November 1, 2006

La nation remise en perspective...

Bernard Landry doit rire dans sa barbe. Mes collègues libéraux du ROC sont tombés dans le piège que Bernard Landry leur avait tendu. En appuyant la position soutenue par Michael Ignatieff, il s'assurait d'un backlash certain dans le Canada-Anglais. Il tentait donc de s'assurer que la résolution sur la reconnaissance de la nation québécoise soit rejetée au congrès de décembre.

Je demeure convaincu qu'il voit dans l'ouverture de l'aile québécoise du PLC une menace importante au dogme séparatiste. Malheureusement, les libéraux des autres provinces sont tombés dans le panneau. Le raisonnement des opposants est simpliste. La lettre de M. Landry nous permettait facilement de remettre en question la raison même du séparatisme. Il parlait du Québec comme d'une nation émancipée et qui avait tous les outils nécessaires à sa prospérité. Pourquoi donc se séparer si le Québec s'est si bien développé dans le cadre fédéral ?

Certains candidats ont décidé de casser du sucre sur le dos du Québec afin de faire des progrès dans le reste du pays. C'est triste et irresponsable comme attitude. Si le PLC souhaite regagner le pouvoir, ça passe essentiellement par une performance décente au Québec. Je trouve déplorable qu'un certain candidat ait pris un virage à 180 dans sa position de la reconnaissance formelle de l'existence de la nation québécoise. Avec une performance TRÈS moyenne au Québec, l'ex-néo-démocrate a décidé de tenter de faire des gains ailleurs au pays aux dépens du Québec. So much pour l'ami du Québec, celui qui comprend le Québec parce qu'il a fait du porte-à-porte au cours de deux référendums... Doit-on croire que les milliers de gens qui ont afflué à Montréal le 27 octobre 1995, pour le love-in, ont une connaissance profonde du Québec ?

Je suis déçu de la tournure du débat sur la nation. Ce n'était pas une question de campagne à la direction. C'est une initiative qui vient de la base militante du Parti. Ce fut adopté par plus des deux tiers de la salle du Conseil général, bien plus que le nombre de supporters d'Ignatieff présents.

Alex Plante

6 Commentaires:

Blogger Altavistagoogle a dit...

Ça fait partie de la game. Les Canadiens-anglais veulent le status quo, mais pas les Amérindiens et pas les Québécois.

Faut dire aussi que plusieurs ont peur que le statut de "nation" dans la constitution puisse éventuellement être utilisé pour permettre la loi sur l'affichage (qui bénificie présentement de la clause temporaire non-obstante).

C'est une crainte légitime.

11/01/2006 7:39 a.m.  
Blogger Alex Plante a dit...

Westmountliberal,

Si vous étiez un peu plus ouvert à la culture francophone, vous sauriez que l'expression "casser du sucre" est relativement commune.

Je ne cite donc pas Jean Lapierre en particulier. Si vous fouillez dans mes textes précédents, vous trouverez probablement cette locution.

En passant, Jean Lapierre a habituellement un bon vocabulaire donc je ne me gênerai pas d'utiliser les mêmes mots, ça ne veut pas dire que je partage toujours ses idées...

Alex

11/01/2006 10:23 a.m.  
Blogger Gavin Magrath a dit...

Les Quebecois forment une nation... meme le peuple de terre-nouveau, meme les acadies, meme les metis, etc. Le Quebec n'est pas une nation, c'est une province du Canada. Le Quebec et les Quebecoise ne sont pas egal.

G

11/01/2006 2:50 p.m.  
Blogger ottlib a dit...

big gay als...

What a large handle. I hope you will forgive me for being too lazy to write it all out.

I will try to give you an answer to your question from my own perspective.

I have seen all of the arguments against Quebec being a nation. They are logical, cogent, and intelligent and on an intellectual and emotional level I agree with them. However, they all fail to answer a very important question, namely, "What is the perception within Quebec?

You mention all sorts of jurisdictions and political entities that have different cultures, traditions and history but you forget to ask if the people in these entities have a sense that they are a nation.

So, is their a consensus amongst Newfoundlanders that they are a nation? Manitobans? Ontarians? Albertans?

There is an intangible quality to nationhood and that is a sense of belonging to one. There are many places that meet the logical criteria of being a nation but none of them are considered to be nations mainly because the people living there do not consider it to be one.

