BQ pushing for repeal of the Clarity Act

328 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

50%+1 is a non-starter outside Quebec.   ???

Maybe I'm an idiot for re-hashing something just as well missed...

But with 50%+1 being the overwhelming consensus in Quebec, including with most anglophone federalists [except the handful of Liberal MPs], then what does that imply?

Kick em in the teeth. Oh well.   ??

KenS

I dont think there is any question that the vast majority of opinion in the rest of Canada thinks the Clarity Act makes perfect sense, that Canada SHOULD be allowed to have the final say on Quebec's referendum question.

To be blunt, aside from being ignorant, in the long run they simply will not have the luxury of going on with that convenient ignorance.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I dont think there is any question that the vast majority of opinion in the rest of Canada thinks the Clarity Act makes perfect sense, that Canada SHOULD be allowed to have the final say on Quebec's referendum question.

To be blunt, aside from being ignorant, in the long run they simply will not have the luxury of going on with that convenient ignorance.

Thanks, Ken - needs to be repeated from time to time.

Likewise, the neocolonial heirs of the English conquerors, the Scottish merchants and bankers, and others who ran their little Québec paradise for so long, need to be allowed to vent from time to time:

"WTF does Québec want?"

"Just tell us what you want for chrissakes!"

"Why is it so frickin' hard to just put your demands on a piece of paper?"

"Betrayal, oppression, denial of linguistic and national rights - GET OVER IT!!! Now what was it you wanted again?"

"You can have your own referendum, we won't interfere - but you know how you people have a tendency to get TRICKED by your own, because of your innocent trusting nature? So we'll just let one of YOUR OWN CUTE LITTLE COURTS decide whether you know what the hell you're voting for or against - got a problem with that?"

"Look, I didn't wanna mention this, but even though you have every right in the world to leave without use or threat of force... WELL IT'S MY MARRIAGE TOO, Y'KNOW!! What about the house? What about the kids? You think you'll do better with someone else? Do you realize that the OECD, the U.N., the WHO, and the AFL-CIO have all done studies showing that this is THE BEST MARRIAGE IN THE WORLD!? Of course you didn't know that, because you refuse to read anything that isn't in French..."

"We LOVE you! That's why we want to make sure that before you leave, you really really really know what you're doing!"

"What was it you wanted again?"

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:
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.

I think the consensus here is that the Clarity Act is an aggressive and wrong approach. That's not the same thing as saying that no one outside Quebec is going to accept 50%. I wouldn't say that the Liberal Party approach reflects universal opinion - that there is a range of opinion about it both inside and outside Quebec. And as for where we are right now, I'd say Mulcair bringing up the precedent of the Scottish referendum brings it into even clearer focus.

But one thing that IS clear: it sure makes for a handy stereotype for pointing at when we want to show how bad the Canadians are, and how their only objective is to stand in the way of Quebec's right to determine its future.

Which reminds me, it's time for me to run down and get my Union Jack from the cleaners and stop by the tea shop.

 

Funny how this editorial doesn't even mention the BQ:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ndp-bid-to-repeal-c...

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Funny how this editorial doesn't even mention the BQ:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ndp-bid-to-repeal-c...

I think it's more a case of deliberately misleading the  public. Whoever wrote that should go back to journalism school an/or take a course in investigative ethics. Go back to the posts that I started this thread with to learn what exactly happened. MSM.ca had it right.

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I agree Boom Boom (though I think it is more bad writing and tunnel vision than intended deceit)

I was pointing out that many are already falling into that trap that was mentioned.

 

KenS

No idea how log before it is expected that the BQ private member's bill comes up, but my hope would be that the NDP abstains.

The optics for abstaining are at least decent: "the game of the Liberals and the Bloc has always been to drive in weges to make wounds fester. That is the goal of the Clarity Act [with an acknowledgemet of what peope think it is]. And that is the goal of the Bloc in looking for outright appeal."

That is not the position of the NDP. So we will contiue to criticise the Clarity Act and foster a dialogue for its replacement; but do not favour meanwhile rubbing salt in the wound by simply abolishing it. Etc. As our contributions to starting that dialogue Canadians must have, we have the SDI ad the Unity Act. Etc.

KenS

I agree that substantively the Unity Bill contains a wrong step in the colonialist direction. It is equivocal about that, but it is there.

