separation

Tuesday June 19, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 19, 2018

Trump admin’s gyrating story on separating families at the border insults our intelligence

September 8, 2017

Don’t blame us. In response to growing public outrage over family separations at the border, the president said on Friday that he wasn’t responsible for the policy. “I hate the children being taken away,” Donald Trump said. “The Democrats have to change their law. It’s their law.” His sentiments have been echoed by top administration officials and leading Republicans.    

The problem is that such statements are at best misleading and at worst flat out lies. The family separations at the border are a byproduct of decisions by the Trump administration. It speaks volumes that the president and some of his allies are unwilling to own the policy of separating children from their parents — let alone offer a sound legal basis for it.     

December 8, 2015

The president has repeatedly claimed that Democrats are responsible for the family separations that have become a national scandal. But as news outlets such as The Associated Press have pointed out, this is not true. It is Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ “zero tolerance” policy, which requires that nearly all unauthorized border crossers be criminally prosecuted, that has led to families being split apart. 

Because minors cannot be sent to adult jails, there are now nearly 11,000 immigrant children <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/surge-migrant-children-government-shelters-trump-admin-pushes-zero-tolerance-n878601> in government custody without their parents.

January 13, 2018

Yet on Sunday night, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted, “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

This statement defies reality — especially given that Homeland Security has published guidelines on its website outlining how such separations take place.

Sadly, prominent Republicans have followed the president’s lead in assigning blame for this inhumane policy. “What is happening at the border in the separation of parents and their children is because of a court ruling,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said at a news conference Thursday. That same day, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tweeted, “I want 2 stop the separation of families at the border by repealing the Flores 1997 court decision requiring separation of families + give DOJ the tools it needs 2 quickly resolve cases.” (Source: USA Today) 

 

 

 

SaveSave

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Tuesday, September 2, 2014Illustrations by Graeme MacKay (all 4 originally drawn in 1995) – Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Parizeau used Bouchard in 1995, Chantal Hébert’s new book shows

They don’t make sovereignist leaders like they used to. It’s hard to imagine any candidate for the Parti Québécois leadership matching the combination of Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard in the 1995 sovereignty referendum.

Jacques ParizeauThat referendum wouldn’t have been held without Parizeau’s single-minded pursuit of sovereignty. And the sovereignists wouldn’t have come within fewer than 55,000 votes of winning if it hadn’t been for Bouchard’s ability to gain voters’ trust.

Yet, as a forthcoming book shows, Bouchard did not trust Parizeau — and with reason.

Not only did Parizeau, who was premier, unscrupulously use Bouchard to deceive voters about his intentions, he intended to shove Bouchard aside after a Yes vote so he could make a unilateral declaration of independence.

The book is The Morning After, written by widely respected Ottawa journalist Chantal Hébert. It’s to be published early next month.

It’s based on recent interviews by Hébert and commentator Jean Lapierre (my fellow CTV Montreal political panellist) with political leaders of the day about what they would have done after a Yes vote in 1995.

Lucian Bouchard as NapoleonIt describes a “power struggle” among the three party leaders on the Yes side before the vote, with Mario Dumont of the now-defunct Action démocratique du Québec siding with Bouchard of the Bloc Québécois against the PQ’s Parizeau.

Bouchard and Dumont had forced Parizeau to promise that after a Yes vote, he would offer the rest of Canada a new partnership, political as well as economic, with a sovereign Quebec.

And in the mid-campaign turning point for the Yes side, Parizeau handed its de-facto leadership to the more popular Bouchard by naming him Quebec’s chief negotiator after a Yes vote.

Bouchard told Hébert and Lapierre he might have settled for something less than outright sovereignty and wanted a second referendum to ratify the results of negotiations — admissions likely to confirm some sovereignists’ lingering distrust of him.

Parizeau, however, would accept nothing less than sovereignty. (Continued: Montreal Gazette)

1995 Referendum Fleur de Lys

Friday November 26, 1999

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 26, 1999

Chretien’s gunslinger act is getting old; UNITY: Questions of style and timing

It is a sad critique of Jean Chretien’s leadership that his announcement on the rules of disengagement for Quebec has been greeted with suspicion of his motives, mystification over his timing and general dismay that the dozing baby of Quebec separatism is about to howl again.

When Chretien said this week Quebec would have to (a) have a clear question and (b) have significantly more than 50 per cent plus one to declare independence, it was widely seen as fanning the dimmed embers of Quebec nationalism. Why now? Why give such a gift to the opportunistic but increasingly lame-duck Lucien Bouchard?

It’s hard to argue with the substance of Chretien’s comments. Indeed, his suggestion that any future Quebec referendum should be on a question as simple as “Do you want Quebec to be a country” is the kind of clear declaration most Canadians want. Too, there’s little wrong with his suggestion that a negotiated split would require 60 per cent or more support in Quebec. It’s disingenuous for Bouchard to thump the tabletop and insist that 50+1 is the sole requirement of a democracy. To argue a country could be shattered on the strength of a single vote is absurdly arrogant.

But Chretien muddies his own waters. There is his own arrogance: “Quebec is my business, sir, ” he pontificated, “and this is the future of Canada.” The Prime Minister would be well-advised to remember that Quebec has been every Canadian’s business for too long. Canadians are suffering from separatism fatigue and Chretien setting himself apart will not rally us to his side. Then there is his unnecessary combativeness. Much of Quebec is accepting, if not embracing, the concept of a united Canada. He must have known his announcement would spark new anger.

Is this a case of building a patriotic legacy before his time as Prime Minister ends? Is this guilt over his “sleepwalking” performance in the last referendum?

Yes, when one spouse is talking divorce, the other spouse has to deal with it. There is never a good time to open an uncomfortable discussion. But we wish our Prime Minister had shown that this is not just another of his odd impulses, like wrestling with protesters and handing out peacekeepers. It’s hard to attribute this sudden burst of patriotic fervour to Chretien’s vision of 21st-century Canada when he has so far shown little sign of having any such vision. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial, A14, 11/26/1999)