That Parizeau can make waves even here !

A little bit of background. Parizeau mas PM during the last referendum. He was forced to quit after the defeat because of the infamous phrase he prununced in the defeat speech:'we lost because of money and ethnic vote'. What seem innofensive to an american eye (as the author pretty much state the same thing), was considered racist and he was forced to eternal retirement.

Since this time, the media got 'addicted to Parizeau'. EVERY time he speak somewhere, in a university, a fundraising for NGO, media write every bit of what he say and do the front page/6 o'clock opening with it.

Last provincial election was lost because of something he said in  a semi-private meeting with student concerning the infamous phrase. Some media got glimpse of it and fired at Landry, the current head of the party, with a confrontation to his statement. Instant poll shift. That added to the tendency of governement to never pass the 8 year line made it.  

The poor Landry had nothing left to answer the journalist than latine quotation:

Anyway. So again, the media are soooooo happy that Parizeau raise this question . He made it the context of a call form the head of the party for 'la saison des idées' idea's season. This isa call to bring fresh blood in the party and change our idea to enter the 21st century. So parizeau, who has always been in favor of such type of referendum/election, is trying to throw this in the debate.

I disagree with him because I think that cheating is getting to the level of our opponent, and referendum is the real way of modern democratic nation, and the only way to do in order to get a real credibility.

I personally think that we must bring the idea of sovereignty to another level, in a project including all  canadians, but that is another matter.

About the division in the party. Well, the parti quebecois is a rainbow coalition. Lucien Boucahrd was a conservative, and Landry a social-democrat.

The main line of the party has always been social-democrat, but dissention has always been heard and will always be.

maybe more later :)

This is just the tip of an iceberg that has mostly stayed out of public sight. There is a schism between the sovereignist wing of the Parti Québécois, who sees independence as the only worthwhile goal for the party with anything else as a detour or waste of time, and the more moderate wing who would like to see the party let go of its sovereignist heritage and remain or become a valid party for non-sovereignists.

Given that the sovereignist movement never really recovered from the defeat after the 1995 and that the issue is seen as a sure-fire loser in any future election, the moderates recognize that Mr. parizeau's proposal to make an election into a referendum as well would guarantee the destruction of the PQ as a viable political party.

Altough I  participate to many debate inside thae party, I am not member of any party.

My dream is to put togheter a pan-canadian party, pushing for major change to Canada's constitution to get a state at the height of our expectation.

Mathieu does your 9% figure for French speaking Anglos refer to all of Canada or Anglos born and raised in Quebec - I was talking about the latter.  I've known 15 or 20  of them that were roughly my age and their French ranged from fluent with the occasional mistake and English accent to indistinguishable from a native Quebecois francophone.  They said that while not all Anglos from Montreal were like them, most were, though their parents generation very often did not speak French.

As for your complaint about ministers - sounds like Switzerland.  All senior politicians speak German though the Swiss Germans lately have an increasing tendency to use one of their incomprehensible dialects, a majority but not all speak decent French, most do not speak Italian. It's a population thing - Swiss Germans make up over two thirds of the population.

to analyze Clifford's articles! :-)

Thanks for the inside poop!

'we lost because of money and ethnic vote'

I think this was amplified because the PQ has always taken pains to present the sovereigntist movement as territorial nationalism rather than ethnic nationalism.

The party leader making such a statement is, er...extremely undermining to that purpose.

no problem

You fall exactly in the trap.

Two or three point. Parizeau was clearly refering to the unfair use of immigration juridiction before the referendum , allowing mass amount of new citizen to enter Quebec.

Certainly, I wish he had never said "the phrase we must not pronounce" , because he gave all the rope to the ultra federalist to label the PQ as a "white french" movement to the allophones and english voter of Quebec.

Sovereignty has a territorial and an ethnic connotation , for sure. But it is absolutely normal to introduce such concept when we talk about a nation. Ethnicity is the base of the sovereignist movement, the thing that made us open our eyes . Isn'T germany a country because they share in common old and new citizen, an common ground in the german language and culture ? Isn't the France a country because they share in common a language and a culture , altough many ethnics are represented ?

Territorial ? Yes because as a nation in building, we want to get control of our border, take care of our security and have our own foreign policy.

