babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Québec solidaire

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Québec solidaire
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Québec solidaire is born of the merger between UFP and Option citoyenne.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 05 February 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lagatta posted a Fr-language audio and textual link under the title "La gauche québécoise a un nouveau nom: Québec solidaire."

SHE posted:

quote:
Québec solidaire is born of the merger between UFP and Option citoyenne.

--=-- --=-- CLICK THIS

The Radio Canada reporting was updated around 10 PM last night. Did you attend the congrés?

Was there anything new, given that "l'Union des forces progressistes (UFP), d'Amir Khadir, et d'Option Citoyenne, de Françoise David " had already voted to merge before this founding conclave?


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I attended part of it - I was working yesterday and must continue today. Deadline on Monday.

Judy was there. I'm sure she'll have more to say on it later.

The mood was very good, hopeful and enthusiastic. I can't really write a detailed report now; I'm very tired. Just glancing at babble because I'm having trouble concentrating on my work - must get it done.Wikipedia (French) already has a rough draft article on Québec solidaire.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 05 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wikipedia -- becoming a roving reporter -- with a draft entry on the Québec Solidaire congress before it terminates.
-==- Welcome to the worldwide web !


The QS Wikipedia Entry

You will note how in the political sphere you don't have to study latin languages very long to understand the cognates frequently found in English. Though the QS has not hammered out a program, the Wikipedia entry offers the following list of agreed upon principles:

L'écologie: Nous sommes écologistes
La gauche: Nous sommes de gauche
La démocratie: Nous sommes démocrates
Le féminisme: Nous sommes féministes
L'altermondialisme: Nous sommes altermondialistes
Le pluralisme: Nous sommes d'un Québec pluriel
La souveraineté du Québec et la solidarité: Nous sommes d'un Québec souverain et solidaire
L'engagement électoral sur la scène politique québécoise: Un autre parti pour un autre Québec!


Thanks, lagatta, for pointing to this article.


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 05 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyone can tell if the ridiculous attempt to be both a popular movement and a political party is still official policy? If they still stubbornly refuse to have a party leader?

These were the biggest reasons why I let my membership of the UFP lapse and that I later joined the PQ. Whether you think it is right or not, there are some obligations to conform to the present system and to practicality, and the UFP seemed not to care for it. We can be idealist in our principles, but we have to be pragmatic in our approach, and from what I've seen, the UFP refused that fact. Its structures were irrealist last I've seen them, they were too based in how small local popular movement were structured, with almost no executive power, as shown by their two leaders formula... sorry, two spokespersons. That matter of doing things may work well for small Montréal-based popular movement, but they don't fit a party that must be national in its approach.

So even though I agree with most of their principles and I do hope they win a couple seats, I'm stuck in a larger party that is at best center-left because I can't be part of a party that is not serious enough about getting power to get the basic structures demanded by social realities. There's a reason why every important party has a leader and central executive power, it's not merely because those who formed the party were wanna-be tyrants, it's because it's what works.

Sorry about the rant, I had to get it out of my system.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 05 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, simovallee, I don't know where they came down on functioning like a mass mov't and political party at the same time.

Why didn't you click on the Radio-Canada link? They keep repeating that the QS does not have leaders.

While we're posing questions, does the PQ, as does the NDP, have an affiliation with the Socialist International ? Just curious.

simonvallee posted at length:

quote:
Whether you think it is right or not, there are some obligations to conform to the present system and to practicality, and the UFP seemed not to care for it. We can be idealist in our principles, but we have to be pragmatic in our approach, and from what I've seen, the UFP refused that fact. Its structures were irrealist last I've seen them, they were too based in how small local popular movement were structured, with almost no executive power, as shown by their two leaders formula... sorry, two spokespersons. That matter of doing things may work well for small Montréal-based popular movement, but they don't fit a party that must be national in its approach.

So even though I agree with most of their principles and I do hope they win a couple seats, I'm stuck in a larger party that is at best center-left because I can't be part of a party that is not serious enough about getting power to get the basic structures demanded by social realities. There's a reason why every important party has a leader and central executive power, it's not merely because those who formed the party were wanna-be tyrants, it's because it's what works.

Sorry about the rant, I had to get it out of my system.



From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 05 February 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While we're posing questions, does the PQ, as does the NDP, have an affiliation with the Socialist International ?

I think so, but I searched about a bit on the 'net for the info. According to a New York Times article, the PQ tried to join in the 70s but was rejected because the NDP already represented Canada. However, another article mentions that Chirac didn't like that the PQ joined the Socialist International in 1982. But the present website of the SI doesn't mention the PQ, so I think that the PQ has long tried to join, and maybe was accepted some time in the past, but it is no longer a member (if it ever was).


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a Canadian Press article that appeared in the Globe: the title is stupid but the article not bad: Globe story on Québec solidaire.

Well, I remember the PQ's decrees against public sector workers in 1982. Grrrrr. Sure, they are "less bad" than the Charest Liberals, but only in the sense that the US Democrats are "less bad" than the Republicans or the Federal Libs "less bad" than the ReformaTories. But to each his own. I'm sorry simon has left UFP, but that is his choice after all.

I believe the PQ has observer status in the Socialist International.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 05 February 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With the new referendum on "représentation proportionnelle" that we may win during the same election that the Liberals lose, Québec solidaire might just become a potent political force here after the next election. Unless the next (PQ) government decides not to respect a positive PR result, that is. QS spokeperson Françoise David said "The Parti Quebecois had 30 years to implement proportional voting. So it's a little late to tell us that we're going to divide the vote." And I agree with her, in fact Québec politics is more nuanced than merely the soverigntist-federalist axis and I think it's healthy that a fresh new party with a focus on things other than seperation adds to the debate here: "She said it would not push for another referendum any time soon and instead wanted action on the environment, social programs, feminism and aid to the Third World." Bravo! Most of us are sick of the way the soverignty debate detracts from progress on many important issues like these, both in Québec and federally. More & more of us see ourselves as neither federalist nor sovereigntist and are moving on.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Website for Québec solidaire: http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 05 February 2006 06:33 PM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and BTW the Parti Québécois is neither a member nor an observer of the Socialist International.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 05 February 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this is a very interesting development...and maybe over the long haul the NDP in the "rest of Canada" can develop alliances with QS. There's much more that unites us than divides us.

The fact that the whole "national question" has been left ambiguous and instead a focus on economic, social and environmental questions is very positive.

Maybe in the next federal election it might be possible to run "NPD/QS" candidates instead of "NPD" candidates in Quebec. Maybe I'm dreaming in technicolor too.

But I think alot of us in the "rest of Canada" have been searching for a long time to find ways to build Pan-Canadian unity on the left. We have been divided for far too long.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455

posted 05 February 2006 09:18 PM      Profile for tommie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only option for the NDP is to endorse Liberal candidates in Quebec. When the NDP endorses any individual or organization that reeks of sepratism, I rip up my membership card in disgust. The NDP is a Canadian party that represents Canadian interests, and Quebec "independece" (aka, economic destruction) is not a Canadian interest.

I'm a socialist and a federalist, but I will not compromise the latter for the former.


From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 05 February 2006 09:35 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh well, if crossing the class line is your thing...

By the way, for such a proud angryphone, your English spelling is atrocious.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 February 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tommie:
The only option for the NDP is to endorse Liberal candidates in Quebec.

No, the only option for the NDP is to endorse no provincial party in Quebec. The NDP operates on the federal scene only, and I see no prospect of this changing.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 05 February 2006 09:40 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by A Blair:
With the new referendum on "représentation proportionnelle" that we may win during the same election that the Liberals lose, Québec solidaire might just become a potent political force here after the next election.

Except that the PLQ-designed system is horribly non-proportional (it works out to something like a 17% threshold). The Liberals don't want true proportionality; they just want to counter their West Island wasted votes and make it harder for the PQ to get elected.