And really, the right position is leave it to Quebec and its peoples. But I'm afraid going all the way there from the outset is just not goig to fly. Gestures that are political suicide dont get us anywhere... even the larger goals [that last bit obviously being an arguable point around here].

I think it is equally utopian to think the NDP should have not responded to the Bloc's gambit. Sure its a trap. But the consequences of not walkig in the direction of and facing the trap would be worse.

Better now than next year.

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-a-clear-question-50-per-cen...

Very good column on this issue Layton's Mentor Charles Taylor.

Basically he makes the arguement that this bill keeps Jack's promise from the last election. Gasp, a party that keeps its promises, no wonder the Liberals are shocked and horrified.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/with-a-clear-question-50-per-cen... Very good column on this issue Layton's Mentor Charles Taylor. Basically he makes the arguement that this bill keeps Jack's promise from the last election. Gasp, a party that keeps its promises, no wonder the Liberals are shocked and horrified.

Charles Taylor wrote:
The NDP will rightly vote down the Bloc bill to repeal clarity, which would have left us with a legal void.

Arrogant colonialist rhetoric. It's like the misogynists complaining that 25 years ago, the Supreme Court created a "legal void" by decriminalizing abortion.

What remained after the Supreme Court decision was the right of women to choose, without external constraint.

What would remain with the repeal of the Clarity Act would be the right of Quebecers to choose, without external constraint.

Thanks, Brachina, for identifying where the ideological rationalization originates for the NDP's upcoming betrayal.

6079_Smith_W

Obviously you have uninterrupted control of the floor with that one, Unionist. Carry on with all this colonialist mentality talk. Not sure how well it will play in the part of Canada that was bought as a business deal, and twice invaded by an army which actually fired their guns, and later rounded up and hanged people to set an example.

Personally, I might have pointed out that those who really hold the power benefit from turning people against each other - and truth be told, I have heard enough unsympathetic talk on the issue of francophone rights and Quebec's status as a nation from some people who themselves have valid grievances of their own.

And by contrast, I am not sure how many English bankers and members of the family compact write into the pages of the National Post and CBC.

Unionist

Winston, if you don't support Québec's right to self-determination - or if you think it essential (like some others here) to counterpose to it the oppression and struggles of other people - then at least have the decency to not comment about it. It's contrary to babble policy.

Your brand of scorn and minimizing of people's aspirations represents the greatest risk of tearing this country apart.

I advise you to have a look at the Sherbrooke Declaration (notwithstanding the NDP's gallant efforts to hide and bury it) and let me know what you think of it. For starters, try to understand why it takes the time and trouble to rule out the use of force - which you have spent half this thread ridiculing and mocking, as if it's a notion I concocted.

 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist I can accept that Quebec has the right to decide its future but that is not because they suffered the most oppression in our countries history. 

Got woken up by a straw man this morning?

Quote:
in a discussion about the democratic rights of Quebec you should not dismiss others history of oppression at the hands of the white colonial elite.

Ok, I'll try hard to remember that. Thanks for the reminder.

By the way, most of my family was murdered because of their ethnic and religious background, and Canada wasn't accepting survivors except through family reunification. Where do I place in the oppression olympics?

 

6079_Smith_W

I do support it Unionist, and I have said so a number of times. Please stop making false accusations just because I happen to disagree with you on some points.

I don't care what Quebec decides. I don't even care that you are floating Sherbrooke as the only option for those who support federalism while I have read you in the past say clearly that political sovereignty is the obvious option for many Quebeckers. It's your province. DO whatever you want.

And do I need to point out that my laissez faire attitude is not the same as Quebec hatred?

What I don't support is this ridiculous conspiracy theory that lumps anyone who questions this situation or sees a bit of a shell game in with Rudyard Kipling, General Wolseley and the rest of the old boys.

You're insulted? Well sorry, but this overblown justification is just as insulting, doubly insulting because many of us recognize your right to decide to begin with.

 

KenS

Unionist's methods of putting someone in a position sometimes are less than ideal. But considering where we are, I don't understand your objection to applying the term 'colonialist' in this discussion.

The reason that the Clarity Act is seen as so reasonable outside Quebec is in part because of the on the face of them reasonable fears that there will be a "trick question". Plus the less comprehensible questions on what is fairly considered a majority that allows Quebec to declare independence and begin negotiations for what that means "on the ground".

Those are reasonable concerns for people to have. But it is explicitly colonialist to jump from that opinion/concern to asserting that the Canadian state- any part of it- has the final say of what it is up to the people of Quebec to reslove.

