BQ pushing for repeal of the Clarity Act

328 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

But let me back up a little bit. Frankly I'm not too concerned about what Quebec decides because no, it's not really my business. And that's not why I commented.

I am a bit more concerned about Mulcair letting himself get stuck in this, and the party as a whole bringing up violence (some time ago, yes I know).

I mean, it's all well-intended and lovey dovey, and quintessentially Canadian, but I am not so sure how I feel about someone negotiating on my behalf who is going to walk into hard bargaining pledging to prevent his radicals from throwing spanners into the machines and curb his fascist tendencies.

 

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

My main concerns (and perhaps someone can point to the declaration to see if this is covered) are First Nations. What if the majority of First Nations vote no, while majority white Quebecois vote yes?

That's an entirely separate issue. Indigenous peoples have inherent rights which must be respected, and Québec, like Canada, must deal with them on a nation-to-nation basis respecting the principles of equality and justice. It is up to Indigenous peoples to make those determinations.

What I find amazing is that many anti-Québec advocates always raise this issue in the context of Québec sovereignty, but never in the context of the current federalist status quo. Actually, it's not amazing at all. The presumption is that Indigenous peoples just love living in Canada, and omigod what would happen if Québec were independent... I don't subscribe to that hypothetical horrible.

Quote:
I have never heard the BQ or PQ adequately discuss the implications of seccession for First Nations. The Indian Act would be moot for these bands, no?

Why do you care what the BQ or PQ have to say - any more than Québec solidaire or the Parti Vert or unaffiliated nonpartisan Quebecers or Liberals or whoever?

Why not ask what the federal Liberals and Conservatives and NDP and Greens have to say about the implications of continued federation for First Nations? Of course, they have little or nothing to say which addresses the demands and interests of Indigenous peoples. Does that mean we wind up the federation and return to square one? No, I didn't think so.

So, let me tackle your question head on: The implications of secession for First Nations - and all Indigenous peoples - are first and foremost the business of those peoples. They have the right to proclaim their interests, their demands, their sovereign entitlements. The BQ and PQ and QS and whoever else must recognize those sovereign rights and respect them, and listen closely to what people want.

Just as the NDP should do with the nation of Québec. And I must say, to its honour, the Sherbrooke Declaration took them light years closer to that goal than they had ever been before. They must not step back into the abyss where the CCF/NDP lived for 70 years before.

Quote:
My other concerns would be monetary - Quebec transfer payments, use of our currency, etc., etc. would end (as well as their responsibilities vis-a-vis federal income tax, etc.).

Negotiations.

Quote:
And, as a Maritimer, I would worry about the implications of being but off from the rest of the country geographically.

Then make Canada a warm and welcoming place for the nation of Québec - indeed, for all peoples. That's what I want.

 

Myself and others on babble raise issues of FN rights continually on babble, so what you stated above is  untrue in the context of babble. You can write that the BQ, PQ or whatever must recognize the rights of FNs - but do you seriously think that will happen??? Presently, a lot of FNs see their relationship as with the Crown - see the desire to have the GG at the meeting of a few weeks ago. I assume a seccessionist Quebec would be a republic? What would happen to treaty rights under this scenario? Your position seems to be that FN people have to assert their rights and the PQ will respect them? Sorry - it certainly does not happen in Canada and I have a hard time believing it would happen in an independant Quebec. What would you say to an individual FN - a nation - that wanted to keep their treaty relationship (and obviously fight to have it respected)?

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I have been waiting for forty years to hear a proposal from Quebec to fix what in Quebec's view needs to be changed.  The last time we tried it was a Quebec PM who tabled the Accord.  I voted against it as did the majority of BC'ers and Quebecers.

A "Quebec PM"? You're not much of a believer in Canada when you identify a prime minister by which province he comes from.

As for a proposal from Québec, I don't think it works that way. People of good faith sit down and discuss. A good precondition for that discussion would be something like, oh, the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Quote:
Canada is a delicate balance and if Quebec succeeds then I would be actively pushing for independence for BC as well.

