document_title: Quebec sovereignty movement

question_text: what province in canada has tried to gain independence due to cultural differences

question_tokens: what province in canada has tried to gain independence due to cultural differences

text: Quebec sovereignty movement

text: Terminology[edit]

text: In practice, "separatist" and "sovereignist" are terms used to describe individuals wanting the province of Quebec to separate from Canada to become a country of its own; supporters of the movement generally prefer the latter term. The term "independentist" is preferred by some supporters.

text: Reasons for sovereignty[edit]

text: Justifications for Quebec's sovereignty are historically ethno-nationalistic in character, claiming the unique culture and French-speaking majority (78% of the provincial population) are threatened with assimilation by either the rest of Canada or, as in Metropolitan France, by Anglophone culture more generally, and that the best way to preserve language, identity and culture is via the creation of an independent political entity.[3][4] Other distinguishing factors, such as religious differences (given the Catholic majority in Quebec), are also used to justify either separation or ethno-nationalist social policies advocated by the Parti Québécois.

text: The historical justification is that Quebec should be independent by virtue of New France having been conquered by the British in 1763 and subsequently relinquished to the British in exchange for Guadeloupe. It argues that the people of Quebec are the descendants of a conquered people who are due their national sovereignty. This perspective was popular in the 1950s and 1960s[citation needed] when European countries were giving up their colonies in the name of independence throughout much of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

text: Eight of the other Canadian provinces are overwhelmingly (greater than 90%) English-speaking, while New Brunswick is officially bilingual and about one-third Francophone. Another rationale is based on resentment of anti-Quebec sentiment.[5] With regard to the creation of the sovereignist movement, language issues were but a sub-stratum of larger cultural, social and political differences. Many scholars point to historical events as framing the cause for ongoing support for sovereignty in Quebec, while more contemporary politicians may point to the aftermath of more recent developments like the Canada Act of 1982, the Meech Lake Accord or the Charlottetown Accord. Many supporters of Quebec sovereignty often compare their situation with Catalonia in regards to Spain and Tibet in regards to the People's Republic of China.[citation needed]

text: Overview[edit]

text: Background[edit]

text: Tension between the francophone, Catholic population of Quebec and the largely anglophone, Protestant population of the rest of Canada has been a central theme of Canadian history, shaping the early territorial and cultural divisions of the country that persist to this day.[6] Supporters of sovereignty for Quebec believe that the current relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada does not reflect Quebec's best social, political and economic development interests. Moreover, many subscribe to the notion that without appropriately recognizing that the people of Quebec are culturally distinct, Quebec will remain chronically disadvantaged in favour of the English-Canadian majority. There is also the question of whether the French language can survive within the geographic boundaries of Quebec and where French-Canadian society and culture fits into what is an increasingly multicultural country. Separatists and Independentists are generally opposed to some aspects of the federal system in Canada and do not believe it can be reformed in a way that could satisfy the needs of Quebec's French-speaking majority. A key component in the argument in favour of overt political independence is that new legislation and a new system of governance could best secure the future development of modern Québécois culture. Additionally, there is wide-ranging debate about defence, monetary policy, currency, international-trade and relations after independence and whether a renewed federalism would give political recognition to the Quebec nation (along with the other 'founding' peoples, including Canadian First Nations, the Inuit, and the British) could satisfy the historic disparities between these cultural "nations" and create a more cohesive and egalitarian Canada.

text: Several attempts at reforming the federal system in Canada have thus far failed because of, particularly, the conflicting interests between Quebec's representatives and the other provincial governments' representatives. There is also a degree of resistance throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada to re-opening a constitutional debate, in part because of the nature of these failures—not all of which were the result simply of sovereignists and federalists not getting along. To cite one case, in a recent round of constitutional reform, Elijah Harper, an aboriginal leader from Manitoba, was able to prevent ratification of the agreement in the provincial legislature, arguing that the accord did not address the interests of Canada's aboriginal population. This was a move to recognize that other provinces represent distinct cultural entities, such as the aboriginal population in Canada's Prairies or the people of Newfoundland (which contains significant and culturally distinct French-Canadian, English-Canadian, Irish-Canadian and Aboriginal cultures- and many more).

text: Contemporary politics[edit]

text: Perhaps the most significant basis of support for Quebec's sovereignty movement lies in more recent political events. For practical purposes, many political pundits use the political career and efforts of René Lévesque as a marker for the beginnings of what is now considered the contemporary movement, although more broadly accepted consensus appears on the contemporary movement finding its origins in a period called the Quiet Revolution.

text: René Lévesque, architect of the first referendum on sovereignty, claimed a willingness to work for change in the Canadian framework after the federalist victory in the referendum of 1980. This approach was dubbed le beau risque ("the beautiful risk"), and it led to many ministers of the Lévesque's government to resign in protest. The 1982 patriation of the Canadian constitution did not solve the issue in the point of view of the majority of sovereignists. The constitutional amendment of 1982 was agreed to by representatives from 9 of the 10 provinces (with René Lévesque abstaining). Nonetheless, the constitution is integral to the political and legal systems used in Quebec.

text: There are numerous possible reasons the 'Yes' campaign went down to defeat: The economy of Quebec suffered measurably following the election of the sovereignist Parti Québécois and continued to during the course of the campaign. The Canadian dollar lost much of its value and, during coverage of the dollar's recovery against US currency, there were repeated citations of the referendum and political instability caused by it cited as cause for the fall.[citation needed] Some suggest there were promises of constitutional reform to address outstanding political issues between the province and the federal government, both before and since, without any sign of particularly greater expectation those promises would be filled to any greater or lesser degree. There remains no conclusive evidence that the sovereignty movement derives significant support today because of anything that was promised back in the 1970s.

text: Proponents of the sovereignty movement sometimes suggest that many people in Quebec feel "bad" for believing the constitutional promises that the federal government and Pierre Trudeau made just before the 1980 Quebec referendum.[7] Those were not delivered on paper or agreed upon in principle by the federal government or the other provincial governments. But, one conclusion that appears to be universal is that one event in particular—dubbed "the night of long knives"—energized the sovereignist movement during the 1980s. This event involved a "back-room" deal struck between Trudeau, representing the federal government, and all of the other provinces, save Quebec. It was here that Trudeau was able to gain agreement on the content of the constitutional amendment, while the separatist Premier René Lévesque was left out. And it may well be that a certain number of Quebecers did and may even now feel "bad" both about the nature of that deal and how Trudeau (a Quebecer himself) went about reaching it.

text: Regardless of Quebec government's refusal to approve the 1982 constitutional amendment because the promised reforms were not implemented, the amendment went into effect. To many in Quebec, the 1982 constitutional amendment without Quebec's approval is still viewed as a historic political wound. The debate still occasionally rages within the province about the best way to heal the rift and the sovereignty movement derives some degree of support from a belief that healing should take the form of separation from Canada.

text: The failure of the Meech Lake Accord—an abortive attempt to redress the above issues—strengthened the conviction of most sovereignist politicians and led many federalist ones to place little hope in the prospect of a federal constitutional reform that would satisfy Quebec's purported historical demands (according to proponents of the sovereignty movement). These include a constitutional recognition that Quebecers constitute a distinct society, as well as a larger degree of independence of the province towards federal policy.

text: The contemporary sovereignty movement is thought to have originated from the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, although the desire for an independent or autonomous French-Canadian state has periodically arisen throughout Quebec's history, notably during the 1837 Lower Canada Rebellion. Part of Quebec's continued historical desire for sovereignty is caused by Quebecers' perception of a singular English-speaking voice and identity that is dominant within the parameters of Canadian identity. (This is a point contested in other parts of Canada, particularly in places such as Manitoba, which has a significant French-speaking population and where, in the 1990s, that population tried to assert francophone language rights in schools. The separatist Parti Québécois-led government of Quebec offered up comment actually taking the side of the Manitoba government, which was opposing granting those rights. Speculation persists that the Quebec government opposed this assertion of francophone identity outside of the province because of the impact it would have on the assertion of anglophone language rights within its own borders.)

text: For a majority of Quebec politicians, whether sovereignist or not, the problem of Quebec's political status is considered unresolved to this day. Although Quebec independence is a political question, cultural concerns are also at the root of the desire for independence. The central cultural argument of the sovereignists is that only sovereignty can adequately ensure the survival of the French language in North America, allowing Quebecers to establish their nationality, preserve their cultural identity, and keep their collective memory alive (see Language demographics of Quebec).

text: Legal and constitutional issues[edit]

text: It has been argued by Jeremy Webber and Robert Andrew Young that, as the office is the core of authority in the province, the secession of Quebec from Confederation would first require the abolition or transformation of the post of Lieutenant Governor of Quebec; such an amendment to the constitution of Canada could not be achieved without, according to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the approval of the federal parliament and all other provincial legislatures in Canada.[8] Others, such as J. Woehrling, however, have claimed that the legislative process towards Quebec's independence would not require any prior change to the viceregal post.[9] Young also concluded that the lieutenant governor could refuse Royal Assent to a bill that proposed to put an unclear question on sovereignty to referendum or was based on the results of a referendum that asked such a question.[10]

text: Arguments against sovereignty[edit]

text: In a series of letters throughout the 1990s, Stéphane Dion (the federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister at the time) laid out an argument against sovereignty.

