PQ's charter of values

421 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Lou Arab wrote:

I thought the Bloc had already come out against the charter.  Or that they had concerns or something. 

Did I get that wrong?

Definitely wrong. They were quiet about it during the weeks of press leaks, but once Bernard Drainville went public with the main themes on Tuesday (only Tuesday? seems like years...), Paillé immediately welcomed it personally ([url=http://blocquebecois.org/horizon2015/textes.php?t=8456]here[/url]), and the very next day, his oh-so-democratic party must have completed its discussions, because now it was the whole party which [url=http://blocquebecois.org/horizon2015/textes.php?t=8457]fully supported it[/url], and the day after (i.e. today), they started the [url=http://blocquebecois.org/horizon2015/textes.php?t=8458]painful but necessary purge[/url] of anyone with a decent bone in their body.

 

Stockholm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

 "recent events have led me to reevaluate my views on the place of Quebec in Canada. I now accept the NDP position that Quebec should remain part of Canada".

Why, if that is not what she believes?

If its not what she believes then she can spend the rest of her short political career as a soveriegntist anti-PQ/anti-BQ independent with zero chance of ever being elected to anything. if she wants to join a federalist party - she will have to have become a federalist. its as simple as that.

Unionist

Maria wouldn't observe a vow of silence within the Bloc. So I don't think she'll be welcome in Tom's NDP either.

She will be making a [url=http://www.mariamourani.org/index.php?id=349]public statement[/url] sometime tomorrow, and isn't giving interviews in advance.

 

 

Lens Solution

The BQ seems to have forgotten that Mourani was probably the only reason they won Ahuntisc in the first place.  She worked hard to build support and connections in the various communities and pull off an upset over the Liberals in 2006.  She narrowly beat the Liberals in 2008 and she narrowly beat the NDP in 2011.  If it had not been for her strong connection with the riding, the BQ probably would have lost the seat.

What will happen to it now?  Will Mourani want to run as an Independent?  She might still have support from the communities in the riding for taking a strong stand and for the way she was raked across the coals.  Or it could go Liberal or NDP in 2015.  It used to be a Liberal riding until Mourani won it (and I think it borders Justin Trudeau's Papineau riding on one side) and could go back to its Liberal roots, or it could go NDP next time after the strong NDP performance in 2011.

Unionist

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Multicultural+protest+held+Saturday+... protest to be held Saturday against PQ plan for charter of values[/url]

The headline and story are mostly stupid, but what's important is that resistance is being organized on many fronts.

And this:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/05/even_sovereigntistfriendly... sovereigntist-friendly ranks critical of PQ’s controversial proposed legislation[/url]

After listing some of the notable leftist and sovereignist Quebecers who have lined up against Marois's "charter" - Françoise David, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, Louise Harel, Francine Pelletier, Raymond Gravel... - Chantal Hébert comments:

Quote:

With the helium of its trial balloons on the charter having momentarily buoyed the party in voting intentions, the PQ’s brain trust seems oblivious to the reality that never has one of its identity-driven initiatives drawn as much friendly fire as this one.

Or perhaps the PQ simply does not mind being shot at as long as it is from Montreal’s progressive trenches.

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Quote:

Or perhaps the PQ simply does not mind being shot at as long as it is from Montreal’s progressive trenches.

I find this fascinating.  Does anyone agree?  If so, why might this be the case?  Surely progressive Montreal has delivered a lot of support to the PQ in the past?

Unionist

I agree.

As I said above, they need to wipe out CAQ in order to go head to head with the Libs and regain majority territory. They think Montréal and the left (synonyms? :)) will never vote CAQ (although they underestimate the threat of  QS), hence they must go after right-wing ROQ (rest of Québec, heh).

Anyone else?

 

sanizadeh

Meanwhile, an Ontario hospital finds this an excellent opportunity to attract much needed talent from Quebec:

"We don't care what is on your head. We care what is in it".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/12/quebec-values-ch...

Summer

Stockholm wrote:

 

If its not what she believes then she can spend the rest of her short political career as a soveriegntist anti-PQ/anti-BQ independent with zero chance of ever being elected to anything. if she wants to join a federalist party - she will have to have become a federalist. its as simple as that.