No doubt those questions will be very contentious in Quebec. One has to expect that it would/will be very messy. [And less so with the Canadian state reserving and enforcing the final say?]

I'm leaving out of this whether you have expressed a position I would call colonialist, or ultimately colonialist. I cant/wont follow the twists and turns. But I really dont think you have any grounds for saying that talk of colonialist attitudes being part of this discussion is 'overblown.'

And while we are at it, for those who have some sympathy with, or even support for, the Clarity Act, please explain to us if you think the Clarity Act is not reserving for Canada the right of final judgement. And if you think that is OK, explain why.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

I'm leaving out of this whether you have expressed a position I would call colonialist, or ultimately colonialist.

As am I. I have not used that term in connection with anything Winston said.

 

6079_Smith_W

Sure.... I'll wait around too for anyone who wants to stand up and admit support for the Clarity Act as it stands.

Any takers?

KenS, why I find the colonialist charge ludicrous is that you are more likely here in the west to find someone who is an ideological ally of the sovreigntists - that is, someone who would be more than happy to see them make the decision to go.

Colonialist carries with it a lot of connotations, among them is profiting from anothers' misery. You are from the west. Do you honestly think that is what is going on here?

I don't count myself among that gang, but I find the drama and theatre and finger-pointing about being prevented by oppressors from realizing their ultimate destiny to be particularly annoying.

And Unionist, You have already accused me flat out of opposing your right to your own decision. At least stand by your own words and don't get all mealy-mouthed on me.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I accept that Quebec has the right to self-determination based on a vote of 50% + 1, and defend Quebec's rights on that point.

But do those who call for 50% + 1 to be enough actually think, for example, that a declaration of independence on such a narrow margin would actually be workable or sustainable?  Could a new country really be created and preserved if very nearly half the population that would live in such a country had just said that they didn't want such a country?  You'd need to either get buy-in from those folks or just deport them(which would be problematic with the FN's, for example)

Is it also that a 50% + 1 vote would be something a PQ government, without actually seceding, would use as a very big bargaining chip?  If so, what would be their price, at that stage, for NOT leaving?

Not trying to cause trouble with these questions, but I've never understood how that kind of a scenario would play out.

If they can make it work, more power to them, but you can understand why a person might wonder.

6079_Smith_W

Ken, that's not our business. Or certainly not mine.

Frankly, if it gets to that point and if Quebec comes up with someone who has the authority to sit down at the table I am far more interested in protecting our interests in getting a fair deal for the rest of Canada.

If there are some who might have second thoughts, well it is really up to them to deal with it. Far be it from me to get in the way of that and be called a fascist.

And as for barganing chips, do we not have enough gamesmanship going on as it is? And they wonder why some people are annoyed at this nonsense.

(like, was the question not clear enough? )

 

Ghislaine

I think the Clarity Act needs to go and was misguided from the start and I also think Quebec has the right to set the threshold for seperating, 50+1% is their right if that is their decision. I just would want to ensure that any ensuing issues have to be dealt with in Quebec courts, not Canadian ones. And I guess to answer a question above, if Quebec did seperate on a 51 or 52% majority, any people in the 49% that wanted to remain Canadian would just have to move to another province. 

I just think that is what is missing from the Sherbrooke Declaration - an acknowledgment/declaration that any attempts at some type of action in the Supreme Court of Canada by Quebec residents would be dismissed and referred to courts in Quebec. 

In terms of FNs within Quebec, they have a special relationship with the Crown and Canada that needs to be referenced. Services for all other people in Quebec covered provincially are a federal responsibility for FNs. Everything in terms of management, etc. is set out by the Indian Act and the federal department. You can dismiss this as just something FNs will have to take up themselves, unionist, but it will not be that simple from a legal perspective or from Canada's perspective. I think that at the very least there could be some type of resolution to allow Nunavik to vote seperately as a region to join Nunavut instead if they choose? 

Unionist

I'm not dismissing FN concerns in the slightest. I'm saying they should be dealt with by First Nations. Not benevolent paternalistic settlers from Canada guessing as to what to do "for" them.

