Why Anglo media has it wrong on Quebec

No surprise there were a couple of idiot comments at the end. Thanks for turning that up, Unionist. I rarely read "Now Toronto".

It's the Liberals who've been mentioning it in this federal election campaign, not the NDP.

A certain type of Anglos understand F-all about Québec. Fortunately, not all! The type who would deny that we (and by WE, I mean all of us, including you Antonia!) are a nation. Or think suburbs of all things have a right to self-determination.

A friend from Parc-Ex, who is NOT an indépendantiste, by the way, is really pissed off about how NPD Papineau (and higher up) treated Béatrice Zako. He says she had a strong following, and I said I wasn't too well informed about that, but certainly thought having a woman of colour would be a great thing for such a multicultural riding. He knows Anne Lagacé Dowson and likes her a lot, and may campaign for her, but thought the NDP was too heavy handed in its borderline parachute (not as blatant as Joly in Ahuntsic, but still...)

It's a very straight forward, informative and honest piece. Brava, Antonia!

lagatta wrote:

It's the Liberals who've been mentioning it in this federal election campaign, not the NDP.

It is active NDP policy that they intend to pass into law if they are elected and they have said so in Quebec.

If something is active party policy it is the party that brought it up not the opposition. The NDP is trying to have it both ways. They want credit for the Sherbrooke Declaration in Quebec but don't want the rest of Canada to notice it.

Pondering wrote:

Anglos understand very well. They know that separation is no longer a threat and probably never will be. So, why repeal the Clarity Act and pass a new bill putting it at 50+1.

The NDP can't have it both ways. If it's a non-issue then why raise the subject at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf0-oQ5_CZA

Jack Layton wrote:

...in the long term you can't really have a situation where one part of the country -- one of our founding peoples hasn't signed on to the constitution.  It's something that should be resolved someday.  I don't think it's something that needs to be tackled right off the bat but what you want to do is create those winning conditions first.  You want to create that sense of positive moving forward so that when and if that day does come you can be assured of success.

I think Jack explained it well (though the video centred on language issues, but the issue of respect -- a winning condition -- also applies with the replacing the unclear Clarity Act with the Unity Bill, I feel.  Canada should be confident that Quebec will never have over half of its population wish for sovereignty).

The Liberal Party has never really recovered from the shock that despite its Captain Canada persona, IT had actually come within a hair's breadth of "losing Quebec" in 1995. And then the Party effectively shot itself in both feet with the ensuing AdScam corruption scandal, thereby sealing its political fate for 20 years (perhaps for ever).

The LPC's lame attempts to fan the fires of Quebec nationalism - and its own political revival - by waving the much-detested Clarity Act in the face of Quebec citizens is clear and powerful evidence of the shallowness of its political analyis and the ineptitide of its current leadership.

kropotkin, very few people here (except a rump group of Bloquistes) are voting on that issue either. Yes, I have an e-mail from an old friend in BC - about support to the Unist’ot’en people in northwestern BC. Strangely, not a word about the Clarity Act.

Here is the statement, by the way: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19LH8d1HKrXD5tZugi1yxLE3Abhj6dv8W_t8eF_N...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Then that is the argument Mulcair should be presenting to the rest of Canada instead of pretending it's a non-issue that Trudeau is raising without cause. The NDP should defend the Sherbrooke Declaration in all of Canada not just in Quebec.

He is not pretending, it is a non issue. It is you and your has been party that is trying to relive old battles that are irrelevant to voters in this election.

If it is irrelevant and a non-issue why is Mulcair assuring Quebec that it is current active NDP policy that they will pass legislation on if elected?

Are you not familiar with NDP policy?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't know its like why is Mulcair not talking about the salmon fishery in Montreal or the dairy industry when he's on Vancouver Island. Do you know anything about campaigns and how messaging at specific events is designed to touch on the issues for that particular region or riding.

Yes I do, and when such subjects come up in a national debate the party concerned should deal with it rather than going into denial.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The other thing you just don't get is that progressive people I know think a simple majority is the proper test. Many are still pissed that over 59% of voters chose STV as an electoral system but it was not a big enough majority so the minority view prevailed.

I don't see what that has to do with anything because Trudeau supports STV.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If the Quebec government wants to sit down and discuss a new constitutional arrangement then they can inform the rest of the federation.

Quebec separation is not a "new constitutional arrangement".  Quebec's contract is not with the federal government it is with all the provinces.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Who cares what kind of vote or non-vote triggers it because at the end of the day any negotiations triggered by any means will still have all the same issues on the table. As an outsider I don't see that happening anytime soon because there does not seem to be a clear consensus within Quebec on what a new relationship should look like.

