"jubilant at the effective nullification"

I always hesitate to point out the obvious, but the various purveyors of histrionics about Stephen Harper's motion to recognize "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada" (note, not "Quebec", but the "Quebecois"), would be well-served by recalling that, just after he nearly lost the country in the 1995 referendum, Jean Chretien introduced the following motion in Parliament (that's the best source I can find at the moment):

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed their desire for recognition of Quebec’s distinct society;

1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

2) The House recognize that Quebec’s distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

The motion, on its face far more dangerous and a complete and utter abdication to the separatist demands then extant, resulted in... well, nothing, really.  Which is likely what the current motion will result in.  As you were.

Comments

[Greg]

I just have one thing to ask, what are the rights of a nation?

[Bob Tarantino]

what are the rights of a nation?

Probably similar to the rights of a "distinct society" - which is to say, no one knows, but it's probably not good for Canadian unity. Which is why this whole freakin' pathetic charade should have been avoided. I blame Iggy.

[The Hack]

Here's the million-dollar question though...What is it exactly about Canada that no top-level player in its leadership class is willing to argue for the notion that we're all one people, one country?

Are we too far down the road of "to each, their own" to go back?

[Olaf]

Bob,

The motion, on its face far more dangerous and a complete and utter abdication to the separatist demands then extant, resulted in... well, nothing, really. Which is likely what the current motion will result in. As you were.

I made the exact same point: the Quebecois are different than Quebec, and emphasizing the sociological definition in his speech only serves to reinforce that we're talking about the people (excluding aboriginals, anglophones, allophones, immigrants, etc.) rather than the province. Recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is more logically consistent with provincial autonomy/separation than Harpers resolution.

[ebt]

What are the rights of a piece of toast? And if we declare Quebec to be a piece of toast, does it actually become a piece of toast?

[Kevin Jaeger]

I agree, Bob. This is much like recognizing the official UN day of the spotted owl, or whatever.

A meaningless resolution debated histrionically by the chattering classes, signifying nothing.

[Jason Hickman]

My point exactly! I'm still not sold on this particular being a good idea, and obviously, any time you monkey around in this "nation" area, you have the potential for disaster, but if past experience is a guide, it's not likely to be the end of the world.

[Greg]

Funny you should say that Jason. Trudeau once said something to the effect that the world would not end if Canada no longer existed. I have been trying to find that quote all day. If I get it I will post it.

[Jay Currie]

On the rights of a nation Iggy could not have been clearer:

“As a political doctrine, nationalism is the belief that the world’s peoples are divided into nations, and that each of these nations has the right of self-determination, either as self-governing units within existing nation states or as nation states of their own” ( Blood and Belonging, 1993)

I was sad to see Dion kiss a potential winning wedge issue goodbye.

(Welcome back Bob!)