text: It has also been argued by prominent Quebecers (sovereignists and ex-sovereignists, including former Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard) that sovereignty politics has distracted Quebecers from the real economic problems of Quebec, and that sovereignty by itself cannot solve those problems. In 2005 they published their position statement, "Pour un Québec lucide", ("For a clear vision of Quebec") which details the problems facing Quebec.[11]

text: Many federalists oppose the Quebec sovereignty movement for economic and political reasons but many also oppose sovereignty on other grounds. For example, since the 1995 referendum, in regards to the declaration of Jacques Parizeau who blamed the loss on "money and the ethnic vote", many federalists considered the sovereignty movement as an expression of ethnic nationalism.

text: Some arguments against sovereignty claim that the movement is illegitimate because of its Eurocentrism which alienates many among Canada's First Nations, as well as the Inuit, and Métis peoples and their sympathizers.[12] The sentiment is summed up by a quotation from a Mohawk from Akwsasne: "How can Quebec, with no economic base and no land base, ask to become sovereign? How can Quebec be a nation when they have no constitution? We have had a constitution since before the American revolution." Here the argument expresses the claim that the Mohawk nation has a more legitimate claim to distinct nationhood on the basis of traditional lands and a constitution predating confederation (and the creation of Quebec and a Québécois identity) and thus should be afforded the right of self-determination.[13]

text: Similarly, the Cree have also asserted for many years that they are a separate people with the right to self-determination recognized under international law. They argue that no annexation of them or their territory to an independent Quebec should take place without their consent, and that if Quebec has the right to leave Canada then the Cree people have the right to choose to keep their territory in Canada. Cree arguments generally do not claim the right to secede from Canada; rather, the Cree see themselves as a people bound to Canada by treaty (see the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement), and as citizens of Canada.[14] The Cree have stated that a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec would be a violation of fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and consent. If secession were to proceed, the Cree argue that they would seek protection through the Canadian courts as well as asserting Cree jurisdiction over its people and lands.[14]

text: Professor Peter Russell has said of Aboriginal peoples in Canada: "(they) are not nations that can be yanked out of Canada against their will by a provincial majority.... With few exceptions (they) wish to enjoy their right to self-government within Canada, not within a sovereign Quebec."[15] International human rights expert Erica-Irene Daes says the change "will leave the most marginalized and excluded of all the world's peoples without a legal, peaceful weapon to press for genuine democracy...."[15] This concern is connected to the claim that if Quebec were to be considered its own autonomous nation-state then it need not honour the treaties and agreements that were formed between Aboriginal peoples and the British and French monarchies and is now maintained by the federal Canadian government.[16] Concern for this may stem from perception of neo-colonial or eurocentric attitudes in the leadership of former premiers, such as Robert Bourassa and self-proclaimed "Conqueror of the North".[17]

text: Additionally, those in favour Canadian federalism denounce Quebec separation as a 'Balkanization' of Canada.

text: Sovereignty-association[edit]

text: The history of the relations between French and British descendants in Canada has been marked by periodic tension. After colonizing Canada from 1608 onward, France lost it to Great Britain at the conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, in which France ceded control of New France (except for the two small islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon) to Great Britain, which returned some of France's West Indian islands, in the Treaty of Paris.

text: Under British rule, French Canadians struggled to maintain their culture, notably outside of Quebec (where they became a minority) but within the province as well, as much of the province's economy was dominated by British settlers. The cause of Québécois nationalism, which waxed and waned over two centuries, gained prominence from the 1960s onward. The use of the word "sovereignty" and many of the ideas of this movement originated in the 1967 Mouvement Souveraineté-Association of René Lévesque. This movement ultimately gave birth to the Parti Québécois in 1968.

text: Sovereignty-association (French: Souveraineté-Association) is the combination of two concepts:

text:
The achievement of sovereignty for the Quebec state.
The creation of a political and economic association between this new independent state and Canada.

tag: ol

text: It was first presented in Lévesque's political manifesto, Option Québec.

text: The Parti Québécois defines sovereignty as the power for a state to levy all its taxes, vote on all its laws, and sign all its treaties (as mentioned in the 1980 referendum question).

text: The type of association between an independent Quebec and the rest of Canada was described as a monetary and customs union as well as joint political institutions to administer the relations between the two countries. The main inspiration for this project was the then-emerging European Community. In Option Québec Lévesque expressly identified the EC as his model for forming a new relationship between sovereign Quebec and the rest of Canada, one that would loosen the political ties while preserving the economic links. The analogy, however, is counterproductive, suggesting Lévesque did not understand the nature and purpose of the European Community nor the relationship between economics and politics that continue to underpin it. Advocates of European integration had, from the outset, seen political union as a desirable and natural consequence of economic integration.[18]

text: The hyphen between the words "sovereignty" and "association" was often stressed by Lévesque and other PQ members, to make it clear that both were inseparable. The reason stated was that if Canada decided to boycott Quebec exports after voting for independence, the new country would have to go through difficult economic times, as the barriers to trade between Canada and the United States were then very high. Quebec would have been a nation of 7 million people stuck between two impenetrable protectionist countries. In the event of having to compete against Quebec, rather than support it, Canada could easily maintain its well-established links with the United States to prosper in foreign trade.

text: Sovereignty-association as originally proposed would have meant that Quebec would become a politically independent state, but would maintain a formal association with Canada — especially regarding economic affairs. It was part of the 1976 sovereignist platform which swept the Parti Québécois into power in that year's provincial elections – and included a promise to hold a referendum on sovereignty-association. René Lévesque developed the idea of sovereignty-association to reduce the fear that an independent Quebec would face tough economic times. In fact, this proposal did result in an increase in support for a sovereign Quebec: polls at the time showed that people were more likely to support independence if Quebec maintained an economic partnership with Canada. This line of politics led the outspoken Yvon Deschamps to proclaim that what Quebecers want is an independent Quebec inside a strong Canada, thereby comparing the sovereignist movement to a spoiled child that has everything it could desire and still wants more.

text: In 1979 the PQ began an aggressive effort to promote sovereignty-association by providing details of how the economic relations with the rest of Canada would include free trade between Canada and Quebec, common tariffs against imports, and a common currency. In addition, joint political institutions would be established to administer these economic arrangements. But the sovereignist cause was hurt by the refusal of many politicians (most notably the premiers of several of the other provinces) to support the idea of negotiations with an independent Quebec, contributing to the Yes side losing by a vote of 60 percent to 40 percent.

text: This loss laid the groundwork for the 1995 referendum, which stated that Quebec should offer a new economic and political partnership to Canada before declaring independence. An English translation of part of the Sovereignty Bill reads, "We, the people of Quebec, declare it our own will to be in full possession of all the powers of a state; to levy all our taxes, to vote on all our laws, to sign all our treaties and to exercise the highest power of all, conceiving, and controlling, by ourselves, our fundamental law."

text: This time, the sovereignists lost in a very close vote: 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent, or only 53,498 votes out of more than 4,700,000 votes cast. However, after the vote many within the sovereignist camp were very upset that the vote broke down heavily along language lines. Approximately 90 percent of English speakers and allophones (mostly immigrants and first-generations Quebecers whose native language is neither French or English) Quebecers voted against the referendum, while almost 60 percent of Francophones voted Yes. Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau, whose government supported sovereignty, attributed the defeat of the resolution to "money and ethnic votes." His opinion caused an outcry among English speaking Quebecers, and he resigned following the referendum.

text: An inquiry by the director-general of elections concluded in 2007 that at least $500,000 was spent by the federalist camp in violation of Quebec's election laws. This law imposes a limit on campaign spending by both option camps. Parizeau's statement was also an admission of failure by the Yes camp in getting the newly arrived Quebecers to adhere to their political option.

text: Accusations of an orchestrated effort of 'election engineering' in several polling stations located in areas with large numbers of non-francophone voters, which resulted in unusually large proportions of rejected ballots, were raised following the 1995 referendum.[citation needed] Afterward, testimony by PQ-appointed polling clerks indicated that they were ordered by PQ-appointed overseers to reject ballots in these polling stations for frivolous reasons that were not covered in the election laws.

text: While opponents of sovereignty were pleased with the defeat of the referendum, most recognized[examples needed] that there were still deep divides within Quebec and problems with the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country.

text: History[edit]

text: Precursor ideas and events[edit]

text: Sovereigntism and sovereignty are terms that refer to the modern movement in favour of the political independence of Quebec. However, the roots of Quebec's desire for self-determination can be traced back as far as the Patriotes Rebellion, the Alliance Laurentienne of 1957, the writings of Lionel Groulx in the 1920s, the Francoeur Motion of 1917, and Honoré Mercier's flirtation with this idea (especially in his historic speech of 1893.)

text: Emergence[edit]

text: The Quiet Revolution in Quebec brought widespread change in the 1960s. Among other changes, support for Quebec independence began to form and grow in some circles. The first organization dedicated to the independence of Quebec was the Alliance Laurentienne, founded by Raymond Barbeau on January 25, 1957.

