I don't follow Canadian affairs like it used to, but it seems the parliament passed a motion recognizing the Québécois as a distinct nation, a proposal that's long been kicked around in Canadian circles and was regarded as very controversial. Michael Chong, minister for intergovernmental affairs, resigned over his refusal to support the measure.
« Wal-Mart Bashing Run Amok | Main | We Speak American Here »
Québec Libre
28 Nov 2006 08:01 am
Comments (17)
Sounds great. Can we do that with Texas?
Also: Can you really say "Québécois" and "Quebeckers" in the same sentence?
Oh, I get it, Quebeckers are the ones who speak English. But isn't Chong just reinforcing the idea that they're not all one?
"A nation within Canada" like Scotland or Wales in the UK, or Catalonia within Spain.
Interestingly, Instapundit linked to this yesterday:
Britain wants UK break up, poll shows By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 1:29am GMT 27/11/2006
The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border.
A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.
And, of course, Catalonia has been demanding more and more independence as well (in fact, there has recently been a huge row in Spain over the degree of independence that the leftists in Madrid have recently granted to Catalonia - to much for the right, but still not enough for the Catalans.)
Is the "separate nation within a nation" really sustainable?
It's not Quebec (or, especially, Québec), that's now a nation ("within Canada") but the québécois. A reflection of "the two founding nations" trope. And definitely unlike Scotland or Catalonia. Quebec is still just a province.
All in all a clever move that won't make much practical (i.e. judicial, governmental, economic) difference but which deftly undercuts a motion that the Bloc québécois was ready to present calling Québec and/or the québécois a nation, tout court, i.e. "without" Canada. That would have been deafeated easily but would have provide a symbolic victory for the BQ.
This idea has been kicking around for a while, the only reason its controversial is that back in the 1980's the attempt was made to recognize Quebec as a "Distinct Society" within the Canadian constitution, it failed. What happened yesterday was simply an act of Parliament which is much watered-down than what was proposed before.
This all goes back to the difference between nations and states, there are many states that have multiple nations. Some of these thrive together as democracies: Canada, The U.K., Belgium. Others are/were held together solely by force: Yugoslavia, the U.S.S.R., and Iraq.
A reflection of "the two founding nations" trope.
Which has been killed off pretty thoroughly in favour of a "three founding nations" (i.e. including natives) trope. Unless you're a Western conservative and parade around ideas on First Nations that amount to little more than thinly-veiled racism blended with the paternalism that got us into this mess in the first place.
it's a pretty piece of tactical maneuvering by the western-based Conservatives to attract votes in Quebec, and outflank the Liberals and separatist Bloc Quebecois.
Exactly. This mirrors precisely Mulroney's voting bloc. These conservatives are proving quite politically astute. Of course, having no meaningful opposition because the Liberals are otherwise occupied helps.
I thought one thing that was holding back the declaration of actual Quebec independence is the Indian group (which holds jurisdiction over the massive hydroelectric dam producing electricity for Montreal) had threatened to do a similar declaration of independence from Quebec.
> Also: Can you really say "Québécois" and
> "Quebeckers" in the same sentence?
Yes, they mean different things.
("ethnically French" vs. "resident of Quebec")
http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/11/opposed.php
Ah yes, Grumpy Realist but you can't do that. Quebec, according to the seperatists, is "indivisble". Also, apperently, full of chutzpah.
Matthew,
As has already been noted, the most interesting part of this resolution is that it (in English) recognizes the Québécois as a nation, not Quebec. The term is itself a creation of the modern nationalist movement (historically, we would have referred to French Canadians or canadiens) In a sense, it is therefore a more dramatic repudiation of Trudeau's vision of Canada than even recognizing Quebec as a nation would be.
Andrew,
You can accuse aboriginal people of many things, but founding the Canadian state is not one of them.
I'm sure others have noted this elsewhere, but it's worth adding that this is just latest in a string going back to the Mulroney years of Conservatives appeasing the separatists in order to gain short-term tactical advantages over the Liberals. It's really pretty embarassing for them, especially given the current Conservative Party's roots in the old Reform Party, which opposed the Charlottetown Accord on precisely on the grounds that it gave too much up to the separatists.
Ironically, under the annexation treaty between Texas and the United States, the Texas Legislature has the option to divide the state and create up to four new states. Texas would then have 10 senators instead of 2.
Scary, huh?
Re: Ironically, under the annexation treaty between Texas and the United States, the Texas Legislature has the option to divide the state and create up to four new states.
Already happened.
The original Texan Republic was subdivided when admitted to the Union. Outlying portions were calved off and became part of Oklahoma (them Indian Territory), New Mexico and Colorado.
esklfgujx ekbjnr ptnb jqdpfr hewr otmrquhvj tciwplgmz
Comments closed December 12, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"A nation within Canada" like Scotland or Wales in the UK, or Catalonia within Spain. (All while our many First Nations remain unconsulted on this point...)
In the short term it's a pretty piece of tactical maneuvering by the western-based Conservatives to attract votes in Quebec, and outflank the Liberals and separatist Bloc Quebecois.
In the long term, the consequences are almost completely unexamined. Does the Supreme Court take this into account when deliberating on jurisdictional matters? How does this affect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does it risk helping the separatist cause? A lot of nattering by pundits on the bandwagon, but no one's taking the time to think it through, rounding up constitutional experts or talking with former judges. Calling Quebec a nation is just rhetoric, they say...
I suppose we'll find out.
Posted by scooter | November 28, 2006 8:50 AM