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   » Again about Quebec Solidaire

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Again about Quebec Solidaire
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 23 August 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Two partial elections were held in Quebec 10 days ago. The results were without suprise, the PQ held to both strongholds. Quebec solidaire got 8% and 7 % in each case which, at first insn't really news since it's exactly the party results on polls.

So is it a no news ? Not exactly. In south shore riding of Taillon, the liberals acted as a general election, with a large campaign budget, many campaign workers, and almost daily visits form MPs. The PQ retaliated with equal forces. Most analyst said it was a test for incoming general
elections. Well good news, Quebec Solidaire held it's ground even with such a intense campaign. It wasn't so obvious it would since polls sometimes aren't so much an indication for a new party. Of course it wasnt last spring 22 % result, but the montreal south shore riding, as a lower middle class area, doesn't have a left wing history.

The other partial election was on montreal island far east, which is also a suburb. Their the results are a little more disapointing. At first, 7 % doesn't seem so bad but... The green got a slightly higher result. This is seemingly disapointing since the green are clearly less organized, media covered and they don't have any charismatic leadership. But the fact is that Pointe-aux-Trembles is somewhat of an Achille's wheel for Qs, since the party is now organized locally in most ridings but not there. The elections being held in summer, it was a bit hard to recruit (unpaid) campaign workers in other ridings. On the other hand, this riding is one of the greens only organized riding in Quebec. So the result wasn't as bad as it looked.

And you have to know that the PQ canadidate, André Boisclaire, is the new PQ leader. That doesn't help.

What clearly was wrong is when you look at the results knowing that the liberals and the "Action démocratique" (far right party, conservative sympathizer) didn't put any candidate againt Boisclaire. I didn't mind finishing behind the greens, i predicted it. But with so little opposition i really tought we could do better then 7 %. Then again the participation was really really low, and it was felt as a no-show.


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

posted 23 August 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The debate of a return of the NPD in Quebec provincial elections will be again on the agenda. It seem that former NPD candidate François Grégoire wants to reform the party. Is it a good idea ?

Being first and foremost a Québec Solidaire (QS) member, i would say no. But the real question is, is it good for the NPD ? Again i would say no.

François Grégoire wants to reform a provincial NPD because is unhappy with QS sovereignist tendancies. So with ths new NDP-Qc, he would put up, loud and clear that the NPD is a federalist party. Nothing wrong with that, right ? Wrong.

Most NPD members in Quebec are either members or sympathizers of QS. The opposite is of course true. The 2 last elections where tough on the Quebec branch of the federal NPD with several reburk of candidates who admitted being sovereignists. This clearly as slowed NPD development in the french populations, among union organizers, student organizations, etc. If the NPD is to develop in Quebec, it clearly should put it's left brand forward. The NPD will never appear the federalist solution, it's the liberals and conservatives brand. What differantiate the NPD are the social issues.

With Grégoire proposal, the NPD will have to put forwrd it a FEDERALIST left party, if it's not to be mixed up with QS. Not only is it a bad strategy
to gain votes provincially but branding the NPD as federalist will also make the NPD lose ground in federal election... it's the same party after all.

Last and not least, many Qs members would be appaled by such a move. For the NPD creating another left party in Quebec would break the informal alliance between QS and the NDP, with both party ending up losing organizers, financial ressources and members. So is it worth it ?


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 23 August 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's keep in mind that it is one thing for QS to get 7% of the vote in a low turn-out byelection where the stakes were very low and where there was no way that how anyone voted was going to have an impact on the overall government. I wonder how many votes QS can get in the context of a closely contested provincial election campaign?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 24 August 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
it is one thing for QS to get 7% of the vote in a low turn-out byelection.

But if the MMP model designed by the Quebec Citizens' Committee were implemented, 7% across Quebec (as the polls show) would elect 9 MNAs: no doubt 2 or 3 from Montreal Island, and 6 or 7 more in 6 or 7 of the 15 other regions, but with province-wide proportionality their supporters would be assured that every vote would count.

Oddly, under the government's first draft bill, 7% would get them nothing, unless they could get 16% or more in their best five-seater district of East Montreal, which is certainly possible: one seat at best. The PQ would be very happy. Why are the Liberals proposing to help the PQ? We will see shortly what the second draft looks like.

[ 30 August 2006: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 30 August 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question isn't if QS or the NPD are about to have MPs elected. Neither are on the short term. The question is can those two organizations keep growing, so, in the mid-term, let's in 5 years their in a position to be a real treat to the liberals, conservative-ADQ (this alliance seems to be growing) and the PQ-BLoc.

Of course, an alliance would be more difficult and always more informal since QS is sovergnist and the NPD federalist.

But with a provincial NPD, trying to differentiates with QS as being mostly federalist, I think both organizatoins are loosing something.
Many QS that are actually supporting the federal NPD might be tempted to go to the Bloc. And of course, some people who are actually members of both the NPD and QS might choose to go to the provincial NPD. I was hoping that the left would stop dividing itself...


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 30 August 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I was hoping that the left would stop dividing itself...

I agree - that's why what we need is for the Left in Quebec to stop having such an obsession with dividing Canada!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 01 September 2006 07:59 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I agree - that's why what we need is for the Left in Quebec to stop having such an obsession with dividing Canada!


I like your sense of humor. But this sentence is perfectly revesible. Why is it that the NPD seems to be so attached to the colonial fondations of Canada and it's imperialistic policies ? Keeping Quebec in Canada isn't a left policy (or else I'll have to think about voting for those 2 other "leftist" that are the liberals and the conservatives). The left has already solved this problem long ago, wether in the unions (the relationship between the CLC and the FTQ), women's movement, student organizations, and so forth. On this subject, the NPD is a lot closer to the liberals and conservatives then the left.

So I'm returning you the question, why the conservative stance to keep the unequeal relations between nations as they are ? Why does this conservative policy (in the philosophical sense) sometimes seems more important then the progressive economical and social propositions of the NDP ? When did the NPD started to promote the stability of political structures instead of progressive change ?

But you see, it really is besides the point. We could divide hundredways, anticapitalists against reformists, feminists againts "machos", ecologists
against "developers", unionist againt "small business" and so forth. I'm still hoping for more open mindedeness. Most people prove me right, some don't... Pick your camp.


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

posted 01 September 2006 08:03 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pierre Ducasse just wrote to me that he will vote AGAINST the creation of a provincial NPD, hoping to strenghten the bound with QS but mostly between NPD and QS members. It does seem that the left will provide over the federalist-centrist-of-the-third-way. Hurray.
From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 01 September 2006 09:40 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
Why is it that the NPD seems to be so attached to the colonial fondations of Canada and it's imperialistic policies ?