text: On September 10, 1960, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale (RIN) was founded, with Pierre Bourgault quickly becoming its leader. On August 9 of the same year, the Action socialiste pour l'indépendance du Québec (ASIQ) was formed by Raoul Roy. The "independence + socialism" project of the ASIQ was a source of political ideas for the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ).

text: On October 31, 1962, the Comité de libération nationale and, in November of the same year, the Réseau de résistance were set up. These two groups were formed by RIN members to organize non-violent but illegal actions, such as vandalism and civil disobedience. The most extremist individuals of these groups left to form the FLQ, which, unlike all the other groups, had made the decision to resort to violence in order to reach its goal of independence for Quebec. Shortly after the November 14, 1962, Quebec general election, RIN member Marcel Chaput founded the short-lived Parti républicain du Québec.

text: In February 1963, the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) was founded by three Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale members who had met each other as part of the Réseau de résistance. They were Georges Schoeters, Raymond Villeneuve, and Gabriel Hudon.

text: In 1964, the RIN became a provincial political party. In 1965, the more conservative Ralliement national (RN) also became a party.

text: During this period, the Estates General of French Canada are organized. The stated objective of these Estates General was to consult the French-Canadian people on their constitutional future.

text: The historical context of the time was a period when many former European colonies, such as Cameroon, Congo, Senegal, Algeria, and Jamaica, were becoming independent. Some advocates of Quebec independence saw Quebec's situation in a similar light; numerous activists were influenced by the writings of Frantz Fanon, Albert Memmi, and Karl Marx.[citation needed]

text: In June 1967, French president Charles de Gaulle, who had granted independence to Algeria, shouted "Vive le Québec libre!" during a speech from the balcony of Montreal's city hall during a state visit to Canada. In doing so, he deeply offended the federal government, and English Canadians felt he had demonstrated contempt for the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers who died on the battlefields of France in two world wars. The visit was cut short and de Gaulle left the country.

text: Finally, in October 1967, former Liberal cabinet minister René Lévesque left that party when it refused to discuss sovereignty at a party convention. Lévesque formed the Mouvement souveraineté-association and set about uniting pro-sovereignty forces.

text: He achieved that goal in October 1968 when the MSA held its only national congress in Quebec City. The RN and MSA agreed to merge to form the Parti Québécois (PQ), and later that month Pierre Bourgault, leader of the RIN, dissolved his party and invited its members to join the PQ.

text: Meanwhile, in 1969 the FLQ stepped up its campaign of violence, which would culminate in what would become known as the October Crisis. The group claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Montreal Stock Exchange, and in 1970 the FLQ kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte; Laporte was later found murdered.

text: The early years of the Parti Québécois[edit]

text: Jacques Parizeau joined the party on September 19, 1969, and Jérôme Proulx of the Union Nationale joined on November 11 of the same year.

text: In the 1970 provincial election, the PQ won its first seven seats in the National Assembly. René Lévesque was defeated in Mont-Royal by the Liberal André Marchand.

text: The referendum of 1980[edit]

text: In the 1976 election, the PQ won 71 seats — a majority in the National Assembly. With voting turnouts high, 41.4 percent of the electorate voted for the PQ. Prior to the election, the PQ renounced its intention to implement sovereignty-association if it won power.[19]

text: On August 26, 1977, the PQ passed two main laws: first, the law on the financing of political parties, which prohibits contributions by corporations and unions and set a limit on individual donations, and second, the Charter of the French Language.

text: On May 17 PQ Member of the National Assembly Robert Burns resigned, telling the press he was convinced that the PQ was going to lose its referendum and fail to be re-elected afterwards.

text: At its seventh national convention from June 1 to 3, 1979, the sovereignist adopted their strategy for the coming referendum. The PQ then began an aggressive effort to promote sovereignty-association by providing details of how the economic relations with the rest of Canada would include free trade between Canada and Quebec, common tariffs against imports, and a common currency. In addition, joint political institutions would be established to administer these economic arrangements.

text: Sovereignty-association was proposed to the population of Quebec in the 1980 Quebec referendum. The proposal was rejected by 60 percent of the Quebec electorate.

text: In September, the PQ created a national committee of Anglophones and a liaison committee with ethnic minorities.

text: The PQ was returned to power in the 1981 election with a stronger majority than in 1976, obtaining 49.2 per cent of the vote and winning 80 seats. However, they did not hold a referendum in their second term, and put sovereignty on hold, concentrating on their stated goal of "good government".

text: René Lévesque retired in 1985 (and died in 1987). In the 1985 election under his successor Pierre-Marc Johnson, the PQ was defeated by the Liberal Party.

text: The referendum of 1995[edit]

text: The PQ returned to power in the 1994 election under Jacques Parizeau, this time with 44.75% of the popular vote. In the intervening years, the failures of the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord had revived support for sovereignty, which had been written off as a dead issue for much of the 1980s.

text: Another consequence of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord was the formation of the Bloc Québécois (BQ), a sovereignist federal political party, under the leadership of the charismatic former Progressive Conservative federal cabinet minister Lucien Bouchard. Several PC and Liberal members of the federal parliament left their parties to form the BQ. For the first time, the PQ supported pro-sovereigntist forces running in federal elections; during his lifetime Lévesque had always opposed such a move.

text: The Union Populaire had nominated candidates in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections, and the Parti nationaliste du Québec had nominated candidates in the 1984 election, but neither of these parties enjoyed the official support of the PQ; nor did they enjoy significant public support among Quebecers.

text: In the 1993 federal election, which featured the collapse of Progressive Conservative Party support, the BQ won enough seats in Parliament to become Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.

text: At the Royal Commission on the Future of Quebec (also known as the Outaouais Commission) in 1995, the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada made a presentation in which the party leader, Hardial Bains, recommended to the committee that Quebec declare itself as an independent republic.[20]

text: Parizeau promptly advised the Lieutenant Governor to call a new referendum. The 1995 referendum question differed from the 1980 question in that the negotiation of an association with Canada was now optional. The open-ended wording of the question resulted in significant confusion, particularly amongst the 'Yes' side, as to what exactly they were voting for. This was a primary motivator for the creation of the 'Clarity Act' (see below).

text: The "No" campaign won, but only by a very small margin — 50.6% to 49.4%.[21] As in the previous referendum, the English-speaking (anglophone) minority in Quebec overwhelmingly (about 90%) rejected sovereignty, support for sovereignty was also weak among allophones (native speakers of neither English nor French) in immigrant communities and first-generation descendants. The lowest support for Yes side came from Mohawk, Cree and Inuit voters in Quebec, some first Nations chiefs asserted their right to self-determination with the Cree being particularly vocal in their right to stay territories within Canada. More than 96% of the Inuit and Cree voted No in the referendum. However, The Innu, Attikamek, Algonquin and Abenaki nations did partially support Quebec sovereignty. In 1985, 59 per cent of Quebec's Inuit population, 56 per cent of the Attikamek population and 49 per cent of the Montagnais population voted in favour of the Sovereignist Parti Québécois party. That year, three out of every four native reservations gave a majority to the Parti Québécois party.[22]

text: By contrast almost 60 percent of francophones of all origins voted "Yes". (82 per cent of Quebecers are Francophone.) Later inquiries into irregularities determined that abuses had occurred on both sides: some argue that some "No" ballots had been rejected without valid reasons, and the October 27 "No" rally had evaded spending limitations because of out-of-province participation.[23] An inquiry by "Le Directeur général des élections" concluded in 2007 that the "No" camp had exceeded the campaign spending limits by $500,000.

text: At the end of the 20th century[edit]

text: Quebec general election, 1998[edit]

text: The Parti Québécois won re-election in the 1998 election despite losing the popular vote to Jean Charest and the Quebec Liberals. In the number of seats won by both sides, the election was almost a clone of the previous 1994 election. However, public support for sovereignty remained too low for the PQ to consider holding a second referendum during their second term. Meanwhile, the federal government passed the Clarity Act to govern the wording of any future referendum questions and the conditions under which a vote for sovereignty would be recognized as legitimate. Federal Liberal politicians stated that the ambiguous wording of the 1995 referendum question was the primary impetus in the bill's drafting.

text: While opponents of sovereignty were pleased with their referendum victories, most recognized that there are still deep divides within Quebec and problems with the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

text: Clarity Act, 1999[edit]

text: In 1999, the Parliament of Canada, at the urging of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, passed the Clarity Act, a law that, amongst other things, set out the conditions under which the Crown-in-Council would recognize a vote by any province to leave Canada. It required a majority of eligible voters for a vote to trigger secession talks, not merely a plurality of votes. In addition the act requires a clear question of secession to initiate secession talks. Controversially, the act gave the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear, and allowed it to decide whether a clear majority has expressed itself in any referendum. It is widely considered by sovereignists as an illegitimate piece of legislation, who asserted that Quebec alone had the right to determine its terms of secession. However the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed when the matter was referred to that body, ruling that the Act is constitutional and, just as Canada is divisible, so is Quebec, a ruling that has significant implications for linguistic and ethnic minorities within Quebec, the bulk of whom have traditionally opposed secession. Chrétien considered the legislation among his most significant accomplishments.

