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.
8 comments:
I don't have a problem recognizing Quebec as a nation, so long as we recognize all of the other nations within Canada. That would include the Cree of Northern Quebec, the anglophones of Quebec, Newfoundland, many other first nations peoples and perhaps each of the ten provinces. But do not single out Quebec for some special recognition. And if you think I'm the only person who is adamant about this then just check back to how Canadians reacted to Mulroney's two constitutional amendment attempts.
I understand the inclination to think back to the two failed attempts involving Quebec. But I agree with the statement:
"Federalists should not let themselves be distracted by those tactics [those of the separtists]. Most Quebeckers will appreciate any sincere effort made on their behalf. If federal politicians act wisely and prudently, if they debate the issue intelligently and passionately, they will have Quebec voters on their side."
--ANDRÉ PRATTE Globe and Mail Update
Quebec has been a pressing historical issue for a very long time. That is what differentiates it from the examples that were given such as NFLD.
It's not useful to get carried away with overexaggerating the idea of every part of Canada being a nation. The focus is on Quebec as a nation, if we argue that NFLD etc. should then also be a nation than we continue to confuse the topic all together.
We've failed to resolve this more than just two times. It's a timebomb, divisive issue that will be wrought with disaster for this party.
Oh, and on the not opening this for a constitutional debate thing you have quoted Michael on? Here's his response to the press in June 2006 while in Quebec (pandering?).
Speaking to reporters after his speech, Ignatieff said he is open to new discussions to bring Quebec fully into the Canadian constitution, something Quebec refused to accept at the time of the last constitutional revision in 1982.
"Quebec must be brought into the Canadian constitution because the legitimacy of the federation remains in question here in Quebec," he said.
As Coyne said earlier this year. "Quebec has never not been in the constitution."
It does not need to be divisive though. The idea itself is inclusive and uniting. It appears divisive because people do have real fears about this issue being divisive. I know that; I understand this anxiety. However, this is what we have to get past. If we dwell on the fears about the issue, we do injustice to ourselves by letting our fears control our actions. We have to be cautious and we have to be smart about it - but we cant ignore it.
My paraphrasing of Michael is the same thing he has always said. Its not new. He has said that "Quebec must be brought into the Canadian constitution" but he also believes adamantly that this can only happen when the time is right. And he has said that now is not the right time. I dont think people can disagree with this. What Ignatieff says though is that just because now may not be the right time does not mean we should adandon the issue altogether. Let's not confuse this about him. He makes it very clear.
Coyne's comment I assume is reference to the fact that Quebec has used the Constitution when its in their favour and things to that extent - but even so, they have not signed on and they still have the separtists who threaten Canada and Quebec.
The fact that this issue is debated so strongly on both sides shows that it is still a ligering issue that is real and unavoidable if you want to be responsible.
We shouldn't argue that Newfoundland should be a nation? They are a nation, and I take insult to you questioning whether they are or not. And when you say the focus is on Quebec you reveal exactly what the problem is.
no one seriously demanded Quebec be called a "nation" until the idiots in the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec goaded Ignatieff to support this idea.
The NDP was (and is) the only party that has this as its official policy. Look how many votes it got them.
L. Ian McDonald is a staunch conservative and was the speechwriter for Mulroney - he looks at things with the conservative eye.
Funny, everyone says this has to be done some day - huh? When?
thanks for the info. I wasnt aware of the background of Macdonald.
while there is no need to let this issue take control of the Leadership race or minds of party members, it is necessary to address the issue since it is not going to just go away on its own.
We all know this.
Post a Comment