VAST MAJORITY OF BLOGGERS OPPOSE QUEBEC "NATION" RECOGNITION IN CONSTITUTION

Last night, I did what only a blogger would probably find the time to do: I studied other bloggers. What I found though was incredibly interesting:

Over 77.1% of bloggers sampled are opposed to recognizing Quebec as a nation in our constitution, including the more than 84.3% of Liberal bloggers who feel this way.

In an hour of time that probably should have been spent on sleep after a long night, I used the Google BlogSearch tool to find references in both official languages to "Quebec nation" made over the course of the last few says (Specifically, since the morning of October 24th, this past Tuesday). I evaluated each entry that appeared as either relevant or irrevelant to the Quebec "nation" constitutional recognition question, and then evaluated the relevant blog entries (70 in total) as being generally either "in favour of," "opposed to," or "undecided/indifferent to" the proposal. It should be noted that Liberal bloggers constituted 32 of the 70 blog entries that were the cases in this sample (displayed and sorted by date by Google BlogSearch without interference). I tried not to count multiple entries from the same blog author as more than one case.

Here are the results:

Among all bloggers (posting October 24 until October 29):

10% in were favour
12.9% were undecided/indifferent
77.1% were opposed

Among Liberal bloggers:

6.3% were in favour
9.4% were undecided/indifferent
84.3% were opposed

Among non-Liberal bloggers:

13.2% were in favour
15.8% were undecided/indifferent
71.0% were opposed

Clearly, this fairly strong sample would seem to indicate that the vast majority of Liberal bloggers are opposed to constitutional recognition of a Quebec "nation." It is also important to note that even though the issue in question is a proposal of a frontrunning Liberal leadership candidate, it is still Liberals who (at least amongst bloggers) are most strongly opposed to idea.

So what effect will this strong internet opposition have on the debate at the upcoming Liberal convention? Well, it could be very significant. Many Liberal bloggers are actively involved in the party and certain leadership campaigns and are thus quite likely to be attending the convention, as many have indicated they will. They also have influence over readers that are primarily Liberal, and as their arguments are refined and shared on the web, their opinions and sentiments could certainly spread amongst the broader Liberal membership community. The Liberal blogosphere has been consistently dominated by this topic over the past few days, and is likely to continue to be as controversy and debate on this issue continues amongst members, leadership campaigns, and in the mainstream media.

Whatever your opinion on the issue, it will be certainly be interesting to see just how strongly this apparent "NetRoots" consensus will translate into votes on this policy at the Palais de Congres just 30 days from now.

Top Separatists urge passage of "Quebec Nation" resolution! (or, The slippery slope starts to slide!)

I have absolutely no idea how I missed this yesterday. Bernard Landry, former PQ leader and separatist "Prime Minister of Quebec," as he always referred to himself (in both English & French), has shared some insight into the consequences of us potentially passing the Quebec Nationhood resolution one month from now. He's positively thrilled at the prospect of that happening.

Here's a translation of his comments on Le Canal Nouvelles, originally found here:

Recognizing Québec’s nationhood will be “beneficial to all Canadians because it will prepare said Canadians for the next natural step: the independence of Québec.”

To the people who told me it was ludicrous to think that this proposal and concept of Canada would lead to a bolstered and invigorated separatist position, I urge you to think very seriously about Mr. Landry's comments above, and to read some more of his commentary on this here.

Also remember this: it was quite widely known that one of the separatist plans to create their "winning conditions" was to hold a referendum on whether Quebec was a nation, to whip up nationalist emotion and fervour in anticipation of a third independence vote.

If the Liberal Party of Canada, the vanguard of One Canada federalism, continues to drift towards standing for nothing on this issue, one can only expect the separatists' smiles will continue to widen, as one of their most longstanding and formidable foes would be essentially neutralizing itself.

Montreal Gazette: "Quebec is a political jurisdiction, rather than a nation."

"In the final analysis, Quebec is a political jurisdiction, rather than a nation. Sociologically, it is more accurate to say that francophone Canadians, in Quebec and New Brunswick and parts of Ontario and elsewhere, constitute a nation."

