A Posteriori

After having a had a little time to reflect on the ADQ’s performance and talking to some of my coworkers, as well as having read the ruminations of the punditry, it now becomes crystal clear why the ADQ rose so high in such little time.

Quebeckers have had successive incompetent governments imposed upon them for years, more so than most other provinces or the country as a whole. The reason is a kind of unofficial form of collusion between the two major parties in Quebec. The major media in Quebec and Canada was most definitely in on the scam.

The mechanism by which the co-conspirators implemented their agenda was the polarization of Quebec politics between separation and federalism. There was no party that stood the middle ground. As such, the discourse for each successive election campaign on was about imposing a stark choice between two diametrically opposed options. Consequently, both major parties did not have to compete based on compelling policy options, nor on their administrative performance. This has led to atrophy and stagnation in the Quebec government, whose agenda has now effectively been hijacked by career bureaucrats.

The ADQ has already been the outsider in this collusive arrangement. However, up until now, it has had very little credibility with neither the Quebec media, elite, or electorate.

The ADQ’s credibility was undermined by a number of factors. Among the most important of these was Dumont’s rookie mistake of supporting the “yes” side in the 1995 referendum. Dumont was 25 at the time, and was taken advantage of by the suave and intelligent separatist leadership of Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard. This critical error of Dumont’s very young judgement has allowed successive Quebec Liberal leaders to undermine his credibility among federalist voters and federalist media. Conversely, separatists could argue that he was no longer interested in holding referendums, and thus not worthy of support from separatist voters.

Other factors undermining the ADQ’s political fortunes included their inconsistent policy statements, their lack of depth or bench strength, and the party’s original platform, which included outrageous demands for federal powers fuelled by post-Meech Lake bitterness.

However, the ADQ always had one noticeable competitive advantage: its leader. As much as Dumont’s inexperience has been a liability for the ADQ, his charisma should be obvious to anyone who has heard him speak. Not only does he speak with eloquence and persuasion, but with sincerity and subtle yet profound passion. In a word, he’s very convincing.

Dumont has refined his political skills over the 13 some-odd years that he’s been ADQ leader. This experience has finally served him, as he made bold strategic and tactical decisions that many dismissed as transparently opportunistic, but that in fact appealed to populist sentiment among disaffected Quebec voters:

1) A stubborn refusal that he’s an “autonomist” rather than a “separatist” or a “federalist”. This not only allowed him to distinguish himself from his opponents in the eyes of the electorate, but to also declare the two-headed emperor (Liberal and PQ) had no clothes. Dumont’s “autonomism” was a way of declaring the federalist/separatist debate in Quebec to be the non sequitur that it has always been. Quebeckers, tired of the never-ending debate, were highly receptive to this message.
2) A call for “reasonable accommodation” on the issue of immigrants and their integration into Quebec society. Sensing the immigration pendulum had swung too far in the pro-immigrant direction, and that the political elites were neglecting popular sentiment on this issue, he sensed an opportunity and seized it.
3) A sincere appeal for Quebec to address its debt issues. The Liberals and PQ, under the cover of the national unity non sequitur, have been able to run up large deficits and debt and disguise them as a “zero deficit”. Among ADQ supporters are those Quebeckers who have finally gotten wise to this dilemma. The ADQ has sensed the Quebec political winds shifting right, and it has set its sails accordingly.
4) “Un vote pour l’ADQ c’est un vote pour l’ADQ! Un vote pour l’ADQ c’est un vote pour vous!” (translation: A vote for the ADQ is a vote for the ADQ. A vote for the ADQ is a vote for you[plural].). It was a brilliant campaign slogan that dispelled another Liberal/PQ co-conspirator fallacy: that voting for the ADQ is a vote taken away from either one of the two traditional parties, and thus, given to that party’s opponent. By making it clear that ADQ voters should consider themselves as voting FOR something, as opposed to against something else, Dumont solidified his credibility among Quebec voters.
5) Costing out his platform during the leaders’ debate. Given the ADQ’s lack of campaign funds, Dumont had to think on his feat and use the only free promotional vehicle to him: the debate itself. This allowed Dumont to counteract another one of his opponents’ arguments: that he was unable to make reasonable and budgeted promises.

