Exactly that,
it’s an empire. The only reason Quebec is in Canada today is
because of a military invasion that occurred over 250 years ago.
That is the fundamental fact about Canada: it is the product of war,
of conquest, not consensus. And that war is still going on. The war
of the Conquest (or the French and Indian war or the Seven Year war,
as it is known to some) has never really ended. It continues in the
ongoing low-intensity conflict the Canadian empire wages to preserve
itself. As the great Clausewitz once wrote, war is about imposing
your will on the enemy. This is exactly what the Canadian empire has
been doing by (mostly) psychological means (with a few notable
exceptions). Psychological war, after all, is still war.
The two main
weapons in this war are intimidation for most Quebecers and bribery
for a small clique willing to sell out their country for personal
gain. The traitors are well-known. Trudeau, Chrétien, Dion,
Desmarais, Charest and others do their utmost to preserve the empire
because it’s profitable for them to do so. The intimidation was
most clearly visible in the form of the War Measures Act during the
October crisis which had nothing to do with fighting the FLQ and
everything to do with terrifying people with the wrong political
opinions. The intimidation may not always be overt, but it is always
there. Not only the WMA serve as an example as to what might happen,
but more significantly, the de facto
impunity of the RCMP officers involved in various crimes and dirty
tricks sends an even more insidious message. This impunity for those
who commit crimes in the name of imperial unity sends the message
that no mere laws will stand in the way. It undermines the very
meaning of any “charter of rights”. Indeed, the WMA and the
abuses surrounding it weren’t
counter-terrorism but rather counter-terror.
However,
not all intimidation comes from the state. The Canadian people
themselves play an important part by approving, tacitly or otherwise,
the repressive measures taken by Ottawa. Indeed, Trudeau never would
have invoked the WMA if he didn't think he could get away with it
politically. Likewise, the Canadian people strongly support the
infamous anti-democracy law, euphemistically called the “clarity
bill”. But sometimes, the relationship is inversed. Such as when
enraged Anglos burned down the United-Canada parliament building in
Montreal in 1849 because it was about to enact legislation
compensating inhabitants of Lower-Canada who suffered losses during
the revolts of 1837-38, this was not commanded by the government, but
since it was carried out by “united empire loyalists” no one was
punished. One can easily imagine that if Quebecers carried out
actions one tenth as bad, the punitive results would have been very
different. All this brings us back to the issue of impunity
undermining the rule of law.
The dual
combination of intimidation and bribery means that the Canadian
empire rests on fear and greed. This is hardly surprising as all
empires are about the management of fear. By definition, an empire
is the domination of one nation by another nation through the use of
force. Having no inherent legitimacy, empires maintain themselves by
the chronic use of force or by threatening to use force, either
explicitly or implicitly. For political reasons, it is profitable
for empires to get members of the conquered nation to perform the
repression. This is where bribery and greed come in. It’s in the
empire’s interest to keep the subject nation divided, and this is
precisely the role of the PLQ in Quebec. Naturally, all this bribery
leads to corruption. While there is a lot of corruption in Quebec,
it’s no accident that all those involved are federalists. The root
cause of this corruption is that the PLQ and federalists in general,
are more concerned with pleasing Ottawa and its unofficial viceroy
(Paul Desmarais Sr.) than serving the interests of Quebec. And of
course, they and their dependents expect to be generously rewarded
for their services.
In closing, we
return to where this article began: Canada is war. The war of the
Conquest morphed into a system of domination of the Quebec people and
an ongoing campaign of cultural genocide, both outside Quebec and
within it. Talk of equality and freedom of choice by Anglos today is
pure hypocrisy because they know perfectly well that in the present
context it favors them and hastens our assimilation. But this
hypocrisy, and the racism that accompanies it, is also a product of
Canadian imperialism. Truman once said something to the effect that
you can’t keep a people in the gutter without getting into the
gutter yourself. He was referring to the plight of African-Americans
in the 1950’s, but it also applies to how Canada dominates Quebec.
Such domination not only makes Quebecers cynical and resigned, but
makes Canadians hypocritical, racist and pretty creepy. The
independence of Quebec would not only liberate Quebec, but it would
also free Canadians of the mental straitjacket necessary to keep
their empire together. On that day, Canadians will wake from their
imperial illusions and see Quebec and themselves with clarity and
lucidity.

Hi,
ReplyDeleteBravo for this brilliant and concise description of the situation. I totally agree with you execpt for one thing : Those you call « Canadian » I call them anglos, to be coherent with the message.
Canada Libre,
canadalibre.ca
Re-bonjour,
ReplyDeleteI am starting to add material in english to my web site - CanadaLibre.ca - and I would really like to use your text, with reference to you and to whyquebecneedsindependence.blogspot.ca, of course.
You can reach me in private at CanadaLibre@gmail.com
Merci and regards,
CL
Hey Dude,
ReplyDeleteHonestly I don't support the way you hate the conquest. As much as it is "bad", without it Québecois wouldn't be what we are today. We'd probably be something akin to St-Pierre-et-Miquelon.
It is because of the conquest that we became independent from France. Without the conquest, we wouldn't have had to resists assimilation the way we had. We wouldn't have had the crise d'octobre where some of us were so pissed they fell into terrorism (some would say heroism).
As much as the conquest sucks, we wouldn't be the badasses that we are today without it.
And when it comes to why we need independance, I wouldn't say it's about language anymore. The real reason is the last federal election, when the rest of Canada elected Harper and we elected Layton. We can debate why we have different views from the others provinces, and your text is a pretty good theory, but I don't care how it happened. We are politically opposed to the rest of the country,for me that's enough to choose independence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete''It is because of the conquest that we became independent from France.'' ... and dependent of the Great-Britain ...
