PQ's charter of values

Maria wouldn't observe a vow of silence within the Bloc. So I don't think she'll be welcome in Tom's NDP either.

She will be making a [url=http://www.mariamourani.org/index.php?id=349]public statement[/url] sometime tomorrow, and isn't giving interviews in advance.

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Multicultural+protest+held+Saturday+... protest to be held Saturday against PQ plan for charter of values[/url]

The headline and story are mostly stupid, but what's important is that resistance is being organized on many fronts.

And this:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/05/even_sovereigntistfriendly... sovereigntist-friendly ranks critical of PQ’s controversial proposed legislation[/url]

After listing some of the notable leftist and sovereignist Quebecers who have lined up against Marois's "charter" - Françoise David, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, Louise Harel, Francine Pelletier, Raymond Gravel... - Chantal Hébert comments:

Quote:

With the helium of its trial balloons on the charter having momentarily buoyed the party in voting intentions, the PQ’s brain trust seems oblivious to the reality that never has one of its identity-driven initiatives drawn as much friendly fire as this one.

Or perhaps the PQ simply does not mind being shot at as long as it is from Montreal’s progressive trenches.

I agree.

As I said above, they need to wipe out CAQ in order to go head to head with the Libs and regain majority territory. They think Montréal and the left (synonyms? :)) will never vote CAQ (although they underestimate the threat of  QS), hence they must go after right-wing ROQ (rest of Québec, heh).

Anyone else?

Stockholm wrote:

 

If its not what she believes then she can spend the rest of her short political career as a soveriegntist anti-PQ/anti-BQ independent with zero chance of ever being elected to anything. if she wants to join a federalist party - she will have to have become a federalist. its as simple as that.

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Why can't a federal politician who believes in separatism AND who supports left wing policies decide that they would like to represent the NDP?  I think that the person could say very clearly, that as a realist they know that separatism is not on the horizon and that so long as Quebec is part of Canada they would like it to be run under NDP policies.  Also, she would have to agree to vote with the NDP on any matters of federalism/separatism.  But she can believe in her heart whatever she wants.  

I applaud Mourani for standing behind her principles.  

Summer wrote:

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Why can't a federal politician who believes in separatism AND who supports left wing policies decide that they would like to represent the NDP? 

I think it would be hypocritical of both a federalist party and of a sovereigntist politician if the sovereigntist politician chose to join and were accepted by a federalist party.  I put my opinion on policy here.

Summer wrote:

I applaud Mourani for standing behind her principles.  

Joining the NDP would be a betrayal of a principle that she (I assume) feels is important, that being striving for Quebec sovereignty.

Summer wrote:

Stock - I find your view very black and white.  Is this official NDP policy?  Can you provide a link?  I suspect Mourani would be welcomed by any federal party.

Well maybe you should think some more.

Can you see the federal Liberals under Justin Trudeau and Stephane Dion and Co...accepting an MP who favoured Quebec separating when the Liberals age old unique selling proposition (as they see it) is that they are the party that fights separatists? NO!!!

Can you see the Tories (who are busy whispering that the NDP is full of closet separatists) undermining their own message and upsettting their redneck base in ROC by bringing in an MP who was a separatist? NO!!

Can you the Green Party wanting 50% of their federal caucus to be made up of people who are against the existence of Canada? No!

Can you see the NDP which is an ardently federalist party whose platform clearly states that it wants to find a place for Quebec within Canada and which swept Quebec in 2011 running on an explicitly federalist platform - accepting an unrepentent separatist into its ranks and then being pilloried across Canada as being "soft on separatism" NO!

ain't gonna happen. Either Mourani becomes and born again federalist or she is dead meat...maybe she could quit and run provincially for Quebec Solidaure or something like that.

She would be welcomed by any federal party IF she announced that she was now a federalist period.

lagatta wrote:

Summer, when on earth before has Québec "driven some of its residents out of the province"?

I do hope you aren't referring to a certain type of Colonel Blimp anglophone, annoyed that the majority actually wanted to be able to live and work in their language?

Good riddance.

In the years after the 1995 referendum some immigrants did leave (myself included), but language was a minor issue. There were concerns about political and economic instability, and worrying that the hardline faction of the sovereignist movement might take revenge on immigrants and minorities for its failure to win (which of course didn't happen, but the concern was enough to drive some of us away).

lagatta wrote:

She is very progressive, and could make a good NDP MP, but I suspect they would find her too "indépendantiste", even if she shuts up about the national question.

The Bloc are idiots. She was the best thing they had going for them.

Maybe she can resign and trigger a byelection. The NDP lost that seat by 1.51% in 2011.

