Québec solidaire - the thread

310 posts / 0 new
Last post
swallow swallow's picture
voice of the damned

I have no particular dog in this fight, and in fact, would not be at all surprised if a pro-independence group, however much it claims to be on the cutting edge of social progress, were found to have a double-standard when it came to sovereignty for minority groups within its own territory.

However, I am always a little suspicious when a reporter quotes the answer to a question directly, while giving only a paraphrase of the question itself...

Asked whether the party would allow indigenous groups to opt out of separation, or to declare unilateral separation from Quebec, Nadeau-Dubois said “not necessarily — we want to build an alliance with the First Nations.”

So does anyone know what the exact question was here? Specifically, was it phrased in such a way that would make it reasonable for us to interptet Nadeau-Dubois' answer as meaning "We want to form an alliance with First Nations, but if that doesn't happen, there is a possibility we would stop them from opting out or declaring independence"?

 

Pondering

Doesn't matter if they are hypocrites. They have already announced that their priority is separation so they are losers. They are pissing away what little chance they have of promoting progressive policies in Quebec because they care more about what they want than what the people want. 

I still have nothing but admiration for the two spokespeople. 

 

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

Doesn't matter if they are hypocrites. They have already announced that their priority is separation so they are losers. 

That pushing for sovereignty is a vote-loser right now I am quite prepared to believe. But I wasn't asking about their electoral prospects, but rather about whether or not they were consistent in their support for self-determination.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Doesn't matter if they are hypocrites. They have already announced that their priority is separation so they are losers. 

That pushing for sovereignty is a vote-loser right now I am quite prepared to believe. But I wasn't asking about their electoral prospects, but rather about whether or not they were consistent in their support for self-determination.

I think leaders are, most followers are not. 

voice of the damned

I think leaders are, most followers are not. 

Well, if the Gazette's interpretation of Nadeau-Dubois' statement is correct, then at least one spokesperson for Quebec Solidaire is NOT consistent on the issue of self-determination. But I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Gazette reported the exchange accurately. (In addition to the paraphrased question, the reported answer seems likely to be a fragment.) 

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

I think leaders are, most followers are not. 

Well, if the Gazette's interpretation of Nadeau-Dubois' statement is correct, then at least one spokesperson for Quebec Solidaire is NOT consistent on the issue of self-determination. But I'm still waiting for confirmation that the Gazette reported the exchange accurately. (In addition to the paraphrased question, the reported answer seems likely to be a fragment.) 

Irrespective of what the Gazette or GND say, or misinterpret, or misquote, or partially quote, or whatever, the programme of QS is more than clear on this point. From Article 10.2.2(b):

Quote:

b) Québec solidaire reconnaît que, pour l’ensemble des peuples autochtones, leur souveraineté signifie qu’ils ont le libre choix de leur avenir et qu’il s’agit là d’un droit inhérent. Reconnaître cette réalité est nécessaire pour éviter d’avoir une politique de «deux poids, deux mesures » : Le peuple québécois ne peut refuser aux autres peuples ce qu’il revendique pour lui-même. Si son existence même, comme peuple, lui confère le plein droit à l’autodétermination, la même chose devrait s’appliquer dans le cas des peuples autochtones. Il ne s’agit pas là d’une question de nombre, mais de droit fondamental. 

My non-expert translation:

Quote:

Québec solidaire recognizes that, for the Indigenous peoples as a whole [NOTE: by which they specify elsewhere that this refers to the ten (10) Indigenous nations and the Inuit], their sovereignty means that they have the free choice to decide their future, and that this is an inalienable right. Recognition of this reality is necessary in order to avoid having a "double standard": The people of Québec cannot deny other peoples what it demands for itself. If its very existence, as a people, gives it the full right of self-determination, the same must apply in the case of the Indigenous peoples. It's not a question of numbers - but one of fundamental rights.

Couldn't get much clearer than that. And I sincerely doubt whether any other political party (at least, with elected representatives) anywhere in Canada takes as firm and principled stand on this question. I stand to be corrected, of course.

Here's the full party programme as per their website.

swallow swallow's picture

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois a toutefois indiqué que de telles négociations ne mèneraient pas au morcellement du territoire québécois. « L’exercice du droit fondamental à l’autodétermination des peuples autochtones n’implique pas la partition du territoire », a déclaré le co-porte-parole.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/201911/17/01-5250072-qs-premier-parti-quebecois-a-se-doter-dune-instance-autochtone.php

Does QS recognize the right of Indigenous peoples to their unceded land? The porte-parole suggests that no. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

QS would be open to negotiating with First Nations and Inuit in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois however indicated that such negotiations would not lead to the division of Quebec territory. "The exercise of the fundamental right to self-determination of indigenous peoples does not imply partitioning the territory," said the co-spokesperson.

