Quebec politics for dummies: l'affaire Turmel and why our media are lying to us about how Quebec works...
This is an article I wrote about the Turmel conniption fit in a teacup and how our media are lying to us, hope you like it!
"No surprise that the Conservatives would pick up smearing the leader of the Official Opposition where they left off with Iggy. Nor that they would do so to a lifelong Federalist who has never voted Bloc and voted No in both referendums, when their cabinet, like the Liberals’ before them, boasts several real former sovereigntists and Bloc members. After all, the Conservatives’ constant attempts to turn Quebec and the Rest of Canada (RoC) against each other for political gain are the chief threat to national unity in our country.
What appalls me, if it does not surprise me, is that the national media, with nary an exception, would gleefully follow them down the rabbit hole. They did so for two reasons: complete ignorance of Quebec and how our politics work, and a desperate flailing to cut down the NDP and their new leader for the egregious crime of being Socially Progressive while Popular (SPP)."
http://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/quebecpoliticsfordummies.php/comment-pag...
That link works, but it takes you to a comment at the bottom of the article (sorry!)
Here is a good link to the top of the page: http://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/quebecpoliticsfordummies.php
Both links come up as a white screen when I tried them.
The quoted parts are good an I would like to read the rest.
Edited to add Yeah they work now.
Well this made it into the National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/john-baglow-in-defence-of...
I know, I was shocked to see that in the Post! The tide is starting to turn...
Very nice article. You should be writing for a newspaper, albeit one that is progressive
The real issue for the NDP is whether it will come to grips with the Quebec national question or try to sweep it under the rug. That important question was raised yesterday in Le Devoir and discussed at length here.
The Conservatives know that this is a fracture point in the NDP, which is why they are going to keep hitting it hard.
The importance of the national question in Quebec is declining in importance. How do you explain why Andre Boisclair led the PQ to 3rd place when he was banging the referendum drum? How do you explain how Mario Dumont, after saying the question should be set aside, led the ADQ from a few seats to forming Opposition? How do you explain that when Marois led the PQ back to Official Opposition status it was done emphasizing other issues over soverignty? Even Rene Leveque was focused on other issues besides sovereignty, and that's why he is as well-respected as he is because he fought to improve lives for Quebeckers also.
Very nice article. You should be writing for a newspaper, albeit one that is progressive
Well if you know of one that is hiring... or a progressive newspaper period!
Thanks dacckon, appreciate it.I'm the News and Politics Editor for forgetthebox.net (where this appeared) but it is of course not a paying gig...
The national question is declining in importance, this is absolutely true. People are shifting back to a more standard left-right framework, which has been long overdue. That said people are still proud Quebecois, or what you might call soft nationalists. So it remains a tightrope, more because of the distorted perceptions of people (or more precisely the media which feed them their perceptions) in the RoC than because of Quebec.
Very true. Just as people on the East Coast are proud of where they came from, as are people from Ontario, the Prairies, BC and the North.
ROC is a mythological beast created by people who want to have an us against them scenario. I have lived in most parts of Canada and visited many others. There is no ROC. TO is not Vancouver or Moncton or Saskatoon. The historic and cultural differences are immense and lumping them together shows a lack of understanding of the country. The main people I find using it are from Central Canada. Upper and Lower Canada are not the only realities anymore, in fact the term is very 19th century and we are in the 21st.
That's a fair point Northern Shoveler, but there is value in saying that people outside of Quebec may not understand our realities, just as people outside of Saskatchewan may not understand the realities there. In this case I don't use it to lump all other provinces together, but to distinguish them from Quebec.
The importance of the national question in Quebec is declining in importance. How do you explain why Andre Boisclair led the PQ to 3rd place when he was banging the referendum drum? How do you explain how Mario Dumont, after saying the question should be set aside, led the ADQ from a few seats to forming Opposition? How do you explain that when Marois led the PQ back to Official Opposition status it was done emphasizing other issues over soverignty? Even Rene Leveque was focused on other issues besides sovereignty, and that's why he is as well-respected as he is because he fought to improve lives for Quebeckers also.
The first thing NDP supporters need to do is to realize that the national question does not begin and end with separatism.
Very true. Just as people on the East Coast are proud of where they came from, as are people from Ontario, the Prairies, BC and the North.
No, it's not the same thing. When you say that, you deny the special character of French Canada as a nation. A perfect example of why the NDP needs to have a discussion at every level of the party about the need to integrate the national question into the struggles of the working class of Canada.
