MISE & Agrave; DAY
An aura of mystery seemed to surround the publication of this work. I received a press release, with the mention “under embargo”. Goddamn! What was it ? For a moment, I thought that we had just discovered the secret of the Caramilk and that it was going to be revealed to us in a scenario worthy of the Secret of the Unicorn .
In fact, Québec solidaire seems to want to shed its image as a sectarian party and now pleads in favor of “& nbsp; what binds us & nbsp;” rather than what separates us and divides us. Common sense, Falardeau would say. After having closed the door to any attempt to merge with the oldest independentist political formation, the Parti Québécois, it was time, it seemed to me, to reach out, because united we will be giants.
The ten deputies of Quebec Solidaire take the pen as well as the militant Ilnu Michaël Ottereyes and the writer and Innu activist Natasha Kanapé Fontaine, to tell us what any good separatist activist must know: “& nbsp; The independence of Quebec, thanks to a constituent assembly, will be the founding moment of a real popular sovereignty thought by and for our peoples. ” The instruction, therefore: constituent assembly and alliance with the First Nations. & Nbsp;
In his presentation, Kanapé-Fontaine pleads in favor of “living together” between Quebeckers and all aboriginal peoples. Of course. The various PQ governments have always been able to show openness towards our brothers from the Aboriginal nations and this has translated into many treaties and agreements beneficial to all parties. & Nbsp;
Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, speaking on behalf of his generation, offers, in the introduction, nothing less than building “a new independence movement, capable of meeting the demands of our time”. Noting the disaffection with the independence project among people of his generation, he comes to accuse the old militants of having stripped this noble project of its transformative character. He makes a mockery of the slogan, launched by Pierre Falardeau, I believe, according to which “the sovereignty of Quebec would be neither on the right nor on the left, but forward”, pretending, no doubt, not to understand its true meaning, as if achieving the independence of Quebec did not in itself constitute a revolutionary gesture. & nbsp; & nbsp;
Nadeau-Dubois clearly despises those (and I include myself in this “& nbsp; those & nbsp;”) who preceded him within the vast independence movement, by arguing that we would have neglected the importance of the social democratic component of the independence project. As if GND and QS had the monopoly of virtue, of solidarity, as if the “others” militants paid little attention to the fate of the workers, the left behind and the protection of the territory. Does he pretend to ignore that other activists before him, “& nbsp; quiet revolutionaries & nbsp;” and others less quiet, have paved the way and transformed the Quebec in which it operates today?
Manon Massé, for her part, goes further by insisting on the necessary alliance with the First Nations and the Inuit. You have to “break up the framework to define a new one together,” she proclaims. […] Together, we need to determine the framework necessary to improve the lives of as many people as possible. ” It goes without saying once again.
Catherine Dorion tries to talk about culture, but it's poor: “& nbsp; We create a common vibe to which everything the world wants to participate, because participating means “feeling together”. & nbsp; ”& nbsp;
Fortunately Ruba Ghazal comes to raise the level of the discussion somewhat. I agree with her when she says that “& nbsp; using the indicator of the language spoken at home as a barometer of the state of French is reductive, even guilty for the vast majority of immigrants and their children & nbsp; ”. Its defense of French as the language of work is laudable.
In short, more of the same. I didn’t see any outstretched hand that could bind us.