The five points above demonstrate that Dumont is a force to be reckoned with.

Anyone that argues that the rise of the ADQ is merely a protest vote is extremely short-sighted, and has a very limited understanding of Quebec political history. Quebeckers have on occasion demonstrated extreme hostility to an established party and made their wrath felt. One example is Louis-Alexandre Taschereau’s Liberals in the mid-1930s, the party being kicked out of power for the first time in decades by disaffected voters. Another example is of Robert Bourassa’s Liberals, who were severely punished by Quebec voters in the 1976 election that saw the PQ elected for the first time. Those voters also disposed of the Union Nationale in 1970s. That party has never recovered, and does not exist today.

Now that the ADQ has gained credibility with the media, the elite and voters, they have nowhere to go but up. They are now an official party in the National Assembly, and as such, have access to campaign financing, a research staff, and, most importantly, star candidates.

Quebec faces some severe challenges over the next decade, challenges that jeopardize the continued prosperity and health of the province:

* Crippling debt load that keeps getting bigger every single year.
* A deteriorating health care system that has suffered the neglect of successive politicians
* A deteriorating education system that has, among other things, fallen prey to linguistic politics
* A severe demographic crisis
* A sense of entitlement by various vested special interests whose priorities run counter to those of the population at large. This includes (but is not limited to) unions, radical student groups, linguistic zealots, separatists, and other recipients of government largess. These groups drain precious government resources from ordinary Quebeckers.

Both major parties have failed miserably at addressing the above problems. New blood is needed to address these challenges in a realistic and courageous way.

Once Dumont’s half-hearted efforts to reach out to English-speaking Quebeckers become more refined and sincere, he can break the Quebec Liberals’ monopoly on anglo voters and gain a beachhead on the island of Montreal.

The ADQ is here to stay and their leader is a rising star. I would be extremely surprised if they didn’t win the next provincial election.

So, Quebec nationalists, you want a nation, eh? So, which will it be?

1) The nation of all French Canadians throughout Canada, which has no territory and is present throughout the great expanse of the Canadian landscape.
2) The Nation of Quebec, which includes everybody who lives in Quebec, be they French Canadians, English Canadians, and immigrants.

Giles Duceppe and other Quebec nationalists want a French Quebec nation, comprising French Quebeckers, to the exclusion of everyone else in Quebec. This is not a baseless assertion but is instead based on political discourse by separatists and hard nationalists in that province for the last 40-50 years.

Sorry, guys, but you can’t have it both ways.

It’s deeply disturbing to see so many drivers on the road demonstrating such crass and total lack of respect for road safety, pedestrians and even other drivers.

I’m not even going to get into the perils of drunk driving since I’m sure this subject has been rightfully blogged about ad nauseum.

For instance, as I was walking home tonight, I nearly got ran into by a driver backing up while sticking a cell phone in his ear. I shouted “WATCH WHERE YOU’RE GOING” and subsequently turned around and gave him a vicious, icy glare. All he could do is smile awkwardly back at me and wave.

What seems to get very little press is the egregiously flippant behaviour of drivers who narrow-mindedly choose to drive while talking on a cell phone. It would be bad enough if they chose only to do this in the fluid traffic of an un-congested autoroute. Most unfortunately, they decide to take their lives, and the lives of those who surround them into their hands while navigating tight downtown streets, sometime as they’re turning corners or even (most shockingly) backing up.

Do these people understand that they’re attempting to control a potentially dangerous and highly fatal weapon that contains two tons of steel and hard plastic at average speed of anywhere between 50 and 150 km per hour? Has it occurred to them that they need to maintain as close to 100% concentration at all times? It’s reckless for any driver to believe otherwise irrespective of whichever driving situation that driver happens to find him/herself at the time.

The loss of control of this potential weapon occurs due to two factors:

1) The loss of vision on whichever side of their face they happen to stick their arm and their cell phone. A prudent driver must have full command of their vision at all times, observing all mirrors, sides, and blind spots, looking out for other cars, passengers, road signs, obstructions, and obstacles.
2) The loss of concentration on the road and all other elements surrounding them due to their concentration on the phone conversation in which they’re engaged. The other party to the conversation will always expect an instant response, unaware that the driver is (at the very least) supposed to be concentrating on the road.