text: Present[edit]

text: Modernization[edit]

text: "Sovereignty-Association" is nowadays more often referred to simply as "sovereignty". However, in the 1995 Quebec referendum, in which the sovereignty option was narrowly rejected, the notion of some form of economic association with the rest of Canada was still envisaged (continuing use of the Canadian dollar and military, for example) and was referred to as "Sovereignty-Partnership" (in French Souveraineté-Partenariat). It remains a part of the PQ program[when?] and is tied to national independence in the minds of most Quebecers. This part of the PQ program has always been controversial, especially since Canadian federal politicians usually refuse the concept.

text: In 2003, the PQ launched the Saison des idées ("Season of ideas") which is a public consultation aiming to gather the opinions of Quebecers on its sovereignty project. The new program and the revised sovereignty project was adopted at the 2005 Congress.

text: In the 2003 election, the PQ lost power to the Liberal Party. However, in early 2004, the Liberal government of Paul Martin had proved to be unpopular, and that, combined with the federal Liberal Party sponsorship scandal, contributed to a resurgence of the BQ. In the 2004 federal elections, the Bloc Québécois won 54 of Quebec's 75 seats in the House of Commons, compared to 33 previously. However, in the 2006 federal elections the BQ lost three seats and in the 2008 federal elections lost two additional seats, bringing their total down to 49, but was still the most popular federal party in Quebec up until the 2011 Canadian federal election, when the BQ was devastated by the federalist NDP, with the Bloc at a total of four seats and the loss of official party status in the Commons (compared to the NDP's 59 seats, Conservatives' five seats, and the Liberals' seven seats in Quebec).

text: Polling data by Angus Reid in June 2009 showed the support for Quebec separation was very weak at the time and separatism unlikely to occur in the near future. Polling data showed that 32% of Quebecers believe that Quebec had enough sovereignty and should remain part of Canada, 28% thought they should separate, and 30% say they believe that Quebec does need greater sovereignty but should remain part of Canada.[24] However the poll did reveal that a majority (79%) of Quebecers still desired to achieve more autonomy. The number one area of autonomy that those polled had hoped for was with regard to culture at 34%, the next highest areas of autonomy cherished were the economy at 32%, taxation at 26%, and immigration and the environment at 15% each.[24]

text: The 2009 Angus Reid poll also revealed some effects of the Clarity Act in which they asked two questions, one a straightforward question for a separate nation, and the other a more muddled version on separation similar to the one posed in the 1995 referendum. The data on the questions revealed as follows to the first hard line question of "Do you believe that Quebec should become a country separate from Canada?" 34% replied yes, 54% said no, and 13% were unsure.[24] To the less clear question of "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within a scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec?" support for separation increased to 40% yes, the no vote still led with 41%, and the unsure increased to 19%.[24] The most startling revelation of the poll was in the fact that only 20% or 1 in 5 polled believed that Quebec would ever separate from Canada.[24]

text: 2011 was considered a watershed year for the sovereignist movement. In the aftermath of the 2011 federal election, Léger Marketing and pro-sovereignist newspaper Le Devoir conducted a poll on the question.[25] When asked whether they would vote Yes or No in the event of a referendum, 41% of the respondents said they would vote Yes. In 2011, the sovereignist movement splintered, with several new parties being formed by disaffected politicians, with some politicians dissatisfied with slow progress towards independence, and others hoping to put the sovereignty question on the backburner. Leadership by PQ leader Pauline Marois was divisive.[26]

text: Allies and opponents[edit]

text: Provincial[edit]

text: The separatist movement draws from the left and right spectrum; a sizeable minority of more conservative Quebecers supporting the PQ's political agenda because of the sovereignty issue, despite reservations about its social democratic political agenda.

text: Right and Left must be interpreted within the provincial context; Liberal Party politics generally coincide with those of other liberal parties, while PQ politics are more social democratic in orientation. There is no mass conservative movement in Quebec's political culture on the provincial level, due notably to strong government interventionism and Keynesianism shared by all parties since the 1960s (the so-called "Quebec Consensus" since the Quiet Revolution), and the province's Catholic heritage.

text: There are, of course, quite a few exceptions. Notable examples include:

text:
the conservative but nationalist Action Démocratique du Québec supporting the Yes side in the 1995 Quebec referendum. They now support Quebec Autonomism: a decentralized view of the Canadian Confederation, and accept the 1995 "No" verdict;
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada building links with the sovereignist in the 1980s;

tag: ul

text: Sovereignty has very little support among Quebec Anglophones, immigrant communities, and aboriginal First Nations. About 60% of Francophones voted "Yes" in 1995, and with the exception of weak "Yes" support from Haitian, Arab and Latin American communities, most non-Francophones massively voted "No" (see Demolinguistics of Quebec). The opponents of the sovereignty movement view the project as ethnically exclusive, based on its rejection by non-Francophones. This position is sometimes disputed by the PQ, which claims its goal is all-embracing and essentially civic in nature.

text: Partitionism[edit]

text: There is an undercurrent of feeling amongst "ethnic" and "anglo" voters that sometimes surfaces as a desire to separate from Quebec. This would create a new province of Canada, from the southwestern and southern portions of the province (comprising half of Montreal, parts of the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships).

text: This feeling is exemplified by the statement — "If Canada is divisible, then so is Quebec" made by federalists in 1995 or "If Quebec can separate from Canada, then we can separate from Quebec".[27] In contemporary times most mainstream political parties in Quebec deny or refuse to comment on the idea that Quebec can be divided up. During the 2007 Quebec election, federalist and Liberal Party of Quebec leader Jean Charest said that "All of these things are hypothetical questions...I do not think that Quebec is divisible. And if ever we were to go there, and end up in that situation, I know the question would be asked."[27]

text: However the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of the legality in partitioning Quebec, determining that Quebec is in fact divisible according to the same logic, legalities, and democratic tests that render Canada divisible. A panel of Quebec civil servants, at the request of the ruling Parti Québécois at the time, wrote a report arguing that International law guarantees the territorial integrity of Quebec[28] should Quebec become an independent state.

text: Cree separation[edit]

text: There was a feeling amongst the Cree of Northern Quebec, that should the province separate, they would remain part of Canada, and would force the province to return to its pre-1912 boundaries, and re-establish the Ungava district of the Northwest Territories, or a new territory or province created in its place[citation needed] .

text: Rest of Canada[edit]

text: The other nine provinces of Canada have generally been opposed to Quebec sovereignty. Aside from marginal movements, the only major secessionist movement in English Canada has been the Maritimes Anti-Confederation movement immediately after Confederation occurred.

text: In general, francophones outside Quebec oppose sovereignty or any form of national recognition for Quebec, while non-francophones, particularly the anglophone minority in Montreal, also have remained opposed. After polling heavily on the subject, marketing firm president Mark Leger concluded: “These numbers surprise me, they’re so clear across the country.... You look at Francophones outside Quebec, it’s the same result.... Overall, outside the French in Quebec, all the other groups across the country are against this notion.” The exact question of the November 2006 poll was, "Currently, there is a political debate on recognizing Quebec as a nation. Do you personally consider that Quebecers form a nation or not?" Canadians from every region outside Quebec, non-Francophone Quebecers (62 per cent), Francophone Canadians outside Quebec (77 per cent) all rejected the idea.[29]

text: France[edit]

text: In France, although openness and support is found on both sides of the political spectrum, the French political right has traditionally been warmer to sovereignists (like President Charles de Gaulle, who shouted his support of independence in Montreal in 1967) than the French left (like President François Mitterrand[citation needed]).

text: This used to be a paradoxical phenomenon because of the Parti Québécois and most sovereignists being to the political left and supporters of Quebec being as a province tend to be politically on the right. Michel Rocard (who became Prime Minister of the French Republic) has been one of the French Socialists that broke that so-called rule the most, maintaining a close and warm relationship with Quebec sovereignists. More recently, Ségolène Royal, a leader of the French Socialist Party, indicated support[citation needed] for "Quebec sovereignty" but it was seemingly a reflexive answer to an "out of the blue" question from a Quebec journalist in Paris. On a later visit to Quebec City she gave a more nuanced position, mentioning a Parliamentary motion recognizing the Québécois as a "nation", but also describing 400 years of "oppression" and resistance of francophones in Canada.