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Berlueur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11807

posted 05 February 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for Berlueur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyone can tell if the ridiculous attempt to be both a popular movement and a political party is still official policy? If they still stubbornly refuse to have a party leader?

There is absolutely no confusion as to the fact that the new entity is a political party. (Could you be mixing up the status of the two former entities, i.e., UFP was a political party and OC was not...?)

However, this will not prevent QS from endorsing causes that are congruent with its principles/values. All parties do this anyway, in some form or other -- albeit one could argue that some tend to do it in a more opportunistic fashion than others.

In a related matter: one thing about the new party that stimulates me is that it doesn't define itself merely as a vehicle of opposition -- something that has plagued much of the left's initiatives in Quebec, I think. It is abundantly clear that QS will adopt a "governing stance". Of course, we're not expecting miracles; still, I perceive this as an important (and necessary) change of paradigm for Quebec's left.

With regards to the leadership question --

There will indeed be two spokepersons (from the two former parties, one man and one woman -- how convenient...), a way of functioning that I (obviously, being a member and having attended the Congrès) personally find perfectly reasonable. Actually, strike that: I think it's great.

On the issue of having 2 spokepersons:

I think that the basic rationale behind this choice is tied to the process that "gave birth" (ah!) to the new party, namely, a fusion of two entities. It sends the message to the two former parties' members that they both "stand on equal footing".

On the issue of having a "spokeperson model" rather than a "leader model":

Well, there's the small issue of wanting to espouse a thoroughly democratic way of functioning...

We ask that our political institutions inch towards participative democracy; it seems only natural to me that we practice what we preach.

Our internal structures are not completely defined yet. QS has adopted a very limited set of statutes -- we didn't have enough time to discuss all the proposed amendments. Until we agree on a "definitive" set of statutes, the document proposed to us will be followed.

The executive (called the "Comité de coordination national") actually has rather extensive powers under those statutes. So much so that some of us found that the model, in a couple of cases, was leaning too much towards a "top-down" structure.

IMO, good compromises were reached for those problematic articles that were discussed. This bodes well for the future of the party, I think.

Another auspicious aspect (yay for alliteration) is that, as far as I can tell, the persons elected at the executive level seem very intelligent/competent/passionate. And I sense an authentic desire to respect the root of the party's will (not surprising considering where these folks come from).

Last comment:

quote:
The fact that the whole "national question" has been left ambiguous and instead a focus on economic, social and environmental questions is very positive.

The "national question" has not been left ambiguous -- much to the contrary. It is clearly defined in the "Declaration of principles": QS opts for sovereignty. However, it is very different from the "sovereignty before everything else and as urgently as possible" position that is the foundation of the PQ's existence. Rather, QS conceives sovereignty as a necessary tool to achieve our goals of social justice, to allow us (the people of Quebec) to fully realize our ambitions. To summarize.

(UFP already had a pro-sovereignty position; Option Citoyenne didn't have one until recently. A rather thorough process lead to OC's embracement of sovereignty -- and OC's position on that matter is very much in evidence in QS's Declaration of principles. If you can read French, I strongly recommend reading the document that exposes OC's position on sovereignty. It explains in plain detail the process that took place, the conclusion that was reached and the reasons behind it.)

(OK, I'm truly done now...)

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: Berlueur ]


From: Montréal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 05 February 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The "national question" has not been left ambiguous -- much to the contrary. It is clearly defined in the "Declaration of principles": QS opts for sovereignty. However, it is very different from the "sovereignty before everything else and as urgently as possible" position that is the foundation of the PQ's existence. Rather, QS conceives sovereignty as a necessary tool to achieve our goals of social justice, to allow us (the people of Quebec) to fully realize our ambitions. To summarize.

Thanks for the clarification.

I still find that position hopeful and positive.
Unlike many NDP supporters in the "rest of Canada" I'm not freaked-out by folks in Quebec who are pro-sovereignty...its simply a reality.

The PQ/BQ puts sovereignty on the "front burner" above all else and that leads to alliances with the most reactionary forces in the "ROC" in order to achieve those aims. That does bother me.

But if the QS is putting socio-economic and environmental issues on the front burner, I think that it opens doors to us all working together for common aims.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 06 February 2006 01:52 AM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
I am certainly glad to see this new party in Quebec! What is needed is a party that can not only fight for social justice, but can also create a space where all lefties in Quebec can come together. English is my first language, so I am supposed to vote Liberal according to the norm. I preferred the UFP, and now think QS is even better. I especially like that the name is based ona recent manifesto, which was a reaction to a right-wing document.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 06 February 2006 01:56 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is absolutely no confusion as to the fact that the new entity is a political party. (Could you be mixing up the status of the two former entities, i.e., UFP was a political party and OC was not...?)

I was in the UFP, I know what I'm talking about. They were able to sell me the "parti des urnes et de la rue" thing for a while before I woke up realizing that this bastard mix was going nowhere, making the UFP only an ineffective party.

quote:
It is abundantly clear that QS will adopt a "governing stance".

I hope you're right. Still, that makes the question about the lack of a leader even more valid. If they want to be ready to govern, they have to put that absurd two spokespersons model out of its misery and get a leader. Because there's a big function called the prime minister to fill if ever elected, or in case of being the opposition, the leader of the opposition. These are positions that must be filled by a party leader or one by interim, so why refuse to get one.

The thing is though that executive councils, IIRC, are present in every party, but the importance of the leader is in responsibility and accountability. If a group collectively acts badly and infuriates the members, selecting who to remove and who to keep is difficult because you have to identify everyone's role and attitude, it's hard to do it democratically. With a leader, you give a face to the organization, which makes someone directly responsible for its actions. There's also a bonus with stability when changing orientation, if there's a leader, you can manage to change the orientation of the party through changing the leader, but even then, because you do not automatically replace everyone on the executive council, you keep the expertise of those people, even if a few have to be replaced, so that the party can remain competent. Leaders also are important because in campaigns, people need to know who speaks for the party, in times of conflicting comments whose word is really the party's position, that's where the leader is important, he gives a feeling that the party knows where it's going and is a whole.

These are some of the reasons why successful parties always adopt the leader model. The two spokespersons model, not only will probably be mocked by most people, but makes it ambiguous about who is responsible for the party's actions, and there is the problem of power being transferred from public figures to a more "shadowy" group of people kept out from the spotlights. That's in part the reason why there are ministers and such a concept as ministerial responsibility even if much of the daily working in ministries is done by public workers or what we call in French "sous-ministres".












quote:
The only option for the NDP is to endorse Liberal candidates in Quebec. When the NDP endorses any individual or organization that reeks of sepratism, I rip up my membership card in disgust.

BOO! I'm your bogeyman, I was candidate twice in Verchères-Les-Patriotes and am a sovereignist. As to endorsing Liberal candidates, best way to lose every support gained in Québec these past years, left-wing Québécois don't like the Charest government, they in fact pretty much hate it, for the NDP to endorse it would be a slap in the face of its supporters and militants in Québec.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
tommie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8455

posted 06 February 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for tommie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Oh well, if crossing the class line is your thing...

By the way, for such a proud angryphone, your English spelling is atrocious.

[ 05 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


I'm currently travelling and only have access to a laptop (I'm really not used to this tiny, sensitive keyboard) and little time to run my posts through a spell check which I usually do. I appreciate your desperate attack on my grasp of the English language.

The fact is the NDP needs to make a decision. Does the party support the concept of Canada or not? If we do, then we have taken an excellent first step of supporting the Clarity Act. Next, we need to adopt a "Plan B"-esque approach to tackling separatism. We don't need progressive separatists, because frankly the term is an oxymoron. Quebec would fall apart economically within one or two years of independence, so any notion of a welfare state in Quebec is a fantasy. Furthermore, I believe that Canada exists as multicultural example to the world -- we are an anamoly. We must become a just, united society and Quebec is part of that society; just as BC, or Manitoba, or Newfoundland, or the First Nations or the Italian-Canadian community and so on and so forth are. People who week to rip that progressive ideal apart are not progressive!