 

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Why can't a federal politician who believes in separatism AND who supports left wing policies decide that they would like to represent the NDP?  I think that the person could say very clearly, that as a realist they know that separatism is not on the horizon and that so long as Quebec is part of Canada they would like it to be run under NDP policies.  Also, she would have to agree to vote with the NDP on any matters of federalism/separatism.  But she can believe in her heart whatever she wants.  

I applaud Mourani for standing behind her principles.  

 

Summer

sanizadeh wrote:

Meanwhile, an Ontario hospital finds this an excellent opportunity to attract much needed talent from Quebec:

"We don't care what is on your head. We care what is in it".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/12/quebec-values-ch...

 

This is a BRILLIANT ad campaign!  Good for them.   It won't be the first time that Ontario has benefitted from Quebec driving some of its residents out of the province.    

mark_alfred

Summer wrote:

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Why can't a federal politician who believes in separatism AND who supports left wing policies decide that they would like to represent the NDP? 

I think it would be hypocritical of both a federalist party and of a sovereigntist politician if the sovereigntist politician chose to join and were accepted by a federalist party.  I put my opinion on policy here.

Summer wrote:

I applaud Mourani for standing behind her principles.  

Joining the NDP would be a betrayal of a principle that she (I assume) feels is important, that being striving for Quebec sovereignty.

lagatta

Summer, when on earth before has Québec "driven some of its residents out of the province"?

I do hope you aren't referring to a certain type of Colonel Blimp anglophone, annoyed that the majority actually wanted to be able to live and work in their language?

Good riddance.

Stockholm

Summer wrote:

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Well maybe you should think some more.

Can you see the federal Liberals under Justin Trudeau and Stephane Dion and Co...accepting an MP who favoured Quebec separating when the Liberals age old unique selling proposition (as they see it) is that they are the party that fights separatists? NO!!!

Can you see the Tories (who are busy whispering that the NDP is full of closet separatists) undermining their own message and upsettting their redneck base in ROC by bringing in an MP who was a separatist? NO!!

Can you the Green Party wanting 50% of their federal caucus to be made up of people who are against the existence of Canada? No!

Can you see the NDP which is an ardently federalist party whose platform clearly states that it wants to find a place for Quebec within Canada and which swept Quebec in 2011 running on an explicitly federalist platform - accepting an unrepentent separatist into its ranks and then being pilloried across Canada as being "soft on separatism" NO!

ain't gonna happen. Either Mourani becomes and born again federalist or she is dead meat...maybe she could quit and run provincially for Quebec Solidaure or something like that.

She would be welcomed by any federal party IF she announced that she was now a federalist period.

 

6079_Smith_W

mark_alfred wrote:

I think it would be hypocritical of both a federalist party and of a sovereigntist politician if the sovereigntist politician chose to join and were accepted by a federalist party.  I put my opinion on policy here.

Joining the NDP would be a betrayal of a principle that she (I assume) feels is important, that being striving for Quebec sovereignty.

and @ Stockholm too

Aside from the fact that this is completely speculative, and irrelevant to this thread (as mentioned above)

And it is false. Unless personal support for  sovereignty is some special sort of heresy, unlike every other issue on which party members hold opinions that might be different than official policy without signing a blood oath - in which case one wonders how it hasn't come up before with other Quebec members who are also likely sovereigntist.

But I have no doubt this is the first and only point that would be glommed on by many in the anglo media, completely ignoring the real issue, and the real significance of her leaving caucus.

My point above about it being win-win for the PQ so long as people react in a certain way? THis is a good example.

 

sanizadeh

lagatta wrote:

Summer, when on earth before has Québec "driven some of its residents out of the province"?

I do hope you aren't referring to a certain type of Colonel Blimp anglophone, annoyed that the majority actually wanted to be able to live and work in their language?

Good riddance.

In the years after the 1995 referendum some immigrants did leave (myself included), but language was a minor issue. There were concerns about political and economic instability, and worrying that the hardline faction of the sovereignist movement might take revenge on immigrants and minorities for its failure to win (which of course didn't happen, but the concern was enough to drive some of us away).

Stockholm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And it is false. Unless personal support for  sovereignty is some special sort of heresy, unlike every other issue on which party members hold opinions that might be different than official policy without signing a blood oath - in which case one wonders how it hasn't come up before with other Quebec members who are also likely sovereigntist.

