Don't be shy. Say something.
"It is with some sadness that I am coming to conclude that this may not be in the longterm best interest either of Québec itself or of the remainder of the country. If Canada is to have some chance of casting off the stranglehold of official secularism and embracing something like a principled pluralism, then it may have to find its way without la belle province."
Agreed. I wonder if MPs in the Conservative Party would be willing to say publicly what you've just said. Perhaps they don't need to. Quebec separation may happen regardless. Would it be political suicide for the Conservatives to team up with the Bloc to help push for Quebec separation? Should they?
I think I'd have to respectfully disagree Dr. K. Secularism is realistically nation-wide, and sending Quebec off on their own would not, I believe affect the state of secularism. Also, if Quebec is so secular, should we not hold them closely, to affect change there as well as the rest of Canada, and not cast them off?
Please give me more feedback on this, whoever is reading this. This is not meant as a position paper, but more of a trial balloon. I would prefer to be wrong on this, believe me.
Evghenis: While secularization is being pushed at various levels in Canadian society (most notably, CBC, Globe and Mail, the Liberal Party of Canada), Quebec is certainly a major source of it. Considering the role that Quebec politicicans play in conducting the Liberal Party of Canada, separation may indeed promote principled pluralism.
A friend once observed to me that Canadian politics can be explained quite well when we observe that a good number of our leaders are apostate Catholics.
evghenis said: "Secularism is realistically nation-wide, and sending Quebec off on their own would not, I believe affect the state of secularism."
Of course it wouldn't affect the state of secularism, per se. But it would certainly have a positive effect on the rest of Canada if they left. Besides, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that Quebec separation precludes the possibility of "[effecting] change there as well." In other words, it's a logical fallacy to conclude that the gospel can't be brought to Quebec if they separate from Canada.
Furthermore, imagine what public opinion polls would look like in Canada on issues like abortion, capital punishment, same-sex marriage, etc. if Quebec were not in the picture. And the Conservatives would actually stand a chance of a majority government in Canada.
Dr. Koyzis said: "I would prefer to be wrong on this, believe me."
So would I. But I think you're right.
Check out this story in connection with the discussion going on here.
In fact, it's not at all clear to me that Québec's separation is in the cards. Sentiment in its favour seems to ebb and flow with the changing political climate, and the influx of allophones in that province, coupled with the low birthrate among the pur laine, could actually doom the separatist cause over the long term. Even the separatists themselves appear to desire some sort of relationship with the rest of Canada, based on an equality between the "two" parts of the country. So, no, it may not happen at all. But now I'm wondering whether this is the good thing I thought it was up until quite recently.
As for Stephen Harper, I can sympathize with his frustrations on the one hand, but I don't think he is making himself look good by teaming up with the BQ on that abortive confidence vote last month and then turning around and criticizing the Liberals for doing the same thing on C-38. The mere fact of two minority parties compromising for purposes of retaining power is hardly to be deplored. If we had proportional representation and coalition governments, it would simply become a fact of life, as it is in most other democracies.
Federalism in the wake of Adscam is a hopeless cause in Quebec, at least for the near future. That said, I wouldn't want to make any predictions about QAuebec's future on the basis of public sentiment/anger over Adscam.
That said, various public opinion eggheads like Mike Adams observe that Quebec is anomolous in Canada, drawing comparisons with how the deep South skews US public opinion.
Well, you will recall that there was huge anger in that province in the wake of Meech Lake's collapse 15 years ago. The rage over Adscam doesn't bother me all that much.
"A friend once observed to me that Canadian politics can be explained quite well when we observe that a good number of our leaders are apostate Catholics."
I've said something similar to friends and colleagues, but I've tended to phrase it thus: Since 1968 we have been governed almost entirely by lapsed Catholics and heirs of the Quiet Revolution. The old pre-1960 Québec might have been our allies on some issues, but, having abandoned Catholicism, Québécois have adopted the new faith of nationalism. Where the perceived heavy hand of the institutional church once lay upon nearly the whole of Québec society, including schools, hospitals, labour unions, &c., this has been replaced by l'État du Québec, as some have phrased it -- essentially a new church.