Essentially, the NDP can start to ally with anti-Canadian forces or it can (excuse the awful Tory slogan) stand up for Canada.


From: Canada? | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 02:56 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's clear from much of this that the Québec left believes that once they have all of the reins of power in a single place, they will control the social agenda in Québec. Using sovereignty and a discourse of "nations"---including an "internationalist" discourse, which necessarily presupposes that of "nations"--to advance this agenda is potentially risky affair. I do not believe it will end in the goal in which they want it to end.

Additionally, this statement from the OC policy document suggests an...ontological problem that pervades sovereigntist language in general:

quote:
Tout en soutenant un projet de souveraineté au service du bien commun, Option citoyenne
prône dès maintenant le développement de liens solidaires avec la population canadienne dans
un rapport de nation à nation, et, éventuellement, d’État souverain à État souverain. Ces liens
doivent être définis démocratiquement à partir des volontés exprimées par les populations
québécoise et canadienne. Par ailleurs, Option citoyenne s’engage à appuyer de façon
particulière l’épanouissement des populations francophones hors Québec.

Unfortunately, this bit of boilerplate attempts to make equal what is not equal. If sovereignty is being used as a means to do that, then the approach will perhaps rightly be rebuffed. Any arrangement between the ROC and Québec will necessarily be unequal in some manner.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 06 February 2006 04:02 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's clear from much of this that the Québec left believes that once they have all of the reins of power in a single place, they will control the social agenda in Québec.
I'm with Mandos. Unfortunately, the separatists collectively seem unable to understand that Canada as a whole faces the same challenges (and the ROC even more immediately than Quebec) in regards to the control of our political sovereignty, from which arises further challenges to our economic and cultural independence.

In Quebec it seems all too easy to focus upon the ghost of repressions past. They continue to fight the fading senior citizens of Westmount rather than facing the corporate and multinational nature of the true oppressors of us all.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 04:36 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More on the founding congress, which elected a council from many major social and cultural movements here: Enthusiastic conclusion to Québec solidaire founding congress
New party's name is a call for solidarity.

Tommie, I'm not in the slightest desperate, I'm just reacting to your contempt for the left in Québec with the politeness it deserves; i.e. none. Reminds me of the famous Bert Brecht quote about wanting to vote out the people and elect another.

Fact is, a large majority of the left here is sovereignist, and if you want to convince your comrades in Québec that the best structure within which to build socialism is the Canadian federation, advocating support for a crew as anti-union, anti-student and anti-feminist as the current Québec Liberal Party is precisely the wrong way to go about it.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 06 February 2006 05:30 AM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

If they want to be ready to govern, they have to put that absurd two spokespersons model out of its misery and get a leader. Because there's a big function called the prime minister to fill if ever elected, or in case of being the opposition, the leader of the opposition. These are positions that must be filled by a party leader or one by interim, so why refuse to get one.

Simon,

While I think the party would be better-served by adopting a single leader, it is not, strictly speaking, necessary to have one. The BC Social Credit League, the United Farmers of Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba all won elections and formed government without leaders (the Alberta United Farmers ended up selecting a premier after the election who had not been elected at all, and had to run in a by-election.)

Edited to fix link.

[ 06 February 2006: Message edited by: cco ]


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 05:33 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still more on the founding congress, in today's Devoir: Québec solidaire: bringing the left out of the margins? This also includes a brief historical rappel at the end.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 06 February 2006 07:06 AM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A serious discussion of the new leftwing party in Québec FINALLY started. Being a newbie to the forum, I worried that a scrolling "Today's Active Topics' page filling up with discussions of less interest to me would bury the thread forever.

Posters fall into the optomist or the pessimist camps on offering a prognosis for Québec Solidaire's future survival and success. It is unfortunate that some in the discussion have not gotten their heads around Québec sovereignty yet. Most of my Anglo-Scots-Irish third gen friends in southwestern Montreal simply will have nothing to do with any 'sovereignty option,' so this is nothing new.

But when the left of the NDP digests what appears to be an established fait accompli, that QS is solidly sovereignist, I hope it turns some heads around. You can prefer whatever you want in a pipedream, here is one group of left social democrats within Confederation for whom a federalist agenda will serve as a brand on your forehead.

I can imagine a social democrat outside Québec hoping the new party will fall on its face. The more refined minds with such barbaric wishes could rightly claim that class solidarity must come before nationalism if ever the mass of people are to ever win struggles in the face of a globalised, rapacious capitalism. Such a take on historical understanding might simply conclude that there are some mistakes a social democratic formation simply cannot make without consigning itself to defeat over the most basic questions of economic power.

I can talk this line, of course, but don't. It puts the cart before the horse. Oddly, such a line is founded on a worse form of nationalism. Working people in North America are losing ground socially and economically. The forms of organisation, the electoral or syndical formations with identifiable leaders taking responsibility for the positions taken by these organisations, have failed as vehicules of social reform and especially of social revolution.

To argue that the 'failed sovereignists' of Québec should now bury the hatchet and join with their Anglo brothers in solidarity under the rooftop of the historically more correct Left of the Confederation is an argument that au fond is simply nationalism under a left cover.


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 06 February 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to reply. As disappointed as I am by our inability to connect with the left in Quebec, I am happy to see that there is at least the beginnings of understanding that the PQ is just another corporatist party; albeit with a Quebec Inc. focus.

Perhaps as time goes on, and with the luck of some moderate success, this new party might reach out to find common ground with progressives in the rest of the country.

I can only hope.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Berlueur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11807

posted 06 February 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for Berlueur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Still, that makes the question about the lack of a leader even more valid. If they want to be ready to govern, they have to put that absurd two spokespersons model out of its misery and get a leader. Because there's a big function called the prime minister to fill if ever elected, or in case of being the opposition, the leader of the opposition. These are positions that must be filled by a party leader or one by interim, so why refuse to get one.

As I've said, the two-spokepersons model is one of the measures put in place to smooth the transition from two organizations to one. To elect only one spokeperson might have given the impression to some members that one organization monopolizes the power. There is a good chance that it might have created some friction/unease.

Before the next general elections, a single leader will indeed have to be elected. Then, the transition (in all respects -- leadership, statutes, structures, program, etc.) will have been pretty much completed.

It all sounds good to me.


From: Montréal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 06 February 2006 11:49 AM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tommie:
The fact is the NDP needs to make a decision. Does the party support the concept of Canada or not? If we do, then we have taken an excellent first step of supporting the Clarity Act. Next, we need to adopt a "Plan B"-esque approach to tackling separatism. We don't need progressive separatists, because frankly the term is an oxymoron. Quebec would fall apart economically within one or two years of independence, so any notion of a welfare state in Quebec is a fantasy. Furthermore, I believe that Canada exists as multicultural example to the world -- we are an anamoly. We must become a just, united society and Quebec is part of that society; just as BC, or Manitoba, or Newfoundland, or the First Nations or the Italian-Canadian community and so on and so forth are. People who week to rip that progressive ideal apart are not progressive!

Essentially, the NDP can start to ally with anti-Canadian forces or it can (excuse the awful Tory slogan) stand up for Canada.


Canda's "concept" is not inherently progressive, that's the biggest error in your little speech, and people who have another concept aren't anti-progressive. As to the fear-mongering regarding Québec if there was sovereignty, we're used to it and we generally treat it as we should, we laugh of it. It is not in the interests of any of Québec's major trade partners to bring Québec's economy down, both the RoC and the US have regions that have important trade with Québec and who would have their economies brought down with Québec's if ever jingoistic Canadian leaders decided to do their damndest to "avenge" Québec's decision to leave the Federation. So don't trust on it.

