Long Live their Divinely Inspired and Eternally Benevolent Rule Govern Our People
Of course you're employed by Liberal MP Todd Russell right? I mean, you receive a regular cheque from the Liberal Party of Canada right?
The comparison is not that we are identical demographically, geographically, politically or economically - the comparison with Ireland is about what can be done when attitudes change.
I'd believe that (A) if any attitudes had changed in Newfoundland lately - they haven't, and (B) if the NewfNats who keep making the comparison to Ireland didn't keep harping on the fact that "we're both islands in the North Atlantic, and people on the Southern Shore sound Irish, and our folk music is Irish, and Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish."
Ireland was rural
Even when it "was rural" it was still more urban, and with a larger number of larger urban centres, than anything remotely Newfoundlandish.
You can go on all day about how Newfoundland and Labrador are so significantly different from Ireland but you have missed the point completely.
Speaking of missing points... the reason I "go on all day" about the differences is because other people - lots of them - go on about the phoney similarities.
Not a phoney comparison. I would say comparing Labrador to Yukon, NWT or Nunavut is a phoney comparison considering that Labrador is a part of a province and is not a territory.
The comparison is not to what is real.
It is, just as with Danny's separatist flirtations with his "Iceland is a country", "Norway is a country", "Ireland is a country" garbage, a comparison to what is hypothetical.
If Danny's Newfoundland separatist fantasies can have state sanction and financial support, why not do the same for Labrador separatist ones?
You're only talking about oil - Ottawa also controls fisheries.
Hmmmm. Harper promised to grant any province that asked for it, "joint management" of the fisheries.
Danny used to demand it, before anyone offered it.
Now it's been handed to him on a silver platter... and he brushes it away. Why?
Also, co-jurisdiction over oil only does so much good.
It does all the good in the world: you can't develop anything offshore without the province's approval. Period. End of story.
You're right most of this is bunk.
How about these ones:
"Ottawa controls some of our most resources including our fisheries,
Fish in the ocean are the only resource over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Odd how people forget that.
and does not always support the province's will when it comes to developing the oil industry"
Why should the province's will be the only will to be supported?
"foreigners had a great hand in destroying the fishery and Ottawa has made a habit of doing too little too late when it comes to defending, preserving or promoting the healthy of the resource"
Funny. When "Ottawa" did muse about acting, fishermen, esp. in Newfoundland, complained that it was too much, too early.
How about some of these items:
"I don't feel Canadian"
"I would rather Newfoundland and Labrador have some sort of autonomous relationship with Canada, as Catalonia has with Spain"
What about them? Those are statements of opinion, not assertions of fact.
"Smaller less populous provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador need a elected, effective and equal Senate to ensure that their political will is represented to some degree.
Fine. Now convince all other provinces, and the federal Parliament, of that.
Without such a Senate I believe it would be better for Newfoundland and Labrador to separate from Canada or seek vastly different Terms of Union with Canada than those that exist.
You'd separate because there's no triple-E Senate?
Should Labrador separate from the province because there's no triple-E Legislative Council? Why or why not?
You've already separated Newfoundland and Labrador in your mind.
Only because the Strait of Belle Isle, a whole raft of cultural and historical factors, and the actions of Newfoundland governments, have already created that division on the ground.
Remember that nothing has happened yet in that regard.
And? Newfoundland and Labrador is a province of Canada, yet that doesn't stop NewfNats from blue-skying about "if only we were a country... like Ireland....", does it?
So you think the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, a PROVINCE, should start inviting the Premiers of TERRITORIES to Labrador to cultivate exchanges and relationships, AS IF LABRADOR WERE A TERRITORY?
Why not, when he invites heads of foreign governments to cultivate exchanges and relationships AS IF NEWFOUNDLAND WERE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY?
Let me propose a parallel situation. The Prime Minister of Canada (or the Teasack as I now like to call him) invites leaders from Scotland, Corsica, and Catalonia to Quebec to discuss ways in which Quebec (as a now autonomous state of its own......even though....it's not) might learn from and emulate these territories which either have a great degree of autonomy or are actively seeking it. Does that sound realistic to you?