..if this is an accurate translation, it sounds like gnd is pre-determining what self-determination means. not a fan of this approach. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Could this be because of the resurgence of the Bloc federally? Is sovereignty re-emerging as a strong issue for francophone people in Quebec? Have there been polls which show this to be a forefront issue again?

I would assume that if QS makes sovereignty a strong issue, can they not also be strong on social issues? I don't think that the two issues are mutually exclusive. I don't see how a party that is on the left could abandon its position on social issues and focus solely for the purpose of sovereignty. I see the two issues as being complimentary.

i can also say that I do not understand Quebec politics. If someone can help me out with this, I would genuinely appreciate it. I also understand the deep concerns about First Nation's rights to self determination and what implications that this has on First Nations people in Quebec.

swallow swallow's picture

Would it have its own army or just a civil defence force? Members voted for an army, although they preferred to call it an "anti-imperial" force focused on self-defence.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-solidaire-sovereignty-green-revolution-1.5363060

Trois propositions pour assurer la défense étaient soumises au vote. La première proposait une défense sans armée et une autre avec la mise en œuvre graduelle d’une défense sans armée.

C’est finalement l’option d’une armée dont le rôle « sera axé sur la sécurité collective et la dissuasion » qui a été retenue par les quelque 600 militants réunis, avec une forte majorité.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/201911/16/01-5249973-si-le-quebec-devenait-independant-sous-qs-une-armee-serait-constituee.php

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

This is so depressing. I feel like the right will always win because the left is too damn stupid and not just in Quebec. It's like the left doesn't really want to win because then they couldn't blame everything on the right. 

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:

Would it have its own army or just a civil defence force? Members voted for an army, although they preferred to call it an "anti-imperial" force focused on self-defence.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-solidaire-sovereignty-green-revolution-1.5363060

Trois propositions pour assurer la défense étaient soumises au vote. La première proposait une défense sans armée et une autre avec la mise en œuvre graduelle d’une défense sans armée.

C’est finalement l’option d’une armée dont le rôle « sera axé sur la sécurité collective et la dissuasion » qui a été retenue par les quelque 600 militants réunis, avec une forte majorité.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/201911/16/01-5249973-si-le-quebec-devenait-independant-sous-qs-une-armee-serait-constituee.php

I don't think there are too many people who would vote for independence if the new country was going to be completely without a military. That's pretty much a standing invitation for anyone, including the former metropolitan, to send troops right across your border the minute you declare indpendence.

Pondering

Today, there are 23 countries that have no active military force, including Costa Rica, Iceland, Panama, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and The Vatican. These nations vary in size, history, and reasons behind choosing to not have a standing army. Some have split off from larger countries and are so small with so few resources that it's simply not feasible to have a fully formed military force. Others have agreements in place with neighboring countries to call on their armed personnel as needed.

Separtists know they won't get votes if they admit that if Canada can be separated so can Quebec. The leadership can say whatever they please. Lots of separatists would kill injuns (what flq types think of them) before allowing them to control their own land. They disown the FLQ but not entirely so they would be back with a vengence. Did any of them even go to prison? I know one ended up a university teacher. 

I still greatly admire their spokespeople. Remember they are not leaders. Within QS the members make the decisions.

The trouble with political parties is that none of them want to do what the people want them to do. They all have their own agendas including QS.

It would be revolutionary to have a political party that does what the people want. They would win in a landslide supported only by social media. 

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

Lots of separatists would kill injuns (what flq types think of them) before allowing them to control their own land.

I don't think the FLQ, as it existed in its brief period of relevance, was racist against First Nations. IIRC, their manifesto made a big deal about supporting the struggles of Palestinians, African-Americans, and other racialized groups. Can't recall anything specifically about FNs, but I doubt they would've been selectively racist against them.

Now, the old woman yelling at Justin Trudeau about "the stump" could probably be convinced to cheer on an armed incursion against First Nations. Doubt she was an FLQ hanger-on, back in the day, but who knows.

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Lots of separatists would kill injuns (what flq types think of them) before allowing them to control their own land.

I don't think the FLQ, as it existed in its brief period of relevance, was racist against First Nations. IIRC, their manifesto made a big deal about supporting the struggles of Palestinians, African-Americans, and other racialized groups. Can't recall anything specifically about FNs, but I doubt they would've been selectively racist against them.