And your lack of respect for the people of Québec is staggering. You are like the jealous husband who will beat his wife instead of letting her leave him. You are the reason why convinced sovereignists are really hard for federalists to "turn", by treating us as the devil and spitting on us whenever you can, how the hell do you want us to change idea regarding Canada and Canadians?


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a CBC story on Québec solidaire.

I agree with Judy about "leaders"...

Simon, in fairness tommie was the only federalist babbler who said such rude things (including equating Québec - a society - with an ethnic group (the Italian-Canadian community). Probably not worth our trouble, though he pissed me off too. And Lard, I agree, leftists in Québec and the RoC will certainly have to find some kind of common ground, though what kind remains to be seen.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 12:34 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
(including equating Québec - a society - with an ethnic group (the Italian-Canadian community)

See, I'm not sure that "society" is much more than a very subjective and pretheoretical notion if you're going to distinguish it from a "community". Who are you to tell the Italian-Canadian community what they are and what they aren't---that you cannot tell Québec that?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh come now, Mandos. It is ludicrous to equate an immigrant community living within larger societies (and speaking English and/or French as well as Italian) with a society or nation.

And I'm certain I have rather more familiarity with the Italian-Canadian (and Italo-Québécois) community than you do. (My thesis is on an Italian-immigrant workers' association here). A community like many others, with many internal class and ideological tensions.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can imagine a social democrat outside Québec hoping the new party will fall on its face. The more refined minds with such barbaric wishes could rightly claim that class solidarity must come before nationalism if ever the mass of people are to ever win struggles in the face of a globalised, rapacious capitalism. Such a take on historical understanding might simply conclude that there are some mistakes a social democratic formation simply cannot make without consigning itself to defeat over the most basic questions of economic power.

I can talk this line, of course, but don't. It puts the cart before the horse. Oddly, such a line is founded on a worse form of nationalism. Working people in North America are losing ground socially and economically. The forms of organisation, the electoral or syndical formations with identifiable leaders taking responsibility for the positions taken by these organisations, have failed as vehicules of social reform and especially of social revolution.

To argue that the 'failed sovereignists' of Québec should now bury the hatchet and join with their Anglo brothers in solidarity under the rooftop of the historically more correct Left of the Confederation is an argument that au fond is simply nationalism under a left cover.


The problem is that some of us have material considerations over and above sterile discussions of peoplehood and national liberations, yadda yadda yadda.

We live in a world constructed with a particular international politics founded on something called "Westphalia" or something like that. It's impossible, therefore, not to construct nationalisms and nation-states. Consequently, the challenge for me, at least, is how to construct a "national idea" that is maximally devoid of content, in particular essential notions of cultural and ethnic necessity as well as even certain modes of civic necessity and historical insult.

I'm not sure that the Québec sovereignty movement shares those goals. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't. And seeing that, I am forced to wonder whether the Québec left hasn't hitched its wagon to what will be in the long run the wrong star.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 06 February 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh come now, Mandos. It is ludicrous to equate an immigrant community living within larger societies (and speaking English and/or French as well as Italian) with a society or nation.

And I'm certain I have rather more familiarity with the Italian-Canadian (and Italo-Québécois) community than you do. (My thesis is on an Italian-immigrant workers' association here). A community like many others, with many internal class and ideological tensions.



Yes but how much of it is a matter degree and not of kind? I too am familiar with a minority community and a minority community that has been partially been held in electoral thrall to the Liberal Party precisely because the Liberal Party at least advertises an extremely nonthreatening form of nationalism that doesn't contain these fine-grained distinctions between "society" and "community".

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 06 February 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two Mandos quotes, taken out of context in good faith, for discussion:

quote:
(I/We have) considerations over and above sterile discussions of peoplehood and national liberations, yadda yadda yadda

(With a sovereignist commitment, perhaps the QS has) hitched its wagon to what will be in the long run the wrong star.


Some of living in Québec on the Left could have been quoted saying the same thing about positions taken by the splinter groups claiming their lineage to the FLQ and to the labour federations support for the PQ.

Mandos, the direction being taken by QS is the fruit of some half a century of experiment and discussion, including self criticism, on the Left covering a range from communists to cooperative gardeners.

Speaking of 'wrong stars', you could argue that social democrats hooked on to the wrong star by organizing in the trade unions if you only look at the current transfer of jobs outside OECD countries. That argument, IMHO, is ridiculous.

There are issues in this question that are so basic it is incredible. It is a certainty that any broad social movement in Quebec will have people in it who are consciously xenophobes. Just as such movements in Anglo Canada ... who are drenched in neoliberal lifestyle attachment to expanding capitalism. The point is that one must confront these attitudes in struggle.

Inside the Liberal Party and the PQ the struggle that becomes common is, more often than not, AGAINST the organized workingclass. And sometimes I start to wonder about us, when we call ourselves professional organizers. (Forget I said that.)

I know of no other forum than the Left in Québec where the dynamics of nationalism versus social reform and revolution has been ventilated. And knowing the integrity and lack of xenophobia within the leadership of QS, pardon me, they've got a better handle on the issues than most of us.


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Heavy Sharper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11809

posted 06 February 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for Heavy Sharper        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by A Blair:
Oh, and BTW the Parti Québécois is neither a member nor an observer of the Socialist International.

That's too bad...The PQ of Lucien Bouchard, Jacques Parizeau, and Rene Levesque (who did endorse Mulroney...) would have been right at home with rightist parties like New Labour, the Labour of Australia, Democratic Action of Venezuela, the National Democratic Party of Egypt, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 06 February 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As soon as I read Rufus Polson posting HERE on an older thread about the Québec Solidaire party I realised we had Thread Proliferation.

Why not kill this one and follow Darand's lead in resurrecting the proper thread?

Here's what Rufus Polson posted:

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rufus Polson
Originally posted by tallyho:

Others of which what we called the 'left' today were internationalists...followed the doctrine that flags, empires, etc. were artificial constructs that divided the working people. Today? Leftist parties are often the most nationalistic and wrap themselves in flags and sometimes 'anti-whoever' (fill in some nationality such as american or Canadian, etc.).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That distinction is really more apparent than real in most cases. I think you'll find that the nationalisms espoused by the left are essentially anti-colonial--assertions of identity independent of whatever empire is going. So Canadian leftists tend to be nationalist in opposition to the encroaching US imperialist project. But they're not nationalist, at least not in favour of Canada, in terms of, for instance, First Nations resistance to the Canadian national project, or Haitian resistance to Canadian assertion of international power (as US stooge). They tend to feel considerable international solidarity with worldwide leftist projects and liberation struggles. And you often see their criticisms of other nationalities being fairly specific to the governments and elites of those nations, although US culture is so damn dysfunctional that it gets hard to limit the criticism that way. Meanwhile, US leftists tend to recognize that they are "in the belly of the beast" and are far less nationalist than other USians. Some outright repudiate nationalism, others have a modified nationalism which says "This isn't the thing I'm nationalist for--*my* USA is x,y,z."

Anti-imperialism in the US implies reduced nationalism, elsewhere it often implies greater nationalism. It's all a question of who has the power and who's doing the coercing. Leftists don't generally espouse nationalism in the jingoistic "country right or wrong" sense that the right often does. Apparent nationalism on the left is mainly a manifestation of anti-imperialism, with probably a mixture of a certain sentimentality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002 | IP: Logged



From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because the other thread is too long - older computers and/or dial ups can freeze at over 100 posts, and in any event are ridiculously hard to load. Moreover, the founding of a new political party is worthy of a new thread.

Kill the old thread.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 06 February 2006 02:49 PM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
Oh come now, Mandos. It is ludicrous to equate an immigrant community living within larger societies (and speaking English and/or French as well as Italian) with a society or nation.
Could you please explain what exactly is so "ludicrous" about it? I really appreciate the fact that you're one of the only other babblers who's a self-identified anti-nationalist, but it can sometimes get a little difficult to figure out how exactly your anti-nationalism is, well, anti-nationalist.