Nope.
But if Danny is going to give state sanction to his separatism, and that of his followers, either he can be even-handed about it, or his supporters could stop baring their fangs when it is suggested that Newfoundland separatism is not the only such sentiment abroad in the land.
How would that make sense to him as a leader of a supposed unity?
Speaking of "Supposed unities", how do you think it augurs for Danny's separatist ambitions that everything he supposedly wants to do in Labrador is dependent on federal matching - or super-matching - funds?
Nice to see, though, that the NewfNats are learning from their Quebec counterparts, even down to the "Canada is divisible but we're not" myth.
Danny's researcher is doing good work!
If only visiting Newfoundland is good enough for Teasacks* (of the Liberal and Conservative persuasions both) why wouldn't it be good enough for Territorial Premiers?
I still don't get your question.
If the Irish or Iceland leaders can visit only the Newfoundland part of the province, and no one questions the propriety of that, surely there can be state visits involving Labrador, and only Labrador... right? All one province, innit?
What's the larger political purpose
To get people talking in nationalist tones, up to and including separatist ones...
and how do you know about it?
... by various bits of information, media reports, and esp. by parsing of statements and actions by Danny Williams himself.
What did the leaders of the Labrador Territory learn from their meeting with him?
Probably that he needs to be more discrete when he hurls sexist insults about other members of his own delegation, if he must hurl them at all.
Fair enough. I would make it a little more explicit. You tend to put the cart before the horse when it comes to Labrador's territorial status.
No, you tend to have reading comprehension problems.
Name one party in Newfoundland that advocates separation from Canada?
Explicitly, none. For that matter, the Labrador Party has not, to my knowledge, advocated separation, either.
However, Danny and many of his caucus members - and this was also true of Grimes and his - have spent the better part of the last decade subtly ratcheting up the nationalist-cum-separatist rhetoric.
Newfoundland and Labrador (a province) is a separate political entity WITHIN Canada. Labrador (a region) is NOT a separate political entity within Newfoundland and Labrador.
And?
When Labrador achieves some sort of a different political status within Newfoundland and Labrador and has its own leader. (and parallels the relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada) it will finally be able to pull the same stunts that Danny does.
What, you have to separate before you're allowed to be separatist?
Wait. You're the one who is constantly suggesting and implying that separation is ok for Labrador
Oh?
Where and when?
Why is separatism a virtue for Labrador, but a vice for anyone else?
It isn't.
what if the Teasack (Taoiseach or Prime Minister if you wish) were a Federal Liberal Teasack - would that make any difference?
Any difference to what?
I don't mind leaders of other jurisdictions coming to the province; far from it.
However, the provincial government of the province of which Labrador is a part should make sure Labrador is included on the itinerary from time to time, and not just for fly-overs of the so-called "Lower Churchill", either.
And the PGOTPOWLISAP, or at least the Premier, should not be using such visits to make those leaders into unwilling pawns in his crypto-separatist agenda. That's not diplomatic.
And Ireland has neither a Liberal party nor a federal government, so I have no idea what you're getting at. It's always appropriate for a Prime Minister of Canada to visit any part of Canada.
Well we all know who to vote for next Federal election. The Glorious Liberals - Long Live their Divinely Inspired and Eternally Benevolent Rule Govern Our People
The vote is secret. It's in the Elections Act.
However, it's a matter of public record that there's a discrepancy in visits by Prime Ministers to Labrador, according to political stripe.
I mean, you receive a regular cheque from the Liberal Party of Canada right?
Nope. Wrong.
Do you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?
You ask as if you don't already know the answer.
What's the answer?
The one you already know!
Who do you work for?
What do I already know?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine.
You already know the answer to your question.
I don't to mine.
You already know the answer to your question.
No. I don't know the answer to my question, "Do you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?". I've heard rumours of it but I don't actually know.
Go on. Tell me who your employer is and I'll gladly tell you who employs me. I've got nothing to hide - do you?
Nope.
You already know the answer, or you wouldn't be pretending to ask.
Who do you work for?
It's on.
