Nycole Turmel: It’s not a crime to change your mind

Better a leader with a wealth of perspective, than a pittance

by Emma Teitel on Friday, August 5, 2011 5:29pm - 26 Comments

I took the Quebec referendum very seriously in 1995, maybe because I was six years old and believed that separatism was exactly what it sounded like: Quebec would literally cut itself off of Canada with a giant machete and float away, taking the Maritimes and the United States with it. Unfortunately I was wrong: not only would the French province remain Canadian (and wholly responsible for prolonging interruptions to in-flight movies) but the ghost of separatist past would linger on, and spawn a uniquely Canadian kind of McCarthyism—the sort that dug the sovereign skeleton out of Nycole Turmel’s closet. Because what we’ve learned from this past week of parliamentary theatrics, is that Jack Layton’s choice for NDP Interim leader (Turmel—GASP—a former member of the Bloc Quebecois and current member of Quebec Solidaire) was simply not cool. Or as Prime Minister Stephen Harper put it, “disappointing”. Forget that Turmel tore up her Bloc membership prior to running for the NDP, promised to tear up her Quebec Solidaire membership this very week, and publicly denounced the notion that she ever held separatist sentiments in the first place; her apparent shift in allegiance was a death knell. But if Dumbledore could forgive Professor Snape for his darker indiscretions, can’t we forgive Nycole Turmel her Sovereign past? Or, do we even have to? Maybe we should be congratulating her instead, for having the temerity to change her mind.

For starters, Turmel isn’t unique in her willingness to lean one way before gaining office, and another way after. She has a fellow leaner in, hey, Stephen Harper. Harper has both endorsed and opposed gay marriage in his political career (his promise to reopen the issue in 2005 remains unfulfilled), and his signature on the infamous Firewall Letter of 2001, must have been equally disappointing to any self-avowed Federalist. The letter, which Harper signed on Alberta’s behalf as president of the National Citizens’ Coalition, states: “It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.” Such “hostilities” included the Royal Mountain Police and the Canada Pension Plan. Separatism, anybody? The salient point here is, Stephen Harper apparently came to the same conclusion that Ralph Waldo Emerson did:  “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.  Harper changed his no- longer-little-mind (or appeared to) and it’s a good thing for Canada that he did.

Blind Steadfastness can be a virtue of the slow. Consider Ronald Reagan. In March of 1981 he was shot and wounded by his would-be murderer John Hinkley—an assassination attempt that also left White House Press Secretary James Brady with permanent brain damage. Brady and his wife subsequently sponsored a bill to change laws regarding the purchase of handguns in the U.S. (the gun that Hinckley used was a classic “Saturday Night Special” purchased at Rocky’s Pawn Shop in Dallas, complete with exploding bullets). Reagan, on the other hand refused to change his stance on gun control until 1991. It’s possible that he was already in the opening stages of Alzheimer’s, but this is hardly an exoneration of ideological consistency. It just makes his refusal to reconsider his stand, pathological instead of stubborn. Someone should have told him earlier that it’s not a crime to stand corrected.

Apparently though, in this country it is: Nycole Turmel has been asked to account for her political past in almost every major Canadian newspaper, and the The Toronto Star’s National Affairs columnist Tim Harper (no relation to Steve) wasn’t merely incensed by the Interim leader’s alleged turncoat behavior, but practically spooked: “The Bloc,” he wrote in his Tuesday column this week, “is unlike any party, given its ultimate goal”. That “ultimate goal” is of course, sovereignty, which according to Harper (not Steve) renders any politician who’s had the slightest brush with it is automatically unfit for Federal duty. Turmel claims she only joined the BQ to support a friend who belonged to it (a strange explanation, probably made to quell the backlash and avoid further reproach) but it’s entirely possible that sovereignty no longer agreed with her, and so she chose instead to join a party committed solely to endeavors of the lefty, socialist ilk, minus the often distracting and counterproductive “national question” engrained in Quebecois politics. If so, it’s not as though she switched sides in a war. She simply saw things differently. Better a leader with a wealth of perspective, than a pittance.
At the end of the day, however, it doesn’t matter if Nycole Turmel is, in her heart of hearts, a reformed separatist, self-loathing Federalist, or woman with a secret evil plan to realize the “ultimate goal” of sovereignty. The truth is that her feelings towards our great nation are most likely irrelevant, because it’s not the personal politics that dictate a politician, but the party line. Turmel is NDP Interim leader and come Canada Day, it won’t matter if she was a Black Panther, or card-carrying member of the Bloc Quebecois, because she’ll be waving the Canadian flag in a Roots windbreaker with the rest of them.

Bookmark and Share
  • Claudia Lemire

    Oh but it is a big deal and will cost the NDP!

    She was a bad choice as an interim leader, big huge mistake by NDP!