While it’s true that the potential for #2 exists in any situation in which there are one or more passengers in the car, there are a couple of differences:

a) The passengers are aware that the driver is driving, and thus will be far more inclined to stop talking and distracting the driver in situations where they know the driver needs to concentrate on the road.
b) In today’s mostly single-driver commute, it’s probably more likely that the driver will be talking on a cell phone than carrying any passengers.

The solution to the above problem is actually pretty simple:

Anybody who speaks on a cell phone, whether by sticking a phone in their ear or via a handless speaker, should be punished just as severely as a driver found to be intoxicated.

Quebec separatists have argued ad nauseum that a referendum vote with a bare majority, that is 50% + 1 of eligible voters who chose to exercise their right to vote in that referendum, is sufficient to break up Canada. What’s even more tragic and regrettable is that every single political party in Quebec, “federalist”, nationalist, or separatist, agreed on this falsified and fraudulent “logic”.

This is a fallacy. An event as monumental as the break-up of a country, preceded by the formation of a new country, cannot be decided by way of a simple majority. This does not reflect the will of the people, as it trivializes and renders meaningless the desire of a strong minority of Quebeckers to remain part of Canada. Furthermore, such a slim majority could reverse itself immediately afterwards; it is vulnerable, tenuous, superficial, and unstable. How can such a temporary state trigger the break-up of a country? It is a nothing more than a technicality, and not the reflection of the people’s will.

The above two paragraphs contribute nothing to the debate from the federalist side. A Posteriori is about bringing fresh ideas and perspectives to either old or new debates. Therefore, it is my duty as a passionate blogger to bring not only a fresh perspective on this age-old debate, but an absolutely irrefutable argument against 50% + 1 separation:

Suppose I were to acquire a magical power allowing me to prevent all but 100 Quebeckers from voting in the next referendum. Suppose further that I were to invoke this power the day of the referendum. Out of about five to six million eligible Quebec voters, only 100, a tiny percentage of the voting population, exercises the voting right of referendum day. Let’s suppose that 51 of those 100 voters vote in the affirmative, that is “yes” for separation. How would the “Quebec consensus” on the margin of the allowable margin of victory respond?

Well, according to their rhetoric, these 51 votes, literally 51 votes, would be sufficient to trigger separation. The vast majority of voters who were prevented from voting on referendum night, that is, well over 5 million of them, would have absolutely no say whatsoever in the future of the province. This is ludicrous!

The same government, the “federalist” Quebec Liberals, who stipulated that 35% of all eligible voters in de-merging municipalities vote in the affirmative to get back the cities that were unilaterally taken from them against their will, argue that a simple 51 voters out of a 100 can break up my country. The hypocrisy of the Quebec political class is absolutely beyond belief!

According to Google News, the World Trade Organization has ruled against the European Union restriction against restrictions of genetically engineered crops.

Now, let’s think about this for a second. Without having searched for European polling data on the subject, I think it’s still safe to assume that a majority of Europeans are against the import of genetically engineered food. As the government that is charged with representing the popular will of Europeans, it’s the EU’s duty to govern in the interest of the population at large.

Except that somehow, someway, it has been decreed by the self-appointed prophets of the free market that an extra-governmental institution such as the WTO has the right to overrule a government that is, at least on the surface, democratically elected. Furthermore, this extra-governmental body isn’t subject to any constitution or legal precedent. It has the power to unilaterally rule on matters of trade, presumably drawing from its bias in favour of corporate interests.

There is no oversight for this “free trade” organization. WTO rulings, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be overridden by democratic referendum or national court rulings, after all appeals are exhausted. The government subject to this ruling must either comply or find itself kicked out of the WTO, suffering the consequences of reduced international trade.

It’s even more perverse that the country that effectively controls the WTO, the United States, chose to ignore a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ruling in Canada’s favour that requires the U.S. to remove its tariffs on Canadian lumber, claiming the supremacy of the favourable WTO ruling over the unfavourable NAFTA ruling.

