New Governor-General

[shoop]

newbie, I was responding to Eureka's post that the unfair and biased people who had concerns with Jean's nomination who DIDN'T have relevant questions. The questions I asked were fair AND relevant.

An attempt to answer shoop's questions:

1.Was she toasting Quebec independence in that clip?

How do you know she wasn't toasting the independence of French-ruled Caribbean island of Martinique? That was certainly possible.

I don't, but it is a fair and relevant question. Why didn't she answer it in her statement today?

2. Would she choose to support the best interests of Canada or a sovereign Quebec if her vice-regal duties required her to make a choice?

I believe she will be taking an oath of allegiance,  and why would she even choose this position if she were a hard core separatist?

Never referred to her as a "hard core" separatist. If you are going to be fair and unbiased best not to put words in other peoples mouth.

One could argue that a person with separatist leanings would take the position of GG for a number of reasons. Here's a couple to start. 1. It pays well and has a ton of perks regardless of the office holder's political leanings. 2. What a better f**k you to Canada than to have the first official head of state of a sovereign Quebec be someone who formerly served as Governor General of Canada?

3. Why didn't she directly confront the allegations levelled against her in the statement she released today?

I don't think it would have mattered what she said today, it wouldn't be enough for her critics.

Why make a statement at all then? What purpose are you truly serving if you are going to so readily blow of the people who have legitimate concerns about this appointment?

[August1991]

How do you know she wasn't toasting the independence of French-ruled Caribbean island of Martinique? That was certainly possible.

The context in which the words were spoken make it evident what was happening. There is no question whatsoever. But all this happened 14 years ago, and Jean Lapierre at the time was Number Two in the Bloc Quebecois.

Has she changed her opinion since then? Probably, several times. Is Jean a "separatist" like Bernard Landry? Definitely not. Is she a federalist like Pierre Trudeau? Definitely not.

Her ambivalence is not rare in Quebec. You tell me if someone ambivalent about a country is suitable to be head of state. Well, this is Canada in 2005.

----

Incidentally, there is a precedent. In 1996, the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, Jean-Louis Roux, was forced to resign after evidence surfaced that he had been a member of a Nazi-like organization in the 1930s. (The PM of Canada names provincial Lieutenants-Governor.)

[newbie]

Never referred to her as a "hard core" separatist. If you are going to be fair and unbiased best not to put words in other peoples mouth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

shoop, it was a rhetorical question. As for any other responses, I think this topic has been over-covered. I end by saying I'm glad the PM chose Michaelle Jean. I respect his decision, and have totally accepted her public explanation re the rumours surrounding her appointment.

[cybercoma]

How do you know she wasn't toasting the independence of French-ruled Caribbean island of Martinique? That was certainly possible.

The context in which the words were spoken make it evident what was happening. There is no question whatsoever. But all this happened 14 years ago, and Jean Lapierre at the time was Number Two in the Bloc Quebecois.

Has she changed her opinion since then? Probably, several times. Is Jean a "separatist" like Bernard Landry? Definitely not. Is she a federalist like Pierre Trudeau? Definitely not.

Her ambivalence is not rare in Quebec. You tell me if someone ambivalent about a country is suitable to be head of state. Well, this is Canada in 2005.

----

Incidentally, there is a precedent. In 1996, the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, Jean-Louis Roux, was forced to resign after evidence surfaced that he had been a member of a Nazi-like organization in the 1930s. (The PM of Canada names provincial Lieutenants-Governor.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It still stands that she was fraternizing and in fact toasting with known terrorists who took it upon themselves to kidnap and murder an MP in the 70s.

She has yet to explain this and regardless of how grand it would be to have a black female francophone for a governor general (why not hit all the minorities with one appointment?), she needs to denounce the very thing she was toasting in that video.

These aren't just a couple "happy-go-lucky seperatists" these were former members of the FLQ, the same FLQ that kidnapped and murdered LaPorte.

Not very good company for the head of this country.

[Guest eureka]

I name this site, "CC - Churl's Corner."

[kimmy]

I believe Hebert was right on. The "Sovereignist" witch hunts that are the preeminent feature of Quebec life and culture have, to this date, been carefully kept out of headline news, particularly in English Canada.

This has the potential to wake up all decent people in every community and bring a backlash against the "Sovereignists" that they have not had to fight before.

I disagree. I don't think the rest of Canada has ever had a particularly good impression of Quebec sovereigntists and I don't think this affair has done much to change people's perception either way.

If people in the rest of Canada had any interest in Michaelle Jean, perhaps the "witch hunt" could have spurred a backlash. But I doubt that most Canadians outside of Quebec had even heard of Michaelle Jean before she was chosen to be the next GG. I believe that most Canadians were doubtful from the start that she was chosen for anything other than shallow, cynical criteria. And as a result most Canadians are equally blase about the supposed "witch-hunt".

And I think it's fairly clear that despite his claims to the contrary, Paul Martin didn't look very closely at her background. He was caught flat-footed and clueless. As usual.

And I don't think this is a "witch-hunt". I think it's relevant. She seems to be in this documentary toasting Quebec sovereignty. How could Canadians not be concerned? The questions posed to Ms Jean were questions that Canadians have every right to have answers to.