I don't know the answer WJM. Nor do I know how I would know. Another correspondence told me he thought you worked for Liberal MP Todd Russell. Fact? I don't know.
DO you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?
I'll answer your question when you answer mine.
I'll answer yours when you answer mine! I'm not fond of assymetry.
You wouldn't ask if you didn't already know, your protestations of innocence notwithstanding?
Do you have a last name, by the way?
I'd believe that (A) if any attitudes had changed in Newfoundland lately - they haven't, and (B) if the NewfNats who keep making the comparison to Ireland didn't keep harping on the fact that "we're both islands in the North Atlantic, and people on the Southern Shore sound Irish, and our folk music is Irish, and Irish Irish Irish Irish Irish."
Where did you get that quote?
Whether or not some focus on whatever supposed cultural connections might exists between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador is irrelevant when looking to Ireland for inspiration for change.
Dave Rudofsky's Atlantic Gateway concept (you can find a link to the proposal at nldl.org) is an example of non-sentimental nor romantic referencing of Ireland because they have been so successful at turning around their economy.
WJM, you do a lot of filtering when you need to make a conclusion.
Even when it "was rural" it was still more urban, and with a larger number of larger urban centres, than anything remotely Newfoundlandish.
You're right. In any case, Ireland is still an excellent example for Newfoundland and Labrador to emulate.
Speaking of missing points... the reason I "go on all day" about the differences is because other people - lots of them - go on about the phoney similarities.
Apparently you do too - comparing Labrador to territories.
The comparison is not to what is real.
It is, just as with Danny's separatist flirtations with his "Iceland is a country", "Norway is a country", "Ireland is a country" garbage, a comparison to what is hypothetical.
If Danny's Newfoundland separatist fantasies can have state sanction and financial support, why not do the same for Labrador separatist ones?
The comparison between Newfoundland and Labrador and a few independent countries is relevant because, for better or worse, the province will, at least, need some greater autonomy within Canada in order to restore itself and create prosperity. In mind this automony would focus on complete control over all offshore resources - not co-jurisdiction.
As for Labrador separatist fantasies those are not for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to entertain - those are for Labrador separatists such as yourself (don't be shy) to entertain.
Hmmmm. Harper promised to grant any province that asked for it, "joint management" of the fisheries.
Danny used to demand it, before anyone offered it.
Now it's been handed to him on a silver platter... and he brushes it away. Why?
I myself would want nothing less than full jurisdiction over the fisheries to be given to the province.
As for Danny's inaction....no balls?
It does all the good in the world: you can't develop anything offshore without the province's approval. Period. End of story.
No it doesn't do all the good in the world when you want fallow field legislation. Not period. Not end of story.
Why should the province's will be the only will to be supported?
Well because, by virtue of proximity, it was something that Newfoundland and Labrador essentially brought into Confederation. By virtue of proximity it is still ours in a geographical way - our continental shelf etc.
Also, I believe it might be the will of the people of this province to get the most out of their oil resources - you'd think Ottawa would be a little more cooperative in light of it's royal shagging of
the fisheries and the economic disaster that's resulted.
Funny. When "Ottawa" did muse about acting, fishermen, esp. in Newfoundland, complained that it was too much, too early.
Too general a statement and a concept that fishermen, as a whole, objected to Ottawa's possible action.
Also, when someone is not responsible for something they generally feel....not responsible for it. If it were NL's jurisdiction and fishermen were respected and involved in the process of managing and preserving the stocks - if the question were put to them and they were responsible for the fallout - it would have been a different story.
It makes no sense to have only Ottawa being responsible for the resource. Like the oil it would make no sense to have co-jurisdiction - too many cooks in the kitchen you, see. Sole provincial jurisdiction is the only realistic route in my mind. The same politicians who dictate the nature of policy and have to keep in mind the interests of Ontario and Quebec etc etc etc and they should have no hand in it.
Fine. Now convince all other provinces, and the federal Parliament, of that.
In the long run I hope to.
You'd separate because there's no triple-E Senate?
Should Labrador separate from the province because there's no triple-E Legislative Council? Why or why not?