Now, the old woman yelling at Justin Trudeau about "the stump" could probably be convinced to cheer on an armed incursion against First Nations. Doubt she was an FLQ hanger-on, back in the day, but who knows.

In the days of the referendums the PQ shot down any notion of Quebec's borders being altered one bit including First Nations territories. You see the limits of QS acceptance of First Nations absolute sovereignty over their land. First Nations treaties are with the federal government not the provincial governments within whose borders they lie. If any province declares independence First Nations are not going to agree to simply be handed from the federal government to the provincial government when they have their best and probably only chance of full independence. They would negotiate a protection agreement with Canada and with the full support of the United Nations and indigenous groups worldwide. 

Whether or not they are called the FLQ the separatists willing to do violence would be emboldened. It will never come to that anyway because they have no idea how to gain support. All they have to do is promise first and foremost to be good honest administrators of the province. Promise open data overseen by groups dedicated to open government. Get free pubic transit in the cities. Help farmers.  Improve conditions for First Nations by providing directly and by advocating for them. Then ask for a mandate to separate. 

The hardline separatist part of the party insisted on separation being front and centre. They bought off the climate change people by making that the other priority and marrying the two using climate change as a reason to separate. 

This is why I say a party cannot be both a social movement and a political party.  

voice of the damned

Pondering:

No major disagreement with your general analysis, but I will comment on this...

Whether or not they are called the FLQ the separatists willing to do violence would be emboldened.

The FLQ was a distinct organization, rooted in a certain time, place, and ideology, and I don't think it should just be conflated with "anyone who wants to commit violence in the name of an independent Quebec." Paul Rose, one of the leaders of the FLQ, went on to lead the NDPQ/PDS, who as far as I am aware championed the self-determination of indigenous peoples as well.

All that said, I don't doubt there are a lot of vaguely left-wing youth from the 1960s, now approaching their dotage and growling about immigrants and lazy indians, who could be corraled into venting their bigotry through some sort of reactionary nationalist movement. From what I've seen of the QS platform, it doesn't seem as if it would have much appeal to those people, however.

 

voice of the damned

One more thing...

In the days of the referendums the PQ shot down any notion of Quebec's borders being altered one bit including First Nations territories.

Well, actually Parizeau did say later on that, had the '95 referendum gone the other way, he would have considered letting Canada continue its jurisdiction over certain Mohawk territories, as he regarded the Mohawks as a headache. You can find the interview on YouTube.

lagatta4

Who the f except rightwing anglos talks about "separatists". The most accurate term is the French indépendistes - those who tant an independent Québec.  Their movement does not arise from a desire to be separate, but from one to be independent and "build their own society" as per the Ub4o lyric.

swallow swallow's picture

I never use the word separatist.

Any comment 0n the apparent denial of land rights to Indigenous people? Or the embrace of militarism? Or the new prioritizing of independence ahead of the environment? All so very disappointing. 

Ken Burch

swallow wrote:

I never use the word separatist.

Any comment 0n the apparent denial of land rights to Indigenous people? Or the embrace of militarism? Or the new prioritizing of independence ahead of the environment? All so very disappointing. 

N0t only that, there is no good reason to use the phrase "FLQ types".  There ARE no FLQ types around anymore-the armed struggle concept has been extinct among sovereigntists since the October Crisis.

It is extremely demagogic and paranoid to use such phraseology, because it can be used to imply that anyone who identifies as a sovereigntist is also a potential terrorist.   When you get right down to it, using the phrase "FLQ types" when discussing sovereigntists in THIS era is as reprehensible as it would be to use the term "ISIS types" in a conversation about Muslims.

Pondering

Everywhere in the world we refer to separatist movements because a group wants to separate from another group.

Quebecers are already independent. We independently chose to become Canadian as one of its founding nations and so far we have independently chosen to remain Canadian. 

Sovereignty association was a euphemism for separation to try to convince people we weren't really separating. 

Independence is used to infer that somehow Quebec is subjugated by Canada rather than a fully independent and willing partner in Confederation. 

It is taking Quebecers for fools to think we won't figure out that it really means separating from Canada.

Someone will have to inform Wikipedia they are wrong and shouldn't include Quebec in their list of separatist movements. 

Bottomline is that QS is playing make-believe when we need a party that will put social justice first instead of pretending nothing can be done unless we declare separation first.

"FLQ types" is to differenciate them from nationalists and sovereignists and independents.  Only a fool would confuse "FLQ" with "separatist". 

The FLQ didn't just kidnap and murder they also set of bombs that could have killed anyone. They were no different than any other group who rejects democracy in favor of violence to get what they want. The FLQ was a terrorist organization. 

