Talk:Parti Québécois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article is clearly not NPOV. Although this sentence about Jacques Rose is true, this it is absolutely not relevant, this is anecdoctic. See this extract from a journalist from the Gazette (not suspect of sympathy to the PQ) http://www.vigile.net/ds-michaud/docs/01-12-8-macpherson.html "Lévesque was appalled. It was his worst nightmare about the Parti Québécois come true. He had wept that night in 1970 when he heard that Pierre Laporte's body had been found; he had absolutely no sympathy for the sentimental ovation for those convicted for his kidnapping and murder." This is an event taken out of context and it implies that all members of Parti Québécois are in favour of violent action.

Can someone well informed read this article to verify NPOV ?

As someone who read up over the whole Quebec independence thing a while ago, I can say this article is definately not NPOV.

As someone who is still reading on this and has lived through much of the events, I also agree. On the other hand, let's be positive about this! Given the intense passion generated over these political debates I have the impression this is about as neutral as we can ever get. There will always be somebody coming in to try and paint the PQ black, dredging up every possible negative thing about it while others will always come in to try and whitewash it completely. As things stand today most of the facts are in, even if the presentation is not as balanced as I would hope, and there are many declarations given without context. Sure the article would be more neutral if you removed the adjectives and the superlatives. Sure, the article would be richer with paragraphs establishing context for all those controversies. But doing these things would mean moving around in a battlefield where snipers are still very active and it would also entail doubling or quadrupling the size of the article. Right now I don't have an armored suit in my wardrobe. Good luck you all, cause you sure need it. 2003-12-09, 13:41 ---

I think adding the sentence about Jacques Rose's standing ovation, without the slightest explanation, was an inappropriate and subjective move. Aside from its evident subjectivity, I also doubt its relevancy in an article about a political party. (Should we mention everyone else who received an ovation or was booed during a convetion?) Tremblay 20:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note the following:

• (cur) (last) . . 03:01, 6 Dec 2003 . . Tremblay (Following general concensus, removing bias-by-content)

What general concensus? I have reinstated this important information and added corollary information relative to extremist members of the party. Angelique 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on the insertion of an anecdote on a standing ovation on November 17, then more voices supported the removal of that mention here. Three weeks later, seeing as there was no dissent, I removed it.. That's general consensus.

Besides, you're being inconsistent. You proclaim that giving background information (Quebec's majoritarily francophone population, safeguarding the culture in North America, etc) on the nature and necessity of a party like the PQ in Quebec is "not relevant to the article". Yet you think something as anecdotic and irrelevant as a standing ovation is? Tremblay 22:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The PQ is not entirely a social democratic party. The last vestiges of the fallangist Union Nationale were absorbed into the Parti Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard was right-of-centre, and Bernard Landry was the successor to Bouchard.

Falangist? Falangist? ...wait, I'll read this again. ...falangist? Are we speaking of the falangists I'm thinking of? One does not make that kind of statement without weighing their words. I-am-no-fan, NO FAN of the pre-1960 Union Nationale: it was corrupted, conservative, counter-laicist, arrogant, hostile to labor unions and proponent of an old nationalism without independence. But in no way was it falangist before the death of Duplessis, or after. And, speaking of after, the party was much more honorable under the govern of Mr. Daniel Johnson Sr., himself an Irish-Quebecois (that's some falangist for ya'). Absorbed, you say? There was no formal fusion of the UN and the PQ. Furthermore, as some of the highest members, the followers have indubitably switched alleigance to both parties. Robert Bourassa's Liberals were closer to some of the weak nationalists of the federalist-nationalist faction of the UN.

Honourable? Mr. Johnson was constantly compared Mr. Lévèsque to Fidel Castro and wasn't even capable of winning a fair election (Montreal had 2/5 of Quebec's population and 1/5 of the MNA seats in 1966), having lost the popular vote by 7 points (In a U.S. Presidential election, 7 points would mean a landslide victory in the Electoral College, in Quebec, it meant losing the National Assembly by 6 seats.). If you want to put honourable and Union Nationale in the same sentence together, it had better include the words "Gilbert Layton" and "leaving the party when he realised that opposing Liberal corruption under Godbout did not justify supporting a far-right movement.") That being said, isn't ideology that mixes ultra-conservatism with Roman Catholicism inherently falangist? I mean, Duplessis was a guy who went beyond opposing World War 2 on pacificist to being openly sympathetic to Hitler and to Pétain (He allowed Vichy collaborators to escape execution in Quebec and was extremely hostile to many of the groups that Hitler slaughtered en masse, including Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and radical leftists.). He used both armed thugs and Catholic priests to muzzle free speech in Quebec in a way that it has never before and never since been muzzled in any Canadian jurisdiction.

The conservative and ultramontane political clique of Duplessis inherited power from the reactionary clique which collaborated with the imperialist and anti-catholic businessmen who established a British Federal Dominion in Canada in 1867. In other words, the retarded bunch of short-sighted narrow-minded Quebec capitalists who collaborated to the system of British Indirect Rule over the people Quebec from the 1840 Union Act up until now did everything they could, and continue to do everything they can to block the liberal/progressive movement that pushes for the creation of a free, democratic, secular, and egalitarian Republic of Quebec (aka Republic of Lower Canada, Republic of Laurentia).

One has to avoid making people they know nothing about guilty by association. Duplessis's blind catholicism made him (and others) follow all the reactionary ideologies of his time. The catholic church, made almighty and powerful with the Quebec Act, had an index of banned books, banned movies until the 1960s. To have a more neutral view of nazi collaboration in Canada, I recommend reading up on the open anti-semitism of Prime Minister of Canada Mckenzie King who refused to let Jewish refugees enter Canada during WWII http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0020181

As of Lucien Bouchard, a long debate is still going on about this, but it was under his government that, for example, the progressive public daycare system was instituted and he kept alive the major aspects of Jean Lesage and René Lévesque's Welfare State, built by four decades of progressive work. And the act of reducing a great deficit left by the Liberals so the younger generations won't have to starve to pay the bills is in a way not that big a treason to social democracy. When one compares to Jean Charest's right-wing ... demolition derby of the present government, when one compares Mr. Bouchard to the *real* right Quebecers forgot about, the one the left forgot to defend the people against, one sees how much Bouchard wasn't all that bad. --Liberlogos 20:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You win. But when did I ever put Bouchard even further to the right than Charest? It's true, however, Tories and former Tories are very influential in every relevant party in Quebec, save, of course, the UFP.

The PQ is social democratic but like many social democratic parties it should not be described simply as "left wing". Moderate left or centre-left is fine but if it were "left wing" there would be no UFP. AndyL

[edit] Should this be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'?

(beginning of paragraph under History) Critics, both francophone and anglophone, have however criticized Bill 101 for restraining citizens' linguistic school choice, as if forbids immigrants and Quebeckers of French descent from attending English-language school.

Was 'as if forbids' supposed to be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'? Either could easily have an almost invisible typo resulting in the current language, but the two have very different meanings. Scott 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)