More Murk Re Quebec, Please

The new G-G has now spoken “unequivocally” (her term), and I'm disappointed. I favour a ration of ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty. I have a bias for any political position that starts, “It's hard to say . . .” or, “It depends.” That's the nature of politics in real time: It unfolds and surprises. When Lenin the Bolshevik took power in Russia, he decided a little capitalism was in order. When Churchill, who tried to “strangle Bolshevism in its cradle,” allied with Stalin, he said he'd join the devil himself to beat Hitler. Similarly Quebec: At times, I felt a sovereign Quebec and Canada with good relations would be better for us all than the hateful embrace in which we were locked. Other times, I felt it would be better for us if they left: e.g., when Parti Québécois leader Jacques Parizeau supported free trade with the U.S. because it would speed the demise of Canada. Ambivalence has been rife in Quebec. A former FLQ terrorist is said to have entered the booth for the 1980 referendum to vote for his lifelong dream, and found himself asking, “Do I really want this thing?” Andrew Coyne in the National Post wondered whether the new G-G believes in Canada. Since when is Canada a religion? For that matter, it's not so easy to say if you believe in God. It depends, doesn't it, on what the term means? Venturing an opinion, though, I'd say I don't believe in a Canada of eternal values like national unity or even public health care. I “believe in Canada” as a co-operative venture, in which its various people struggle democratically to accommodate their various needs and ideals. http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=40959

Note: http://www.rabble.ca/co...