This would not be a difference of opinion about whether or not to sign a free trade agreement with Jordan - believing in a united Canada is an existential issue. You CANNOT sit in parliament as a member of a federalist party if you do not believe that Canada should exist. Point finale!!!

felixr

lagatta wrote:

She is very progressive, and could make a good NDP MP, but I suspect they would find her too "indépendantiste", even if she shuts up about the national question.

The Bloc are idiots. She was the best thing they had going for them.

Maybe she can resign and trigger a byelection. The NDP lost that seat by 1.51% in 2011.

mark_alfred

[thread drift]

6079_Smith_W wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I think it would be hypocritical of both a federalist party and of a sovereigntist politician if the sovereigntist politician chose to join and were accepted by a federalist party.  I put my opinion on policy here.

Joining the NDP would be a betrayal of a principle that she (I assume) feels is important, that being striving for Quebec sovereignty.

and @ Stockholm too

Aside from the fact that this is completely speculative, and irrelevant to this thread (as mentioned above)

And it is false. Unless personal support for  sovereignty is some special sort of heresy, unlike every other issue on which party members hold opinions that might be different than official policy without signing a blood oath - in which case one wonders how it hasn't come up before with other Quebec members who are also likely sovereigntist. (that's a bit speculative)

But I have no doubt this is the first and only point that would be glommed on by many in the anglo media, completely ignoring the real issue, and the real significance of her leaving caucus.

My point above about it being win-win for the PQ so long as people react in a certain way? THis is a good example.

Maybe.  But I'd be very surprised if they accepted someone from a sovereigntist party who had not publicly declared a change of heart.  I recall Layton stating of Garth Turner when he was booted from the Conservatives and was being courted by both the Greens and Liberals that "we wouldn't take him" (or something to that effect). His ideas were just too different from NDP policy positions.

I don't think a sovereigntist would want to be part of a federalist party, and I don't think a federalist party would want a sovereigntist to be part of their party.  Anyway, on this we can agree to disagree, since I shan't say anything more on the subject. 

[/thread drift]

6079_Smith_W

As I said above, I wonder how Lucien Bouchard would have felt about your line in the sand when he was in Mulroney's cabinet.

Speaking of lagatta's DDR reference above, somehow I don't think even a blood oath would be enough to satisfy some. Just being raised there meant you were raised a communist and couldn't be trustsd.

Now what was this thread about again? Oh yeah... the rights of people to hold certain values and still be allowed to take part in government.

 

lagatta

Sanizdeh, I understand, and that was not the group I was referring to. I was thinking of a certain "old-time" anglo exodus after the PQ's election in 1976. Remember that I'm an old fossil, and was involved in protests against the Chilean coup three years before that. It is perfectly normal that many immigrants, or members of "minority" groups, worry about political uncertainty.

Here is Québec solidaire's reaction to Maria Mourani's expulsion from caucus: http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/expulsion-de-maria-mourani-du-bloc-quebec...

And Françoise David on the "necessary and awaited" secularity debate: http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/francoise-david/2013/09/laicite-un-debat-...

Stockholm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As I said above, I wonder how Lucien Bouchard would have felt about your line in the sand when he was in Mulroney's cabinet.

As you may recall, when Lucien Bouchard was in Mulroney's cabinet he claimed to be (and i take him at his ord) a dyed in the wool federalist and had just served for several years as Canadian ambassador to France!

Brachina

 I still don't understand what she said that so upset the Bloc? Where did she strongly attack the charter?

 

 As for her joining the NDP its doubtful, it would require her to run again for one thing, and for a second we haven't heard from her yet, so I have no idea what she plans on doing.

 I will formulate a more indepth response after she has had her say on the matter. This most have been a huge shock for her and the actions of the Bloc are disgusting. 

 Does anyway else think this is good news for the NDP in Broussa (did I spell that right?) after all it seems like the sort of thing that would alienate many Urban Bloc voters.

 Anyone Else think Paille is an utter and complete goof?

lagatta

Bourassa.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I think the residents of Ahuntsic have a fantastic MP and I can't think for the life of me why anyone would want them to change up.

