Ottawa, Charest at odds on Québécois meaning

CAMPBELL CLARK
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

MONTREAL — The thorny issue of defining just who is Québécois continued to embroil the main political parties Tuesday, with Quebec Premier Jean Charest asserting that everyone who lives in Quebec, including aboriginals, is part of the Québécois nation.

But for Liberal delegates at this week's leadership convention in Montreal, debate on the issue will almost certainly be shelved. Delegates are being asked to change convention rules so they can abandon discussion of the policy resolution calling for Quebec to be recognized as a “nation within Canada.”

The resolution had threatened to become a divisive flashpoint at the convention — before Parliament passed a similar motion on Monday.

That motion, which recognized the “Québécois” as a nation, was passed with a heavy majority in the Commons. Since then, however, politicians of all stripes have been weighing in on what they think it means.

Mr. Harper's senior Quebec minister, Lawrence Cannon, said Monday the nation is not all Quebeckers, and suggested it includes only francophones. On the other hand, the government's Senate leader, Marjory LeBreton, said “nation” does include all Quebeckers.

In Quebec City, however, Mr. Charest said no one should have any doubt about who is in the Québécois nation.

“Let's not stumble over what it means when we talk about the Quebec nation. We are talking about every citizen regardless of their origins. We are also talking about the First Nations as well as the Inuit,” he said in Quebec's National Assembly.

“This definition of nation is inclusive. It doesn't seek to exclude anyone. ... And in no way does it contradict our Canadian identity.”

Mr. Charest tabled a motion Tuesday stating that the National Assembly was “delighted by this significant gesture,” insisting that it “represented an important progress for Quebec.”

The Quebec Premier has argued that recognizing Quebec as a nation could eventually influence how the Supreme Court interprets Quebec laws. The province has a different approach than the federal government on a number of important issues, from the way Quebec treats its young offenders to its claim over offshore drilling rights in the St. Lawrence River. Mr. Charest suggested that he could use his newfound status to argue his case before the courts.

On Monday, federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong quit Mr. Harper's cabinet over the Québécois resolution, complaining that it recognized an ethnic nationalism he cannot support.

Tuesday, all three provincial party leaders in Quebec said they reject the notion of ethnic nationalism in Quebec, and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe peppered Mr. Cannon in the Commons for saying it does not include all Quebeckers. He drew an unclear response from Mr. Cannon.

“It's an inclusive definition that takes in all of the Québécois who live in the Québécois territory,” Mr. Cannon said.

A poll aired on the TVA network found that in Quebec, 64 per cent of respondents said they considered the Québécois a nation, compared with only 15 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to the survey by Léger Marketing.

The House of Commons motion, adopted on Monday, has spread confusion because the French version also refers to Québécois, which translates as “Quebecker” — a broader definition that means anyone who lives in Quebec.

“No wonder there's confusion — outside of Quebec, they're reading the English version,” said Antonia Maioni, director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “It's an unfortunate use of words in English. Something got lost in translation.”

Daniel Weinstock, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Montreal, said the term Québécois carries the suggestion of “ethnic lineage.”

“If you want to refer to the whole of society, you say Quebecker, not Québécois,” he said, adding that Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the choice deliberately to avoid the politically explosive step of recognizing a distinct nation within Canada.

“When one chooses Québécois rather than the easily available Quebecker, it's for a reason,” he said. “But this is a clear case of a politician believing it can control the genie he's let out of the bottle, and he can't.”

The distinction may be a semantic debate, and legal scholars have said that a Commons resolution has no legal or constitutional impact. But it raises an echo from the late-1990s debate over whether Quebec could be partitioned if it separates, with part of its territory remaining in Canada: Sovereigntists argued that under international law, nations have the right to self-determination, and territorial integrity — so Quebec could not be divided.

After weeks of talks with leadership-campaign strategists anxious to avoid a nasty and unpredictable battle between delegates, the two sponsors of the original Liberal motion, Marc Belanger and William Hogg, said they will withdraw the motion on the convention's first working day Wednesday.

The move glosses over divisions within the Liberal Party: Three leadership candidates, including third-place contender Gerard Kennedy, opposed the government motion to recognize Quebeckers as a nation, and 15 Liberal MPs also broke ranks with their party.

The proposal sparked a backlash outside Quebec against front-runner Michael Ignatieff, the only major contender to wholeheartedly endorse the resolution. “Delegates came forward with this initiative, it was one of the forces sparking a very, I think, positive resolution in the House of Commons last night. I don't think anyone's climbed down,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

Rival Bob Rae, who enters the convention in second place, said he did not want to debate the definition of the Québécois nation — and reminded people he didn't bring it up.