On the other hand, I would not wish to romanticize old Québec. Neither its intégrisme, with its notion of a monolithic Catholic society, nor its contemporary monolithic secularism is particularly hospitable towards principled pluralism. One need only call to mind Duplessis' Padlock Law.
Even if there was a guarantee that separation would 'necessarily' lead to the realization of principled pluralism, which of course there cannot be, I would not support the separation of Quebec and the rest of Canada. Why? Because I like the line of argument you took on your first essay.
Certainly strategic decisions must be made in terms of who and what to support in order to champion the cause of principled pluralism in the public square. But how far should a Christian be willing to go?
Okay, get rid of Quebec because they are secular separatists. Why stop there? Get rid of British Columbia because they are a bunch of godless, pot-smoking libertarians who support the NDP. Get rid of Manitoba because of the disportionately large Francophone population. Get rid of Newfoundland because they smell like fish and talk with a funny accent?
I am a little leary to cut ties with anyone simply because they do not share my political vision; simply because they are not me.
Why? Consider this comparable story: whatever one might think about the World Council of Churches, I think the respective actions of the North American Reformed Churches and the Eastern Orthdox Church are instructive. The Reformed churches refused to join because they feared that the gospel would be watered down, that the entire gathering would be one of compromise.
The Orthodox cited exactly the same thing behind their reasons for joining up. They went to stand in the way of watering down the gospel, to give that attempt at reconciliation some substance. These intentions I believe are closer to Christ's demands for our life.
My point here is this; I don't think we should be leaving Canada solely for the reason that Quebec is too secularist to ever share in a vision of principled pluralism. To do so smacks of Protestant sectarianism. What would we expect to happen? That we would create a little principled pluralist enclave? our own little city of a hill? This sort of thing has gotten Reformed types into trouble in the past.
Perhaps instead of Christians championing a vision of principled pluralism--or possibly as well as--their energies might also be spent in seeking reconciliation.
Koyzis said: "I don't think [Harper] is making himself look good by teaming up with the BQ on that abortive confidence vote last month and then turning around and criticizing the Liberals for doing the same thing on C-38."
Perhaps not the smartest thing Harper could have done. But you'll recall that the CPC was criticized for "teaming up with the Bloc" and helping the cause of separatism by so doing. I believe Harper intended to expose the hypocrisy and double standard of the Liberals, i.e., it's not ok for the CPC to vote with the Bloc, only Liberals are allowed to do that. But, of course, as you say, "The mere fact of two minority parties compromising for purposes of retaining power is hardly to be deplored." It's just that the political parties seem to be deploring one another, save themselves, for doing that. A little more honesty is in order, then, I suppose.
"Neither its intégrisme, with its notion of a monolithic Catholic society, nor its contemporary monolithic secularism is particularly hospitable towards principled pluralism."
But which one would you choose in a pinch?
http://japery.newpantagruel.com/
...alsim_redux.php
Yrs.
+GJ
My question is this: are the children of the Quiet Revolution the only, or the main contributors to our culture's secularism?
As opposed to principled pluralism, it seems to me that secularism in this country ends in radical individual human rights. That gospel was preached under Mike Harris in Ontario and is happening under Gordon Campbell in BC and Ralph Klein in Alberta too. Quebec may be a powerful voice in the area, but it's not the only one. Therefore losing Quebec still leaves us with a battle.
Thankfully, I sense a voice rising in the Christian community which is a call to look at community rights, and especially to principled plurism in the public sphere. The Christian Reformed Church's brief to the Federal Government re: definition of marriage took this tack.
Also, given the fact that individuals and provinces tend to fly off to the opposite end of the spectrum when they leave behind one extreme, it is at least theoretically possible that, given time, Quebec culture will find a middle way?
As it stands now, I'd still like to find that out with a Canadian Quebec.
One doesn't call for Quebec to separate because one doesn't like their political views.
One acknowledges that its interests cannot be reconciled with those of the rest of Canada within the institutions of the Canadian political system.
If the Quebec state, which as Dr. Koyzis observes has become a political religion, perpetuates ideological closure that makes it impossible to square with the principled pluralism that liberal democracy requires, then indeed one needs to cut off the limb before it destroys the rest of the body.
Wow, the Japester's analysis is quite thorough and compelling. If true, it matters a great deal. The gauntlet has been thrown!
