How not to secede while really trying
Mark Steyn - Monday,19 June 2006
Western Standard
So Montenegro is now a nation. The last remaining non-Serb republic in Yugoslavia flew the coop the other week, and joined Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia . . . hang on, isn't it Bosnia-Herzegovina? Or has Herzegovina split, too? Who knows? Slovenia's independent, and Slovakia. Slavonia wasn't, or not the last time I checked. But East Timor is, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and every other Nickelandimistan between here and Mongolia.
What's the big exception to this otherwise universal phenomenon? Answer: a certain distinct society at the eastern terminus of the 401. It turns out Quebec truly is a distinct society: it has the most inept secession movement of any jurisdiction on the planet. Everywhere's independent now. But not la belle province. "A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die." Who said that? Jacques Parizeau? Or Bernard Landry? No matter. They can chisel it on all their tombstones. And stick it on the licence plate, given that most of us Quebecers can no longer remember what it is we're meant to be Je me souviens-ing.
To be sure, there are a few corners of the world where the constituent parts of the map have not yet disintegrated. If I were Vladimir Putin, faced with querulous republics in the Caucasus, I'd consider installing Bernard and Jacques and Lucien at the head of any fledgling rebel movements, secure in the knowledge that in half-a-century's time they'd still be urging their peoples to take to the ramparts and cry defiantly, "Sovereignty-Association-Pseudo-Separatist-Faux-Independent-Economically-Dependent-Ersatz-Nationhood now!"
Up to the eighties, the Cold War provided useful cover for Quebec's bluff: the map was, for the most part, frozen. But, in the wake of the Soviet collapse, any folks who thought they were a nation could pretty much be one. And evidently Quebecers don't, not in any meaningful way. Why not? They've got all the characteristics of a nation. Compared to their nominal compatriots, they speak a different language, they come from a different ethnic stock, they have a different (albeit mostly residual) religion. By contrast, Montenegrins are all but identical to Serbs in lingo, race, religion and culture. And yet 600,000 fellows up in the hills now have their own nation, and seven million Quebecers don't.
You'll search hard in Quebec for any signs of affection for Canada. The symbols of the state are all but absent. You can drive for hours in the hinterland and not see a single Canadian flag flying from anything other than a post office. The head of state hasn't ventured any deeper into the province than Hull in 30 years. Her representative, the lieutenant-governor, isn't allowed into the national assembly to read the throne speech.
Much of this is fairly recent. It's well known during the blockbuster Royal tour of 1939 that the streets of Anglo Canada were jammed: a million turned out to cheer the king and queen in Vancouver, a million and a half in Toronto. But the Montreal and Quebec City stops attracted comparable crowds. As Their Majesties passed through Trois-Rivierès, 50,000 people swarmed the train station to sing "Dieu Sauve Le Roi." The queen (i.e., the late queen mum) was asked whether she considered herself English or Scottish and replied that, ever since arriving at Quebec City, she'd been Canadian.
Sixty-seven years on, you'd be hard put to find anyone in Quebec City who considers himself Canadian, outside a few tourists in the bar of the Chateau Frontenac. Quebec "nationalism" did a grand job at lowering the province's Canadianness to all but undetectable levels. What they failed to do was provide anything to put in its place. It's an old political axiom that you can't beat something with nothing. The Péquistes were very effective at transforming the Canadian something into a big nothing, and then they left it at that. But it seems you can't beat nothing with nothing. Quebec nationalism successfully semi-detached itself from Canada, only to run out of gas in no man's land.
According to Conrad Black, Pierre Trudeau used to say that, if it were a straight yes-or-no vote, Quebecers would never vote for independence. Whether or not that's true, Trudeau succeeded in head-faking René Lévesque and his successors into watering down "separatism" to the point where it's now the only separatist movement that doesn't involve separating. Last year, you may recall, I was unimpressed by the Péquistes' new leader--or as I put it, "Can a gay cokehead be father of his country?" But, in fairness to M. Boisclair, his predecessor might as well have been snorting the fumes of his Ski-Doo for all the sense he made in his final years. At one point, Bernard Landry was considering changing the name of his job title from "premier" to "president." He wouldn't, technically, be a president, as in head of state, as in Bush and Chirac and so forth. But, if only he could be addressed as M. le Président, that would be enough. One can see the attraction from his point of view. Less easy to understand was what any other Quebecers would get out of it. But by now the Parti Québécois had dwindled down into a Costume Parti Québécois: as long as they could dress up and play independent, they didn't need to be independent. They held cabinet meetings where they thrashed out who would get what federal buildings in Quebec after independence. As if this was something that was actually going to happen.
