Why Anglo media has it wrong on Quebec

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
Why Anglo media has it wrong on Quebec

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I came across this article and agreed with most of its analysis. I thought I would share it in this forum so that our posters from Quebec could share their opinions on it. I was 19 during the October Crisis and the courageous stand by Douglas and Lewis, et al, against the War Measures Act is why I was first drawn to the NDP.

Quote:

Twice this summer, my former colleague at the Toronto Star Bob Hepburn has attacked NDP leader Tom Mulcair for his position on what he terms "Quebec separation."

His latest broadside came last week: "Many Canadians could never vote for Mulcair because of the NDP's policy that Quebec could split from Canada with a referendum vote of just 50-per-cent-plus-one."

Such misleading statements have come from many anti-NDP partisans, pundits and politicians, including Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, most notably during the recent Maclean's debate when he accused Mulcair of "choosing to side with the separatist movement in Quebec."

https://nowtoronto.com/news/why-anglo-media-has-it-wrong-on-quebec/

Unionist

Yeah, Antonia pretty well nails it, on the topics she deals with at any rate.

lagatta

No surprise there were a couple of idiot comments at the end. Thanks for turning that up, Unionist. I rarely read "Now Toronto".

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I came across this article and agreed with most of its analysis. I thought I would share it in this forum so that our posters from Quebec could share their opinions on it. I was 19 during the October Crisis and the courageous stand by Douglas and Lewis, et al, against the War Measures Act is why I was first drawn to the NDP.

Quote:

Twice this summer, my former colleague at the Toronto Star Bob Hepburn has attacked NDP leader Tom Mulcair for his position on what he terms "Quebec separation."

His latest broadside came last week: "Many Canadians could never vote for Mulcair because of the NDP's policy that Quebec could split from Canada with a referendum vote of just 50-per-cent-plus-one."

Such misleading statements have come from many anti-NDP partisans, pundits and politicians, including Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, most notably during the recent Maclean's debate when he accused Mulcair of "choosing to side with the separatist movement in Quebec."

https://nowtoronto.com/news/why-anglo-media-has-it-wrong-on-quebec/

Anglos understand very well. They know that separation is no longer a threat and probably never will be. So, why repeal the Clarity Act and pass a new bill putting it at 50+1.

The NDP can't have it both ways. If it's a non-issue then why raise the subject at all?

lagatta

It's the Liberals who've been mentioning it in this federal election campaign, not the NDP.

A certain type of Anglos understand F-all about Québec. Fortunately, not all! The type who would deny that we (and by WE, I mean all of us, including you Antonia!) are a nation. Or think suburbs of all things have a right to self-determination.

A friend from Parc-Ex, who is NOT an indépendantiste, by the way, is really pissed off about how NPD Papineau (and higher up) treated Béatrice Zako. He says she had a strong following, and I said I wasn't too well informed about that, but certainly thought having a woman of colour would be a great thing for such a multicultural riding. He knows Anne Lagacé Dowson and likes her a lot, and may campaign for her, but thought the NDP was too heavy handed in its borderline parachute (not as blatant as Joly in Ahuntsic, but still...)

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

No surprise there were a couple of idiot comments at the end. Thanks for turning that up, Unionist. I rarely read "Now Toronto".

Credit goes to kropotkin, not me!

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

It's a very straight forward, informative and honest piece. Brava, Antonia!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I have started going on FB and my friends post many interesting articles. I read it and since it concurred with my understanding of the issues she discussed I wanted to test the piece out especiallywith both Unionist and Lagatta.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

It's the Liberals who've been mentioning it in this federal election campaign, not the NDP.

It is active NDP policy that they intend to pass into law if they are elected and they have said so in Quebec.

If something is active party policy it is the party that brought it up not the opposition. The NDP is trying to have it both ways. They want credit for the Sherbrooke Declaration in Quebec but don't want the rest of Canada to notice it.

takeitslowly

If Harper can form a majority government with 39 percent of the support.

 

50 +1 percent of "Yes" vote is definiately a clear majority.

 

The Liberals need to learn some math. I am so glad they are tanking in Quebec. It makes it that much easier to convince the ROC to vote for the NDP because we are the only party that has a chance to form a Government to unseat Harper.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Anglos understand very well. They know that separation is no longer a threat and probably never will be. So, why repeal the Clarity Act and pass a new bill putting it at 50+1.