There is a clear consensus that Quebecers do not want to separate from Canada. 70% of Quebecers are as content with our current relationship with the federal government as are all the other provinces.

There is simply no reason for the Sherbrooke declaration to exist other than to pander to separatists. The SCC determined that a threshold cannot be established as an absolute because other factors would also have to be considered therefore a simple majority is insuffcient.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

But the subtext to the issue is what does Trudeau propose to do if the Quebec government demands to meet to discuss separation. Ignore the National Assembly and refuse to even talk?

The same thing they will do if the Ontario government demands to meet to discuss separation. Deal with it when it happens depending on the surrounding circumstances.

lagatta wrote:

Perhaps it is because it is a matter of democracy, non?

Why are you even worried about this when there is little appetite for outright independence now and less still for a referendum? Because it is something the Upper-Class Twit™ can use to score debating points as he gushes about "Le Canada"?

I care because Mulcair falsely accused Trudeau and Duceppe as being the only ones who want to talk about separation when it is Mulcair who is promising Quebec that he will follow through on the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Mulcair is running for the Prime Ministership of Canada; he will have to say the same thing in English as he does in French.

You can bet this issue is going to come up in the French debate and it will be discussed in the English media.

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Pondering wrote:

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

The Supreme Court of which country?

alan smithee wrote:

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

Québec has a right to seperate. It was here long before Canada.

It's called democracy. Nice to see you hate that concept.

You have a very simplistic notion of democracy. Quebec participated in the creation of Canada. It did not exist with it's current borders prior to the birth of Canada as a country. Quebec is not an occupied territory which was part of the conclusion of the SCC decision.

How the 51% of votes were distributed throughout the province would also matter. What if a large majority of Montrealers didn't want to separate from Canada? What about the Eastern Townships? Much of northern Quebec was not part of Quebec in 1866. It's aboriginal lands and their deal is with Ottawa not Quebec.

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Before negotiations for separation the borders of Quebec would have to be determined. Saying so in Quebec causes sovereignists to froth at the mouth. Democracy only goes so far in their world view.

Actually I think that your inane satatement would make most people at least roll their eyes. You seem to know less about negotiation in the real world than you do about the constitution. Hell I think that long before the borders are drawn there might be one or two preliminary discussions on other items. They might even have to meet to determine the shape of the table given the symbolic nature of any talks.

Spouses have the right to leave a relationship without meeting any prerequisites. How they divvy up the childcare and family assets is a matter for negotiations or court cases. Unless you think that if an intrangent Quebec government would not listen to the federal governments view then civil war is a possibility.

People should know that the borders would have to be negotiated otherwise they don't know what they are voting for. The talks would not be symbolic. Parizeau was ready to declare independence.

Hmm, I've been involved in (union-management) negotiations for many years. The rapport des forces is far more important than any legal text.

And all of this is a bit silly as there is no clamour for a new referendum these days.

I can't believe you live in the Plateau and speak of "sovereignists" as if they were some strange manic creatures. That bears no relation to preferring federalism, which is certainly legitimate. But this "othering" of your neighbours is very odd.

No problem for Justin, as he doesn't even reside in Québec, let alone Papineau. He could live in Aylmer, for cripes sake. That part of Gatineau is very nice.

Quote:

There is simply no reason for the Sherbrooke declaration to exist other than to pander to separatists.

Actually, it is "pandering" to democrats, Pondering. Like most other federalists outside the Island of The Gazette, I find the Clarity Act to be an attack on the democratic rights of Quebec's people to choose their own future. 

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I hate to break the news to people,especially those who are 'defenders of democracy' but 50% +1 is a majority. End of story.

BTW,anglo media is clueless. This mofo should fuck off and move to the Prairies.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-election-free-for-all-1.2537795

And the Supreme Court said a simple majority is insufficient. End of story.

That's a complete misread of the decision, and you know it.  A "simple majority" in the decision refers to the question of whether this gives Quebec the right to unilaterally secede.  It is not referring to the size of the majority.  "Simple majority", within the context of how it's used in the decision, could refer to any sized majority, be it a large or small majority.  So even if 100% of the electorate votes to secede, this simple majority is an insufficient basis for Quebec to unilaterally secede.  There needs to be a variety of other conditions met as well, such as negotiations, etc.

Anyway, the Clarity Act is seen by many as disrectful to Quebec.  So the NDP plans to replace it with the Unity Act.  This is a part of the overall goal of being respectful and creating the winning conditions (as Layton described in the video I linked to earlier) for Quebec to sign onto the Constitution someday.  If instead of the inane (and I believe intentially) misleading snipes, feel free to actually state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan?

