Kennedy is for Nation, but Would Vote Against It
It has come to my attention that Gerard Kennedy will not support the Quebec Nation resolution that is being debated tomorrow in the House of Commons. This whole “wrap yourself in the flag and accuse the other side of being a traitor” bit is really starting to get on my nerves. You know why, because the separatists do it to us all the time.
For years, the chief argument against the Quebec sovereigntists has been: We offer the benefits of both Quebec and Canada, while sovereignty offers only Quebec. Why choose one when you can have both?
By taking he petition supporters’ position, we force Quebecers to choose between the two options. We force them into a choice between two parts of their identity. English Canada, or in this case, a few people on a patriotic crusade, seem to believe it is a Canadian nation, or nothing.
The wording of their infamous petition states “call on our elected representatives to work instead for a united, equal Canada.”
Instead? Instead of what? A divided unequal Canada? Never could I possibly imagine there would come a day when Quebec federalists were being accused of working against Canadian Unity. The petition is gaining steam and Mr. Kennedy, who after all, believes Quebec is a nation, is now seemingly taking the politically opportunistic position by rejecting this motion.
Chantal Hebert said it best today. We are permanently removing a potent weapon from the separatists’ arsenal. We have Stephen Harper to thank. We have Michael Ignatieff to thank. We have the grassroots Quebec federalists to thank.
I leave you all with a quote
"Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are surely few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average citizen is one which breeds mediocrity."
Update!
"I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it."
“I deplore that anyone would use this as a wedge issue for political gains"
And by being the only one who opposes this, Gerard is not making a wedge issue out of this?
No No...If I say that , I must be drinking Kool-Aid eh Warren?
For years, the chief argument against the Quebec sovereigntists has been: We offer the benefits of both Quebec and Canada, while sovereignty offers only Quebec. Why choose one when you can have both?
By taking he petition supporters’ position, we force Quebecers to choose between the two options. We force them into a choice between two parts of their identity. English Canada, or in this case, a few people on a patriotic crusade, seem to believe it is a Canadian nation, or nothing.
The wording of their infamous petition states “call on our elected representatives to work instead for a united, equal Canada.”
Instead? Instead of what? A divided unequal Canada? Never could I possibly imagine there would come a day when Quebec federalists were being accused of working against Canadian Unity. The petition is gaining steam and Mr. Kennedy, who after all, believes Quebec is a nation, is now seemingly taking the politically opportunistic position by rejecting this motion.
Chantal Hebert said it best today. We are permanently removing a potent weapon from the separatists’ arsenal. We have Stephen Harper to thank. We have Michael Ignatieff to thank. We have the grassroots Quebec federalists to thank.
I leave you all with a quote
"Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are surely few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average citizen is one which breeds mediocrity."
Update!
"I respect the sense of identity shared by many Quebecers, reflecting a common culture, language, history and accomplishment and I will continue to promote that identity, rather than playing divisive political games with it."
“I deplore that anyone would use this as a wedge issue for political gains"
And by being the only one who opposes this, Gerard is not making a wedge issue out of this?
No No...If I say that , I must be drinking Kool-Aid eh Warren?
par / by Anthony à / at 1:31 p.m.
8 Commentaires:
Kennedy's position is perfectly reasonable and makes sense. Its one thing to recognize that a group of people constitute a nation, its quite another to formalize that in law, divide those who dont understand the meaning, and cause unnecessary damage to national unity.
Oh and Hebert is full of crap. They debated a "distinct society" resolution ten years ago. Does anyone remember? Does anyone even care? The notion that this will make the separatists go away is unmitigated garbage.
The problem is in your argument. You begin by acknowledging that there is a English Canada and a Quebec. That's assuming your conclusion.
There is no English Canada. 13% of Canada's french are outside of Quebec. Most French in Quebec know English and French. Language is not some divisable border, unless of course you want it to be.
Nation has many definitions, most dictionary's give 4 definitions.
Three do not apply to Quebecois. So you advocate using a word that has a large chance of being misinterpreted just for some metaphysical recognition that ultimately when specified correctly, comes down to writing in the constitution, "oh yeah....and the shy is blue."
But again you assume your argument, tell me, why you think the advantages of calling the Quebecois as a nation outweigh the disadvantages such as fuelling seperatism's fire?
Hebert says:
"Without the failure to enshrine Quebec's distinct status in the Constitution in 1990, there would not have been a second referendum or a close vote on sovereignty in 1995."
All I have to say is thinking like that is what gets us into these intractible situations in the first place.
phil,
I believe we can all be proud to be part of a Canadian nation.
I also believe I can identify just as much with the Quebec nation.
I believe a Quebecer is a person who contributes to the flourishing of Quebec culture and society.
the french word is epanouissement.
I think harper should define Quebecois for the sake of clarity.
However, we must send the message to Quebecers that we support the enrichment of their nation WITHIN Canada just as much as we support the enrichment of the Canadian nation in general.
I agree with that Trudeau quote 100%, and I have been arguing all along that "the Liberal party must continue to stand for a country that promotes unity without demanding uniformity, and embraces difference without entrenching divisions."
I disagree with your interpretation of what Pierre Trudeau's opinions were, and I think I'll trust the Trudeau family to be the most reliable authority on that.
(instead of the Michael Ignatieff leadership campaign, or any other for that matter)
If Dion would vote to recognize that French-Canadians form a nation, why doesn't he table a motion to that effect? Antonio, seeing you understand the nuances so well, do French Canadians form a nation different from the Québécois nation?
Loraine Lamontagne
Québécoisse-hors-Québec !
Post a Comment
<< Home