In my opinion, Spector has it right (and that's a great article at lifeonleft): to reduce the question of Quebec's nationhood to a yes or no question, and then to equate Quebec's interest in self-determination to their interest in that exercise does not give the people of Quebec the respect they, and their politics, deserve. The NDP seems afraid to address the national question in Quebec because they are afraid of undermining the crass terms of the debate set by the Liberal Party, sedimented from Trudeau and now inherited by Harper's Conservatives: will they or will they not separate. It's incredible to me how much the opera staged by the MSM and played out in discussions by people across Canada still operates on clichés and hackneyed narratives ("If you want out, leave already," "Defend Federalism (i.e. Anglo Canada Nationhood) at all costs," "If Quebec is special so is Newfoundland, The West, the First Nations (all of them), Saskatoon, etc."). Is it worth pointing out that affording Quebec special position and acknowledging their distinct character in no way precludes the Constitution from repeating the gesture for others?
The left in Canada need to get off the creaky boxcar racer Trudeau built and support unequivocal, unfettered self-determination, point. If they can't see that, pan-national solidarity is doomed.
I see lot of great idea but the problem as alway is to develop a strategy to promote those idea.
We can resume it in two word: cash and power and how the progressive movement is lacking both of them.
Sure we can manage with low resource, but keep in mind we are for a heck of a ride.
ROC is a mythological beast created by people who want to have an us against them scenario. I have lived in most parts of Canada and visited many others. There is no ROC. TO is not Vancouver or Moncton or Saskatoon. The historic and cultural differences are immense and lumping them together shows a lack of understanding of the country. The main people I find using it are from Central Canada. Upper and Lower Canada are not the only realities anymore, in fact the term is very 19th century and we are in the 21st.
There is an expression for an attitude like yours Shoveler... it is called being uppity. [Actually, I think the expression resurfaced in the last election in the Excited States.] Our Central Canadian Overlords find it threatening. Please desist before they start lecturing us again. We should be grateful... yeah grateful, I think that is the official party line.
Where do les Acadiennes fit into this question? Many of them live outside of Quebec, but most of the focus on French Canada is Quebec. Why don't we hear much about Acadian nationalism?
The real issue for the NDP is whether it will come to grips with the Quebec national question or try to sweep it under the rug. That important question was raised yesterday in Le Devoir and discussed at length here.
The Conservatives know that this is a fracture point in the NDP, which is why they are going to keep hitting it hard.
And you I'm sure are terribly upset about how unfair it is.
So by insisting that Toronto is not the centre of the universe for the people of Canada I am disrespecting Quebec. I know after a successful referendum the negotiations will be easy with only two parties at the table one from Quebec and one from the centre of the universe. The hinterlands need not apply for a seat at the table because clearly that would be utterly disrespectful and besides the "Anglos" are all the same and only need one voice which of course will be the voice of Upper Canada.
ROC is a sign of intellectual laziness that will never help bring together people in this country. The people of Quebec are the only people who should be able to define who they are and what their aspirations are. Why is it so hard to understand that people in other parts of the country should also have that right and not be somehow referred to as adjuncts of Toronto.
This tempests in a tea pot over Turmel and the Bloc is a central Canada story not a national one. When you understand that you will have started on the road to understanding this country we live in.
I am fidning it interesting in reading the reactions to the liberal party of canada mps vis a vis the ndp right now. it seems that it is not ok to have a leader interim at that who was once a member of another party...but it is totally ok for the leader of the libs federally to have been not only a leader of another party but the leader of the government of another party
ROC is a sign of intellectual laziness that will never help bring together people in this country. The people of Quebec are the only people who should be able to define who they are and what their aspirations are. Why is it so hard to understand that people in other parts of the country should also have that right and not be somehow referred to as adjuncts of Toronto.
I think the people of every province certainly should have that right but Quebec is the only province that seems to be exercising it.
For example, Quebec has it's own independent, distinct media culture. The rest of us are spoonfed from the USA.
Look at the last federal election results...Quebec is the province that voted radically different from (dun dun dun) the rest of Canada.
Western alienation seems to focus on Toronto and Ontario but yet again, in the last federal election Ontario voted in lock step with the West.
Every province has the right to develop an independent culture but let's not pretend that each one has. I grew up in Ontario and moved to BC three years ago. I certainly do notice differences and at times feel like a fish out of water--but I wouldn't call it a different culture.
I have spent months at a time in New York state and I wouldn't call it a different culture either.
