babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I would hope any constitutional amendments would right those historic injustices not add a new layer. If we are going to have a change in our Constitution it must be a real change not tinkering.
I still defy any of the posters here to propose a set of constitutional amendments that they think will pass a referendum. In 1992 I read every single report and study central to the debate and what I concluded was that there was no way that any of them would pass a referendum. The balance between accommodating the aspirations of Quebec nationalists inside confederation and fairness in a multilateral partnership is extremely hard to achieve.
I am serious lets hear your proposals that both the people of Quebec and the the people of at least 6 other provinces would agree to. I am truly interested in a real debate not this phoney bull shit where we must all agree that something is good when it is undefined. Oh yes and don't forget it is likely that the PQ will be back in power What kind of fools would open up the constitutional debate when the government of Quebec is separatist?
Mulcair is no smarter than Trudeau or Mulroney, the last two federalist leaders from Quebec who were sure they could square the circle. Look how wrong they where.
Absolutely not true. The First Nations did not "found" Canada, they were "founded" a long time before Canada existed. Canada is an entity superimposed on the land inhabited by the First Nations. The relationship between Canada and First Nations is technically nation-to-nation.
Sure: "public relations."
What makes proportional representation a challenge to sell are the large number of varieties. Doesn't mean PR isn't good, just that average voters may not care for the debate as to which system to adopt, and stick with what's in place. Another negative PR point for PR: opponents will say a PR system will only lead to unstable coalitions.
Getting back to Quebec's place in Confederation...I think a little asymmetry is in order. Official bilingualism has gone beyond the limited measure of providing federal services in both official languages where numbers warrant. Competence in both languages is widely accepted as an invaluable asset for holding the highest offices of the land. I don't mind this asymmetry at all - it doesn't hurt to learn another language, it broadens one's horizons.
ETA: Recognition of Quebec as "a sovereign nation within Canada" however, is going too far. This is a demand that sovereigntists know they cannot fail with. If it's rejected, then see, Canada doesn't want to accommodate Quebec. If it's accepted, then it will still tear Confederation apart, just a little more slowly. I suspect a large portion of Quebecers recognize the unfairness of this demand, and know it is a chip in political gamesmanship.
Sorry for the subtlety of my humour. Since I live in unceded Coast Salish territory I actually understand the relationship between the occupying Crown and the FN's. I was trying to refer to the origins of Canada as a name. The French can take credit only in the sense that they misused a term they didn't understand.
Have you ever seen an Australian film called, "Babakiueria." The comment above reminds me of that excellent anti-racism film.
http://www.craigmarlatt.com/canada/history&people/history_canada.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06DKCdJWK2c&feature=player_embedded
If that's to be done, it would have to be Cantonese and Toisanese, definitely not Mandarin. At least, not yet.
[tongue in cheek]
As I am sure you know the common written language is Mandarin not any of the spoken dialects. My mothers always became a horse when I tried to learn it as a second language.
Sorry to add a complication to the debate but this one is necessary-- I think.
Up thread Ilha Formosa says that recognition of Quebec sovereignty is going too far. And the problem, I believe, is the word itself.
I think I pointed this out one time before somewhere on Rabble but this word has very similar but not identical meanings in English and French. Most people don't recognize this and presume that whichever meaning they know is the one everyone else uses. There are other meanings in both languages but I will focus just on the meaning that applies and try to point out the differences. I am including literal, connotative and dictionary meanings to express what this means to each. People assume incorrectly that the word translates literally. The difference in this case that makes the word so loaded is those subtle differences are the reason Francophones of Québec are scandalized by the injustice of denying the existence of sovereignty which is a state that exists when you consider the French meaning and Anglos in the rest of Canada (as well as some in Québec) are simply blown away that Québec would "ask for" a concept to be recognized that to them means outright separation within Canada.
In English: Sovereign means supreme absolute and independent. In absolute control of its territory. A sovereign country is one that is the uncontested sole ruler of its territory and jurisdiction. To share or not use this power is a repudiation of it. As such in English it is absurd to imagine a sovereign country contained territoriality inside another. The words sovereign nation can be almost always interchangeable with state.
In French: Souverain means having the right to have control over a territory. A capacity to exercise power. Not using that power does not repudiate it so long as the recognition is there that it could be used should it be desired. It also means a certain power of a territory but it is not understood in the exclusive term that it means in English. There is a connotation that it is the senior authority but no requirement to exclude a sharing of power in a day to day fashion is implied. It includes a degree of independence but not absolute independence necessarily. It has more to do with the concept legally of what "Masters in our Own House" means than an expression of statehood. It speaks of a level of social development of a people and is what they recognize as themselves. It means a people are what they are according to "sa propre volonté." they are what they are by choice. There is no specific need for that choice to be a certain way for the state of being "souverain" to exist unlike in English where the word implies a particular absolute choice. A people who have the right to self determination are in fact souverain. But they are only sovereign if that make a choice to be independent.
I may have some of the subtleties of the meaning wrong but at least please consider that these words don't translate perfectly and there are differences. The concept that Québec is asserting is simply not identical to the one so many English Canadians are rejecting.
Personally I think it is high time someone publicly pointed this out.
