RickJay, you might well be right that I’ve misinterpreted what people have been saying. People like Uzi and Grey haven’t clarified what ‘unacceptable’ means to them (which I asked above), and I might be assuming. I wouldn’t have said that you, or Flying Dutchman, or Hap Shaughnessy felt that way. I’ll try to look back through the threads today and see which posts I interpreted that way.
You do have to admit, though, that absolutely no one has turned this back on Westerners and their right to have opinions.
Um - just a nitpick, but, the ‘Valley is hardly a bastion of political correctness. Downtown Ottawa? Sort of? But the ‘Valley is home to the Carleton Landowners’ Association - which makes most of Western Canada seem like a bunch of granola crunchin’ latte sippers ;).
I think herein lies the rub - is the BQ a seperatist party? I think so, but I don’t believe most Quebeckers do - I think they’ve seen them as the best option to keep their interests up in parliament… and ignore their founding principles as a pipe dream. The principles offend me, but I’m not in their situation - maybe I’d like a centrist “Ontario Party” in Parliament…
I’ve also made poor jokes about gutting 308 politicians for getting us into this mess. I figured I should try harder to avoid these threads if that was going to be my contribution. But be very clear on this my objection to the Bloc is based solely on its key principle and has nothing to do with its members, supporter or the province it is based in.
Well, yes, Grey, but given those principles, do you believe it is unacceptable (as in, should not be allowed to happen) that the BQ support or form part of the government?
I believe it is completely legal for the Bloc to help form the government of Canada.
I believe it is completely illegitimate for the Bloc to help form the government of Canada.
Those 2 thoughts can exist quite comfortably together. Legal doesn’t mean right.
Now the Bloc is of course allowed to support or oppose a government. To do otherwise would be to disenfranchise those Canadians that voted for them. But, and this is critical, this Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition can not exist unless their members act in unison. To act in unison they must be considered together and as such the Bloc becomes part of the government. The coalition can not work otherwise. The Liberals and NDP have only 114 votes to the Conservatives 143. Without the Bloc they have nothing. So to have the power they want they must bring the Bloc into government with them. To do that with a party born out of disengagement and soft nationalism is not something I can agree with.
Beyond that I want you to consider how deeply offensive it is that this coalition formed suddenly not to vote the Conservatives out, but to take power themselves. Had they truly wanted to govern they should have presented their cobbled together coalition to the GG before the Throne Speech. Or even better, to the Canadian people while campaigning for 6 weeks.
Unacceptable was probably a poor word choice in the OP - sorry.
I chose the word unacceptable in my original post after indicating that legality was not an issue because I wanted people to be able to say if they felt that, regardless of legality, they had concerns or issues about the BQ as part of the governing coalition rather than strictly on the opposition benches as they have been so far. (Yes, I am aware that the BQ has supported Conservative bills that would not have otherwise passed, but that had so far been on an ad hoc basis rather than formalized the way the proposed Coalition was doing.) The difference between legal and right, as Grey has said. Here in Calgary, many people seem to feel that it is wrong (no matter what the law says) that a party could be part of governing the country that it is supposedly trying to exit.
For those of you opposed to the BQ formally supporting the proposed Coalition government, is there anything the BQ could promise or do (for the duration of the Coalition) that would ease your concerns?
For myself, I can think of many causes I would rather donate my (admittedly limited budget of ) charity dollars to than to the bunch of yahoos trying to get elected, even if the tax credit is way better for political donations. You know, autism research, support my local cancer centre, my church, my son’s school … YMMV. If the alternative is wiping all the opposition parties off the map by financial starvation, it’s probably time for me to rethink that decision - although I think I’ll wait until the pseudocrisis is settled at the end of January 2009 before sending out any cheques, so that none of the opposition parties get the wrong idea.
Formally renounce separation and plan to run candidates in ridings across the country. There’s eastern Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick they could initially expand into.
I was thinking this kind of thing. What if tthere was an “Ontario First” party? A party that put Ontario above every other region, ran on that platform and didn’t field candidates in any other province. It wouldn’t need any separatist leanings at all to be absolutely despised in TROC, deservedly so.
I think the fact that The Bloc is so purely regional, and so openly, would hurt it in the eyes of TROC - with or without the separatism aspect.
Why should I clarify what is ‘unacceptable’? Would it be unacceptable to you if the ROC formed a party whose founding principals was to remove the ROC from Quebec? It should be obvious that any party sitting in parliament who would, if they could, break up the country shouldn’t be part of a coalition with other parties who claim to be for Canada. Yes, Quebecers have a right to vote for anyone they choose to and have those representatives in the HOC. I don’t have a problem with parties, who are now members of parliament, working together as individual to promote, or stop, legislation because that is their job. They should work together. So, as an individual member of the HOC, I don’t have a problem with any Bloc member. But on a party level, any party that claims to be for Canada shouldn’t be making long term deals with them.
