[LINK] "My Canada Includes Separatism"

[rfmcdonald]

Over at his blog, Andrew Barton has come up with a conclusion about separatism that I entirely agree with.

Civil wars are one thing, and if they solve any question it's always with the same sort of answer the Romans gave Carthage. This was until recently the twentieth century, the age of democracy, and if a group democratically decides to separate itself from the greater state, who are we to say they can't? Confederation in Canada began as an amicable assembly of four provinces united for the common good, but where in the British North America Act or the Constitution does it say that Canada is a straitjacket? If Quebec wants to separate, if the people of Quebec decide that they'd rather take their chances on their own and under their own flag, let them go and good luck to them.

Personally, I'm satisfied that separatist sentiment in Quebec seems to be, for now, on the ebb. I have no doubt that tide will rise again soon, particularly if the economy keeps taking its lumps like a punch-drunk boxer. Though we're thankfully far from having soldiers in the streets of Montreal a second time, not all countries are as blessed with stability as Canada is. Last summer in South Ossetia, we saw the problems that come with clamping down on dreams of going one's own way. The Tamil Tigers have been trying to carve out a slice of Sri Lanka for themselves for years, and earlier this week tens of thousands of Tamil demonstrators clogged the streets of downtown Toronto in support of them.

In my opinion, we have to draw the line somewhere. There's no such thing as a sacred country. The sooner we realize that, the better, because from where I stand it looks like the twenty-first century is going to be the time when a lot of nations decide they want to have their own nation-states after all.

Thoughts?