Lens Solution

Maria Mourani may have been the best BQ MP the Bloc had out of its current lineup.  Very charismatic and someone who was able to build links and connections across a variety of demographics.  I dont' quite understand why the BQ chose Daniel Paillie, who doesn't even have a seat, over her and the other MP's in the House.

But as others have said above, the NDP has a policy against floor-crossing, so she can't really join the NDP.  And she may still be committed to independence anyway, despite her ejection by the BQ.  And as already stated, the Conservatives and Pierre Poilieviere would just start calling the NDP caucus the 'NDPQ' as like earlier this year when Patry defected from the NDP to the BQ.  So Mulcair would be inviting accusations of being in bed with separatists if she joined.  I noticed reporter John Ivison already sort of made a crack about the NDP & the BQ being close on CBC earlier today on Evan Solomon's show.

bekayne

Lisette Lapointe ‏@LapointeLisette7h

Le "Crois ou meurs" de l'actuel chef du @BlocQuebecois rappelle de mauvais souvenirs. Nous sommes avec toi, courageuse Maria Mourani! #Polqc

5:03 PM - 12 Sep 13 · Details

 

lagatta

And a caricature by Garnotte in Le Devoir features Daniel Paillé as an Ayatollah of the Bloc, ejecting Maria Mourani from ... paradise? Or at least from the ranks of the faithful: http://www.ledevoir.com/galeries-photos/les-caricatures-de-garnotte/118471

It is unfortunate that the demonstration is taking place on Saturday, which is Yom Kippur...

Caissa

How the hell is it floor crossing when one has been ejected by another party? It's free agency to use a sports analogy.

Unionist

Mourani's expulsion is still the biggest news around here. She is supposed to speak shortly after 10 am.

Meantime, lots more reaction - including a petition among independentists to get Paillé to revoke the expulsion. His official freshly-refined public reason for expelling her is that she dared to associate Marois's charter with "ethnic nationalism". Apparently, in these circles, the truth shall set you out.

More:

[url=http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-quebecoise/201309/... furious over expulsion of Maria Mourani[/url]

Even the unlamented Bernard Landry called it an "error", thus proving that he still retains some political marbles.

And long-time Bloc activists and ex-candidates, in particular from "cultural communities", are publicly questioning their support for the BQ and the PQ.

Unionist

DaveW: Edit your post, it's messed up. But I agree with you.

 

DaveW

yes, I commented within Summer's "quote" space; post now fixed...

but down Memory Road, there were municipalities in eastern ONT posting ads saying "Come to Hawkesbury/Cornwall/Wherever" in the late 1970s and a statesman like Bill Davis stepped right in, correctly to ban them

recently, stupid Texas governor Whatsit made a point of visiting NYC, Chicago and LA to openly poach business with tax-cut rainbows, and he looked like an idiot, too;

 fair-dealing is a principle of public life that needs to be respected

DaveW

in serious matters, the commentary today mostly leans one way: divisions many among francophone opinion leaders, splitting Bloc, dividing old sovereignists, isolating many progressives from "their" party...

it is not often a Gazette editorial on Quebec issues gets any applause from me, but today The Gaz underlined that there is a very healthy division of opinion in French Quebec, and I would go one step further saying Marois may have made a fatal misstep living in her bunker bubble....

PQ could be demolished in a quick election if she is not careful

Summer

lagatta wrote:

Summer, when on earth before has Québec "driven some of its residents out of the province"?

I do hope you aren't referring to a certain type of Colonel Blimp anglophone, annoyed that the majority actually wanted to be able to live and work in their language?

Good riddance.

I don't know how Colonel Blimp is.  

I was referring to the period leading up to and and continuing after the 1995 referendum.  Surely, you haven't forgotten Parizeau's post-referendum speech.   A lot of my friends and family left Quebec in the 90s.  And yes, they were anglophones (albeit bilingual) and immigrants. Parizeau must have been thrilled.  I'm sure he would agree with your "good riddance".

A lot of Quebecers are open minded and inclusive.  Unfortunately, the current Quebec provincial government is not made up of open minded or inclusive people.   This government and many of its previous provincial governments are happy to pander to the lowest common dominator.   This Bill is not about a simple separation of church and state.  This Bill is about making Quebec a less welcome place for a certain type of person.  This Bill would ensure that  sikh men and muslim women who adhere to the doctrine that they must wear a turban or hijab, respectively are not welcome in the public service.  