Yes I would separate from a country because my interests were not represented because the population of the province where I'm from is too small too merit any influence in an antiquated and unbalanced political system.
Labrador? By all means, if they feel it is necessary in order for their interests to be represented they should separate.
Only because the Strait of Belle Isle, a whole raft of cultural and historical factors, and the actions of Newfoundland governments, have already created that division on the ground.
Labrador is a politically separate body from Newfoundland?
And? Newfoundland and Labrador is a province of Canada, yet that doesn't stop NewfNats from blue-skying about "if only we were a country... like Ireland....", does it?
No it doesn't. Labrador is still a part of Newfoundland and Labrador - Blue-sky all you want.
Why not, when he invites heads of foreign governments to cultivate exchanges and relationships AS IF NEWFOUNDLAND WERE AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY?
Perhaps you're confused. Danny Williams is not a part of the Labrador Party. Why would he invite heads of governments to Labrador in the frame of mind that Labrador is or should be a separate Territory? Let the Labrador Party do that.
Fish in the ocean are the only resource over which the federal government has jurisdiction. Odd how people forget that.
I'm under no illusion about which of our resources Ottawa controls. I wrote that Ottawa controls most of our IMPORTANT resources - oil and fish. I DID NOT say ALL of our important resources such as hydro, onshore mineral finds etc.
Mincing my words doesn't make your point.
Nope.
But if Danny is going to give state sanction to his separatism, and that of his followers, either he can be even-handed about it, or his supporters could stop baring their fangs when it is suggested that Newfoundland separatism is not the only such sentiment abroad in the land.
Even handed about what? This is politics remember. Our entry into Confederation wasn't even handed so why should our existence within this Federation be so?
As for the fangs you mention you happen to be one of the most vicious, arrogant, bullying bloggers out there. You regularly twist people's intentions and words to suit your ends.
Speaking of "Supposed unities", how do you think it augurs for Danny's separatist ambitions that everything he supposedly wants to do in Labrador is dependent on federal matching - or super-matching - funds?
Nice to see, though, that the NewfNats are learning from their Quebec counterparts, even down to the "Canada is divisible but we're not" myth.
Danny's researcher is doing good work!
I would like to as much possible Federal presence, and influence, in the province removed. I don't want Ottawa's money, their flag, their god-damned civil service jobs, their national holidays etc etc.
Who's Danny's researcher?
I still don't get your question.
If the Irish or Iceland leaders can visit only the Newfoundland part of the province, and no one questions the propriety of that, surely there can be state visits involving Labrador, and only Labrador... right? All one province, innit?
Yes indeed, one province. Why the Burin Peninsular for that matter? Or Notre Dame Bay? You're on the right track Wally.
As for more practical considerations the province's capital is St. John's and most of the province's political, educational and commercial infrastructure is there. If it's good enough for Burin it's good enough for Labrador right?
... by various bits of information, media reports, and esp. by parsing of statements and actions by Danny Williams himself.
Accurate indeed.
Probably that he needs to be more discrete when he hurls sexist insults about other members of his own delegation, if he must hurl them at all.
Perhaps the Premier of the Territory of Labrador should have a chat with him about that.
No, you tend to have reading comprehension problems.
Ok.
Any difference to what?
I don't mind leaders of other jurisdictions coming to the province; far from it.
However, the provincial government of the province of which Labrador is a part should make sure Labrador is included on the itinerary from time to time, and not just for fly-overs of the so-called "Lower Churchill", either.
And the PGOTPOWLISAP, or at least the Premier, should not be using such visits to make those leaders into unwilling pawns in his crypto-separatist agenda. That's not diplomatic.
And Ireland has neither a Liberal party nor a federal government, so I have no idea what you're getting at. It's always appropriate for a Prime Minister of Canada to visit any part of Canada.
I guess you have reading comprehension problems - I was speaking about Canada's Teasack not Ireland's.
Perhaps you should speak to the Territorial Premiers of Labrador, Burin, Port-au-Port, the Great Northern Peninsula and have a bitch session.
Not Diplomatic? This is politics remember?