I agree with everything else you said, Ghislaine.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

They do need to get rid of the Clarity Act. 

janfromthebruce

I'm with Ken - get rid of the Clarity Act. But in doing so, inact the Sherbrooke Declaration. But with the present makeup of the legislature, that is not going to happen and we don't want to end up with a constitutional void.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm with the BQ who want the Clarity Act done away with, and thus the reason I started this thread. Kiss

KenS

Thats a narrowly economic deterministic understanding of colonialist Winston: that it means soeone is exploiting profit fro the relationship. The term has long been used to describe a more general and pervasive power relationship, often extending to, even if not primarily focused on the colonizer appropriating the thinking for the colonized. Going beyond 'merely' being paternalistic.

This is a prototypical example: the interface of the colonized supposedly not being able to take care of their own affairs, that happens to neatly coincide with the centuries long overt raw power goal of keeping the subected within the confines of the pen.

Centrist

Ken Burch wrote:
I accept that Quebec has the right to self-determination based on a vote of 50% + 1, and defend Quebec's rights on that point.

Let's look at some empirical evidence to the contrary for a moment. When the Libs introduced their Clarity Act, a majority of Quebecers were in favour of the law at the time.

Quote:
Shortly after the adoption of the Clarity Act in 2000, a survey supervised by Maurice Pinard, the veteran McGill University sociologist who’s among Canada’s most respected pollsters, showed that 60 per cent of Quebeckers, including 53 per cent of sovereigntists, were “strongly” or “somewhat” in favour of the legislation.
 

Quote:
CROP survey had tested the principles stated by the Supreme Court decision that would form the basis of the Clarity Act – with the result that 72 per cent of francophone Quebeckers wanted a majority of at least 60 per cent in favour of sovereignty. This survey, it’s worth noting, was done with an exceptionally large sample of 4,992 respondents.

Quote:
In the federal election held months after the adoption of the Clarity Act, the Chrétien government increased its standing in Quebec by nearly a dozen seats and won 44.2 per cent of the Quebec vote (against 39.9 per cent for the Bloc Québécois, which had campaigned against the law). The crushing victory of the Chrétien Liberals in Quebec was one of the reasons then-premier Lucien Bouchard resigned from politics in early 2001.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-ndp-forgets-the-clarity-acts-popularity-among-quebeckers/article8277838/

And last September's Ipsos poll basically corroborates Quebec public opinion from over 12 years ago, which has remained virtually the same, with 70% of Quebecers believing that a "clear" majority is over 60% supporting the referendum

In the rest of Canada, the Ipsos figures are much higher. 76% of Canadians believe that a clear majority should be over 60%... with 67% believing that it should be over a 2/3 majority.

As I have stated again and again, this BQ bait should have been completely ignored. The NDP has now delivered the Cons a "red meat" issue in the west during the 2015 campaign. And what about even Quebec? How will the issue eventually fly out there politically?

Quote:
But do those who call for 50% + 1 to be enough actually think, for example, that a declaration of independence on such a narrow margin would actually be workable or sustainable?
 

Again, a "narrow margin" that conflicts with the "clear majority" principle espoused by the Supreme Court of Canada decision. How can a parliamentary bill conflict with the Supreme Court of Canada in any event?

6079_Smith_W

Whatever, Ken.

My point is that raising that spectre in reference to parts of this country which have always been on the outside of power, and many of whose residents are either indifferent, or who would gladly hold the door open, is a bit of a joke.

But if it helps the cause of sovereignty or Quebec identity to imagine we are still living in 1837 I suppose there's not much I can do about it - except to point out that it is nonsense.

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

But if it helps the cause of sovereignty or Quebec identity to imagine we are still living in 1837 I suppose there's not much I can do about it - except to point out that it is nonsense.

 

In 1837, Québec had foreigners ripping off its labour and resources, mocking its attachment to its language and culture, deciding what was best for Quebecers, cultivating puppets to do their bidding, and suppressing any hint of rebellion by force.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yup, that's the one. It sure is rip-roaring stuff, I agree. Actually we have a sports team named after them out here.

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yup, that's the one. It sure is rip-roaring stuff, I agree. Actually we have a sports team named after them out here.

 

 

That's odd. I always thought the roughriders were named after a cavalry fighting to win colonies... Oh right, now I get it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Riders

6079_Smith_W

No, Unionist the Patriotes are a local hockey team.

http://www.patriotes.ca/

Since you were digging already I'm surprised you didn't find them

Anyway, I know that's all part of the central Canadian mythos, but things played out a little differently out here. After all, it wasn't too long before that the Eastern and European businessmen who thought they were running things got their asses handed to them in the Pemmican Wars.

