Flirting with separatists
Following the May 2 federal election, Canadian federalists cheered the fact that the Bloc Québécois had been routed in Quebec -going from a pre-election Parliamentary presence of 47 seats to just four.
Yet on many issues, the nominally federalist NDP are nearly as nationalist as the overtly separatist BQ -including on matters of language policy in the province, and funding for Quebec-only programs. During the recent campaign, for instance, NDP leader Jack Layton promised that, if elected, an NDP government would extend the provisions of Bill 101 to federally regulated industries operating inside Quebec.
Quebec's language law requires that French be the first language of the workplace and that signs be predominately French. But its provisions have never applied to federal government offices nor to workplaces that fall under federal regulation, such as airlines, banks and telecommunications companies. While stumping in Quebec a week before the election, Mr. Layton promised to make federal government offices and federally regulated workplaces compliant. Quebec would become unilingually French for all official purposes -even in domains controlled by the feds -while the rest of the country would continue to have to practice official bilingualism.
Mr. Layton also promised to recognize Quebec's "national character" (which admittedly is not so different from what Stephen Harper already has done), give federal money to Quebec social programs if the province chose to withdraw from national schemes and reopen constitutional talks to please Quebec and get the province's signature on the Constitution. And who knows what comes next: Given that two-thirds of Mr. Layton's caucus is now made up of Quebecers, many with at least quasinationalist attitudes, he is going to feel increasing pressure to strike anti-federalist postures.
Mr. Layton's off-again, on-again commitment to honouring a 50%plus-one vote on separation in a future Quebec referendum is perhaps the most worrying aspect of all this -for it implicates the very integrity of our country.
From Monday through Wed-nesday, Mr. Layton seemed to dance around the question of whether or not his party would accept a bare majority in a future referendum on Quebec independence. He left Canadians unsure of how we would interpret the 2000 federal Clarity Act, which states that Ottawa need only negotiate separation if a clear majority of Quebecers vote "yes" in a referendum that asks a clear question. The need for the legislation was demonstrated by the 1995 referendum, in which the separatists came within just 54,289 votes of achieving a bare majority -on a question so convoluted that most voters never understood it.
There is no definition in the Clarity Act about what constitutes a "clear" majority, but it is generally accepted in federal circles that it is something greater than 50%-plus-one. Otherwise, what purpose does the word "clear" serve in the legislation? For the past decade, nearly every constitutional scholar in the land has assumed the threshold was closer to 60%.
All three parties in the Quebec National Assembly cling to the 50%-plus-one trigger, which is perhaps not surprising given their strictly provincial focus. But on a matter that would change the entire country so profoundly, it is unlikely that either the House of Commons or the Supreme Court of Canada would accept such a low bar. Based on Mr. Layton's vague pronouncements on the subject, however, it appears that the leader of the opposition might.
By Thursday, things got worse. Mr. Layton was under so much heat from his new Quebec caucus and from Quebec commentators that he felt he had to state his unequivocal support for the 50%-plus-one standard, which he did at the news conference at which he also announced his shadow cabinet.
He argued, correctly, that 50%-plus-one has been official NDP policy for years. "It's in our official policies. It's been adopted in our Sherbrooke declaration," he said, referring to a policy document approved only in French by the NDP in 2005.
But few commentators paid much attention to that policy back then -because no one particularly cared what a third party had to say about the issue. It was always assumed that it would be a Liberal-and-Conservative-dominated Parliament that would have to deal with this issue. But now that the NDP is the Official Opposition, and possibly a contender for government in the next election, its separatist flirtations have become a real issue of concern. Mr. Layton should have the political courage to align his party with mainstream federalist opinion.
Readers love Oprah & the Spitfire, but draw the line at 'could care less'
It's always interesting to see which stories or columns will attract the most responses from readers. A case in point: Tuesday's Issues page included a story about a single-seat fighter plane flown by the Royal Air Force in the Second World War.
This rather dry and technical analysis of the Supermarine Spitfire drew more than two dozen passionate and personal letters, with at least one note printed every day this week (and more in Monday's paper).
