Drainville Backs Out Of Concordia Debate

I find the story of Bernard Drainville pulling out of a debate regarding the moronic Charter at Concordia University amusing for a couple of reasons.

First, he and Lisee are the two bobbleheads who had the audacity to compare their anti-liberty Charter to Thomas Jefferson - in the New York Times no less. I understand Americans may meet this with indifference given plenty of tinpot politicians and dictators in the past have claimed a "spiritual kindred" attachment to the Constitution, nonetheless it's still galling. They can fool their political base with this ignorant and thoughtless nonsense but not to those of us outside it.

Second, Jefferson et all (Madison, Franklin etc) rarely - if ever - backed down from a debate to defend their positions. Why? Because they were committed philosophical giants to their cause. Their belief was a just one rooted in the notion of all men being created equal. That tyranny must be guarded against. That the idea of one man holding another man's liberty hostage through tyranny was unjust.

The message was simple in its origins, confirmed by ages, epochs and eras of history, and flawless in its elegant, inspirational but firm poetic, execution. To these men, all sovereign power and its authority flowed from God and proceeds from this point forward.

Put it this way, we still quote these gentlemen. Will we be quoting Lisee and Drainville? Just like no one quotes Camille Laurin. Theirs is a local outlook. Not a global one.

I don't expect the Quebec intellectual classes to grasp this notion rooted in in our collective heritage found in the Age of Reason of the Enlightenment period given their default, parochial position of putting the concept of "collective culture" first, but they damn better understand this was not how the American Founding Fathers looked at history and man's place during the long course of civilization.

In other words, they were able to extricate themselves from the unique position of being American, to become men who spoke of universal principles shared - or should be shared - by humanity. It just so happened they were 'American' but the message is universal.

This is why they - the PQ - have more in common with Dixiecrats and George Wallace than they do with the classical liberal minds of the Founding Fathers.

The Charter has NO universal message. It has no grand philosophical ideal to which other nations, thinkers or people will find any attachment to. It's just a misapplication of the theory of secularism mostly designed to keep 'les autres' out of their affairs.

If their Charter was so great, there would be no push back. We'd collectively accept it but since it has no connection on any level to our diverse cultural reality, it has little value to the population outside the 'pure laine' tribalists. It was conceived, written and sold by the Parti Quebecois for its own constituents, for political expediency and agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. Quebec's idea of tolerance is "come here but on our terms." Which begs the question, why have immigration at all if you will badger people for expressing who they are?

They can pump out their chests in Mussolini style and claim it's a 'great day for Quebec' but it really isn't. It's a sad one. Which will only hasten the growing suspicion people have of this party's motives. Punitively dividing people may get you in power but the (negative) long-term effects on the society at large could be immeasurable.

The beauty in the American Constitution was that it was conceived in a time when tyranny had reached a zenith. While the American colonists remained skeptical of the Declaration of Independence fearing the possibility of a tyrannical government, they added a Bill of Rights to assuage any concerns both citizens and framers had. It was truly a remarkable piece of document that reverberated across the world. Its impact so deep, it remains deep within the psyche of the American people (well, except for Progressives it seems but this is neither here or there). Nothing has ever been declared in world history.

In this light, it's easy to contrast how different Quebec's angle to the United States.

Third, Quebec nationalists tend to be anti-American. So it's quite comical to hear them compare their trivialities to Americans when it suits their needs. It's a red herring and should be refuted outright.

Fourth, what prevails in Quebec is not a free and open society as we've come to hope for but one firmly entrenched in the notion that tyranny of the majority is acceptable. This acceptance is natural enough for the PQ given they have little or no support outside their cubicles. They have to rely on tyranny masquerading as "democratic." On its own, they have no intellectual or cultural currency to speak to those of us outside the party. They can't appeal to us on any level.

They chose this divide. They can't square it with any notion of true freedom of speech, expression etc. Indeed, the proof is right there for all to see: In their laws. I'm second class when all is said and done. You can not say on one side "we're open" and then tolerate outfits like the OLF. If individual liberty is squashed to "protect" the majority through punitive measures, then I would submit the majority have bigger problems to contend with.

For these reasons, in my personal view, Drainville opting out of the debate is not surprising.

They have nothing but their parochialism to push them forward and when that is exposed, the belt holding their pants up snaps like a bad Buster Keaton silent film