European sensitivities about the potentially hazardous effects of taking genes from different forms of plant life or the ethical bankruptcy of terminator seeds be damned! Corporate profits must be protected at all costs!

It’s hard to believe that people of any race, culture, or religion could get so worked up over a simple cartoon caricature. I’m sure there have been caricatures made of God, Christ, rabbis, budda, etc, without nary a protest.

So when Muslims use simplistic “heresy” as an excuse to run around and smash stuff up, it doesn’t speak well of their religion, culture, or tolerance. Prominent Muslims have complained that their culture is unfairly stereotyped as inherently violent and intolerant. Fine. But this recent smash-fest, along with the death-mark against Salmon Rushdie totally undermines their arguments.

Where is the condemnation from prominent Muslims for this action? As of this writing, I don’t see it. Condoning this violence and vandalism is contemptible and thoroughly unacceptable.

The protesters’ argument is that free speech should be limited. This is the same argument the totalitarian Chinese made in asking Google to censor its search results. Actions to limit free speech is a slippery slope that can lead all the way to outright censorship and condemnation of any “blasphemous” , “inappropriate”, or “non-sanctioned” speech. The entire continuum of this slippery slope can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. A society that allows legitimate freedom of expression is a healthy, vibrant, dynamic society. Limits to free speech should stop right at speech that promotes hatred and violence. A cartoon of a dead Arab prophet does not promote hatred or violence (well, it didn’t intend to, which is the litmus test here).

Another thing that these Muslim protesters don’t seem to understand is the separation between the Danish state and the Danish newspaper that published the cartoon. I assume the Danish newspaper is a privately owned institution that is not controlled in any way, shape, or form by the Danish government. The protest on the Danish embassy proves that they don’t understand the distinction, don’t accept it, or expect the Danish government to micro-manage its newspapers. Either view is thoroughly unacceptable in a liberal democracy.

What the Muslim protesters have proven is that there is either a strong minority, or outright majority of Muslims who wish to dictate how the Western world should govern its own affairs:

1) Western governments should severely limit free speech more so than it is now.
2) Western governments should micromanage any media within their countries, or possibly nationalize those media.
3) Western governments should actively overrule their courts on any judgements related to constitutional free speech rights and possibly totally neuter their courts.

The Muslim world has every right to tell the Western world to butt out of its affairs and stop occupying their countries (re: Iraq). The implied (by the cartoon protests) attempt to establish a theological empire on the free world is absolutely reprehensible.

Ordinary people tremble in fear of lawsuits. This is because lawyers are expensive, and if somebody rich and powerful sues an ordinary person , that person is immediately threatened with financial hardship and perhaps bankruptcy. The rich and powerful have no such fears, and can abuse the legal system to their hearts’ content.

We are all subject to laws, and at some point most of us have to establish our innocence. Justice should not be the sole right of the rich, corporate and powerful.

In certain instances, the government has tried to settle this imbalance. There are rental boards (tenants rights), public attorneys, labour relations boards, etc. However, these are for very specific legal situations, and don’t cover the vast majority of the population. For instance, when it comes to employer-employee relationships, the employer has a distinct advantage in legal matters, especially if the employer is a large corporation with a substantial legal department.

It’s time to strike at the heart of this imbalance. Like the universal public health care system in Canada (or what it purports to be), the legal system should also be publicly funded, and universal.

The steps for the federal government to take to implement this system would be drastic, but feasible:

1. Call a national referendum to implement the universal public legal system, with the following stipulations:
   • Nationalize all law firms that deal with federal law.
   • Cap lawyer salaries at $50,000 Canadian.
   • Assign a randomized procedure for assigning free publicly-paid lawyers to the defence of prosecution.
   • Require that provinces account for their legal costs for social programs affeccted by federal transfers.
   • Change the equalization payment formula in such a way as to refuse to pay the legal cost portion of the provincial government’s social programs until it, too, adopts a universal public legal system. This would be justified by citing budget concerns for elevated “private” legal costs.
   • Invalidate all lawsuits initiated in response to the referendum and the proposed changes upon a favourable referenduum result.
2. Use the results of the victorious referendum (capping the lawyers salaries should guarantee victory) as a mandate to coerce the provinces into reforming their respective legal systems in the same manner.