Thanks Sean I agree that in this debate most non-francophones do not understand the subtlety and depth of the debate. Your point explains some of it for sure.
I still stand by my contention that whether and on what terms the Province of Quebec would sign the constitution is a matter for provincial politics. Furthermore it is a fools game for a federal party to try and set down a concrete set of proposals to get the province to sign. That is the opposite of the way that democracy should work. It is also still my opinion that there is no set of proposals that would pass referendums both in Quebec and in 6 other provinces. And frankly debating whether or not Quebec should be sovereign (in either sense of the word) is missing the big picture of who actually controls all western "democracies' and how do we all get out from under their thumb.
I'd see a doctor about that if I were you.
And none of them even said "turn the box arround", as far as that goes.
I don't need to see a doctor to know that Canada is a failure and I want my NATION out of it.
I'm sorry you feel that way Alan.
I think that Canada can do better and I am not prepared to say it is a failure.
I hope enough people will try to help build a new relationship with a new government in 2015.
Truth be told,Sean...I wish this country wasn't a failure but the Tories have proven it is.
The provinces are much too polarized in public opinion and politics,uniting this country is an impossible task.
I stand by the fact that Quebec is a nation..No need for a referendum,even King Stephen acknowledged this fact (although it was somewhat back handed saying in a 'united Canada')
And I still believe that ALL the provinces should be given power over the feds....even if that means the end of the confederacy.
Uh, Alan, it was a joke. No disrepect to your nationalist feelings intended.
If you LITERALLY bled blue and white, you'd probably have a farily serious staph infection or massive circulatory problems.
I can't argue with that...Sorry about not recognising your joke...I lost my sense of humour a year ago.
And I thought he was just a proud Leafs fan in the wrong thread. Vive le Quebec libre!
Did anybody else think this thread would be about Quebec and how it relates to STAR TREK?
Step one for Quebec to regain optimism for the future is getting rid of that asshole Charest.
Read Chantal:
Indeed, on the first anniversary of the landmark 2011 election, polls suggest that Quebec is closer to the voting mainstream of the rest of Canada than the ruling Conservatives.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1171967--hebert-tory...
The "founding" of Québec by the French was yet another exercise in imperialism. The French colonialists, after dividing land via the seigneural system, found it expedient to use the skills of the Iroquois, Six Nations, against the English both against Wolf, and against the US in the war of 1812. Be that as it may, it signifies little by today's standards.
Does anyone remember Oka? The SQ treat FNs people like shit on a stick. So do a lot of non-Native Québequois in rural areas of the province. A situation not unlike every other province in Canada.
That the distinct culture and language of Québec are real and recognized is a fact, and have historical viability. And it is right that Québec be the vanguard of the French language and culture in Canada (people forget about the French-speaking communities throughout Canada). Duplessis did so much damage, in conjunction with the Catholic church and USian interests, to grind les Québecois into the ground with poverty, disease, and a lack of hope for anything better.
Sorry, in my rant mode I lost the central theme of the thread ...
You want history? Look at what the French really did in "Lower Canada" from the time that Montreal was la Ville de Marie in the 17th century. The French did, perhaps, a better job negotiating with the local FNs, but they clearly fucked things up in Africa a few centuries later. For me, it's impossible to divorce the two. French imperialism was as bad, or worse, than any other.
Thanks for the link,Sean...Food for thought.
Wouldn't it have been great if Melenchon's campaign slogan had been "Make It So!"?
As bad as Charest is,things could be worse...We could have the CAQ.
BTW,maybe if the students and their supporters all voted en masse for QS,we'd have something interesting at the National Assembly.
If I were in Québec I would certainly support QS.
When I lived there it was tough at times I voted for the old NDP before it went away and refused a ballot in a byelection. My mother voted PQ at times and my father voted both Liberal and PQ in different elections but at that time I was too young to vote.
My mother used to laugh that she was one of very few born in England who supported the PQ but in later years I heard that there were more than people think.
QS of course is a very attractive option today that we never had.
I've been voting QS since they were the UFP and I plan to continue voting that way.
But to be honest,if they were to go the route of the ADQ and change the party name to NPD,it's possible that they would be recognised as a new party with a party brand more pallatible to the mainstream voter.
Allow floor crossings but only after the candidate faces the voters in a by-election. True Alan, the federal system needs to be overhauled - but IMO not thrown overboard.
Thanks very much Sean for pointing out the difference in meaning between "sovereign" and "souverain." It's a language difference that I think can be appreciated by moderates, in a low-pressure environment. However, for people with more extreme views on any side, I think the understanding and use of "souverain/souveraineté" could shift very quickly, as is politically expedient, especially in the heated throes of something like a referendum campaign.
If not 'sovereign,' then what English word would better capture the French meaning, as Sean explained above, of 'souverain'?
ETA: Quebec already has plenty of souveraineté, non?
That kind of divided power was, in a large part, what killed the other Confederacy. Jefferson Davis openly wished he had the kind of federal power Lincoln was able to use. Unfortunately, his whole thing started out as a divided house, so he was hardly in a position to do anything about it.
And it is hardly much better now, with stupid things like every state running its own part of the presidential election.
I am sure Stephen Harper's real vision of Canada (his own hunger for power notwithstanding) is to break federalism in exactly the way you describe.