Not only Canada, but all ten provinces, Quebec included, have colonial foundations. I would hope that an independent Quebec would be willing to allow the Cree in the North to secede from Quebec and either go forward as an independent nation, or rejoin Canada, or decide their own destiny in some other way, as they decide -- not as decided by colonial masters in either Ottawa or Quebec city.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 01 September 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Not only Canada, but all ten provinces, Quebec included, have colonial foundations. I would hope that an independent Quebec would be willing to allow the Cree in the North to secede from Quebec and either go forward as an independent nation, or rejoin Canada, or decide their own destiny in some other way, as they decide -- not as decided by colonial masters in either Ottawa or Quebec city.


It's in Qs proposal to let first nations have their own "constituante" (i have no idea how to translate that !) and to be able to write their own constitution. As to secede, i'm not one to argue about the right for nations to secede (which is the breaking point with the npd right-wingers), the problem common for all first nations, including the cree, is defining borders. When you look at it trough the international legality, their in a situation somewhat similar to palestinian.

But as far as i know, their about as hostile to Quebec as a country as a much as Canada. Their voting as much for the PQ as for the liberals on the provincial level.

My question is Martha, if you so willingly give the right to secede to the cree, do you also support the right for quebecers to secede, or is it the same right-wing-liberal retaliation (which is also used by conervatives and many right-wing npders).


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

posted 01 September 2006 11:35 AM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
I would hope that an independent Quebec would be willing to allow the Cree in the North to secede from Quebec and either go forward as an independent nation, or rejoin Canada, or decide their own destiny in some other way

Remind me again who the MP for Nunavik-Eeyou is? And what party he belongs to?


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 01 September 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The provincial MP for Nunavut is Michel Létourneau from the PQ. The federal riding is much much larger with almost 8 times more constituents, most of them non-Cree.
From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 01 September 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess the best defense is to attack me on Qs sovereignist policies but i still find Ducasse decision not to support the formation of a provincial NPD very wise.
From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 01 September 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
The provincial MP for Nunavut is Michel Létourneau from the PQ. The federal riding is much much larger with almost 8 times more constituents, most of them non-Cree.

They look about the same size to me:

Anyway, my point was that these northern regions everyone seems to expect to shy away from the idea of a sovereign Québec don't seem to have any problem electing sovereigntists, as both federal and provincial ridings are held by the PQ/BQ.

Edited to dramatically downsize one of the images.

[ 01 September 2006: Message edited by: cco ]


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 01 September 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Before the 95 referendum they held their own referendum, I think it was the Cree, on partition. They voted, if i recall correctly, 95% for partition.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 01 September 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
My question is Martha, if you so willingly give the right to secede to the cree, do you also support the right for quebecers to secede, or is it the same right-wing-liberal retaliation (which is also used by conervatives and many right-wing npders).

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure whether I think that Quebec ought to have the right to secede. I do believe the following conditional claim: if Quebec has the right to secede from Canada, then the Cree probably have the right to secede from Quebec. The reason why I believe this conditional claim is as follows: the standard arguments in favour of Quebec's right to secede from Canada would seem to apply to the Cree, should they decide to secede from Quebec. You do have a point that there would be special difficulties in the case of the Cree, simply because there is no obvious border. Presumably, that would have to be negotiated.

There is a very thorny issue here, which is this: Which parts of a country should have the right to secede from that country? Western countries more or less immediately recognized the independence of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia from the USSR; yet not the independence of Chechnya from Russia. Western countries more or less immediately recognized the independence of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina to from Yugoslavia; yet not the independence of the Republic of Serbian Krajina from Croatia. It is the far right in the Republica Sprska that would like to secede from Bosnia-Hercegovina. And God only knows what to say about Kosovo.

I guess that my tentative opinion is that, unless there is genuine oppression going on, secession tends to lead to more harm than good. I say this with full awareness that there is nothing sacrosanct or written in stone about a country's borders, and that countries are more or less convenient but artificial constructions.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
pencil-skirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4612

posted 01 September 2006 01:29 PM      Profile for pencil-skirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought this had more to do with the fact that Frist Nations people were not consulted about their future in a sovereign Quebec. First Nations people reject the mythology of "two founding nations" that is popular among some Quebec sovereigntists, but it was my impression that as of late, the Quebec sovereigntist movement has become much more accepting of multiculturalism and diversity, and less reminiscent of the old "pur et dur" ideology.

I guess my point is that I don't think First Nations are for or against Quebec sovereignty. They are for a society that will respect their national rights and fulfill treaty obligations to them. In 1995 they didn't see the Bloc or Parti Quebecois as doing that...


From: Saturn | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
kyall glennie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3940

posted 03 September 2006 11:35 PM      Profile for kyall glennie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
500 Apples is correct - the James Bay Cree held their own referendum that was about that (95% opposed to a sovereign Quebec).

When Gilles Duceppe did his "this is what I believe in, Canada" speaking tour last year I asked him here in Regina what part the First Nations of Quebec would play in a sovereign Quebec, and I really don't think I received a fair answer.

First Nations, Inuit, Metis and aboriginal peoples are not "visible minorities" or "ethnic peoples" -- they are indigenous peoples of this country and as such constitute many founding nations beyond the English and French settlers. I will see if I can get a vibe from any sovereignists at the federal NDP convention this week if that fact has started to become accepted.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 September 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:
The provincial MP for Nunavik is Michel Létourneau from the PQ.

They call the provincial riding Ungava:

Létourneau, Michel (P.Q.) 5,744 50.11%
Bubar, Donald Don (Q.L.P.) 4,258 37.15%
Trudeau, Gloria (A.D.Q.) 1,460 12.74%
Total voter turnout: 11,654
Registered electors: 23,067
Voter turnout: 50.52%

But Nunavik/Kativik has only 10,419 people. Nord-du-Quebec (pretty much the same as Ungava riding)also includes Baie-James which has another 29,827. But while Nunavik/Kativik is 90% Inuit, Baie-James is only one-third Cree. So half the voters are non-indigenous. And only half the voters voted. Hmm. Does this explain how the PQ won?