Been a way for a bit. Great article, Spector. And Socrates, I'm not sure I would defend Turmel by stating that she is a "lifelong federalist". Whether true or false, such a response legitimizes the attack. Imagine a victim of McCarthy responding, "but I'm a lifelong anti-communist!" Wrong answer.
Every province has the right to develop an independent culture but let's not pretend that each one has. I grew up in Ontario and moved to BC three years ago. I certainly do notice differences and at times feel like a fish out of water--but I wouldn't call it a different culture.
I have spent months at a time in New York state and I wouldn't call it a different culture either.
So we are all just American is what you are saying. I disagree.
Quebec and Ontario have been doing their two step dance since the end of the 18th century. BC was not even colonized until the 1850's and by that time the whole two nations argument was in full force in central Canada. When BC joined Confederation it was dominated by racist white men but the majority of the population were FN's and Chinese. The FN's population got decimated by the small pox epidemic but it is still a major part of our culture and indeed most of the province is unceded territory. The Chinese despite the racist exclusion laws never left and that community has grown exponentially since those laws were repealed. They are the largest ethnic group in BC. We have a vibrant Chinese language media that is every bit as distinct in its culture as the media in Quebec. If you look to any activist struggle in this province you will find white guys like me standing shoulder to shoulder with native elders and that is not just on land right issues but on environmental issues and social justice issues. If you come to Vancouver and read and watch only the corporate media then it looks a lot like the rest of North America. That however says a lot about our media and little about our culture.
I sort of disagree... here in BC, despite the diversity there is a dominating "Ontario-style" culture of white Anglos who rule the province. The dominating culture in Quebec is a different one. That's the difference.
I sort of disagree... here in BC, despite the diversity there is a dominating "Ontario-style" culture of white Anglos who rule the province.
Could you please define this Ontario Style culture? I suspect that it is broad enough to include anyone who lives in a province where english is the predominant language.
So the Maritimes are also an Ontario style culture. The Territories especially have one too. Alberta absolutely Ontario style. The Prairies are indistinguishable from Southern Ontario. Nfld is also just a clone of that Ontario culture.
You view to me is merely centre of the universe thinking. I grew up in Ontario and have lived most of my adult life in BC. I can see the difference when I go to Ontario, as I have a couple a times a year for the last decade. Like all places if you never leave the comfort of your own kind then you see the place differently. I could live in Montreal and only read the english media and engage with the anglo community. That would be similar to and Ontario Style culture but it would no way be indicative of Quebec culture. Maybe you need to get to know more than just expats from Toronto and stop reading that Toronto newspaper the Globe and Mail. Hang out in Richmond for a while or maybe go to Musquem or Haida Qua or any of the smaller islands so that you can get a feel for the culture I see as unique to BC.
Our Canadian elite are (like all elites in this age) are internationalists who feel comfortable in a villa in Spain or a golf course in Palm Springs or a wall street hedge fund office. They have a culture but it is not the culture of the people.
ROC is a mythological beast created by people who want to have an us against them scenario. I have lived in most parts of Canada and visited many others. There is no ROC. TO is not Vancouver or Moncton or Saskatoon. The historic and cultural differences are immense and lumping them together shows a lack of understanding of the country. The main people I find using it are from Central Canada. Upper and Lower Canada are not the only realities anymore, in fact the term is very 19th century and we are in the 21st.
All highly interesting (Canada outside Quebec is not homogeneous, as you point out, and I like the picture!) but if it ever comes to separation negotiations with Quebec, what would you call the party with which Quebec is negotiating? In my mind "ROC" is supposed to be convenient shorthand, not an assertion that people outside Ontario don't exist - other people may think differently.
I would call them the other provinces and territories in our federation. The view that there will only two parties at the table is one of the most dangerous ideas IMO. It presupposes that Ontario will dominate the discussion and that all the other provinces will remain a single country.
IMO It is far better for all of us to understand that when you break up a federation the component parts will be looking to what is in their best interests and that includes options that go far beyond a duality. That Quebec and Ottawa will be the only groups at the table is a central Canadian myth not a reality. No BC politician would agree to the federal government negotiating on BC's behalf. I doubt if any Nfld politician would say okay to Ottawa calling the shots in a a new constitutional relationship.
After all it is a new constitutional relationship that would be the subject of talks especially if the sovereignist option is at the forefront. Now if it is a straight forward Quebec secession then the other parts of Canada would need a new constitution since many parts of the current one would be rendered obsolete. Only when the people of the various other regions in Canada have decided what new form they wanted to be governed by would they be able to enter into meaningful talks with an independent Quebec.
