As of yesterday, it was a month until Christmas. Yesterday was also the day that I finished my Christmas shopping. I never thought I’d see the day. Christmas=Happy money hungry corporations, wonder when it first started to change.What’s troubling Sarah this week?
Answer: Who is Stephen Harper.
What were you thinking, asshat?! So this term in Canadian Political Problems, we learned about that one time when Trudeau promised Quebec that he would change the constitution and thus in turn they would be recognized as a "distinct society".
Well he didn't keep his promise in the end (thank goodness), but Harper has decided to take us twelve steps back (and the separatist groups in Quebec twelve steps forward) with his little statement he made this past week.
He decided that the House of Commons should:
Ummm. NO. Very scary words to promise a province (or should I say nation?) that has wanted to leave Canada from almost the beginning."recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."
Confused as to why such a small thing makes me mad? Harper is basically giving Quebec an edge. He is telling them they are different, unique. Which is fine to an extent, but where do you draw the line?
What if suddenly Canada announces conscription? Every able bodied man must go fight in WW3 and defend their country. Quebec says "No, we are our own nation and we have decided to let the rest of Canada fight our battles." How are we to tell them differently? How can we decide what is okay and what is not? They are their own nation, are they not?
Quebec separating scares the frigging crap out of me. With a nation in amongst nations, where would Newfoundland be? It just frustrates me that out of nowhere Harper took it upon himself to change a whole nation (nations?).
No, this isn't the end of the world. Yes, Quebec is still a part of Canada. But for how long?
"Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says Parliament's recognition that the Québécois form a nation will help his fight for Quebec separation. . ."
2 comments:
Hah, I find it funny that Harper went and said that like 2 weeks after my Poli Sci class spent several classes talking about the issue. I'm going to have to disagree with you though. I mean when my prof talked about the whole thing he made a big deal about how a nation and a state are too very different things. Calling Quebec a nation isn't the same thing as enforcing Quebec separatism. There are many multi-nation states in the world, India being a big example. And multi-state nations. (which I guess is a whole other thing)
I don't think whether or not Quebec is a nation inside Canada should be the issue. It is definitely a distinct society, I mean they're french! The real issue is the political vs. common use of the word nation. And the mixing of the two terms is the source of yours, and many other people's reactions.
Of course Seperatists are going to spin it around and say it is a step towards separatism. They would spin it no matter what to get people riled up. If he said the opposite then they'd go "Look! Damn albertons don't give a shit about our history and culture!" and it would cause just as much fuss, within Quebec anyways.
I personally think this a good start. I mean Quebec is something different. French/English relations is something that completely defines canadian culture yet the constitution doesn't even state that there is a french province. Quebec apparently didn't even sign the constitution because of it. So we have a province that doesn't formally agree with our constitution, I think that should be reason at least be talking about it.
Really though, what is your alternative? I mean you can't simply say that we are all the same, because that's just an insult to french culture and will keep them pissed off. So we either need to get a clearer definition of the difference between nation and state(and the legal conotations of a nation, like when it comes to conscription and such) or find some other way to designate them formally.
At the demand of David, a response to his comment:
I realize there is a difference between Quebec being recognized as a “nation” and them being a “nation-state”. Canada is a nation-state, a united country with the same constitution/government no matter where you are. I also realize that a “nation” (the one Harper is referring to, anyway) has absolutely no true political say (again, unlike a nation-state).
For instance, if Quebec randomly decides to ignore/bring forth something that Canada disagrees with, the Canadian government can just NOT acknowledge it! They actually have no real say to overpower a federal decision (something I probably didn’t make clear in this post).
I know Harper has probably made the right decision in saying what he did, that although Quebec IS a nation, they are a nation within a UNITED Canada. They ARE a part of Canada.
This whole thing will more than likely not effect us (in the bigger picture).
I just I care from a purely selfish standpoint, as an outsider in the main powers of this country. Newfoundland would be screwed if Quebec ever separated from Canada.
Also, why doesn't Harper acknowledge Newfoundland (purely rhetorical question, I realize why he doesn’t)? We are a unique culture, I mean less than a hundred years ago we were our own country! It just frustrates me that Quebec demands to be elevated higher than other provinces, I want the same honour/status for my province too!
P.S. ROBERT, contribute! It’s fun and it’s how you learn. :)
Post a Comment