Let's please just think for a minute here. Individual human beings generally have legally defined rights... and humans can also be classified—grouped—in myriad ways, according to various criteria. But these groupings or classifications are abstractions—the only tangible things in them are the concrete singulars thereby classified—so it would be bizarre to imagine that the features of the singulars (fast runners, say) could somehow also be predicated of the classification itself. The reality is of course that the fast runners SET—an informal grouping—isn't capable of any locomotion at all.
Just as the set of all green things is not itself green (this is elementary logic and conceptual clarity), the SET of all individuals with rights possesses no rights whatsoever, over and above the rights of its members. The whole concept of 'collective rights' has always been incoherent, and in Quebec's case represents nothing more than a thinly disguised tribalism, a naked attempt to use ethnic/linguistic/historical/cultural criteria to confer advantages and 'protections' on one group of people unavailable to those excluded from the lucky set. Anyone who's serious about equality under the law should return a polite but firm no to proposals of this kind: they're clearly unfair, and use the fallacy of logical equivocation to invoke 'rights' that have no existence. Worse, they then seize on this imaginary warrant as a pretext for abridging the real rights of fellow citizens—actual individual humans, not abstractions.
As the author notes, there are those who see this proposed bill as being a logical step on the road to separation.
Well, perhaps ....
I suggest that in today's environment any even semi-coherent national or sub-national entity should codify it's basic principles. You could call it a basic law or a constitution or whatever; you could even call it salami if you chose - the actual name is not important.
If one chose to not introduce a written form of this basic law for public and legislative review then the alternative is the unwritten form. Personally, I think something that is written so that I can inspect it and cogitate upon it is preferable. Having said that, if a sub-national entity chose to not go the formal written route, I submit that it is nevertheless useful to attempt to codify and publish those things that compose the unwritten constitution by which we live.
For those who argue that such a legislative action is a prelude to separation I simply point to the United States (sorry, haters!) where each and every state has a state constitution.
It's surprising to see how few people are aware of the fact that in most federations (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, the US, etc.), each State, Land or Canton has its own Constitution. State Constitutions are pretty mundane worldwide, and Canada is the outlier in this regard, not the norm.
You are correct and - as always - the possibility that someone wishes to codify what can be done and method by which it should be done is deemed to be offensive and the first step to "Americanization" [Horrors! Clutch my pearls!] or "the first step to separation."
In fact, it is not at all "Americanization" although as pointed out, the American states - and many, many other entities - have such constitutions. I would posit that a formal analysis of what we can do and how we do it, all as of today, might allow one to develop a road map for separation. But. Any reasonably competent separatist can develop such a road map at any point in time so this is nothing new.
Mr. Sirota's perspective is similar to that published in the G&M. M. Legault's last stand? Most likely.
The LPQ's repressive Bill 22 was supplanted by Bill 101 when the PQ came to power. Similarly, what is to come will be far worse. From a federalist's perspective, history repeats itself, first by tragedy.
I think Matt was right about the Americans killing any dreams of Quebec independence.
The Americans have changed and an independent Quebec no longer has any chance to be anything except fully subordinate to the USA. They’re just too small. It’s not even certain that Canada with four and a half times as many people can avoid subordination, but at least our odds are very good. Canada is a known quantity that the Americans are used to if nothing else.
Quebec separatists need to come to terms with the simple fact that their options aren’t what they thought they once were, because all the other Canadians are figuring it out and that changes Quebec’s leverage… to very little.
A provincial constitution that contradicts the national one? That’s not acceptable and Quebec needs to be told as much. Failure by the LPC to do that will create greater problems for THEM elsewhere in Canada with people who can and will cause problems for Canada as a whole. Does anyone think it’s unthinkable that Ms. Smith will copy such a move?
Oh I think an independent Quebec could still avoid being fully subject to the USA. After all Cuba has managed to be independent since the start of the 20th century. But whether the average Quebeckers are prepared to live like Cubans is an open question.
This is just the CAQ scrambling for relevance and to show they're more sovereigntist than the PQ. I only hope we can get an election before they actually pass it.
The biggest problem in this exercise is to ensure that old stock French Quebeckers have more rights than any other groups eg Anglos, semites, Blacks, etc all the while appearing to be consistent with the Canadian Charter. Fortunately the latter is so riddled with loopholes that this shouldn’t be all that difficult.
I lived in Quebec a few years as a child until my parents were able to afford a house in English Canada. There was a clear pecking order with the English at the top, then the Irish, then the French. All other groups were like frogs on a highway at night after a rainstorm. This of course got flipped around with the Quiet Revolution, the abandonment of God and the election of Pierre Trudeau.
I find it deliciously ironic that Pierre Trudeau’s immigration and multiculturalism initiative designed to dilute the English dominance of Canada, is now causing “assimilation” squeals of alarm and constitutional contortions when the dilution appears in Quebec.
"After all, no province has a “written” constitution..."
...except British Columbia, who have had a written Constitution since 1996...
