From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Distinct/Nation (was When do we stop being outsiders?)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:22:40 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

What does "distinct" mean in "distinct society"?  I don't think the
dictionary definition is what counts here, but rather what people
think when they hear the phrase.

During the Meech Lake fiasco, the "distinct society" phrase was
presented outside of Quebec as only a phrase - a symbolic recognition
of Quebec's differences, with no further political significance.  In
Quebec, however, this phrase was presented as representing a real
gain in power - the power for Quebec to act in the interest of its
culture, possibly over-riding other aspects of the Charter of Rights.

This ambiguity was deliberate - a political trick to try to please both
sides.  It didn't work - Canadians worried about what powers would come
with such a phrase, and Quebeckers wondered by Canada was nervous about
a symbolic gesture.  (Laws 101/178 were a real sore point here, and to
many seemed an indication that Quebec was willing to trample the rights
of its minorities, and thus shouldn't be trusted with more powers.  As
I've said before, I believe the reaction to these laws was excessive -
but Quebeckers are not the only ones to attach high symbolic importance
to such events.  Can Denis really consider the "PQ" postal abbreviation
a valid symbol of Canada's rejection of Quebec's aspirations, and not
understand that laws 101 and 178 - much more politically significant -
could then serve as a similar symbol to Canadians?)

As to what the actual effect of the phrase might be, once entrenched
in the constitution, that was left up in the air - we wouldn't have
known till after the fact, the first time the Supreme Court ruled
that the phrase did or did not grant the government of Quebec extra
powers.

For this reason, among others, I rejected Meech Lake (et faudrait
pas m'accuser de rejeter le Quebec, hein?) - putting phrases in the
Constitution with no real idea of what their impact might be does
not strike me as a wise practice.

Yes, Quebec is, and should be, the prime defender of "la francophonie"
in Canada (though not the only one - the governments of Canada,
Ontario, New Brunswick, at the very least, have also been active here,
helping create a Canada where I can feel at home even in mostly
anglophone Ontario).  And if this requires special powers, then let's
define these powers, discuss them for however long it takes, then apply
the necessary changes to the Constitution.

But please - none of these growing lists of demands for everything
under the sun; none of these deadlines to increase the chances of
failure; none of these circusses such as our governments keep
offering us to give the illusion that something is really happening!

And Quebec should remember that it is not the only one with demands,
needs, feelings of alienation, desires for more powers, and it
shouldn't feel offended when others view their own demands as just
as important as those of Quebec.  Remember - I think I'm pretty
important, too!

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
Newsgroups: misc.misc,rec.humor