Those we didn't print included a note from Stu (Joe) Egglestone, a former member of RCAF Spitfire Squadron 417, commenting on the photo accompanying Tuesday's article (showing two restored Spitfires flying). "The upper Spitfire has a fuselage serial no of 417," he said. "What a coincidence."
Others talked about how "pretty" the Spitfire (shown right) was with its "curvaceous wings, with many commenting that its good looks led it to be unfairly credited for winning the Battle of Britain, overshadowing the role of the less-aesthetically pleasing Hawker Hurricane (below).
A handful of readers pointed out that the Spitfire's designer, R.J. Mitchell, was battling cancer when he designed the plane, knowing all the while that the stress associated with this work would shorten his life.
"He was not alone in making this sacrifice," stated Peter White. "When Rolls Royce, the makers of the Spitfire's Merlin engine, licensed Packard to manufacture the engine in America, it sent two engineers to the States to help set up the production line. Both sacrificed themselves for the job and did not survive."
The public's passion for the Spitfire remains strong, judging from the letters we received on this column.
- Many news stories this week focused on the death and despair caused by tornadoes in the U.S. Midwest. One reader was dismayed with a graphic that accompanied our Tuesday coverage, specifically its title, "Judgment Day In Joplin."
"This headline is beyond offensive," wrote John Bostjancic. "The inhabitants of Joplin, Mo., were the unfortunate victims of a very powerful natural disaster. But your wording suggests that some higher power was doling out divine retribution, and that Joplin residents were somehow deserving of the pain and suffering they endured.
"The graphic's headline does nothing more than legitimize the nonsensical ramblings of a religious fanatic [radio broadcaster Harold Camping] awaiting the Rapture, while demonizing those impacted by this horrific event," Mr. Bostjancic continued. "While I understand the desire to create a clever headline, I certainly expect at least a modicum of sensitivity and understanding when the loss of human life is involved."
- Ah, the wisdom of youth. It's always good to hear from young readers, and savour the insight they bring. This note arrived about Father Raymond J. de Souza's column on Thursday about Oprah Winfrey, which was titled, "A daily salve for a wounded culture."
"I'm sorry that the majority of the population's lives is not as spiritually fulfilled as our Father Raymond J. de Souza's," wrote Julian Binder. "To me, a 14-year-old, Oprah's message is clear: help people who don't know how to help themselves. Oprah doesn't throw her guests under the pity spotlight; she empowers them by treating them like any other person. Father De Souza's column sounds more like slyly masked Oprah-bashing than anything else.
"Instead of writing an article poking [fun] at the poor "spiritually barren" viewers of the Oprah show, why doesn't Father de Souza write a column to help them get their lives back on track?" Julian continued. "It would be a step closer to achieving what Oprah has done. Oh, and if you were wondering, Mommy did not help me write this letter."
- Just because an expression is common doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. And when that expression appears in large type in the National Post, we hear about it.
Last Saturday, a promotional headline on the sports section's front page read: "Gay Teammates? Barkley Could Care Less." While most readers would instantly know what that headline meant, six wrote in to point out that a key word was missing.
"In this post-literate era of the English language, perhaps the clearest sign post of unthinking, mob word abuse is to say, 'could care less' instead of 'could not care less,' wrote Bob Stall. "The writer of the [headline], purporting to paraphrase Barkley's point, wrote the exact opposite of what he said."
This charge of "word abuse" brings to mind the debate about when the rules of grammar should bend to meet the demands of the "mob." The National Post's electronic database showed that the expression "could care less" has been used 140 times in the last 10 years in stories or columns, in all sections of the paper.
While some formal guides to English usage advise that "could care less" is incorrect (as it implies you do care somewhat, since one can only care less if one is already caring), Web-based language usage guides acknowledge that the separation between the two expressions is narrowing. As Wikipedia notes: "In American English, both colloquialisms are used interchangeably to mean, 'I don't care at all.' "
The "could care less" vs. "could not care less" debate is also a hot topic of debate on the Web; a Google search for the two expressions together yields more than 3.4 million hits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment