Musings from my life on the fringes of the coattails of the London Media Left.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The intricacies of La fête nationale
Today is St-Jean-Baptiste Day in Quebec. It's a public holiday and is known as la fête nationale, tracing its origins back as a patriotic celebration back to the early 19th century. Records from that time show how it was initially meant to promote solidarity and unity among people in what was then Lower Canada, and was celebrated by the Irish and Anglophone populations as well as the French Canadians.
In modern times, la fête nationale has been arguably hijacked by the Quebec separatist movement, despite its historically being a day for all French Canadians, both in and outside of the province. Sadly, the same inferiority complex that saw a re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham cancelled at last year's 400th anniversary celebrations in Quebec City (and some uncharitable views on Paul McCartney's concert presence at the same event) remains in evidence today.
This year, a fringe festival called L'Autre St Jean was held in Montreal to provide a showcase for Quebec's indie musicians - including those whose songs happened to be sung en anglais. A week before the concert, all Anglo bands were axed from the schedule. The official reason: fear of violence in the crowd after warnings by nationalist/separatist organisations.
I'm happy to say there was a public uproar, and the bands were soon reinstated. The festival took place yesterday and was mostly peaceful. True to form, however, a ragtag group of (mostly drunk) separatists showed up and tried to disrupt proceedings. A quick glance through the pictures in this article from the Montreal Gazette gives some idea of the sub-atomic level of intellect we're dealing with here.
Shenanigans like these are nothing new in Quebec, but it's depressing to see that, more than 30 years since the Charter of the French Language was passed, there are still people out there who genuinely believe that singing a few English songs in a public park is a serious affront to French culture and national identity in Quebec. Haven't we got the self-confidence to move beyond this?
To Belfast, now, where recent days have seen over 100 Roma immigrants take shelter in community centres to escape racist attacks - window smashing, rock throwing, gun shots, physical assault.
Something that's struck me is the difference in what's reported by the mainstream media and local bloggers. Not that this will come as a surprise to people who live in the north of Ireland, by any means, but for me it's still shocking that newspapers are so ready to say that there are only a handful of racists skulking about and that most people are open-minded and liberal. Reading through some of the comments on Slugger O'Toole and elsewhere, it's clear that a lot of people who do condemn the violence are not exactly thrilled about having the Roma in their backyard and are openly questioning their contribution to society. Another important discrepancy I've noticed between official and local reports is best summed up thus:
BBC Northern Ireland: "Police do not believe paramilitaries were involved in the attacks."
vs.
Slugger O'Toole: "The involvement of gun indicates an acquiesce of paramilitaries in an area in which it is almost impossible to move (or even talk to the press) without their say so."
Hmm.
****************
UPDATE:Read and listen to more analysis of the situation by the Guardian's Henry McDonald. Would have been good to have more detail on why these attacks are mainly a problem in loyalist areas and not republican ones, but this is still the clearest and most accurate description of events I've come across so far.
You have to admire the chutzpah of the good folks at Tribune. No money? Tiny circulation? Affiliated political party on the brink of collapse? Mere trifles! Under new ownership since March, Tribune now has a snazzy new look and wider editorial remit, and is set to keep on fighting the good fight. My mole tells me that last night's relaunch party at the Westminster's Churchill Dining Room was a generally upbeat affair, but I suspect that the presence of a handful of recently ejected Labour MEPs and Red Ken himself wandering about the place must've made it difficult to forget the Party's woes. As New Labour enters what must surely be its final months in power, I wish Tribune nothing but the best, and hope it can stay true to its roots and survive what will likely be a very difficult period. That said, "difficult periods" seem to be precisely what Tribune (and its amazingly dedicated staff) thrives on.
My, but it was a joy to hear Obama take his time and choose exactly the right words on the White House lawn today when pressed for his opinion on the Tehran protests. When this president pauses, it's because he wants to get the right message across and avoid alienating potential allies. When the last one paused, it's because he had lost the right page in the Bumper Book of Big Words.
Call it shooting fish in a barrel, cheap point-scoring or what you will. I'm just happy to have an intelligent person in charge of the most powerful country on Earth.
(To say nothing of the lack of "regime change" talk. How times have changed.)
Not Ignatieff in this instance - still making my mind up about him - but Finnerty. They say you should learn one new thing every day, and today I learned that Mike Finnerty, the host of CBC Montreal's morning radio show Daybreak, is moving to London to become the Guardian's new multimedia editor. This is possibly my dream job of all time (second only to being the Observer Food Monthly's chief pie taster), so I'm thrilled to see it go to a fellow Montrealer.
It's also been a sobering reminder of just how much experience you need to rack up before getting a gig with the Grauniad: Eight years working as a reporter for CBC radio, followed by a decade as a BBC News correspondent before becoming Daybreak host in 2007. I've a ways to go yet.
A few people have asked me for my take on the recent Iranian presidential elections. Those who have followed this blog for any length of time will be aware that I very rarely make any sort of public commentary on Iranian politics. This is not through lack of interest--far from it--but more due to family reasons. The state of things is such that if any anything I write here were to be traced back to me or my family, it could make things difficult for them if they need to enter Iran for whatever reason. So, for this reason, I have always held back, and will continue to do so for awhile yet.
Despite this, I am adding my name to those who are contesting the official results. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why not let in some impartial observers?
Also, at the risk of being a hypocritical wuss, here are some links to other bloggers and groups who are covering the unfolding events more passionately than I:
It's official, we are in the midst of a pandemic. The first one in four decades, in fact. The WHO's decision to move up to Level 6 has prompted a fair bit of controversy and debate, not least between me and my fellow healthcare anylysts. Miss K and I were thrashing it out earlier this afternoon, and we quickly established ourselves on different sides of the divide:
Miss K: The WHO is being highly irresponsible in declaring a pandemic. People will panic for nothing, and there will be travel bans imposed in certain countries, and it will badly damage the economy.
Lady M: Perhaps, but how long is the WHO supposed to wait? If it does nothing until the A/H1N1 incidence rate is well into the double figures, it will be accused of having taken no precautionary measures and then people will really start to panic. Assuming the WHO delivers a consistent message that there is no need to panic and that the pandemic is a mild one, shouldn't we start mobilising resources to develop a vaccine as soon as possible?
Miss K: Yes, but the WHO has declared a pandemic based on the number of people infected rather than the severity of the infection. There have barely been any deaths from swine 'flu on a global level. If they do this with every new disease, the pandemic alert will lose its effectiveness and people won't care anymore.
Lady M: You can't use the number of deaths as the only way of telling how serious this is. Half the people who are getting sick are taking weeks to recover, and when you multiply the cost of their quarantining, specialised treatment, hospital costs and days off work by the number of people who will eventually get it if no preventive action is taken, the economic cost will run into the hundreds of millions globally.
It's a tough one, and there are valid points to be made on either side. What do you think?