The randomized process of assigning lawyers to the different parties in the case would see one side potentially getting a Johnny Cochrane calibre lawyer, while seeing the other side getting a Lionel Hutz like lawyer. Given the tremendous pressure on both sides, there would be a strong incentive on both sides to settle, but this pressure would apply to both sides equally. Corporations could no longer bully individuals into lopsided settlements out of fear of outrageous legal costs. Corporation and individuals would have to deal with the legitimate fear of losing the case.

The pressure on both sides to settle, as well as the capping lawyers’ salaries would drastically reduce legal costs.

Putting everyone on the same legal footing would breathe new life into our liberal democracy as ordinary citizens would suddenly become empowered to initiate positive changes for the good of all through renewed access to the legal system.

This idea smacks of socialism and government intervention. Given the acute failures of capitalism lately (globalization, insane software patents in the U.S., perpetual copyright, corporations deliberately underfunding their pensions), I make no apologies for proposing legislation with an flagrant socialist bent.

Power to the people!

For a blogger, the temptation to descend into a mad, raving tantrum of a rant is ever present. Fortunately, the Word Warrior is a cold warrior, choosing subtle Machiavellian tactics subtle manipulation to provoke his enemies into into knee-jerk reactions and other predictable and impulsive behaviour. In the words of the winning contestant on the second season of reality TV show Big Brother: “Dance, puppets, dance!”.

Case in point: Quebec separatists. It’s easy for a federalist like myself to give in to my baser emotions and spew venomous vitriol in response to their lies and half-truths. However, this would be counter-productive, since it’s the separatists themselves who seek constantly to incite such ad hominem counterattacks from within the rest of Canada.

So I propose a new strategy for the leaders of Canadian federalism. It’s time for the great defenders of Canada to employ the same sorts of inciting tactics, but at a higher level of sophistication and cleverness.

It’s time to expose the soft nationalists as the hypocrites they really are. It’s time to force them to put their money where their mouths are (which they won’t) by forcing them to accept the decentralization of power to the provinces for the most important jurisdiction of all: gatekeeper of the federation.

That’s right. Instead of allowing the fulfillment the separatist fantasy of a two “nation” post-separation political union, we make it clear that no break up can be negotiated without the consent of all nine other provinces, and possibly the federal government as well. Negotiating the terms of separation with the federal government is totally feasible and has been expected of separatist strategists for decades. A requirement for them to negotiate with the nine other premiers would make the logistics for such negotiations (and by consequence their prime aspiration for national independence) so impractical as to make a resolution absolutely impossible.

In order to implement such a strategy, it will be necessary for a majority in Parliament to:

1. Repeal Chretien-era legislation granting Quebec a constitutional veto (and possibly any other province as well).
2. Draft a constitutional amendment to grant the provinces partial or exclusive jurisdiction to negotiate the break-up of the country.
3. Garner the support of Ontario, all Maritime provinces (except maybe Newfoundland), and as many Western provinces as possible (probably not Alberta, but maybe B.C.).
4. Ratify the new constitution without Quebec’s or Alberta’s consent, and possibly without B.C.’s or Newfoundland’s as well.

The separatists and soft nationalists will be thrown a wicked curve-ball, and their entire strategy of convincing Quebeckers of the feasibility of separation will be totally compromised. Soft nationalists arguing for increased decentralization will be thrown into total disarray and their hypocrisy (i.e., decentralization for only Quebec and no other provinces) will be exposed for all Canadians to see. Federalists can argue that they gave the provinces and Quebec what they’ve always asked for: more power over areas of federal jurisdiction. Since negotiating the terms of separation with nine other provinces will be totally unworkable, separatism will lose its legitimacy as an option. The trump card that has been used by separatists and soft nationalists for decades to extort concessions from the rest of Canada will have been taken away by shrewd, Machiavellian federalists.

I know many will say that a Prime Minister who employs this strategy and tactics isn’t being fair. Then again, I’m sure many people said the same thing about Machiavelli himself, especially his enemies