"I don't think Montreal is lacking in political clout in Quebec," stated Qubec solidaire co-spokesman Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. "If the price to pay for a Quebec democracy that better represents the regions and better reflects the votes of Quebecers is that Montreal loses three ridings, it is a price we at QS are ready to pay."Dave Sidaway / Montreal Gazette file photo
The beauty of chess is that it is a game of drawn out strategy whereby you virtually set traps for your opponent, calculated to remove their obstacles of resistance until a checkmate is inevitable.
Politics is arguably a chess game; thats the beastly part.
And arguably (theres a lot of arguably going on here) the proverbial bastion that is the West Island of Montreal (WIM) is a pawn in the provincial game between Quebec nationalists and in-ground federalists.
I have to hand it to the eternal nationalist movement, which has been with us since the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Their strategy of nailing independence (ie. victory) has been remarkably progressive. Like a chess game, they first tried a quick thrust a clear referendum question. That having failed, they tried a quick cloaked version. (We will share the Canadian passport and dollar.) The fast tracks having failed, they settled down to a slow burn with lots of cloaking devices. Their checkmate scenario is best described by the London School of Economics former premier Jacques Pariseaus winning conditions. The idea is if you cant trick your opponent with some textbook moves, you take the long road and disable their board pieces little by little. The opponent loses by attrition.
After an outright separatist party (Parti Qubcois) waxed ineffectiveness over the recent years, we now have a nationalist-lite option (Coalition Avenir Qubec) which presents itself under a more inclusive marquee (ie. We will not hold another referendum, without saying, until we have winning conditions.)
But the chess game goes on, played out by more experienced bushwhackers.
Exhibit A: Garnish English schools (like pawns) one by one, having previously changed the rules of the game with Bill 101. That undemocratic bill still lingers under the cloak of French language protection despite the former concern having been proven to be solid in terms of Quebec society. But the separatists are playing for a win not a draw. I say cloak because Bill 101s contemporary purpose is to create winning conditions. (Theres that chess game again.)
Three more English schools recently closed in the east end due to (101-fabricated) low attendance of historic Anglos (as opposed to other Canadians.) Wow.
Exhibit B: The bling-restricting Bill 21. (You fill in the blanks.) Hardly a champion of Canadas cultural melting pot (versus a record-skipping one-trick tribal pony.)
And yet the chess match, like an exhausting game of Risk (the global version of territory procurement) moves too slowly for the eager vanguard of nation-wanters, so being an inventive baker its got something fresh cooking in the oven:
Exhibit C: Bill 39, the CAQ governments proposed reforms to the electoral system that the non-narcoleptic chess opposition say would reduce the island of Montreals loges in the National Assembly by three. Doesnt seem that much to complain about, huh? But remember, we are now in the long haul, pawns projected to be garnished even further until the moat is dry and the drawbridge down around Fortress WIM. Doesnt matter if the doomed seats are not in the West Island. Its the number of pieces left on the board. Montreals say in the strictest definition of provincial Quebec would be further eroded less irritants to the wanters strategic end game. And like the present use of Bill 101 and 21 cloaked. A loss to Montreal will be counterbalanced with a rural gain no matter their spare population and whether they know where Montreal the provinces economic engine is on the map.
Without being a Quebec political guru how do I know this proposal is bad?
Because Qubec solidaire co-spokesman Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois likes it:
If the price to pay for a Quebec democracy . . . (I dont know how he doesnt get struck by lightning when he says that.) . . . that better represents the regions and better reflects the votes of Quebecers is that Montreal loses three ridings, it is a price we at QS are ready to pay. (As Ace Ventura, pet detective says, Reeeeeeeeealy!
Also the Liberal critic for democratic reforms doesnt like it. (Hmmm. Can it be bad for the pawns?)
I could dredge up more examples, but why bother? The writing is on the wall. The chess game is on and we should upend the board. How about a Montreal independent from Quebec?
View post:
Schukov: The chess game continues and the West Island is a pawn - Montreal Gazette