    • Anonymous

      I do believe you are right. I fully expect Quebec’s enthusiasm for the NDP to wane.  But more so will the ROCs, for whom these sorts of identifications are poison.

  • Rick Smith

    “…Quebec would literally cut itself off of Canada with a giant machete and float away, taking the Maritimes and the United States with it…”

    “…At the end of the day, however, it doesn’t matter if Nycole Turmel is,…, or woman with a secret evil plan to realize the “ultimate goal” of sovereignty….”

    Maybe you can change your mind, but your “true belief’s” ? NO, that’s not so easy to change, if at all !
     Then again, I may change my mind about all this ?!
    :)

  • Anonymous

    Potter must have insisted on hiring this woman so he wasn’t Macleans’ worst columnist anymore.

    • Ella Rowan

      Yo “kdawg”…I’d like to see you do better. Also: you have a lame nickname.

      • Anonymous

        He’s got a point–this article is so badly written it’s offensive. I’ll take her opinions seriously when she doesn’t try to sound like a cool 14-year old.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, including writing a column based on something that Turmel never implied – changing her mind.  Turmel didn’t change from Bloc to NDP, she was simultaneously both and her statements imply she would still be except for it being against the rules and the need to show a clear political affiliation as NDP MP and interim leader.  Teitel should read the news before commenting on it.

  • Anonymous

    Liberals need to get their mojo back — why isn’t Bob Rae demagoguing the hell out of this? he could lead a unified Liberal-non separatist NDP merged party as Captain Canada.

    • Rick Smith

      …actually Bob has been “…demagogging the hell out of this…”, he wouldn’t miss this for the world -turn on your TV now and then(CTV news) and u’ll see.
       Anyway, Bob is trying to redeem himself as the Liberal wanna-be Leader finally (via NDP of course) by saying:
       ”… You see? hey, now I’m not the only “turncoat” in Canada anymore…”

      seriously though, Bob Rae ?, you did say Bob Rae right ? The same Bob that helped  ”murder” OHIP as we used to know it ?.
       Bob was part of the reason all the “Canadian” Doctors and Nurses have left Ontario my friend.
       Oh, you mean that same Bob Rae that systematically helped destroy the Ontario “small business” economy,…, as we used to know it, allowing the big Corps to freely outsource to their hearts’ content, long before it became fashionable as Harper does it today  ?
      that Bob Rae right ?
      uhhh OK.
      Thx, but NO Thanks.
       Is it no wonder the NDP got rid of him in the 1st place. ?
       Dude, Bob Rae didn’t leave the NDP, he was thrown out by them.

      The Liberals should “PAY” Harper’s/CON’s to take him where he rightfully belongs’ -namely as the “real” CON he is :)
       howww freekin’ low can the Liberals’ possibly go?

      “Captain Canada” u say ?
       Get a grip man. lol
      :)

    • Rick Smith

      …actually Bob has been “…demagogging the hell out of this…”, he wouldn’t miss this for the world -turn on your TV now and then(CTV news) and u’ll see.
       Anyway, Bob is trying to redeem himself as the Liberal wanna-be Leader finally (via NDP of course) by saying:
       ”… You see? hey, now I’m not the only “turncoat” in Canada anymore…”

      seriously though, Bob Rae ?, you did say Bob Rae right ? The same Bob that helped  ”murder” OHIP as we used to know it ?.
       Bob was part of the reason all the “Canadian” Doctors and Nurses have left Ontario my friend.
       Oh, you mean that same Bob Rae that systematically helped destroy the Ontario “small business” economy,…, as we used to know it, allowing the big Corps to freely outsource to their hearts’ content, long before it became fashionable as Harper does it today  ?
      that Bob Rae right ?
      uhhh OK.
      Thx, but NO Thanks.
       Is it no wonder the NDP got rid of him in the 1st place. ?
       Dude, Bob Rae didn’t leave the NDP, he was thrown out by them.

      The Liberals should “PAY” Harper’s/CON’s to take him where he rightfully belongs’ -namely as the “real” CON he is :)
       howww freekin’ low can the Liberals’ possibly go?

      “Captain Canada” u say ?
       Get a grip man. lol
      :)

  • Anonymous

    I still find it amazing that none of these cutting edge reporters can find the history of the conservative party. My numbers may be off a bit but generally it was 62 right wing separatist reform party seats that soaked up the 2 progressive conservative seats (which no longer had party status in Canada?) and became the conservative party? Far more frightening that those separatists are now in power than a single former bloc member is a temporary stand-in for the leader of the NDP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lou-Groff/735585558 Lou Groff

    This is a case of the ideal and the pragmatic colliding. Polictical parties by nature are a broad tent of divergent people associating together. Yet are expected to be lead by an idealist leader. The fact is the Block and the NDP  agree on many things but not federalism. Even so how many federalist individuals have voted for the Block in the past and and how many separatists voted NDP in the last election? I vote Conservative yet there are many views I have that will not be implemented by that government….its called compromise to accumulate a collective majority of somewhat similar views. It is in this context it becomes bizzare to become too high handed about Nycole Turmel’s situation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Diogenes-van-Sinope/1202540783 Diogenes van Sinope

    Ms. Teitel has a point.  Separatism and Quebec sovernignity is hardly a burning issue these days, but Canada’s newspaper journalists are more than happy to do another lemming run on the bogeyman du jour.