Last night, rival candidate Stéphane Dion said the Commons motion does not end the debate in Canada because some will continue to argue the Quebec nation should exist outside Canada.

With reports from Rheal Seguin, Ingrid Peritz, Jeff Sallot, Bill Curry and Brian Laghi

.

.

The Globe and Mail

PM calls Quebec 'a nation'

Harper's bold gambit recognizes Quebec, but within the framework of 'a united Canada'

Nov. 23, 2006. 09:09 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT AND TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper is asking the House of Commons to declare that Quebec is a nation — "within a united Canada" — and in so doing, has blazed a trail for the opposition Liberals to get out of their own controversy over this hot-button, national-unity issue.

With just four words, Harper has simultaneously made history and potential peace in Liberal ranks. Quebec Premier Jean Charest called it a significant moment for the country.

Prompted by the separatist Bloc Québécois's intent to have the Commons vote on whether Quebec is a nation, Harper made a surprise statement in the House yesterday afternoon.

He said Parliament wouldn't be put into a trap by the sovereignists making this vow:

"With the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the notice paper later today the following motion: `That, this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.'"

The Prime Minister went on to declare: "Having been asked by the Bloc to define the Québécois, we must take a position. Our position is clear. Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no, because Quebecers of all political persuasions ... have led this country, and millions like them of all political persuasions have helped to build it."

Harper's resolution will help the opposition Liberals defuse a controversy that has dogged its leadership campaign ever since the Quebec wing of the party called for recognition of Quebec as a nation to be "officialized."

After front-runner Michael Ignatieff embraced the resolution, his opponents accused him of threatening to reopen the Constitution. He denied this, but the party has been unsuccessfully trying to find a way to avoid a showdown on the issue at next week's leadership convention.

Liberals, especially Ignatieff, were relieved. "I think it's a good day for Canada," Ignatieff said.

Yet another Liberal leadership candidate, Stéphane Dion, was actually called by Harper's office Tuesday night to sound him out on the proposal. He is also happy, saying it reflects the compromise he'd floated privately with his opponents.

"I have no problem with this," said Dion, also a former political scientist and intergovernmental affairs minister who had been viewed as the most staunch opponent of recognizing Quebec as a nation.

Now, for the first time, Canada's top legislature will recognize Quebec's status as a nation, but with the significant proviso: within Canada. It's another step on a long, historic road littered with other descriptions of Quebec's unique character — "distinct society" being the most famous, and controversial.

Liberals, meanwhile, have four words — "within a united Canada" — that could defuse a looming debate on Quebec's "nation" status at next week's leadership convention in Montreal.

It's not a total outbreak of peace, however. Some of Harper's own Conservative MPs have reservations. "I'm really uncomfortable with this," said one, who predicted several MPs will likely abstain next week when it comes time to vote. Nor is it clear that it will satisfy "soft" sovereignists in Quebec. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe warned that Quebecers would always see themselves as a nation "without conditions."

But on the Liberal-Tory divide, Harper's move was a bombshell and an echo of his past role as inspiration and author of the foundation for the famous Clarity Act — a law setting out terms for negotiating Quebec separation — adopted almost wholesale by Jean Chrétien's Liberals in the wake of the 1995 referendum. In fact, once again, Harper has given the Liberals a strategy toward handling Quebec separatism, one they couldn't seem to find themselves.

The significance of the compromise was sealed with the sight of Harper and Liberal leader Bill Graham walking to the middle of the Commons floor to shake each other's hands yesterday.

"I tell the Prime Minister we will work with all parties in the House, with all members who have the interests of all Canadians at heart, to adopt a solution that respects Quebec and Quebecers and gives them that future within this wonderful country of ours," Graham told the Commons.

The relief was obvious among Liberals. Ignatieff, who's been taking the most heat for arguing in favour of Quebec's nation status, said: "I'm sure Mr. Harper is not in the business of throwing me any life jackets at all. ... We will always be political adversaries but ... I've been clear from the first moment I went into this race. I've led on this issue from the beginning and I'm gratified with the result."

Liberal leadership contender Ken Dryden had urged the Liberals to wipe the debate off the table, calling it "ludicrous," but yesterday even he was saying of Harper's wording: "I think it has changed things."

