Landry Quits

And silly me thought that he should have been satisfied with 50% + 1 vote and just accepted that as a majority.


---
"If you must kill a man, it costs you nothing to be polite about it." Winston Churchill

Dr Caleb...I was wondering about that also but my guess is the Gilles Duceppe connection...provincialy he would likely win too.

Landry’s leaving is excellent news, both for the PQ and for Québec politics in general.<p> The next one to go should be Charest and hopefully, to be closely followed by Mario Dumont. Dumont may considered ‘young’ guard yet, he is anything but. He, more than any other at the moment, should learn from Charest’s dismal situation. Instead of becoming a «career » politician, he should take a leave of notice, work in the real world for a few years and if he wants to, come back with some fresh ideas. All our political parties and their leadership are in need of a shake down. <p> Getting back to Landy, as much as I respect the man, support his political cause and did not necessarily wish for his departure, his leaving has opened a door unto an opportunity for renewal. Will PQ militants take it will be something to look for in the next months ahead. I do not think Gilles Duceppe should leave the Bloc even though many Québec sovereignists « see him in their soup », as the French expression goes. Wishing for a hero or a savior is bad politics for any party. Look how badly Charest has turned out to be even though he was hailed as the Liberal Party’s savior just a short time ago.<p> The Parti Québécois is well-known for being tough on its leaders. Some think to the contrary but I believe this harshness and divided coalition of ideas within a political party is a good thing. It brings out the fighting ‘bulldozer’ in their leaders and they have to learn from within their own party how to accomodate the largest number of factions possible. Keeping this in mind, we should question ourselves if an actual confidence vote of 90 % and more within a political party can be seen as healthy democracy. <p> Duceppe does not have any roots in the Parti Québécois and there is sufficient and able leadership within the party to make Duceppe’s move unnecessary. I’m thinking of the likes of Pauline Marois, François Legault, André Boisclair, Diane Lemieux. Duceppe will do better by remaining in Ottawa, win more seats come the next federal election and on this wave of support, help propel a rejuvenated PQ into a majority win come Québec’s own elections. If Duceppe makes the move now, he may satisfy many Québécers’ current wish but in the mid and long term of it, he would do a disservice to the PQ, the Bloc and all sovereignty supporters. So I will personally keep my fingers crossed and hope Duceppe stays where he is now. <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

Charest was sent to Quebec to do just that- fan the flames of separatism. He is so terrible that naturally Quebeckers will say "Il n`est pas pour nous."

---
Dave Ruston

I have no idea how you came to that opinion. Being a bad leader and manager of Québec's government is enoug to fan the flames of any Québécer, whether they be separatists or not. Last week's polls showed that 77% of Québécers are dissatisfied with the Charest government. As far as I know, separatists have not yet reached that many adherents to their cause. <p> Charest was sent to Québec because it was felt that he only had the proper stature and experience to face Lucien Bouchard, Québec's prime minister at the time. What a sorry mess that turned out to be. But all is not lost. Hopefully, Québécers will have learned their lesson in time for the next elections.<p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

I got that idea from observing the political attitudes of all of our sorry leaders. Charest used to be a conservative. And if he is to face down a traditionally left of centre PQ, why would he do it with a right wing continentalist, pro-corporate agenda? Remember, divide Canada, and pre-occupy the people with this, and its easier to sell all of us out to the Washington consensus.

---
Dave Ruston

I think it's a good thing that Landry quit. Now, if only we can get the rest of the separaterrorists to give up, we might actually get somewhere. Instead of wasting so much time trying to spoil Canada, the next leader might rather present some clearly defined issues that they have grievances with, so that these can be discussed and debated in a natural process. But -- given their distate for creative progress, I suspect that their real agenda has nothing to do with Quebec, per se, or any particular grievances. It has to do with a power grab by a group of political thugs who are willing to sacrifice other people's well beings to serve their own ends. Ask the people of the Maritimes whose property value goes down every time the Separaterrorists make some gains. Ask anybody who has paid attention to the thousands upon thousands of hours of precious time that has been wasted on this ridiculous power grab. They don't care how hurtful they are -- they are a small group of politicians willing to inflame nationalistic hatreds to collect power. I can only hope Quebecers wake up and throw the bums to the dogs before the damage becomes absolute, before the confusion and destruction they cause the Canadian political scene ruins the entire country. Whoever the next leader is, we should all pray that he or she leads the separaterrorist movement straight into the abyss where it belongs.

Am I over-reacting? Witness the effect of the Separaterrorists in Parliament Hill. Minority governments, with their instability, haggling, and time-wasting shenanigans, are virtually guaranteed with the presence of the BQ. Their entire purpose in government is to destroy Canada -- the role they are playing and would play if the Conservatives slip by the Liberals would see that their efforts would pay off -- for themselves. Paid for by every Canadian.

