Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Only in Quebec...

The leader of the most (only?) federalist party in the province states the obvious that Quebec could be divisible following a "oui" vote.

And everyone considers it a gaffe.

Welcome to the weird world of Quebec politics...

Labels: ,

posted by calgarygrit at 3:55 p.m.

19 Comments:

  • I know!

    The real gaffe was the turnaround backtrack. Silly move.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 4:11 p.m.  

  • The Quebecois, and I'm not referring to separatists, think differently.

    Even federalist French speaking people in Quebec, consider the thought of dividing the province to be abhorrent.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 4:18 p.m.  

  • Wow, that's as bad as saying that a Conservative gov't would be constrained by the Liberal-appointed bureaucracy and courts. ;)

    By Blogger The Invisible Hand, at 5:20 p.m.  

  • I don't see what is wrong with his statement. If one section of Quebec votes heavily in favour of remaining in Canada, why shouldn't they be allowed to remain. The reality is the best solution is for all of Quebec to remain part of Canada.

    By Blogger Monkey Loves to Fight, at 5:23 p.m.  

  • Quebec is not necessarily divisible. It depends on the constitution of the new country.

    But as I say, lets cross that river when we get to the bridge...

    If all goes well, we will never need an answer to that question.

    By Blogger Anthony, at 7:12 p.m.  

  • Funny how to the separatists, Quebec is indivisible, but Canada is doubly-divisible.

    Not only could Canada be split into three, the separatists have deluded themselves into thinking they'd take Labrador, too.

    By Blogger WJM, at 7:15 p.m.  

  • National Unity: the gift that just keeps on giving.

    Perhaps the reason *partitioning* Quebec or better still, the ramifications of Quebec independence are a big ol' bugaboo that federalists have been terrified to talk about publicly for fear of waking the beast. It's kind of like a mutual denial that occurs on the part of separatists and federalists - both sides afraid to talk about it for fear of losing support to their grand cause. I'm glad he said it, I'm not glad he retracted it - bummer.

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 7:17 p.m.  

  • Perhaps the reason *partitioning* Quebec or better still, the ramifications of Quebec independence are a big ol' bugaboo that federalists have been terrified to talk about publicly for fear of waking the beast.

    Which federalists?

    Read s. 3(2) of the Clarity Act.

    By Blogger WJM, at 7:49 p.m.  

  • Monumentally stupid.

    By Blogger Gauntlet, at 8:07 p.m.  

  • charest was asked by a journalist based on a herper quote from 1995

    so technically this is harpers fault

    By Blogger Anthony, at 9:44 p.m.  

  • so technically this is harpers fault

    Yeah, but was that quote in response to a reporter's question? If so, it's the fault of the l/Liberal media.

    By Blogger WJM, at 10:08 p.m.  

  • Quebec is not necessarily divisible. It depends on the constitution of the new country.

    Funny. Canada's constitution doesn't say anything about it being divisible. Neither 1867 nor 1982.

    By Blogger KC, at 12:02 a.m.  

  • If Canada is divisible, then Quebec is divisible. Any bullshit about "what the new country's constitution says" is just, well, bullshit.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:19 a.m.  

  • This is a game of not "mentioning the unmentionable" and while the clarity act may address (in a cursory and completely unenforceable way) the great unmentionable, the fact is that no law in the universe can stop a full blown move to independence - that's why the clarity act is really a nice blankie designed so federalists can sleep at night. If anything, we need more talk about the ramifications of sovereignty because it's not a fait accompli - civil wars often occur as a result of independence movements - they've happened throughout history. To think that we are somehow immune to that prospect or that a mere piece of legislation can protect all of us from the ugliness associated with the breakup of a country, well, that's just naive. Personally, I would like the issue settled once and for all. I'm tired of this game of avoidance federalists play - "if we don't talk about it, maybe it will go away."

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 7:50 a.m.  

  • WHERE'S FLIPPER?

    Help find the Liberal's missing "non-leader" and priceless French asset! Bonus points for actual sightings! Gory details at:

    http://www.thiscanada.com/2007/03/08/wheres-flipper/

    By Blogger Erik Sorenson, at 8:11 a.m.  

  • Dan, I left a very nice funny about you this this morning. I'm sure you won't mind, it's flattering. ;)

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:18 a.m.  

  • You forgot perhaps the most terrible of creatures in the Star Trek universe - Species 8472!!! You can't forget Species 8472!!! Just gotta find a blog to match it ;)

    By Blogger Sean Cummings, at 11:35 a.m.  

  • Funny. Canada's constitution doesn't say anything about it being divisible. Neither 1867 nor 1982.

    It also doesn't say anything about a province being able to secede now, does it?

    By Blogger JG, at 12:13 p.m.  

  • heh heh. Good stuff Jason. Glad to see you're back blogging too.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 2:39 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home