Most Quebecers don't want Québec to secede, in case you haven't noticed. This thread is about one thing and one thing only. Does Canada have a say in how Québec expresses its right to self-determination? That's what the Clarity Act is about.

Do you support the Sherbrooke Declaration? Have you read it? Just wondering.

Oh, and how will and should the NDP vote on repealing the Clarity Act?

 

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

Myself and others on babble raise issues of FN rights continually on babble, so what you stated above is  untrue in the context of babble.

No. Where have you and others raised the point that the Canadian federation is illegitimate because it hasn't been ratified by the Indigenous peoples? That's the issue you're raising in the context of a hypothetical secession of Québec. I may be mistaken, and will apologize, once you refer me to that discussion.

More importantly - what have Indigenous peoples had to say on this issue? Do you know?

Quote:
You can write that the BQ, PQ or whatever must recognize the rights of FNs - but do you seriously think that will happen???

I don't think the BQ or PQ appropriately recognize the rights of workers, students, immigrants, First Nations, and many other segments of society - likewise for the NDP, Liberals, Conservatives, and Greens. So the answer to your question is NO, I don't think anyone will recognize the rights of FNs without a serious struggle on that issue. I said they must, just as I say Stephen Harper must recognize women's right to choose whether they will terminate a pregnancy. I hope my usage is clear.

Quote:
  Your position seems to be that FN people have to assert their rights and the PQ will respect them?

Sorry, I never said part 2 of your question, and I obviously don't believe that. I definitely repeat, and believe, part 1. Hope that's clear.

Quote:
  What would you say to an individual FN - a nation - that wanted to keep their treaty relationship (and obviously fight to have it respected)?

These are complex issues which I know next to nothing about. It is up to First Nations who are signatory to treaties to stand up and say what they want. I have no doubt they will. If you know what their position is on this issue, please enlighten me. I don't. But raising it in the abstract is counterproductive - it's positing a contradiction between the interests of Indigenous peoples and the interests of the nation of Québec. We can find lots more "conflicts" among the people if we want to. I don't want to. If they arise, they must be defined, discussed, and resolved, on the basis of equality and justice.

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Mulroney was a Quebec PM because like other Quebec PM's that is the file he spent way to much time on.  it is only PM's from Quebec who wade into that cesspool.

The PM who got a motion passed saying the Québécois form a nation... where was he from again?

Quote:
Last time I looked every province but one has ratified the same constitution. If Quebec wants a different deal then as far as I am concerned it is up to Quebec to table a counter proposal. 

Two problems: 1. It's not a huge priority for Quebecers, neither those who are inclined to secession, nor those who are inclined to federation. 2. The last time round, there's a perception that Québec was stabbed in the back. That creates bad feelings, which would need to be overcome.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown were attempts to solve the problem. They failed - and not because Quebecers rejected them (in the case of Meech) nor solely because of Québec opposition in the other case.

My opinion: Canada should have a serious look at the Sherbrooke Declaration. If the NDP could adopt it, why not Canada - and challenge Québec to sit down on that basis. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we have. Then, negotiations could perfect it, or not.

Or, if you like, some mediator could put it on the table and ask the parties to sit down and say what they think of it.

By the way - what do you think of it?

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I saw a link to an article that suggested very strongly that the NDP will join the Cons and Libs in voting down the BQ bill. I didn't save that link, sorry.

In the unlikely event that the NDP unity bill gets voted on, I would hazard a guess that both the Cons and Libs, and probably the BQ, would vote against it.

Which would make the Sherbrooke Declaration the de facto position of the NDP - no?

ETA: Why on earth did the NDP cobble together this "unity bill" considering it would never pass Conservative or Liberal scrutiny especially when they already had the Sherbrooke Declaration in their platform?  As for the BQ, I have no idea what they think of the "unity bill", yet.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Two problems: 1. It's not a huge priority for Quebecers, neither those who are inclined to secession, nor those who are inclined to federation. 2. The last time round, there's a perception that Québec was stabbed in the back. That creates bad feelings, which would need to be overcome.