Or have I misunderstood, and you in fact don't claim to be an anti-nationalist but rather just an "internationalist" (ie., someone who agrees with nationalists that nation-states are glorious, organic manifestations of natural human divisions, but just thinks there should be more cooperation between them)?

Imagine for a moment that you're talking to a Canadian nationalist, who is as convinced of the self-evident, metaphysical, indivisible nature of the Canadian "nation" or "society" as someone like Simon is of the Quebec "nation" or "society." How would you convince such a person that he's wrong and the Quebec nationalist is right?


From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in such discussion, because what matters here is that a significant group of people in progressive movements in Québec has managed to form a new political party and hammer together a common programme, or at least the draft of a programme.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 06 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, OK, no problem. Sorry, I guess I mistakenly interpreted this as something other than a statement of complete disinterest:

quote:
Oh come now, Mandos. It is ludicrous to equate an immigrant community living within larger societies (and speaking English and/or French as well as Italian) with a society or nation.

From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Carter, it is not a matter of complete disinterest; just of bitter experience. I know such highly theoretical discussions tend to go into circles on web boards, where they are utterly decontexualised.

There will no doubt be a lot of discussions, debates and arguments in building Québec solidaire, and with comrades who are averse to doing so (most of them here would be left-libertarians and anarchists), but they will be discussions rooted in what is going on in social movements in Québec.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 06 February 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Lags, do you know if they intend to get an English version of the site up?
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 04:59 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not an English version of the site per se, but I'm sure many articles on it will be translated into English and other languages, as were articles on the UFP and Option citoyenne sites. As you can see, the site remains most skeletal. Comrades is tired...
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 06 February 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, it does look like a work in progress! My adice to QS is if it really wants to represent "solidarity" it should have both English & Spanish sections, along with other important languages spoken in Quebec where appropriate. Even the PQ has English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 06 February 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sure Québec solidaire wholeheartedly agrees with you, but that means finding translators.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 06 February 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
I have a friend who just got back from the WSF, who was also at the QS founding. I'll ask him to try to get it going into English. First impressions are very important...
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ross J. Peterson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11657

posted 06 February 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for Ross J. Peterson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Judy Rebick to be interviewed (in French) regarding QC . . tonight on CKUT, Radio McGill, 90.3 FM (available on Internet streaming).

-=-
I just heard this announced and did not catch the time. It may be going on the air right this minute.


From: writer-editor-translator: 'a sus ordenes' | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 07 February 2006 03:33 AM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

BOO! I'm your bogeyman, I was [NPD] candidate twice in Verchères-Les-Patriotes and am a sovereignist.

An oxymoron and undoubtedly the cause of a major moral dilemma for you when running in the last election. What do you say to your friends/family to whom you've argued the cause for seperation, probably at least as passionatly as in this forum over the years? What do voters say to you when you've been so forceful about seperation yet you run for a federalist party?

quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

And your lack of respect for the people of Québec is staggering. You are like the jealous husband who will beat his wife instead of letting her leave him.

Not this routine again. I disagree with much of what tommie is saying, but going this far in response is over the top. You really do have the "victimized p'tit Québécois" syndrome down pat; something that they must hold training sessions for at Sovereignty Camp. I don't completely believe tommie's doom & gloom scenario of economic meltdown in Québec if it ever separated, but neither do I beleive the seperatist roses & sunshine scenario of a better economy either.

But besides the hyperbole, you avoided answering tommie's most pertinent point, "The fact is the NDP needs to make a decision. Does the party support the concept of Canada or not? If we do, then we have taken an excellent first step of supporting the Clarity Act." Which they apparently have. How do you square your seperatist convictions while running for the NPD? Wouldn't another leftist party, which is also seperatist, be a better match for you?

(BTW despite our fundamental disagreements over the years I have to again commend you on running at all; it's a very hard thing to do and it's doubly hard for NPD candidates in Québec)


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 07 February 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Vous etes ecologistes? Excellent! Je pense le Parti Vert du Quebec avait un "working agreement" de ne courir pas dans pareil endoits avec le UFP. Je pense qu'ils feront pareil avec le QS. Non?

Deux questions:

Un, est souveraineté une condition préalable pour être du gauche dans Québec?

Deux, que serait-il considéré un succès par le QS dans une élection ? 2-5%, un place dans l'assamble nationalle?

---------------------------------------------------------

In case my french is really shitty, here's my post en anglais

You're ecologists? Excellent? I think the Quebec Greens had some sort of "working agreement" with the UFP not to run in the same ridings as they were running in. I think they would do this with the QS, no?

I have 2 question.

First, has soverignism become a prerequisite to being left-wing in Quebec?

Second, what would you consider to be an electoral success, 2-5%? a seat in the National Assembly even? Can you get organized in time for the upcoming election to do this? (Okay I added a sentence (and I used freetranslation.com too ))

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Berlueur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11807

posted 07 February 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for Berlueur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
First, has soverignism become a prerequisite to being left-wing in Quebec?

Second, what would you consider to be an electoral success, 2-5%? a seat in the National Assembly even? Can you get organized in time for the upcoming election to do this?


1. The vast majority of the francophone left in Quebec is indeed pro-sovereignty, to varying degrees and in different flavors. In fact, it seems to me that QS might renew interest in sovereignty among part of the left; the lack of dogmatism and the tying of sovereignty to a progressive society project will bring back some of the disillusioned, I think.

The anglophone/allophone left is of course mostly federalist, although there are some of them "with us", here and there...

2. Much harder question... I, for one, prefer to harbor somewhat conservative (hah) expectations. 1 seat -- 2 maybe, if all goes really well. For me, that would be a tremendous success for a first run. But who knows, there could be a larger wave of support...

We of course face a tremendous difficulty due to our voting system: progressive voters will fear to help reelect liberals by voting for us; many will be tempted to embrace that dreaded thing known as strategic voting.

That is why I think we must, as a party, put tremendous energy behind the voting system reform project that is currently being discussed in Quebec... and convince people/the government in place to make two crucial changes in the "mixed" proportional representation model that is proposed (namely, push for national lists rather than regional districts and two votes instead of one).

[ 07 February 2006: Message edited by: Berlueur ]


From: Montréal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 07 February 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An oxymoron and undoubtedly the cause of a major moral dilemma for you when running in the last election. What do you say to your friends/family to whom you've argued the cause for seperation, probably at least as passionatly as in this forum over the years? What do voters say to you when you've been so forceful about seperation yet you run for a federalist party?

Actually, I don't have to argue sovereignty with my family, being from a cross between a Montréal francophone family and a family from the Lac-Saint-Jean, sovereignism is the default position for the people in my family. As to the "moral dilemna", there is none. What is the purpose of running for a sovereignist party federally? Sovereignty cannot and must not be achieved on the federal stage, it is an issue for the National Assembly. What I ask of a federal party is to respect the desires for more autonomy of the people of Québec and to be ready to respect its right to self-determination. Once that minimum is reached, I am socialist before being sovereignist. If you don't often hear the socialist here it's because there is already a lot of them here, whereas there is a void on the representation of sovereignists here that I fill.

quote:
Not this routine again. I disagree with much of what tommie is saying, but going this far in response is over the top.

No, it is not. He outright called for measures not to convince Québécois to choose to remain inside Canada, but to impose even more legal restrictions to make sovereignty unattainable in the laws of Canada (the "plan B" approach, you can't win the hearts of the people so you use the law to prevent them from taking a decision you don't like, that's what "plan B" means, it included the Clarity Act BTW).


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 07 February 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Un, est souveraineté une condition préalable pour être du gauche dans Québec?

