http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/john-baglow-in-defence-of-nycole-turmel-staunch-federalist/

A good article on her.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

her judgement was off, by standard political reasoning. However when you are into politics to build community, you sometime make decision that do not make sense according to existing standards. I once signed up my conservative best friend to the NDP, because he wanted to support my partner when he ran for the NDP nomination  in Hull Aylmer in 1988.

I am sure that he never really joined the NDP in his heart, and would nevr tell anyone he was a New Democrat. he would not think of it as joining the NDP, but supporting his best friend's partner.   

When he died of brain cancer he had a PC membership card in his wallet.

I do not care about separatist and PQ/BQ rumours. Why? Because if 40% of Quebecers voted in 1980 for the referendum...in 1981 if the PQ had 40% of the vote... in 1994 if PQ had 45% of the vote....in 1993 after the collapse of the Conservatives the BQ became the official opposition...the 1995 referendum was as close to 50-50 as she comes....

So, what do we do, rule out all Quebecois for federal politics because they or their spouse or their parents or siblings might be or were BQ?

I remember all the rumours about Michelle Jean. I said then and say now, "who cares?"

Is it best to reveal? Sometimes. It is not always better to be on offense than defense.

Also the party Solidaire Quebec has many federalist members. When it was formed to create a left wing alternative, 40% of the founding members voted to make it's offical position federalist.  Many federalist remained in the Party because it was a left wing party.

It's true. Quebec politics were (and are)  ridden with bought politicians and corrupting business leaders - and even criminals - much like New Brunswick.) Amyone who wanted social reform didn't have a whole lot of choices.

Those of us active in the NDP in the eighties and nineties, were frustrated at how the National question took up all the room for political debate. I was also a strong federalist,(as were all NDP members, because once you were no longer a federalist, there were lots of other options, if you were a seperatist, there was no need to join the NDP) but I use to say lets just get it over with. Either seperate, or stay, but get on with debates on other subjects.

What pissed me of with the seperatists was not the threat of sepration, but their ignorant views of anglophones and allophones. I could have lived in an Independant Quebec, but not one where the majority was so insensitive to the needs and aspirations of such a large minority.  Shooting themselves in the feet in their dismissal of anglos.

Most of the francophones (like Nicole, and my partner Robert Dupuis) in the NDP were federalist, because as progressives they say that they had more in common with anglophones of like nature  than they did with the elite. 

PSAC members often reallised that they were more like anglos, than like the manager who were francophones. In Montreal, many of the francophone NDPers were related by marriage to anglos, or had a reason to travel regularly outside of Quebec.

Most of the AIDS activists for instance, saw they had much more pressing concerns that allied them with anglos, Also truely marginalised francophones, like the poor, the disabled, were always federalists outside of Montreal, because they understood the threat of independence, and that it would be them who would pay the largest price.  Because as Robert always said, the rich never go without, thus they never understand the consequences to others.

 It was these groups, plus civil servants working for the Quebec government, that I believe ultimately defeated the separatist option.  Because they new the cost, and they new anglos were not the problem.

these groups (the poor, disabled, government workers, might have in the majority voted for the PQ, and Yes, but usually at levels much lower than other francophones, and thus frustrated the attempt to get enough francophone votes, to make up for the solidly federalist anglophones and allophones)

I hope that Harper DOES try and make something of it.  Two of his own caucus used to be Bloc members.

Yes, this is a pile of steaming, irrelevant bull droppings.

the current scuttle butt is that this was leaked by Thomas Mulcairs group.

either way I think there are a couple of different issues.

Lots of Quebecers voted for the BQ, as a protest or as a vote to separate.  That is different than joining the party. 

Again, I have no issue even that she was a member of the party though I wonder how one can be a federalist and yet join a separtist party

But she was a member of this separtist party until January of this year.  That is a bit strange.

they say that she was also a member of the NDP, don't know when she joined but the NDP guidelines clearly state that no other party affiliation is allowed.

I actually mainly wonder about the logic of putting a brand new MP into the head seat with so little experience.  Life on the hill, by all accounts is a very different business than life else where and for the good of the party and the good of the country to have a strong opposition I would have put Davies or Mulclair into the head seat.  Sure there is competition there and sure it might be an issue for a leadership race in a bit of time but either would have done a good job

I don't find Mulcair attractive. I met him only once. It was a good dozen years ago at the meeting of a board I was on. I was on a long walk home after, so Mulcair and I walked together and talked for a long time. At that meeting, I liked him.

But as I watched him moving into politics, I'm afraid he struck me as an opportunist

You can be part of a x party on not agree with some of their principals.  In Quebec, some people vote for/join the BQ for reasons other than separation, contrary to popular belief.

My big beef with this kerfuffle is:  who gives a shit what she was? Even if she was a separatists, people are allowed to change their minds.  

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Rumour is that Muclair was talking with the Conservatives before the NDP. He cannot be much of an opportunist, to join the NDP when they were below 10% in Quebec polls. However he could have forseen the fall of the Libs and the Bloq. What is more important to me is that he is treats people as his equal. Equal in that sense that means all people deserve the same respect regardless of their position.  Equally nice or equally a jerk, as long as he is not into judging people by the status, or membership in a class. 

It is nice to know that in person you found him likeable. 

I remember when Phil Edmonston was an NDP MP from Quebec. He was a a-hole and a jerk. However he treated everyone equally and managed to be a jerk to al at one time or another.  Also I remember one person who said to me. "He might be an a-hole, but he is our a-hole." We all need a-holes. We also all need to be opportunist at time, and we need opportunists. These personality traits can be kept in check if there are not too many people with them, and power is distributed. Which is why it is more important that our leaders to believe and act as if all people are equally worthy, and all have something to offer to the community, even if we are not equally talented or able.

.

S

Also it makes no sense that Muclair would be behind this for many reasons. most of all Nicole is a 69 year old with not a lot of ambitions. She is no threat to anyone. Her appointment made sense for that reason. She does what she does public ally because people ask her to help. She is not a schemer, but perhaps like me she is too naive to last in politics.

 Thank you all for your suggestions.  I guess I'm in agreement with the general flow of  youor notes. The press and the politicians are over the top on this one. The real problem now is how far some people are prepared to exploit this.

The lastest round is quoting an anonymous staffer who says there is party unease, for whatever that is worth, and whatever it means.

Oh, and the fun irony of quoting Bob Rae saying how awful it is that she switched parties.  I guess he would know that...