Harper first approached Graham Tuesday night and told him he was going to "figure something out" to counter the Bloc motion, Liberal sources say. It was an aide who alerted Harper to the Bloc motion at 6 p.m., Tuesday and immediately the Prime Minister started looking for his own wording, said a senior federal source.

Dion got a call from a Harper adviser, seeking his advice as a constitutional expert and as a Liberal contender. Dion told the Star last night that "within Canada" was close enough to his proposal to recognize Quebec's nation status as a "sociological," not legal fact. "It's no big deal," he said.

Harper, who cut his political teeth on constitutional issues back in the 1980s and the 1990s, mainly as an opponent of special status for Quebec, also met privately with NDP Leader Jack Layton Tuesday night.

Then yesterday, as the weekly caucus meetings were beginning on Parliament Hill, Harper again pulled aside Graham in a corridor and told him he was playing with wording that would make mention of a united Canada in any recognition of Quebec's nationhood.

It probably wasn't a coincidence, then, that several Liberal leadership candidates told reporters yesterday they wouldn't vote for the Bloc motion because it didn't mention Canada.

"The word `Canada' is not mentioned in the resolution, that's not acceptable," said Bob Rae, the former Ontario premier and veteran of Canada's constitutional dramas.

Gerard Kennedy, former Ontario education minister, said much the same thing: "Fundamentally, if it doesn't talk about Canada, if it doesn't talk about a united Canada, it's not something that we can support."

Ditto from Toronto lawyer Martha Hall Findlay: "The (Bloc) motion as it is says nothing about Canada."

Meanwhile, a senior Quebec Tory said the party has been mulling the resolution over "for quite some time" and they see it as a way to give the Bloc a taste of its own medicine while appealing to the Tories' fading support in the province. "This will be remembered as a great day for Parliament," the official said.

With files from Les Whittington, Sean Gordon and Canadian Press

.

The Toronto Star

The new struggle for equality: Gay rights (and wrongs) in Africa

South Africa has legalised same-sex marriage - but despite this pioneering measure, the rest of the continent remains one of the most homophobic places in the world

By Alex Duval Smith
Published: 21 November 2006

Deep in the Sahara one of the world's most extraordinary tribal exhibitions takes place every year when young men of the Wadabi tribe adorn themselves with beads and face paint to woo their future wives.

At the end of the all-night ceremony the most effeminate of them all is given the pick of the virgins. This extravaganza in Niger is considered to be one of Africa's most treasured heterosexual rituals. But almost anywhere else on the continent, any flirting with sexual boundaries is deeply taboo. Being gay in Africa is not easy.

When the South African parliament voted last week to legalise same- sex marriage, Mongezi Chirwa, a resident of Alexandra, near Johannesburg, was quick to pipe up that he was looking forward to becoming one of the first men to tie the knot with his boyfriend.

His declaration came shortly after Lindiwe Radebe, 25, and Bathini Dambuza, 22, two women from Soweto who have been engaged for a year, went public on television about their decision to be wed.

The debate that followed in the South African media was not so much centred on the old arguments that homosexuality is an "abomination" brought to Africa by the colonisers. Neither has there been much quoting of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's view that gays and lesbians are "worse than dogs and pigs".

Guardians of tradition, such as Mr Chirwa's grandmother and spiritual healer Nokuzola Mndende, argue that the real problem presented by the new South African law - which is expected to be passed by the National Council of Provinces before being signed into law on 1 December - is that it is going to be difficult for African families to adapt their traditional rituals to their new gay and lesbian in-laws.

Mrs Mndende, who is the director of the Icamagu Institute, said: "There's the issue of lobolo [dowry]. Normally the man pays it. In this case, who is going to pay?" She added that when a man announces that he wishes to marry a woman, the families meet and an unozakuzaku is formed - a delegation that negotiates lobolo for the groom. "Who is going to be unozakuzaku?" she asked.

Mrs Mndende is disappointed that South Africa's black-led government - which passed the Civil Union Bill by 230 votes to 41 - is setting out to "destabilise tradition".

But according to Mogezi Guma, of the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities, traditional practices are inventions which can easily be adapted. "Communities have always accommodated emerging challenges. For instance, cattle were used before as a way of paying lobolo but today money and cheques and receipts are exchanged." Africa remains one of the most homophobic places in the world and even in South Africa - with the exception of gay tourism spots in Cape Town - it is not advisable for same-sex couples to walk hand-in- hand in the street. There are occasional moments of liberation from this rule, such as during Johannesburg's annual gay pride event, which has been staged every September for the past 16 years. Zimbabwe's annual Jacaranda Ball was a similar event, until the drag queens got too frightened to go out of doors.