To some degree, sure. but as with any of these backstabbing stories (and Quebec is not the only place where that has played a role, and even in this case I'd say it plays both ways), one can't figure out how to overcome it without figuring out how much of it is truth, how much of it is imagined, and how much of it is orchestrated for an ulterior motive.

Hence my concern about raising the spectre of violence, which just feeds into the myth, IMO.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mulcair, the Quebec federalist, like Trudeau the First and Dion and Trudeau the Pretender don't like or trust the separatists so they want to use the power of the federal government in their internal fight with other Quebec citizens.

This was pretty far back. But you seriously misunderstand Mulcair. He has always been diametrically opposed to the mould that lot came from. Not trust the separatists- fine, that much fits. Use the power of the federal government as a club- no way. Both, not for reasons of principle, and because its a suicidal position for a politician in Quebec. [A federal politician can get re-elected from a lot of seats in Quebec and still be a major figure in Canadian politics, but even this is writing off a HUGE chunk of the voter universe in Quebec.]

But now Mulcair is the leader of a federal party, so his inclinations were bound to get tempered. But the strength of your statement/categorization was of people's deep rooted positions. And Mulcair has always hated that position you included him in.

6079_Smith_W

@ KenS

I hear you, and from what I can see Mulcair does get that dynamic when it comes to central Canada and Quebec. Whether he gets it when it comes to the rest of the country remains to be seen.

 

 

MegB

For those of you who seem bound and determined to drag this thread down, please, dial back on the hostility.

KenS

The criticisms I made of Mulcair during the race were never based on whether he gets it.

I am absolutely confident that he gets it about Quebec seen from Western Canada.

He cant shake the fact that Western Canada is loaded with both Quebec haters and Quebec baiters [not the same categorries, even while they overlap]. That extends into the NDP's base, pretty big time.

I'm a transplanted westerner. There's a lot of antipathy in the Maritimes to what people perceive as Quebec whining. You'll hear similar narratives on those lines in both regions. But as is generally the case in Ontario, Maritimers are FAR less likely to translate that into Quebec baiting. When the early Reform Party had those unabashedly anti-Quebec ads, it backfired on them big time here, as it did also in Ontario.

Poking at Quebec falls on fertile ground in the West. Unfortunately, the popularity of that extends into a lot of the NDPs voter universe.

I have not looked at the 'Unity Bill'. But whatever is in it, I know where it comes from: Mulcair, and the rest of the Caucus, trying to defuse this powder keg.

During the leadership race I said the NDPs day of reckoning over the Sherbrooke Declaration was coming. I also said that Mulcair as Leader was going to amplify the problems. From what I can see, he has done a good job of establishing who he is so that he has some goodwill going into this- including, and most importantly, in the West. It may be a bit early for such an optimistic assesment. But it is definitely starting better than I expected. [In part, because it is much further down the road than I expected. We were so ripe for a fall, I figured this would be pushed at Mulcair right away.]

KenS

Something to keep in mind is that it is questionable whether Mulcair would have come to the NDP in the first place without the Sherbrooke Declaration- both as a document /statement of position, and as an exercise undertaken in Quebec.

Directly, that does not mean a lot now.

But it is instructive for looking at the road we're on.

Centrist

KenS wrote:
He cant shake the fact that Western Canada is loaded with both Quebec haters and Quebec baiters [not the same categorries, even while they overlap]. That extends into the NDP's base, pretty big time.

Poking at Quebec falls on fertile ground in the West. Unfortunately, the popularity of that extends into a lot of the NDPs voter universe.

Those are the points that I was also trying to make. "Haters and baiters" may be too strong but many, if not most, westerners have always seen federal pandering to Quebec to be against their interests. That perception caused an implosion of both the Trudeau Liberals and Mulroney Conservatives in the west respectively.

IMHO, the matter at hand is not only pandering to Quebec per se, but worse - "pandering to Quebec separitists". At least that is how the Cons will frame it. And I have no doubt the Cons will launch attack ads here in the west against Tom during the 2015 federal election. And I also have no doubt they will resonate.  To what extent is anyone's guess.

That's where the political strategic blunder comes in by falling for the BQ's bait. It should have been completely ignored.