Unionist

I hope you recall which side Quebecers sympathized with in those wars. We shared a common enemy.

6079_Smith_W

Absolutely.

I don't think anyone will forget what Macdonald said before Riel was hanged.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

edited - it's such an awful comment that I decided to remove it - it's so inflammatory. I'm surprised Quebec has remained in Confederation as long it has, with that attitude from Sir John Eh, which is alive and well in the anti-Quebec comments you read in some of the papers and websites.

6079_Smith_W

@ BoomBoom

In fact, Macdonald made that comment in response to a part of the country trying to do just that - assert its sovereignty because it was cheated out of what it was promised as part of confederation.

Unfortunately I think too many politicians have learned the easy lesson of playing to one part of the country at the expense of another:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/23/pol-trudeau-apology-alb...

Because it works.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Can't argue with that. Some days I feel that Harper is pissing on us; other days it seems the wind blows that piss back at him.

KenS

This thread is in the wrong forum. Because while it is about Quebec, too... its really about the politics of Canada.

And when it come down to the nitty gritty... its about the politics of the rest of Canada, because Quebec for all its divided opinion, knows what it wants.

And the discussion in this thread closely tracks this fact: it's about how this debate is going to play in the rest of Canada, how the NDP is to navigate that. [Although a lot of people do keep confusing "what does Quebec want" into it.]

So in bumping this thread, I thought I'd first make that explicit. Because there is an excelllent article this morning that hits the nail dead on.

KenS

The NDP’s Quebec challenge:

How can the NDP hold its Quebec support without alienating the rest of the country?

By: Claude Denis

Quote:

Responding to the Bloc with its 50 per cent plus one solution, the NDP is merely affirming its established policy, which is going to play fine in Quebec. But it is also inviting a backlash in the rest of the country, which all other parties are only too happy to feed. Given current understandings of what Canada is and the visceral distaste that most Canadians outside Quebec have for Québécois nationalism, the backlash is unavoidable.

This means that whenever somebody sees fit to wave the Québécois flag for all Canadians to see, the NDP is going to get hurt. It’s going to get hurt not in Quebec, but rather everywhere else. This also means that either the NDP will work hard at changing non-Quebecers’ understanding of Quebec’s place in Canada, or it will fail to grow its support outside Quebec.

Quote:

Most days in our political life are spent discussing and fighting about other things. In the routine of partisan debate and parliamentary life, it is often easy to forget that the Quebec-Canada file is not only still open, but also that there is a wide gulf between Québécois and other-Canadian understandings of where and who we are. Considering that just about everybody, other than hardcore sovereignists, wants to forget, it’s hard to blame the NDP for its reluctance to bring it up. But for its own sake, and for the sake of Canada, the NDP must start making the Québécois case to all Canadians. And it must start soon.

Quote:

The year 2015 and the next federal elections will soon be upon us. The Conservatives, Liberals and Bloquistes know that the NDP’s Quebec policy is a liability for New Democrats everywhere but in Quebec. They would be fools not to exploit it, especially because it is so easy to do — I’m not telling them anything they don’t know. New Democrats would be greater fools not to address it, but doing this is difficult: while others need only stick to the established wisdom, the NDP must change its game. Hoping that the problem goes away and that the other parties let it slide is a lot easier. But it’s a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

 

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Wake us up when the people of Quebec decide what they want in the meantime stop telling us we hate Quebec because we don't.  We hate the fucking debate that goes around and around in a circle and never gets anywhere.  The people of Quebec are almost evenly divided on whether they should stay in Canada or be their own country.  That is an issue that only the people of Quebec can decide. 

You are not listening to the conversation in THIS thread.

1.] This is not about whether or not the people of Quebec want to seperate. Yes, that is evenly divided in Quebec; but it is not the topic here.... even if it uis the overarching one that most matters in the end.

2.] The topic is what the "rest of Canada" tosses at Quebec's door, not what Quebec asked for. Namely, what the Liberals started by throwing the Clarity Act at Quebec... because they think it is a wedge game they cannot lose at.

The Clarity Act is massively unpopular in Quebec- even with unequivocal federalists, Tom Mulcair among them.

The people of Quebec have made it very clear they are satisfied with the NDP's Sherbrooke Declaration. Those in Quebec who don't like the SDI dont have any political traction, and dont say that publicly. Trudeau the Pretender is just posturing to the ROC, and has the usual Liberal hubris that they'll get traction in Quebec some other way. And Stephane Dion is just a pompous fool.