Pondering

I will add that QS is actively anti-racist and inclusive. Supporters of Bill 21 overlap heavily with hardline separatist voters.  

QS has pretty much boxed me into the corner of voting NDP provincially, or maybe even Liberal though it makes me shudder. I have seen what the CAQ has done. I pray they institute PR but I doubt that they will. That would be the only silver lining of their win. 

I don't have the intelligence or organizational ability or energy to start a party whose goal is to do what the people want them to. Not the 99%, that would be hard to do, but 80%. It would be a brilliant and revolutionary leftist  group who collected around that as their primary goal. 

P.S. I do tend to use "separatist" when I am annoyed at them for putting "independence" ahead of social justice and the well-being of Quebecers. 

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:

Any comment 0n the apparent denial of land rights to Indigenous people? Or the embrace of militarism?

I don't think simply wanting your country to have a military qualifies as militarism. Even when the NDP still actively promoted withdrawal from NATO and NORAD, they never actually said that Canada should completely disarm itself.

Someone posted a list of countries without militaries earlier, and from a brief glance, many of the examples given would not be suitable models for a party portraying itself as left-wing and anti-imperialist. Micronesia has a comprehensive military treaty with the USA, the Marshall Islands host American military bases, Iceland is part of NATO, and Vatican City, well, do the problems with that example really require enumeration?  

voice of the damned

I do agree that Nadeau-Dubois' statements on First Nations self-determination(again, assuming accurate quotation and translation) likely put the party on a collision course between its official programme, and the public utterances of one of its spokespeople. (That is, if he doesn't retract or clarify them.)

Pondering

I have to admit I am experiencing a lot of anger at QS. I feel like they are dooming Quebec to endless rightwing governments.

I might genuinely vote for separation if a party took power and actually governed Quebec better than Canada is governed. That isn't a high bar to set. 

I would prefer that Quebec be an example to the rest of the country but if Quebec really did need to separate to continue delivering social justice I would support it. 

If we needed to separate to stop EE I would support it. More to say but I am going to see Mummies at the Museum.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the que left is deserves much respect and loyalty. qs is a representation of this. to toss that away because of this current bump in the road is inappropriate. to run around crying that the sky is falling because of it..well..let's just call it premature. 

..it's at these junctures democracy is tested. specifically qs party democracy. unionist posted qs policy up thread, re the relationship with indigenous folk. this is important. that policy hasn't been revoked. which means gnd, a spokesperson, is not in harmony with qs policy adopted by the membership.     

..the question now is how this will be resolved. as are the other positions that swallow raised. these positions will polarize qs. but this will, now the cat is out of the bag, have to be resolved internally. hopefully before the next election. if not, this may not go well for qs. 

swallow swallow's picture

Sky isn't falling, but QS is at a crossroads. The logic of the Option Nationale merger is pushing the founding left principles aside to make room for the sovereignty-first perspective. If that succeeds, we will simply have a new left independentist party, and QS will have sacrificed its transformative potential in order to re-create the early Parti Quebecois. Would love to know if current QS members are fighting for the founding principles and membership control of the agenda, or are meekly accepting the new direction being pushed by the spokespersons. 

lagatta4

To be honest, I think that it is an (over)reaction to the constant harping from the PQ and (even more) right-wing indépendantistes that we aren't real sovereignists. I'm not very happy about it either, more for pragmatic reasons than principles.

But no, Québec is not an independent nation. Neither is Scotland, though neither of the above is subjugated as Catalonia has been by the Spanish State.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Would love to know if current QS members are fighting for the founding principles and membership control of the agenda, or are meekly accepting the new direction being pushed by the spokespersons.

..your raising the issue, swallow, was the first i'd heard of this. people need time to digest, discuss and then act. are there membership meetings coming up? qs must have a calendar of sorts somewhere. i checked their facebook page..nothing about this. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..when niki ashton ran for leader i joined the ndp and i voted for her. this could be an option in this case. to join qs and oppose the changes. qs is worth fighting for imho.

Pondering

All Quebecers live within a democratic independent country they actively want to be a part of. To say that Quebec isn't independent is to say that Montreal isn't independent as long as it is only part of Quebec. Quebec holds Montreal back so we have good reason to want our independence. Our population is large enough to deserve self-determination. Culturally we are very different than the RoQ. 

swallow wrote:

Sky isn't falling, but QS is at a crossroads. The logic of the Option Nationale merger is pushing the founding left principles aside to make room for the sovereignty-first perspective. If that succeeds, we will simply have a new left independentist party, and QS will have sacrificed its transformative potential in order to re-create the early Parti Quebecois. Would love to know if current QS members are fighting for the founding principles and membership control of the agenda, or are meekly accepting the new direction being pushed by the spokespersons. 