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
island empire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8064

posted 04 September 2006 07:15 AM      Profile for island empire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
by the way, regarding the creation of an ndp provincial party: if you support the ndp federally, you have to admit that it's a fantastic idea.

everyone knows that the ndp's federal vote share is tied directly to the strength of its provincial wings. moreover, this is quebec - the most provincialist of the provinces. in a nutshell, with no provincial wing in quebec, the ndp here will forever be mired in nothing scores.

plus, qs is a bunch of damned separatists, and i (and many others) would sooner vote for the reactionary charest regime than for a group of folks who support the destruction of what i (and many others) consider to be one of the greatest political units ever to have existed. on an electoral marketplace argument, this province *needs* a left nationalist option to battle the right nationalist and left separatist options.

edited to correct typographical errors.

[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: island empire ]


From: montréal, canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2006 09:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by island empire:

plus, qs is a bunch of damned separatists, and i (and many others) would sooner vote for the reactionary charest regime than for a group of folks who support the destruction of what i (and many others) consider to be one of the greatest political units ever to have existed.

There's the way to attract the progressive people and youth of Québec today! A straightforward statement like that should earn the NDP lots of support here! Just as it has in the past!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 04 September 2006 10:42 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
Unionist I wouldn't go so far as to call seperatists, at least the highly visible image of them, progressive. There is nothing progresive about the language police or the forced linguistic assimilation of ethnic minorities in the province.
I don't see how it's possible to marry the seperatists nationalist and exclusivist agenda to ideas of socialism and an egalitarian society.
Unless, of course, you mean socialism and a progressive society for all francophones and the boot for everyone else.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 04 September 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

But Nunavik/Kativik has only 10,419 people. Nord-du-Quebec (pretty much the same as Ungava riding)also includes Baie-James which has another 29,827. But while Nunavik/Kativik is 90% Inuit, Baie-James is only one-third Cree. So half the voters are non-indigenous. And only half the voters voted. Hmm. Does this explain how the PQ won?

Well, i dunno about the PQ, but that could certainly, at least, explain why the turnout is so low. Since the creation of this riding, it has NEVER happened that an aboriginal/inuit ran for office. Not provincially, not federally, not with the Liberals not with the PQ/Bloc, not with the NDP. Never.

As Richard Desjardins puts it:

Les femmes ont le droit de vote depuis 1940, les Indiens ont le droit de vote depuis 1960, maintenant que nous vivons dans une démocratie totale, il nous reste plus rien qu'une chose à régler, c'est d'avoir le choix de la personne pour qui on peut voter.

* * * * *

Now, about the comment on QS being a club of "damned separatist", that highlights well the great divide between the canadian and the québécoise left. One is centralist and wouldn't mind to have its healtcare dealt by the federal government if only it could remain free and public; the other is decentralist and strongly believes that the closer the government will be to the population, the closer we will be to achieving a true democracy.

It's just the old Marx vs Bakunin quarrel.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 04 September 2006 11:40 AM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:

I don't see how it's possible to marry the seperatists nationalist and exclusivist agenda to ideas of socialism and an egalitarian society.
Unless, of course, you mean socialism and a progressive society for all francophones and the boot for everyone else.

Nationalist and exclusivist... You must ingest too much Canwest crap, my poor fellow.

The Québec separatism movement as nothing to do with creating a french supremacist state. It's all about giving Québécois -- who ever they are, whatever the language they speak -- the right to take decision by themselves without having to compromise with the rest of a so-called federation that is, in fact, one of the most centralized government in the world.

It is a decentralization project, an autonomist proposal.

You may think it's silly, and I would be glad to hear your arguments about it. But I would appreciate that you would do so in a respectful manner exempt of name-calling and prejudicial assumptions.

Separtistly yours,

A member of an ethnic minority that had to be linguistically assimilated to find a home in english Canada


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
pencil-skirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4612

posted 04 September 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for pencil-skirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by island empire:

everyone knows that the ndp's federal vote share is tied directly to the strength of its provincial wings. moreover, this is quebec - the most provincialist of the provinces. in a nutshell, with no provincial wing in quebec, the ndp here will forever be mired in nothing scores.
[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: island empire ]


I don't think this is really true.

First of all, the NDP cannot rely on it's provincial support in federal elections. We have a majority government in Saskatchewan, and got not a single MP out of that province. Another majority government in Manitoba and only 3 or so MPs. Only 2 MPs from Nova Scotia where the NDP is the official opposition and was only a few MLA's shy of deposing the Tory government.

And also, as to whether parties can succeed federally in Quebec without provincial wings - look at the Conservatives - they just got 10 MPs but have no provincial wing. Their voters voted either ADQ or Liberal (maybe PQ) in the last provincial election.


From: Saturn | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 04 September 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
For one, and with no intent of being disrespectful, the idea that Canada has a highly centralized government is a complete farce. Perhaps it would have saved us many problems had the provincial governments been reduced in scope and power.
As for the claim that Quebec is an inclusive society, I don't see how that explains the migration of hundreds of thousands of anglophones and allophones out of the province.
Changing the attire and growing a pinch does not make one a socialist. The underlying truth of the seperatist argument is and has been, speak French or leave, but don't forget to send us your tax dollars for our highly lauded social programs.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 04 September 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
"The Québec separatism movement as nothing to do with creating a french supremacist state. It's all about giving Québécois -- who ever they are, whatever the language they speak -- the right to take decision by themselves...."

Yeah, sure, that's why we have the language police running around with their tape measures and ticket books.


From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
island empire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8064

posted 04 September 2006 12:30 PM      Profile for island empire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
pencil-skirt:

sure, the ndp's weak. but they're weak in pretty systematic ways.

Let's review the 2006 federal election results:

NS: two mps, two close results, strong and popular provincial party.
NB: one mp, one semi-close result, weak and somewhat popular provincial party (but then, Godin is Godin...).
PEI, NF-LD: nothing even close, weak and unpopular provincial parties.
QC: nothing even close, no provincial party.
ON: 12 mps, 15 close or semi-close results, strong and somewhat popular provincial party.
MB: 3 mps, 2 close results, on semi-close result, strong and popular provincial party.
SK: 0 mps, 2 close results, strong and unpopular provincial party.
AB: 0 mps, 0 semi-close result, weak and unpopular provincial party.
BC: 10 mps (!), 3 close results, strong and popular provincial party.