In addition, this Bill is a political move calculated to increase support for the PQ. I know that there are Quebecers like Lagatta and Unionist who support a truly secular province and who love Quebec and are trying to defend it.  But the PQ has not made this Bill for you.   This Bill will be a long running wedge issue that will allow the PQ to draw support from people who are uncomfortable with a multicultural Quebec.  

Ghislaine

I am not sure what the problem is with the Ontario hospital's ad campaign. I also think it is a great idea. Doctors, specialists, etc. are in high demand all over the country and it is VERY competetive. If the Quebec gov't wants to try and make Quebec an unwelcome place to live for some people, of course other provinces are going to try and attract those who in the high demand professions.  I am in no way implying that Quebeckers as a people are more xenophobic than the ROC or that the ROC does not have xenophobia. However, at the moment, Quebec seems to have a very xenophobic ruling (minority) party. There is a huge difference between being made to feel unwelcome in an unofficial way and having a state-mandated ban on following your religion at work or being told that you basically cannot follow your religion and work in the public sector. 

What about the members of the union that has come out in support of this? Members who would be affected by this ruling must be pretty pissed. They are paying dues to a body that is supposed to represent their rights at work (such as reasonable accomodation) and now they have been abandoned in that regard. 

Will this pass? Is this the type of vote that Marois will ensure is "whipped" and is there enough support from other parties? And if it does pass, will she invoke the nothwithstanding clause as it is clearly an unconstitutional law? 

lagatta

Colonel Blimp was a cartoonish figure of an English military man who had spent decades in the Raj (British India, which included what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries) and wondered why, in the many years he had lived there, the natives had still not learnt English. There were certainly anglos like that here, and I have no regret that they went to live elsewhere. I was thinking more post-1976 than post 1995.

As per Parizeau's drunken rant: a) the Yes side had LOST the referendum and b) he was disavowed and made to leave the leadership of the PQ.

There was also a general westerly population movement within the Canadian State at that time; of course francophone Québécois were less likely to take part in that when it meant the threat of losing their language and culture.

I have taken part in the struggle to make Québec an authentically secular nation, in particular the deconfessionalisation of school boards, and think the State has no business telling people how to dress (within reason, of course, and we have to establish what is reasonable and not discriminatory towards citizens receiving public services). And that secularism has to start out by targeting what is still the dominant religion, and get the bloody crucifix out of the National Assembly, and eliminate prayer at municipal councils (silent reflection is fine, though I'd be thinking of my grocery list).

There is a huge backlash, in particular among feminists who supported Marois' election, against the way Maria Mourani, an Arab woman, was singled out by the Bloc rump group.

6079_Smith_W

I don't have a problem with poaching per se. After all, Many places do it, overtly, or politely. Sorry, but until the last few years it was simply understood that businesses and organizations from other jurisdictions would come to Saskatchewan to lure people away. I expect those from Newfoundland and Labrador understand that too.

The problem is when it is seen as capitalizing on a bad situation, or politicking.

I'd say the Ontario health region ad goes further over the line than Naheed Nenshi's Pride day comments. Both could be seen as anti-Quebec, though neither challenged sovereignty - unlike our federal government.

I offered the opinion elsewhere that you could say Nenshi and Marois are objective allies on this. If she doesn't want to be exposed to certain peoples' cultures then she should be pleased that  someone else offers a way out. Other than the obvious perception that it is anti-Quebec, what grounds are there for complaint?

Obviously it is going to be perceived and used in a number of ways, but I think it is just another example of the fact that none of this is happening in a bubble. Again, I know about the pile-on that happens whenever things take place in Quebec, but people are going to comment whether they are told they should or not.

6079_Smith_W

Full disclosure:

My grandparents were compelled to move to Quebec in the 60s when Air Canada moved much of its operations there from Winnipeg.  I got the doubly-angry anglo thing (they DIDN'T want to be there) when I was eight years old, and I had the air traffic controller story hammered into my head. I remember standing up in my first grade 5 french class back in WInnipeg and stating that we shouldn't have to learn it because we beat them at the plains of abraham.