I'd like to know that too. It seems they are determined to go down the same path as the PQ. Put separatism ahead of social justice. QS is now only using climate change and social justice as justification for "independence". 

This reminds me so much of what is happening in the Conservative party only with them it's the social conservatives holding the party back. In QS it is the independents that are holding the party back. In both cases they want to impose their views on others. 

How many ways does Quebec have to say 'no' to convince activists that they need to take a different approach if they want to succeed. What's that saying? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. 

In this case it is the left repeatedly putting the cart in front of the horse and expecting it to work. Put the damn horse in front of the cart already if you want to win. 

You don't ask people to trust you to found a new country when they haven't trusted you to run the province yet. Oh, you know how to fly paper airplanes, well here's the keys to the jet. QS is a platform for social movements not a political party with any expectation of actually winning an election. Merging with ON was a big mistake. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

swallow wrote:

Any comment 0n the apparent denial of land rights to Indigenous people? Or the embrace of militarism?

I don't think simply wanting your country to have a military qualifies as militarism. Even when the NDP still actively promoted withdrawal from NATO and NORAD, they never actually said that Canada should completely disarm itself.

Someone posted a list of countries without militaries earlier, and from a brief glance, many of the examples given would not be suitable models for a party portraying itself as left-wing and anti-imperialist. Micronesia has a comprehensive military treaty with the USA, the Marshall Islands host American military bases, Iceland is part of NATO, and Vatican City, well, do the problems with that example really require enumeration?  

Texhnically, the Pope does have the Swiss Guard.

Ken Burch

I've truly never been sure what the attraction was in a merger with ON-that party never came close to winning a seat in its own right and drew about 1% of the overall vote in every National Assembly election it ever contested.

What's to like?

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..the que left is deserves much respect and loyalty. qs is a representation of this. to toss that away because of this current bump in the road is inappropriate. to run around crying that the sky is falling because of it..well..let's just call it premature. 

..it's at these junctures democracy is tested. specifically qs party democracy. unionist posted qs policy up thread, re the relationship with indigenous folk. this is important. that policy hasn't been revoked. which means gnd, a spokesperson, is not in harmony with qs policy adopted by the membership.     

..the question now is how this will be resolved. as are the other positions that swallow raised. these positions will polarize qs. but this will, now the cat is out of the bag, have to be resolved internally. hopefully before the next election. if not, this may not go well for qs. 

It won't go well for QS. They have opened Pandora's box. The majority of people who want Quebec to be a country would never consider giving up an inch of Quebec territory. Quebec would negotiate better treaties with Indigenous people (yeah right) but there is no question that it would remain Quebec. The French conquered First Nations. Their remnants have inherited rights but not to independence. 

QS including most members may well support full independence for First Nations but they know they would be wiped off the map if they say so publicly.  (I think of you every time I use that word Unionist)

If independence was a backburner goal they wouldn't have to deal with this question. They could first prove themselves on the provincial scene. We are so badly governed surely they could make some spectacular improvements fast. Then when they presented their vision they would have some credibility. They would have to govern long enough to prove to First Nations people that they could be trusted. They would have to negotiate on a nation to nation basis. They would have to work on the relationship between migrants and Quebecers outside of Montreal. 

Only then should they request a mandate for independence from Quebecers. 

The more I think about it the more Mickey Mouse their approach is. It is like asking to borrow a billion dollars when you have no credit-rating and no proof of concept, just a really really good idea and you are sure you are right. 

I am really upset about this. I am going to get off their mailing list. If they lose enough support maybe they will realize they took the wrong decision before the next election. 

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

pondering..

..except for your first line, you didn't address the points i made. why bother quoting my post?  

voice of the damned

Misfit wrote:
Texhnically, the Pope does have the Swiss Guard.

Certainly useful for fending off a few dozen sedevacantists trying to storm the Holy See and bring back the Latin mass.

Ken Burch

voice of the damned wrote:

Misfit wrote:
Texhnically, the Pope does have the Swiss Guard.

Certainly useful for fending off a few dozen sedevacantists trying to storm the Holy See and bring back the Latin mass.

And those brave lads have held off centuries of Swiss invaders.  The watch-making, chocolate-wrapping Calvinist barbarians have never come close to turning St. Peter's Basilica into a ski lodge.

lagatta4

The main point here is that we have always had some anti-left and anti-Québécois posters here. There are no rules about that, so I suppose they have every right to post.

