Pave: Pas de commentaire

Le jour 128 de Sarko

Back in January, then-candidate Royal expressed her solidarity with Québécois separatists -- her expression being a synecdoche for the whole of France's solidarity, a presumption at variance with the official French position of non-ingérence et non-indifférence (no interference and no indifference).

Then-candidate Royal's solidarity was something of a theoretical -- some might say, fabricated; others, opportunistic -- fellow-feeling. She had never set foot in Quebec. She had never promoted Quebec sovereignty before a 15-minute meeting with visiting Parti Québécois leader André Boisclair. And Quebec the nation-state hasn't been a burning issue in France since the days of Charles De Gaulle, the French lord of misrule.

Recently the first-woman-within-six-points-of-the-Élysée* made her inaugural visit to Quebec. Finally, here she was among the oppressed Canadians she hoped to free. Mlle. Royal:

I am really proud to be here in New France, in Quebec, in French-speaking America to pay tribute to Quebecers who, for 400 years, have stood up to protect their language and their culture in spite of difficulties and oppression.

Alas, given the opportunity to reaffirm her support for the Québécois nation-state, she punked out.

ROYAL SIDESTEPS SOVEREIGNTY DEBATE IN QUEBEC

QUEBEC September 18, 2007 (Globe and Mail) - Defeated French presidential candidate Ségolène Royal carefully manoeuvred around the sensitive issue of Quebec sovereignty yesterday, distancing herself from controversial earlier comments that appeared to sympathize with the province's quest for independence.

During her first visit to Quebec, Ms. Royal said yesterday that the situation in the province had changed and that sovereignty is an issue she no longer wants to discuss publicly.

After a private meeting with Premier Jean Charest, Ms. Royal said:

Things have evolved. A motion was voted recognizing Quebec as a nation. So I believe that with respect to the differences of opinion, there is an established fact on which I have nothing more to add.

As with so many Royal clarifications (and here), we are left more in the dark than before. The motion** she references was passed in November 2006, two months before she spoke out. "Things" are no more "evolved" today than they were before her original remarks. So if the "established fact" she begs here precludes present comment, why did this same "established fact" not preclude her initial comment? [Pause. We stare at the ceiling.]

Ah, dear skimmer, because Ségo pronounced on an issue on which she was uninformed.

------------------------------------
* Or as the press more flatly characterizes her these days, "defeated" or "failed presidential candidate Royal".

** The motion reads: "That this House [scil., the Canadian House of Commons] recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

PFFT (What is this?): Headlines first, homework later 4 | Rayonnement français 0