text: The French Foreign Office motto concerning Quebec "national question" is "non-ingérence et non-indifférence" ("no interference and no indifference"), which epitomizes the official position of the French State. In other words, while the Quebec people vote to stay within Canada, France will officially support the Canadian Confederation the way it is.[30]

text: Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has stated on the record that he opposes the separation of Quebec from Canada.[31][32] This changed back to the view of the French Foreign Office under Sarkozy's successor, François Hollande.[33]

text: Sovereignist organizations[edit]

text: Political parties[edit]

text:
Parti Québécois

SPQ Libre

Bloc Québécois
Québec solidaire
Option nationale
Parti indépendantiste
Marxist–Leninist Party of Quebec

text: Non-partisan organizations[edit]

text:
Mouvement pour une Élection sur la Souveraineté
Mouvement de libération nationale du Québec
Conseil de la Souveraineté du Québec
Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

text: Defunct organizations[edit]

text:
Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale (RIN)
Front de libération du Québec (FLQ)
Parti nationaliste du Québec
Parti indépendantiste (1985)
Union Populaire
Nouvelle Alliance Québec-Canada
Action démocratique du Québec - was originally sovereigntist, but later abandoned in favour of considerable autonomy

text: Sympathetic organizations[edit]

text:
Confédération des syndicats nationaux (Confederation of national labour unions)
Centrale des syndicats du Québec (Quebec labour unions congress)
Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (Federation of Quebec workers)
Union des artistes (Artists Labour Union)
Mouvement national des Québécois et des Québécoises
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society

text: Sovereignist media[edit]

text:
Le Devoir
L'Action nationale
AmériQuébec
L'aut'journal
Le Couac
Souverainete la solution
La Gauche
Le Jour (defunct)
Le Mouton noir
Le Québécois
Québec-Radio
Vigile

text: Quebec sovereignty movement in fiction[edit]

text:
Richard Rohmer's novel Separation (1976) was turned into a TV-movie for CTV Television in 1977. In the movie, the Parti Québécois has formed the government of Quebec but Premier Gaston Belisle has repeatedly put off its promise to hold a referendum. International politics forces Belisle's hand.
In the mid-1980s, a second movie, Quebec-Canada 1995, depicts a meeting between the president of Quebec and the prime minister of Canada to discuss a crisis involving Quebec military occupations of parts of Ontario and New Brunswick. Canada's armed forces are stretched thin with peacekeepers in such varied places as the Falkland Islands (with "Lady Goosegreen" being Margaret Thatcher).
William Weintraub's satirical 1979 novel The Underdogs provoked controversy by imagining a future Quebec in which English-speakers were an oppressed minority, complete with a violent resistance movement. One planned stage version was cancelled before its premiere.
Clive Cussler's 1984 novel Night Probe! is set against a fictional attempt at secession in the late 1980s. Rights to newly discovered oil resources in Ungava Bay, discovered as Quebec moves to secede, clash with the ramifications of a rediscovered secret treaty negotiated between the U.K. and U.S. governments during World War I.
David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest includes both real and fictional Québécois separatist movements as integral to the plot. In the story, the United States has merged with Canada and Mexico to form the Organization of North American Nations (ONAN). Wheelchair-bound Quebec separatists use a video so entertaining it leads to death to accomplish their goals of both Quebec independence and the end of the ONAN.
In the Southern Victory Series of alternate history novels by Harry Turtledove, Quebec becomes a separate nation during the First Great War (an alternative World War I), in which the United States defeats Canada, the United Kingdom and the other Entente Powers (including the Confederate States of America); upon its founding, the Republic is officially recognised only by the United States, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire, Poland, Ukraine, Italy and the Netherlands. Since the United States organized this separation to weaken Anglophone Canada (and the UK by extension) and to aid in the post-war occupation of Canada, the Republic of Quebec operated as a client state of the United States, rather than being truly independent. This is later demonstrated in the series when Quebecois soldiers release their US counterparts from occupation duties in Canada during the Second Great War, allowing the United States to focus its military efforts against the Confederacy. The Republic of Quebec in this alternate timeline is in a similar geopolitical situation to the Kingdom of Poland, a German puppet state created as part of Mitteleuropa.
In DC Comics, the villain (and sometimes hero) Plastique is initially a Québécois freedom fighter, who resorts to acts of terrorism.
In Marvel Comics, the superhero Northstar was part of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ) in his youth.
Margaret Atwood's 1979 novel Life Before Man is set in Toronto in the late 1970s and several characters watch and sometimes comment upon the elections and sovereignist movement in Quebec. The sovereignist movement and its struggles are metaphorically linked to the difficulties the characters in the novel have with separating their own personal relationships.
In the roleplaying game Trinity there are references made to a separatist Quebec nation who in return for independence helped the then formed 'Confederated States of America' take control of Canada.
In the novel Babylon Babies by the French-born Canadian cyberpunk writer Maurice Dantec, loosely adapted as the film Babylon A.D., Quebec is independent and referred to as the "Free Province of Quebec".
In the roleplaying game Shadowrun, Quebec exists as a sovereign nation alongside the United Canadian American States and the Confederated American States.
In the film Die Hard, the terrorist leader demands, as a ruse, the release of imprisoned members of the fictional group Liberté du Québec. (Presumably meant to be a fictional version of the FLQ.)
In Peter Watts' science fiction series, starting with Starfish, Quebec has attained sovereignty and is an energetic/economic superpower within North America.
In the alternate history novel The Two Georges, co-authored by Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove, the American Revolution never occurs, resulting in the creation of the North American Union, a dominion of the British Empire. En route to the Six Nations, Thomas Bushell and Samuel Stanley of the Royal American Mounted Police discuss the nearby province of Quebec. Stanley muses that, being culturally French, the Quebecois people would want to split off from the N.A.U. to become part of the Franco-Spanish Holy Alliance.
In the Simpsons episode Homer to the Max, Homer Simpson is invited to an exclusive garden party by Trent Steel, a successful businessman whom he meets as a result of changing his name to Max Power. President Bill Clinton, a guest at the garden party, is called away to deal with Quebec 'getting the bomb'.


document_title: Insidious: The Last Key

question_text: who plays elise in insidious the last key

root

text: Insidious: The Last Key

text: Plot[edit]

text: In 1953, young Elise Rainier lives with her parents Audrey and Gerald, a prison executioner, and her brother Christian, in New Mexico. Elise claims to see the ghosts of the prisoners that have been executed, alarming her parents. One night, Elise encounters a ghost in their room. Frightened, Christian looks for the whistle their mother gave them to call for help, but it's lost. Gerald, furious, beats Elise and locks her in the basement. A demon called "Key Face" comes through, possessing Elise and killing Audrey by hanging her. Gerald arrives to find Elise and Audrey's body.

tag: p

text: Decades later, Elise works as a paranormal investigator with her colleagues, Specs and Tucker. Ted Garza calls Elise, saying he'd been experiencing paranormal activity at his house, which is actually Elise's childhood home. She hesitates, but accepts the job.

text: Ted explains that many paranormal incidents have happened, mostly in her old bedroom. Elise finds the lost whistle in her room. In the basement, she is attacked by a female ghost that shouts "Help her!" before vanishing with the whistle. Elise tells them that she has seen her before, as a teenager, but when her father said he saw nothing, Elise fled the house in fear of another beating, abandoning Christian. The next morning, Elise, Tucker, and Specs meet sisters Melissa and Imogen, Christian's daughters. Christian is still furious at Elise for abandoning him. Hoping to repair their relationship, Elise hands Melissa a photo of the whistle, telling her to show it to Christian.

text: That night, Elise and Tucker hear the whistle being blown. The sound comes from behind a wall that is actually a door; behind the door is a bloodied girl with a chain around her neck. Ted storms into the room and it’s revealed that he was keeping the girl against her will. He locks the group in and tries to kill Specs, but Specs gains an upper hand and kills him by dropping a bookcase on his head. The police rescue the group.

text: Christian and his girls go to find the whistle and Melissa is attacked by "Key Face". The entity sticks two keys in Melissa: one steals her voice, and the other takes her soul and sends her into a coma. Christian demands that Elise stay away and Melissa is taken to the hospital.

text: In the basement, Elise and Tucker find the red door that is the entrance into The Further. Elise also finds a night gown that belonged to the female ghost, Anna. A flashback shows that Elise had seen Anna in the laundry room. Anna was actually alive and had escaped from the room she was locked in. When Gerald walked in, he saw Anna but pretended he saw nothing. After Elise ran away, Gerald brutally killed Anna. Inside the vents, Elise finds several suitcases filled with the remains of women that had been locked in the house. She is then ambushed by Key Face who takes her into The Further, leaving her unconscious body in the real world.

text: Imogen enters The Further, led by Anna into a prison realm where Key Face is holding all of the souls he has taken. Elise figures Key Face had been manipulating both Gerald and Ted by feeding on the fear and hatred generated by the women, whose souls were trapped in there. Key Face tries to coerce Elise into hurting her father as revenge for what he's done. Elise sees through the ruse and refuses to feed Key Face any more hatred. Key Face attacks Elise, but Gerald saves her before he is stabbed by Key Face, and his soul vanishes.

text: Key Face stabs Melissa, causing her physical body to start dying. He attempts to possess Elise. Elise blows the whistle, and Audrey saves them, vanquishing Key Face. With Melissa dying, they move to find her body in The Further. They open a door and see a young boy, Dalton Lambert, falling from a ladder, and he sees them. Realizing they opened the wrong door, they leave and find Melissa in the next door. Melissa's spirit returns to her body in the real world, saving her life. Elise makes amends with her mother and says goodbye. Elise and Imogen return to the real world and reunite with Melissa and Christian. Christian forgives Elise and she gives him the whistle.

