This is strange news: François Legault is preparing a press campaign abroad to defend Law 96’s reputation. Apparently, doing so would give Quebec a bad name with certain investors. This interpretation should be corrected, its image improved.
Imagine if this stupid gossip really got around and Quebec had to untangle this bad image of itself abroad.
The question remains: Where does this supposedly bad reputation come from?
From the law itself?
picture
no We know well that she is moderate, even shy. We must follow another lead.
Quebec is in a unique, unlikely geopolitical position.
It is, in short, a nation-state locked in a federation that denies its existence until it intends to deconstruct it, north of the American empire, that determines the grand ideological parameters of our time.
But above all, we are not masters of interpreting the discourse that is commonly held about Quebec.
Overall, it is the English media that sets the tone and suggests that English speakers in Quebec are victims of persecution.
Think of all the crap that has been released against Bill 101 since 1977.
English Canada sees us through the eyes of the most radical Anglos of Montreal and Laval, and above all Americans see us when they remember that we exist.
Nothing will change about that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
So there are two options.
The first, which is not correct, is to internalize the ideological taboos set by the radical Anglos and to ban us from certain laws, certain political decisions, for fear of what will be said among the Anglo-Saxons.
In other words, we should no longer make the laws together that are necessary for our people, but rather the laws that are tolerable in the eyes of those who deny or deny our existence. It’s not gross.
Second option: starting from our geopolitical situation, we take the necessary measures to defend the French, even if at first glance they displease our powerful neighbors. Then leaves to run the advertising campaigns necessary to defend their legitimacy. That’s what international politics is for.
But if, in drafting our laws, we take into account the most unjust criticisms that are leveled at us, we will never do anything. The Quebec difference in North America will always be dissidence and scandal. Might as well take it.
I would like to add one thing: basically, we should free ourselves from the fear of being looked at by our Canadian or American neighbors.
The problem may go beyond the Quebec situation.
democracy
In today’s world, the fear of angering big business, the international media, supranational organizations and militant associations of various tendencies hampers democratic life.
For fear of reprisals from these new powers, the peoples forbid themselves from making essential decisions for their existence.
In the end they suffer.
