So the time we have all been waiting for is finally here! The Convention officially starts tomorrow and continues all the way throught the weekend. I don't know about everyone else, but this is exciting!
With Gerard now becoming the only canadidate to dismiss the idea of Quebec as a nation all together, and Ignatieff showing pure confidence in his chances, and Rae of course assuming the race is in his back pocket and Dion perhaps gaining momemtum by teaming up with others - the outcome is sure to be eventful.
For all who will be there, we'll see you. For those who won't be, I am sure you'll be watching the updates as they occur.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Harper Recognizes Quebec as a Nation within Canada & What about Ignatieff?
So Nobody saw this coming??? Nobody? For me it wasn't all that unexpected. I mean Harper had two choices: 1) Take the same stance as Ignatieff and use it as leverage for himself or 2) Disagree with Ignatieff and hope the rest of Canada will see him as a sort of savior from this disuniting force. He chose the former and I would have to say did good. Good for who exactly? Well we'll see.
It turns out that not only does Ignatieff feel this way, in addition to the renewel commission, but so do most members of the house. This idea was not and is not new; it is not revolutionary or completely absurd. The issue with separtism will not be fueled, for at the heart of serpartism is extremism and with that there is not common ground; its all or nothing. This is not an issue of separtism - it just isn't. It is a means to bring Canada closer together - something that the Seperatist's do not want or ever will want. Therefore I see this step - that was first deemed an Ignatieff proposal, and now as a Harper proposal to the house- as one that has great capabilities. If for nothing else should we appreciate Stephen Harper, it would be for bringing this out directly for all to see and hear.
What does this do for the Ignatieff Camp?? Well I think it has enourmous potential to capitalize on it. Now that the Conservatives are supporting the idea of Quebec as a nation, should the Liberals (under new leadership) oppose this notion, then what? We are all of a sudden hypocritical and anti-quebec; at least that is what Harper and his conservatives will use. Do we really want to debate this issue and sweep it under the rug yet again? I really do think we can make this work and I think that Liberals at the convention will see realize this when it comes time to vote on it. Quebec as a nation does not have to be a scary sentence - if we think about it, understand it there is nothing frightening about it.
Let's be reasonable, no one wants to see Quebec leave Canada (even most quebekers)but we do want to ensure that the problem that does exist gets the attention it deserves. This is the time to talk about it, and this is the time to do something about it.
It turns out that not only does Ignatieff feel this way, in addition to the renewel commission, but so do most members of the house. This idea was not and is not new; it is not revolutionary or completely absurd. The issue with separtism will not be fueled, for at the heart of serpartism is extremism and with that there is not common ground; its all or nothing. This is not an issue of separtism - it just isn't. It is a means to bring Canada closer together - something that the Seperatist's do not want or ever will want. Therefore I see this step - that was first deemed an Ignatieff proposal, and now as a Harper proposal to the house- as one that has great capabilities. If for nothing else should we appreciate Stephen Harper, it would be for bringing this out directly for all to see and hear.
What does this do for the Ignatieff Camp?? Well I think it has enourmous potential to capitalize on it. Now that the Conservatives are supporting the idea of Quebec as a nation, should the Liberals (under new leadership) oppose this notion, then what? We are all of a sudden hypocritical and anti-quebec; at least that is what Harper and his conservatives will use. Do we really want to debate this issue and sweep it under the rug yet again? I really do think we can make this work and I think that Liberals at the convention will see realize this when it comes time to vote on it. Quebec as a nation does not have to be a scary sentence - if we think about it, understand it there is nothing frightening about it.
Let's be reasonable, no one wants to see Quebec leave Canada (even most quebekers)but we do want to ensure that the problem that does exist gets the attention it deserves. This is the time to talk about it, and this is the time to do something about it.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
In Response to: "The Iggy and the Damage Done"
Click HERE for the artcile printed in the National Post by Ian Macdonald.
I would like to point out first that this article is fundamentally flawed. Where he says that the phrase "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays." he makes an translation or interpretive error by claiming that it means "Quebec is my home". And he does this on two accounts within the same sentence.
1st account: "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie" - translates into "Quebec is my fatherland" - not necessarily "my home". (translation erro)
2nd account: even if he knew that the translation was 'fatherland' , he substitued in 'home' and it is an interpretive error. Fatherland is in reference to the concept of a nation. Saying, quebec is my fatherland is making reference to the notion of the Quebec nation. To say it means home in the sense that he presumes it does, is to miss the point.
Anyone who has studied what the concept of a nation is, would know that it has a strong relationship to the idea of a fatherland. It is encarved in its very meaning.
What really is a nation?: One very influential view is that "nations are merely "imagined" but somehow still powerful entities; what is meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers. (A.D Anderson) In this sense it is a feeling more than it is any type of sovereign claim of statehood.
Deeming Quebec a nation is not this evil thing that people have made it out to be. Turning it into a project - that is turning it into a license rather than a responsibility- is most certainly an evil that we do not want to touch. But that is not what is being proposed by Ignatieff.
I spoke with Mr. Ignatieff the other day about the negativity that has been shown towards his quebec as a nation idea. He looked at me and said, "in no way do I suggest we open up a constitutional debate on the issue, but just that we acknowledge something that everyone - especially Quebekers- knows to be real". (paraphrasing) The concept of the nation is an internal feeling that, not all, but a lot of Quebeker's relate to and that is something that is necessary to recognize.
I can't take anything in this article as fact or evidence of anything. It has failed to grasp the idea of "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays" and it has therefore failed in arriving at any plausible conclusion of Ignatieff's position on the issue - since the misinterpretations are obvious flaws.
I would like to point out first that this article is fundamentally flawed. Where he says that the phrase "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays." he makes an translation or interpretive error by claiming that it means "Quebec is my home". And he does this on two accounts within the same sentence.
1st account: "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie" - translates into "Quebec is my fatherland" - not necessarily "my home". (translation erro)
2nd account: even if he knew that the translation was 'fatherland' , he substitued in 'home' and it is an interpretive error. Fatherland is in reference to the concept of a nation. Saying, quebec is my fatherland is making reference to the notion of the Quebec nation. To say it means home in the sense that he presumes it does, is to miss the point.
Anyone who has studied what the concept of a nation is, would know that it has a strong relationship to the idea of a fatherland. It is encarved in its very meaning.
What really is a nation?: One very influential view is that "nations are merely "imagined" but somehow still powerful entities; what is meant is that belief in them holds sway over the believers. (A.D Anderson) In this sense it is a feeling more than it is any type of sovereign claim of statehood.
Deeming Quebec a nation is not this evil thing that people have made it out to be. Turning it into a project - that is turning it into a license rather than a responsibility- is most certainly an evil that we do not want to touch. But that is not what is being proposed by Ignatieff.
I spoke with Mr. Ignatieff the other day about the negativity that has been shown towards his quebec as a nation idea. He looked at me and said, "in no way do I suggest we open up a constitutional debate on the issue, but just that we acknowledge something that everyone - especially Quebekers- knows to be real". (paraphrasing) The concept of the nation is an internal feeling that, not all, but a lot of Quebeker's relate to and that is something that is necessary to recognize.
I can't take anything in this article as fact or evidence of anything. It has failed to grasp the idea of "Le Quebec, c'est ma patrie; le Canada, c'est mon pays" and it has therefore failed in arriving at any plausible conclusion of Ignatieff's position on the issue - since the misinterpretations are obvious flaws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)