text: In her sleep, Elise sees a vision of Dalton, with the Red-faced demon looming over him. A woman, Lorraine, calls for help for her grandson, Dalton. Elise had helped her with her son Josh years earlier, and she agrees to help Dalton.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Lin Shaye as Elise Rainier
Ava Kolker as Young Elise Rainier
Hana Hayes as Teenage Elise Rainier
Angus Sampson as Tucker
Leigh Whannell as Specs
Spencer Locke as Melissa Rainier, Elise's niece and Christian's youngest daughter.
Caitlin Gerard as Imogen Rainier, Elise's niece and Christian's eldest daughter. She has also inherited the gift that Elise holds.
Bruce Davison as Christian Rainier, Elise's estranged younger brother.
Pierce Pope as Young Christian Rainier
Thomas Robie as Teenage Christian Rainier
Kirk Acevedo as Ted Garza, a man who makes residence in Elise’s old home and calls for her help.
Josh Stewart as Gerald Rainier, Elise and Christian's abusive father and Aubrey's husband.
Tessa Ferrer as Audrey Rainier, Elise and Christian's mother and Gerald's wife.
Aleque Reid as Anna
Marcus Henderson as Detective Whitfield
Amanda Jaros as Mara Jennings
Javier Botet as Key Face
John Carlo Taglucop as Lipstick-Face Demon
Ayub Veno as Imprisoned Spirit

text: Additionally, Ty Simpkins, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, and Patrick Wilson reprise their roles as Dalton Lambert, Renai Lambert, Lorraine Lambert, and Josh Lambert, respectively, from the first two films, in archive footage.

text: Production[edit]

text: Principal photography began in August 2016,[3] and ended the following month.[4] On August 29, 2017, it was announced via Universal Studios' Halloween Horror Nights that the film would be titled Insidious: The Last Key.

text: Release[edit]

text: Insidious: The Last Key was released on January 5, 2018.[5] The film was then released a week later on January 12, 2018 in the United Kingdom.

text: Box office[edit]

text: Insidious: The Last Key has grossed $67.3 million in the United States and Canada, and $100.1 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $167.4 million, against a production budget of $10 million.[1] It is the highest grossing film in the franchise, surpassing the second installment's $161 million, and the first film of the series to gross $100 million overseas.[6]

text: In the United States and Canada Insidious: The Last Key was released alongside the wide expansion of Molly's Game, and was projected to gross $20–22 million from 3,116 theaters in its opening weekend.[7] The film made $1.98 grossed from Thursday night previews, the highest preview total of the franchise. It went on to debut to $29.3 million for the weekend, finishing second at the box office behind holdover Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and marking the second-highest opening of the series and grossing, behind Chapter 2.[8]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 32%, based on 87 reviews, with an average rating of 5.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Insidious: The Last Key offers franchise star Lin Shaye another welcome opportunity to take the lead, but her efforts aren't enough to rescue this uninspired sequel."[9] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 49 out of 100, based on 23 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[10] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B–" on an A+ to F scale, the lowest score of the franchise.[8]

text: Brent McKnight of the Seattle Times rated the film two stars and said, "Old horror franchises don't die, they unspool tepid, uninspired sequels in perpetuity. And with the fourth chapter, Insidious: The Last Key, this saga is on a familiar path."[11] Screen Rant's Sandy Schaefer scored the film 3/5 stars, stating "Insidious: The Last Key is a solid finale to the Insidious franchise that gives series lead Lin Shaye the chance to take a graceful final bow."[12] Emily Yoshida of New York Magazine noted the criticism of genre films for playing "fast and loose" with their internal logic, but credited the fourth Insidious for having "wrapped up its own free-association illogic with an impenetrable tangle of woo-woo spirit-world mechanics and lingo."[13]

text: Home Media[edit]

text: Insidious: The Last Key was released on Digital HD on March 20, 2018 and was released on DVD and Blu-ray on April 3, 2018, by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.

text: Near future[edit]

text: In an interview, Whannell stated that he does not know if he will be the one to write a potential sequel. Although this is the final film in the franchise, there is still room open to explore the world of Insidious. Prequel films such surrounding all the demonic characters are in talks.


document_title: List of Super Bowl champions

question_text: who are the two teams that played in the superbowl last year

text: List of Super Bowl champions

text: Super Bowl Championship (1966–present)

text: Numbers in parentheses in the table are Super Bowl appearances as of the date of that Super Bowl and are used as follows:

text:
Winning team and losing team columns indicate the number of times that team has appeared in a Super Bowl as well as each respective teams' Super Bowl record to date.
Venue column indicates number of times that stadium has hosted a Super Bowl.
City column indicates number of times that metropolitan area has hosted a Super Bowl.

text:
National Football League (NFL, 1967–1970)

American Football League (AFL, 1967–1970)

NFL champion‡(4, 2–2)

AFL champion^(4, 2–2)

National Football Conference (NFC, 1971–present)

American Football Conference (AFC, 1971–present)

NFC champion*(48, 25–23)

AFC champion†(48, 23–25)

tag: table

text:
Game

Date

Winning team

Score

Losing team

Venue

City

Attendance

Ref

I

January 15, 1967

Green Bay Packers‡(1, 1–0)

35–10

Kansas City Chiefs^(1, 0–1)

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum

Los Angeles, California[note 1]

61,946

[11]

II

January 14, 1968

Green Bay Packers‡(2, 2–0)

33–14

Oakland Raiders^(1, 0–1)

Miami Orange Bowl

Miami, Florida[note 2]

75,546

[12]

III

January 12, 1969

New York Jets^(1, 1–0)

16–7

Baltimore Colts‡(1, 0–1)

Miami Orange Bowl (2)

Miami, Florida (2)[note 2]

75,389

[13]

IV

January 11, 1970

Kansas City Chiefs^(2, 1–1)

23–7

Minnesota Vikings‡(1, 0–1)

Tulane Stadium

New Orleans, Louisiana

80,562

[14]

V

January 17, 1971

Baltimore Colts†(2, 1–1)

16–13

Dallas Cowboys*(1, 0–1)

Miami Orange Bowl (3)

Miami, Florida (3)[note 2]

79,204

[15]

VI

January 16, 1972

Dallas Cowboys*(2, 1–1)

24–3

Miami Dolphins†(1, 0–1)

Tulane Stadium (2)

New Orleans, Louisiana (2)

81,023

[16]

VII

January 14, 1973

Miami Dolphins†(2, 1–1)

14–7

Washington Redskins*(1, 0–1)

Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (2)

Los Angeles, California (2)[note 1]

90,182

[17]

VIII

January 13, 1974

Miami Dolphins†(3, 2–1)

24–7

Minnesota Vikings*(2, 0–2)

Rice Stadium

Houston, Texas

71,882

[18]

IX

January 12, 1975

Pittsburgh Steelers†(1, 1–0)

16–6

Minnesota Vikings*(3, 0–3)

Tulane Stadium (3)

New Orleans, Louisiana (3)

80,997

[19]

X

January 18, 1976

Pittsburgh Steelers†(2, 2–0)

21–17

Dallas Cowboys*(3, 1–2)

Miami Orange Bowl (4)

Miami, Florida (4)[note 2]

80,187

[20]

XI

January 9, 1977

Oakland Raiders†(2, 1–1)

32–14

Minnesota Vikings*(4, 0–4)

Rose Bowl

Pasadena, California (3)[note 1]

103,438

[21]

XII

January 15, 1978

Dallas Cowboys*(4, 2–2)

27–10

Denver Broncos†(1, 0–1)

Louisiana Superdome

New Orleans, Louisiana (4)

76,400

[22]

XIII

January 21, 1979

Pittsburgh Steelers†(3, 3–0)

35–31

Dallas Cowboys*(5, 2–3)

Miami Orange Bowl (5)

Miami, Florida (5)[note 2]

79,484

[23]

XIV

January 20, 1980

Pittsburgh Steelers†(4, 4–0)

31–19

Los Angeles Rams*(1, 0–1)

Rose Bowl (2)

Pasadena, California (4)[note 1]

103,985

[24]

XV

January 25, 1981

Oakland Raiders†(3, 2–1)

27–10

Philadelphia Eagles*(1, 0–1)

Louisiana Superdome (2)

New Orleans, Louisiana (5)

76,135

[25]

XVI

January 24, 1982

San Francisco 49ers*(1, 1–0)

26–21

Cincinnati Bengals†(1, 0–1)

Pontiac Silverdome

Pontiac, Michigan[note 1]

81,270

[26]

XVII

January 30, 1983

Washington Redskins*(2, 1–1)

27–17

Miami Dolphins†(4, 2–2)

Rose Bowl (3)

Pasadena, California (5)[note 1]

103,667

[27]

XVIII

January 22, 1984

Los Angeles Raiders†(4, 3–1)

38–9

Washington Redskins*(3, 1–2)

Tampa Stadium

Tampa, Florida

72,920

[28]

XIX

January 20, 1985

San Francisco 49ers*(2, 2–0)

38–16

Miami Dolphins†(5, 2–3)

Stanford Stadium

Stanford, California[note 1]

84,059

[29]

XX

January 26, 1986

Chicago Bears*(1, 1–0)

46–10

New England Patriots†(1, 0–1)

Louisiana Superdome (3)

New Orleans, Louisiana (6)

73,818

[30]

XXI

January 25, 1987

New York Giants*(1, 1–0)

39–20

Denver Broncos†(2, 0–2)

Rose Bowl (4)

Pasadena, California (6)[note 1]

101,063

[31]

XXII

January 31, 1988

Washington Redskins*(4, 2–2)

42–10

Denver Broncos†(3, 0–3)

San Diego–Jack Murphy Stadium[note 3]

San Diego, California

73,302

[32]

