Imagine yourself in a fashionable occasion, a cocktail, a meeting Bison Prairie, in short, the kind of opportunity where you're forced to be polite to everyone. And imagine that someone approaches you and takes you about this language:
"On 23 November 2005, the Bloc Québécois had asked for a motion for unanimous Bill C-301 for full retroactivity: the acceptance of this motion would have to accelerate the adoption of the Law . It would have to rescind restrictions on retroactive payments monthly income supplements and benefits, allowing a retroactive payment complete. All members in the House of Commons voted for the motion, except that the motion was not adopted because a Liberal MP said the Speaker of the House she no longer wanted to vote for the project. Today, the Conservatives may well reject the liberals responsible for this injustice, but they have not the decency to fix it. "
Welcome page 160-1 the Bloc Québécois election platform . And do not look better elsewhere, it remains as stunning throughout the 232 pages of the program.
Yep, the Programme of the Bloc Québécois is such a pain in the ass you explain that it is responsible for everything that goes well, he has nothing to do with anything that goes wrong, and that when certain results are mixed without being ill, he can take credit for the flattering part of the sentence, putting the disaster that occurs after the comma in the account of the wicked Tories. The Bloc, in fact, lost so much in such detail as the only country for which he seems to have something like a coherent overall plan is neither the Quebec or Canada but Afghanistan (pp. 210 - 4).
The Bloc appears first as timid as a party unifier, "[f] or Quebec, federalists as sovereign, is the first Quebec. "(P. 6) He then spent two hundred and twenty-five pages following to sigh that "the Quebec nation can hardly control the development of Quebec as it will be a Canadian province and Canada held in his hands a number of our key drivers of development" (p. 15). And when he says he "has a major role to play in advancing the cause of sovereignty" (p. 23), say that federalists should ask themselves if they really spin to be gathered.
And even when it comes to defending Quebec values that are supposed consensus in Quebec ("Quebec values" that many followers of Mario does not seem to share, elsewhere), the defense is that the Bloc sometimes goes too far and justify some questionable choices, such as when he brags to promote "safe use of asbestos" (p. 11). It is also allows for the least original interpretations of history. For example, when you said that the Parliament of Lower Canada, together for the first time in 1792, is "one of the oldest parliaments in the world" and would give Quebec any moral authority on democracy ( p. 16) we forget that "parliaments" (perhaps not all democratic liberal sense, but Parliaments anyway) were numerous in medieval Europe and the rest of the Upper Canada also had an elected legislature at the same time. Similarly, this little gem: "Canada is a sovereign country, and when the House is unanimous, that is all. Why should it be different for the people of Quebec? "(P. 19) The answer, of course, is simple: Because the people of Quebec itself has voted twice for a referendum that is not the case.
In some cases, however, the subjectivity of the Bloc Quebecois is a little scary. When one says that Supreme Court of Canada, "which all judges are appointed by Ottawa, not being impartial enough to decide a dispute between Quebec and Ottawa" (p. 30), it directly attacks the legitimacy of the institution responsible for making Canada's rule of law. And if we add a little later that "the Bloc Québécois has designed a strategy that integrates the capacity of the federal government. A plan that could be implemented fully, tomorrow, in a sovereign Quebec "(p. 81), the plate of bad faith that gave me that I might compromise for federalists exhales an aroma that recalls the heyday of the backward fear of Mr. Lévesque and his friends unilateral terrorists.
Oh, and plunge the point: as NDP, the Bloc says that "the minister has removed the word" equality "objectives of the Promotion of Women," just go see Program Promotion of Women, Guidelines for funding for 2008-2009 to discover that the word "equality" is central in both the mission statement and program description of the criteria for funding by it.
But ultimately, with the Bloc Québécois, it all comes down to the history of the mote and the beam. And when he says that "the cultural policies of the federal government have often useful to promote the identity, pride and Canadian unity" and the "State support for culture, however, must be free of any political objective "(p. 54), is it any wonder that this passage immediately follows a full page summaries of arguments, a few lines later, by the promise that the" Bloc Quebecois will introduce his bill on the recognition a national cinema Quebecois? A beam, uh, I mean, a bill while it is most apolitical of course ...
See also:
Programs, Federal Edition
Program I: NPD
Program II: Liberal Party of Canada
Program IV: Conservative Party
0 comments:
Post a Comment