6079_Smith_W

KenS wrote:

I'm a transplanted westerner. There's a lot of antipathy in the Maritimes to what people perceive as Quebec whining. You'll hear similar narratives on those lines in both regions. But as is generally the case in Ontario, Maritimers are FAR less likely to translate that into Quebec baiting. When the early Reform Party had those unabashedly anti-Quebec ads, it backfired on them big time here, as it did also in Ontario.

I can see that, and I'd say it's not just a question of distance, but also resentment toward the power of central Canada, and the perception and misperception that Quebec gets more attention.

I don't know what part of the west you are from, but I have seen those same borderlines and anti-francophone dynamics play out on a municipal level.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think this ploy by the BQ was clever. As I posted above in #3:

NDP will oppose Bloc bill that takes aim at Clarity Act

The introduction of a bill that has no chance of passing may be its first shot in flushing out the views of the NDP on whether it backs its own Sherbrooke Accord or supports the Clarity Act.

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

But you know at a fundamental level one of the things I find the most interesting is that it is for Quebec to decide but Canada should make an offer.  I know that I haven't a clue what most Quebecers would like to see changed in the constitution so why....

No doubt that has been said in this discussion.

But you know, there is always the staus quo. Very unresolved. But I dont think Quebeckers are expecting an offer. Not at all.

But the Clarity Act is not the [unresolved] staus quo. It is a provacative and provoking poke in the eye. It is taking something away. A move of agression. So is re-vivifying it in any way.

Sure, this is an obvious move for the BQ. So what?

Now that it is done, lining up behind the Clarity Act, or even sort of lining up with it, is refreshing the poke in the eye.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

KenS wrote:

Now that it is done, lining up behind the Clarity Act, or even sort of lining up with it, is refreshing the poke in the eye.

Yeah, it's perverse, ain't it?  In the end, only the BQ has a chance at winning anything out of this. And everyone who wants this issue back on the front burners.

socialdemocrati...

Boom Boom wrote:
ETA: Why on earth did the NDP cobble together this "unity bill" considering it would never pass Conservative or Liberal scrutiny especially when they already had the Sherbrooke Declaration in their platform?  As for the BQ, I have no idea what they think of the "unity bill", yet.

It's pretty normal for political parties to propose legislation that has no hope of passing, if only to make a statement, and to get their opponents to take a stand. (After all, that's why the Bloc is proposing the repeal in the first place: to pressure Quebec NDP supporters who previously supported the Bloc.)

Like I said before, I think the motivation is to distinguish themselves from the Bloc while still distinguishing themselves from the Liberals. If the NDP supports a repeal, they'll be the only party voting with the Bloc, and they get accused of being quasi-crypto-separatists. If they come out against a repeal, then everything they said in the Sherbrooke Declaration is a lie, which is worse, IMO.

Whether you think that's an effective strategy is another question. It's possible that abstaining would have let them position themselves on their own ground too. (And who knows, maybe that's where this is going, and the "Unity Bill" is another PR stunt like the Quebec Provincial NDP to remind people that the NDP is not a separatist party.)

socialdemocrati...

Boom Boom wrote:

KenS wrote:

Now that it is done, lining up behind the Clarity Act, or even sort of lining up with it, is refreshing the poke in the eye.

Yeah, it's perverse, ain't it?  In the end, only the BQ has a chance at winning anything out of this. And everyone who wants this issue back on the front burners.

The Liberals too. If the NDP appears too Bloc friendly, yhey get to present themselves as the only "progressive federalist" option. If the NDP  supports the Clarity Act and backs off on the Sherbrooke Declaration, they lose a ton of credibility, not to mention the support of some Quebec autonomist-but-not-separatist voters.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Whether you think that's an effective strategy is another question. It's possible that abstaining would have let them position themselves on their own ground too. (And who knows, maybe that's where this is going, and the "Unity Bill" is another PR stunt like the Quebec Provincial NDP to remind people that the NDP is not a separatist party.)

