In the post, CK suggests that progressives outside of Quebec should start a Quebec separatist movement to aid in the separation of Quebec so they may have have a far-left refuge in the case that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should ever win a majority government.
Sadly no, Scott. Rather CK is all about backing the separatists so long as it easily meshes with being anti-conservative.
But one actually has to love the sheer insanity of the very proposition itself. CK seems to imagine that a sovereign Quebec would become a progressive utopia.
Evidently, she hasn't stopped to wonder precisely how Quebec will continue as it does today without the billions of dollars the rest of Canada -- particularly conservative Alberta -- pumps into the province just to keep them in milk and honey today.
CK imagines a Quebec where that pot will almost certainly be sweetened further without the rest of Canada to subsidize it. One can only imagine how.
Perhaps she believes that Canada, following said separation of Quebec, will simply continue to be generous out of the goodness of our own hearts.
Quebec separatist leaders have certainly said as much before. During the 1995 Referendum campaign, a number of separatist leaders said they would separate from Canada without accepting their share of the national debt.
"Au revoir... et merci pour nos droits!"
And, naturally, what Canadian progressives wouldn't want to emigrate to Quebec so they can live as second-class citizens in a state that would be founded on a racial ideology? All because they can't stand the thought of having a government they disagree with for a few years?
Just fucking brilliant.
Update! Submitted for your approval:
Complete meltdown. 'Nuff said. (For now.)
Presumably I will be similarly branded as "just completely out to lunch with [my] delusions", but I also support Quebec sovereignty, and for analogous - though not identical - reasons. Indeed, I personally hope "CK" is serious, and moreover serious enough to accept that the necessary implication of her view is the ultimate dismantling of the Canadian national state. And not a moment too soon.
ReplyDeleteI am no left-wing utopian, nor am I personally fond of narcotics or language laws, but the twin principles of freedom and local autonomy lead me to support sovereignty for Quebec. Sovereignty for Quebec, and for Ontario and Newfoundland and British Columbia, right down to Toronto and even Yonge Street if it is the inclination of residents to form their own separate, self-governing local states.
I am a supporter of "firewalls" and "sovereignty" for all political units within this country. No matter how small or large, no matter what language they speak and no matter the kinds of laws they want to pass for their residents. Language restrictions? Funding for arts? Gun registries? Fine, as long as all residents within a given territory are understood to consent to it in some form . . . and as long as the newly-formed political unit allows complete mobility of entry and exit. Otherwise, I hope the Republic of Alberta, the People's Commonwealth of Saskatchewan, la Republique Quebecois and the City-State of Toronto, and whatever else that emerges are as creative and experimental as possible in their law-making and governance. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
The bureacratic central state in this country, whether wielded by Harper Conservatives or Trudeau Liberals, has been a manifest failure. Instead of pulling us together, it is tearing this country apart. Whether it results in National Energy Policies or national gun registries or national drug laws, our national state cannot help itself. Its nature, because it covers such an ungovernably, unpardonably vast acreage, is to divide and conquer, pick and choose, favour winners and punish losers.
There will always be a segment in this country who do not accept a Prime Minister Harper, but there is no reason why all living in the newly formed Kingdom of Newfoundland would not happily accept a King Williams.
CK can't help herself, she truly believe in her own fantasies. The disconnect for the radicals is their refusal to accept their opinion is not manifested by a political party that shares their socialist utopia.
ReplyDeleteA pattern for the radicals is to blame the party in power for their own failures.
The anti-Harper brigade are so blinded by hate, they can't see the progress, restoration in a cooperative federalism under the current party.
The EAP, increase in transfers, adding seats to underrepresented provinces.
The radicals see evil, sinister in everything Harper does. They can't accept goodwill or best intentions in their mind.
Premiers always attack Ottawa when trying to deflect criticism at home.
D.W. had the nurses, false cancer tests news at the beginning of his ABC campaign. The dismal ranking of his handling of the file fell of the radar.
Charest is doing the same with corruption, billions gone from Pension fund attack Alberta and Ottawa.
In Ottawa Dalton McGuinty weakened the environmental safeguards for cities to stop development.
I enjoy reading how people ignore what has been done, is being done by the Premiers in their own backyard.
Right. As I recall, CK insisted that in adding more seats to Parliament, Harper was "cheating".
ReplyDeleteNever mind that she didn't seem to understand that adding more seats changes the demographic dynamic of the remaining seats.
Adding more seats to Alberta doesn't guarantee more Conservative seats. Rather, it increases the likelihood of more opposition seats in Alberta.