Clear Full Forecast

The Written Word: Rafe Mair Nov.26th

By Rafe Mair

Sunday, November 26, 2006 03:45 AM

        

That the motion by the Prime Minister to recognize Quebecois as a nation is the worst mischief by a politician in my memory.

The fact that Harper is dead wrong and has made a huge mistake is proved beyond  doubt by the fact that the CanWest papers and the Globe and Mail support him.

The Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson has it right. What do the words mean? If they mean something, tell us; if they mean nothing, why put them into the political mix?

Alas for Mr Harper and a triple alas for Canada these words do mean something with the only questioned to be answered is “what?” Whether it’s “sovereignty-association”, “distinct society” or “Quebecois Nation” one must summon up the guru of matters of this sort, Humpty Dumpty.

“ When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master. That’s all."

There will be no instant event. We will, as Churchill said, “be resolute only for drift." 

The words will form the centre piece of the next Quebec election. Interestingly, Harper says he made the motion in order to help Jean Charest in his election.

Any Prime Minister who tried that in BC would be pied, tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail!

The insidious thing is that the word “nation”, whether applied to Quebecois or Quebec is the last step before another separation move.

Mr Harper has done great, irreparable damage.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

First Nations .......

Maybe that will give the Globe and Mail’s Jeffrey Simpson a hint of what the word means when applied in this case. Does Mr. Simpson not live in this world and speak a language in which single words more often than not have various meanings dependent on the context in which they are used.

Number 3 meaning of the word "nation" as applied in this case is shown in the linked URL and states: "A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language"

Even the first meaning of the word uses the word "usually".

http://www.answers.com/topic/nation

Simply put, when one looks a little bit closer at the use of the words country and nation one should see that countyr is associated much more with a geographical and political entity while nation is more strongly associated with customs, origins, history and language.

Canada should be proud to be a country composed of several nations, both those who were here before the arrival of European explorers and the two dominant ones who eventually formed the new political entity of a new country.

Spain is a country composed of several nations with distinct languages and traditions. So is Belgium. So is Switzerland. When one gets down to it, so are probably most countries.

Let me compound the confusion for some, and clarify it for others.

Nation-state = a sovereign territory which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation. This word much more clearly, in my mind anyway, combines two distinct concepts, that of the political and geopolitcal entity of a state and that of the cultural and ethnic entity of a nation.

Japan is a modern example approaching a nation-state. Iceland can be viewed as such also.

Canada has from day one given much stronger powers to its subdivision of provincial territories than many other countries have. Each province has many sovereign powers. We are, in essence a confederation of, in some cases, primarily geopolitcal entitities and, in other cases "national" entities. Quebec is one. Nunavut is another .... and we must not forget about Newfoundland which was the latest territory to join the country.

Simply put, there are too many Francophobes around, especially in the part of the country which is furthest removed from Quebec and really have little, if anything to do with it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=francophobe
Owl, I disagree with your last sentence, but agreed with the rest of your post.

I think Rafe is wrong. It clarifies the situation, and if Quebec choses seperation under a clear choice than so be it. I think with a clear choice, meaning clearity in what Canada means to Quebec, then Quebec will always chose Canada and Canada will be stronger for it in the long run.

Beating around the bush with inuendo will only lead to further anomosity and division weaking the sum of the whole, as well as the parts of the sum.