Québécois ARE a nation, but this vote is preposterous

My position regarding the current Québécois nationhood debate is probably most similar to that of Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy: that the Québécois are a nation; but that today's vote in the House of Commons was ridiculous, potentially dangerous, and completely unnecessary.

Simply put, Anglophones debating whether the Québécois may call themselves a nation is absurb and insulting.

First, let's be clear. The traditional meaning of "nation" is very different from "state" or "country", although people often use the former term when they really mean the latter. Nation comes from the Latin nation- or natio, which means "birth" or "race". In practice, it's a tribalistic, emotional group that one feels they belong to. Generally speaking, a nation rallies around a common language and culture that is different from its neighbours.

If we agree to that meaning of "nation", then it's obviously quite different from a "country" or a "state".

For example, the Basque nation exists, yet a Basque state does not. Basque people live in the states of France and Spain. The emotional identity of being part of the Basque nation is different from (or perhaps even transcends) being a citizen of France or Spain. In theory, one could be a proud Basque nationalist and a proud French of Spanish citizen, although many Basques would indeed prefer to establish their own independent nation-state.

If nationality (rather than statehood) is an emotional sense of belonging to a group (rather than politically-based citizenship), and a non-tangible feeling (rather than something you can hold, such as a country's passport), surely only members of a nation can describe themselves as indeed being a nation; and logically, that those outside such a group cannot take away such nationhood from them.

If this is agreed, then why on Earth are non-Québécois Canadians being asked to vote on whether the government of Canada should recognize the Québécois as a nation? If the Québécois feel they are a nation, then they are - simple as that. What is the point of debating whether the federal government should officially recognize such nationhood? And why would a nation seek such recognition from a state? Such a discussion assumes that nationality is defined (or more accurately, legitimized) by the state, when it is most certainly not. States are often defined by nation, but never genuinely the other way around.

If the Québécois feel they are a nation, then no state can either bestow or remove such nationhood from them. And if that is the case, then this silly recent debate is a moot point.

Imagine the reaction and bewilderment if the Québécois were to debate whether Anglophones or Aboriginals were genuine "nations". There would be laughter, scorn, and perhaps even outrage. Imagine how the Western world would react if the People's Republic of China declared that Tibetans were not a nation. Or if the Russian Federation decided that people of Chechyna or Dagestan did not form legitimate nations. There would be accusations of cultural, linguistic and political impersialism. How is it any different with the Québécois?

The Québécois are a nation - but such official recognition from a state changes nothing, and achives little (other than where politicians selfishly gain political capital by exploiting the fragile egos of Québécois with an inferiority complex - a minority in the province of Québec, and probably even a minority within the Québécois nation).

The reality is that there is no such thing as the "Canadian nation" - at least, not in the traditional sense of the term "nation". However, Canada is certainly not a traditional state - it is not built upon a single language, nor a single culture, nor a average-sized piece of land (at least not these days, anyway). Stretching three oceans, and encompassing a landmass almost three times larger than the European Union, Canada is more like a continent than a country. Not surprisingly, Canada thus contains considerable diversity.

But this non-traditional statehood is actually of great benefit - it means that Canada and Canadians can avoid many of the squabbles that plague other states, particularly nation-states. When civil war raged in the Balkans, many of us simply couldn't understand how this could happen. And that, in great part, is due to our identity and statehood as Canadians - which openly encourages and promotes diversity, rather than basing itself on who we are (and perhaps most importantly, who we are not). Canadian statehood avoids the "us versus them" dichotomy, and instead is built upon a welcoming inclusiveness that shuns social cleavages.

The greatest mistake we make is to assume that Québécois nationality (and its hypothetical recognition by the Canadian state) is a threat to the Canadian state. Pundits often argue that we can only have one nationality - and thus that people can only have membership in either the Canadian nation or the Québécois nation, but not both. I would argue that there is no Canadian nation - but instead a statehood (or perhaps a very different form of nationality) that can easily co-exist with the Québécois nation. Just as Basques can be proud Basque nationalists and proud Spanish citizens, so too can Québécois be proud of their Québécois nationality and of their Canadian citizenship - they are not mutually exclusive.

As such, the only threat to Québécois nationhood is when pneurotic Canadian federalists unnecessarily feel threatened by the idea of a Québécois nation, and denounce such notions as heretical, anti-Canadian beliefs. And this is precisely why today's Canada-wide vote on the official recognition of Québécois nationhood was so dangerous - as Anglophones were voting on Québécois nationhood.

In reality, today's vote was about whether to adopt a policy in which the government of Canada recognizes Québécois nationhood. It was not about asking Canadians whether Québécois nationhood is legitimate or not. Accordingly, people such as a Gerard Kennedy can "believe in" (!) the Québécois nation, and yet argue against a bill seeking official recognition by the federal government, as was passed by the House earlier today. However, the crucial problem is whether such a "no" vote would have enraged the Québécois, and been misinterpreted as the de-legitimization or denunciation of the Québécois nationhood by Anglophone Canada.

As such, I would have abstained from voting if I were an MP in the House today. But voting "yea" would have definitely been preferred to voting "nay", in my opinion. Just think how the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois would have twisted a "nay" vote to their own political gain.

But a "yea" vote it was to be. Already the Bloc are lining up to claim ownership of this change that actually changes very little, and to attempt to manipulate it to their political advantage. We shall see, in the weeks and months to come, just how successful they will be at doing so.