-from today's Montreal Gazette editorial, which you can read in full here.

Note to the Michael Ignatieff campaign

In the future, please refrain from publicly smearing and swiping at Justin Trudeau.

To paraphrase Mr. Ignatieff on a different topic, anti-Trudeauism is an electoral ghetto. Let's leave Gilles Duceppes, separatists other assorted non-liberals to wither inside it, instead of attacking our own.


- re: thestar.com

Chantal Hebert: Emulate the NDP or else? Non, merci.

Tonight on the National, Toronto Star columnist Chantal Hebert had the following to say as she warned Liberals to support the controversial and highly divisive Quebec nation resolution:

"If it's passed it probably won't raise the Liberals way up in the polls in Quebec. If it's defeated though, I guess the Liberals can go and talk to the NDP about how it feels to continue getting seven and ten percent in francophone Quebec."

I'm a regular reader of Chantal's, but I think this is classic fear-based federalism. What Chantal seems to have forgotten is that the "deux nations" concept of Canada is a founding principle of the NDP.

To put it very mildly, it hasn't exactly served them well.

For instance, refer to the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau in his Memoirs, page 70:

“The NDP’s support for the “two nations” doctrine made me give up on it for good.”

The fact that someone capable of winning four federal elections TURNED AWAY from the NDP on the basis of its support for what this resolution is proposing should be a caution to us all.

It could easily be argued that, since 1968, their concept of federalism has earned the NDP one seat in Quebec, while by contrast the Liberal vision has earned us a whopping four hundred fifty seven.

I'm not concerned about losing federalist ground to a party that I think is out of touch with just about everyone on federalism. I am however concerned that we've lost too much already and that we'll the divide the shaky ground upon which we currently stand, and that's the last thing both our party and our country need right now.

And therefore be it dissolved...

The folks at http://steelcitygrit.blogspot.com/ have put up some rather pointed satire of the resolution regarding Quebec "nationhood" passed this last weekend. Check it out:

- - -

WHEREAS bettering our short-term electability justifies triggering a long-term erosion of the legitimacy of the Canadian state

WHEREAS a scandal which had no inherent relation to any theoretical federalist camp cost us a close election, which has led us to adopt Separatist/Conservative revisionist history that claims the Liberal federal brand has been forever reviled in the province of Quebec

WHEREAS it is most politically expedient to ignore the small voices – James Bay Cree, Haudenosaunee, new Canadians, the old-stock Anglo minority - in Quebec

WHEREAS some cardboard groupthink intelligentsia call us bad names and it hurts our feelings

WHEREAS the French Canadian nation outside of Quebec will still be able to survive culturally, because anyone has the option of moving to Quebec

WHEREAS the Charter of Rights and Freedoms means less to us then does the purported slight 20+ years ago of a minority of Quebec’s elected representatives that belonged to a party committed to the dissolution of the Canadian state

WHEREAS Trudeau is responsible for a close referendum result in 1995, more than a decade after Canada rejected his federal approach and attempted “recognition”

WHEREAS we lack the intellectual and intestinal fortitude to confront the ideas of Separatists head-on, and instead hope that agreeing with them will scupper their legitimacy

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada recognizes Quebec as a Nation.

Stephane Dion: Mr. Clarity shines again

As many people on his campaign will remember, the very Hon. Stephane Dion was one of two candidates I was very seriously considering before that incredible Gerard Kennedy fellow came along and swept us off our feet.

Today, Stephane did what he does very best: he started forging some clarity. On an issue that strikes to the very core of who we are as Canadians, and who we want and need to be, we must demand absolutely nothing less. Over the coming week I'll do my best to show why I believe even more closely and steadfastly in what Gerard said on CTV today: that giving boundaries to any sociological nation that may exist within Canada is a concern (and I'd say it's an absolutely enormous one).

