Québec solidaire - the thread

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 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. 

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. 

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

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 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:

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.

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 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.

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. 

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.)

..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. 

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.

..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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> 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 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?