The NDP can't have it both ways. If it's a non-issue then why raise the subject at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf0-oQ5_CZA

Jack Layton wrote:
...in the long term you can't really have a situation where one part of the country -- one of our founding peoples hasn't signed on to the constitution.  It's something that should be resolved someday.  I don't think it's something that needs to be tackled right off the bat but what you want to do is create those winning conditions first.  You want to create that sense of positive moving forward so that when and if that day does come you can be assured of success.

I think Jack explained it well (though the video centred on language issues, but the issue of respect -- a winning condition -- also applies with the replacing the unclear Clarity Act with the Unity Bill, I feel.  Canada should be confident that Quebec will never have over half of its population wish for sovereignty).

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Anglos understand very well. They know that separation is no longer a threat and probably never will be. So, why repeal the Clarity Act and pass a new bill putting it at 50+1.

The NDP can't have it both ways. If it's a non-issue then why raise the subject at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf0-oQ5_CZA

Jack Layton wrote:
...in the long term you can't really have a situation where one part of the country -- one of our founding peoples hasn't signed on to the constitution.  It's something that should be resolved someday.  I don't think it's something that needs to be tackled right off the bat but what you want to do is create those winning conditions first.  You want to create that sense of positive moving forward so that when and if that day does come you can be assured of success.

I think Jack explained it well (though the video centred on language issues, but the issue of respect -- a winning condition -- also applies with the replacing the unclear Clarity Act with the Unity Bill, I feel.  Canada should be confident that Quebec will never have over half of its population wish for sovereignty).

Then that is the argument Mulcair should be presenting to the rest of Canada instead of pretending it's a non-issue that Trudeau is raising without cause. The NDP should defend the Sherbrooke Declaration in all of Canada not just in Quebec.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

 They want credit for the Sherbrooke Declaration in Quebec but don't want the rest of Canada to notice it.

What an ill informed statement. Are you are claiming we are too stupid or ill informed to notice? I can tell you that not a single vote in my riding is going to be cast based on the parties positions on the Clarity Act.  Its like a recurring toothache that nobody wants to think about because it is not hurting at present.

Now if you want to discuss coal mines or LNG or salmon farming or PR then you will find plenty of people well informed and paying attention.  Trudeau appears to be trying to raise the issue to win seats in Ontario and it appears he has mostly written off his home province.  We shall see just how good a strategy that turns out to be.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Then that is the argument Mulcair should be presenting to the rest of Canada instead of pretending it's a non-issue that Trudeau is raising without cause. The NDP should defend the Sherbrooke Declaration in all of Canada not just in Quebec.

He is not pretending, it is a non issue. It is you and your has been party that is trying to relive old battles that are irrelevant to voters in this election.

sherpa-finn

The Liberal Party has never really recovered from the shock that despite its Captain Canada persona, IT had actually come within a hair's breadth of "losing Quebec" in 1995. And then the Party effectively shot itself in both feet with the ensuing AdScam corruption scandal, thereby sealing its political fate for 20 years (perhaps for ever).

The LPC's lame attempts to fan the fires of Quebec nationalism - and its own political revival - by waving the much-detested Clarity Act in the face of Quebec citizens is clear and powerful evidence of the shallowness of its political analyis and the ineptitide of its current leadership.

mark_alfred

I suspect we're not going to hear any more from Trudeau about this issue.  I think they realize that it was a foolish move by Trudeau during the debate that has completely cratered their Quebec numbers.*

_____

* of course, I might be assuming too much here.  Their campaign has been all over the map, so who knows?

lagatta

kropotkin, very few people here (except a rump group of Bloquistes) are voting on that issue either. Yes, I have an e-mail from an old friend in BC - about support to the Unist’ot’en people in northwestern BC. Strangely, not a word about the Clarity Act.

Here is the statement, by the way: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19LH8d1HKrXD5tZugi1yxLE3Abhj6dv8W_t8eF_N...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes Lagatta they need allies in their fight to defend their unceded territories. 

I think most people I know believe the NDP has supplanted the Bloc and will likely gain seats. As a person who wants to support other nations aspirations I of course will defer to the MP's chosen from Quebec. I understand that since I know very little French I have but a superficial understanding of the many nuances of options for Quebec and its relationship with the other provinces and terrritories. However it seems to me that the NDP has Quebec MP's who do understand and are progressive people. Most progressives on this Coast will be glad to defer to them rather than go to battle against them on behalf of Trudeau the Lesser.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Then that is the argument Mulcair should be presenting to the rest of Canada instead of pretending it's a non-issue that Trudeau is raising without cause. The NDP should defend the Sherbrooke Declaration in all of Canada not just in Quebec.