-k

[mirror]

This attack on Jean is going to backfire on the separatists.

How do you think the Haitian community in Quebec, which is substantial by-the-way, is reacting to all of this?

[Guest eureka]

Have you never toasted something that you do not believe in? Parhaps not, but you will before you are many years older. Whwn in the company of those who do not think as you do but where it is theor party, you are polite.

I do think this could provoke a backlash against the "sovereignists." I think it is one issue where the essential decency and tolerance of Canadians will win out (except in Alberta, of course. The more the questions (>) are raised, the more sympathy for the new GG there will be. As in this so-called discussion, I find myself thinking less and less of the partisans who are trying to make a cause out of it.

The reason why I cannot be bothered to answer Shoop's questions (?) is just that. They are entirely irrelevant. Would he be asking these questions (?) if, say, Ted Morton, were the GG designate? Or a "Firewall Harper" associate? Would that disqualify an appointee?

[shoop]

The reason why I cannot be bothered to answer Shoop's questions (?) is just that. They are entirely irrelevant. Would he be asking these questions (?) if,  say, Ted Morton, were the GG designate? Or a "Firewall Harper" associate? Would that disqualify an appointee?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The questions are relevant. The GG is the head of state of Canada. Her allegiances should be unquestioned.

Absolutely I would ask those questions of ANY GG nominee. Good enough answer for you on that one?

Ted Morton has never advocated an independent Alberta. There are those who have. Anybody who has advocated the break up of any province from ANYWHERE in Canada should automatically be disqualified from the job.

Sad thing is, that if Martin had performed the proper background check on her she wouldn't have been nominated.

[mirror]

What is up with Bourque?

I know he is some kind of Matt Drudge wannabee but he has totally lost it over this GG's appointment.

Now he is stating that Jean has an Algerian "nanny" WTF does that have to do with anything at all? Next thing we'll be hearing from him is that Jean is an Al Quaeda murderer.

Bourque must really be losing it!

[cybercoma]

Have you never toasted something that you do not believe in? Parhaps not, but you will before you are many years older. Whwn in the company of those who do not think as you do but where it is theor party, you are polite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just don't make it an effort to hang out with kidnappers and murderers, this way I don't have to toast their cause.

[kimmy]

Have you never toasted something that you do not believe in? Parhaps not, but you will before you are many years older. Whwn in the company of those who do not think as you do but where it is theor party, you are polite.

I have not charged that it is proof she has separatist sympathies, I simply stated that it is something that she should address.

But, in answer to your question, yes-- I can certainly understand going along with something you disagree with in order to avoid ruffling feathers. I'd hope my husband wouldn't put such an incident in his movie, however. And, when one is caught in such a circumstance, one is usually called on to explain themselves.

I do think this could provoke a backlash against the "sovereignists." I think it is one issue where the essential decency and tolerance of Canadians will win out (except in Alberta, of course. The more the questions (>) are raised, the more sympathy for the new GG there will be. As in this so-called discussion, I find myself thinking less and less of the partisans who are trying to make a cause out of it.

When questions of her sympathy to sovereignty were raised, Canadians had a right to expect her to respond. Now that she has declared her committed support to Canadian unity, I expect most Canadians will be satisfied. I think it was necessary for her to address the issue.

The reason why I cannot be bothered to answer Shoop's questions (?) is just that. They are entirely irrelevant. Would he be asking these questions (?) if,  say, Ted Morton, were the GG designate? Or a "Firewall Harper" associate? Would that disqualify an appointee?

They'd disqualify a GG-designate in the sense that Ted Morton or one of the other "firewall letter" writers would never, ever even be considered for the post.

I think that's beyond obvious. I think that most Canadians would likewise consider it patently obvious that a Quebec Sovereigntist would also not be considered for the position of Governor General: which is why the question of whether she supports separatism was relevant.

Her associations and her actions on film raised the question, and Canadians had a reasonable expectation to hear her respond to the question.

-k

[shoop]

I think that most Canadians would likewise consider it patently obvious that a Quebec Sovereigntist would also not be considered for the position of Governor General: which is why the question of whether she supports separatism was relevant.

Her associations and her actions on film raised the question, and Canadians had a reasonable expectation to hear her respond to the question.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bravo.

Therein lies the rub. Because Mr. Dithers checked off the right boxes with this appointment: telegenic, female, Quebecois, immigrant, CBC 'personality', he felt it unnecessary to necessarily search for skeletons in the closet. Reinforces the well-deserved stereotype that he has surrounded himself with a bunch of rank amateurs for advisors.

The strange thing is that he really has hurt himself with this nomination. It won't win him support in Quebec. It will drive a lot of reluctant Liberals (unhappy with the party but still support them because of questions about the CPCs social stances) to vote Conservative.

Thanks for the help PM Dithers!

[mirror]

Bravo.

Therein lies the rub. Because Mr. Dithers checked off the right boxes with this appointment: telegenic, female, Quebecois, immigrant, CBC 'personality', he felt it unnecessary to necessarily search for skeletons in the closet. Reinforces the well-deserved stereotype that he has surrounded himself with a bunch of rank amateurs for advisors.