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..the que left is deserves much respect and loyalty. qs is a representation of this. to toss that away because of this current bump in the road is inappropriate. to run around crying that the sky is falling because of it..well..let's just call it premature. 

Wise words and true.

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's at these junctures democracy is tested. specifically qs party democracy. unionist posted qs policy up thread, re the relationship with indigenous folk. this is important. that policy hasn't been revoked. which means gnd, a spokesperson, is not in harmony with qs policy adopted by the membership.

Maybe GND is in harmony, maybe he isn't, maybe there are no simple mathematical formulae at work here. For example: Do we know any political party that recognizes the right of all Indigenous peoples to self-determination? Do babblers? If yes, what does that mean? That if an Indigenous nation so decides, it can say goodbye to Canada and take all its unceded land with it (or even "ceded" land, because I sincerely doubt whether all those treaties were freely and fairly concluded)? I don't know the answers to all these questions.     

epaulo13 wrote:

..the question now is how this will be resolved. as are the other positions that swallow raised. these positions will polarize qs. but this will, now the cat is out of the bag, have to be resolved internally. hopefully before the next election. if not, this may not go well for qs. 

It's problematic, no doubt - especially the path toward sovereignty. Let me know if anyone comes up with the "correct" answer.

One of the problems, of course, is that QS dares to address these issues. Others play safe by being ambiguous. I sometimes think that ambiguity might not be such a bad thing, at least until the times force us to make a clear choice.

pietro_bcc

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/11/27/feu-jaune-pour-les-caquistes

In the latest poll the CAQ and QS lost 6 and 5 points respectively while the Liberals and PQ gained (despite neither party having a permanent leader.)

The effect that the Journal's smear campaign against Dorion really goes to show the differences between the Francophone and Anglophone media for better and worse. Ever since the last election ended the Journal de Montreal has been attacking Dorion because of what she wears semi-daily. You'd think she was a cabinet minister based on how much they talk about her (hell she's probably more well known than most CAQ cabinet ministers.) Meanwhile the english media rarely mentions her or the manufactured controversy (there was actually a poll asking people what they thought of the Dorion controversy, the francophone population was heavily divided and almost everyone had an opinion, on the anglophone side the answer was for the most part "I don't know what you're talking about" or "I don't care one way or the other".)

Its like 2 different worlds when it comes to the news.

lagatta4

That's for sure, but actually Catherine doesn't wear clothing of note semi-daily. She usually dresses like a lot of us dress. And the really weird thing was the criticism of Sol Zanetti, who is actually a rather dapper fellow, but he does dress like a Cégep prof (which he is), not a banker or real estate salesperson. Personally, if they want to outlaw garments, I'd start with high heels and neckties.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Unionist wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's at these junctures democracy is tested. specifically qs party democracy. unionist posted qs policy up thread, re the relationship with indigenous folk. this is important. that policy hasn't been revoked. which means gnd, a spokesperson, is not in harmony with qs policy adopted by the membership.

Maybe GND is in harmony, maybe he isn't, maybe there are no simple mathematical formulae at work here. For example: Do we know any political party that recognizes the right of all Indigenous peoples to self-determination? Do babblers? If yes, what does that mean? That if an Indigenous nation so decides, it can say goodbye to Canada and take all its unceded land with it (or even "ceded" land, because I sincerely doubt whether all those treaties were freely and fairly concluded)? I don't know the answers to all these questions.     

..i acknowledge that it won't be me that will decide whether or not gnd is in harmony or not.  

..but it is my opinion though, based on the language gnd used in determining what self-determination means. it was like a power play. like an opening position in a negotiation. this approach, this language is not new. trudeau used a similar approach in trying to install an unwanted pipeline on indigenous territory. he pre-defined what undrip meant to suit his purposes.

..and here is where i would like to go in my discussions. to talk about process. undrip is, in my opinion, the way forward. not negotiations based on power. 

..going on right now is the implementation of undrip in bc. and believe me i'm no fan of the ndp there. they agreed to site c and made huge concessions to lng while totally ignoring indigenous positions. and after completely satisfiing industry they introduced undrip. the implementation, while still in it's early stages it is both interesting and informative. it's also collaborative, inclusive. there is also an undrip process going on in new zealand at the moment.      

..here is the latest piece i posted in the undrip thread. from an indigenous perspective. 

B.C. takes historic steps towards the rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the hard work is yet to come

quote:

The bill also requires that the government implement it “in consultation and co-operation” with Indigenous Peoples. The phrase “in consultation and co-operation” is crucial. The words come directly from the UN Declaration itself and signal the imperative of going beyond mere consultation to instead work together in what the declaration calls “a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.”