 

Oh, I don't think the NDP will abstain from voting on the BQ bill - the Cons would have a field day with that.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I think this ploy by the BQ was clever. As I posted above in #3:

NDP will oppose Bloc bill that takes aim at Clarity Act

The introduction of a bill that has no chance of passing may be its first shot in flushing out the views of the NDP on whether it backs its own Sherbrooke Accord or supports the Clarity Act.

Indeed. Let's see where the ndp/NPD stands.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Two problems: 1. It's not a huge priority for Quebecers, neither those who are inclined to secession, nor those who are inclined to federation. 2. The last time round, there's a perception that Québec was stabbed in the back. That creates bad feelings, which would need to be overcome.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown were attempts to solve the problem. They failed - and not because Quebecers rejected them (in the case of Meech) nor solely because of Québec opposition in the other case.

Okay let me get this straight it is not a huge priority for Quebeckers.  So why does it keep coming up?  No one in BC has been demanding that we reopen the debate.  The BQ started this latest go around.  If its not a huge priority then please inform the BQ.

IT is reopening the constitutional negotiations and getting Québec to buy in. That's what we were talking about. The BQ has NOT done that. They have NO INTEREST in Québec signing on to a Canadian constitution. All they have done is said: "Repeal this Clarity Act which seeks to interfere in Québec's right to self-determination." And they are of course right in that.

Quote:
As for the exact wording of the Sherbrooke Declaration I tried to find it but the NDP site is not user friendly when it comes to that kind of information.

The NDP has never published it. It is available, in French, on some of the MPs websites. Pierre Ducasse used to have it in both languages, but his links are broken. I've complained about this since 2005, actually. You can find it now on Stephen Taylor's website, but it's called Resolution #6 of the 2006 NDP convention. The text is the same:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/ndp-resolutions6.txt

... and you can start reading at "QUEBEC SECTION 6 N3 1. A social democratic government in Canada".

I'm embarrassed to give you this sketchy kind of reference, but the party brass was never comfortable with this policy (obviously), yet without it, they would have been dead in the water in Québec in 2011 - so they have never dared (yet) to renounce it. A tough position to be in.

You know, I think I'll email the actual PDF document to the mods and see if rabble.ca can make it available for posterity. It may only be findable in museums soon.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture
Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
KenS wrote:
He cant shake the fact that Western Canada is loaded with both Quebec haters and Quebec baiters [not the same categorries, even while they overlap]. That extends into the NDP's base, pretty big time.

Poking at Quebec falls on fertile ground in the West. Unfortunately, the popularity of that extends into a lot of the NDPs voter universe.

Those are the points that I was also trying to make. "Haters and baiters" may be too strong but many, if not most, westerners have always seen federal pandering to Quebec to be against their interests. That perception caused an implosion of both the Trudeau Liberals and Mulroney Conservatives in the west respectively.

IMHO, the matter at hand is not only pandering to Quebec per se, but worse - "pandering to Quebec separitists". At least that is how the Cons will frame it. And I have no doubt the Cons will launch attack ads here in the west against Tom during the 2015 federal election. And I also have no doubt they will resonate.  To what extent is anyone's guess.

I don't think in BC it's necessarily a hatred of Quebec, but more frustration and thinking, "what's in it for us?" Yes the NDP's approach was ill-advised, but I think they can counter it. For example, they can remind BC voters which party tried to ram an oil pipeline down their throats and which party spoke up against it.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

I have it on my computer. Here's the link:

http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf

Ah, thanks - it wasn't working for me half an hour ago!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Previous threads:

The Sherbrooke Declaration and the NDP.


Sherbrooke Declaration vs. Clarity Act

...and also discussed prominently in the 100+ NDP leadership threads.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Some discussion of the SD in this NDP leadership thread, along with this question: It has been suggested that the Sherbrooke Declaration contradicts the Clarity Act. Do you think this is true?  (maybe discussed in a succeeding thread - not much debate of that question in the thead)

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Some discussion of the SD in this NDP leadership thread, along with this question: It has been suggested that the Sherbrooke Declaration contradicts the Clarity Act. Do you think this is true?  (maybe discussed in a succeeding thread - not much debate of that question in the thead)

That was succeeded by a full discussion in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar... thread[/url] - with lots of interesting historical detail provided by Wilf Day among others. In particular:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar...