African archbishops, especially Nigeria's Peter Akinola who has 17 million Anglicans in his flock, have led the schism in the Anglican Communion since the election of Gene Robinson, a gay bishop in New Hampshire, in 2003. Churches in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have followed suit, principally by refusing grants from the American Episcopal Church. Critics of the South African Civil Union Bill point out that its fatal flaw is that religious leaders may still, on grounds of "conscience, religion and belief" refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings. The churchmen have been supported by politicians such as Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who last year changed the constitution to introduce a ban on same-sex marriage. A radio station that invited three activists to comment on the ban was fined 1.8m shillings (£800).

In Nigeria - which enforces powerful anti-homosexual laws from the colonial era, including five years' jail for consenting sex without the option of a fine - the Federal Executive Council also approved a bill in January seeking to outlaw gay marriage. In October 2004, a Sierra Leonean lesbian activist, Fannyann Eddy was raped and savagely beaten, and died from a broken neck, after being assaulted in her office. A man was arrested but escaped from detention.

In Cameroon, 11 men are currently in prison on the basis of their presumed sexual orientation after nine of them were found guilty of sodomy and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment at a trial in June. At a separate court hearing, four suspected lesbians were given suspended six month sentences for "sodomy". At the same time, Cameroon's media has launched an aggressive "outing" campaign. Its victims have included the Franco-Cameroonian former tennis star Yannick Noah, 45, the singer Manu Dibango and two cabinet ministers.

In Zimbabwe, the ritual homophobic destruction of the gay and lesbian stand at the Harare International Book Fair took place again this August. President Mugabe believes that "gay gangsters" - some of whom he sees belonging to the British Government - are conspiring for regime change.

In Ghana, four men were jailed for two years in 2004 for alleged "unnatural acts". Gays and lesbians in the west African country still only agree to speak anonymously about their experience. One man said: "People imagine that gays are paedophiles and criminals. You are taunted as a child. I had a friend who was recently told he was evil and would not go to heaven. Pentecostal churches perform exorcism rites on people seen as being gay. I was beaten up a couple of years ago. I met this guy on the beach and agreed to meet him at the market. When I got there several men and women accused me of forcing their friend to have sex. They beat me and took everything I had.

"They said gays were evil people who made God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. They said they would beat out of me the evil spirit of homosexuality."

African homophobes justify their actions with the claim that homosexuality is a white colonial import. The former Kenyan president Daniel Arap Moi said it himself in 1999: "It is against African tradition and biblical teachings, I will not shy from warning Kenyans against this scourge." The Namibian former president Sam Nujoma said: "Homosexuals must be condemned and rejected. Homosexuality is a behavioural disorder that is alien to African culture".

But activists say homosexuality and gender-bending is as old as Africa. They say that what came with the colonisers was homophobia in the shape of morally charged legislation that aimed to tame "savage" practices such as shows of affection between people of the same sex. Activists quote the Garawal - the annual extravagant marriage ritual of the flamboyant Wadabi tribe. Historians say that in ancient traditional communities homosexuality - which in the Shona language of Zimbabwe has a name, ngochani - was widespread and acceptable. Men who wished to adopt traditional female roles and who found male partners were not frowned upon because they did not represent a threat to other men. Same-sex relationships only came under threat at times of extreme poverty or famine when there was an urgent need for procreation.

But if South Africa last week became the first country in Africa to legalise same-sex weddings it is not because the country has a better grasp than others on African anthropological history. It is because the country has an organised gay and lesbian movement - including influential websites (such as mask.org.za) that have provided a lung of expression for people in all English-speaking African countries - and political influence. It was as a result of a case brought by gay and lesbian campaigners that the South African Constitutional Court last year gave the government until 1 December to create the Civil Union Bill that legalises same-sex weddings.

Despite its lobbying power, the South African gay and lesbian lobby would not be where it is today without a man called Simon Nkoli, to whom the ruling African National Congress owes a profound debt of gratitude.

Nkoli, who was 41 when he died from an Aids illness in November 1998, united black and white gays and lesbians and initiated the first South African Pride march in 1990. More importantly, as an anti-apartheid campaigner, he spent four years in jail with leading ANC figures Popo Molefe, Frank Chikane and the current Defence Minister Mosiuoa "Terror" Lekota. Nkoli profoundly influenced the future decision-makers who were his fellow inmates to incorporate gays and lesbians in the dream they held for a democratic South Africa, free from all forms of discrimination.