Appologies, bad link. Try this:
http://japery.newpantagruel.com/
...alism_redux.php
GJ
I'd like to deal with Rich's comments. I'll put everything he says in bold to distinguish it from my response.
"Okay, get rid of Quebec because they are secular separatists. Why stop there?"
Because there's no need "get rid" of other provinces (and by the by, most in Quebec want to leave [at least, according to the most recent survey]; no one's getting rid of them. Certainly there's a distinction between wanting a province to leave vs. getting rid of them).
"Get rid of British Columbia because they are a bunch of godless, pot-smoking libertarians who support the NDP. Get rid of Manitoba because of the disportionately large Francophone population. Get rid of Newfoundland because they smell like fish and talk with a funny accent?"
Very funny. But you know very well these are ridiculous exaggerations and misleading generalizations. As for humour, it does ok, but this is not realistic and hence, does not do much for the debate other than provide a good chuckle.
"I am a little leary to cut ties with anyone simply because they do not share my political vision; simply because they are not me."
You mean, even when they want to pass laws that directly contradict God's will for mankind? What if God Himself wants you to part ways with someone? Will you disobey Him? I'm not going to argue whether God wants Canada and Quebec to part ways. But we can argue over whether Quebec secularism is good for the rest of Canada.
"Why? Consider this comparable story: whatever one might think about the World Council of Churches, I think the respective actions of the North American Reformed Churches and the Eastern Orthdox Church are instructive. The Reformed churches refused to join because they feared that the gospel would be watered down, that the entire gathering would be one of compromise.
The Orthodox cited exactly the same thing behind their reasons for joining up. They went to stand in the way of watering down the gospel, to give that attempt at reconciliation some substance. These intentions I believe are closer to Christ's demands for our life."
Bad analogy, though it could make for good debate for another day. God has given different responsibilities and authority to civil rulers than to ministers and elders in the Church. In other words, a country isn't a church. It's not that there are no similarities at all, but the Reformed Churches in relation to the World Council of Churches is not analogous to Quebec in relation to Canada.
"My point here is this; I don't think we should be leaving Canada solely for the reason that Quebec is too secularist to ever share in a vision of principled pluralism."
I'm afraid you've missed the point. Koyzis' post, and the discussion here, is not about whether "we should be leaving Canada," but whether Quebec and the rest of Canada need to part ways.
"Perhaps instead of Christians championing a vision of princ
Woops!!! I forgot about the word limit!
Continues ...
"Perhaps instead of Christians championing a vision of principled pluralism--or possibly as well as--their energies might also be spent in seeking reconciliation."
Unclear comments. Reconciliation with whom? And it's a logical fallacy to assume that Christians can't bring the gospel to Canadians and Quebecers if Canada and Quebec part ways. The Cultural Mandate (which includes politics) needs to be distinguished from the Great Commission. The two are not synonymous. I'd love to see Christianity spread like wildfire in Canada and Quebec, but the seperation of Canada and Quebec does not preclude the possibility fulfilling the Great Commission.
I'd like to deal with Derek's comments. I'll put them in bold to distinguish them from my response.
"My question is this: are the children of the Quiet Revolution the only, or the main contributors to our culture's secularism?"
Answer: no. But secularism is more rampant in Quebec than the rest of Canada in general. One only needs to look at the breakdown of opinion polls on social issues in this country.
"As opposed to principled pluralism, it seems to me that secularism in this country ends in radical individual human rights. That gospel was preached under Mike Harris in Ontario and is happening under Gordon Campbell in BC and Ralph Klein in Alberta too. Quebec may be a powerful voice in the area, but it's not the only one. Therefore losing Quebec still leaves us with a battle."
"Radical"? Who wants anything "radical"? And that which is radical to one person is not radical to another. Mike Harris's policies were based on the idea of more personal freedom -- a personal freedom that goes hand in hand with personal responsibility. I do understand, however, that there needs to be a wisely sought out balance between personal freedom and the common good. More government intervention or less government intervention are not bad things per se (remember Wolters' and STRUCTURE vs. DIRECTION?) but can be either good or bad depending on what the government is doing. Thus, you shouldn't chide Mike Harris for pushing for more personal freedom as it is per se.
