Pour Un Quebec Lucide - Macleans.ca
 

Pour Un Quebec Lucide


 

INSTAUPDATE: WHOOPS, just noticed Phil already blogged this. What he said.

From an open letter sent to La Presse, written by two former Bloc Québecois operators, Maxime Bellerose and Benoît Demuy, encouraging Quebecers to vote for the NDP:

Pour la première fois de notre vécu politique, la social-démocratie est à la porte du Parlement! Il serait dommage pour les Québécois de ne pas profiter de cette opportunité pour envoyer à Ottawa des députés portant haut et fort les valeurs toutes québécoises d’entraide et justice.

Nous sommes et resterons profondément convaincus que la souveraineté reste la meilleure voie pour que le Québec et son peuple puissent poursuivre leur épanouissement, mais comme le disent plusieurs, la souveraineté du Québec se fera à Québec et non à Ottawa. D’ici là, tous nos concitoyens devront, de gré ou de force, vivre dans le régime fédéral canadien.

This is remarkable. For ages now, we’ve been told that a vote for the Bloc is not necessarily a vote for sovereignty, that many Quebecers simply park their votes with the Bloc out of some sort of french-speaking solidarity. My view has always been that that is precisely the problem: ethnic or linguistic solidarity is toxic in any democracy, and it advances neither the aims of Quebec nationalists nor the interests of Canada.

What Bellerose and Demuy are doing is keeping their eye on the ball: the ultimate goal is sovereignty, but that is a something they know has to be done in Quebec, not by continuing to send Bloc MPs to Ottawa. And, they argue, to the extent that Quebec remains a part of Canada, it would be a shame not to take the opportunity to send to Ottawa MPs who support Quebec values of social democracy.

It is extremely heartening to see that not everyone in Quebec puts ethnic solidarity above political ideology.


 
Filed under:

Pour Un Quebec Lucide

  1. It's worth repeating. I'm delighted as well.

  2. Why don't these guys get the Jean Lapierre treatment?

  3. "ethnic or linguistic solidarity is toxic in any democracy"

    I guess all those fights for the rights to services and education in one's language were really corrosive to our democracy. I better tell my odjibwe neighboors how disappointed I am by their behavior.

    • The language fight in Quebec doesn't need to be associated with ethnic solidarity.
      It is a social justice and democratic fight for me.
      I am a federalist anti-nationalism Québécois pure laine and I support bill 101 and all the language fights in Quebec.

  4. …ethnic or linguistic solidarity is toxic in any democracy…

    That bears repeating again and again and again. Look at the circuses many riding associations in all the parties have become. Ethnic block voting parties. It's sickening.

    • I don't mind it one iota. The state exists to serve its citizens. What is the difference if the elected officials appeal to their voters on ethnic or linguistic grounds, instead of on ideological ones? A socialist is just as divided from me culturally as a Sikh or Jamaican, so why is it okay to appeal to one and not the other?

      • Because ideology can appeal to various ethnicities. Whereas an appeal to any particular ethnicity, pretty much excludes everyone else.

  5. ethnic or linguistic solidarity is toxic in any democracy – Potter

    Which is why we shouldn't be pushing the idea of multi-culturalism. I'm an "ethnic". IMO We can't even run a country with TWO main languages and cultures without division and acrimony never mind a multitude of contending and competing ethnicities and cultures. Let peoples and cultures mix together and mould one another as they will and stop encouraging them to stay apart. ie assimilation vs mosaic. Intermarriage is the key to peace. You don't generally fight and kill your own kin.

    • Excellent post. All too rare nowadays. Assimilation is treated as a dirty word. Really it means becoming part of something larger than one's self.