I’m pretty sure that conservatives give to those charities you mention, too.
And yet the conservatives tend to be labeled as the tools of big business. Odd seeing how it is the Liberals who used to make the most money from them. If I can extrapolate based upon you link as to who is more in touch with the common Canadian, I’d have to say the party who actually goes out and asks them for their money directly. Which might explain a lot about the miscalculation the Niberals made over how Canadians are reacting to their coalition.
Oh yeah, because it’s Quebec media that enjoys saying English Canadians are inherently xenophobic and even racist, and that English Canada is basically a “sick society”. Every time an English Canadian politician talks about Canadian culture, it’s pointed out how afraid English Canadians are of anything that comes from outside of their little bubble and doesn’t speak their language.
Give me a break. Your media are very often pointing out real or perceived flaws with Quebec society. And it seems to me they don’t even do it in order to allow Quebec to improve, but rather to make English Canadians feel superior. Maybe you just don’t notice it because these “flaws” have become truisms to you?
The automobile industry is mostly present in Ontario. Quebec has the aerospace industry.
Lucien Bouchard was compared to Hitler, maybe worse. I forget if this was when he was Bloc leader or Quebec premier. So was Jacques Parizeau.
This said, your comment has made me think of something. The night in 1981 when the federal government signed a constitutional deal with nine provinces, with the exception of Quebec, that led to the patriation of the Constitution, is often known in Quebec as the “Night of the Long Knifes”. This is a Nazi reference and it could be seen as offensive. But I think that not too many people in Quebec would make the link, and if it was actually suggested that Chrétien and Trudeau’s maneuver was in any actual way comparable to the suppression of the SA, it would be seen as a gross exageration. I think the name was chosen as some sort of black humour.
Completely, utterly wrong. This is the Bloc québécois, not the Bloc populaire canadien. You’re conflating Quebec with Ye Olde French-Canadian Race, which hasn’t been true for decades. The Bloc is there to defend the interests of the Quebec nation, which includes matt_mcl and even Barbarian but doesn’t include my Franco-Ontarian friend (who, rest assured, I like very much). Why would these minority francophones vote for the Bloc anyway? They’re usually voting for the Liberals because they feel an active and pro-bilingualism federal government is a good bet to defend their linguistic rights. A provincialist party like the Bloc won’t do anything to defend these rights.
Ha, I’d like to see this. (Most likely they’d campaign to expel Quebec from Canada, actually; I’ve seen some bloggers expressing this viewpoint. Of course, I don’t believe Quebec can be expelled from Canada unless the National Assembly of Quebec consents, which, if we ever get to this point, should be feasible.) We’d be able to see how popular this idea actually is. Yes, it would certainly be acceptable. If this party ever comes to the point of being part of a federal coalition government (which, you’ll notice, isn’t what the Bloc is doing, and once again, it’s questionable how “separatist” the Bloc is), I’m not sure what purpose they could serve on this government, but I’d be willing to see.
Ooookay… now, inherent xenophobia is one I’ve heard about Quebec, I admit, but “sick society”? That’s a new one. I don’t even get the phrase. A society full of people with the flu?
And I wasn’t talking about a difference between English Canada and Quebec. I’m specifically referring to the way Western Canada is approached.
If you don’t want to believe the West gets shafted, you’re welcome to dismiss whatever you want. Feel free not to listen.
I don’t even know what “sick society” is supposed to mean, so I guess not.
Why are you making this personal? Look at yoiur answer to Grey; he was asked what the BQ would have to do to make him support a govenrment with them, he said so, and you said he was wrong and started going off about how the BQ doesn’t work for francophones outside Quebec, which has absolutely nothing to do with his statement. How can he be wrong about his own opinion?
And are you denying the BQ supports separation? If you think that, you might want to read their platform. I think it’s reasonable for someone who values a united Canada to say that they are opposed to the BQ because of their support for separatism and say “I would like them more if they dropped that plank in ttheir platform.” What’s wrong with that?
Bull. It betrayed nothing of the sort. Here’s the quote:
These are Grey’s opinions as to what would cause him to respect the Bloc more. Are they REALISTIC outcomes? No, they’re not, but it’s an honest response. If you think Grey doesn’t understand what the BQ is for, boy, did you ever just get whooshed.
I’m sure you’d like the Conservative Party is they abandoned conservatism, embraced policies similar to the NDP, and named a notable former NDP leader as their party leader. Realistic? No, but it’d make you consider voting for them.