Monday, February 2, 2009

Quebecers Interested in Sovereignty but not Separation

Once again the laughable Quebec seperatist sovereigntist movement is getting respectful coverage in English Canada. This article from the Winnipeg Sun reminds us that talk of independence doesn't necessarily mean, you know, becoming an independent country or anything:

Third, sovereigntist parties sometimes attract people who aren't necessarily "hard core." Bischoff embraced the BQ's "progressive" social platform as much as he did its sovereignty slant.

"Hard core" means you actually believe in separating? Wow, dude, that is totally hard core. Whoa!
Meanwhile, critics pounced on Harper for hauling out the old "separatist" label when speaking English, but reverting to the more genteel "sovereigntist" when chatting in French.

How pathetic is that? How is the term "separatist" hurtful? What kind of wuss "nationalists" are these guys?

Wait we have an explainer:


The word was used, historically, for those favouring an independent country, but over time it has evolved, for many, into a "term of abuse, a kind of insult," says Tanguay. Some separatists opted for the term "independantiste." Eventually, they settled on the term "sovereigntist."


The term "is clunky in English but it gets the message across and doesn't have those negative overtones," Tanguay says. Indeed, its nuance is positive since "sovereignty is something like the normal state of affairs for people," he says. While it means independence, it also carries an added idea: A relationship or association" of some sort with Canada.

The term separatist has negative overtones? Why, because it holds people to an actual position? What a pathetic joke. Somehow I can't see the Irish, Croatians or Slovaks having a problem with that term. It shows how unserious the people of the Canadian province of Quebec really are about becoming an independent country.

You're free to go Quebec. Stop talking and do it. It's like a child who threatens to run away. You know they're getting one block and turning back.

Hat tip: Strack Attack


  1. Your so right on this one. Have you ever seen some of the terms of Sovereignty Association? Almost all the elements of Quebec within Confederation are included. The biggest change is Quebec and Canada would have an equal representation in a parliamentary assembly. In other words everything would be the same except they would get half the seats in Parliament. A divorce with bedroom privileges.
    No one outside of Quebec seems to be interested in this issue. The largest employer in Canada the federal government, is basically a Quebec employment agency. Why is this not a bigger issue in Canada? We are being played for suckers, and no seems to care.

  2. I have not seen the terms of Sovereignty Association. I thought it meant "free trade."

    Where can I find this?

  3. Good question, I don`t know where to find it. I was reading a newspaper article during the last referendum, and the article listed several aspects of Sovereignty Association. The "parliamentary assembly" really stuck out as the most insane aspect. Can you imagine the rest of Canada wanting a Parliament with half the members from Quebec. What a fantasy, they don`t seem to realize there is going to be bitterness, and a backlash against Quebec if they separate.
    Some other way out thinking, all Quebec federal civil servants will get jobs in the new Quebec government, they only owe 18% of the national debt, Canada would have still made payments towards the winter Olympics in Quebec City (Quebec lost the bid for the Olympics I think to Salt Lake),I mean thinking like this is crazy.
    Let me check into this one.

  4. I'm sure it's been long stashed away. Unfortunately, the internet wasn't as big back then and nobody thought to capture it.

    It's hilarious that they think they can get away with that type of thinking but they do. Not a peep from the the English.

  5. The magic works well in Quebec. Here is a story that is a great example of how French people think. A friend of mine was working for a federal agency out on the East coast. During the last referendum, two French Canadian co-workers were in a dream world about Quebec becoming independent. I asked my friend "did they not realize they would be out of a job, with an independent Quebec". His answer was that you could not even get them to acknowledge any negative aspect to Quebec independence. It was their dream, and everything would be wonderful.
    I also read several accounts of Quebec voters saying they would vote yes, because they would no longer have to pay federal taxes. This would be a huge boost to their income. Talk about living in never never land.

  6. I remember a report that was found long after the last referendum. I forget from what office it came from. Anyway, it mentioned the conflict of interest Chretien would have found himself in if Quebec separated under his watch. It was suggested the more senior MP's from English Canada would have to take over and negotiate with Quebec. Frankly, I was relieved to have read there was some sort of plan to do this. One of my biggest concerns in regard to Quebec separating is having a Que. PM and cabinet give away the keys to the car and the house. I can also see the media selling it as a fair compromise with our equal founders. Scary and infuriating.

  7. Strack good point. I recall Bouchard addressing that exact issue. His statement was that Chretien would still be the PM of Canada. The border issue is another one. Some parts of Quebec in the Ottawa Valley and northern Indian areas may have wanted to break off from Quebec. The PQ claimed they did not have the right to do this. Talk about double talk.
    Chretien was useless during the Referendum campaign, he did nothing. He could have closed the banks in Quebec, shut off pension and UIC cheques,and closed all federal offices in Quebec including the postal service. Other federally regulated companies could have been shut down as well, Bell Canada, Air Canada, and Insurance companies, are a few examples. Instead Chretien did nothing. An English PM may not have been so nice.