If I understand your meaning, you think that Quebec is currently all that's holding the rest of Canada together. Have I got that right?
[...]I grew up in Ontario and moved to BC three years ago. I certainly do notice differences and at times feel like a fish out of water--but I wouldn't call it a different culture.[...]
Three years? Really, that long? I guess third generation Western Canadians like myself (ancestors having made it here after Rupert's Land became the Northwest Territories, but before provincial status was achieved) still haven't learned to gracefully accept the pronouncements of Central Canadian transplants as to whether or not we constitute a "different" culture (much less a distinct one). I guess our distance from Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall has left us sorely deficient in our ability to defer to the insights of those who grew up in closer proximity to the Central Canadian individuals and institutions who have such an obvious right to define other people's reality for them.
@Unionist
The reference to McCarthyism is sooooo damn accurate. I hope that the federal party guiding lights twig onto the correct response to this... there is zero need to apologize and defend, the only workable tactic is to go on the attack and skewer those who suggest previous engagement in political life in Quebec is in any way a handicap for Madame Turmel. They (her critics) should be asked if they would prefer she had managed to pull a Rip Van Winkle and slept through the past 30 or 40 years.
If I understand your meaning, you think that Quebec is currently all that's holding the rest of Canada together. Have I got that right?
The current constitution and tradition is holding the country together. If that implodes then we have no Canadian constitution and all bets are off. I don't get why people think that Quebec would want to negotiate with a federal government that has no authority to bind the provinces.
The provinces signed on to a specific constitution if you make that null and void why do the other provinces then lose their right to self determination? BC had that right in 1871 and I think many here would argue that we still have that right. Of course there is no movement in BC to opt out off confederation but that will all change if we no longer have a confederation.
The provinces signed on to a specific constitution if you make that null and void why do the other provinces then lose their right to self determination? BC had that right in 1871 and I think many here would argue that we still have that right. Of course there is no movement in BC to opt out off confederation but that will all change if we no longer have a confederation.
Don't forget that there is also a nationalis sentiment in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that Danny Williams evoked during the "flag flap." People also don't realize that it took 3 referendums before Newfoundland became a province, and even though the pro-Canada forces had the media on their side, they still only narrowly voted in favour.
Three years? Really, that long? I guess third generation Western Canadians like myself (ancestors having made it here after Rupert's Land became the Northwest Territories, but before provincial status was achieved) still haven't learned to gracefully accept the pronouncements of Central Canadian transplants as to whether or not we constitute a "different" culture (much less a distinct one). I guess our distance from Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall has left us sorely deficient in our ability to defer to the insights of those who grew up in closer proximity to the Central Canadian individuals and institutions who have such an obvious right to define other people's reality for them.
??
So I should let you define my reality?
Can you tone down the sarcasm a bit? I am not getting what you are saying. And I'm really not sure what Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall have to do with anything I said.
The current constitution and tradition is holding the country together. If that implodes then we have no Canadian constitution and all bets are off. I don't get why people think that Quebec would want to negotiate with a federal government that has no authority to bind the provinces.
The provinces signed on to a specific constitution if you make that null and void why do the other provinces then lose their right to self determination? BC had that right in 1871 and I think many here would argue that we still have that right. Of course there is no movement in BC to opt out off confederation but that will all change if we no longer have a confederation.
I am pretty sure any Consitutional changes would have to pass in most of the provinces.
She is trying to say that she thinks there is a distinct and different culture, as I do, and that your short time here hardly makes you an expert on our culture.
Do you complain about the rain?
No the rain is great.
I am pretty sure any Constitutional changes would have to pass in most of the provinces.
You are presuming that the other provinces will want to stay in a truncated Canada. I do not think that is a given. Ontario voters could have a majority government with little or no seats any where else in the country. BC is bigger than many European countries and it has far more resources. Why do you think we would want to be controlled from the centre of the universe.
The current system ensures that the two central Canadian provinces provide a balance to each and thus the outer provinces have a say.
So we are all just American is what you are saying.
Pretty much.
The current constitution and tradition is holding the country together. If that implodes then we have no Canadian constitution and all bets are off. I don't get why people think that Quebec would want to negotiate with a federal government that has no authority to bind the provinces.
The provinces signed on to a specific constitution if you make that null and void why do the other provinces then lose their right to self determination? BC had that right in 1871 and I think many here would argue that we still have that right. Of course there is no movement in BC to opt out off confederation but that will all change if we no longer have a confederation.
