A reality check for separatists

ik - from today's G&M. Caution: the following article quotes an original document that uses overly florid writing and the use of ridiculous words to describe simple concepts. Discretion is advised.

Last week's manifesto by eight prominent sovereigntists goes partway to demolishing the PQ's 'mad illusions,' WILLIAM JOHNSON says

WILLIAM JOHNSON

Now there's a breakthrough. Eight prominent Quebeckers, committed to Quebec's independence, published a manifesto last Thursday that calls for "realism," while cutting to pieces the Parti Québécois's official program for achieving secession. They also demolished the PQ's approach to its 1980 and 1995 referendums. "What energy we are wasting with chimeras, mad illusions, wrong tracks and phantasmagorical deadlines."

Can realities finally overtake perennial magic thinking? The eight have ideological credibility among separatists. Marc Briére, 77, helped René Lévesque found the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, then the Parti Québécois. He later sat as a judge. Jean-Roch Boivin was premier Lévesque's chief of staff and later an adviser to premier Lucien Bouchard. James Walkins was Bernard Landry's director of communications. Claude Jasmin is a prize-winning novelist, filmmaker and journalist. Guy Lachappelle, Henry Milner and Jacques Beauchemin are prominent university professors. Beauchemin won a prize in 2002 from the pro-separatism publication, L'action nationale.

Their manifesto was titled, "A realistic approach to sovereignty and to put an end to certain sophistries." The "sophistries" denounced are precisely the secessionist movement's main postulates.

Constantly, PQ leaders from Lévesque to Landry insisted Quebec has the right to secede unilaterally because the United Nations recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination.

But the eight realists reject that argument as a sophistry: "Under current international law, the right of peoples to self-determination does not mean a right to independence, except for peoples colonized by imperial powers or oppressed by the state of which they are part and in which they constitute national minorities that are deprived of reasonable autonomy. For other peoples, the right to self-determination means only the right to internal autonomy." Quebeckers could hardly convince the international community that they are oppressed, the authors conclude.

They skew another "sophistry," that it is only "normal" for a people like the Québécois to have their independent state. (This was René Lévesque's constant refrain.) The realists counter: "In the world, there are more nations which cohabit in the same state than there are sovereign nations . . . The argument for normality is a demagogic sophistry that must be driven out of democratic debate."

They argue that any referendum question on secession must be clear and must bear only on independence. They propose: "Are you in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign and independent country?" They recognize that, in 1980, the question proposed "sovereignty-association," and, in 1995, sovereignty with a proposal of a partnership with Canada. Logically, they point out, if Canada were to refuse the double proposal, Quebec could not claim a right to secede unless it then won a second referendum dealing with independence only.

The current PQ program adopted last June and embraced by new leader André Boisclair -- who dismissed the manifesto as "quibbling over commas" -- commits the party to hold a referendum early in its mandate after elections and to pass a unilateral declaration of independence right after a victory, even one with the barest majority. Negotiations over the terms of settlement would take place strictly between two independent countries, Quebec and Canada. The eight realists argue that 50 per cent plus one would merely lead to a dangerous impasse. They propose, instead, the 55 per cent that will be required on May 21 for Montenegro's referendum on secession. They also condemn the proposed UDI as futile and suicidal.

The eight offer, instead, their interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 advisory opinion on secession which "has interpreted Canadian constitutional law as recognizing the right of every province to secede . . . if that is the clear will of a clear majority of its citizens, expressed in a referendum followed by good faith negotiations which precede the implementation of the secession and the declaration of independence."

For all their realism, the eight short-changed the Supreme Court's sophisticated ruling. They claim that the court had declared secession a right. Not so. The court stated that unilateral secession was not a right, neither under Canadian nor international law. It was legitimate to aspire to secession, but any attempt must abide by the four fundamental principles of the Constitution: the democratic principle (an unambiguous clear majority), the rule of law (an amendment to the Constitution that follows the amending procedure), the federal principle (the other provinces must assent) and the rights of minorities.

The eight defenders of realism took account of only one of the four principles, the requirement for a clear majority. They ignore the court's clear assertion that the new frontiers of a seceding Quebec would be set by negotiations, not given by current boundaries. They ignore the obvious implications: The lands of the aboriginals would not be up for grabs.

By ignoring the full reach of the Supreme Court's ruling, the realistic eight encouraged Quebeckers to waste more time struggling with chimeras, mad illusions, wrong tracks and phantasmagorical deadlines.