Parizeau Offers Charter Compromise, but does PQ Want One?

"Mother-in-law?

Yesterday, ex-Premier Jacques Parizeau waded into the Charter debate and most PQ hardliners expected another stab in the back as is the history of Parizeau interventions.
It's no accident that Parizeau has been nicknamed the 'Mother-in-law" for his unsolicited advice and criticism of the PQ and its leadership.

So it wasn't surprising that Parizeau announced a different position on the Charter then that proposed by the PQ, but in an elegantly and sympathetic piece written in le Journal de Montreal, he offered a compromise that seems to represent the popular position that has coalesced after the month long debate. Link{fr}

Now the English press is simply giddy because Parizeau supposedly came out against the Charter, some even claiming that his column was a sharp rebuke, the same line being pedaled by the Liberals, but it seems to this observer that Parizeau did nothing of the sort, rather offering a reasoned opinion on how the Charter should play out.

In offering an alternate view, Mr Parizeau has in no way put himself squarely against the Charter and to pretend that he is diametrically opposed is dishonest.

Mr. Drainville called for a serene and thoughtful debate in relation to the Charter and said that the government is open to changes.
That is all that Parizeau has done. For Peekists to complain that he is meddling once again as is his want, is disingenuous fantasy.
In fact, complaints about Parizeau's missive from the hardliners, belies the notion that they ever wanted a fair debate at all.

Maria Mourani (dumped from the Bloc Quebecois for her opposition to the Charter)  told reporters that this was exactly what Drainville told her in a private conversation. Drainville indicated to her that the PQ decided that it would serve the party's interest to polarize Quebecers around the issue and fight an election with the position that only with a  majority government could the PQ possibly deliver a reasonable and effective Charter.
When asked to comment on Mourani's statement, Drainville offered a stern 'No Comment.'

Now what Parizeau proposed is pretty much what is being widely accepted as a compromise.

• Official Secularism
• No face veils while receiving or giving government services.
• No paid holidays outside official national holidays. (Unpaid time off, allowed)
• No religious symbols to be worn by Officials in positions of power (judges, police, guards, etc.)
• No unreasonable accommodations (whatever that is)

Gone is the interdiction of the wearing of religious symbols while in the employ of the government.

It seems to be a compromise that most can live with, well within in the range of honest give and take, Nobody goes away completely satisfied, but not empty-handed.
So secularists and the observant are both required to put a little water in their wine, but in the end it seems that there is an acceptable deal to be had.

That is what I now call the 'Parizeau Compromise' 

The Parizeau Compromise is one the Jews and the Sikhs will readily accept, but one that the Muslims may not because the only real question to be debated is whether daycare, primary and high school teachers are civil servants in a position of power, thus subject to the interdiction.
If so teachers wouldn't be allowed to wear religious symbols and this affects Muslim day care workers and teachers to a very high degree.

I will venture to guess that on this one issue, the Muslims are on the wrong side of the consensus and that the Parizeau Compromise will have all party support if the teachers are included.

It's an acceptable solution for all but the Muslims, but that is perhaps the point. We all know that the real purpose of the Charter was to put restrictions on Quebec's growing Muslim population and especially those who wear the hijab.
The one interdiction on the teachers will be seen as enough to make the point. 

So with a deal in sight, will the PQ balk, preferring to have the issue linger on into the next provincial election which pundits tell us could happen in December?

The only bugbear that I see, is that Marois can't really call an election on her own. Back in June all parties unanimously passed Bill 03 which created a fixed term for elections every four years, with the next scheduled in 2016. There is no provision for a government to resign and call an election, it can only happen if the government is defeated in a confidence vote.

There is also the possibility that if the Marois government does resign, Quebec's Lieutenant-Governor could entertain a request from the Liberals and the CAQ for a coalition government, this without ever going to an election;
If the Lieutenant-Governor agrees (it is not beyond the realm) the government would be tested in the National Assembly and by winning a confidence vote could dump the PQ without firing a shot.

But that is fanciful speculation, the question at hand is whether the PQ wants a charter deal, which more or less is on the table or an election issue to base a campaign upon.

Or as Howie Mandel used to ask us on his quiz show;
Deal  or no deal?


.............Late Breaking..............

I caught a radio interview today  with Jacques Parizeau who couldn't resist going back and discussing the 1995 referendum and his famous drunken quote, the one that intimated that the  referendum was lost because of ethnic votes and money. Listen in French

I guess at his age, he is trying to rehabilitate his reputation, but if that was the case, he didn't do a good job, not in the least.

He explained that his remarks were justified, because the Jewish, Italian and Greek community made common cause and voted massively against the referendum.
He went on to say that in several polling stations in Cote Saint Luc, (a prominently Jewish suburb of Montreal,) the NON side received nary a vote.
The facts are the facts.
What he said was actually true, except the 'money,' part which was ridiculous.

But what he said back then in 1995, to preface the statement, was also telling.

"It's true, it's true we were defeated in the end, but by what? By money and the ethnic vote essentially.

(C'est vrai, c'est vrai qu'on a été battus, au fond, par quoi? Par l'argent, puis des votes ethniques, essentiellement.)

To me this is the essential point. When push came to shove, Parizeau went to the go-to analogy of 'us versus them.' 

It's something he and others separatists will never understand, the almost 100% rejection of the sovereignty project.
 It is simply because the Jews, the Greeks and the Italians understand that they were considered outsiders and that the Francophone majority never considered them equals.

It is this 'Us versus Them' scenario, where if all the left-handers chose the left-handed side, can anyone really question why?

 *******************

Dear Friends,

I and my wife and I are off visit our grandchildren this weekend.
I hope to see the littlest one perhaps stand up, or the four year old to tell me what it is all about.

As we get older it is these little things that we care about.
I have a latent fear that my grandchildren will end up speaking  like Vinnie Barbarinno, but on my last trip my grandson said this,  when I took away his toy.
"Eh! Give it back!"

Oh my God!...
He actually said 'Eh'..a Canadianism that we all cherish!
...Happily, his parents actually rubbed off!

Why am I sharing?
Dunno, other than to say I am happy to visit my second favorite city and to see family that cherishes their Montreal roots.
Those who read this blog regularly know exactly where we are off to.

But to those who think I hate Quebec, you couldn't be more wrong.
When we approach the border on our return, our heart skips, a sense of happiness and well being overcomes us.
We are home!

Can I explain it?................Nope!

Because of my travels, I'll be post again on Tuesday or Wednesday, next week!
In the meantime;

Have a great weekend!
Bon fin de semaine!