He is not pretending, it is a non issue. It is you and your has been party that is trying to relive old battles that are irrelevant to voters in this election.

If it is irrelevant and a non-issue why is Mulcair assuring Quebec that it is current active NDP policy that they will pass legislation on if elected?

Are you not familiar with NDP policy?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't know its like why is Mulcair not talking about the salmon fishery in Montreal or the dairy industry when he's on Vancouver Island. Do you know anything about campaigns and how messaging at specific events is designed to touch on the issues for that particular region or riding.

The other thing you just don't get is that progressive people I know think a simple majority is the proper test. Many are still pissed that over 59% of voters chose STV as an electoral system but it was not a big enough majority so the minority view prevailed.  If the Quebec government wants to sit down and discuss a new constitutional arrangement then they can inform the rest of the federation. Who cares what kind of vote or non-vote triggers it because at the end of the day any negotiations triggered by any means will still have all the same issues on the table. As an outsider I don't see that happening anytime soon because there does not seem to be a clear consensus within Quebec on what a new relationship should look like. But the subtext to the issue is what does Trudeau propose to do if the Quebec government demands to meet to discuss separation. Ignore the National Assembly and refuse to even talk? 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't know its like why is Mulcair not talking about the salmon fishery in Montreal or the dairy industry when he's on Vancouver Island. Do you know anything about campaigns and how messaging at specific events is designed to touch on the issues for that particular region or riding.

Yes I do, and when such subjects come up in a national debate the party concerned should deal with it rather than going into denial.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The other thing you just don't get is that progressive people I know think a simple majority is the proper test. Many are still pissed that over 59% of voters chose STV as an electoral system but it was not a big enough majority so the minority view prevailed.

I don't see what that has to do with anything because Trudeau supports STV.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
If the Quebec government wants to sit down and discuss a new constitutional arrangement then they can inform the rest of the federation.

Quebec separation is not a "new constitutional arrangement".  Quebec's contract is not with the federal government it is with all the provinces.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Who cares what kind of vote or non-vote triggers it because at the end of the day any negotiations triggered by any means will still have all the same issues on the table. As an outsider I don't see that happening anytime soon because there does not seem to be a clear consensus within Quebec on what a new relationship should look like.

There is a clear consensus that Quebecers do not want to separate from Canada. 70% of Quebecers are as content with our current relationship with the federal government as are all the other provinces.

There is simply no reason for the Sherbrooke declaration to exist other than to pander to separatists. The SCC determined that a threshold cannot be established as an absolute because other factors would also have to be considered therefore a simple majority is insuffcient.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
But the subtext to the issue is what does Trudeau propose to do if the Quebec government demands to meet to discuss separation. Ignore the National Assembly and refuse to even talk?

The same thing they will do if the Ontario government demands to meet to discuss separation. Deal with it when it happens depending on the surrounding circumstances.

lagatta

Perhaps it is because it is a matter of democracy, non?

Why are you even worried about this when there is little appetite for outright independence now and less still for a referendum? Because it is something the Upper-Class Twit™ can use to score debating points as he gushes about "Le Canada"?

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Perhaps it is because it is a matter of democracy, non?

Why are you even worried about this when there is little appetite for outright independence now and less still for a referendum? Because it is something the Upper-Class Twit™ can use to score debating points as he gushes about "Le Canada"?

I care because Mulcair falsely accused Trudeau and Duceppe as being the only ones who want to talk about separation when it is Mulcair who is promising Quebec that he will follow through on the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Mulcair is running for the Prime Ministership of Canada; he will have to say the same thing in English as he does in French.

You can bet this issue is going to come up in the French debate and it will be discussed in the English media.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

I care because Mulcair falsely accused Trudeau and Duceppe as being the only ones who want to talk about separation when it is Mulcair who is promising Quebec that he will follow through on the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Mulcair is running for the Prime Ministership of Canada; he will have to say the same thing in English as he does in French.

You can bet this issue is going to come up in the French debate and it will be discussed in the English media.

Here is a link to the Sherbrooke Declaration adopted by the General Council of the Quebec section of the NDP in 2005.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0Q-0xxlqzOeU3NrZ0JTbUpTT2V6d2t5UE13WWJj...

