Why? Because he uttered the impossible. That if a majority of Quebecers voted to seperate from Canada, the entire province may not be allowed to leave Canada as a whole. There may in fact be regions of Quebec where the majority do not want to seperate. And those sections may be carved off of a greater Quebec.
Of course this created a furor and the Charest camp was forced to issue a retraction. Of course Jean didn't mean that Quebec could be seperated after seperation. What he meant is that Quebec is indivisible.
What?
It would seem to me that one of the strongest arguments against Quebec seperation, would be that if Quebec was allowed to vote for its seperation from greater Canada, then regions within Quebec would also have the right to seperate from greater Quebec.
Now I don't have an opinion here, or a declaration to make, but out of curiosity - this partition would seem to be a very strong argument against seperation, why is mentioning it forbidden?
--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dion said the same thing, as the newly 'appointed' (not elected) intergovernmental affairs minister to the Chretien government:
'he told an interviewer that if Quebec can separate from Canada, natives and municipalities can separate from Quebec'.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010577
Forbidden because this is a provincial election and Charest is using it not for Canada or for Quebec's best interest, he's using the argument to win himself his job.
Partition is an undeniable consequence of separatism, but it evokes the nasty, potentially violent (or at least threat of violent) aspects of the separation process.
Its like a wife using the threat of divorce everytime the dishes haven't been washed. Its too much. Threaten divorce when he's got lipstick on his collar or something. Threaten partition when the referendum is actually underway.
OR, if you want to bring up partition now (to avoid the fact that crumbling highways kill people) --- well, could you please start the partition now? Split Quebec into 2 provinces and let the economically 3rd world province separate?
I guess I can see why keeping your powder dry for a referendum might be advisable...I just think that if the populace know that an independent Quebec would be a tiny 3rd world rump state, then there would be no eternal drive for seperation.
There certainly wouldn't be 40% support for it.
--
I hear you le politico, but there's that backlash risk - people may want to say, "oh yeah? got to hell! we'll prove you wrong..."
this election, in my mind, should have had a single strategy: hey, Boisclair is a major loser, we can't possibly let him get close to the big chair.
to me, that was sufficient. my big worry is that Charest is giving Boisclair too much to work with.
Thanks greatt post
Post a Comment