Anyway, it's not being highlighted in this campaign because it isn't a pressing concern of anyone (besides yourself).  Most people are thinking about jobs, the economy, health care, child care, etc.  But again, you also know that, I assume.

mark_alfred wrote:

Anyway, the Clarity Act is seen by many as disrectful to Quebec.  So the NDP plans to replace it with the Unity Act.  This is a part of the overall goal of being respectful and creating the winning conditions (as Layton described in the video I linked to earlier) for Quebec to sign onto the Constitution someday.  If instead of the inane (and I believe intentially) misleading snipes, feel free to actually state how your beloved Liberals are going to approach having Quebec sign onto the Constitution someday.  Do they have a plan? 

There is no movement in Quebec demanding fresh constitutional talks. If Quebec does express a desire to sign the constitution it will be up to the Quebec government of the day to decide what they want. Quebec hasn't been agitating for the Sherbrooke Declaration or against the Clarity Act.

mark_alfred wrote:

Anyway, it's not being highlighted in this campaign because it isn't a pressing concern of anyone (besides yourself).  Most people are thinking about jobs, the economy, health care, child care, etc.  But again, you also know that, I assume.

Whether or not it is being "highlighted" it is active current NDP policy that Mulcair has mentioned multiple times in Quebec. He still has every intention of fulfilling its legislative goals. Voters have a right to know about it. Mulcair should not have a problem defending NDP policy anywhere in Canada.

Pondering, if that majority of Quebecers don't want another referendum, it won't happen.  It's enough that that's the case.

Only right-wing anti-Quebec Anglo-supremacists would possibly object to the Sherbrooke Declaration or defend the reactionary and anti-democratic Clarity Act, a law that insults Quebecers by implying that the Quebec government couldn't be trusted to count their own constituents' votes in a sovereignty referendum or accept a narrow defeat(never mind that they DID accept a narrow defeat in the last referendum).  If any other part of Canada were to vote to renegotiate the terms of their connection to the whole, the government would automatically accept 50% +1 "Yes" as a legitimate result.  Why ONLY call such a result into question if it's Quebec.

And all a "Yes" vote in a referendum would do is trigger negotiations on Quebec's status, it wouldn't mean instant separation. Just negotiations.  And what is so terrible about negotiations?  That's the way civilized people solve disputes.

And the Clarity Act is not enough to justify calling for progressives to vote for the conservative and totally out-to-date Liberals instead of the NDP(a party that beats the Liberals now in every part of the country other than the Maritimes).  The voters aren't angry at the NDP stance on this issue and they know what the NDP's stance is perfectly well.

Your party has lost the argument on this issue.

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering, if that majority of Quebecers don't want another referendum, it won't happen.  It's enough that that's the case.

Then there is no need to repeal the Clarity Act.

Ken Burch wrote:

Only right-wing anti-Quebec Anglo-supremacists would possibly object to the Sherbrooke Declaration or defend the reactionary and anti-democratic Clarity Act, a law that insults Quebecers by implying that the Quebec government couldn't be trusted to count their own constituents' votes in a sovereignty referendum or accept a narrow defeat(never mind that they DID accept a narrow defeat in the last referendum).  If any other part of Canada were to vote to renegotiate the terms of their connection to the whole, the government would automatically accept 50% +1 "Yes" as a legitimate result.  Why ONLY call such a result into question if it's Quebec.

The Clarity Act applies to all the provinces not just Quebec.

Ken Burch wrote:

And all a "Yes" vote in a referendum would do is trigger negotiations on Quebec's status, it wouldn't mean instant separation. Just negotiations.  And what is so terrible about negotiations?  That's the way civilized people solve disputes.

Negotiations for separation end in separation.

The Canadian government has a responsibility to all Canadians including those who live in Quebec to protect our rights. If the time comes that another referendum is held the negotiations should begin before the vote not after so that people know what they are voting for. Both the question and the threshold should be negotiated at that time. That too is the democratic way.

Ken Burch wrote:

And the Clarity Act is not enough to justify calling for progressives to vote for the conservative and totally out-to-date Liberals instead of the NDP(a party that beats the Liberals now in every part of the country other than the Maritimes).

It's up to individuals to decide which issues sway their votes.

Ken Burch wrote:

The voters aren't angry at the NDP stance on this issue and they know what the NDP's stance is perfectly well.

Then Mulcair shouldn't have a problem defending it during debates.

Ken Burch wrote:

Your party has lost the argument on this issue.

I don't think so. I think most people will believe that Mulcair is using it to try to appeal to Quebec nationalists/separatists.

I agree, this is precisely the attitude that explains why the Liberals have little support in Quebec outside Montreal. But of course, it helps them to mobilize anti-Quebec sentiment outside Quebec.