XXIII

January 22, 1989

San Francisco 49ers*(3, 3–0)

20–16

Cincinnati Bengals†(2, 0–2)

Joe Robbie Stadium[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (6)[note 2]

75,129

[33]

XXIV

January 28, 1990

San Francisco 49ers*(4, 4–0)

55–10

Denver Broncos†(4, 0–4)

Louisiana Superdome (4)

New Orleans, Louisiana (7)

72,919

[34]

XXV

January 27, 1991

New York Giants*(2, 2–0)

20–19

Buffalo Bills†(1, 0–1)

Tampa Stadium (2)

Tampa, Florida (2)

73,813

[35]

XXVI

January 26, 1992

Washington Redskins*(5, 3–2)

37–24

Buffalo Bills†(2, 0–2)

Metrodome

Minneapolis, Minnesota

63,130

[36]

XXVII

January 31, 1993

Dallas Cowboys*(6, 3–3)

52–17

Buffalo Bills†(3, 0–3)

Rose Bowl (5)

Pasadena, California (7)[note 1]

98,374

[37]

XXVIII

January 30, 1994

Dallas Cowboys*(7, 4–3)

30–13

Buffalo Bills†(4, 0–4)

Georgia Dome

Atlanta, Georgia

72,817

[38]

XXIX

January 29, 1995

San Francisco 49ers*(5, 5–0)

49–26

San Diego Chargers†(1, 0–1)

Joe Robbie Stadium (2)[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (7)[note 2]

74,107

[39]

XXX

January 28, 1996

Dallas Cowboys*(8, 5–3)

27–17

Pittsburgh Steelers†(5, 4–1)

Sun Devil Stadium

Tempe, Arizona[note 1]

76,347

[40]

XXXI

January 26, 1997

Green Bay Packers*(3, 3–0)

35–21

New England Patriots†(2, 0–2)

Louisiana Superdome (5)

New Orleans, Louisiana (8)

72,301

[41]

XXXII

January 25, 1998

Denver Broncos†(5, 1–4)

31–24

Green Bay Packers*(4, 3–1)

Qualcomm Stadium (2)[note 3]

San Diego, California (2)

68,912

[42]

XXXIII

January 31, 1999

Denver Broncos†(6, 2–4)

34–19

Atlanta Falcons*(1, 0–1)

Pro Player Stadium (3)[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (8)[note 2]

74,803

[43]

XXXIV

January 30, 2000

St. Louis Rams*(2, 1–1)

23–16

Tennessee Titans†(1, 0–1)

Georgia Dome (2)

Atlanta, Georgia (2)

72,625

[44]

XXXV

January 28, 2001

Baltimore Ravens†(1, 1–0)

34–7

New York Giants*(3, 2–1)

Raymond James Stadium

Tampa, Florida (3)

71,921

[45]

XXXVI

February 3, 2002

New England Patriots†(3, 1–2)

20–17

St. Louis Rams*(3, 1–2)

Louisiana Superdome (6)

New Orleans, Louisiana (9)

72,922

[46]

XXXVII

January 26, 2003

Tampa Bay Buccaneers*(1, 1–0)

48–21

Oakland Raiders†(5, 3–2)

Qualcomm Stadium (3)[note 3]

San Diego, California (3)

67,603

[47]

XXXVIII

February 1, 2004

New England Patriots†(4, 2–2)

32–29

Carolina Panthers*(1, 0–1)

Reliant Stadium[note 3]

Houston, Texas (2)

71,525

[48]

XXXIX

February 6, 2005

New England Patriots†(5, 3–2)

24–21

Philadelphia Eagles*(2, 0–2)

Alltel Stadium

Jacksonville, Florida

78,125

[49]

XL

February 5, 2006

Pittsburgh Steelers†(6, 5–1)

21–10

Seattle Seahawks*(1, 0–1)

Ford Field

Detroit, Michigan (2)[note 1]

68,206

[50]

XLI

February 4, 2007

Indianapolis Colts†(3, 2–1)

29–17

Chicago Bears*(2, 1–1)

Dolphin Stadium (4)[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (9)[note 2]

74,512

[51]

XLII

February 3, 2008

New York Giants*(4, 3–1)

17–14

New England Patriots†(6, 3–3)

University of Phoenix Stadium

Glendale, Arizona (2)[note 1]

71,101

[52]

XLIII

February 1, 2009

Pittsburgh Steelers†(7, 6–1)

27–23

Arizona Cardinals*(1, 0–1)

Raymond James Stadium (2)

Tampa, Florida (4)

70,774

[53]

XLIV

February 7, 2010

New Orleans Saints*(1, 1–0)

31–17

Indianapolis Colts†(4, 2–2)

Sun Life Stadium (5)[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (10)[note 2]

74,059

[54]

XLV

February 6, 2011

Green Bay Packers*(5, 4–1)

31–25

Pittsburgh Steelers†(8, 6–2)

Cowboys Stadium

Arlington, Texas

103,219

[55]

XLVI

February 5, 2012

New York Giants*(5, 4–1)

21–17

New England Patriots†(7, 3–4)

Lucas Oil Stadium

Indianapolis, Indiana

68,658

[56][57]

XLVII

February 3, 2013

Baltimore Ravens†(2, 2–0)

34–31

San Francisco 49ers*(6, 5–1)

Mercedes-Benz Superdome (7)

New Orleans, Louisiana (10)

71,024

[56][58]

XLVIII

February 2, 2014

Seattle Seahawks*(2, 1–1)

43–8

Denver Broncos†(7, 2–5)

MetLife Stadium

East Rutherford, New Jersey

82,529

[59]

XLIX

February 1, 2015

New England Patriots†(8, 4–4)

28–24

Seattle Seahawks*(3, 1–2)

University of Phoenix Stadium (2)

Glendale, Arizona (3)[note 1]

70,288

[60][61]

50 [note 4]

February 7, 2016

Denver Broncos†(8, 3–5)

24–10

Carolina Panthers*(2, 0–2)

Levi's Stadium

Santa Clara, California (2)[note 1]

71,088

[61][62][63]

LI

February 5, 2017

New England Patriots†(9, 5–4)

34–28 (OT)

Atlanta Falcons*(2, 0–2)

NRG Stadium (2)[note 3]

Houston, Texas (3)

70,807

[61][62][63]

LII

February 4, 2018

Philadelphia Eagles*(3, 1–2)

41–33

New England Patriots†(10, 5–5)

U.S. Bank Stadium

Minneapolis, Minnesota (2)

67,612

[64][65]

LIII

February 3, 2019

2018–19 AFC champion† at  2018–19 NFC champion*

—

To be determined (TBD)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium

Atlanta, Georgia (3)

TBD

[66][67]

LIV

February 2, 2020 [note 5]

2019–20 NFC champion* at  2019–20 AFC champion†

—

To be determined

Hard Rock Stadium (6)[note 3]

Miami Gardens, Florida (11)[note 2]

TBD

[66][67]

LV

February 7, 2021 [note 5]

2020–21 AFC champion† at  2020–21 NFC champion*

—

To be determined

Raymond James Stadium (3)

Tampa, Florida (5)

TBD

[66][67]

LVI

February 6, 2022 [note 5]

2021–22 NFC champion† at  2021–22 AFC champion*

—

To be determined

Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park

Inglewood, California (8)[note 1]

TBD

[66][67]

LVII

February 5, 2023 [note 5]

2022–23 AFC champion† at  2022–23 NFC champion*

—

To be determined

State Farm Stadium (3)

Glendale, Arizona (4)[note 1]

TBD

[68]

LVIII

February 4, 2024 [note 5]

2023–24 NFC champion* at  2023–24 AFC champion†

—

To be determined

Mercedes-Benz Superdome (8)

New Orleans, Louisiana (11)

TBD

[69]

Game

Date

Winning team

Score

Losing team

Venue

City

Attendance

Ref

text: Consecutive winners

text: Seven franchises have won consecutive Super Bowls, one of which (Pittsburgh) has accomplished it twice:

text:
Green Bay Packers (Super Bowls I and II)
Miami Dolphins (VII and VIII)
Pittsburgh Steelers (twice: IX and X as well as XIII and XIV)
San Francisco 49ers (XXIII and XXIV)
Dallas Cowboys (XXVII and XXVIII)
Denver Broncos (XXXII and XXXIII)
New England Patriots (XXXVIII and XXXIX)

text: No franchise has yet won three Super Bowls in a row, although several have come close:

text:
The Green Bay Packers won the first two Super Bowls, and also won the NFL championship the preceding year.
The Miami Dolphins appeared in three consecutive Super Bowls (VI, VII, and VIII), winning the last two.
The Pittsburgh Steelers won two consecutive Super Bowls (IX and X); the following season they were eliminated in the AFC championship game by the eventual Super Bowl champion Oakland Raiders. They also won two more consecutive Super Bowls (XIII and XIV) for four wins in six seasons.
The San Francisco 49ers won two consecutive Super Bowls (XXIII and XXIV); the following season they were eliminated in the NFC championship by the eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants.
The Dallas Cowboys won two consecutive Super Bowls (XXVII and XXVIII); the following season they were eliminated in the NFC championship game by the eventual champion San Francisco 49ers. The Cowboys won Super Bowl XXX the following year for three wins in four seasons.
The New England Patriots won Super Bowl XXXVI, which was two years before their consecutive wins in XXXVIII and XXXIX, for three wins in four seasons. They did not make the playoffs in the intervening season (XXXVII). The Patriots also won Super Bowls XLIX and LI and in the intervening season (50) were eliminated in the AFC championship game by the eventual champion Denver Broncos.