the way the ndp works is that provincial parties are directly affiliated with the federal party: unlike the liberals or the conservatives, the ndp is a single integrated organisation. the resources that federal candidates have (access to donors, labour, etc) comes from what they bring themselves (the candidate matters, as yves godin shows), or what the provincial wing brings. i repeat: unlike with the liberals or conservatives, there's no independent ndp of canada infrastructure. however strong (money, people, etc) these provincial wings become almost always determines the likelihood of federal candidate success. this is like ndp 101. since quebec has no provincial office, what you have a is a tiny cadre of folks on saint laurent street (2 full time employees) and a devoted, but still relatively miniscule (around 600) group of activists who come together for the odd event or election. it's hard to change this situation because: 1) the only time anyone ever hears of the ndp is during a federal election; 2) the only spokesperson for the ndp is a "quebecois" who speaks nearly no french (la moustache); 3) as the quebec section is run from ottawa, quebec activists don't get to 'own' the party section the way their counterparts in other provinces 'own' their respective ndp sections. a shit-kicking bc new democrat like corky evans or charlie wyse shares only the most basic progressive vision with jack jack or the equally shit-kicking darrell dexter. the regional/provincial aspect of ndp membership is part of what makes the party strong. so then: in quebec you've got a section that most quebecois barely know about, that only appears during federal elections, with a spokesperson based in ottawa or toronto (sorry m. ducasse, but your position is so illogical, that you can't blame the media for ignoring you), with no serious chance at attracting new members.

you can change all of this by founding a provincial section, scoring a great new leader (an ex-lefty separatist maybe?), and getting the ndp into debates, into the papers, into people's minds. when you cede all this territory to the separatists, you're eventually going to end up fighting with your back to the wall.

now, as for the separatism thing: listen, for most of these people, it's a holy war. read a seventh grade text-book in this province, it's like something out of communist china! the english perpetrated a terrible genocide against the french, the noble french did what they could for the aboriginals, quebec has always been a nation. listen to these guys talk about productivity, about interprovincial and international trade, about equalisation - it's half-truths supported by this mad-eyed determination to see quebec become independent. it's progressive the way scientology is progressive! the class struggle? come on! if a lot of the folks fighting for social housing are also separatists, it doesn't mean that social housing is a separatist goal. you know, because a lot of the folks opposing social housing are, you know, also separatists.

so yeah, providing voters with a left, non-separatist option is a terrific idea!


From: montréal, canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Threads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3415

posted 04 September 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for Threads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Er, in the 2006 summary, why does New Brunswick have a semi-close result and Alberta doesn't have one? Linda Duncan was about twice as close to Rahim Jaffer in Edmonton--Strathcona as either John Carty or Rodolphe Martin were to the Liberals winning Fredericton and Madawaska--Restigouche, and actually finished second (unlike Carty and Martin).

[ 04 September 2006: Message edited by: Threads ]


From: where I stand | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
island empire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8064

posted 04 September 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for island empire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ha-da-da... nice contribution.

anyway, i did it from memory... still the point's still super valid.


From: montréal, canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 05 September 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by island empire:
plus, qs is a bunch of damned separatists, and i (and many others) would sooner vote for the reactionary charest regime than for a group of folks who support the destruction of what i (and many others) consider to be one of the greatest political units ever to have existed. on an electoral marketplace argument, this province *needs* a left nationalist option to battle the right nationalist and left separatist options.

Wow you're about to convince me that npders are really closet liberals that have no intentions of changing political structures. Hum, you're actually are about to convince me i should stop voting for the npd.


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

posted 05 September 2006 10:36 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:
As for the claim that Quebec is an inclusive society, I don't see how that explains the migration of hundreds of thousands of anglophones and allophones out of the province.

Wow, what a rethoric. I guess that if Quebec loses population because population because it's backward and racists, nova scottia, newfoundland and new brunswick must be white power utopias because their losing populations lot faster.

On the other hand, the conservatives ruled Alberta
must be a paradise of openmidedness since it's gaining population very fast.

Or maybe it's just that people are moving where there's work.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 05 September 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:
For one, and with no intent of being disrespectful, the idea that Canada has a highly centralized government is a complete farce. Perhaps it would have saved us many problems had the provincial governments been reduced in scope and power.
As for the claim that Quebec is an inclusive society, I don't see how that explains the migration of hundreds of thousands of anglophones and allophones out of the province.
Changing the attire and growing a pinch does not make one a socialist. The underlying truth of the seperatist argument is and has been, speak French or leave, but don't forget to send us your tax dollars for our highly lauded social programs.

About the centralized government:

Canadians usually don't believe it when I claim that our state is a very centralized one. It's normal. You were told this federation fairy-tale so often that you have come to belive it. Of course the provinces here are granted a few responsabilities -- a little less for the territories. But the federal also keeps very important ones: Environment and Defense for instance. And further, because the province are mainly funded by the upper government, the federal keeps a lot of grasp on the provincial wheel. "So you want money for healthcare, all right but you have to spend it according to OUR national program." And in the end, the feds usually manage to have the last word. That's what we call a federation. It could be more autonomist, it could be more centralist. It's the voters to choose.

But if we want something less central, we could look around and take example on other countries that dont parade their "federalism" as much as we do in Canada, but indeed have much more decentralized structures. The United-States would be one. There the governorr of Vermont does not have to await till his president has signed the Kyoto Protocol to start curbing his states GHG emissions. He can do that on is own, because it would be a locally funded initiative anyways. In Canada? Nope. We'll have to see Harper's Green Plan and its attached budget before the provinces can plan anything.

Other examples? Germany would be a good one. It's probably one of the most decentralized state in the world. They even have different stamps depending on the region you are in.

We could also name Spain that recognize an an autonomous status to Cataluna, or Iraq that does likewise with the Kurds region. Even the feodal Afghanistan it seems is more federalist than Canada...

Yet, a lot of canadian "federalists", and even more often the leftists among them, feel we should grant more power to the central government, so that things get done more rapidly and that programs are applied evenly from coast to coast. That's one point of view, but it's unlikely to attract much interest in Quebec, where strong central governments are seen as a threat to civil liberties and to a more participative democracy. In fact, most progressive separatist I know claim that, the day they will get a country of their own, they will start advocating for a more federal Québec where regional interest would be better represented.

See, it's a totaly different kind of left that we do not encouter much in english Canada, besides maybe in anarchist clubs.


* * * * *

Then about Quebec not being inclusive:

All I can tell you is go see Québec and we'll talk after.

Go there and meet people. It doesn't matter if you don't speak french, Québécois are usually very welcoming and they will do their best to "baragouine" a little english. Go and ask minority groups. Ask the immigrants. Ask the exiled British-Columbia Mother. Talk with unilingual english peeople in the West Island. Ask them if they get services in their language, If their kids attend a public english school, if they are given the possibility to fill this endless Quebec tax form in their own language ? Go ask. Please.

(Oh, I must warn you, of course you will probably meet some despicable racist fellows and, what not, they might happen to be elected officials of some sort. Maybe. But, eh, these bastards are everywhre. I mean, didn't CBC's audience almost gave Don Cherry the "Greatest Canadian" title ?)

