Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Remember Khan is a Pakistani Muslim. It would not be surprising at all for someone like him to abuse the ICC's power to unfairly attack Israel.

First of all, Mr. Khan doesn't decide alone. In the team that has issued the arrest warrants there is also this guy: https://x.com/ytirawi/status/1860695045390602326
Or this one: https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1859674909527638199

And then I note that Pakistan is an ally of China which is an ally of Russia. That did not stop Mr. Khan from indicting Vladimir Putin.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The UN of which the ICC is a part is increasingly seen as having leanings as evidenced by the UNWRA allegations. Not to mention the angle taken by senior UN official Francesca Albanese.

The UN and the ICC are two completely separate things. The UN is a political institution, with all the biases that political institutions can have. The ICC is a judicial court. It applies the law, it doesn't state political opinions based on personal preferences.

As in any judicial court, the "procureur" (attorney) does NOT judge people. That's for a college of independent judges to judge indicted people. So even if some accuse Mr. Khan of impartiality, he won't be the one judging Mr. Netanyahu in the end. And even if Netanyahu loses his trial and is sentenced to a prison term, he can appeal his sentence, as in any judicial system, since there is an appeal chamber at the ICC.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

"Le futur c'est long", as we say in French. Trump and his henchmen won't be in power forever. And US + Israeli public opinion will change eventually. Besides, being blocked from access to the most interesting countries on the planet is not exactly a fun spot to be in.

This is beyond Trump. The Hague Invasion Act was passed three presidents ago. A future President is not going to behave any differently on this issue for any time in the foreseeable future.... never mind within Netanyahu's lifetime (he's 75 years old).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And of course there have been controversies about the UN Human Rights Council and the countries allowed on there or even presiding it.

BTW I am not happy at all about the UN's decline in credibility.

But one has to be blind not to see it.

I'm actually not so sure it is really is a bad thing.

At the end of the day, the idea of an international institutional order that a meaningfully powerful UN implies is pretty undemocratic when you think about it.

And it's not like the system has really ever prevented any wars. The fact that we've never had another world war is arguably because of nuclear MAD, not because we have the UN.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

The ICC is not a an international court of everything that could judge all the "baddies" of this planet. Its jurisdiction is strictly limited both ratione personae and ratione materiae. Ratione personae, it can only indict people who are citizens of countries who are parties to the Rome Statute, or the citizens of countries not parties but who commit a crime on the territory of one of the states parties to the Rome Statute, or who commit a crime on the territory of a state not party to the Rome Statute but which grants jurisdiction to the ICC to try crimes committed over its territory (such as Ukraine has done), or finally a person from a state not party to the Rome Statute who commits a crime on the territory of a state not party to the Rome Statute but whom the UN Security Council refers to the ICC (e.g. Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, back when the UN Security Council wasn't deadlocked as it is now).

So Putin couldn't be indicted for things he does in Russia, because Russia is not a state party to the Rome Statute, but he could be indicted for things he does in Ukraine, because Ukraine granted jurisdiction to the ICC. For the same reason, the Chinese leaders cannot be indicted for things they do in China, but could be indicted for things they'd do in, say, Mongolia, a state party to the Rome Statute. And Bashar al-Assad alas cannot be indicted for things he does in Syria, not party to the Rome Statute. But he could be indicted for things he'd do in, say, Jordan, which is party to the Rome Statute. Ironically, if Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes in Israel, he couldn't be indicted by the ICC, because Israel is not party to the Rome Statute.

Ratione materia, the ICC cannot judge all crimes. Its jurisdiction is strictly limited to 4 crimes: genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. So the president of Tunisia (a country party to the Rome Statute) imprisoning political opponents cannot be indicted by the ICC, because suppressing political dissent and imprisoning political opponents is not one of the crimes covered by the ICC.

In the case of Israel's actions in Gaza: ratione personae Israel is not a party to the Rome Statue, but the State of Palestine (to which Gaza formally belongs) is, so any national doing things in Gaza falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC ratione personae. And ratione materiae, the Israeli leadership is suspected of having committed both war crimes and crimes against humanity (such as not feeding displaced people), which are two crimes covered by the ICC.

The court sent a questionnaire to the government of Israel several months ago, asking very specific questions and demanding answers to explain Israel's actions. The Israeli authorities simply chose to ignore the court and not respond, in total contempt of the court. They cannot be surprised if at long length the court finally decides to indict them.