Pas du tout. Les seperatists diraient Oui, c'est un des mythes souverainists. Et naturellement si tout le monde le croit, c'est beaucoup plus difficile pour le fédéralism de la gauche ici, même s'il y a beaucoup d'autres qui sont fédéraliste et gauchiste. Approximativement 7,5% d'électeurs du Québec a choisi le NPD, et c'est certain qu'un bon pourcentage des électeurs qui choisissent de voter Libéral, Bloc ou Parti Vert soient en fait gauchist et fédéraliste aussi. Mais souvent ils ne pensent pas qu'un partie gauche-fédéraliste à des chances réalistes de faire une différence au Québec.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 07 February 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:
As to the "moral dilemna", there is none. What is the purpose of running for a sovereignist party federally? Sovereignty cannot and must not be achieved on the federal stage, it is an issue for the National Assembly.

Great, then this must mean that - since it dosen't matter federally - that the NPD stance on the Clarity Act won't make much of a difference. The NPD is not a provincial party in Québec, after all.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 07 February 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Great, then this must mean that - since it dosen't matter federally - that the NPD stance on the Clarity Act won't make much of a difference. The NPD is not a provincial party in Québec, after all.

I said that there was a minimum of respect for Québec's aspirations and for its right to self-determination that I ask of a party before supporting it. Since the Clarity Act was made to try and deny a winning referendum by providing legal ground for the federal government to refuse to recognize it, it doesn't respect the right to self-determination of Québec. That's why my faith in the NDP was shaken when the media reported that Jack was supporting it, which was not really the case as was clarified later on. In any case, if elected and it came to a vote, I would vote against it no matter what kind of pression anyone would put on me to do the opposite.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 08 February 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

I think so, but I searched about a bit on the 'net for the info. According to a New York Times article, the PQ tried to join in the 70s but was rejected because the NDP already represented Canada. However, another article mentions that Chirac didn't like that the PQ joined the Socialist International in 1982.


I'm not sure exactly about what happened in the 70's and 80s but the idea was discussed many times, and to my knowledge no positive vote to join an international was ever taken. I have to had that no vote not to join were made either until when Lucien Bouchard got into power, the debate was shut and the pq decided it was NOT going to join any socialist movement.

This trend went on after Bouchard departtures when members voted they where not social democrats either. With the coming elections of 1994, the exective changed the party position without consulting the members back to social-democracy (yes they can write am electoral platform without consulting the members and they usually do).

It's not until the last congress that members where asked and did vote to reintroduce "social-democracy" as a concept in the program.

But can't seriously say that the PQ was either socially or democraticly inclined with or after Bouchard. I would even argue that it isn't since 1981 budget.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 08 February 2006 01:06 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by tommie:

The fact is the NDP needs to make a decision. Does the party support the concept of Canada or not? If we do, then we have taken an excellent first step of supporting the Clarity Act. Next, we need to adopt a "Plan B"-esque approach to tackling separatism. We don't need progressive separatists, because frankly the term is an oxymoron.

No it's not, it's the NPD position that's counter to the world wide left. Every left party i knew supported the right of nations to self determination.

quote:
Originally posted by tommie:
Essentially, the NDP can start to ally with anti-Canadian forces or it can (excuse the awful Tory slogan) stand up for Canada.

That's no accident that you had to use the far-right tory slogan to express your views on the future of the Quebec nation. The NPD was never able to develop a view of Canada that was clearly distinct from the right-wingers. Many of it's members still cling to Trudeau multiculturalism.

If you read QS position on First nation, you'll find that it's possible to be on the left and to propose a view that's respectfull of every nation into one's country.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 08 February 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
They (the sovergnists) continue to fight the fading senior citizens of Westmount

Can you give me an example fo that into QS text please ?


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 08 February 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by simonvallee:

I said that there was a minimum of respect for Québec's aspirations and for its right to self-determination that I ask of a party before supporting it.

Obviously support for the Clarity Act is within this minimum for you then, since you ran for a party that officially supports it. And again, being a Quebecker like you, I don't feel the Clarity Act does anything to support or detract from the right of self-determination of our people. It's a bit rich to claim such since, after all, it's a federal law governing federal behaviour written by elected Quebec MPs. You may have a point if it were the provincial government adopting this law, but I don't ever recall hearing it said that the federal government was the body mandated to achieve Quebec's seperatist aspirations.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 08 February 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's no accident that you had to use the far-right tory slogan to express your views on the future of the Quebec nation. The NPD was never able to develop a view of Canada that was clearly distinct from the right-wingers. Many of it's members still cling to Trudeau multiculturalism.

They support it partly because a large number of immigrant communities support it. Trudeauvian multiculturalism is one of the main reasons why the Liberal Party has such a hold over immigrant communities in Canada, which it does.

This particular discourse of national self-determination is highly problematic even though it's understandable why left parties in certain parts of the world have adopted it.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 08 February 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Vous etes ecologistes? Excellent! Je pense le Parti Vert du Quebec avait un "working agreement" de ne courir pas dans pareil endoits avec le UFP. Je pense qu'ils feront pareil avec le QS. Non?

Yes we had an agreement during last elections with the greens about sharing ridings. Sadly (i was negotiating with the greens in montréal) it went poorly, mostly because UFP and the GP are both very democratic and member in ridings can overule decisions of the central party that ask not to have candidates. It happened on both sides. Since then the GP has expressed doubts about trying this ever again.

As for QS, which is composed mostly of people (about 60 %) who where not members during last election, it's hard to predict how this debate would go. But there seem to be a strong will to try to have candidates in every riding. This can make it complicated for future negotiations but it doesnt mean impossible.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 08 February 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has there been talk of an outright merger with the Greens?
From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 08 February 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by cco:
Has there been talk of an outright merger with the Greens?

When dicussions between UFP and OC started and again at a later point during last year, the GP was invited to merger negotiations. They refused on both occasions.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 February 2006 02:29 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
p durand, I was going to say the same thing!

There are quite a few environmentalists who support Québec solidaire though, including Richard Desjardins (a songrwriter who also made the film L'Erreur boréale, about the destruction of the boreal forest). And I find a heartening seriousness about environmental issues especially among the younger people - it is a refreshing change from the days of old, when some of the old Left didn't taken environmental struggles very seriously.

Actually, there are quite a few allophones who do support Québec solidaire - starting with Amir Khadir.

A good generation ago, Marco Micone and other progressive Italo-Québécois decried the stranglehold the Liberal Party had on their community, through "multiculturalism" to be sure, but also clientelism and acting as ethnic power brokers. A similar challenge was launched in the Greek community.

Among more recent immigrant groups, it was first among some Latin American groups (especially refugees from Chile and elsewhere in the Southern Cone region) that there was more of a "natural alliance" with the majority of Québécois, especially through the trade-union movement, which lent important material and moral support to the refugees.

I'm not a Bloc supporter, but I do think the Bloc breakthroughs with candidates from "Third World" ethnic communities in Papineau and Ahuntsic, former Liberal strongholds in central-northern Montréal, do represent some breaking of the Liberal stranglehold on "allophones".


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 08 February 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A good generation ago, Marco Micone and other progressive Italo-Québécois decried the stranglehold the Liberal Party had on their community, through "multiculturalism" to be sure, but also clientelism and acting as ethnic power brokers. A similar challenge was launched in the Greek community.

Among more recent immigrant groups, it was first among some Latin American groups (especially refugees from Chile and elsewhere in the Southern Cone region) that there was more of a "natural alliance" with the majority of Québécois, especially through the trade-union movement, which lent important material and moral support to the refugees.


The problem is that Trudeauvian multiculturalism (correctly) makes few demands on minority populations. If QS manages a policy that is also similarly undemanding, then more power to it. But I find that a sovereigntist position is inherently demanding, because it encompasses a particular notion of group belonging.

