September 13, 2006

Linguistic Divide Beginning to Form in Canadian Media

Last week to sign up delegates = Only have time to blog at 7:30AM

After every major English Newspaper had lambasted Michael Ignatieff on his proposal for Constitutional Reform, someone finally came to Ignatieff’s defense, and if you ask any Quebecker, it is never bad to have Andre Pratte on your side.

Here are some highlights:

“I am not surprised that The Globe's editorial board would worry about the impact of such a fundamental change to our Constitution. What deeply disturbs me, however, is the premise of the reasoning: "The current approach to national unity is working . . ." the editorial stated. "National unity is not threatened."

Pardon me? (HAHA I fell off my chair when I read this)

La Presse recently published a poll indicating that even though the Parti Quebecois is led by the unpopular and inexperienced Andre Boisclair, 45 per cent of Quebeckers would vote Yes if a referendum were held today. That is exactly what polls showed three weeks before the 1995 vote.”

It is true that constitutional discussions are extremely difficult. But they are certainly less so -- and much less painful -- than negotiating the breakup of the country, as would need to happen (so stated the Supreme Court) if the separatists won a referendum by a clear majority.

The goal should be to take the feeling expressed during the love-in demonstration held in Montreal a couple of days before the 1995 referendum and bolt it -- in words yet to be found -- in the Constitution. We should not do this because it's easy, but because it's absolutely necessary. If political leaders of Upper and Lower Canada were able to agree in 1867, after decades of crisis, violence and mutual prejudice, why would it be impossible in today's Canada?.”

Nobody can question Andre Pratte’s federalism as many Quebec federalists see Pratte as the main Quebec journalist who consistently is an ardent defender of Canada.

So as the English Papers across Canada keep telling you nothing is wrong, do not say that you were not forewarned.

There is a provincial election next year.

The PQ LEADS Jean Charest’s Liberals.

They have said they WILL call a referendum early in the first mandate.

This time next year, we could be back in a referendum. The threat is clear, and it is there.

On another note, Stephane Dion’s “Canada works better in theory than in practice” was lauded by Roy Macgregor as well as my Canadian Federalism professor yesterday.

Well Mr. Dion, you keep saying that theory is for Quebec and practice is for the rest of Canada and see what happens.

Some may be surprised that Stephane Dion is willing to say Quebec is a nation but still refuses to write it down in stone. His support is based in English Canada so he has to stay true to them, however, if he is chosen leader, Quebeckers will not forget the latest ruse out of Stephane Dion.

The Quebec nation will continue to fight for recognition. The majority would rather see that recognition WITHIN Canada. However, more arrogance from outside Quebec and Stephane Dion will not make this any easier.

I will end the way Andre Pratte did, as it may send a chill down our spine a year from now.

“Mr. Ignatieff's rival, Bob Rae, told The Globe that he would never go back to the constitutional table, "unless I had to." The problem is, as happened in 1995, the day Mr. Rae and other English Canadians realize that they have to, it will probably be too late.”

9 Commentaires:

Blogger Sinestra a dit...

My very dear Antonio. It was great seeing you the other day and I won't for get your parting words ;)

Just a couple of points: As a Quebecer you should never use that offensive 'k'. It's an Upper Canadian media device that grates on anglo-Quebecers. Afer all where is the 'k' in Quebec?

The other and more pressing concern is that your boy, Iggy, seems to feel the only answer to address any national unity 'concern' is re-opening the constitution. No Quebecer is doubting the PQ is gaining strength. Most Quebecers cringe at the thought of the Iggster yanking open the constitution again. It's an amateurish response to an age-old problem. With respect to M. Pratte.

9/13/2006 9:31 a.m.  
Blogger Hammering Jow a dit...

Neither Charest nor Boisclair have asked for this, nor have they said would sign the constitution if this was in it!

So, what else would you add to this distinction to get their signature?

Since it is a negotiation, why would Iggy assume they would not ask for more?

Why would other premiers sign on to this amendment with nothing in return for them? What is in it for the west who are unhappy about the senate representation?

I thought the point of this leadership race was to UNITE the party. Yet, this proposal is the most divisive thing since Meech!

9/13/2006 10:11 a.m.  
Blogger The Rat a dit...

Another referendum in the age of the blogs. What a thought! Remember the outrage over a couple of goobers stepping on a Quebec flag? Imagine that multiplied by a few thousand when blog after blog say "Enough! Get the hell out already!" The PQ will have piles of inflammatory rhetoric to use, and I think they will win.

9/13/2006 2:13 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

Jennifer,

you can tell Ken I told you so for me...then maybe he can re-sign my shirt.

I told him the Habs are retiring 9 sweaters in 3 years and he would likely be next year as they were doing the 70s.

Soon 29 will hang in the rafters...

As for the comments, Quebeckers support getting quebec into the constitution.

It would severely weaken the sovereigntist movement. Andre Pratte is right jennifer, we cant wait until its too late.

Charest is on the record saying he would want constitutional negotations but only in the second mandate. It is from around Christmas 2004.

Who cares what Boisclair wants...he would never want this...becvause his cause would greatly suffer...the movement would have died if Meech passed and lets not forget both Stephane and Bob SUPPORT meech...only Kennedy as far as I know, is opposed.

As for other premiers, saying no to Quebec getting in because they selfishly want something else is a political death sentence, even for Danny Williams.

9/13/2006 6:09 p.m.  
Blogger grit heart a dit...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/13/2006 9:00 p.m.  
Blogger grit heart a dit...

Antonio:

Charest's published party program is clear.

A five point program and NO constitutional talks.

9/13/2006 9:01 p.m.  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

December 22nd 2004

Jean Charest said he is open to constitutional talks but only in his second mandate


The story is by Alan DeSouza in the CanWest papers

So Grit Heart, youre WRONG

A leader can say something not necessarily in his platform...you have attacked Michael on things like that since the beginning of the campaign.

9/14/2006 8:08 a.m.  
Blogger Sinestra a dit...

Antonio, dearest, who exactly are the Quebecers who want this? I'm inhabiting the same province as you - yet my anglo, franco and allophone friends find this quite stupid. No one's talking constitution except Iggy. He's like a friggin throwback to a less peaceful era. Whoever is advising him that this the way to unify the pary and Quebecers ought to have his head examined.

As much as it pains me, Dion was right on this in Qcity. You can tell Ken 'I told you so' yourself. Right after you throw your promised second ballot support behind Team Dryden.

Go 29.

9/14/2006 11:17 a.m.  
Blogger grit heart a dit...

Antonio:

You are quoting December 2004. Charest platform was adopted since then, hence it trumps his earlier comments as his position.

So you are WRONG.

9/14/2006 4:17 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home