Please explain what it is about the actual document that all Canadians should fear. Why is it so repugnant to you?  Is it the fact that it starts with the concept of having a social democratic government in Canada and that this sentiment is shared from coast to coast to coast?

Or to you disagree with Quebec having the right to self-determination?

 

Unionist

Just for reference, here's a table I created in January 2012 when we were having lots of discussion about this issue, including the NDP's then-proposed "Unity Act" to replace the "Clarity Act":

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Québec has a right to seperate. It was here long before Canada.

It's called democracy. Nice to see you hate that concept.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

The Supreme Court of which country?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

The Supreme Court of which country?

 

I'm guessing that Pandering doesn't realize that Québec is already a nation. Nor does she have a clue about Québec politics.

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Québec has a right to seperate. It was here long before Canada.

It's called democracy. Nice to see you hate that concept.

You have a very simplistic notion of democracy. Quebec participated in the creation of Canada. It did not exist with it's current borders prior to the birth of Canada as a country. Quebec is not an occupied territory which was part of the conclusion of the SCC decision.

How the 51% of votes were distributed throughout the province would also matter. What if a large majority of Montrealers didn't want to separate from Canada? What about the Eastern Townships? Much of northern Quebec was not part of Quebec in 1866. It's aboriginal lands and their deal is with Ottawa not Quebec.

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Democracy. Here's my simplistic view.

Under 40% of a vote gives us a government absolute power that does not even try to represent the majority.

But 50% +1 is a bogus majority.

Hmm. Interesting.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

Actually I think that your inane satatement would make most people at least roll their eyes. You seem to know less about negotiation in the real world than you do about the constitution. Hell I think that long before the borders are drawn there might be one or two preliminary discussions on other items. They might even have to meet to determine the shape of the table given the symbolic nature of any talks.

Spouses have the right to leave a relationship without meeting any prerequisites. How they divvy up the childcare and family assets is a matter for negotiations or court cases. Unless you think that if an intrangent Quebec government would not listen to the federal governments view then civil war is a possibility.

lagatta

Indigenous nations, yes. Suburbs and municipalities, no.

There has to be nation to nation negotiation IN GOOD FAITH with First Peoples whatever might happen constitutionally.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

Actually I think that your inane satatement would make most people at least roll their eyes. You seem to know less about negotiation in the real world than you do about the constitution. Hell I think that long before the borders are drawn there might be one or two preliminary discussions on other items. They might even have to meet to determine the shape of the table given the symbolic nature of any talks.

Spouses have the right to leave a relationship without meeting any prerequisites. How they divvy up the childcare and family assets is a matter for negotiations or court cases. Unless you think that if an intrangent Quebec government would not listen to the federal governments view then civil war is a possibility.

People should know that the borders would have to be negotiated otherwise they don't know what they are voting for. The talks would not be symbolic. Parizeau was ready to declare independence.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

Actually I think that your inane satatement would make most people at least roll their eyes. You seem to know less about negotiation in the real world than you do about the constitution. Hell I think that long before the borders are drawn there might be one or two preliminary discussions on other items. They might even have to meet to determine the shape of the table given the symbolic nature of any talks.

Spouses have the right to leave a relationship without meeting any prerequisites. How they divvy up the childcare and family assets is a matter for negotiations or court cases. Unless you think that if an intrangent Quebec government would not listen to the federal governments view then civil war is a possibility.

People should know that the borders would have to be negotiated otherwise they don't know what they are voting for. The talks would not be symbolic. Parizeau was ready to declare independence.


Please keep pushing this and identifying yourself as Liberal. I am sure this will help the LPC in Quebec. LOL

lagatta

Hmm, I've been involved in (union-management) negotiations for many years. The rapport des forces is far more important than any legal text.

And all of this is a bit silly as there is no clamour for a new referendum these days.

I can't believe you live in the Plateau and speak of "sovereignists" as if they were some strange manic creatures. That bears no relation to preferring federalism, which is certainly legitimate. But this "othering" of your neighbours is very odd.

No problem for Justin, as he doesn't even reside in Québec, let alone Papineau. He could live in Aylmer, for cripes sake. That part of Gatineau is very nice.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

Hmm, I've been involved in (union-management) negotiations for many years. The rapport des forces is far more important than any legal text.

And all of this is a bit silly as there is no clamour for a new referendum these days.

I can't believe you live in the Plateau and speak of "sovereignists" as if they were some strange manic creatures. That bears no relation to preferring federalism, which is certainly legitimate. But this "othering" of your neighbours is very odd.

