Today, Canada is Stronger
Was I ever expecting this?
Today Prime Minister Harper demonstrated a massive amount of political courage and took on the separatists head on. He went after their game. He turned the issue on its head, and scored a major coup for Canada.
Next Tuesday, Gilles Duceppe planned on dividing the House of Commons. He planned to put a wedge in the Tories and within the Liberal Party of Canada.
Give Duceppe credit, nobody ever expected Harper to show THIS MUCH leadership on this issue. In Quebec, we no longer have to tell Quebecers why their distinctness is not recognized. We can take on separatist mythology without this fundamental truth thrown in our faces. Today, Stephen Harper affirmed that Canada can admit the diversity of its people and not be afraid to lose the country.
Some may call it a virus. Some may think it’s a big conspiracy. All I know is that…
Today is a great day to be a federalist in Quebec.
Today Prime Minister Harper demonstrated a massive amount of political courage and took on the separatists head on. He went after their game. He turned the issue on its head, and scored a major coup for Canada.
Next Tuesday, Gilles Duceppe planned on dividing the House of Commons. He planned to put a wedge in the Tories and within the Liberal Party of Canada.
Give Duceppe credit, nobody ever expected Harper to show THIS MUCH leadership on this issue. In Quebec, we no longer have to tell Quebecers why their distinctness is not recognized. We can take on separatist mythology without this fundamental truth thrown in our faces. Today, Stephen Harper affirmed that Canada can admit the diversity of its people and not be afraid to lose the country.
Some may call it a virus. Some may think it’s a big conspiracy. All I know is that…
Today is a great day to be a federalist in Quebec.
par / by Anthony à / at 1:49 a.m.
21 Commentaires:
Well it's a great day to be a Quebec nationalist.
Whether it's a great day for federalism remains to be seen, I'd say.
I do have a question for you Antonio, in light of the fact that it looks like the Bloc is prepared to vote against this resolution.
You have said that the 1982 constitution is "politically illegitimate" and "not workable" because the majority of Quebec's provincial legislators voted against it, even though the majority of Quebec's federal legislators did.
By the same line of logic, would you not contend that the same principles of federalism would dictate that this resolution will be "illegitimate" because a majority of Quebec's federal legislators will vote against it?
If not, why not, and if so, what would be legitimate?
I think we'll know in a year or two if this was a great day. If it was, congrats for calling it one.
I don't think it is a big deal. Harper's motion has no bite. Everyone knows this.
Harper's problem is that he's now trapped. He will be blamed if something goes wrong.
On the other hand, the credit he gets will be fleeting. It's a no win situation for him.
I am a French-Canadian from Ontario. The motion which Harper has tabled says that Québécois form a nation (as opposed to Quebeckers). Does that mean that if you speak French in Canada you are a Québécois even though you never lived there? If not, when will the National Assembly recognize that French-Canadians form a nation?
Would you have said the same thing if Dion proposed something similar on the floor of the convention?
WestmountLib: Not so sure that they can’t take that away…. Go check today’s press release issued by the ACFA (http://www.acfa.ab.ca/default.asp). Wasn’t it timely that only last week the Quebec Government rediscovered its vocation as leader of francophones in Canada? It would appear that Harper wants to disengage the federal government from any say or responsibility in minority language rights. That has been, after all, his ideology all along.
Antonio, I'm sure you're just busy with all the monstrous busy-ness we're all coping with in advance of this convention, but it would be fantastic if you could offer a response to my legitimacy question. If you have one.
And what do you think of ALEXANDRE Trudeau's perspective, as outlined below from the CP wire?
Alexandre Trudeau issued a written statement saying that anyone who believes his father would have supported Ignatieff's views "couldn't be more wrong." He said it's "more objectionable still" to suggest that his father "would, like Ignatieff, deal in vacuous terms meant to appease emotions."
...