As I said above, I wonder how Lucien Bouchard would have felt about your line in the sand when he was in Mulroney's cabinet.

Speaking of lagatta's DDR reference above, somehow I don't think even a blood oath would be enough to satisfy some. Just being raised there meant you were raised a communist and couldn't be trustsd.

Now what was this thread about again? Oh yeah... the rights of people to hold certain values and still be allowed to take part in government.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As I said above, I wonder how Lucien Bouchard would have felt about your line in the sand when he was in Mulroney's cabinet.

As you may recall, when Lucien Bouchard was in Mulroney's cabinet he claimed to be (and i take him at his ord) a dyed in the wool federalist and had just served for several years as Canadian ambassador to France!

Bourassa.

Maria Mourani may have been the best BQ MP the Bloc had out of its current lineup.  Very charismatic and someone who was able to build links and connections across a variety of demographics.  I dont' quite understand why the BQ chose Daniel Paillie, who doesn't even have a seat, over her and the other MP's in the House.

But as others have said above, the NDP has a policy against floor-crossing, so she can't really join the NDP.  And she may still be committed to independence anyway, despite her ejection by the BQ.  And as already stated, the Conservatives and Pierre Poilieviere would just start calling the NDP caucus the 'NDPQ' as like earlier this year when Patry defected from the NDP to the BQ.  So Mulcair would be inviting accusations of being in bed with separatists if she joined.  I noticed reporter John Ivison already sort of made a crack about the NDP & the BQ being close on CBC earlier today on Evan Solomon's show.

And a caricature by Garnotte in Le Devoir features Daniel Paillé as an Ayatollah of the Bloc, ejecting Maria Mourani from ... paradise? Or at least from the ranks of the faithful: http://www.ledevoir.com/galeries-photos/les-caricatures-de-garnotte/118471

It is unfortunate that the demonstration is taking place on Saturday, which is Yom Kippur...

Mourani's expulsion is still the biggest news around here. She is supposed to speak shortly after 10 am.

Meantime, lots more reaction - including a petition among independentists to get Paillé to revoke the expulsion. His official freshly-refined public reason for expelling her is that she dared to associate Marois's charter with "ethnic nationalism". Apparently, in these circles, the truth shall set you out.

More:

[url=http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-quebecoise/201309/... furious over expulsion of Maria Mourani[/url]

Even the unlamented Bernard Landry called it an "error", thus proving that he still retains some political marbles.

And long-time Bloc activists and ex-candidates, in particular from "cultural communities", are publicly questioning their support for the BQ and the PQ.

lagatta wrote:

Summer, when on earth before has Québec "driven some of its residents out of the province"?

I do hope you aren't referring to a certain type of Colonel Blimp anglophone, annoyed that the majority actually wanted to be able to live and work in their language?

Good riddance.

I don't know how Colonel Blimp is.  

I was referring to the period leading up to and and continuing after the 1995 referendum.  Surely, you haven't forgotten Parizeau's post-referendum speech.   A lot of my friends and family left Quebec in the 90s.  And yes, they were anglophones (albeit bilingual) and immigrants. Parizeau must have been thrilled.  I'm sure he would agree with your "good riddance".

A lot of Quebecers are open minded and inclusive.  Unfortunately, the current Quebec provincial government is not made up of open minded or inclusive people.   This government and many of its previous provincial governments are happy to pander to the lowest common dominator.   This Bill is not about a simple separation of church and state.  This Bill is about making Quebec a less welcome place for a certain type of person.  This Bill would ensure that  sikh men and muslim women who adhere to the doctrine that they must wear a turban or hijab, respectively are not welcome in the public service.  

In addition, this Bill is a political move calculated to increase support for the PQ. I know that there are Quebecers like Lagatta and Unionist who support a truly secular province and who love Quebec and are trying to defend it.  But the PQ has not made this Bill for you.   This Bill will be a long running wedge issue that will allow the PQ to draw support from people who are uncomfortable with a multicultural Quebec.  

Colonel Blimp was a cartoonish figure of an English military man who had spent decades in the Raj (British India, which included what is now Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries) and wondered why, in the many years he had lived there, the natives had still not learnt English. There were certainly anglos like that here, and I have no regret that they went to live elsewhere. I was thinking more post-1976 than post 1995.

As per Parizeau's drunken rant: a) the Yes side had LOST the referendum and b) he was disavowed and made to leave the leadership of the PQ.

There was also a general westerly population movement within the Canadian State at that time; of course francophone Québécois were less likely to take part in that when it meant the threat of losing their language and culture.