Never mind that (as some forget) francophone culture is also older than anglo culture here in the west - particularly in the red river valley.

So yes, I got the Colonel Blimp reference, and I agree.

voice of the damned

re: Colonel Blimp. Not that I endorse the comparison, but Trudeau referred to Quebec soverteingtists as Colonel Blimps in an interview with Patrick Watson, who took some offense.

http://tinyurl.com/p58zt8r

Begins at 2:00 on the clock. Levesque's speech at the beginning is a classic, but makes an odd juxtaposition with what comes right after it.

 

 

Unionist

Maria Mourani was awesome today, in my opinion, both in her statement and in her open frank answers to questions after. Very emotional. She announced that she's quitting the Bloc. She said Paillé had simply unilaterally changed the Bloc's position overnight (he had apparently commented just before that he didn't really support the ban on religious symbols) and demanded caucus "discipline". She said that the "ethnic nationalism" comment wasn't expressed as her opinion, but rather she was reporting the reaction that many people had had. She said that until now, the party leadership had managed to chase away the intolerant demons at election time, but now for the first time, there seemed to be a turn away from the "civic nationalism" inclusiveness that had long stamped the sovereignist movement. There was also some comment about the BQ becoming a branch plant of the PQ. She said that under Duceppe, they had real caucuses, where they discussed and decided, and everyone abided by the decision. That didn't happen. She got very emotional speaking about her kids, and couldn't say who would defend their inclusion in Québec society.

Sorry for offering some of my own summary, but I haven't seen a straight unbiased report in the media yet (English especially). You can read what's already been published easily by putting her name in the Google News search bar.

ETA: Oh - and Radio-Canada commentators, as well as Le Devoir columnist Michel David, noted (correctly) that her position on the Charter is exactly the same as that of Québec Solidaire - that she is a personal friend of Amir Khadir - and that she'd be a natural fit if a provincial option opened up.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

ETA: Oh - and Radio-Canada commentators, as well as Le Devoir columnist Michel David, noted (correctly) that her position on the Charter is exactly the same as that of Québec Solidaire - that she is a personal friend of Amir Khadir - and that she'd be a natural fit if a provincial option opened up.

Just wondering how long it will be before that middle way opens up on the national front. As much as some parties pay lip service, it is not there yet as a core value.

The more I think about this, and how it has played out, the more I think this is actually a good turn of events. If it were just a case of people being beaten, killed and scorned like normal, who would pay attention to this?

I know there's a big anglo blind spot there, but hopefully there is a chance that something will move forward.

This is looking more to me like a rare opportunity. I know the majority won't get it. But some will.

 

 

 

 

Unionist

Smith - I think I understand your question, but not 100% sure, so please try again before I make an idiot of myself (i.e. more than usual). What exactly do you mean by the "national front", the "middle way", etc.

Meanwhile, here is the full text (en français) of Maria Mourani's statement this morning, though I wish I had a transcript of her exchange afterwards with reporters:

[url=http://www.mariamourani.org/index.php?id=351]Déclaration de Maria Mourani[/url]

I'll be (sort of) happy to do a translation if anyone finds Google Translate too puzzling. Just ask.

 

6079_Smith_W

I mean federal politics, and I mean a philosophy which truly embodies non-dominant (aboriginal and immigrant) culture- both in terms of policy and power.

I apologize for making you antsy, and thanks for the question to get me to put it into concrete terms

6079_Smith_W

... and I just worked my way through her statement. It would be a fucking drag if she got sidelined. They should make her PM instead, even if she might not want the job. People with compassion and brains are such a rare commodity.

 

Ghislaine

Kenney says feds will launch a legal challenge against the plan:

Quote:

Kenney also applauds Montreal MP Maria Mourani, who was kicked out of the Bloc Quebecois caucus on Thursday for opposing the charter.

Kenney says he respects Mourani, even though they hold different political views.

The minister told reporters earlier this week that the federal government is prepared to mount a legal challenge against Quebec’s plan to prevent public-sector workers in the province from wearing overt religious clothing or symbols.

[

 

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/13/jason_kenney_posts_picture_of_himself_with_sikh_head_scarf.html