But everyone knows that the SDI will at best be a very difficult sell for the NDP in the ROC. No one except you is talking about the NDP "jumping into the nationalist debate". What the author is pointing out is that every other political party has hay to make in forcing the NDP to make a choice between the Clarity Act.

The NDP has followed the advice of you and a number of other people in the discussion: ride the wave of the glow around the SDI in Quebec; in the rest of Canada few have heard of it, and the party avoids the topic of the Clarity Act.

They have got away with that fpor a long time. But the time is up.

As the author points out, this is a piece of cake for the other parties to exploit. And easiest of all for the BQ. So of course they start it. It's up to the NDP to defuse this ticking bomb. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The NDP will lose support everywhere if they are stupid enough to jump into the nationalist debate but that slippage will be the greatest in Quebec.  Jack effectively straddled the divide by saying we want to play nice and we recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada.  That approach did not hurt the NDP outside Quebec and will not if used again.  If you change that to the NDP proposing specific constitutional changes  to get Quebec to sign onto the constitution then they get targets on their backs no matter where they go in the country. There is no consensus or clear path to resolving the constitutional issue and the NDP should fear walking across that minefield.

There are no constitutional changes being proposed. Or implied. Period.

The NDP is most definitely not trying to get Quebec to sign onto the Constitution.

 

 

KenS

You persist in debating straw people that are not here, and are not the author.

Who implied people are "bigots"? The author said:

Quote:

But it is also inviting a backlash in the rest of the country, which all other parties are only too happy to feed. Given current understandings of what Canada is and the visceral distaste that most Canadians outside Quebec have for Québécois nationalism, the backlash is unavoidable.

He said, the distate for Quebec nationalism. You dont think thata a fact- that Canadian's outside of Canada by and large do not like Quebec nationalism, and dont care for its manifestations?

KenS

And just to make sure its clear...

Because there is that visceral dislike of Quebec nationalism, the NDP is totally vulnerable to portrayals of the Sherbrooke Declaration as making it easy for separatists [the predictable ads, if this isnt blunted, will just say the NDP are Quebec separatists.... and the Sherbrooke Declaration is 'proof'].

Nothing about 'jumping into the nationalist debate' there. The vast majority in the ROC think that the Clarity Act is a good thing, can't see why it would be offensive, etc. So the NDP is ripe for a fall being pitted against the Clarity Act. As the author says: unless it begins the admittedly difficult work of starting a conversation among its supporters.

Not talking about it is not an option for the NDP. Say nothing, and using weasel words to avoid it is the same thing, and the NDP will be tarred in both Quebec and the ROC.

Unionist

Kropotkin. Listen to Ken. Please.

The author of that article said most Canadians hate any talk of Québec nationalism. You call it a "piece of shit", then proceed to say how much you hate any talk of Québec nationalism, and how Québec should just decide what it wants and let us know.

Oh, and stop repeating that the author said the people of Canada have a deep-seated hate on for Québec. Just because it makes your argument easier, doesn't mean he said it. Just stop repeating it - it's false. He spoke of the "visceral distaste that most Canadians outside Quebec have for Québécois nationalism". Guess what. He's talking about you. All your posts breathe of it. But he's not blaming anyone. He's simply stating a perfectly fucking obvious fact that everyone knows is true. Why would you have a problem with that?

You told me the other day that you had read the Sherbrooke Declaration, after I found a (well-hidden-by-the-mealy-mouthed-NDP-real-inner-circle) online copy.

If you read it, then why in God's name are you talking about changes to the Constitution? It doesn't suggest one single solitary change to the Constitution. Read it again.

What it does suggest is asymmetric federalism. Let's get down to brass tacks. Can you live with that? Can you live with Québec having jurisdiction over some areas which B.C. doesn't have? Are you aware that that is the case right now (think pensions, income tax, parts of the E.I. system relating to maternity and parental leave)?

If you can't envision a federation built that way, then I have a suggestion for you: Kiss Canada goodbye. Because that way, at least we'll have parted on kissing terms.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I agree with most everything Kropotkin has said in this thread.  The NDP should develop its policy on Quebec with little regard to Western angst over the issue.

