This weekend in Nycole Turmel -

This weekend in Nycole Turmel


Elizabeth May defends the interim NDP leader. Stephane Dion has questions.

The Canadian unity issue: Turmel’s judgment has to be questioned. It is one thing to vote for the Bloc as a private individual without being a sovereignist; it is something else entirely to buy a membership in a party whose primary objective is to separate Quebec from Canada. Turmel says she was attracted to the Bloc’s social program. Did she, and does she still, believe that the Bloc’s social program is better than that of the NDP — a party that also runs candidates in Quebec?

She says she became a Bloc member because one of her friends was a Bloc MP, but what does friendship have to do with political affiliation? We all have friends with different allegiances: do we have to become card-carrying members of their parties to prove our friendship?

Mr. Dion also wants to know how many New Democrat MPs were, or still are, members of separatist parties and how many would vote for independence in a referendum held today.

Meanwhile, our own Emma Teitel argues in defence of changing one’s mind.


This weekend in Nycole Turmel

  1. Now I understand why Conservatives think crime is on the rise. Thought crimes seem to be soaring…

  2. Dion has questions? 

    Astonishing that anyone takes Dion seriously after he tried to form government with BQ but now giving other people hard time for being separatist. 

    Apparently It is ok to be separatist as long as you support Dion’s attempt at leadership after being rejected during election but otherwise questionable. 

    Does Dion have any answers on why Dion thought it was clever for him to attempt to usurp proper government and form coalition government with BQ as puppet master? 

    • Jesus, Tony, stop embarrassing yourself and look up the history of Mr. Dion.

      Your ignorance of how the coalition deal would have basically consigned the Bloc to oblivion is excusable, as most of the gullible swallowed the CPC line about it making the Bloc the puppet-masters, despite it doing exactly the opposite.  But your ignorance about Dion’s history when it comes to the issue of Quebec’s separation is just pathetic.

      • Dion tried to form a coalition government with separatists after badly losing election a few weeks previous and we are supposed to ignore Dion’s actions because he wrote a few sanctimonious letters a decade earlier? 

        Just because I disagree with you Thwim doesn’t make me embarrassed or ignorant or gullible or pathetic – you think babies are parasites so I am quite pleased that you and I don’t agree. 

        • Dion’s coalition would have cut the Bloc off at the knees, the only reason they were considering it was because Harper had a gun aimed at their head and being shorter is better than dead. 

          As for “sanctimonious letters”, it was those letters that provided the arguments for the Supreme Court when it came to the question of whether Quebec could unilaterally decide to separate.  Of course, had you the slightest actual knowledge of history rather than the SDA version, you may have already known that.

          And you’re right, just because you disagree with me doesn’t make you ignorant or gullible. It’s that you’re ignorant and gullible that does that.

        • Westminster Parliament 101- Dion won his election, as did the other 308 members. Please tell me we don’t need to go through this again. 

  3. I have no problem with changing one’s mind.  And I don’t care who might have been a separatist in the past or would vote for secession in a future vote.  Mr. Dion has been hunted for too long and should regain his senses and stop fighting back in this manner. However, I do have a problem about being of two minds at once, as the case of Madame Turmel. 

    And I would definitely have a problem if I were, say a member of the Liberal Party, assembled in a hall to choose a candidate and someone beside me would say that they’re members only out of friendship for someone, that they’re actually also members of the  Conservative Party. That’s the case here with Madame Turmel who was a member of two parties presented opposing candidates in the same election. I find this very strange, and unethical.

    • Only if politics has to be reduced to very, very simple terms to be ethical.  I have at times supported Ralph Goodale and might have voted for Dave Batters if he had run a second time, because I felt they were the best candidate for my riding, despite their politics.

      • No problem with that – I have voted for a PQ candidate while I had a Liberal sign on my front lawn. I liked my PQ MLA; I knew him well and knew that he was fully dedicated to his constituents no matter their political affiliation. When I get to the ballot box I always vote for the best candidate in my riding. 

        But holding membership cards of two parties that are opponents in the same political arena is a different thing.  Unlike Mr. Dion and others, I don’t care that Madame Turmel might have voted yes in the referendum of 1995 or would again in future.  But I would like to know if, for example, she attended the nomination meetings of both Bloc and NDP candidates in her riding.  I would find this very unethical. But I agree that different people have different ethics.  Mine is not better than others, but it’s mine!

      • That would have been difficult, what with them running in different ridings during the same elections. 

    • When was Lebel a member?  The news seem to imply in the 90’s, one said his membership ended in 2001.  I can’t believe the NDP is talking about membership more than a decade ago and saying this is the same as Turmel.  Maybe the news is wrong.  Did Lebel have a Bloc membership when he decided to run for the CPC?

  4. ” … our own Emma Teitel argues in defence of changing one’s mind.”

    As is my way, I got discussion started this weekend at dinner party when I said world has gone to hell in handcart since our forefathers allowed women to vote in early 20 century. :)

    Discussion about country – whether Que can separate or not – very male/female issue. Notice anglo males across ideologies get freaked out about separatists from Que while females across ideologies talk about McCarthyism and witch hunts. Sisterhood is under attack and other females are acting as Turmel’s wingmen. 

    Males respond to abstract concepts like Canada while females think of people. All humans are hypocrites – which I think Teitel points out very well in her article – but we are hypocrites in different ways. 


    • Lorraine kind of shoots down that theory, Tony.

    • Notice anglo males across ideologies get freaked out about separatists from Que

      Speak for yourself.

  5. I see Dion is still having trouble setting priorities. Here’s a hint, Stephane. Attacking the other opposition party instead of the party holding a majority and all the power is the wrong one.

    • Not if you think they stole your votes.

  6. Funny that a prominent Liberal would pretend not to understand about the appeal of strategic voting and how that might convince a Quebecker on the left to vote Bloc in prior elections.  A good chunk of their advertising in the last three elections amounted to “Voting for the NDP will result in a Conservative government.  For the love of Canada, lefties, hold your nose and vote Liberal instead of NDP!”