And once you are done with this little Québec tour, go ask Jack Layton, who was born in Montreal, and still manages to be the less bilingual of all national political leaders, if he suffered from his linguistic minority childhood. Ask him if the exclusivist Québécois have tried to assimilate him. Go ask. Please.

And then, go back to wherever you live and try to find a French Canadian in your neighbourhood and ask him the same questions you asked the West Island anglo and Jack Layton. (And, again, don't worry about the linguistic barrier: the frenchy will speak good english, trust me.) Go and ask. Please.

Once you've done all that, maybe then we can have a well informed discussion about inclusivity of the Québec society.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 05 September 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Québécois in the North:

About the centralized government:

Canadians usually don't believe it when I claim that our state is a very centralized one. It's normal. You were told this federation fairy-tale so often that you have come to belive it. Of course the provinces here are granted a few responsabilities -- a little less for the territories. But the federal also keeps very important ones: Environment and Defense for instance.


It's not a matter of belief, it's reality. Canada's government is highly decentralized. The federal government is a big source of cash, which gives it some influence, but most of the powers important to day-to-day life are held by the provinces.

I don't think that defence is too terribly important in the grand scheme of things, representing probably not even 5% of federal/provincial government spending.

Environment is a shared jurisdiction in Canada, but it's hard to see how it could not be so, given the local nature of some environmental problems and the national or global nature of others.

quote:

And further, because the province are mainly funded by the upper government, the federal keeps a lot of grasp on the provincial wheel.

It's hard to see the effect of this anywhere except in health care. The provinces generally insist on as much freedom as they can get to spend federal money how they want.

quote:

But if we want something less central, we could look around and take example on other countries that dont parade their "federalism" as much as we do in Canada, but indeed have much more decentralized structures. The United-States would be one.

No, it wouldn't. The US federal government controls much more of the total government budget than the Canadian feds do. Through both its spending power and broad Supreme Court interpretations of its own constitutional powers it controls in great detail a lot of what states do. The welfare reform under Bill Clinton was a great example of that, forcing all fifty states to radically change their policies on social assistance. There's whole areas of the US federal government that simply have no federal equivalent in Canada, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

quote:

We'll have to see Harper's Green Plan and its attached budget before the provinces can plan anything.

Nope. The provinces can and should be doing an lot in their jurisdiction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They control energy, they control transportation, they control urban planning. They just don't want to have to raise their own taxes to pay for it.

quote:

Other examples? Germany would be a good one. It's probably one of the most decentralized state in the world. They even have different stamps depending on the region you are in.

Germany's an odd beast in that both levels of government have powers that affect how the opposing level of government works. What looks decentralized there sometimes turns out not to be, and vice-versa.

The point is, though, that if you're looking for a more decentralized federation than Canada, your options are limited to Switzerland, essentially.
[/QUOTE]


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 06 September 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
Quebecois of the North, I have lived in Quebec for most of my life. I wholeheartedly agree with you about the friendly nature of the majority of Quebecers. I don't think that's necesseraly the issue here.
The Quebec governments have shown themselves to be less than friendly in enforcing antiquated ideas and programs of nartionalism. You speak of a happy immigrant population but fail to mention those that have lost their livelihoods and businesses thanks to the OLF and Quebec language laws. You also forget to mention how ethnics have been vilified for the loss of an opportunity at sovereignty. You also don't address the massive exodus of anglophones and ethnics from the province since this vitriolic form of linguistic oppression began.
I don't see how there can be a representative left in Quebec that bases itself on such obviously right wing policies, unless it only represents francophones, in which case it would be far from inclusive.
My personal opinion is that it would be nice to have a leftist option in Quebec that doesn't base itself on the 1930s style nationalism that has been paraded by the PQ and exemplified by the likes of Parizeau. I would vote for a double bill of Bush and Nixon before I cast a ballot for a seperatist government.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 06 September 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
p durand, the information is actualy widely available and it is not rhetoric. This exodus began in the seventies and continued throughout this period of nationalist dominance. Just take a look at the numbers of people that fled the province before, during and after the '95 referendum.
And since you're speaking of jobs, perhaps you can take a look and see how many companies fled the province thanks to our unfriendly political environment resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs for Quebecers.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 06 September 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:

I don't see how there can be a representative left in Quebec that bases itself on such obviously right wing policies, unless it only represents francophones, in which case it would be far from inclusive.

The nationalist left in Quebec as not made a big point about linguistics policies. But i would make a bit of self introspection before making an equation between sovergnist = right and federalist = left. Or i would have to say that i frankly doubt that the conservatives and the liberals are left wing parties. And as for those who say that they'd prefer to vote for a right wing party then for a left wing natinalist party, you should also take a little while and think about it.

The left in Quebec and in Canada as not succeded yet into making a clear federalist proposal that would be different from the libs and cons. The sovergnist left as the same problem in Quebec. Why is it worse ?


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

posted 06 September 2006 11:22 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:
p durand, the information is actualy widely available and it is not rhetoric. This exodus began in the seventies and continued throughout this period of nationalist dominance. Just take a look at the numbers of people that fled the province before, during and after the '95 referendum.
And since you're speaking of jobs, perhaps you can take a look and see how many companies fled the province thanks to our unfriendly political environment resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs for Quebecers.

Your right, some people have left Quebec because of their polical beliefs. How many ?

As for companies, this tendancy can be seen way before the PQ even started to exist. It has happened in Nove Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland also. Some use the 1980 and 1995 referendum as pretext to move headquarters. Many planned to do it neverthless. Some where scams to influence vote as the 1980 "coup de la Brinks" that said that money was moving out of Quebec. As if banks still used paper bills to move money !

some business left because they tought that "french canadien" where naturally unable to govern. Many racist comment where made by corporate representatives when they left, for example, the London Life and Cadbury in 1980 and the Royal Bank in 1995. I guess they where afraid that quebeckers would use the same racist methods they used for centuries against them. In their place i'd leave too, even if there was no real risk that it was about to happen. I personnally don't miss those who believe quebecers are an under-race made for lowly jobs and to be ruled wasps. Good riddance.


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DownWithAbrahamism
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13056

posted 06 September 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for DownWithAbrahamism     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is the ADQ far-right or conservative libertarian (i.e. minarchist)? Sure I mockingly call it the Action Duplessiste, but that's only in conjunction with slurs like Parti Quebecoke and Jean Charest (Just pointing out his existence is an insult given how pathetic he is.).
From: Montreal | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 07 September 2006 09:14 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DownWithAbrahamism:
Is the ADQ far-right or conservative libertarian (i.e. minarchist)? Sure I mockingly call it the Action Duplessiste, but that's only in conjunction with slurs like Parti Quebecoke and Jean Charest (Just pointing out his existence is an insult given how pathetic he is.).