Alexandre Trudeau was having none of it. He said his father would never have supported Ignatieff's "paternalistic and empty" recognition of Quebec as a nation.
Moreover, he said the term nation cannot be strictly symbolic; it either "signifies a sovereign country, as in the United Nations" or it signifies a "cultural collective."
If it's a cultural collective, Alexandre Trudeau questioned how only Quebec can be recognized as a nation, and not other collectives such as "Mohawks, Jews, Arabs, Sri Lankans, Guatemalans, Crees, Irish, English, German and French descendents."
"One might be able to argue for a French Canadian nation. One might be able to argue for a state of Quebec. But arguing for the Quebec nation to the exclusion of the myriad of other nations of Canada is absurd for someone who aims to lead Canada," he said.
"It takes no son of Trudeau to know how foreign to him is the idea of allowing Canadian nation building to proceed along the path of ill-defined collective recognitions and entitlements as opposed to the clear rights of free individuals, each capable of being many nations or of none."
I'm assuming you're a big fan of his then?
Braeden,
the majority of Quebec legislators believe Quebec is a nation.
That is what is happeneing. It is all the talk we hear on the street today.
I am swamped...until I start blogging only for convention, I'll be pretty busy.
One word. "Wait"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Over the summer, the Prime Minister discussed the concept with Quebec Premier Jean Charest" reports Gloria Galloway in today's Globe and Mail. Again, how timely that Quebec last week discovered it now has a leadership mission towards francophones in Canada. In your vision of the Québécois within a united Canada,Liberals, am I (a French-Canadian from Ontario) a Québécoise or not? Are Liberals at all concerned about minority rights?
loraine
before i answer that, I want to emphasize that the beauty of this country is we get to choose our own identity, not have to choose between two.
I am of the leaning that the people of Quebec constitute the Quebec nation, that the civic nation that has developed here since the 1960s is unique and should be recognized as such.
Now, do not feel excluded. There is no reason to, because you get to choose your identity, not be told which one you belong to. Many quebecers are furious when told they only belong to one nation, the canadian nation. Can you understand why they might be upset?
It is just as bad as separatists who say "we are Quebecois before we are Canadian"
once again, why force the issue. Nothing I have said on this blog or ANY candidate has said during this race has said anyone should belong to one particular identity.
It is what Michael calls "la liberté de choisir notre identité" that has inspired many Liberals in Quebec, and is causing so many Dion and Rae delegates to come on board.
Well
As Chantal Hebert pointed out, he likely consulted Dion because of the leadership candidates, he was most likely to resist. Harper wanted a united front. With even Dion supporting it, he got himself one.
Antonio, I don't feel like I have been excluded - I feel like I have been sold! Reading those letters written by French Canadians in today's Le Devoir only reinforces this feeling. Choosing an identify is meaningless to me. My rights as a French speaker in Canada is my concern. Now, as a Liberal, you may want to have a look at Harper's views on minority language rights before adopting this motion outright.
Also to stop the spread of this mythology that Harper's resolution was Dion's idea.
The Globe reproted that Harper, Layton and Graham had come up with something and that the Tories ran it past Dion at 6PM after it had already been tabled.
Stephane said he would have liked "in the sociological sense of the word" put in there. It wasn't. The Tories got their word Dion would be supporting the one Harper was proposing. That is all they really wanted. I can email you a copy of the Globe's story if you like.
oops *tabled is not the word i should have used...more like written it down.
I know Harper's views on minority rights in terms of language and I can assure you that NO Liberal would ever remove the rights from any minority...this motion does not do that
I don't understand why pundits are impressed by Harper's motion. See
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/24/motion-legality.html
Fact is that hardcore Quebec nationalists are emboldened. Swing voters will become more cynical.
The battle for Quebec nationalist voters will be fought on issues of substance.
Hopefully, the Liberal memebers in Quebec won't use this issue in the elections. It's likely to backfire in the long run.
Post a Comment
<< Home