First, ladies and gentlemen, here is Stephane Dion:


The recognition of Quebec as a nation: a few preliminary questions

By Stéphane Dion, MP
Wednesday, October 25th, 2006

Before entering politics, more than ten years ago, I maintained that we Quebecers could be described as forming a nation, in the civic and sociological sense of the term. Last Saturday, however, I voted against the resolution put forward by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada calling for the party to undertake the necessary steps towards a formal recognition of Quebec as a nation.

Before we ask other Canadians to support such a formal recognition (in the constitution no doubt) we should first of all determine what we expect from such a recognition. Hiding behind the apparent consensus in Quebec on this question are at least three disagreements.

First question: are Quebecers the only nation to be recognized within Canada, or will we accept that other groups, heartened by our example, be given the same recognition? Will the pressure exercised by an undetermined number of human groups in Canada, including in Quebec, to be recognized as nations lead us to conclude that our own national recognition has been trivialized or diluted?

Second question: is this recognition necessary or is it rather only something desirable? Those who say it is necessary must follow their reasoning to its conclusion: if we Quebecers do not obtain this recognition then we must leave Canada. Indeed, one cannot live without something that is necessary.

Those who say that, on the contrary, this recognition would only be a good thing to obtain should not place it at the heart of the Canadian unity debate. You do not break up a country on account of something that is good but not necessary.

Third question: do we want this recognition to be purely symbolic or, on the contrary, do we want it to lead to concrete consequences on, say, the division of powers or the allocation of public funds. And how does this approach square with the previous question? It is contradictory to affirm that the recognition of Quebec as a nation is necessary but purely symbolic. But that is the untenable position Michael Ignatieff has decided to advocate. Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc leader, and Claude Morin, the former PQ minister, have already responded that if the recognition of Quebec as a nation in Canada is important then it must bring about “something” beyond symbolism.

We’ve seen this movie three times already. First it was the debate on the constitutional recognition of Quebec as a “distinct society” contained in the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Then came the Calgary Declaration, a 1997 episode which few people remember. The Premiers of the other provinces tried to define, for us Quebeckers, the type of recognition we wanted. They had their legislatures adopt a declaration that recognized “the unique character of Quebec society”. When the Declaration landed in Quebec, the province’s political class rejected it, stating that this recognition “had no teeth.”

So, here is my position: I am proud to belong to the Quebec nation within Canada. The constitutional recognition of such a fact, although desirable, is not necessary because nothing prevents us Quebeckers from participating and succeeding in this great endeavor that is Canada, a country we have contributed so much to building.

Nothing can justify that we renounce our Canadian identity. Such a rupture would be a tragedy, for ourselves, our children and future generations. We should not be encouraged to make such a mistake on the basis of a recognition that is desirable but not necessary. That is my position and I am more than willing to debate it because I do not underestimate the importance of symbols and recognitions. But I do not believe that we should ask other Canadians for such a recognition until we have clarified what we are hoping to obtain from it.

Although it is an important one, I do not believe this debate is the most important thing we can do to improve Quebec and Canada as a whole. For me, the main issue by far is to ensure Canada is part of the solution, not the problem, to the crucial challenge of the 21st century: how to reconcile humanity with the ecological limits of the planet. That is the vision and the plan of action I am proposing to Canadians in order to combine the three pillars of our success: economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability.

Quebeckers, we have better things to do than to see this movie for a fourth time. We should mobilize ourselves to make our country a pathfinder in the 21st century. Let’s contribute all our talents, energies and our own culture, as we have always done in the past, when we have had to respond with other Canadians to great challenges.

Going Ballistic

UPDATE:

Wow. Turns out the only thing ballistic about the Missile Defence debate is the outrageous response of my fellow Liberals to it!

In fairness to the three (out of many more) Liberals, each of whom happened to be Young Liberals, who responded to my questions about Mr. Ignatieff's BMD consistency with respect, reason, and dialogue, you'll see that I've now removed the post in question. As I suggested would probably be possible, reasonable members of the Ignatieff campaign team were able to sufficiently clear up the confusion I addressed.

While I would never retract a question that I think was honest and I think respectfully prefaced, I will certainly extend my apologies to anyone who felt in any way offended by my asking it in the way that I did.

Sincerely,

-Braeden