Well he as been pretty desperate to develop a position on the right of the already "pretty far on the right" Jean Charest. Not much room to maneuver there. SO there's a little bit of this and that and a lot of grey zones.

He used to propose things like "school bonds" with direct subsidy to parents and none to public school, which makes in facts all school private (wether the borad is named by the state or privatly). this is still in their proposals. Even worse, he used to propose to send when (more or less) large check to every adult citizen and to cut all state finance services (welfare, hospitals, etc.). This is hard line libertarian policies. But i haven't heard anything like this for a while on their part. There seems to be moves to privatize some heathcare and some highways.

Ont he other hand, their populist agenda is going on with a bang. One of the 3 points of their proposals for incoming elections is "governing for the silent majority" with anti-union proposals. Is using more and more neo-cons rethorics : clash of civilizations, axis of evil, "special interests" groups. More funny, is now branding all other polical force on it's left, including the liberals and the right-winged péquistes as "socialists".

So you make your own idea in all that non-sense. But one thing sure, wether leaning more towards neo-cons populist rethoric or libertrian-minimalist ones, is on the far0right of Quebec's political spectrum.

And NPDers will campaign with him and other "pregressives" like the liberals and conservatives during next referendum...


From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 07 September 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by p durand:

And NPDers will campaign with him and other "pregressives" like the liberals and conservatives during next referendum...

Well, it's hard to say.

Dumont (then with Liberals youth branch) and his maître à penser, Allaire, supported the Oui option in 1995. That's how the ADQ was formed, actually.

Then there was the days when Dumont would call for a 10 years moratorium on the national debate. It lasted a good five or six years...

Now, he wants to reopen the Constitution with his "atonomy" proposal. Basically he asks for an autonomous status for Québec, just like the Allaire Report suggested in 93 -- or was it 92, I cant remember. But I do remember federalists calling the Allaire recommandations a de facto separation.

Their multiform positions are so confusing, I have no idea where the ADQ would side if a referendum was called tomorrow. But this party sure has a strong nationalist back-ground.

In my view, it might represent in good faith the Québec nationalist right, which is, I think, the most dangerous of all rights. Sadly right and nationalism is a common mix on this planet and a scary one -- I'm sure Head will agree with me on this.

Fortunately in Québec, like in chiapas, nationalism is mainly a leftist phenomenom. And further, more and more separatist Québécois (and I am one of them) aren't nationalist at all. They just want a government that represent their interest better.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
cco
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8986

posted 07 September 2006 04:58 PM      Profile for cco     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Québécois in the North:

Basically he asks for an autonomous status for Québec, just like the Allaire Report suggested in 93 -- or was it 92, I cant remember. But I do remember federalists calling the Allaire recommandations a de facto separation.

1991. For those who have forgotten:

When it appeared in January 1991, the ‘Allaire Report’ was a very radical document, particularly when compared with the party’s previous constitutional blueprint, the so-called Beige Paper of 1980. It would have left the Parliament of Canada with only five exclusive fields of jurisdiction: defence, tariffs, currency, management of the public debt, and equalization. Jurisdiction over Aboriginal peoples, foreign policy, fisheries, communications and the post office would be shared between the federal and provincial levels, while all other powers would be exclusively provincial. The Senate would be abolished, the Supreme Court of Canada replaced by a “community tribunal”, and the Bank of Canada reorganized to provide input by the provinces.

Source.


From: Montréal | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
p durand
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7594

posted 11 September 2006 11:36 AM      Profile for p durand     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right about the history of ADQ but i was referring to thier first social and economical positions : privatisation of about everything, especially education and health cares. It clearly was farther on the right then the PLQ.
From: montreal | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michaël Lessard
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7979

posted 04 October 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Michaël Lessard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Greetings,

Just to inform you that, in relation to this subject, I posted a new topic entitled

NDP-Quebec and Quebec solidaire: broadening the national divide


From: Quebec City | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 11 October 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
Canada is the most decentralized nation (country?) in the world without exception. Not even Switzerland has less authority than our federal government.

One good measure, as Doug alluded to, is the spending by the different levels of government. The US federal government spends about 19% of National Income while the states spend about 6%. The Canadian government spends about the same proportion as the US but the provinces also spend about 19% - three times that of American states.

Another way is to look at some of the powers. Canada is the only member of OECD that does not have a national ministry of Education: it may be the only nation in the world that does not. The Canadian government cannot send representatives to international conferences on education because of this.

Canada is the only member of OECD - again it may be the only nation in te world where Healthcare is exclusively a provincial or regional jurisdiction. Even Switzerland has a joint authority over health.

Canada may be the only major country where civil rights and welfare are also provincial jurisdictions.

In fact, the central Canadian government has no authorities that are the purview of modern nations. It has only Constitutional authority over those areas that are in the domain of actual federations of sovereign nations. I am at a loss to think of one such federation in this modern world.

The Constitution of the country was not intended to be thus. Canada was conceived as a nation wit provinces that have sovereignty over a limited range. A range that has expanded enormously as the world changed. The wprld changes with changing times while Canada regressed into a latter day Hanseatic League.

On the comments about Anglophones leaving Quebec!

More tha half of the English speaking of Quebec voted with their feet following the first of the language laws. Some 600,000 left (of a population of 1,250,000) within a decade of Bill 22; accelerating after Bill 101 Interestingly, about 150,000 Francophones also left in the same period. Might they have been ashamed of the xenophobia that was engulfing Quebec?

Some 40% of Montreal's Head Offices departed the city between 1973 and 1979. A study by Reed Scowen showed that. Most took their staffs with them.