No problem for Justin, as he doesn't even reside in Québec, let alone Papineau. He could live in Aylmer, for cripes sake. That part of Gatineau is very nice.

They aren't strange manic creatures at all but the primary separatist movement does consider the Quebec borders fixed. Are you claiming otherwise? QS is not representative of the movement and Quebec already has sovereignty. Quebec chose to participate in the creation of Canada and has confirmed that decision twice in referendums. The NDP wants to change Quebec's relationship with the rest of Canada. He doesn't get to discuss that in Quebec and silence it in the rest of Canada.

Someone should inform Mulcair that there is no clamour for a new referendum because he has said that he will pass legislation based on the Sherbrooke Declaration.

swallow swallow's picture

Quote:
There is simply no reason for the Sherbrooke declaration to exist other than to pander to separatists.

Actually, it is "pandering" to democrats, Pondering. Like most other federalists outside the Island of The Gazette, I find the Clarity Act to be an attack on the democratic rights of Quebec's people to choose their own future. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Should my wife be allowed to leave me without my approval?

She's not even a majority!

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

That's a complete misread of the decision, and you know it.  A "simple majority" in the decision refers to the question of whether this gives Quebec the right to unilaterally secede.  It is not referring to the size of the majority.  "Simple majority", within the context of how it's used in the decision, could refer to any sized majority, be it a large or small majority.  So even if 100% of the electorate votes to secede, this simple majority is an insufficient basis for Quebec to unilaterally secede.  There needs to be a variety of other conditions met as well, such as negotiations, etc.

Anyway, the Clarity Act is seen by many as disrectful to Quebec.  So the NDP plans to replace it with the Unity Act.  This is a part of the overall goal of being respectful and creating the winning conditions (as Layton described in the video I linked to earlier) for Quebec to sign onto the Constitution someday.  If instead of the inane (and I believe intentially) misleading snipes, feel free to actually state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan?

Anyway, it's not being highlighted in this campaign because it isn't a pressing concern of anyone (besides yourself).  Most people are thinking about jobs, the economy, health care, child care, etc.  But again, you also know that, I assume.

Unionist

Debating Québec's right to self-determination with Pondering ought really not to be allowed on this discussion forum. I don't know if she means what she says or is just trying out her debating skills (0 on a 0-10 scale) - or if whatever Justin Trudeau wakes up saying becomes her automatic talking points. All I know is that colonial opinions like hers, besides being anathema to anyone who believes in the freedom and equality of nations, are grist to the mill of those narrow-minded Québec so-called nationalists who insist that until "we" get out of Canada, we can't accomplish anything else. You know, the newly-found religion of Pierre-Karl Péladeau and his ilk. Pondering should give him a call. They work well together.

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
Anyway, the Clarity Act is seen by many as disrectful to Quebec.  So the NDP plans to replace it with the Unity Act.  This is a part of the overall goal of being respectful and creating the winning conditions (as Layton described in the video I linked to earlier) for Quebec to sign onto the Constitution someday.  If instead of the inane (and I believe intentially) misleading snipes, feel free to actually state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan? 

There is no movement in Quebec demanding fresh constitutional talks. If Quebec does express a desire to sign the constitution it will be up to the Quebec government of the day to decide what they want. Quebec hasn't been agitating for the Sherbrooke Declaration or against the Clarity Act.

mark_alfred wrote:
Anyway, it's not being highlighted in this campaign because it isn't a pressing concern of anyone (besides yourself).  Most people are thinking about jobs, the economy, health care, child care, etc.  But again, you also know that, I assume.

Whether or not it is being "highlighted" it is active current NDP policy that Mulcair has mentioned multiple times in Quebec. He still has every intention of fulfilling its legislative goals. Voters have a right to know about it. Mulcair should not have a problem defending NDP policy anywhere in Canada.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Debating Québec's right to self-determination with Pondering ought really not to be allowed on this discussion forum. I don't know if she means what she says or is just trying out her debating skills (0 on a 0-10 scale) - or if whatever Justin Trudeau wakes up saying becomes her automatic talking points. All I know is that colonial opinions like hers, besides being anathema to anyone who believes in the freedom and equality of nations, are grist to the mill of those narrow-minded Québec so-called nationalists who insist that until "we" get out of Canada, we can't accomplish anything else. You know, the newly-found religion of Pierre-Karl Péladeau and his ilk. Pondering should give him a call. They work well together.