There is thousands of good reason why Parizeau was wrong or right in this speech made after massive ingurgitation of aged scotch in the bunker( we all rememver those Image I think). That's what is magic with Parizeau...

Maybe the old man should go perfect his wine...

I heard the wine he produce on his vignoble is not good enough for serving as vinegar ...

He wilol still get my perennial hat tip for his service to the nation, and for his effective mind troll role :)

I think you could also see it this way. à

PQ has a lot of self flagellation to do in order to get in vibe with quebec people . We must put behind us this part of the sovereignist movement wich still think that bringing back the wound made to dead people by dead people is of any revelance.

As I stated earlier, to me the new sovereignist must be first open to Canadian , because we have the potential of becoming the best allies this earth has never seen, and because I think somehow there is a chance of saving the canadian experience.

Cultural minorities vote for sovereingty in the same proportion as """""""real"""""""" quebecer. We must accept their open arms.

Personally, I prefer a party with the honesty of bringing his ideas on the public place for debating,and ready to change and give place to youth, rather than an establishment party who can't give an inch and try to use every mean to destroy his adversaries .

I remember reading someplace that way back when in the thirties the ideological forefathers of the sovreigntist movement flirted with some pretty ugly forms of integral nationalism.  

Another issue - One of Quebec's dilemnas seems to be that it is an ethnic state within a country that increasingly defines itself along American lines - i.e. a multicultural land of immigrants, not an ethno-national state along German lines or a non-ethnic but coercively assimilatory state like France.  From that perspective it would seem that complaining about the 'ethnic vote' is akin to a US politician in a state with lots of Hispanics complaining about only losing because of the immigrant vote.  It sounds as if he is implying that they aren't really true Quebecois - at least that was how Parizeau's comments were presented in the US and French press at the time.  If so that's a dangerously self-fulfilling attitude.  In the Swiss canton where I grew up about a quarter of the population were foreigners.  Their children mostly ended up with Swiss citizenship, speaking perfect French with a nice Genevan accent.  But very often they don't see themselves as Swiss because their entire lives its been made clear to them that they are not.  Many of my friends proudly identified themselves as Genevois, Europeen - mais pas Suisse.  In Quebec an ethno-centric approach risks pushing the immigrants into a more welcoming Canadian  identity.

One question - Mathieu - it sounds like you are pro-sovreignty - why?  Quebec already has considerable autonomy, it's no longer dominated by Anglophone elites.  Based on my perhaps non-representative experience all Anglophones my age or younger speak fluent French.  You've won.  

Isn'T germany a country because they share in common old and new citizen, an common ground in the german language and culture ?

Yes. But after two bloody wars last century is German ethnic nationalism something worth emulating? :)

Marek basically covers most of my thoughts. Ethnic nationalism has a benign side (pride in one's culture). But it has a very dark side, and many people get rightfully nervous when it raises its head.

Est Québécois qui veut l'être. (Is a Quebecer who wants to be a Quebecer).

René Levesque

"Plus que jamais, il faudra rappeler que la démarche souverainiste en est une de générosité, de tolérance, et d'ouverture." (More than ever, it will be imperative to remind all that the sovereignist way is one of generosity, of tolerance, and openness.)

Lucien Bouchard

Nous ne voulons plus être une province

«pas comme les autres»,

nous voulons être un pays comme les autres."

-On m'a demandé l'autre jour :

Qu'est-ce qu'un Québécois?

J'ai répondu : C'est quelqu'un qui veut l'être.

Quelqu'un qui assume le passé,

le présent et l'avenir du Québec.

Pierre Bourgault

Those are the father of sovereignist movement. All you attempt to make an analogy between sovereignist movement and fascism has the same intellectual honesty as labeling every american action as an attempt to enslave the world ...

What you fail to understand here is that Parizeau, in his statement, was not representative of the sovereignist movement. There is sure a people who may flirt with some scary idea, but count on me and every other who constitute the new generation of sovereignist  to argue them back in their cave.

And anyway, Parizeau often stated that he was refering to the unfair use of immigration policies(at stake in the referendum) to bring uninformed voters to change the issue of the referendum ,as done is 95

¨From the article above :In his essay, Mr. Parizeau suggested that the odds were stacked against the separatists in any future referendum because the federal government and local Liberals could always open the floodgates to new immigrants, who generally vote against Quebec independence, and allow students not originally from Quebec to vote.