But they never learn. A few weeks ago, le Conseil de la Souveraineté du Québec produced a new study guide for school children, Parlons de souveraineté a l'école. Naturally, it was published with financial assistance from the federal government. But, that aside, have you ever heard such a sad excuse for a nationalist movement? Lesson Number Four, for example, suggests that as a math exercise pupils come up with ways an independent Quebec might spend the $9,430,000 that the province has chipped in to support the governor general since 2003. Don't worry, they give you some multiple-choice suggestions: Quebecers could build a new school in Haiti for $1 million, or add some new beds in long-term care facilities for 55 grand per person. How about using it to build a "Presidential Palace" for M. Landry's retirement home? Or how about adding it to the Quebec army's budget so they can seize Labrador and reverse that outrageously imperialist Privy Council decision back in the twenties?
Ah, well, no. If you go on to Lesson Number Five, that's about how the four billion Quebec currently contributes to Canada's military will be saved because all they'll need is a small rapid response team for natural disasters and a few peacekeepers to make a token contribution to UN missions. Apparently Quebec will be the first country to disarm its way to nationhood.
You can't build a new state on the battle cry of saving three million per annum on the cost of the governor general's office. An independence movement has to be about something grand and romantic, not a lot of petty quibbles about sums of money that would barely be noticed in the great sucking maw of the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.
As to the suggestion that this sort of propaganda is inappropriate for schools, the author Robert Cadotte compares his study guide with sex education pamphlets. Brushing off the controversy, he says, "It was the same reaction when condom machines were introduced in high schools in 1991."
There's another history-making moment: Has any other secessionist movement ever compared itself to a condom dispenser? Has M. Cadotte thought this one through? If sovereignty is a condom, that would make Quebec a penis? And the Péquiste prophylactic enables Quebec to enjoy continued relations with Canada without picking up anything nasty? As a separatist, M. Cadotte believes in practising safe sep.?
If Quebec separatism were a condom, it would be easy to discard, to judge from the Sunday morning detritus around some of the seedier stretches of St. Catherine Street. But unfortunately the fact that Quebec secession is never actually consummated became the central dynamic in Canadian politics: other countries have to cope with separatist movements; Canada had to cope with a never-quite-separating separatist movement, and over the years the Dominion's national identity took on many of the weaknesses of Quebec's "national" "identity." A decade ago, I characterized the interminable Québécois sovereignty dance as Canada's Hokey Pokey: Sometimes they're in, sometimes they're out, but mostly they just want to shake it all about. That's how it's likely to go for another decade or three. It would be better for both parties if Canada seceded from further participation in Quebec's phony independence movement.
Mark Steyn - Monday,19 June 2006
Western Standard
So Montenegro is now a nation. The last remaining non-Serb republic in Yugoslavia flew the coop the other week, and joined Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia . . . hang on, isn't it Bosnia-Herzegovina? Or has Herzegovina split, too? Who knows? Slovenia's independent, and Slovakia. Slavonia wasn't, or not the last time I checked. But East Timor is, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and every other Nickelandimistan between here and Mongolia.
What's the big exception to this otherwise universal phenomenon? Answer: a certain distinct society at the eastern terminus of the 401. It turns out Quebec truly is a distinct society: it has the most inept secession movement of any jurisdiction on the planet. Everywhere's independent now. But not la belle province. "A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die." Who said that? Jacques Parizeau? Or Bernard Landry? No matter. They can chisel it on all their tombstones. And stick it on the licence plate, given that most of us Quebecers can no longer remember what it is we're meant to be Je me souviens-ing.
To be sure, there are a few corners of the world where the constituent parts of the map have not yet disintegrated. If I were Vladimir Putin, faced with querulous republics in the Caucasus, I'd consider installing Bernard and Jacques and Lucien at the head of any fledgling rebel movements, secure in the knowledge that in half-a-century's time they'd still be urging their peoples to take to the ramparts and cry defiantly, "Sovereignty-Association-Pseudo-Separatist-Faux-Independent-Economically-Dependent-Ersatz-Nationhood now!"
Up to the eighties, the Cold War provided useful cover for Quebec's bluff: the map was, for the most part, frozen. But, in the wake of the Soviet collapse, any folks who thought they were a nation could pretty much be one. And evidently Quebecers don't, not in any meaningful way. Why not? They've got all the characteristics of a nation. Compared to their nominal compatriots, they speak a different language, they come from a different ethnic stock, they have a different (albeit mostly residual) religion. By contrast, Montenegrins are all but identical to Serbs in lingo, race, religion and culture. And yet 600,000 fellows up in the hills now have their own nation, and seven million Quebecers don't.
You'll search hard in Quebec for any signs of affection for Canada. The symbols of the state are all but absent. You can drive for hours in the hinterland and not see a single Canadian flag flying from anything other than a post office. The head of state hasn't ventured any deeper into the province than Hull in 30 years. Her representative, the lieutenant-governor, isn't allowed into the national assembly to read the throne speech.