Legislative pathways have always been considered essential for domestic implementation of the UN Declaration. As the text of Article 38 states: “States, in consultation and co-operation with Indigenous Peoples, shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the ends of this Declaration.”

Various UN bodies have called for legislative measures and public policies to implement the rights recognized in the declaration, yet they also recognize that legislation alone is generally not sufficient.

Without a doubt, there is significant work ahead to identify, prioritize and implement the reforms needed to bring B.C. in line with the requirements of international human rights law. Even with the framework provided by the UN Declaration, it will not be quick or easy work to uproot the legacies of colonialism present in provincial law and policy.

quote:

While B.C. is about to become the first jurisdiction in the Commonwealth to adopt a legislative framework for implementation of the declaration, it will not be the first to develop an action plan for implementation. The collaborative development of a National Action Plan is already well under way in New Zealand.

The New Zealand government is working with the Maori people to identify key reforms necessary in their national laws and policies and co-develop their National Action Plan. As part of its process, the Human Rights Commission of New Zealand and Maori groups co-invited members of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to visit and provide advice. The government of British Columbia should follow suit.

..imho it's all about the process. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

 ..there is much that could be discussed in fidler's piece. i'm only choosing to highlight 2 issues.

With little debate, but a few skirmishes, Québec solidaire shifts rightward

In the fusion agreement with Option nationale adopted at its previous congress, in December 2017, Québec solidaire committed to aligning its program with that of ON. This was the major objective of the unified party’s congress that met in the Montréal suburb of Longueuil on November 15-17. Also on the agenda, in addition to the usual internal elections and some organizational details, was adoption of the party program on “defense and national security,” left over from the QS congress in May 2017, and some “clarifications on ecotaxation” (écofiscalité) , the latter item being proposed by the QS national council meeting last March.

While the 600 delegates did adopt the key provisions of the ON program proposed for adoption, the congress was traversed by an undercurrent of dissent expressed in attempts by delegates to assert control over the party’s 10-member parliamentary caucus and its leadership bodies as well as to reorient the party’s direction on some important questions, in particular with regard to the climate emergency.

quote:

Climate change
The third and last major programmatic item on the agenda, “ecotaxation,” resulted in overturn of the Québec solidaire program’s opposition to market approaches based on carbon taxes and Quebec’s existing cap-and-trade program. The retreat had begun during the 2018 election, when — in the middle of the campaign — the QS leadership presented a climate-change platform that promised a QS government would retain cap-and-trade during its first mandate and establish a carbon-tax that would be set at $110 a ton by 2030 — far below any amount that could help to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 48% of 1990 levels by 2030, as promised by QS. That platform, Now or Never, was never debated in the membership.

quote:

Internal democracy
Another expression at the congress of membership unease with the party leadership’s conduct was the recent attempt by co-spokeswoman Manon Massé and two other QS deputies (Catherine Dorion and Sol Zanetti, both representing Quebec City ridings) to parachute their chosen candidate into the by-election in the area riding of Jean-Talon, now scheduled for December 2. The candidate, Frédéric Poitras, until then not a QS member, has worked the last five years as a political advisor to Quebec City mayor Régis Labeaume. The mayor is a strong supporter of the CAQ government’s plan to build a new highway crossing between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence River, a project opposed by many citizens’ groups with which QS members are actively working. Three other candidates had already announced they would seek the QS nomination in Jean-Talon.

The deputies’ intervention provoked a revolt among the riding’s membership. In the end, party activist Olivier Bolduc was elected the candidate at the nomination meeting, far ahead of Poitras.
A leaflet distributed at the congress by the members of the “expanded coordinating committee” of QS Jean-Talon protested:

“This is not the first time the national leadership has acted this way. It is time to put an end to a practice that demobilizes the associations and violates our political values…. That is why the principle that candidates are chosen by the local associations is embedded in our statutes…. The support of members of our parliamentary wing to the candidacy of someone outside our party has profoundly shocked us.”

Ken Burch

epaulo13 wrote:

 ..there is much that could be discussed in fidler's piece. i'm only choosing to highlight 2 issues.

With little debate, but a few skirmishes, Québec solidaire shifts rightward

In the fusion agreement with Option nationale adopted at its previous congress, in December 2017, Québec solidaire committed to aligning its program with that of ON. This was the major objective of the unified party’s congress that met in the Montréal suburb of Longueuil on November 15-17. Also on the agenda, in addition to the usual internal elections and some organizational details, was adoption of the party program on “defense and national security,” left over from the QS congress in May 2017, and some “clarifications on ecotaxation” (écofiscalité) , the latter item being proposed by the QS national council meeting last March.

