Pierre Cloutier: Quebec Institute of Research for Independence

Cultural Intelligence
Pierre Cloutier
Pierre Cloutier

The Quebec Institute of Research for Independence

Half a good idea.

Guy Pruneau

Original in French Google ugly translation below the fold.

The idea put forward by PKP to create a research institute on independence financed by private funds seems a good idea half. For because the idea is 50% good and 50% bad, but because it lacks a supplement to be truly excellent. This supplement is a communication and dissemination plan. I hope this is also included in the plans of PKP.

First, note that the private nature of such an institute will be a good thing, in that the federalists can say anything against its funding, while they still climb on their high horse when a minimum of public funds used to promote independence. This will also allow people who want to contribute to the cause of independence to do to match their interest, while the contribution to political parties is limited to a relatively small amount per person (although this limit probably not want to say much -chose for the Liberals). I do not doubt that besides PKP itself intends to contribute significantly.

Finally, I do not know myself in this area (maybe someone who knows it could enlighten us on this), but if the private character of the institute and its lack of public funding enable it to not to publish the donations it receives, maybe several entrepreneurs and business people rich but who dare not commit himself publicly in favor of economic retaliation by fear independence could become interested in contributing.

All this falls also so in the sense that the only thing that really amazes me about this is that this development has not been established earlier. If you allow me the pun, I think it does not take the head Péladeau.

That said, the institute would be a kind of “Fraser Institute” of independence in the sense that even if the studies they publish are performed by credible experts, no one imagine that this institute is neutral. This perception of neutrality is not necessary anyway; to take the example of the Fraser Institute, character very right to this “think tank” does not prevent the studies it publishes to be taken up by the media and discussed. That would probably be the case of the Institute on independence.

So, since the Institute would enjoy anyway not a perception of neutrality, and that it is not very important anyway, we should take the opportunity to be part of the funds devoted to research and another, effective and sustained propaganda. The best studies are useless if they are not publicized. We say that a lie repeated ad nauseam becomes a truth. The federalists have also clearly demonstrated that axiom about equalization: no one spoke there ten or fifteen years, and suddenly, at some point, we propagated the idea that Quebec lived hooks the Canadian federation because of this single budget item. What is apparently true for a lie should be even more for demonstrable truth. But precisely the arguments for independence, we must say, and repeat, and repeat again.

Consequently, once created and staffed institute and the studies should be, whenever a study is ready, make propaganda at least as intensive as the kind which can be expected from the federal, and this for the whole period by the provincial election. Because anyone can spend anything outside election campaigns. One example would be professional television commercials, capsules 2 or 3 minutes, each presenting an argument, the primetime evening, as well as late night.

Moreover, economic study material does not fail. I guess we study the question of public accounts, as did Stéphane Gobeil, but more detail and over a long period in order to identify trends and avoid singularities. I hope we would also use the angle of attack developed by Jean-Jacques Nantel in his videos, including on fees of any kind that might require in Canada, and we also deal with the arguments supported by Jane Jacobs about the harmful nature for Montreal and Québec’s economic subordination in Toronto, and usefulness for Quebec to eventually have its own currency (something that Europeans seem to begin to understand their costs) . Not being a specialist, I suppose there also has many other issues to consider. In short, there is, no doubt, not only what to do full-time studies, but also enough to make an economic propaganda of the full-time independence.

It would also be useful, I think, a part of the propaganda target clienteles considered most resistant to independence. Thus, among the elderly, it could be argued that the money recovered would provide better health services and ensure the payment of old age pensions. The younger one could say that the money generated would have a positive impact on employment, on their future retirement on the services they receive, and the causes close to their heart. Right people, we could say that if they are logical with themselves and they promote wealth creation, so they should promote independence, as it will result in a collective enrichment. (It should also point the finger at their inconsistency, those who claim to want Quebecers are accountable, while denying them to become fully.) Beside immigrants, one could use the argument of Mr. Nantel about the fact that they have nothing to gain by supporting the federalists and the Anglophone majority if they want to live in Quebec. Finally, First Nations, it could be argued that they have a good opportunity to negotiate a significant improvement in their status and their living conditions in exchange for support for independence, and that, moreover, the Quebec independence could serve as a weapon against Canada requesting a similar status under penalty of a bad image in Canada.

In conclusion, propaganda related to independence has always been mainly the preserve of federalists. It is time for change, and the establishment of this research institute is an opportunity not to be missed.

Robert David Steele Vivas
Robert David Steele Vivas

ROBERT STEELE: I am troubled by the use of the word “propaganda,” so well-publicized, in its evil use, by Jacques Ellul. I recommend instead the word “education.” The research center must produce fact-based reports that show the total true cost (not just economic but social, cultural, demographic, and ecological) to Quebec of both the existing and the federalist alternatives. It is for the citizens — once educated — to make the decision that the Supreme Court of Canada has said is within their right. External forces use propaganda. The integrity of Quebec demands that education be the foundation of the future, not propaganda.

See Also:

Quebec @ Phi Beta Iota

Secession @ Phi Beta Iota