Let's please just think for a minute here. Individual human beings generally have legally defined rights... and humans can also be classified—grouped—in myriad ways, according to various criteria. But these groupings or classifications are abstractions—the only tangible things in them are the concrete singulars thereby classified—so it would be bizarre to imagine that the features of the singulars (fast runners, say) could somehow also be predicated of the classification itself. The reality is of course that the fast runners SET—an informal grouping—isn't capable of any locomotion at all.
Just as the set of all green things is not itself green (this is elementary logic and conceptual clarity), the SET of all individuals with rights possesses no rights whatsoever, over and above the rights of its members. The whole concept of 'collective rights' has always been incoherent, and in Quebec's case represents nothing more than a thinly disguised tribalism, a naked attempt to use ethnic/linguistic/historical/cultural criteria to confer advantages and 'protections' on one group of people unavailable to those excluded from the lucky set. Anyone who's serious about equality under the law should return a polite but firm no to proposals of this kind: they're clearly unfair, and use the fallacy of logical equivocation to invoke 'rights' that have no existence. Worse, they then seize on this imaginary warrant as a pretext for abridging the real rights of fellow citizens—actual individual humans, not abstractions.
As the author notes, there are those who see this proposed bill as being a logical step on the road to separation.
Well, perhaps ....
I suggest that in today's environment any even semi-coherent national or sub-national entity should codify it's basic principles. You could call it a basic law or a constitution or whatever; you could even call it salami if you chose - the actual name is not important.
If one chose to not introduce a written form of this basic law for public and legislative review then the alternative is the unwritten form. Personally, I think something that is written so that I can inspect it and cogitate upon it is preferable. Having said that, if a sub-national entity chose to not go the formal written route, I submit that it is nevertheless useful to attempt to codify and publish those things that compose the unwritten constitution by which we live.
For those who argue that such a legislative action is a prelude to separation I simply point to the United States (sorry, haters!) where each and every state has a state constitution.
It's surprising to see how few people are aware of the fact that in most federations (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, the US, etc.), each State, Land or Canton has its own Constitution. State Constitutions are pretty mundane worldwide, and Canada is the outlier in this regard, not the norm.
You are correct and - as always - the possibility that someone wishes to codify what can be done and method by which it should be done is deemed to be offensive and the first step to "Americanization" [Horrors! Clutch my pearls!] or "the first step to separation."
In fact, it is not at all "Americanization" although as pointed out, the American states - and many, many other entities - have such constitutions. I would posit that a formal analysis of what we can do and how we do it, all as of today, might allow one to develop a road map for separation. But. Any reasonably competent separatist can develop such a road map at any point in time so this is nothing new.
Silly Laurentians and their supporters.
British Columbia has it’s own constitution. Since 1996.
Mr. Sirota's perspective is similar to that published in the G&M. M. Legault's last stand? Most likely.
The LPQ's repressive Bill 22 was supplanted by Bill 101 when the PQ came to power. Similarly, what is to come will be far worse. From a federalist's perspective, history repeats itself, first by tragedy.
2026 shaping up to be a very entertaining year.
I think Matt was right about the Americans killing any dreams of Quebec independence.
The Americans have changed and an independent Quebec no longer has any chance to be anything except fully subordinate to the USA. They’re just too small. It’s not even certain that Canada with four and a half times as many people can avoid subordination, but at least our odds are very good. Canada is a known quantity that the Americans are used to if nothing else.
Quebec separatists need to come to terms with the simple fact that their options aren’t what they thought they once were, because all the other Canadians are figuring it out and that changes Quebec’s leverage… to very little.
A provincial constitution that contradicts the national one? That’s not acceptable and Quebec needs to be told as much. Failure by the LPC to do that will create greater problems for THEM elsewhere in Canada with people who can and will cause problems for Canada as a whole. Does anyone think it’s unthinkable that Ms. Smith will copy such a move?
Oh I think an independent Quebec could still avoid being fully subject to the USA. After all Cuba has managed to be independent since the start of the 20th century. But whether the average Quebeckers are prepared to live like Cubans is an open question.
Sound and fury signifying nothing.
Or, “Marsha, Marsha, Marsha……
This is just the CAQ scrambling for relevance and to show they're more sovereigntist than the PQ. I only hope we can get an election before they actually pass it.
The biggest problem in this exercise is to ensure that old stock French Quebeckers have more rights than any other groups eg Anglos, semites, Blacks, etc all the while appearing to be consistent with the Canadian Charter. Fortunately the latter is so riddled with loopholes that this shouldn’t be all that difficult.
I lived in Quebec a few years as a child until my parents were able to afford a house in English Canada. There was a clear pecking order with the English at the top, then the Irish, then the French. All other groups were like frogs on a highway at night after a rainstorm. This of course got flipped around with the Quiet Revolution, the abandonment of God and the election of Pierre Trudeau.
I find it deliciously ironic that Pierre Trudeau’s immigration and multiculturalism initiative designed to dilute the English dominance of Canada, is now causing “assimilation” squeals of alarm and constitutional contortions when the dilution appears in Quebec.