The playwright Robert Colman, who has written about Nkoli's life, said the gay activist had a profound impression on the other prisoners. "There was a scandal in the prison when a warder delivered a note which was proof that one of the treason triallists was arranging a meeting for sex with a common-law prisoner. Political prisoners at the time had a code of conduct whereby they did not indulge in those practices. They set themselves above other prisoners because they did not see themselves as criminals.

"The issue of the note had to be discussed among the 22 political prisoners. Because of the homophobic reaction of some of the men, Simon came out. This step confronted the other prisoners with a dilemma. Some of them thought Simon would turn state witness. They thought the state would use Simon's sexuality as a weakness to manipulate him with. I believe that incident had a very direct bearing on the equality clause in the South African constitution."

Last week, before the vote in South Africa's parliament, the Home Affairs minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said the Civil Unions Bill marked another step in the country's rejection of its brutal past. Ahead of a vote in which all ANC MPs were required to vote, she sought to shift the debate's focus from the emotional to the intellectual.

"The challenge that we continue to face has to do with the fact that when we attained our democracy we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of colour, creed, culture and sex."

Mr Lekota, an unrepentant heterosexual, told MPs: "The question is not whether same-sex marriages or civil unions are right or not. It is whether South Africa is going to suppress same-sex partners or not.

"Men and women of homosexual and lesbian orientation joined the ranks of the democratic forces in the struggle for liberation. Same-sex unions should be afforded similar space as heterosexual marriages in the sunshine of democracy," said Mr Lekota.

.

.
Africa and homosexuality

SOUTH AFRICA
On 14 November South Africa became the first African nation to legalise same-sex marriage. Under apartheid, sex between men was outlawed. Even today 63 per cent believe that homosexuality should not be accepted.

ZIMBABWE
Male homosexuality is illegal and since 1995 President Robert Mugabe has pursued a "moral campaign" against homosexuals. He has said being gay is a "white disease". "Unnatural sex acts" carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

GHANA
Male homosexual activity is illegal. Gay men can also be punished under provisions concerning assault and rape, if "in public or with minor". Two months ago a gay rights conference was banned.

MOROCCO
Homosexuality is illegal and can be punished with up to three years in prison and a fine of up to £75, but the law is seldom enforced, and homosexual activity is fairly common, especially in the resorts.

CHAD
There is no law against being gay. Homosexual behaviour is not mentioned as a criminal offence in the penal code. However, homosexuality is considered immoral and is a taboo subject.

ETHIOPIA
The law prohibits homosexual acts by both sexes, with a penalty of up to three years in prison. This may be increased by five or more years when the offender "makes a profession of such activities".

EGYPT
There are no laws against homosexuality, but it has started to become illegal de facto under various laws such as "offences against public morals" and "violating the teachings of religion".

KENYA
Homosexual behaviour is banned between men, which is referred to as "carnal knowledge against the order of nature". The penalty is five to 14 years' imprisonment. The age of consent is 16. Lesbian relations are not prohibited by law.

.

The Independent

S. Africa passes same-sex marriage

Homosexuality still taboo on continent — Critics call move 'sad' and 'satanic'

Nov. 15, 2006. 08:38 AM
CLARE NULLIS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA—South African lawmakers passed legislation recognizing gay marriages yesterday despite criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists.

The bill, unprecedented on a continent where homosexuality is taboo, was decried by gay activists for not going far enough and by opponents who warned it "was provoking God's anger.''

Veterans of the governing African National Congress praised the Civil Union Bill for extending basic freedoms to everyone under the spirit of the country's first post-apartheid constitution adopted a decade ago.

"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust, painful past by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of colour, creed, culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula declared yesterday.

South Africa's constitution was the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, providing a powerful legal tool to gay rights activists even though South Africa remains conservative on such issues.

A Christian lawmaker, Kenneth Meshoe, said yesterday was the "saddest day in our 12 years of democracy" and warned that South Africa "was provoking God's anger.''

Homosexuality is illegal in most sub-Saharan countries. Some countries also are debating constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages. Even in South Africa, gays and lesbians are often attacked because of their sexual orientation.

One church leader in Nigeria, Apostle Abraham Umoh of the Mount of Victory Mission, denounced the vote as "satanic."

The Roman Catholic Church and many traditionalist leaders in South Africa said the measure denigrated the sanctity of marriages between men and women.

To ease some of these concerns, the bill allowed both religious and civil officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples on moral grounds.

The National Assembly passed the bill 230-41 with three abstentions.

.

The Toronto Star