DeleteWhat is the problem with St-Pierre-et-Miquelon ? Is that "as bad" as Les îles de la Madeleine ??
DeleteDoes RaccoonDave about the anti-Canadien apartheid that anglos used to get rid of most francophone populations of Canada, not to mention the Acadian deportation ? Does he know the white-neger status that our nation was kept into, forcing half of all Canadiens to permanent exile ?? About the Guilde of Orange, the anti-Catholic and anti-French KKK Kanada, the Doric Club, the "no dogs, no jew, no black" beaches and the "no jews is too many" ???
How could anyone say that the British occupation of Canada was a good thing if he knew those things ?
RaccoonDave does not seem to know also that la " crise d'octobre " was at least as much the fact of federal police agents provocateurs who had burnt buildings and put bombs as well during that period (http://canadalibre.ca/textes-divers/flq-grc/).
DeleteFollowing the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, independance is more likely to fit the needs of the Québécois.
ReplyDeleteA confederation gained with war is not.
Independance is among the very basic needs of a community. Once you own your independance, you can sign treaties freely for the benefit of all.
Great text. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteReply to racoonydave
Everything that is passed cant change. But makes ourselves complete as we are of today. Us as we are can improve again so we can avoid to make our past errors again.
It is because of the conquest that we became independent from France. Without the conquest, we wouldn't have had to resists assimilation the way we had. We wouldn't have had the crise d'octobre where some of us were so pissed they fell into terrorism (some would say heroism).
Replacing onE domination by another ?
Vey interresting, because I was talking about that with an american friend on facebook the other day.
ReplyDeleteIt wanted to understand why we, the french in Quebec, we wanted to separate and get our independance from Canada.
We spoke a while and we came down to exactly what you say in your article. Contrary to the USA where the country was formed after the independance of the colonies (The United States are a federation of ex-colonies (States) working together, The state of the Union speech is exactly about it). So the USA came together with consensus.
But Canada was basically created from war. There war never any war to unify anglos and francos to gain Canada's independance from England. The winner of the war, England, ordered to assimilate the French and took pretty much all their land. When France and England concluded the Threaty of Paris, New-France territorry was bigger then what Quebec is today. The crown of England decided to create 2 canadas. High Canada and Lower Canada. What we now know as Quebec, wa smostly Lower Canada where the French lived. But after a few years, they saw that Franch wwre not getting assimilated fast enough, so they merged Lower and High Canada together to create Canada.
Now instead of having two colonies, they had one colony, one governor. That colony was Canada as we know it. Canada had 1 parliament, and since the majority of the canadian population were anglos, it was a lot easier to assimilate the French by simply giving them an illusion of democracy. The French could never really win.
And so this is still the way Canada works today, and like RacooneyDave said, we, the french, don't have the same political opinions than the Rest of Canada, it always have been like this. In WWII we were against going in war, but anglos were. We know what happenned after, conscription and French on the front line.
Democratically speaking, it is just simply normal that anglos runs the country, because they represent more than 75% of the population. But Quebecers never felt canadian and their political opinions proves that they're very different than rest of Canada. Independance is the ONLY way Quebecers will ever be able to lives to their expectations. As long as we'll be part of Canada, we'll simply be the minority getting bad politics imposed on us.
« after a few years, they saw that Franch wwre not getting assimilated fast enough, so they merged Lower and High Canada together to create Canada »
DeleteNot exactly : The creation of two separate Upper and Lower Canada allowed one of those to be English only after a short while. Its only when anglo populations were large enough to dominate the Canadiens in one single parliament that the colonies were merge together with Nova-Scotia and New-Brunswick - ex-Acadia colonies which were largely English due to the deportation of Acadiens. From then on, the Canadiens did not have real power over their state and the assimilation really did start.
« Quebecers never felt [liked] canadian »
DeleteThis is very misleading and, formally speaking, untrue.
Québec franco population has been Canadiens since the very beginning of their presence in the New-World, long before the anglo occupation. Canada has existed for over a century and a half before any English could sail up the St-Lawrence without being sunk and go across the Appalachians without being scalped.
Hence, Québécois are the Canadiens and anglos are essentially something else that has taken their name to impose their domination because what has no name does not exist.
The same about the Canada's national anthem, by the way. The Oh! Canada was written and composed by real Canadiens to be presented for the first time on St-Jean-Baptiste day 1880. It's only decades later that english versions were created.
And the maple leaves, the beaver, the mouse, etc. Most Canada symbols existed before the anglos took 'hem.
What has no name and no symbols does not exist.
For the rest, Mario, I agree with you ;)
DeleteVery well written and intelligently argued. The problem is that logic and intelligence mean very little in public discourse these days. You would be far more successful in reaching your aims by some type of "propaganda" related to the economic benefits of separation. The way things appear to me is that the fear of negative economic ramifications is what prevents the population of Quebec from achieving independence. It is very sad indeed and you have my sympathies--I am from Serbia, but part of my youth was spent in Quebec and it is a far better and more progressive place than the rest of Canada.
ReplyDeleteEven if the terms of the article unfortunately make it essentially unreadable to any Anglo federalist (they refuse to conceive of Canada as anything but the nicest place on Earth), I must say thay I love this sentence, which i agree with wholeheartedly : « Such domination not only makes Quebecers cynical and resigned, but makes Canadians hypocritical, racist and pretty creepy. »
ReplyDelete