The Quebec programme is indeed to create a unilingual French state: within Canada on one side and out of it on the other.

and, all parties are committed to the continued appeasement of Quebec; even the NDP.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Kinetix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5296

posted 11 October 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for Kinetix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would have a lot more ease receiving services in English here in Quebec than I ever did receiving them in French in Toronto...
From: Montréal, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 11 October 2006 10:14 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
There is nothing sacred about 'Canada'. The boys in the backrooms of London were not gods when they approved of the Dominion. Quebec existed before Confederation and will exist if Confederation ever dissolves or fractures. We live in democracy and Quebecers can chose their own fate. Quebec is a seperate nation in all but legal trappings and recognizing this is not 'appeasement' but accepting reality. Most Quebecers are Quebecers first and recognize (so far) that the Confederation is the best political structure in which Quebec to prosper. This, however, is not the will of a god or some other deity that has 'blessed' Canada. Canada is a political structure and as such is in the best interest of many Quebecers only as long it is a positive force. Many progressive Quebecers do not view Canada as a family but as a busines-type arrangement. If it helps the Quebec identity and French culture can prosper then that's a positive. They don't need any federal 'Ministry of Education' sticking it's bueacratic, bungling finger into shaping that identity. What's good for Quebec is not necssarily good for B.C or Ontario. Quebec has had a fine education system for decades and the Feds can butt out. Tough beans that their isn't a bunch of federal bureaucrats to send to international education conferences. Quebec doesn't need babysitting.
From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 12 October 2006 07:27 AM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
But Quebec did not exist before Confederation The Quebec of that time was about one third of its present extent. There have been, since Confederation, two additions to the territory of Quebec, transferred by Canada.

Quebec, too, never existed in anything approaching the settled area of today. The original French settlements were confined to two river banks.

Quebec as constituted at Confederation was a dual society; French and English, and that is the reality of its Constitutional position. Montreal was once a majority English speaking city and around 1900 QC was 35% English.

You have a strange idea of democracy, Gollygee, if you think that "Quebeckers" can decide to go their way. Democracy does not exist without protection of minorities and the expulsion of minorities in order to create (note create) a French state is not any kind of protection.

You also have an odd sense of nationality if you think Quebec forms a nation and that there is "nothing sacred" about Canada. This world is made up of nation states that are indivisible and no other structure works at this stage of human development. Quebec has none of the attributes of nationality according to the principles of self-determination as laid out in the Helsinki Declarations.

Further, as the UN ruled in the case of Ballantrae and Davidson (I think that was the one), the English of Quebec are not a minority but a part of the Canadian majority. The French, as held by the UN, are a Canadian minority, a part of French Canada of which the largest number happen to reside in Quebec. Therefore, according to that UN decision, Quebec's language laws are illegal and the Canadian government should have disallowed them.

Quebec, too, never had a "fine" education system. In fact, it did not have an education system until 1949. It had a fine English Protestant system but the rest, the French systems, that is, were not very good and were taught curriculums that were historically incorrect and filled with "victimisation" and hate for the Anglophone. A national education ministry would have long ago remedied those situations.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 12 October 2006 09:33 AM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
Ridiculous.

Canada as a political state is not sacred and didn't exist 200 years ago and probably won't exist 200 years from now. Quebec has territorial integrity that doesn't depend on the patronizing goodwill of the British who 'gave it to them'. Quebecers wouldn't care that the British might want their territory back (reality:they won't want it back).

And yes, Quebec has a good quality education system that doesn't need to be meddled in by the feds and Quebecers will make sure it is not meddled in. Quebecers can decide their own education structure and curriculum. BIG Brother in Ottawa 'go away'. Ottawa can't 'impose' anything on Quebec culture and education and anyone but a dolt would understand that any such attempt would be a guarantee that Quebec would vote for independence in a referendum. As long as the rest of Canada accepts that Quebec is indeed a nation capable of control of that nationhood, then the majority of Quebecers are content to be part of Canada. Most Quebecers understand the advantage of being citizens of Canada and thus being 'Canadians'. Being a 'Canadian, however, has to be a practical benefit that doesn't impede on the Quebec nation.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 12 October 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
When you say Quebec education, do you really mean propaganda and cultural hate machine? It must be that, because as a working teacher in the province I can assure you that there is a lot of that going on. The quality of education is as degenerate as the individuals who have sought to establish this unilingual, fascist little corner of the world.
Try to colour the perception with any rose-tinted shades you slip on, but any anglophone or ethnic minority who has lived in this province through the eighties to now can tell you that it's all bullshit. Quebec has become a racist, exclusionist society with a delusional perception of itself resulting from years of institutional propaganda in schools and by the provincial governments.
And golly gee gumdrops, what the hell do you really mean by Quebec 'territorial integrity'? Are you referring to the French colonization of the territory? Perhaps the next referendum should include the demand for the return of the entire territory, all the way down to Louisiana and don't forget Haiti! Just think of what it would do for our maple syrup exports. Not to mention the thousands of jobs that will be created as the OLFers march to the south switching all the stop signs for arret signs, and prescribing proper linguistic etiquette for the workplace. A new Algeria in the North American continent with Parizeau as its cultural representative doing TV broadcasts from his vineyard in France, drunk, flushed and proud as a trembling old peacock. Yummy, what a plan. Just watch out for any collapsing bridges, and when you're at work make sure you answer the phone with 'bonjour' before 'hello' because watchoo gonna do, when the OLF come after you?

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 October 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
....methinks a couple of people have lost it here.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 12 October 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by head:
When you say Quebec education, do you really mean propaganda and cultural hate machine? It must be that, because as a working teacher in the province I can assure you that there is a lot of that going on. The quality of education is as degenerate as the individuals who have sought to establish this unilingual, fascist little corner of the world.
Try to colour the perception with any rose-tinted shades you slip on, but any anglophone or ethnic minority who has lived in this province through the eighties to now can tell you that it's all bullshit. Quebec has become a racist, exclusionist society with a delusional perception of itself resulting from years of institutional propaganda in schools and by the provincial governments.
And golly gee gumdrops, what the hell do you really mean by Quebec 'territorial integrity'? Are you referring to the French colonization of the territory? Perhaps the next referendum should include the demand for the return of the entire territory, all the way down to Louisiana and don't forget Haiti! Just think of what it would do for our maple syrup exports. Not to mention the thousands of jobs that will be created as the OLFers march to the south switching all the stop signs for arret signs, and prescribing proper linguistic etiquette for the workplace. A new Algeria in the North American continent with Parizeau as its cultural representative doing TV broadcasts from his vineyard in France, drunk, flushed and proud as a trembling old peacock. Yummy, what a plan. Just watch out for any collapsing bridges, and when you're at work make sure you answer the phone with 'bonjour' before 'hello' because watchoo gonna do, when the OLF come after you?

Yada, Yada, Yada. Hateful ramblings.

Head has lost his 'head'...not that there was a brain in it so nothing to worry about.

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: Gollygee ]


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 12 October 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A working teacher, huh? Jeeze, I'm hoping you're able to leave your darker side at home.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 12 October 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Québécois in the North:

The québécoise left ... is decentralist and strongly believes that the closer the government will be to the population, the closer we will be to achieving a true democracy.