It's true that loosing Quebec still leaves us with a battle against secularism (this is what you meant, right?), but it leaves the rest of Canada with a greatly weakened secular voice if Quebec parts ways. Canada is better off without Quebec. And the separation of the two does not preclude the possibility of the Church fulfilling the Great Commission, which, I would stress, is the Church's task and not that of the government.
"Also, given the fact that individuals and provinces tend to fly off to the opposite end of the spectrum when they leave behind one extreme, it is at least theoretically possible that, given time, Quebec culture will find a middle way?
As it stands now, I'd still like to find that out with a Canadian Quebec."
Being optimism is dangerous when not inextricably linked to being realistic. And while you're waiting for Quebec culture to find a middle way, it continues to have a negative effect on public opinion with respect to a whole host of issues.
I keep driving at this: The separation of Canada and Quebec harms not the Church nor her ability to fulfill the Great Commission. But the inclusion of Quebec in Canada means more legislation that reflects the sentiments of secular Quebec.
Very interesting 905 Tory. The objection you had to my description of Quebec leaving Canada was purely semantic.
As for your distinction between the Cultural Mandate and the Great Comission, let me say that I am not talking about converting people or preaching the gospel.
Even politically speaking we have a responsiblity for our fellows, whether they share our faith our not.
Your assessment is extremely shortsighted. I am talking about the Cultural Mandate--it is rooted in cretion. If we anything we are our brother's keeper, because we were created such.
"The objection you had to my description of Quebec leaving Canada was purely semantic."
Purely semantic? Far from it. Read the above again and notice that I'm making distinctions between concepts and logically distinct ideas. This involves far more, to say the least, than precision in word meanings. Besides, you need to be careful about using superlatives like "purely" -- it often represents sloppy thinking.
"As for your distinction between the Cultural Mandate and the Great Comission, let me say that I am not talking about converting people or preaching the gospel."
Ok.
"Even politically speaking we have a responsiblity for our fellows, whether they share our faith our not." ..... "If we are anything we are our brother's keeper, because we were created such."
Couldn't agree more. But the debate here is over whether we want Quebecers to be our "fellows" here in Canada, not whether we have a responsibility towards them. Ceratinly we do have a responsibility towards them. But if they leave Canada, they are no longer our fellows, as in fellow citizens, thus, the Canadian government's responsibility toward them ceases to have the qualifications it does currently. Furthermore, we also have a responsibility to the rest of Canadians, the majority of whom disagree time and time again with the majority of Quebecers on various social, moral, and political issues. Quebec secularism continues to have a negative effect on the legislation passed here in Canada. Help Quebec but to hell with the rest of Canada? (Pardon my language.) We don't need to accept that.
"Your assessment is extremely shortsighted."
Thank-you for this subjective remark. Have any more objective arguments against the separation of Quebec?
I will be posting a follow-up response to "Fr. Jape" sometime on thursday, and then I'll take a little break from blogging while I continue to work on my next book and spend some time with family. I'm on a bit of a roll right now, and I don't want to break the momentum.
I'll be coming back to the Québec issue again.
Bill C-38 just passed. It would never have passed in the Commons today if Quebec was not part of Canada.
Rejoice, ye Quebec lovers. La belle province has tipped the scale to give you gay marriage.
Fr. Jape are you anti-separation? Did you happen to see Deal Hudson's lates "Window"? --
"Catholic priests in Canada are on the verge of being arrested for not marrying homosexuals. A Canadian archbishop, testifying against same-sex marriage, was publicly ridiculed by an openly-gay member of Parliament. A Christian evangelist has been charged with a hate crime for distributing literature against same-sex marriage.
Why? Canada is in the midst of a national debate over same-sex marriage. And the Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin, who calls himself a strong Roman Catholic, has vowed to sign pending same-sex marriage legislation which, combined with the Canadian hate crimes laws of 2003, threatens to strike at the very heart of Canada's religious liberty.
An openly-gay member of the Canadian Parliament, Real Menard, recently showed open contempt for Ottawa's Archbishop Marcel Gervais when he testified on same-sex marriage. Menard accused him of having a stone age morality, adding that the notion of marriage being linked to the raising of children is "from the time of the Flintstones."