Did it ever came to your mind that maybe Canadian never made anything so Quebecois feel Canadian ?

Can you explain me why it would be absolutely unacceptable for Canadian to have a minister who do not speak english, but we quebecers must accept it with no problem ?

You ask me why I am sovereignist ? Well let me get this strait. My vision is that Canadian federalism is failing, that no one is getting what he should from it. We want to control our own foreign policy and immigration policies. Not to cut imigration. The most probable thing would be that we would open the border even more that Canadia is doing now,  after a referendum. I do not have anything to reproach to Canadian themselve, they are being fooled as everyone in this, only maybe we , by our base in 60's sovereignism , discovered how crooked was the Canadian federalism . From the fiscal desequilibrium to the relentless propaganda of the canadian governement to force Canadian NATIONALISM on us. Just take a look at Chuck Guité. speech in the sponsorship scandal commision.

Quebec already has considerable autonomy, it's no longer dominated by Anglophone elites.  Based on my perhaps non-representative experience all Anglophones my age or younger speak fluent French.  You've won

You are kidding right ? 43% of french are bilingual, while 9% of anglo are. I do not reproach them that, french is hard to learn and they may not find the utility of learning it. But I don't want to see them come back and shoot at me Canada's biligualism in my face. Outside Canada, few are the people who even know there is French people in Canada.

Oh and By the way, biliguism of young people is in regression.

But anyway, the question may not be there.

My very personal view of sovereignty, the one I'm at ease with ,is one giving the hand to other Canadian, turning the page on the 'nazi name calling" "Your a fscist i'm not" game, and look at the future to build a better country for us to live. For me sovereignty is not neccesary if Canadian wake up and take with us the duty of rebuilding our alliance in a way we would both be winner.

It's a way to say 'canadian wake up, or we won't have eternal patience.'  To me sovereignty is the last alternative, when everything else has failed. Because I beleive that we can pass over past and build something stronger togheter. But that mean touching the constitution. That mean giving us full power in every domain of a nation, and establishing cordial ponctual economic and politics alliance.

Quebec need to find it place in the concert of nation, and it is not by hiding behind the federal governement that we will acheive this.

Quebec is a distinct society, and even the liberal recognize it . Federalism is broken and even the provincial liberal admit it.

Governement are the last bastillon in this era of globalization. It is imperative for people to be able to have full trust and faith in their democratic institution in order to operate a state in wich they can gain full potential .

Sure there is people who do not agree with me. But that the whole point of a referendum !!!

Let democracy speak !

But using unfair technique, astro-turf etc... to insure its victory is not ,in my mind, part of the democratic process.

What you would have said if Chavez had allowed thousands of ... euh let'S say Cuban, to be sure to win his referendum ?

PS: 2shoes , sorry, but I won't spend anytime answering your blatant attempt to associate us with german 3rd reich who was the cause of millions of death. Quebecers fought against fascism as much as american or British or Canadian, and I think you are doing a great outrage by my people by using this ridiculous comparison to talk about the peaceful democrat citizen of Quebec . Just a question ...who wanted to send the army where after the referendum in case of victory ?

For now, i'll just invoke goldwin law.

I was indeed refering to the bilinguism in Canada. Bilinguism in Quebec is an example for the rest of the world and Anglo in quebec speak even more french than french speak english. It is mainly our big baby-boomer generation (older people, surprisingly speak more, as it was the work language at the time) who never had the chance to learn.

stats

The main difference is that Quebec aspire to 100% of bilinguism in the population . 83% of francophones say it is important to be bilingual. But The federal governement has always tried to sell us the image of a bilingual Canada, a bi-national Canada etc... but never act in such way. They promise us a lot, but never give. We are suppose  to have control on healthcare, but now we have to beg paul martin to give us money supposed to go for healthcare, our money. That's the struggle of federalism, the central governement pull on every power he may have, and think we will let it pass. And it started way before unilaterally rapatriating the constitution.

About swiss, well, apart the fact that swiss has a very very different model of governement, and no foreign policy, the question of language and nationalism is not less alive there too. I didn't need much search to find something very interesting on the matter.

link

another link

maybe another one ?

;)