The vote is secret. It's in the Elections Act.
However, it's a matter of public record that there's a discrepancy in visits by Prime Ministers to Labrador, according to political stripe.
Reading comprehension problems again WJM? I never said that the vote isn't secret - just that we all know who to vote for next election. Good to know that you're so knowledgeable about the Elections Act. That must be a great asset to you. A great asset.
Vote for the stripe that you consider best. They're all the same to me.
No, I don't actually know. But I appreciate your attempt at transparency. When people ask questions and you don't want to answer it's always convenient to say "You know!" or "Figure it out yourself!". I don't know anything - all I've heard is a rumour. It's up to you to actually answer my question or not. As I said I'll tell you who employs me as soon as you answer my question in a straightforward manner. If I already know then you should have no trouble stating it yourself.
No, I won't tell you my last name. Sorry.
Also, in terms of assymetry (which you don't like) not answering someone's question would be an effective way of causing that. If you'd like things to be symmetrical feel free to answer my question:
Do you or do you not work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?
Where did you get that quote?
It's not a quote. It's a made-up paraphrase.
Whether or not some focus on whatever supposed cultural connections might exists between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador is irrelevant when looking to Ireland for inspiration for change.
Then why Ireland?
Why not the Beauce? That would be my inspiration.
Why Ireland in particular?
WJM, you do a lot of filtering when you need to make a conclusion.
Yip.
I filter out garbage.
In any case, Ireland is still an excellent example for Newfoundland and Labrador to emulate.
How so? What makes Ireland so "excellent" an example?
Apparently you do too - comparing Labrador to territories.
Lots of similarities: Large areas, low populations and population densities, northern, heavy reliance on natural resource industries, large aboriginal populations.
The comparison between Newfoundland and Labrador and a few independent countries is relevant because, for better or worse, the province will, at least, need some greater autonomy within Canada in order to restore itself and create prosperity.
Why?
What autonomy do we lack?
Are their other provinces which owe their prosperity to their having more autonomy? In what area is any other province more autonomous?
In mind this automony would focus on complete control over all offshore resources - not co-jurisdiction.
What's "complete control"?
As for Labrador separatist fantasies those are not for the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to entertain
Why not?
- those are for Labrador separatists such as yourself (don't be shy) to entertain.
Not quite a separatist yet... but you NewfNats make the arguments easier all the time!
As for Danny's inaction....no balls?
No argument.
No it doesn't do all the good in the world when you want fallow field legislation. Not period. Not end of story.
What would fallow field legislation do?
Why do "we" want it?
Well because, by virtue of proximity, it was something that Newfoundland and Labrador essentially brought into Confederation.
So if people in Labrador who are proximate to the provincial resources they brought into the province, and have a "will" that differs from that of Newfoundland.... should the provincial government bow to that will?
Why or why not?
By virtue of proximity it is still ours in a geographical way - our continental shelf etc.
Do Labrador resources belong to Labradorians for the same reason?
Why or why not?
Also, I believe it might be the will of the people of this province to get the most out of their oil resources
What is "the most"?
What are we currently not getting out of them that we could be?
you'd think Ottawa would be a little more cooperative
Getting fallow-field legislation and getting something out of oil resources are not the same thing.
Too general a statement and a concept that fishermen, as a whole, objected to Ottawa's possible action.
Not too general at all, nope.
Also, when someone is not responsible for something they generally feel....not responsible for it.
And when someone is responsible for something, they quite often also feel... not responsible for it.
If it were NL's jurisdiction and fishermen were respected and involved in the process of managing and preserving the stocks - if the question were put to them and they were responsible for the fallout - it would have been a different story.
And if the fishermen politically resisted measures in the 1980s and 1990s which could have changed the course of the fisheries collapse, as they did, they should also accept that share of the responsibility.
It makes no sense to have only Ottawa being responsible for the resource.
Why not?
Like the oil it would make no sense to have co-jurisdiction - too many cooks in the kitchen you, see. Sole provincial jurisdiction is the only realistic route in my mind.
Then the House of Assembly should get the ball rolling by passing a constitutional amendment. They can. Why haven't they?