I don't understand the scenario you are outlining, at all. What does it mean for a constitution to implode?
By imploding I mean Quebec seceding from Canada. If they are gone then a good portion of the Constitution is absurd. An easy example is the Senate seats. It is like any other contract in that a fundamental breach nullifies the deal and allows a party to it to walk away since it is not the deal they signed on to.
OK, fair enough.
The Senate seat breakdown by province is totally stupid. The West should not stand for it. I would expect any constitutional changes would require making this more equitable. Any constitutional change is going to require the provinces to agree. bagkitty wrote a great post about this a couple weeks ago.
But, changing the constitution is not what you're talking about. You're talking about Quebec seceding--and I'm not really sure that's what Quebec's "national question" is about. It sounds like it's more about a (weaker?) federation that works more appropriately. And this would involve constitutional changes. Which again, the provinces would need to sign off on, if it were to happen.
What I hear Quebeckers on babble saying is that it's not about secession or separation, it's about a more workable arrangement. I'm starting to think that talking about "what would happen if Quebec secedes" is a very counter productive discussion.
But you're right--all bets would be off. Perhaps that would be the end of Canada. Or perhaps it could be the impetus to redefine inequalities like the senate seat counts. Maybe working that stuff out would become easier.
In any case, I don't think having the Federal Goverment negotiate with Quebec means that the provinces could be ignored.
Quebec is a nation. BC is not. Alberta is not. Ontario is not. Personally I think every province has the right to self-determination, ie. to pull out of Canada. And I have argued so before on babble. But not every province is a nation.
After all it is a new constitutional relationship that would be the subject of talks especially if the sovereignist option is at the forefront.
That is what I mean when I say that the idea that this will be a two way negotiation is a myth. There is no way the provinces are going to allow the federal government to bargain with Quebec alone. They will demand a seat at the table and likely various aboriginal groups will as well. It will be ugly and all bets will be off as to the outcome. I personally think that it will lead to Quebec becoming even more frustrated in the confederation when it becomes obvious that its vision of a new relationship will not be accepted by the other parts of the federation.
“There is not a national government because there is not a national economy, no national culture, no national defence. The problem is not that the wrong party is running Ottawa. The problem is Ottawa." — Stephen Harper, L'actualité, May 15, 2001
Hoist, please meet petard.
I'm starting to think that talking about "what would happen if Quebec secedes" is a very counter productive discussion.
Geez, ya think?
??
So I should let you define my reality?
I wasn't attempting to define your reality, I thought of myself more as the local tourist guide trying to alert you to the danger of avalanches on the slope you were trying to high mark. But if you want to go ahead and reach new heights (and here I am thinking of your concluding paragraph in post #40), by all means go ahead... you are a free agent.
Can you tone down the sarcasm a bit?
Speaking in strictly technical terms, I am quite capable of "toning it down", but it would not have the effect I intended. I resort to this level of sarcasm for particular reasons, which are quite similar to the old Hollywood comedic convention (Three Stooges, Lewis/Martin) of slapping someone in the face in the hopes that the shock will stop them from continuing to accelerate along the tangent they have headed off on.
There have been threads here bemoaning the lack of any way of indicating (through appropriate formatting) when one intends to be sarcastic -- given the lack of such formatting options, I have always elected to lay it on with a trowel rather than an eye-dropper -- I find it reduces (although doesn't eliminate) the chances that what I have written is going to be taken literally. The more intriguing question would have been "can you lay the sarcasm on any thicker?" To which I would have answered a resounding "YES" - I could have spread it on with a shovel -- like someone mucking out a barn...
I am not getting what you are saying.
I am increasingly aware of that. It appears neither Northern Shoveler nor myself can divert you from ascending the particular slope you seem intent on riding your snowmobile up. I believe we are both trying to point out that any statements about the ROC's views and/or reactions and/or perspective are fundamentally flawed. When using the ROC formulation - what is almost invariably being referred to is a discussion between the two poles of Central Canada -- Ontario and Quebec. What is really needed is an extra letter or two in the acronym (ROROC or the "Rest of" the Rest of Canada would serve nicely) and I think you will find the voice of ROROC is usually drowned out whenever the two poles of Central Canada decide to talk about each other.
And I'm really not sure what Upper Canada College and Osgoode Hall have to do with anything I said.
It was a mocking allusion to the flow of information from the metropole out to the colonial periphery.
See, when I use an eyedropper I just confuse people.