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar...

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/sherbrooke-declaration-vs-clar...

I differed with some of Wilf's interpretations and conclusions, but that thread should be properly archived somewhere IMHO for the wealth of information presented and summarized there.

Kropotkin, whatever its flaws or gaping holes, the Sherbrooke Declaration represented the first time in history that the CCF/NDP recognized Québec's right to self-determination. It also endorsed "asymmetric federalism" conceptually as a means of keeping the country together. That was good enough for me, and for many Quebecers. It of course drove the BQ up a wall from which it hasn't yet descended, hence its attempts to provoke and prod and regain lost relevancy. The NDP must go forward and not retreat from this historic juncture.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Kropotkin, whatever its flaws or gaping holes, the Sherbrooke Declaration represented the first time in history that the CCF/NDP recognized Québec's right to self-determination. It also endorsed "asymmetric federalism" conceptually as a means of keeping the country together. That was good enough for me, and for many Quebecers. It of course drove the BQ up a wall from which it hasn't yet descended, hence its attempts to provoke and prod and regain lost relevancy. The NDP must go forward and not retreat from this historic juncture.

I can buy that assessment.

Without reviving the argument I'd say we have exhausted, I would only add that I don't see non-inclusion of certain points as a retreat. The fact that it is held up by some as a retreat is evidence of how ill-advised it probably was in the first place. But as you say, I see it as a flaw in a statement which does break some very good ground.

Plus, what might be appropriate in a policy paper is not always appropriate in legislation.

I understand, and accept that we might disagree on some of this.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Boom Boom wrote:
I have it on my computer. Here's the link:

http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf

In case this link goes down again, here is the Sherbrooke Declaration on scribd.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks for the links, U. For whatever reason, I cannot access threads prior to 2008 in the babble search function. Is there a rational reason for that - anyone know? I joined in 2004, and I recall we discussed this a  lot prior to 2008.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Boom Boom wrote:
Thanks for the links, U. For whatever reason, I cannot access threads prior to 2008 in the babble search function. Is there a rational reason for that - anyone know? I joined in 2004, and I recall we discussed this a  lot prior to 2008.

Everything prior to the "upgrade" is on a different site than this one. So you have to search using google, like this: "site:www.archive.rabble.ca searchterm" Unfortunately, not everything is on google yet, so you could still miss some pages. The only way to be sure is to go through it manually, page by page!

KenS

I dont think the SDI is rightly described as "mostly platitudes".

Such documents are always full of platitudes. Comparison among them is if they have anything else.

SDI = lots of platitudes, and recogntion of 50%+1 and other language affirming self determination in real terms.

Clarity Act = lots of platitudes [including non-actionable language that sounds like self determination], sheathing the real terms that are all iron fist.

So they are both of full of platitudes, but that isnt the main thing going on.

["Iron fist" is not only being willing to send in the army. Phrased the other way: commiting to not send in the army does not mean there isnt a reliance on "iron fist." Or, "raw power," if you prefer that term.]

KenS

Here's my assesment of the internal NDP politics of getting the SDI done. First off, I dont beleive its a matter of the brass wanting to bury it. There is so much in the NDP that is not reducable to sound bites that just slips below the surface, even if it is universally popular.

Truth is, SDI attracted almost no interst positive or negative from the NDP outside of Quebec. Its existence as more than good intentions and wishes, and the hopes of a number of activists in Quebec is owed to the determination, peristence, and vision of Jack Layton and Pierre Ducasse.

Once it was done and got the seal of approval at Convention- where many things are passed without people really taking note of what happened- it went into relative obscurity.

As organizationaly savvy as Jack was, he also had his share of that common NDP infection/affliction: affirm something you really like, dont worry, and maybe even dont think, about how you are going to square it with conflicting tendencies/dynamics/whatever.

So I dont think its fair to say it was "ill thought out". More that there was just a typical failure with tough questions at follow through- even on thinking- not at all unique to the SDI and surrounding issues.