Unionist

Perhaps, Pogo, you could tell us what you think about the substantive issues, instead of making us guess which parts of kropotkin's writings you agree with and which you don't? Like, what's your view of the Sherbrooke Declaration? The NDP's Unity Bill? How should it vote on the Bloc's motion to repeal the Clarity Act? Or anything else?

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Let the House vote on Bill C-457, and let the pieces fall where they may.

MegB

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Personally I wish that Quebec would either shut up or do something. It is your damn politicians that are causing this fucking sideshow again.  Last time I looked all the players in this debate had one thing in common and that is they were elected as representatives of federal ridings in Quebec.  The BQ stirs the pot a bit and it is Quebec politicians who jump and then the separatist blame all of Canada for the stupidity of the MP's that are elected in Quebec by Quebecers. 

I am tired off being made the problem when frankly I don't even like going to the dentist.

Might I remind you that you are in the Quebec forum. Your tone is derogatory, not only as far as the issues go, but to people involved in the issues. Your comments seem to indicate that Quebers in general, their politicians in particular, are idiots (according to you, a non-Quebecer). This is offensive. As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

Really listen.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Let the fireworks begin! Laughing

MLI's Brian Lee Crowley on Quebec Separation, the Clarity Act, and the NDP

Both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are busy advertising how cheap they hold their country’s integrity and future. The BQ, for whom secession is the raison d’être, may perhaps be forgiven for returning to the charge with another bill to set the bar on achieving Quebec independence as low as possible, and abolishing the Clarity Act into the bargain.

The NDP, however, is another matter. This party has frequently stood four square behind Canada in the face of the separatist threat, and its courageous past leaders, such as David Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough spoke out passionately for Canada. Yet today the heirs of this proud tradition stand in the Commons and, without blushing, say that a majority of one vote in a referendum should be enough to set Quebec on the path of separation from Canada.

- snip -

The government of Canada could hold a referendum to get approval to change the Constitution and they could get 90 per cent of the population to vote yes and nothing would happen unless the change was approved by Parliament and two thirds of the legislatures representing a majority of the population. That’s not anti-democratic. It is the essence of democracy that fundamental rules require special procedures and broad consent to be changed.

That is what the Supreme Court meant when it said a clear majority of Quebecers needed to vote yes to a clear question before the rest of the country must sit down and discuss secession. Even after negotiating, both sides would have to ratify a constitutional amendment to effect secession. And those negotiations would have to consider the rights of minorities like aboriginal people, and those who voted not to leave Canada.

This writer is sponsored by:
CUSLI Nexus is a Project of the

Must be another conservative think-tank, who knows?

Unionist

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION:

 

Here's a photo of Brian Crowley, Boom Boom. Not sure who his friend is.

Not entirely sure why we need to read this crap here either. If the NDP hasn't advanced beyond this level of debate, then it can kiss Québec (and Canada) goodbye.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That link was at the top of my Google search for updates on my "BQ - NDP - Clarity Act - Unity Bill" search. Just thought folks would like to know what the opposition is writing about us. Sealed

KenS

Here is the situation that the author of the now much reviled article is looking ahead to.

The BQ bill about repealing the Clarity Act will come up in due course.

as it stands right now, notwithstanding attempts from within the NDP to spin it otherwise, the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration are seen by  most observeres, not just our enemies, to be in fundamental conflict.

The Clarity Act is broadly supported in the ROC [not just the West]. It is offensive to the bulk of NDP voters in Quebec- the vast majority of whom also do not want to talk about nationalism now. Forget the carboard cutout stereotypes people are stuck on in this discussion. A big part of the reason Quebecers voted for the NDP is because of a consensus that there are better / more important things than being obsessively concerned with sovereignty. But they still find the Clarity Act offensive, and guaranteed will feel betrayed if the NDP does in practice any backing away from the Sherbrooke Declaration to keep from having to even APPEAR to be against the Clarity Act.

Not only is the Clarity Act popular in the ROC, but the vast majority have simplistic notions of being for or against Quebec "separatism". So as it stands right now, the NDP is ripe for effective attacks for the coming "are you for or against it" wedging around the Clarity Act. It isnt the Bloc. Having set this in motion they only need to watch now. The Libs, Cons and media will take care of the rest.

The author of the artcile is saying that the NDP needs to do something proactive to disrupt this.

Y'all seem to think that when the attck ads come portraying the NDP as harboring separists because they wont support the Clarity Act, that everyone in the ROC is just going to yawn. Something like that?

Pages