I though this was real. Up until I saw the Beaverton URL.

You are literally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Quebec was not a separate colony before Confederation it was a part of the united Colony of Canada together with Ontario.

I will lay the proof here: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/collections1/parliament-and-canada/union-act-1840/

An Act to re-unite the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the Government of Canada.

• From the UK parliament

In this sense the British Imperial Parliament united, by act of Parliament, what would become Quebec with Ontario to create a new united Province of Canada.

The proposal for separation is here https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/301/cdn_confederation-ef/2005-07/www.collectionscanada.ca/confederation/023001-245-e.html

Local Governments for each of the Canadas,

• Resolution 2, Quebec Resolutions

The literal 72 Quebec Resolutions that laid the groundwork for Confederation. It mentions Canadas, plural for Upper and Lower Canada. There is no mention of Quebec.

P.E.I. was written as if it will join but refused to to join because of the Senate. Newfoundland was written as being invited to join.

Confederation created the modern southern borders of Quebec not the other way around. Later Constitution Acts created the now modern borders of Quebec. Confederation was needed to split the united Colony into two separate provinces. Even if Quebec did not join Confederation it would not have the current borders, unlike Newfoundland which had approximately it’s current borders at that time, and while as a separate Dominion.

The Constitution Act, 1867 section 6 literally created the modern southern borders of Quebec:

The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form Two separate Provinces.

• Constitution Act, 1867, s. 6

The Part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario

• Constitution Act, 1867, s. 6

and the Part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec.

• Constitution Act, 1867, s. 6

Source of the Constitution Act, 1867: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-1.html#h-2

From a constitutional perspective, Ontario and Quebec did not enter Confederation as existing provinces; they were created by Confederation from the dissolution of the Province of Canada.

I have given primary sources. I would like you to do the same.

Saying things without sources does not make you right.

I will adopt your position if and only if you provide a primary source where it states that there was a serious option of dividing the province of Canada and for Quebec (Lower Canada) not joining Confederation. I’ll wait.

For someone who tries to monopolize what history actually means you have a lack of use of primary or secondary sources.

For the Republic of China: This is the official list of official Embassies (i.e. not unofficial “embassies”, you will not see a single NATO member country, including Canada, on the list): https://en.mofa.gov.tw/AlliesIndex.aspx?n=1294&sms=1007

Every single one is named as “Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan)” not “Embassy of the Republic of Taiwan”.

Every country on that list does not have an official Embassy in the PRC.

Where is the “Constitution of Taiwan”? There is only the constitution of the Republic of China.

At least give a primary source for that.

So no, not a single country has formal official diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

The Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth was dissolved due to the 1795 St. Petersburg Convention of the Third Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Partitions-of-Poland

So there is no modern claim Lithuania has on Poland, since the official sovereign that would bound them together ceased to exist. And the land officially partitioned.

There is no such treaty separating the Province of Taiwan from China.

As for Korea. From the Korean perspective, division was always meant to be temporary. See, from an RoK government primary source, Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea:

Article 4 The Republic of Korea shall seek unification and shall formulate and carry out a policy of peaceful unification based on the basic free and democratic order.

Link: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/eng/engLsInfoR.do?lsiSeq=61603

The DPRK had something similar until 2023, now military means is acceptable for unification.

Korea, at least officially from the government, has always viewed itself as a single country with a temporary split.

Again, where are your primary sources?

My sources:

• .un.org (United Nations)
• .gc.ca (Government of Canada)
• .gov.tw (Government of the Republic of China)
• .go.kr (Government of the Republic of Korea)
• .britannica.com (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Your sources:

• Trust me bro
• wild speculation
• unsubstantiated claims

Quebec was brought into British North America as a result of the Seven Years’ War (through a literal invasion, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and all that). After 100 years of direct colonial rule, Confederation was enacted.

Also Quebec was made by breaking the British Colony of Canada into two provinces. The Anglo-Protestant western half of Canada became Ontario and the French-Catholic eastern half became Quebec. This is why Catholic and French school boards exist in Ontario, Quebec got rid of their protestant school boards a while ago for secularism. This is just middle school history.

This is the backdrop against which Quebec nationalism stood and stands on.

Facts are indeed independent of the wishes and opinions of any government, such as China. However you forget that facts also don’t care about your feelings.

The United Nations voted on this in 1971 and Taiwan is indeed a part of the People’s Republic of China: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/654350

The Republic of China (basically de facto Taiwan) was a founding member of the United Nations, but that seat now belongs to PRC.

Taiwan is not a separate country, it is a province. It does not have a separate constitution nor passport. It says Republic of China on it. It is China, the only question is PRC or RoC.

Also Taiwanization is the process of turning the losers of the Chinese civil war, the RoC, into a Taiwan identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanization

The government was quite upset when De Gaul said “Vive le Quebec Libre”. Similarly when US officials are meddling with Alberta separatism.

There’s interest in the debt. Gold would have to rise faster than the interest.

Not really. You could only bring in factory sealed plastic bottles. i.e. you still have to buy company water not rely on municipal water

And Coca-Cola dividend shareholder bank accounts

This article is about this happening in Toronto

It’s the sane with flat earthers. No matter the evidence you present, they just deny.

Thanks for a link to a government source. Seems to be published in 2023.

Get lost @Scotty@scribe.disroot.org

I don’t think they’re against drag queens, they view gender as a phenomenon based solely on biological sex. This is why I’m confused. The conservatives would go one step further and say that social roles are also defined on gender/sex (for them they are the same thing), the cons would be against drag queens and nontraditional roles for women. In this way the gender criticalists are “classical liberals” because for them all activity is available for both men and women.

I can see why it seems like picking and choosing deconstructing gender but it is not. The claim of what women and female are is different from the claim of what women and females should be allowed to do.

I don’t get what the difference is between the gender criticalists and gender essentialism positions on sex and gender are. To me they literally mean the same thing just using fewer words. What’s with the dragon meme for the three positions if one of the regular ones and the dumb one is the same?

The only real difference I see is that the gender essentialism and gender critialists base their definitions on physical characteristics and/or appearances while the gender deconstructionists base their definitions on identity (for women, it is a social category identity, and for female, an internal identity or neurological state).

The use of this table format is quite good and I will use it. But again I do not know what the difference is between position 1 and position 3 besides using fewer words and the use of a bottomless pit meme.

The same body pillow or the same act?

Carleton University, where the “K” stands for Quality. It’s a uni gag, all engineering schools are acredited so that’s fine.

Wow. That’s insane. It reminds me of the engineering building at my uni where there is only one bathroom per floor, so when women were allowed to attend they turned the bathroom on every second floor into a women’s bathroom.

Canals are more vastly more fuel efficient per kg of cargo. But rail is much faster.

I would look at the bottom to count the radius and then use the formula for the volume of a cylinder (it was in the agenda). I won the contest once.

I think @Wudi@feddit.uk is sharing information on Lawson, not that he agrees with him. Please only down vote if the information is not good nor relavent.

Yup. “Canada’s world-class drone manufacturing sector” does not exist.

When it said Nixon, I was thinking pres Nixon