The same politicians who dictate the nature of policy and have to keep in mind the interests of Ontario and Quebec etc etc etc and they should have no hand in it.
How have the interests of Ontario or Quebec been kept in mind in the development of the offshore oil industry? How have those of Ontario (Quebec has a legitimate case) been taken into account in the management of Atlantic fisheries?
Yes I would separate from a country because my interests were not represented because the population of the province where I'm from is too small too merit any influence in an antiquated and unbalanced political system.
What's unbalanced about it?
Labrador is a politically separate body from Newfoundland?
Not yet. Does it have to be in order to "separate it in my mind"? There are more levels than the political, you know.
Perhaps you're confused. Danny Williams is not a part of the Labrador Party. Why would he invite heads of governments to Labrador in the frame of mind that Labrador is or should be a separate Territory? Let the Labrador Party do that.
What does the Labrador Party govern?
If Danny is going to use state resources to promote separatism, he should do so even-handedly, or stop doing so at all.
Even handed about what?
About advancing a separatist agenda with public resources.
This is politics remember. Our entry into Confederation wasn't even handed
What was not even handed about it?
As for the fangs you mention you happen to be one of the most vicious, arrogant, bullying bloggers out there.
I'm a pussycat.
You regularly twist people's intentions and words to suit your ends.
Point out some examples of that.
Thank you.
Who's Danny's researcher?
Some guy.
Yes indeed, one province. Why the Burin Peninsular for that matter? Or Notre Dame Bay?
They are in the Newfoundland region.
As for more practical considerations the province's capital is St. John's and most of the province's political, educational and commercial infrastructure is there. If it's good enough for Burin it's good enough for Labrador right?
And vice-versa.
Yet to NewfNats, a Labrador resource isn't properly utilized until its shipped to Newfoundland, for some reason.
And Newfoundlanders who won't fill jobs in Labrador City will go to Fort Mac, and then complain that they had to leave the province to find work.
It's not Labradorians who have difficulty comprehending this "all one province" concept, Stephen Whatever Your Last Name Is.
(Funny how you know the familiar of my given name. How do you know that?)
Perhaps you should speak to the Territorial Premiers of Labrador, Burin, Port-au-Port, the Great Northern Peninsula and have a bitch session.
Do all those regions of Newfoundland have separatist sentiment or something?
Reading comprehension problems again WJM? I never said that the vote isn't secret
No, but you seemed to need reminding.
Good to know that you're so knowledgeable about the Elections Act. That must be a great asset to you. A great asset.
Yip!
Vote for the stripe that you consider best. They're all the same to me.
All you flappy-headed NewfNats, with heads all filled with lies, are the same to me. Let's call it square.
No, I don't actually know.
Yes, you do. You are another lying Newfoundland nationalist.
"Figure it out yourself!".
I've never told you to figure it out yourself, because I know, for a fact, that you already know the answer!
I don't know anything
Yes, you do. You are lying again. Stop lying. It's bad.
No, I won't tell you my last name. Sorry.
Too bad. The conversation is over until you do, on here or privately, Steve.
Also, in terms of assymetry (which you don't like) not answering someone's question would be an effective way of causing that.
Not nearly as effective as hiding behind a cloak of semi-anonymity and demanding to know particulars of someone else's life without offering up any on your end, Steve.
Yes, you do. You are another lying Newfoundland nationalist.
What did I lie about?
I've never told you to figure it out yourself, because I know, for a fact, that you already know the answer!
How do you know for a fact that I know the answer? I would like to know for a fact but I don't. Prove that I do.
Yes, you do. You are lying again. Stop lying. It's bad.
Know what's bad? Accusing other people of lying and not offering any proof.
Too bad. The conversation is over until you do, on here or privately, Steve.
Telling you where I work is completely different from offering my name online. The only reason I know yours is because it's bandied about so much on other blogs.
By the way, nice dodge from answering my question. Simple affair really (apparently I already know the answer) but for some reason you're acting like it's a big deal. I think it's relevant whether or not you're employed by a Liberal MP - it would obviously inform your opinions and your interests - and because you insist on crucifying anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool rabid Federalist Liberal it's even more relevant.