Si c'est préferable d'avoir un gouvernement plus auprès de la population, peut-être le Québec est encore trop grand. Pourquoi pas cinq ou six petits pays.... Aprés tout ni le Canada ni le Québec est sacré.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 12 October 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gollygee:
Canada as a political state is not sacred and didn't exist 200 years ago and probably won't exist 200 years from now. Quebec has territorial integrity that doesn't depend on the patronizing goodwill of the British who 'gave it to them'. Quebecers wouldn't care that the British might want their territory back

Je suis totalement en accord avec votre avis que le Canada n'est pas sacré. Mais il faut souligner que ni le Canada ni le Québec est sacré. Le Canada a été créé par des impéperialistes britanniques; le Québec, premièrement par des impéperialistes français et en suite par des impérialistes britanniques.
Je ne comprends pas ce qu'on veut dire quand on dit que le Québec a une "intégrité territoriale"
particulière: par exemple, ce n'est qu'en 1927 que ses frontières actuelles ont été fixées.

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 12 October 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oops. J'ai fait une faute, en postant deux fois.

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 12 October 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
Golly, all you have to say is yada, yada? I don't think I've insulted you at all, so I'm not sure why you would choose to attack me on a personal level. Perhaps your vantage point from God-knows how many time-zones away from Quebec gives you a better perspective ...
I didn't make any hateful remarks toward anyone in particular. I do admit that I hate the idea of sovereignty and I find the methods used over the years equally despicable, embarassing and cheap; tactics akin to the ones used in the early twentieth century in Europe, with heroes like Lionel Groulx who called for more French babies to preserve and expand the race. If you want to examine hate and how it's institutionalized in an us versus them scenario maybe you should pick up a few Quebec history text-books.
You can also check the news where most recently the St. Jean Baptiste Society is trying to take steps to abolish plans for an Anglophone hospital in the province, citing that a twelve percent minority does not require an institution that will cater to its health needs in Canada's other official language.
Either way, I do't really care whether you agree with me or not but I do care that you choose to insult me without responding to the post in any way. So Gollygee, yada, yada, yada, get bent.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 12 October 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Je suis totalement en accord avec votre avis que le Canada n'est pas sacré. Mais il faut souligner que ni le Canada ni le Québec est sacré. Le Canada a été créé par des impéperialistes britanniques; le Québec, premièrement par des impéperialistes français et en suite par des impérialistes britanniques.
Je ne comprends pas ce qu'on veut dire quand on dit que le Québec a une "intégrité territoriale"
particulière: par exemple, ce n'est qu'en 1927 que ses frontières actuelles ont été fixées.

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


All states are artificial entities. If the people of Quebec want 1 state or 10 or 100, that's their perogative. They will decide. At this time Quebecers chose to be part of Canada. If Quebecers decide to become and indepenent state that will be their decision. If parts of quebec, in turn, want autonomy then that's a debate for the folks in Quebec.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 12 October 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
On wat authority do you say "it is their prerogative. If you think that is so, surely you can give the legal reasons that make it so.

The mere assertion makes no more sense than to say that Creston will decide for itself whether it will remain part of B.C. or of Canada

To have the right to separate there must be an entitlement to self-determination and that is a question of International Law.

And how are states artificial entities? There is a definite agreement about the attributes of statehood and nationhood. Canada, including Quebec, meets the requirements: Quebec does not.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 12 October 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If parts of quebec, in turn, want autonomy then that's a debate for the folks in Quebec.
Indeed.
And if parts of Quebec choose to remain a part of Canada, that too is for them to decide, should other territories of the province make the decision to separate.

Those votes are not the whole story either, as some degree of logic must be applied in the exercise. Both countries will want their territorial contiguity, and Canada must maintain that through to its territories in the maritimes. All in all, an extremely ugly situation to consider....


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 13 October 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gollygee:
If Quebecers decide to become and indepenent state that will be their decision.

J'aimerais demander une question à ceux qui utilisent la rhétorique suivante: "Si ceux qui habitent tel région veulent deviendre un état indépendant, ça serai leur décision."

Cette position tient-il dans tous les cas? Je pense aux sentiments séparatistes qui se trouvent dans le nord de l'Italie -- on propose un pays indépendant nommé la Padania. La Ligue du Nord (parti parfois séparatiste et parfois dévolutioniste, voir aussi ici) on plusieurs députés et sénateurs en Italie. Est-ce que les Padaniens ont le même droit à l'indépendance qu'ont les Québecois?

J'aimerais remarquer que les sentiments séparatistes Padaniennes sont partiellement économiques: les séparatistes se tannent de soutenir les régions plus pauvres au sud de l'Italie. Ils veulent garder leurs richesses pour eux-mêmes. Leur nom pour le gouvernement centrale est "Roma ladrona" -- la Rome voleuse. En plus, la séparatisme Padanienne frôle la racisme, contre et les immigrants et les Italiens du sud -- qu'ils appellent terroni (terrone au singulier).

Je veux souligner que je ne dis pas que les séparatistes Québecois ont tels sentiments. Pas du tout. Je présente mon example tout simplement pour demander, encore, ma question: Est-ce que n'importe quel groupe régional a le même droit à l'indépendence qu'ont les Québecois?

[ 14 October 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Québécois in the North
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10727

posted 13 October 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Québécois in the North     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

Si c'est préferable d'avoir un gouvernement plus auprès de la population, peut-être le Québec est encore trop grand. Pourquoi pas cinq ou six petits pays.... Aprés tout ni le Canada ni le Québec est sacré.


Agreed.

I, and many other separatists, will be there to advocate for a more decentralized (confederal) Quebec, the day after independance. And, what not, for independance of particular regions.

I support the Innu people who want a free N'tsinan.


From: Yellowknife | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
head
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10717

posted 14 October 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for head        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, we should all seperate. The Ialians in St.Michel and St Leonard, the Greeks in Chomedey and St Dorothy, and I call for an independent China-town. The West Island will of course, remain part of Canada. After all, these communities meet the exact same conditions of French Quebecers who claim a right for sovereignty, without exception.
They are all immigrant groups to a colonized country. They have unique identities, cultures and languages that they want to protect and nurture, and they constitute an overwhelming majority in the areas they live in.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
navigator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13318

posted 14 October 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for navigator        Edit/Delete Post
And your point, head, is apropos. There is no national community in Quebec. Quebec is made up of the same mix of peoples who form one nation, Canada. Because some of them choose to use one Official language over another does not give them any of the attributes of nationhood or a right to tear the country apart and deprive half of its population of their Canadian citizenship.
From: Oshawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  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