You don't need Québécers to hurt Canada or ruin its political scene; Canadians are doing a fine job of it on their own.<p> Québec nationalists are not filled with anger, you are. If there is ever any confusion and destruction in Canada after Québec's independence, it is Canadian's reaction that will make it so, not Québécers. You are right about one thing though and it certainly is about a power grab to serve Québec's own end. No Québec sovereignists will ever deny that. Québec does want its own nation and power to serve their own citizens. <p> So if it ever comes to pass that Canada disintegrates because one of its province quits the federation, this to me won't be proof that Québécers are home wreckers, it will only be proof that the house of Canada was never built on solid ground to begin with. <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

Très bien dit Michou...

It makes me laught how angry they become. And what about that stupid argument about the Bloc in Ottawa "paid by all Canadians"!!

FYI, they represent the people who elected them (millions)! And by the way, Quebecois citizens pay their taxes like any other Canadian. So keep your bs for yourself. You seriously need a democracy lesson. It's not because you don't agree with our current federalism and desire a new structure that you become a criminal you know? Hell, the United States would still be British... Eternal status quo never made things evolve.

Maybe I should say "I hate the Liberals", why should I pay a penny for that criminal party... Easy, they got elected by the people and I deal with it until Quebec finaly becomes our country. So though it...

It's not "Quebecers" who are doing the ruining -- they have been betrayed and led astray by the separaterrorists, in the same way that Bush and the angry nationalists there have led Americans astray. The cases, though from different political spectrums, are remarkably similar. Bush is an angry nationalist, isolationist, unilateralist. He plays on nationalist feelings to increase his power, ultimately at the expense of Americans. The separaterrorists are no different on any of these points. I feel sorry for the rational Quebecers in the same way that I feel sorry for the rational Americans, that they have to suffer so much at the hands of so much ignorance.

Overall, though, I'm actually quite neutral on the American's self-destructing in the way that they presently are. Honestly, if they want to create a religious fundamentalist country, that's their prerogative. When they come to Canada and try to change us here, or try to change our foreign policy, I will fight them as hard as I can. If they want to step back into the stone ages, that's their call. Quebec would be the same, except for the fact that the geographic organization of the provinces. The Maritimes would be cut off if the separaterrorists ever succeeded in wantonly destroying Canada.

They shouldn't be allowed to separate, let alone negotiate separation, until all parties who would be effected agree by referendum. That clearly means the neighbouring provinces. You can't spoil somebody's property without giving them a voice -- the Maritimes must have veto power over any separaterrorist act of national destruction that would cost them millions, perhaps billions.

There was a guy in the news today whose car stalled on the 401. He refused to have his car towed by the police and 50,000 people ended up having to suffer for hours because he blocked traffic. The police should have simply towed the car. It's a useful analogy for dealing with the separaterrorists. You can't ruin the lives of other people for no reason. I have yet to hear ONE compelling reason, one even half-compelling reason to give any credence to the separaterrorists. Their destructive ways are a complete waste of time and national dialogue. Shouldn't we be talking about, say, how to deal with American fundamentalism on the international stage instead? There are many issues far more compelling than a ridiculous power grab by a group of provincial politicians.

When someone gets to the point they have to compare Québec independentists with America's far right Bushists ... you know good judgment must have been lost by the author somewhere along the way. <p> In Fire and Ice, a social study done by Michael Adams on Canada and the U.S., the analysis showed that the two most polarized regions in North America are Québec and Texas, Bush country. So give it a rest with the separaterrorists. For your good conscience, you may also try making the difference between Québécers in general and separatists but you really can't. In Québec, every family, every group of friends, work colleagues, every individual you mingle with, work with, play with and make love to are either separatists...or not. Québec is not divided into two clans. So when you insult separatists, you are basically attacking all Québécers. Québécers (in general) have a name for people like you. We call them angryphones. <p> Bons baisers du Québec,<p> michou

actually the (anon) poster raised a few specific points of comparison -- all you did was dismiss them. the comparisons seem interesting, perhaps valid. the divisions you talk about in quebec are the same divisions affecting america -- on a personal, familiar, and collegial level. i think the comparisons are worth noting -- especially as they both come out of feelings of nationalism.

There was nothing to address. Québec separatists are not angry nationalists, nor are they isolationists or unilateralists. <p> America's division between left and right is inexistant in Québec when discussing separatism. No comparison can be made there either. The Québec sovereignty issue is more than a political one yet it does not find its roots in some kind of right or leftist values either. There are rightist, center and leftist separatists. This is want I meant when I said that you can not pit one against the other. Separatists are not a homogeneous group by any means. <p> So anon's comparisons may have been interesting but in my opinion and from my experience of being a Québécer myself and living in Québec, they have no validity except the interest some may find in them.<p> Pride in one's nation and culture is not a disease or a handicap. Do Canadians have pride in their nation ? Do the British ? Do the Italians ? Does that make them automatic nationalist fascists because they decide how they want to rule themselves (they do and they can, Québec can't). Québecers are not extremists. They are pacifists, they believe in democracy, in the rule of law and justice for all. They have a healthy sense of nationalism yet they are also open unto the world and have no fear of the "other". On the contrary, Québécers tend to welcome the difference more than want to reject it. This may explain why Québec has one of the highest ratio of interracial marriages in North America. <p> michou

I forgot to say...this is supposed to be a thread about Landry quitting the PQ ...digression, digression...<p> michou