The people of Quebec have the right to self-determination and have expressed it multiple times so that isn't up for debate. How about respecting the majority of Quebecers who don't want to talk about another referendum much less pass legislation about it? There is no groundswell of demand for the Clarity Act to be repealed. If there comes a time when the Constitution is reopened for negotiations Quebec will make it's own demands. The NDP, not Quebec, is driving this issue.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering, if that majority of Quebecers don't want another referendum, it won't happen.  It's enough that that's the case.

Only right-wing anti-Quebec Anglo-supremacists would possibly object to the Sherbrooke Declaration or defend the reactionary and anti-democratic Clarity Act, a law that insults Quebecers by implying that the Quebec government couldn't be trusted to count their own constituents' votes in a sovereignty referendum or accept a narrow defeat(never mind that they DID accept a narrow defeat in the last referendum).  If any other part of Canada were to vote to renegotiate the terms of their connection to the whole, the government would automatically accept 50% +1 "Yes" as a legitimate result.  Why ONLY call such a result into question if it's Quebec.

And all a "Yes" vote in a referendum would do is trigger negotiations on Quebec's status, it wouldn't mean instant separation. Just negotiations.  And what is so terrible about negotiations?  That's the way civilized people solve disputes.

And the Clarity Act is not enough to justify calling for progressives to vote for the conservative and totally out-to-date Liberals instead of the NDP(a party that beats the Liberals now in every part of the country other than the Maritimes).  The voters aren't angry at the NDP stance on this issue and they know what the NDP's stance is perfectly well.

Your party has lost the argument on this issue.

mark_alfred

Thanks for your response Pondering.  However, you neglected to answer my simple yes or no question, which was,

mark_alfred wrote:
[Please] state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan?

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:
Pondering, if that majority of Quebecers don't want another referendum, it won't happen.  It's enough that that's the case.

Then there is no need to repeal the Clarity Act.

Ken Burch wrote:
Only right-wing anti-Quebec Anglo-supremacists would possibly object to the Sherbrooke Declaration or defend the reactionary and anti-democratic Clarity Act, a law that insults Quebecers by implying that the Quebec government couldn't be trusted to count their own constituents' votes in a sovereignty referendum or accept a narrow defeat(never mind that they DID accept a narrow defeat in the last referendum).  If any other part of Canada were to vote to renegotiate the terms of their connection to the whole, the government would automatically accept 50% +1 "Yes" as a legitimate result.  Why ONLY call such a result into question if it's Quebec.

The Clarity Act applies to all the provinces not just Quebec.

Ken Burch wrote:
And all a "Yes" vote in a referendum would do is trigger negotiations on Quebec's status, it wouldn't mean instant separation. Just negotiations.  And what is so terrible about negotiations?  That's the way civilized people solve disputes.

Negotiations for separation end in separation.

The Canadian government has a responsibility to all Canadians including those who live in Quebec to protect our rights. If the time comes that another referendum is held the negotiations should begin before the vote not after so that people know what they are voting for. Both the question and the threshold should be negotiated at that time. That too is the democratic way.

Ken Burch wrote:
And the Clarity Act is not enough to justify calling for progressives to vote for the conservative and totally out-to-date Liberals instead of the NDP(a party that beats the Liberals now in every part of the country other than the Maritimes).

It's up to individuals to decide which issues sway their votes.

Ken Burch wrote:
The voters aren't angry at the NDP stance on this issue and they know what the NDP's stance is perfectly well.

Then Mulcair shouldn't have a problem defending it during debates.

Ken Burch wrote:
Your party has lost the argument on this issue.

I don't think so. I think most people will believe that Mulcair is using it to try to appeal to Quebec nationalists/separatists.

quizzical

you've proven over and over again you don't have a clue about other people's thinking and beliefs pondering. you're a micro  of the Liberals macro inability to understand.

swallow swallow's picture

I agree, this is precisely the attitude that explains why the Liberals have little support in Quebec outside Montreal. But of course, it helps them to mobilize anti-Quebec sentiment outside Quebec. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

I agree, this is precisely the attitude that explains why the Liberals have little support in Quebec outside Montreal. But of course, it helps them to mobilize anti-Quebec sentiment outside Quebec. 

Yes. And please don't forget to add: It provides right-wing Québec nationalists with nonstop talking points about why "we" need to get our asses out of Canada.

 

Pages