While the 600 delegates did adopt the key provisions of the ON program proposed for adoption, the congress was traversed by an undercurrent of dissent expressed in attempts by delegates to assert control over the party’s 10-member parliamentary caucus and its leadership bodies as well as to reorient the party’s direction on some important questions, in particular with regard to the climate emergency.

quote:

Climate change
The third and last major programmatic item on the agenda, “ecotaxation,” resulted in overturn of the Québec solidaire program’s opposition to market approaches based on carbon taxes and Quebec’s existing cap-and-trade program. The retreat had begun during the 2018 election, when — in the middle of the campaign — the QS leadership presented a climate-change platform that promised a QS government would retain cap-and-trade during its first mandate and establish a carbon-tax that would be set at $110 a ton by 2030 — far below any amount that could help to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 48% of 1990 levels by 2030, as promised by QS. That platform, Now or Never, was never debated in the membership.

quote:

Internal democracy
Another expression at the congress of membership unease with the party leadership’s conduct was the recent attempt by co-spokeswoman Manon Massé and two other QS deputies (Catherine Dorion and Sol Zanetti, both representing Quebec City ridings) to parachute their chosen candidate into the by-election in the area riding of Jean-Talon, now scheduled for December 2. The candidate, Frédéric Poitras, until then not a QS member, has worked the last five years as a political advisor to Quebec City mayor Régis Labeaume. The mayor is a strong supporter of the CAQ government’s plan to build a new highway crossing between the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence River, a project opposed by many citizens’ groups with which QS members are actively working. Three other candidates had already announced they would seek the QS nomination in Jean-Talon.

The deputies’ intervention provoked a revolt among the riding’s membership. In the end, party activist Olivier Bolduc was elected the candidate at the nomination meeting, far ahead of Poitras.
A leaflet distributed at the congress by the members of the “expanded coordinating committee” of QS Jean-Talon protested:

“This is not the first time the national leadership has acted this way. It is time to put an end to a practice that demobilizes the associations and violates our political values…. That is why the principle that candidates are chosen by the local associations is embedded in our statutes…. The support of members of our parliamentary wing to the candidacy of someone outside our party has profoundly shocked us.”

Great.  Not only does the ON crowd bring a stupid, pointless emphasis on an immediate push for sovereigntism-a push which would be doomed to fail if QS got into power anytime soon-it's trying to push the party into blurring the differences with the PLQ and into running its internal affairs the way the Federal NDP does.  Put that together and it means QS has just been served a large combo platter of suckitude.

I understand the benefits that Optione National received from the fusion deal with QS. But it seems terribly one-sided. What exactly did QS receive from that deal? Also, I think it's pointless now to try and win over anymore supporters from the PQ. Sovereigntists that voted for Solidaire have more commitment to left-wing politics while those that stayed with PQ are more committed to ethno-nationalism.

voice of the damned

[email protected] wrote:

I understand the benefits that Optione National received from the fusion deal with QS. But it seems terribly one-sided. What exactly did QS receive from that deal?

From what I've seen, QS already had way more supporters, and likely members, than ON, so the merger wouldn't have given QS much in the way of raw numbers. Is it maybe the case that ON had a lot of talented activists and workers, who would be useful to bring under the QS tent?

lagatta4

I think one of the main points was to extend QS beyond the island of Montréal. And it is normal for parties to grow via mergers (and mergers with splits from other parties).

voice of the damned

lagatta4 wrote:

I think one of the main points was to extend QS beyond the island of Montréal. And it is normal for parties to grow via mergers (and mergers with splits from other parties).

But in the 2104 election, pre-merger, QS had candidates in 124 out of 125 districts. So it's not like they were really lacking representation anywhere in the province.

Did you mean that the merger brought in more votes in regions outside the island of Montreal?

swallow swallow's picture

The point of the merger was to try to eat the PQ's lunch. Tactically it may be working - Jean-Talon by-election today saw QS at 21% (third place) and PQ down to just 9% of the vote. 

That Fidler piece is very useful. Another point to pull out:

The framework law will provide for negotiations with the First Nations and Inuit people, guaranteeing “their right to self-determination during the process of accession to independence.” Pending the results of these negotiations, Quebec will claim the continuity of its existing territory.

Worth pointing out that Quebec's "existing territory" is mostly stolen - same as with Canada. The QS stance here is colonialist. 

Pages