One last point: an indictment is not a conviction. Netanyahu is still presumed innocent, like any person indicted. He has the right to a lawyer and to defend himself. Simply ignoring the court won't work though. It may take time, but he will have to answer for what he has condoned sooner or later.

The fact that Hamas-governed Gaza can prepare and execute the Oct 7 massacre and somehow keep its Rome Statute member-in-good-standing status throughout the aftermath of Oct 7, is a joke.

It’s like whining about Hiroshima after YOU planned and executed Pearl Harbor (and the Rape of Nanking and other such shit). Sorry, but there won’t be any sympathy. Starting wars then proceeding to lose them, is never a good idea.

[Acajack]

Getting back on topic...

Over the weekend the Canadian university (gridiron) football championship took place. It is known as the Vanier Cup.

The two teams playing were the Université Laval Rouge et Or from Quebec City, and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Golden Hawks from Waterloo in Southern Ontario.

Before the game, the star player of the Golden Hawks deliberately bumped into one of the Laval players and said "you guys had better speak English - this is our country!"

https://x.com/rainorshinemdia/status/1860799756336820407

Final score: Rouge et Or 22 Golden Hawks 17

Now I would normally put this down to an isolated incident by some idiot, but the week before the Laval team travelled to Regina Saskatchewan to play the Rams, in the semi-final that would give them a spot in the championship game.

There, one of the Regina Rams coaches said in front of a CBC camera, "there's nothin' like takin' it to a bunch of French (sic) guys".

Here is the video of that:

https://www.instagram.com/turcotstephane/reel/DCh1Pb3KbUj/

Note that I have mentioned that Québécois don't generally use the term "Français" (French) to identify themselves, but the reporter used it ironically throughout this segment.

Final Score: Laval Rouge et Or 17 Regina 14

RIBBIT

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The fact that Hamas-governed Gaza can prepare and execute the Oct 7 massacre and somehow keep its Rome Statute member-in-good-standing status throughout the aftermath of Oct 7, is a joke.

In fairness to the ICC, I guess they can't indict and issue arrest warrants for the Hamas leaders who ordered and orchestrated the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks... because they're almost all already dead!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In fairness to the ICC, I guess they can't indict and issue arrest warrants for the Hamas leaders who ordered and orchestrated the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks... because they're almost all already dead!

It would have been very logical for Gaza to be kicked out by the Rome Statute members after Oct 7 2023: when you choose to not respect the rules, why should you benefit from them when they’re in your favor later?

Would you have any sympathy for Hitler in early 1945 whining that some Red Army soldiers are behaving like savages during their advance through the easternmost parts of Germany? He’s the one who broke the Pact with the Soviets and invaded first.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Before the game, the star player of the Golden Hawks deliberately bumped into one of the Laval players and said "you guys had better speak English - this is our country!"

While I'm sure it was probably an attempt to throw the Laval player off, the appropriate answer to diffuse the situation would simply be...

"Quoi?"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nashe

While I'm sure it was probably an attempt to throw the Laval player off, the appropriate answer to diffuse the situation would simply be...

"Quoi?"

Or, since that guy probably thinks we're "French", he could have given him this very French treatment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtlzaJ01qmQ

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Getting back on topic...

Over the weekend the Canadian university (gridiron) football championship took place. It is known as the Vanier Cup.

The two teams playing were the Université Laval Rouge et Or from Quebec City, and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Golden Hawks from Waterloo in Southern Ontario.

Before the game, the star player of the Golden Hawks deliberately bumped into one of the Laval players and said "you guys had better speak English - this is our country!"

Final Score: Laval Rouge et Or 17 Regina 14

RIBBIT

Ever hear of chirping????

These guys were just trying to get under the skin of the Laval team.

Note that I have mentioned that Québécois don't generally use the term "Français" (French) to identify themselves, but the reporter used it ironically throughout this segment.

And English Canadians don't commonly refer to themselves as "anglo-saxons" either, yet, a certain European agent provacateur delights in calling us that all the time. Is that racist???

I shall now crawl back under my English speaking rock.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nashe

While I'm sure it was probably an attempt to throw the Laval player off, the appropriate answer to diffuse the situation would simply be...

"Quoi?"

Twice as many words but I’d have gone with a simple-yet-elegant “Fuck you”.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Ever hear of chirping????

These guys were just trying to get under the skin of the Laval team.



And English Canadians don't commonly refer to themselves as "anglo-saxons" either, yet, a certain European agent provacateur delights in calling us that all the time. Is that racist???