text: Consecutive losers

text: Three franchises have lost consecutive Super Bowls:

text:
Buffalo Bills (4) (Super Bowls XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXVIII) – The only team to appear in four straight Super Bowls, let alone lose in all four appearances.
Minnesota Vikings (2) (Super Bowls VIII and IX) – They also lost Super Bowl XI, and were knocked out of the playoffs for Super Bowl X by the eventual losers the Dallas Cowboys for three losses in four seasons.
Denver Broncos (2) (Super Bowls XXI and XXII) – They also lost Super Bowl XXIV, but did not even make the playoffs for Super Bowl XXIII for three losses in four seasons.

text: Super Bowl appearances by team

text:
NFL‡/NFC* teams (27 wins)

AFL^/AFC† teams (25 wins)

NFL‡/AFC† team (0-1 as part of the NFL, 2-1 as part of the AFC)[note 6]

text: In the sortable table below, teams are ordered first by number of appearances, then by number of wins, and finally by number of years since last appearing in a Super Bowl. In the "Seasons" column, bold years indicate winning seasons, and italic years indicate games not yet completed.

text:
Appearances

Team

Wins

Losses

Winningpercentage

Seasons

10
New England Patriots†

5
5
.500

1985,† 1996,† 2001,† 2003,† 2004,† 2007,† 2011,† 2014,† 2016,† 2017†

8
Pittsburgh Steelers†[note 6]

6
2
.750

1974,† 1975,† 1978,† 1979,† 1995,† 2005,† 2008,† 2010†

8
Dallas Cowboys*

5
3
.625

1970,* 1971,* 1975,* 1977,* 1978,* 1992,* 1993,* 1995*

8
Denver Broncos†

3
5
.375

1977,† 1986,† 1987,† 1989,† 1997,† 1998,† 2013,† 2015†

6
San Francisco 49ers*

5
1
.833

1981,* 1984,* 1988,* 1989,* 1994*, 2012*

5
Green Bay Packers‡*

4
1
.800

1966,‡ 1967,‡ 1996,* 1997,* 2010*

5
New York Giants*

4
1
.800

1986,* 1990,* 2000,* 2007,* 2011*

5
Washington Redskins*

3
2
.600

1972,* 1982,* 1983,* 1987,* 1991*

5
Los Angeles/Oakland Raiders^†

3
2
.600

1967,^ 1976,† 1980,† 1983,† 2002†

5
Miami Dolphins†

2
3
.400

1971,† 1972,† 1973,† 1982,† 1984†

4
Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts‡†[note 6]

2
2
.500

1968,‡ 1970,† 2006,† 2009†

4
Minnesota Vikings‡*

0
4
.000

1969,‡ 1973,* 1974,* 1976*

4
Buffalo Bills†

0
4
.000

1990,† 1991,† 1992,† 1993†

3
St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams*

1
2
.333

1979,* 1999,* 2001*

3
Seattle Seahawks*

1
2
.333

2005,* 2013,* 2014*

3
Philadelphia Eagles*

1
2
.333

1980,* 2004,* 2017*

2
Baltimore Ravens†[note 7]

2
0
1.000

2000,† 2012†

2
Kansas City Chiefs^†

1
1
.500

1966,^ 1969^

2
Chicago Bears*

1
1
.500

1985,* 2006*

2
Cincinnati Bengals†

0
2
.000

1981,† 1988†

2
Carolina Panthers*

0
2
.000

2003,* 2015*

2
Atlanta Falcons*

0
2
.000

1998,* 2016*

1
New York Jets^†

1
0
1.000

1968^

1
Tampa Bay Buccaneers*

1
0
1.000

2002*

1
New Orleans Saints*

1
0
1.000

2009*

1
San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers†

0
1
.000

1994†

1
Houston/Tennessee Oilers/Tennessee Titans†

0
1
.000

1999†

1
St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals*

0
1
.000

2008*

0
Cleveland Browns†[note 6][note 7]

0
0
–

none

0
Detroit Lions*

0
0
–

none

0
Jacksonville Jaguars†

0
0
–

none

0
Houston Texans†

0
0
–

none

text: Teams with no Super Bowl appearances

text: Four current teams have never reached the Super Bowl. Two of them held NFL league championships prior to Super Bowl I in the 1966 NFL season:

text:
Cleveland Browns, NFL champions four times in 1950, 1954, 1955, and 1964; appeared in seven other NFL championship games in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1965, 1968, and 1969; and appeared in three AFC Championship Games in 1986, 1987, and 1989.[70] The Browns are officially viewed as one continuous franchise that began in 1946 as a member of the All-America Football Conference, joined the NFL in 1950, suspended operations from 1996 to 1998, and resumed play in 1999.[71] The Baltimore Ravens were created as an expansion team with former Browns players in 1996, and have since won two Super Bowls.[72]
Detroit Lions, NFL champions four times in 1935, 1952, 1953, and 1957; appeared in one other NFL Championship Game in 1954; and appeared in one NFC Championship Game in 1991.[73]
Jacksonville Jaguars, 1995 expansion team; appeared in three AFC Championship Games in 1996, 1999, and 2017.[74]
Houston Texans, 2002 expansion team; Divisional Round appearances in 2011, 2012, and 2016 seasons.

text: In addition, Detroit, Houston, and Jacksonville have hosted Super Bowls, making Cleveland the only current NFL city that has neither hosted nor had its team play in a Super Bowl.

text: Teams with long Super Bowl droughts

text: Although Jacksonville and Houston have never appeared in a Super Bowl, there are teams whose most recent Super Bowl appearance was before Jacksonville and Houston joined the NFL (1995 and 2002, respectively), resulting in longer Super Bowl droughts for the following eight teams.

text: Two of these teams have not appeared in the Super Bowl since before the AFL–NFL merger in 1970:[75]

text:
New York Jets (most recently appeared in Super Bowl III, 1968 season)
Kansas City Chiefs (Super Bowl IV in 1969 season)

text: However, the Jets and the Chiefs are the only non-NFL teams to win the Super Bowl, both being members of the now-defunct AFL at the time.

text: The most recent Super Bowl appearance for the following teams was after the AFL–NFL merger, but prior to the 1995 regular season:

text:
Minnesota Vikings (Super Bowl XI, 1976 season)
Miami Dolphins (Super Bowl XIX, 1984 season)
Cincinnati Bengals (Super Bowl XXIII, 1988 season)
Washington Redskins (Super Bowl XXVI, 1991 season)
Buffalo Bills (Super Bowl XXVIII, 1993 season)
Los Angeles Chargers (played as San Diego Chargers in Super Bowl XXIX, 1994 season)

text: Teams with Super Bowl appearances but no victories

text: Eight teams have appeared in the Super Bowl without ever winning. In descending order of number of appearances, they are:

text:
Minnesota Vikings (4), appeared in Super Bowls IV, VIII, IX, and XI. They won the NFL Championship Game in 1969, the last year before the AFL–NFL merger, but failed to win the subsequent Super Bowl. An NFL expansion team in 1961, they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships.
Buffalo Bills (4), appeared in Super Bowls XXV, XXVI, XXVII, and XXVIII. Their second and last AFL championship was in 1965, the season before the first Super Bowl.
Cincinnati Bengals (2), appeared in Super Bowls XVI and XXIII. An AFL expansion team in 1968, they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships.
Atlanta Falcons (2), appeared in Super Bowls XXXIII and LI. An expansion team in 1966, they have no pre-Super Bowl league championships.
Carolina Panthers (2), appeared in Super Bowls XXXVIII and 50. A post-merger expansion team, their first season was in 1995.
Arizona Cardinals (1), appeared in Super Bowl XLIII. Their last championship was in 1947 as the Chicago Cardinals.
Los Angeles Chargers (1), appeared in Super Bowl XXIX as the San Diego Chargers. Their only AFL championship was in 1963.
Tennessee Titans (1), appeared in Super Bowl XXXIV. They won the first two AFL Championships in 1960 and 1961 as the Houston Oilers.

text: Super Bowl rematches

text: The following teams have faced each other more than once in the Super Bowl:

text:
Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers (3) – Super Bowls X and XIII were won by Pittsburgh, and Super Bowl XXX was won by Dallas. See also Cowboys–Steelers rivalry.
Miami Dolphins and Washington Redskins (2) – Super Bowl VII was won by Miami, and Super Bowl XVII was won by Washington.
Cincinnati Bengals and San Francisco 49ers (2) – Super Bowls XVI and XXIII were both won by San Francisco.
Buffalo Bills and Dallas Cowboys (2) – Super Bowls XXVII and XXVIII, the only rematch in consecutive seasons, were both won by Dallas.
New England Patriots and New York Giants (2) – Super Bowls XLII and XLVI were both won by New York.
New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles (2) – Super Bowl XXXIX was won by New England, Super Bowl LII was won by Philadelphia.