    It’s summertime. It’s a slow news month. Nobody cares.

    http://www.theonion.com/video/breaking-news-some-bullshit-happening-somewhere,16928/

  • Anonymous

    This is such a non-issue. She’s an interim leader for God’s sakes. Her only job is to mind the store either until Jack gets better or the party elects a new leader (the NDP will not stand for any of that ‘appointed leader’ crap a la Ignatieff – the membership would go nuts). She’s not likely to have much influence or to deviate sharply from the direction caucus gives her. Interim leaders are almost always chosen from the ranks of people who have absolutely no shot of becoming permanent leader, as it’s considered bad form to give someone with any real shot at the captain’s chair a head start at the helm.

    • http://twitter.com/Norman_Ouston Norman_Ouston

      Well Dirty, this choice certainly tells Canada the mind set of the NDP group. We don’t mind who they pick but they should have shown a little bit of intelligence. The writer of the whole article is a nitwit anyhow it seems.

      • Anonymous

        How does caucus choosing a seat warmer at Jack’s direction tell you anything other than (possibly) that Jack wants to cement his gains in Quebec? It’s a symbolic gesture that will not have any effect on NDP policy or platform.

  • Anonymous

    The media has questioned Harper about the Firewall Letter, hidden agendas, abortion rights, religion, etc for the past 10 years. So, why when the media asks for a better explanation than, “I was helping a friend out” all the lefties claim the media is picking on the NDP?

    • Anonymous

      Also, you can believe in a strong united Canada with an effective federal government and still defend provincial rights – advocate for those rights. You can’t compare signing The Firewall Letter with joining a separatist party (or 2), and, then, offer up lame excuses about why you did it.

  • Anonymous

    One more thing: What are The Royal Mountain Police? – Sounds cool. I want to ‘opt in’ to The Royal Mountain Police in my Alberta Agenda

  • Anonymous

    Did Turmel change her mind?  I thought her explanation was she was always a federalist and her support for the Bloc lined up with her support for social programs which hasn’t changed and support of a friend, who I assume is still a friend.  I don’t recall Turmel saying anything about changing her mind.  

  • Anonymous

    In the end what matters is  whether or not Madame Turmel is capable of presenting coherent opinions on policy.  She is a leader, in the interim, but for an undetermined length of time. She could be interim leader for 2 1/2 years…

    Unlike Emma and Madame Turmel, I would not be able to hold on to a liberal party membership and join the conservatives just to support a friend.  The Conservatives and the Liberals agree on a lot of things too. I would feel like a hypocrit if I were to attend meetings of both parties, particularly at election time when there is a real adversarial relationship between contenders.  Like Madame Turmel, I would feel like hiding my double allegiances.

  • MostlyCivil

    Come on now, she still belonged to both paries, but it’s not like she was elected as a member of one party then switched to another as soon as the election was over. That would be a real scandal.

    (cough*davidemerson*cough)

    • Anonymous

      The only reason I clicked like to your post is because there was no button for “Really really ROTFLMAO like”

  • MostlyCivil

    Come on now, she still belonged to both paries, but it’s not like she was elected as a member of one party then switched to another as soon as the election was over. That would be a real scandal.

    (cough*davidemerson*cough)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IPBHPSO74R4KILRENZRV55C7M stevenjbc

    There are some misleading points here; advocating a provincial pension plan or a provincial police force hardly represents separatism, especially since Quebec has its own pension plan and both Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police forces — or does Ms. Teitel believe that Canada consists of two provinces and eight colonies?  By the way, it’s the “Royal Canadian Mounted Police” not the “Royal Mountain Police”.  Ms. Teitel also thinks Ms. Turmel’s political affiliations are irrevelant, would she also believe the same if Ms. Turmel were associated with some extremist right-wing group?  More to the point is whether Nycole Turmel is an isolated instance or whether this is in fact typical of the NDP’s new Quebec members and supporters, in which case that party’s platform might “evolve”.

  • Anonymous

    Perception is reality. NDP don’t look too good right now. Typical of Quebec to vote NDP as they figured Duceppe was no longer representing their needs nand wants in Ottawa. Jack posed some questions regarding the constitution and here he is (may he get well).
    Ms. Turmel may be an interim leader, but I wonder how many other NDP MPs in Quebec were associates with sovereigntist groups?
    Right now the credibility of the NDP is in question, and without jack layton what are they, really?

From Macleans