Church officials are concerned that they will be vulnerable to lawsuits when priests refuse to marry homosexuals. There's already been a lawsuit against the Knights of Columbus in British Columbia in which a lesbian couple accused the Knights of discrimination because the local KOC chapter refused to rent them a hall for their wedding reception.
Indeed, several weeks ago Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that he cannot guarantee full protection to religious organizations that refuse to marry homosexuals.
Some gay activists in Canada are promoting the idea that the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status.
You don't have to commit an act of violence in Canada to be guilty of a hate crime. You only have to be guilty of publicly inciting hatred (Section 319). The law states further that if you make statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace, you can be arrested.
Take the case of Bill Whatcott, a Canadian pro-life activist who heads a group called Christian Truth Activists. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal told him to stop distributing literature describing gay marriage as sodomite marriage, and he refused. Whatcott's flyers were termed "offensive" and an "affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co- existence", according to Steve Camp of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit.
Will this kind of legal threat to religious liberty be imported to the United States?
Maybe. New hate crimes legislation was introduced into both the House and Senate in May 2005. The legislation intends to increase the latitude of existing hate crimes laws supposedly without limiting expressions of belief by people of faith.
The 1968 U.S. hate crimes laws cover only acts of
See my reply,here, to the Japes of Wrath, here.
I might point out to the 905 Tory that we had had gay marriage for quite some time now in an uninstitutionalized sense--all of history I think.
I will not rejoice. I noticed that the 905 Tory has tried his hand at logic his blog. The underlying implication of his last his is that if Quebec wasn't around, we wouldn't have gay marriage. Therefore, we should support parting ways with Quebec. A pragmatic solution, a quick fix, to be sure, which makes me uncomforable; the solution also is a non sequitor--though I suspect the 905 Tory's tongue was partially in cheek.
I wonder if the 905 Tory endorses separation every time two parties disagree. Or separation only be justified if the disagreement was a principled disagreement? Which party gets to define what a principled disagreement is?
The Christian politician has as much responsibility as the Christian preacher to seek reconciliation with others in his sphere of influence. Life is witness; not part of it, all of it. An other's acceptance of the Gospel, I don't believe, must precede our requirement to seek reconciliation with them--which, if anything, is an ongoing process.
Principled pluralism is a political perspective informed by the Gospel. But I wonder if in seeking to see its iomplementation, Christians will forget that the means don't always justify the ends. I also wonder if princpled pluralism is equipped to make concessions with perspectives taht don't share its basic suppositions.
One of the principles behind principled pluralism is to see as legitimate the presence of a variety of religious and ideological perspectives in the public square. Fine on paper. What happens when one of perspectives decides it doesn't like principled pluralism?
As I understand it, principled pluralism is a Christian attempt to be better at being pluralistic than our secular counterparts. Still, it is not a final solution. While I appreciate the meaning behind it, I get worried about talk of going our own way to achieve these goals. We seem to be encouraging running away from the messiness of political life.
One last post here, then I'm calling it quits on this topic. I've appreciated dealing and interacting with some of the comments on Quebec separation. If Rich or someone else wants to have the last word, then feel free.
I appreciate Rich's concern for Quebec, but quite frankly I don't think the majority of Quebecers want his concern, nor mine, for that matter. What many want in Quebec is to part ways with the rest of Canada, and what I'm saying is that if it happens, Canada is better off. Unfortunately, Canada won't have as a good a national hockey team, but I'll be quite happy that Quebecers' collective anti-theistic and morally relativistic voice will no longer need to be heard by Canadian legislators. Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see a turn around -- a cultural renewal -- in Quebec, but sober thought necessitates the conclusion that this is not realistic, at least not any time soon.
Reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of Canada? I'd love to see it happen. But the point at which one is required to shake the dust off his sandals and move on has already come and gone.
Rich writes, "I might point out to the 905 Tory that we had had gay marriage for quite some time now in an uninstitutionalized sense--all of history I think."
You certainly don't mean that the passing of Bill C-38 is no big deal because, after all, "we have [sic] had gay marriage for quite some time now" anyway. Don't tell me you mean that. Otherwise I think we need to be having a different debate. Besides, your claim here is factually inaccurate. We've not always had gay marriage here in Canada, and you know it.
