My last post on the nation -- I hope
David Mader, aka the smartest person I know, has thrown down the gauntlet on my reasoning for supporting the Québec is a nation concept.
First, since everyone wants to talk about the definition of what a Québécois is, let me give you my definition. It is not Jean-Pierre Blackburn's. Québécois nationhood is a civic nationhood based on a variety of things including a common language, culture, values and legal system. Contrary to what Lawrence Cannon sort of said (he was too incoherent to fully understand), you do not have to be a "pure laine" francophone to be a part of it. Anyone living in Québec can be a part of the Québécois nation, or they can choose not to be. Some Québébers would consider themselves only as part of the Québecois nation, some as part of the Canadian one, and many to be part of both. And yes, the motion should have said Quebecker in the English version.
To David's toughtful commentary: I was not trying to say theories are irrelevant in this matter. I am a small-l liberal in the tradition of Locke just like Andrew Coyne -- who is, by the way, someone I consider a friend and with whom I agree 99% of the time. I am saying that Andrew's concept of a Canadian nationhood, which he likes to draw back to Lockean liberal principles -- is irrelevant in the context of Canada in 2006. I don't even like the concept of nationalism, and I wish it weren't something we had to deal with. But Andrew and Tom Axworthy want to fit every province and every Canadian into a tight, perfect little intellectual box -- the "one size fits all" view of citizenship promoted vigorously by Pierre Trudeau -- that few Canadians, especially those under the age of 40, I think, can associate with. I think that vision of Canada is passé and cannot be salvaged -- arguably it never could.
Of course the principle of recognizing "reality" has limits, and I would never subscribe to anything that would throw into question the equality of all Canadians before the law. The examples David cited are not the same as the Québec/Canada question. Here we are talking about fundamental issues of basic idendity, sense of self, sociology and citizenship and how people see their own existance.
I should have been more clear on what my "facts on the ground" are. Those facts are that just about every francophone in Québec -- even hardcore federalists -- are nationalists. There's no getting around that. Many of those people like Canada, feel Canadian and want to continue being Canadian, but they are usually Québecers first. They have a loyalty to Québec first. That is what the reality is. Canadians outside Québec have a hard time accepting that and may never do so, as the poll results David posted demonstrate. Indeed, this reluctance to accept the Candian reality may lead to the end of the country. I sincerely hope it won't and I'm willing to make concessions to ensure it doesn't happen. I suppose some, maybe even Coyne, would say no to any concessions and that if that realily is there, there's no point in staying together. "So be it." Let's go our separate ways. It was Trudeau, after all, who said the country should go out with a bang, and not a whimper. But my view is that if we accept what Canada really is and stop pretending it is something it isn't, we can move foward together.
And I think we've all lost sight here of why this happened: Ignatieff made it a front-and-centre issue of his leadership campaign, the Bloc seized on it, and Harper had to act. Voting down the Bloc motion would have led to yet another "national unity crisis" and given the separatists 60 seats in the next election. Harper would have probably lost a couple of cabinet ministers and MPs.
One more thing: In reading comments on this blog and judging by the private communication I have received since the TV show, there is a generational issue at play here -- noted today by the Ontario Premier. I notice very little interest in this issue amongst younger Québecers and even younger Canadians. I don't know if this means there is a larger acceptance of the "reality on teh ground" by our age group, or whether it's just indifference. But it is pretty clear that this is a battle that concerns the battle-scarred veterans of the Trudeau/Levesque years more than anyone else.
UPDATE: Promise, last thing -- I'm not sure where Andrew stands on this, but some would argue that any kind of nationalism is incompatible with liberalism. The Trudeau schoolers -- great defenders of individualism and liberalism they claim to be, despite their confiscatory tax policies -- are not opposed to nationalism. They just oppose any nationalism that isn't theirs.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 5:18 PM