Would anybody suggest Hawaii or Alaska are nations separate from the American one? They meet the objective criteria so why are they not considered nations?

Why is Canada considered a nation? Our country is huge with many disparate cultures and traditions yet we are still considered a nation. Why? Because its people have a sense of belonging to the Canadian nation.

Although it is painful we have been watching the evolution of Quebec society over the last half century and it has reached a point where they now consider themselves to be a nation.

We cannot turn that clock back so our challenge as Canadians will be to deal with this reality in a constructive manner.

As I have stated before we can follow the Conservative model, which is to loosen the federation to the point where the Canadian sense of nation will begin to erode or we can come up with another alternative. Just be clear that such an alternative will require acknowledging Quebec nationhood as a necessary step. Being in denial is no longer an option.

I have no idea on what else to do and neither do any of the leadership candidates. And that is the unfortunate part in all of this. We had an opportunity to begin a meaningful debate on how to handle this issue but instead Liberals let it degenerate into just another partisan fight between leadership candidates.

11/01/2006 3:12 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

An interesting perspective on the debate today from www.uni.ca (Not my writing):


Perspective on the "Quebec as a nation" debate

We wanted to write something about Arctic Sovereignty. What an interesting new concept. How timely. How romantic. Far away, alien landscapes, warming away under the weight of the world's greatest environmental threat, opening new waterways that could dwarf the traffic of the Panama Canal; "military" icebreakers chasing nuclear submarines. And there we are, Canada, Defender of the North, staring down the Danes, admonishing American ambassadors, looking across to the Russians and the Chinese in a very close circle colder than a cold war. Top of the world Ma! Top of the World!

But no, you just couldn't leave it alone for a week. One week so we could write something sexy for a change. Now this vote grabber from the Quebec Liberals and we have to focus yet again on troubleshooting the offending script in our national program "Quebec <"equals"> <"does not equal"> Nation".

It is not that complicated. That is unless you have a hidden agenda trying to use sociological concepts to lead others into a legal trap. Quebec is what it is. Always was, always will be. Oversimplification? No, it's a form of Open federalism, also called "Cosmonationalism" which we coined here at Uni.ca many years ago but which has always been a truth as true as logic in a debate overwrought with emotion.

Cosmonationalism accepts that multiple identity layers within one person or group can exist without negating or detracting from each other. It means that identities can coexist in mutual support. It means that I can be from my family, my neighbourhood, my city, my province, my country, my continent, my species, my planet and beyond. I don't have to choose one over the other, and my family, neighbourhood, planet, do not have to be "better" then anyone else's to have "value".

Of course Quebec is a unique geographic and sociological area. The people that live there constitute an identifiable group. That is one reason they already have a strong, well-identified political unit of their own, called the "Province of Quebec".

Quebecois today are not an oppressed people by any measure but the most absurd. How insulting it must feel to the truly-oppressed in Darfur and Iraq and elsewhere, who hear the language of the oppressed so over used and abused in Canada. Quebec has genuine avenues of expression and affect for all manners of cultural and political rights and social desires. They have not only the respect and recognition of their neighbours, but even love and envy. Quebec is what it is, so when someone asks you to place a label, if it is just labeling reality, what is it for?

The label of "Nation" is being used by secessionists precisely because it is imprecise. Of course Quebec is a nation by some definition. But if political leaders canonize that into law, it becomes the basis for secession. If they refuse, it is a national insult that some say should be returned with secession.

Do not fall into this trap. The question is moot. Quebec is what it is, and it is great. It is its own history and future, and it is part of the history and the future of the great country and the great peoples of Canada. It will not miraculously break-off and float into the North Atlantic no matter what referendum says yes or no to whatever obscure question that one group of politicians or another have formed to best serve their political interests.

Quebeckers, Canadians, wake-up, get focused, deal with today's priorities today and we can play semantics and legalism and budget imbalancing later. We have much work to do, our planet is melting, people are dying needlessly, damn it, Canada is at War needlessly! And while you're getting your little labelmaker ready to tell our people who is who and what group is separate from others, the rest of the world is trying to get together.

11/03/2006 3:23 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous a dit...

I like this part most, it's a great argument, the kind that really makes you think twice:



"Of course Quebec is a unique geographic and sociological area. The people that live there constitute an identifiable group. That is one reason they already have a strong, well-identified political unit of their own, called the "Province of Quebec"."

11/03/2006 3:25 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home