So there it sat, in relative obscurity... to become very alive in Quebec in the run-up to the 2011 election.

And here we are.

Unionist

Good assessments by Ken. At least, I agree with them, so they must be good!

ETA: And here was a May 2011 thread, sparked by Jack Layton's statement that he supported the Sherbrooke Declaration as well as the 1998 Supreme Court decision. That caused a bit of a firestorm, and showed the fundamental importance for the NDP to simply keep repeating that Québec has the right to self-determination as per the Sherbrooke Declaration:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/ndp-and-qu%C3%A9becs-right-self-dete... NDP and Québec's right to self-determination[/url]

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Everything prior to the "upgrade" is on a different site than this one. So you have to search using google, like this: "site:www.archive.rabble.ca searchterm" Unfortunately, not everything is on google yet, so you could still miss some pages. The only way to be sure is to go through it manually, page by page!

Wow, That explains why I haven't been able to access any of my early posts. Is there any chance all threads/posts prior to the upgrade will be returned to babble?

6079_Smith_W

Can we back off from this sending in the army talk?

As far as I am concerned it is just as much a fiction as this 9-11 truther drift.

There is no evidence, and I don't even see how Canada has the resources and means to do such a thing.

All it does is give ammunition  to those who want to point out some imaginary threat from the evil Canadian government. Not that I have a problem with opposing them when they are wrong, but aren't there enough real things to take issue with here with out making shit up? It just undermines any sensible argument.

Sorry to harp on it, but if you want to know why I have a problem with the NDP statement on this issue, this is a perfect example.

 

 

Unionist

I don't fully understand your ongoing obsession, so this is the last time I'll engage you on this subject.

Recognition by a parent state, or colonial power, of a component nation's right to self-determination, means one thing and one thing only: that it will not annex, or continue to annex, that nation by force. Look it up and stop talking about it.

Stéphane Dion, who has academic knowledge in this field, also explained this principle. Do you want to accuse him of military insanity as well?

Stéphane Dion wrote:
The Minister concluded by saying that: “The Canadian approach rejects the use of force, of any form of violence. It emphasizes clarity, legality and justice for all. While it may appear idealistic to many nations, that is precisely because this approach seeks to address in an ideal manner situations which are complex and delicate. It could contribute, in my view, to peace and enlightened state practice.”

[url=http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&page=archive&sub=release...

If the NDP now says that Ottawa gets to challenge the way Québec polls its population, it is back in the morass of shit in which it trudged since the Regina Manifesto. The same morass which was one of the main causes for my destroying my membership card all those decades ago. Mulcair needs to watch his step, and you and I can either help save him, or helpl him over the cliff.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Just think - all this discussion could have been avoided if the NDP had simply let the BQ go ahead and let their bill fail in Parliament without saying a word.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Just think - all this discussion could have been avoided if the NDP had simply let the BQ go ahead and let their bill fail in Parliament without saying a word.

It could have been postponed, not avoided. Because the NDP still has to announce how it will vote. Doesn't it?

Stuck between principle and polls. What a dilemma.

 

6079_Smith_W

Whatever Unionist, I'd be happy to keep this discussion on matters of Quebec's sef-determination, and Canada's recognition of that. 

But I'm not the one who continues to bring up the use of force and iron fists as if it is a real threat, and seems to me in my last post I asked for exactly the same thing you are.

But  sorry, if it gets brought up again, I will probably point out again that it is nothing but a myth which does nothing but manipulate this discussion.

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Just think - all this discussion could have been avoided if the NDP had simply let the BQ go ahead and let their bill fail in Parliament without saying a word.

It could have been postponed, not avoided. Because the NDP still has to announce how it will vote. Doesn't it?

Stuck between principle and polls. What a dilemma.

 

You're right. But still better to not have eggg on your face by bringing out the "Unity Bill".

Unionist

That is the truth.

Brachina

Re: West verus Quebec, I think that the dynamic maybe changing, as I keep hearing how the power and economic engine and all that is shifting out west, so the West's place is shifting. Honestly there seems to be more fighting between Western Province, especially BC and Alberta, then Quebec and any Western province.