I have taken part in the struggle to make Québec an authentically secular nation, in particular the deconfessionalisation of school boards, and think the State has no business telling people how to dress (within reason, of course, and we have to establish what is reasonable and not discriminatory towards citizens receiving public services). And that secularism has to start out by targeting what is still the dominant religion, and get the bloody crucifix out of the National Assembly, and eliminate prayer at municipal councils (silent reflection is fine, though I'd be thinking of my grocery list).

There is a huge backlash, in particular among feminists who supported Marois' election, against the way Maria Mourani, an Arab woman, was singled out by the Bloc rump group.

Full disclosure:

My grandparents were compelled to move to Quebec in the 60s when Air Canada moved much of its operations there from Winnipeg.  I got the doubly-angry anglo thing (they DIDN'T want to be there) when I was eight years old, and I had the air traffic controller story hammered into my head. I remember standing up in my first grade 5 french class back in WInnipeg and stating that we shouldn't have to learn it because we beat them at the plains of abraham.

Never mind that (as some forget) francophone culture is also older than anglo culture here in the west - particularly in the red river valley.

So yes, I got the Colonel Blimp reference, and I agree.

Maria Mourani was awesome today, in my opinion, both in her statement and in her open frank answers to questions after. Very emotional. She announced that she's quitting the Bloc. She said Paillé had simply unilaterally changed the Bloc's position overnight (he had apparently commented just before that he didn't really support the ban on religious symbols) and demanded caucus "discipline". She said that the "ethnic nationalism" comment wasn't expressed as her opinion, but rather she was reporting the reaction that many people had had. She said that until now, the party leadership had managed to chase away the intolerant demons at election time, but now for the first time, there seemed to be a turn away from the "civic nationalism" inclusiveness that had long stamped the sovereignist movement. There was also some comment about the BQ becoming a branch plant of the PQ. She said that under Duceppe, they had real caucuses, where they discussed and decided, and everyone abided by the decision. That didn't happen. She got very emotional speaking about her kids, and couldn't say who would defend their inclusion in Québec society.

Sorry for offering some of my own summary, but I haven't seen a straight unbiased report in the media yet (English especially). You can read what's already been published easily by putting her name in the Google News search bar.

ETA: Oh - and Radio-Canada commentators, as well as Le Devoir columnist Michel David, noted (correctly) that her position on the Charter is exactly the same as that of Québec Solidaire - that she is a personal friend of Amir Khadir - and that she'd be a natural fit if a provincial option opened up.

Smith - I think I understand your question, but not 100% sure, so please try again before I make an idiot of myself (i.e. more than usual). What exactly do you mean by the "national front", the "middle way", etc.

Meanwhile, here is the full text (en français) of Maria Mourani's statement this morning, though I wish I had a transcript of her exchange afterwards with reporters:

[url=http://www.mariamourani.org/index.php?id=351]Déclaration de Maria Mourani[/url]

I'll be (sort of) happy to do a translation if anyone finds Google Translate too puzzling. Just ask.

... and I just worked my way through her statement. It would be a fucking drag if she got sidelined. They should make her PM instead, even if she might not want the job. People with compassion and brains are such a rare commodity.

Jesus.

You know what? If he had couched it in terms of wanting to clarify the legality under federal law (and maybe done it after the law was actually passed), with a big caveat about not challenging Quebec sovereignty, I could see that, since he has a reponsibility to people as Canadian citizens.

It is pretty clear that is not what is going on here, though.

As it is, he is just grandstanding, since there is nothing to actually challenge yet.

Idiot.

It's good she's standing up for a just society for all, at possible detriment to her own career.

From the link Unionist gave, I noticed this:

Quote:

Aujourd'hui je me questionne… Qu'est-ce qui protégera le mieux mon identité québécoise que je chéris comme mes propres enfants?  Cette question m'amène à réfléchir sur mon implication dans le mouvement indépendantiste.

Today I am wondering ... What will best protect my identity as Quebecers I cherish as my own children? This brings me to reflect on my involvement in the independence movement.

I'm unilingual, so I relied on Google Translate.  It's a bit awkward, but I'm assuming it's reasonably accurate.  Anyway, it's interesting that rather than reaffirm her commitment to Quebec independence (IE, reaffirming a belief in an independence which respects the rights of all), she instead made this statement, which certainly affirms her belief in a society that respects the rights of all but seems to question her "involvement in the independence movement".  It seems to open the door to the possibility of looking to other avenues (IE, Libs or NDP) to protecting her and her constituents' identities as Quebecers whom she "cherish[es] as my own children".

Am I misinterpreting the awkward interpretation of Google?

 I doubt believe so. From the coverage I've been reading it appers she's questioning her involvement in that movement.

 That doesn't mean she'll cross the floor, just that she has become disillusioned.

 We'll see how this plays out.