Some say they are angry at Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s obstinate refusal to take an oath to King Charles III. afford to.
“It must be good in Quebec,” he commented wryly if he remained fixated on this affair! In their opinion, the PSPP should submit to the new monarch and swear allegiance to him, because that’s how it works. Point.
taboo
Unbelievable that there is some kind of taboo on any debate about our institutions. This crippling reflex dates back to after the 1995 referendum.
From that moment on, the Federalists, having failed to repair the 1982 coup de force of bourgeoisification of the Constitution, imposed any discussion on these issues. Most became “Canadians” and accepted the Dominion as it was.
After that it was the Charest years, then Couillard. It was believed that with the CAQ and its 2015 New Project for Quebec Nationalists, the taboo would finally be lifted. That the idea of renewed federalism would revive.
Keepers of the famous taboo criticize the PQ leader for addressing the issue at this time. What about inflation, labor shortages? they mumble.
However, debating institutions does not mean neglecting everyday problems. Also, when it comes to Eid, there’s a hurry: the ceremony for the PSPP party is scheduled for Friday!
serious gesture
Also, taking an oath is not trivial. It’s a celebratory gesture. Furthermore, not respecting it is perjury.
But, “knowing that most MPs” who take the famous oath “don’t believe in it for a second,” this staging is nothing but dishonest to one’s own conscience, dishonest to vis-à-vis the people of Québec, but also dishonest to Charles III himself”, rightly wrote the jurist Maxime Laporte recently on our website.
The taboo surrounding constitutional issues means anyone who raises them risks being accused of wasting their “time” on secondary issues. But in addition it has the effect of obscuring the monarchist character of our political system. An aspect that is nevertheless rejected by a clear majority of Quebecers.
This same taboo gives the impression that evolution is no longer possible. That we are doomed to what exists.
To unlock this type of situation: it is precisely the virtue of the gesture that the leader of the PQ and his deputies want to portray.
It is inconceivable that refusing to take an oath to a foreign monarch would result in the disqualification or even the expulsion of duly elected MPs.
The government, National Assembly and opposition parties must find a way to finally develop parliamentary law in such a way that it reflects the contemporary conception of the people’s shaping of the legitimacy of elected officials.
In addition, the Léger poll, commissioned by the IRAI research institute, estimates that 76% of Quebecers believe that elected officials should only take an oath of loyalty to the people of Quebec. Also, 65% of them believe elected officials who have refused to take the royal oath should be able to sit normally.