"I will not rejoice."
Glad to hear this.
"I noticed that the 905 Tory has tried his hand at logic his blog. The underlying implication of his last his is that if Quebec wasn't around, we wouldn't have gay marriage. Therefore, we should support parting ways with Quebec."
While it's true that if there were no Quebec MPs in Parliament that Bill C-38 wouldn't have passed the other night, it is not for this reason alone that Canada and Quebec should part ways. Gay marriage is one among many problems that are symptomatic of a much deeper problem -- a rejection of God ordained creational norms, without which, a society crumbles. The problem is a world view that is so riddled with problems in terms of ethics, ontology, and epsitemology that the Christian influence is near dead or already dead. In short: rampant sin. I know that Quebec is not the only region of the country that suffers from this, but if they want to leave, then the result is a batch of dough much less influenced by bad yeast, so to speak. And of all the provinces, Quebec is the most infected -- worse than any other province in the country. So if the bad yeast wants to go, let it go. All the better for the dough.
"A pragmatic solution, a quick fix, to be sure, which makes me uncomforable; the solution also is a non sequitor--thou
(Continued ...)
"Or separation only be justified if the disagreement was a principled disagreement? Which party gets to define what a principled disagreement is?"
The problem is not in the fact that Canada and Quebec so often disagree, but the problem is why they disagree. And for the answer to the "why" question, I refer you to the larger paragraph just above.
"The Christian politician has as much responsibility as the Christian preacher to seek reconciliation with others in his sphere of influence. Life is witness; not part of it, all of it. An other's acceptance of the Gospel, I don't believe, must precede our requirement to seek reconciliation with them--which, if anything, is an ongoing process."
But here's a question you need to deal with: what if someone doesn't want reconciliation? I know, I know, we shouldn't give up. But what do you do when someone keeps hitting you over the head with a baseball bat while you're trying to tell them that you love them? How do you play nice with someone who never wants to play with you? And here's the rub: even if Quebec did want to play with Canada, so to speak, THEY KEEP INSISTING ON PLAYING BY DIFFERENT RULES -- this is the fundamental problem. Sure, it would be nice if Quebec and the rest of Canada could learn to respect eachother, and get along, but if Quebec wants to play one sport and the rest of Canada another sport, then it's time to move to different stadiums.
"Principled pluralism is a political perspective informed by the Gospel. But I wonder if in seeking to see its iomplementation, Christians will forget that the means don't always justify the ends."
In fact, in Christianity, the ends never justify the means; but I digress.
"I also wonder if princpled pluralism is equipped to make concessions with perspectives taht don't share its basic suppositions. One of the principles behind principled pluralism is to see as legitimate the presence of a variety of religious and ideological perspectives in the public square. Fine on paper. What happens when one of perspectives decides it doesn't like principled pluralism?
As I understand it, principled pluralism is a Christian attempt to be better at being pluralistic than our secular counterparts. Still, it is not a final solution."
I'll leave discussion about this between you and Dr. Koyzis.
"While I appreciate the meaning behind it, I get worried about talk of going our own way to achieve these goals. We seem to be encouraging running away from the messiness of political life."
Messiness? I can handle messiness. But sinfulness -- now that's another story.
Woops, there's a mistake. The second post up from here cuts off at "non-sequitur--thou"
So the following should come in between the above two post:
"A pragmatic solution, a quick fix, to be sure, which makes me uncomforable; the solution also is a non sequitor--though I suspect the 905 Tory's tongue was partially in cheek."
Partially in cheek, yes. And, hey, don't get me wrong. As I said earlier, I'd love to see renewal in Quebec. But how can a government do this? Instead, send in the evangelists. Quebec doesn't want Ottawa's "solution" to Quebec. I'd love to see a Canada that includes Quebec, but as long as they remain, we're going to keep getting legislation like Bill C-38. And the idea of letting Quebec go is by no means a mere pragmatic solution. It is based on principles that I've been presupposing and explaining in the last few of my posts, including this one, on this topic here.
"I wonder if the 905 Tory endorses separation every time two parties disagree."
Nope.
(note: then proceed to the post just above.)
Commenting by HaloScan