Western Unity is cracking and the national game is changing, and honestly what Quebec does or doesn't do is of less importance to Westerners then the battle of Embridge as it were. Ontario on the other hand is more concerned with the economy.

I still maintain this is less about the Bloc, because honestly who gives a •••• what the Bloc thinks, then it does about manipulating the Liberals.

There is a much deeper play here then anyone else seems to see. But then I think that's want Mulcair wants, people who think the goal is one thing won't be prepared for the real play, of which I'm betting is a piece of a much bigger plan.

Brachina

There is no egg on Mulcair's face, its a extremely well designed Bill Boom Boom.

Its both morally and tactically sound. I know you won't believe me, but history will absolve Mulcair and show him to be right.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Brachina wrote:
There is no egg on Mulcair's face, its a extremely well designed Bill Boom Boom.

Its both morally and tactically sound. I know you won't believe me, but history will absolve Mulcair and show him to be right.

50%+1 is a non-starter outside Quebec. That's the crux of the ndp/NPD's dilemma.

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:

50%+1 is a non-starter outside Quebec. That's the crux of the ndp/NPD's dilemma.

I think everyone recognized it for what it was last time.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Brachina WTF does Western Unity mean?  BC'ers do not in any way shape or form identify as Albertans.  I hate the fact that the central Canadian media keeps referring to Alberta as the West, as if it encompasses its neighbours as well. I  know it is a common view amongst my friends and I suspect that there are many people in Sask who feel the same.  Western alienation was a term invented by Calgary spin doctors in the wake of stupid people from Eastern Canada trying to solve the constitutional issue.  It was tied into real historic grievances over things like the Crow rate, a matter that no one in BC ever much cared about no matter how central it was to Ottawa hating on the Prairies.

I'll give you a good hint. If its on the other side of the Great Divide it is East.  Albertan politicians are just Texans without an accent.  The NDP in Alberta is a minor party as the last by election and provincial election showed. The NDP in BC needs to see that Mulcair's vision extends over the mountains or he may find that he loses seats instead of gaining them.  There is absolutely no political capital to be gained for the NDP in BC by reopening the constitution file.  I am not from Quebec but I thought as an outsider that part of what made Layton's breakthrough possible was that he said we respect Quebec's right to choose but we are not reopening the file.

No actually Jack made it clear he was willing to open the constitutional file when the conditions were right and he got attacked for it, which netted his enemies nothing.

And this simple move, a private members bill will not stop him from serving BCs needs, its one bill amoung many, such as Saganash's UN Declaration of Indiginous Rights bill for example which has rightwing people foaming at the mouth, which will help natives in BC and the rest of the Country and there is other examples.

http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.ca/2013/02/with-no-quebec-referendum-loo...

Also Buckdog also seems to get how stupid the Unity Bill is making the Liberals who are becoming a greater embarrassment.

autoworker autoworker's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

autoworker wrote:

50%+1 is a non-starter outside Quebec. That's the crux of the ndp/NPD's dilemma.

Is that merely your own view or do you have anything to support it?  I would say IMO that outside Central Canada few voters really care about the threshold for a Quebec referendum that may be taken sometime in the future. This is a Quebec issue that voters in my part of the world never give a thought to until someone pokes a stick into the hornets nest again.

The constitutional file does not register when voters are asked what the issues are that the government should work on.  The Clarity Act was a Dion invention and he was one in a long line of Quebec federalists who want to have their way just as much as the separatists want theirs. Neither side appears to want to compromise and thus the impasse we
have been in since the '80's.  The BQ is trying to stir the pot because that is their reason to exist as a federal party.  They know
who took their seats from them.

Do you have anything to support your view? Besides, who says it's exclusively a Quebec issue?

autoworker autoworker's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:

50%+1 is a non-starter outside Quebec. That's the crux of the ndp/NPD's dilemma.

I think everyone recognized it for what it was last time.

The last time is the reason for the Clarity Act. Some people simply can't take 'non' for an answer.

Pages