The strange thing is that he really has hurt himself with this nomination. It won't win him support in Quebec. It will drive a lot of reluctant Liberals (unhappy with the party but still support them because of questions about the CPCs social stances) to vote Conservative.

Thanks for the help PM Dithers! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Time for a little reality check!

Actually this GG appointment is going to help PM Martin. It has sewed dissention amongst the separatists and will generate support for the Liberals with the allophones, which are a sizeable minority now in Quebec. Combined with PM Martin being exonerated by Gomery we are facing another Liberal majority, and the end of Harper's political career, the evening of the election results. This is not necessarily what I wish to have happen, but it definitely what I see happening if the current trends continue. And I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to change things.

[shoop]

Time for a little reality check!

Actually this GG appointment is going to help PM Martin. It has sewed dissention amongst the separatists and will generate support for the Liberals with the allophones, which are a sizeable minority now in Quebec. Combined with PM Martin being exonerated by Gomery we are facing another Liberal majority, and the end of Harper's political career, the evening of  the election results. This is not necessarily what I wish to have happen, but it definitely what I see happening if the current trends continue. And I don't see anything on the horizon that is going to change things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want to do a reality check let's use the SES Research poll you trumpet so proudly with your signature.

Correlating the results from that poll to the actual vote in 2004 you would have the following results regionally.

Atlantic provinces. The Liberals are down 2 points. Translates into one seat lost for the Liberals. Picked up by the NDs.

Quebec. Liberals are almost exactly where they were in the last election. (0.1% difference.) Break even.

Ontario. Same as Quebec, Liberals are almost exactly where they were in the last election. (0.3% difference.) Break even.

Prairies. Liberals still mired in the muck. Definitely lose Kilgour's seat in Edmonton Beaumont (never a Liberal riding in the first place.) Let's be charitable and say the Liberals pick up a seat in Saskatchewan. Break even.

North. Liberals hold their three seats.

BC. An actual opportunity for Liberal pickups. They pick up four seats, the CPC retakes Cadman's seat.

Results after 2005 election.

Liberals - 138 seats

CPC - 96 seats.

BQ - 54 seats.

ND - 20 seats.

Result PM Dithers and Harper are both toast.

This is The Best Case Scenario for PM Dithers assuming he gets exonerated by Gomery, the economy can withstand the oil price rise and the Michaelle Jean fiasco doesn't have legs.

Poor poor PM Dithers. When you have no room for growth you can only stagnate or go down.

Far too many things can go badly for the Liberals at this point.

[Guest eureka]

But they signed nothing, Kimmy. They are merely the victims of a smear campaign that some of the anti-Liberals here seem to be keen to sign on to. What is in a documentary does not necessarily reflect the makers' views no matter how close they get to the subjects.

In talking of the "Firewall" possibilities, I do not think of those who have declared their contempt for Canada. There are, I am sure, some of those poor benighted souls who actually like Canada but have fallen for the seductive claims of the money men and the "Democratic Reform" crowd. Ignorance is as much a part of the intellectuals as of the public. We should not issue blanket condemnations for any who are willing to learn.

[shoop]

But they signed nothing, Kimmy. They are merely the victims of a smear campaign that some of the anti-Liberals here seem to be keen to sign on to. What is in a documentary does not necessarily reflect the makers' views no matter how close they get to the subjects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does "signed nothing" have to do with anything in this case?

There is the documented evidence of Jean toasting 'independence' in the Lafond documentary.

To which country's independence was she toasting?

Still a very legitimate question at this point.

[kimmy]

But they signed nothing, Kimmy. They are merely the victims of a smear campaign that some of the anti-Liberals here seem to be keen to sign on to. What is in a documentary does not necessarily reflect the makers' views no matter how close they get to the subjects.

They signed nothing? You mean, like, they never put in writing that they're committed to Quebec sovereignty? Frankly, I don't care. She's not the maker of the documentary, she appears in it... and she's toasting sovereignty. I can accept lots of explanations... I can accept that she was just being polite to her company, or I can accept that she was young and naive, I can even accept that she used to feel that way but changed her mind; I can accept any explanation just as long as she sincerely tells us that she is committed to Canadian unity. The minute there became reason to question whether she was committed to Canadian unity, it was necessary for her to either address those doubts or step down.

In talking of the "Firewall" possibilities, I do not think of those who have declared their contempt for Canada. There are, I am sure, some of those poor benighted souls who actually like Canada but have fallen for the seductive claims of the money men and the "Democratic Reform" crowd. Ignorance is as much a part of the intellectuals as of the public. We should not issue blanket condemnations for any who are willing to learn.

I'll eat my keyboard if Ted Morton or one of the other signees is ever nominated for the post of governor general. Even if they became avid enthusiasts of federalism starting tomorrow. I'm not saying it should be so, I'm just saying it probably is so.

-k

[mirror]

Where have I heard the name Roger Galloway before? Oh well, here is one person's description from another discussion board:

Roger Gallaway is a psycho, has no credibility and will hopefully be under the next toxic emission that is 'accidently' released down in Canada's answer to Chernobyl, Sarnia.