I shall now crawl back under my English speaking rock.

Wait a minute! I thought this was... 2024?!?

If this is 1962, why do we have the Internet?

[lio45]

I suppose if one of the players from the glorious Free and Sovereign Nation of Saskatchewan had been black, it would have been good strategic planning to “get under his skin” by calling him a [word censored, I guess] before the game…?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

The fact that Hamas-governed Gaza can prepare and execute the Oct 7 massacre and somehow keep its Rome Statute member-in-good-standing status throughout the aftermath of Oct 7, is a joke.

It's not a membership. The ICC is not an international organization. Being party to the Rome Statute entails some duties and some constraints on the countries that are party to the treaty. So you don't "withhold membership" (it's not a membership) from a state that behaves badly (which would have the opposite effect of "punishing" the said state, since it would remove the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore leave the said state free to do what it pleases without ICC interference).

Besides it's not Hamas that is party to the Rome Statute, but the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

It would have been very logical for Gaza to be kicked out by the Rome Statute members after Oct 7 2023: when you choose to not respect the rules, why should you benefit from them when they’re in your favor later?

Would you have any sympathy for Hitler in early 1945 whining that some Red Army soldiers are behaving like savages during their advance through the easternmost parts of Germany? He’s the one who broke the Pact with the Soviets and invaded first.

All of which shows how the ICC seems quite selective in how it applies its principles.

And yes, I do think that Bibi needs to go. But not until this specific chapter of war is over.

[kool maudit]

On the ICC, given the US' stance, it's a question of "how many divisions does the Pope have?"

Countries like Canada or Sweden find it rational and comforting to believe that just as authority scales from mayors to premiers to prime ministers, so it continues beyond that into bodies like the UN.

Countries like the United States know that sovereign states exist in a realm of pure power and bodies like the UN are mainly useful for covering that under a cloak of mannered discussion.

Issuing solemn declarations on human rights? Great. Getting Egypt in on Treaty no. 155774b so you can use them to help find some guy you're after in Khartoum? Wonderful.

Encroaching on the interests of the United States of America?

Show up in New York with your Navy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

It's not a membership. The ICC is not an international organization. Being party to the Rome Statute entails some duties and some constraints on the countries that are party to the treaty. So you don't "withhold membership" (it's not a membership) from a state that behaves badly (which would have the opposite effect of "punishing" the said state, since it would remove the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore leave the said state free to do what it pleases without ICC interference).

Besides it's not Hamas that is party to the Rome Statute, but the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

This a good point, though the PA, Abbas and his party Fatah have been fairly quiet over the past year. Especially when one considers the gravity of what has been going on.

I think deep down they know that Hamas have seriously compromised any hopes for true Palestinian statehood. (Fatah and Hamas have a common cause to some degree, but aren't really allies or friends.)

[MonctonRad]

Since I have briefly crawled out from under my rock, I will leave this here for discussion purposes:

Quebec mayor says 'one-size-fits-all' language law isn't right for his town where French is thriving
Many municipalities now barred from using English in most cases
Rachel Watts · CBC News · Posted: Nov 23, 2024 5:00 AM AST | Last Updated: November 23
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...ge-law-small-towns-anglophones-1.7389848

So, are the mayors of these Gaspesie towns with comfortable francophone majorities wrong in wanting to continue providing services to their historical anglophone residents.

Or, are they vendus..........

Discuss.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In fairness to the ICC, I guess they can't indict and issue arrest warrants for the Hamas leaders who ordered and orchestrated the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks... because they're almost all already dead!

No. They can't indict Hamas for a terror attack because... terrorism is one not of the 4 crimes that the jurisdiction of the ICC is strictly limited to.

They can, however, indict Hamas leaders for war crimes or crimes against humanity, or war of aggression, which are covered by the ICC. They have in fact indicted one Hamas leader (whom Israel says is already dead), for both war crimes and crimes against humanity (so they have jurisdiction ratione materiae) allegedly committed by Hamas over the territory of both Israel and Palestine (they have jurisdiction ratione personae in both cases: because Palestine is party to the Rome Statute, so crimes committed by a Palestinian either inside Palestine or in any other country are covered by the ICC).

PS: Note that crimes committed by Israeli citizens inside Israel are not covered by the ICC. So if, say, Netanyahu committed crimes against humanity against the Arabs of Israel, the ICC would have no jurisdiction to intervene.