In other words, immigrant communities aren't stupid for favouring Trudeau's legacy.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 08 February 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Among more recent immigrant groups, it was first among some Latin American groups (especially refugees from Chile and elsewhere in the Southern Cone region) that there was more of a "natural alliance" with the majority of Québécois, especially through the trade-union movement, which lent important material and moral support to the refugees.

I'm not a Bloc supporter, but I do think the Bloc breakthroughs with candidates from "Third World" ethnic communities in Papineau and Ahuntsic, former Liberal strongholds in central-northern Montréal, do represent some breaking of the Liberal stranglehold on "allophones".


With the rising tide of the Left now sweeping the Southern half of this hemisphere again, it seems to me that people in these communities could be natural allies to the new Quebec Solidaire movement. I mean, Quebec is technically part of "Latin" America, too, although I don't imagine many francophone Quebecers have traditionally thought of themselves that way.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 08 February 2006 04:52 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by A Blair:

Obviously support for the Clarity Act is within this minimum for you then, since you ran for a party that officially supports it. And again, being a Quebecker like you, I don't feel the Clarity Act does anything to support or detract from the right of self-determination of our people. It's a bit rich to claim such since, after all, it's a federal law governing federal behaviour written by elected Quebec MPs. You may have a point if it were the provincial government adopting this law, but I don't ever recall hearing it said that the federal government was the body mandated to achieve Quebec's seperatist aspirations.


No, support for the Clarity Act is not in the minimum. When I joined the NDP, I first learned (and it was decisive) that the caucus had voted largely in favor of the law, but against the official position of the NDP as voted by the federal council in that time, and that Jack opposed it.

And the Clarity Act does try to restrict the right to self-determination by saying that the federal government has the (vague and far-reaching) right to decide alone if a referendum is "clear" and whether to recognize it or not. In other words, a veto on any referendum. To say it doesn't restrict it is really ridiculous, it's made to take the decision out of the hands of Québec and into the federal government by saying it would be against the federal law (and therefore, opening the way to use of force) to act on a referendum for sovereignty unless the federal government OKs it. Saying because it's a federal law about what the federal government would do it doesn't restrict the right of Québec is ridiculous, it would be akin to saying that the US invading Iraq respects the right to self-determination of the Iraqi people because it's an action of the US government and not of the Iraqi one. A bit extreme as comparison, but an apt one.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 08 February 2006 05:00 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone linked to our rabble coverage? I didn't notice it anywhere. (Yeah, I know. I'm the one who should have done it. )

Here and here


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 08 February 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I'm not a Bloc supporter, but I do think the Bloc breakthroughs with candidates from "Third World" ethnic communities in Papineau and Ahuntsic, former Liberal strongholds in central-northern Montréal, do represent some breaking of the Liberal stranglehold on "allophones".

In Ahuntsic, the BQ share of the vote dropped from 41.3% in 2004 to 38.9% in 2006, while in Papineau, the BQ vote share 'soared' from 40.0% in 2004 to 40.8% in 2006. The BQ won those seats because Liberal voters switched to the Conservatives, not the Bloc. I'm not sure this qualifies as a breakthrough.

The Bloc Quebecois increased their vote share in only two seats in the recent federal election (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik--Eeyou and Papineau); in the 73 other ridings, their support dropped.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 08 February 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, the sovereignty movement has a hard time breaking into immigrant communities in that it's still partly construed as being a national liberation movement. It's extremely difficult to expand the notion of "national" to people have no prior investments in it. Trudeau's solution was to define a form of nationalism that required very few cultural investments in it. Identity is easily decanted into a notion of multiculturalism, where you are not overtly being asked to consent to the dominant prior identity.

Québec nationalism has clearly tried to move into a "civic" or ethnically neutral nationalism, but it has a very hard time moving into this form of "minimal investment" nationalism. And that makes perfect sense: because if it did, there'd be no point.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 February 2006 07:28 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Workers of a given ethnic origin are not just members of their ethnic community - many immigrant workers have been leaders of very important struggles for union recognition here, and have found allies among "Québécois de souche" workers.

I've been there - this is not just some abstract concept people are debating.

The kind of frozen ethnicity you postulate plays into the hands of ethnic power-brokers and strives to keep workers of immigrant origins down and docile. Fortunately, it doesn't always work. You are ignoring class conflicts and divisions within cultural communities, and the possibility of class solidarity.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 08 February 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I'm not. I recognize that there are breakthroughs that have been made here and there. There always are. But there are also obstacles to it. And remember that it isn't abstract for me either.

Identity is important, and the basis for solidarity is important. If the basis (price?) for solidarity is a prior national concept, then you have a problem. Culture matters.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8667

posted 08 February 2006 08:26 PM      Profile for Carter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
The NPD was never able to develop a view of Canada that was clearly distinct from the right-wingers. Many of it's members still cling to Trudeau multiculturalism.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that official multiculturalism is not clearly distinct from a right-wing view of Canada? That will certainly come as news to the right, which spends most of its time denouncing multiculturalism as a dastardly plot to "dilute" "our" "culture" and impose an "Islamofascist" regime. Try mentioning multiculturalism on [that other site] and see what kind of reaction you get.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with Mandos that there's anything inherently more demanding, in the abstract, about a Quebec "sovereigntist" position (ie. the UFP) than about a Canadian "sovereigntist" position (ie. the NDP). I think that both positions demand far, far too much. They both attempt to impose the superstitious mythology of a particular ethnic group (Quebec nationalism for French Canadians, Canadian nationalism for English Canadians) on others who don't happen to have lucked into "majority" status within the given arbitrary set of boundaries (Quebec and Canada, respectively).

But the problem is that Quebec nationalist rhetoric often appears in practice to be more demanding than (left-wing) Canadian nationalist rhetoric does. On the "pluralism -> assimilationism" spectrum, the nationalism not only of the PQ, but even of the non-PQ elements of the Quebec nationalist left, usually seems closer to the assimilationist end than Trudeauite Canadian nationalism does. I'm not sure whether that's an erroneous impression or not, but if it is, then maybe left-wing Quebec nationalists should stop denouncing multiculturalism as a dastardly plot to "dilute" "our" "culture" and impose an etc.

I don't know what the QS position is on this, of course. If they will be moving toward a more pluralistic, multicultural stance than the one traditionally taken by the Quebec nationalist left, then that's wonderful. But I certainly wouldn't assume that they'll be doing so without seeing evidence of that.

[ 08 February 2006: Message edited by: Carter ]


From: Goin' Down the Road | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 10 February 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Carter:
[QB]I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that official multiculturalism is not clearly distinct from a right-wing view of Canada?

Maybe part of our misunderstanding is i consider the liberals as right wingers.

As for Quebec left, it has another view about immigrants and "cultural minorities" (is that an acceptable english expression). It's clearly different of the liberals (provincial and federal) view of communities and the theorical "communautarist" framework. For us this leads to ghettos and ethnical division of territory but also of solidarity. Dangerous.

Our views also differ from pq integrationnist views. Pq consider that "integration" is mainly a langage issue and goes through linguistics laws regarding signs, school and work. While this approach might have been necessary in the sixties and seventies to break the control and domination of the english minority in Quebec, I don't feel it is as necessary as it used to. First, french speaking quebecers aren't under-represented in the business class and as bosses. But the pull of being a linguistic minority in an "ocean of english" is still important for immigrants.

But the point is we look for a different objectives that can be synthesis into 2 slogans : "a common culture" and "vivre ensemble". The "common culture" is the goal of building a set of common cultural references : might they be a number of books, plays, movies, etc. that we could consider as being of "our culture". Note that this is more advanced in gastronomy, and many young quebecers consider "shish taouk" a quebecer meal. It differs from the pq integration as it's more a cultural sharing then assimilation. It doesnt mean that some elements of a former culture won't stay alive either.