Much of this is fairly recent. It's well known during the blockbuster Royal tour of 1939 that the streets of Anglo Canada were jammed: a million turned out to cheer the king and queen in Vancouver, a million and a half in Toronto. But the Montreal and Quebec City stops attracted comparable crowds. As Their Majesties passed through Trois-Rivierès, 50,000 people swarmed the train station to sing "Dieu Sauve Le Roi." The queen (i.e., the late queen mum) was asked whether she considered herself English or Scottish and replied that, ever since arriving at Quebec City, she'd been Canadian.
Sixty-seven years on, you'd be hard put to find anyone in Quebec City who considers himself Canadian, outside a few tourists in the bar of the Chateau Frontenac. Quebec "nationalism" did a grand job at lowering the province's Canadianness to all but undetectable levels. What they failed to do was provide anything to put in its place. It's an old political axiom that you can't beat something with nothing. The Péquistes were very effective at transforming the Canadian something into a big nothing, and then they left it at that. But it seems you can't beat nothing with nothing. Quebec nationalism successfully semi-detached itself from Canada, only to run out of gas in no man's land.
According to Conrad Black, Pierre Trudeau used to say that, if it were a straight yes-or-no vote, Quebecers would never vote for independence. Whether or not that's true, Trudeau succeeded in head-faking René Lévesque and his successors into watering down "separatism" to the point where it's now the only separatist movement that doesn't involve separating. Last year, you may recall, I was unimpressed by the Péquistes' new leader--or as I put it, "Can a gay cokehead be father of his country?" But, in fairness to M. Boisclair, his predecessor might as well have been snorting the fumes of his Ski-Doo for all the sense he made in his final years. At one point, Bernard Landry was considering changing the name of his job title from "premier" to "president." He wouldn't, technically, be a president, as in head of state, as in Bush and Chirac and so forth. But, if only he could be addressed as M. le Président, that would be enough. One can see the attraction from his point of view. Less easy to understand was what any other Quebecers would get out of it. But by now the Parti Québécois had dwindled down into a Costume Parti Québécois: as long as they could dress up and play independent, they didn't need to be independent. They held cabinet meetings where they thrashed out who would get what federal buildings in Quebec after independence. As if this was something that was actually going to happen.
But they never learn. A few weeks ago, le Conseil de la Souveraineté du Québec produced a new study guide for school children, Parlons de souveraineté a l'école. Naturally, it was published with financial assistance from the federal government. But, that aside, have you ever heard such a sad excuse for a nationalist movement? Lesson Number Four, for example, suggests that as a math exercise pupils come up with ways an independent Quebec might spend the $9,430,000 that the province has chipped in to support the governor general since 2003. Don't worry, they give you some multiple-choice suggestions: Quebecers could build a new school in Haiti for $1 million, or add some new beds in long-term care facilities for 55 grand per person. How about using it to build a "Presidential Palace" for M. Landry's retirement home? Or how about adding it to the Quebec army's budget so they can seize Labrador and reverse that outrageously imperialist Privy Council decision back in the twenties?
Ah, well, no. If you go on to Lesson Number Five, that's about how the four billion Quebec currently contributes to Canada's military will be saved because all they'll need is a small rapid response team for natural disasters and a few peacekeepers to make a token contribution to UN missions. Apparently Quebec will be the first country to disarm its way to nationhood.
You can't build a new state on the battle cry of saving three million per annum on the cost of the governor general's office. An independence movement has to be about something grand and romantic, not a lot of petty quibbles about sums of money that would barely be noticed in the great sucking maw of the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.
As to the suggestion that this sort of propaganda is inappropriate for schools, the author Robert Cadotte compares his study guide with sex education pamphlets. Brushing off the controversy, he says, "It was the same reaction when condom machines were introduced in high schools in 1991."
There's another history-making moment: Has any other secessionist movement ever compared itself to a condom dispenser? Has M. Cadotte thought this one through? If sovereignty is a condom, that would make Quebec a penis? And the Péquiste prophylactic enables Quebec to enjoy continued relations with Canada without picking up anything nasty? As a separatist, M. Cadotte believes in practising safe sep.?
If Quebec separatism were a condom, it would be easy to discard, to judge from the Sunday morning detritus around some of the seedier stretches of St. Catherine Street. But unfortunately the fact that Quebec secession is never actually consummated became the central dynamic in Canadian politics: other countries have to cope with separatist movements; Canada had to cope with a never-quite-separating separatist movement, and over the years the Dominion's national identity took on many of the weaknesses of Quebec's "national" "identity." A decade ago, I characterized the interminable Québécois sovereignty dance as Canada's Hokey Pokey: Sometimes they're in, sometimes they're out, but mostly they just want to shake it all about. That's how it's likely to go for another decade or three. It would be better for both parties if Canada seceded from further participation in Quebec's phony independence movement.
Comment