Not nearly as effective as hiding behind a cloak of semi-anonymity and demanding to know particulars of someone else's life without offering up any on your end, Steve.
Nice dodge again. You see, I asked the question first. You want to know who I work for then simply confirm who you work for - first, because I asked you first.
What did I lie about?
About not knowing the answer to your question
How do you know for a fact that I know the answer?
I have my ways.
Telling you where I work is completely different from offering my name online.
Not at all. You know information about me that I don’t’ know about you. I wouldn’t keep up a discussion with someone on the phone under those circumstances, nor here.
I think it's relevant whether or not you're employed by a Liberal MP
So do I! And the fact you’d even wonder, among other reasons, says you already know the answer!
- it would obviously inform your opinions and your interests - and because you insist on crucifying anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool rabid Federalist Liberal it's even more relevant.
I’m a federalist – big revelation. Yes, it does inform my opinions and interests.
Which non-Federal Liberals have I “crucified” for being non-Federal Liberals? Hint to inform your answer: I “crucify” Danny Williams for being a liar, a hypocrite, a poor manager of the affairs of state, and a separatist; not because of his federal political leanings, if he has any, which I don’t know.
Nice dodge again. You see, I asked the question first. You want to know who I work for then simply confirm who you work for - first, because I asked you first.
Assymetry. You can break that asymmetry. Your choice.
I have my ways.
Wow. Comprehensive answer.
Not at all. You know information about me that I don’t’ know about you. I wouldn’t keep up a discussion with someone on the phone under those circumstances, nor here.
What information do I know about you? I heard that you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell and asked you for confirmation, that's all. As I've said I'll tell you who I work for as soon as you deny or confirm whether or not that rumour is true.
So do I! And the fact you’d even wonder, among other reasons, says you already know the answer!
Hearing rumours is a far cry from knowing the truth about anything.!.
I’m a federalist – big revelation. Yes, it does inform my opinions and interests
Look at this segment. You removed something I said from its context and made it look like I said that your Federalist stance informs your opinions etc. What I had said, in fact, is that your employment status, or your employer more specifically, informs your opinions and interests. This is the kind of thing you do on a regular basis - not really the kind of habit you'd expect from someone who thinks he's so impartial, balanced, upstanding etc. You mince people's words, ignore whatever's inconvenient to your conclusion or response, and take things out of context. This kind of behaviour makes you more than a nuisance more than a conveyor of truth.
Which non-Federal Liberals have I “crucified” for being non-Federal Liberals? Hint to inform your answer: I “crucify” Danny Williams for being a liar, a hypocrite, a poor manager of the affairs of state, and a separatist; not because of his federal political leanings, if he has any, which I don’t know.
Anyone who's not a Liberal or a Federal you attack - if they're not both the treatment you give them is worse.
Assymetry. You can break that asymmetry. Your choice.
I ask you a question. You don't answer. That's assymetry. How would I be breaking the assymetry by tell ing you where I work before you've answered my question?
If you're legitimate and have nothing to hide give a yay or nay to my question:
Do you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?
Wow. Comprehensive answer.
As comprehensive as you merit.
What information do I know about you?
Name and employment.
I heard that you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell and asked you for confirmation, that's all.
You already know; what's to "confirm"?
You mince people's words,
The only words someone can mince are their own.
Anyone who's not a Liberal or a Federal you attack - if they're not both the treatment you give them is worse.
Can you provide some examples of who I've done this to? And can you prove, in those cases, that it's because they are not Liberal or not Federal? Provide some specific examples. Thanks!
I ask you a question. You don't answer. That's assymetry.
No, demanding someone's personal information while you hide behind anonymity, that's assymetry.
How would I be breaking the assymetry by tell ing you where I work before you've answered my question?
You alread know things about me that I don't about you. So put us back on a level playing field.
If you're legitimate and have nothing to hide give a yay or nay to my question:
I have nothing to hide.
Do you work for Liberal MP Todd Russell?
Why do you keep asking when you already know the answer?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home