Recognition of an oppressed minority in Quebec
November 26, 2006 · By Marsilio Facino
Hmmm. I go away for awhile and a constitutional fracas erupts. I don’t really have much to add to the passionate defences at Andrew Coyne’s website or Paul Wells or Warren Kinsella .
I do have one question, though. If the word NATION has sacramental significance to those in the Eastern Media, why is the same sacramental significance not accorded to MARRIAGE?
Just asking.
Either everyone has a nation or no one has a nation.
We are now supposed to recognize the Québécois nation (as opposed to the Quebec or Quebec(k)er nation).
The First Nations are only nations because the Aboriginals recognize themselves has such. There is nothing in Canada’s constitution Acts that recognize “First Nations.” There are Aboriginals, Indians, Inuit, and Métis; but no Firsties or First Nationals. Note that I didn’t call them the F.N. Peoples. Only a comedian might do that.
If we can recognize most different types of marriages, we should be able to recognize different nations within Canada starting with the Gay Nation.
As much fun as it is having a lively debate on the issue, once the motion in the house is voted on I suspect Harper is going to let the liberals go nuts with the issue.
Why?
Well really the only way to exceed Harper’s move is to make an offer of constitutional recognition, and the pressure for the liberals to make a big splash at the convention this move is just way to tempting for them. Especially with Iggy chomping at the bit to pander to the separatists in the liberal party.
Once that move is made the liberals have to tell the ROC why Quebec needs a special status.
Harper can then say “check-mate”.