The other element " vivre ensemble" (loosely translated into "living together") is a complememnt. "common culture" might look as us "melting pot", it's not. Because the melting pot, as is multiculturalism of pq "integration" are "officially" devoid of political and social elements. They are in fact assimilationnist on those aspects. The quebec left, by supporting unionization and the developpement of community centers and organizations as permitted to develop a "melting pot" of social and political pratices. Less popular, it also includes an oecuminic view of religions. The views of the left is to continue to develop and spread those practice of resistance and fights into a social consensus.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 10 February 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:

Can you give me an example fo that into QS text please ?


When you can quote more than a fraction of my statement, without removing the context entirely, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 10 February 2006 12:50 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
When you can quote more than a fraction of my statement, without removing the context entirely, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

Well i'm just trying to understand. How are we acting against senior citizens in Quebec or the citizens of Westmount ?


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 February 2006 12:59 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can certainly tell you I've never heard any references to blue-haired Westmount Rhodesians either in QC or either of the founding groups.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 10 February 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what advantages would separation bring if the province is still committed to the corporate agenda of NAFTA and the WTO agenda?

The 'repression' of Quebec is long past, and seldom came from outside of the province, but rather from internal elites. Now that hold has been broken, but you continue to take actions against their memories, rather than against your newest fetters. Sadly, you have willingly locked yourselves into this new bondage in the name of modernity and in order to join the club of 'globalization'. (In the process, you bound the rest of Canada - it was Quebec and Alberta that gave Mulroney his majority for the FTA.)


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 February 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it is crystal-clear that Québec solidaire opposes NAFTA and the WTO, as did both of the founding groups.

The position on sovereignty was democratically adopted by both founding groups and the merged party. Not everyone shares it, just as not everyone agrees on many other issues in its platform.

And nobody is as obsessed about it one way or another, as some posters here seem to be.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 10 February 2006 05:31 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not obsessed?

How strange then that a search of the Quebec Solidaire site brings up no reference to any position on NAFTA/ALENA, but their position on separatism is so clear.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
K Connor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8236

posted 14 February 2006 11:00 AM      Profile for K Connor        Edit/Delete Post
The Parti Vert sets out its differences with QS. Refreshingly, the national question is not even broached.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Berlueur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11807

posted 15 February 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for Berlueur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've written a little piece about QS. For those who read French and might be interested...

...ça n'aborde pas des questions d'orientations politiques (une autre fois, peut-être...), mais plutôt le sujet de l'investissement politique.

Très loin donc d'un texte argumentatif/analytique.

Essentiellement un texte (un peu enflammé...) qui s'enthousiasme de l'implication politique des participants au Congrès.

http://berlue.com/2006/02/15/quebec-solidaire-une-bouffee-dair-frais/


From: Montréal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 20 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Not obsessed? How strange then that a search of the Quebec Solidaire site brings up no reference to any position on NAFTA/ALENA, but their position on separatism is so clear.

Well it may seem so but it doesn't reflect the reality of the party. We knew that the next campaign will be oriented by the 2 most important parties (Pq and PLQ) around the national question. We couldn't try to grab power without a clear orientation on the subject. We also knew that a great deal of division among the left in Quebec is also mainly due to that question. The absence of the NPD on the provincial level and it's poor result on federal election can be explained that way. So we had to develop a common ground over it.

As for NAFTA or FTAA it probably won't be a big deal over the next campaign as it wasn't a great deal for the NDP on the last election. And it also not a great debate on the left, i guess we all more or less agree on it.

For those 2 reasons, their was no hurry to give more detail about it at this point. As the programm develops, as the opposition to neoliberalism becomes more central, the debate over free trades agreement will become more important.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 02 March 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A new provincial poll shows that "other parties" would get 13 % in Quebec and 16 % in Montréal (the low ratings are in Quebec city at 5%, you know the town that voted conservative).

Well "other" isn't very clear but it's because the polling companies have refused so far to name Québec Solidaire. It's yet to be seen if the sudden rise of the "others" in the polls are mainly QS or the greens. Of course my guess is it's mainly QS because
the results of the "others" has been quite stable for a long while, oscillating between 2 and 5%. the only new thing on the provincial level that might explain this sudden rise in the polls is of course the creation of QS. the previous poll, taken a few days before QS was created (but already quite discussed in the media) showed 9 % for the others.

The 16 % for Montreal is specially interesting since a partial election is to be held in the next few weeks in Montreal. It might also be of interest to note that above 15 % of votes, a party gets half of it's spending refunded by the governement.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 13 March 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The by-election in Ste-Marie-St-Jacques is going great. Manon Massé is a great candidat (she was one of the main organizer of the world women march). She's very well known in unions and community organization and invitations to hear QS views keep coming in.

The rest of the campaign is also going well : lots of militants give time, money is coming in at a steady pace, etc. Communications are also going fine.

Even if we have very very little chances to win this PQ stronghold, there's 2 objectives that Qs might achieve :

1) We're about sure to get more votes then the ADQ (for those who don't know what the ADQ is, it's a right wing split for the quebec liberals). That would state clearly that QS is not only a real player, which includes eventually a place in television debate and so forth but moreover it would state that WE are the third party. UFP, on of the QS founding group did beat the ADQ in most the byelection since 2003.

2) We might get more then 15 %. At this point quebec election rules states that half of expenses are refunded. Qs not being that rich an organization, that would really help.

3) We might even beat the liberals. It's about the same riding as Duceppe's federal riding and the NDP did come second. But, while in a very bad position, the quebe liberals are in a somewhat better shape then the PLC and their candidates is trying to show a "left face"... A victory over the liberals would reinforce the idea that QS is a real player.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 March 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's exciting. When is the byelection?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 14 March 2006 07:55 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's more from CBC on Manon Massé's campaign

She says the main planks in her campaign will be fighting poverty and homophobia in the (centre) east-end riding. (Manon is lesbian, and the riding includes the Gay Village and parts of the Plateau where there are many gay and lesbian residents.)

Here is Manon Massé's campaign website: http://manonmasse.net/ It isn't up yet, but will be soon.

By the way, the election is set for the 10th of April.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 22 March 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's too bad that the QS is avowedly sovereigntist.l I like a lot of what else they have to say. Quebec sovereignty is a completely a completely reactionary and illogical project.
From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 22 March 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Manon Massé's campaign called me this evening. They were much more pleased to hear I was voting for Québec Solidaire than the gentleman from the PQ who called an hour earlier.

Good luck, Manon!


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Berlueur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11807

posted 23 March 2006 12:00 AM      Profile for Berlueur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
3) We might even beat the liberals. It's about the same riding as Duceppe's federal riding and the NDP did come second. But, while in a very bad position, the quebe liberals are in a somewhat better shape then the PLC and their candidates is trying to show a "left face"... A victory over the liberals would reinforce the idea that QS is a real player.

Yes indeed... Beating the liberal candidate, to me, seems like a hard-to-attain but not-unfeasible goal. And it would be so awesome.

Since you seem to be in-the-know WRT the campaign, could you give us more details on the "Parade citoyenne" that is to take place on April 1st? The campaign website still doesn't disclose any information about that...

Edited to add: BTW, the details for the party's logo contest have finally been posted: http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/le-parti/concours-didentification-visuelle

[ 23 March 2006: Message edited by: Berlueur ]


From: Montréal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 06 April 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by spindoctor:
Quebec sovereignty is a completely a completely reactionary and illogical project.

So all unions and most community organization, who support sovereignty, are reactionnary and the liberals, conservatives, who are federalist, are on the left. Who i'm convinced, i'm going to join the conservative to push this leftist agenda. lol

Illogical, like Canada not being part of the US is illogical ?


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 06 April 2006 04:02 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It not exactly new stuff but the Québec Solidaire "Declaration of principles" are translated in english : http://www.dernier-recours.org/assets/files/english/congres_de_fondation/en_projet_declaration_principes.pdf
From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 06 April 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your url is causing sidescroll.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 April 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
x
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca