this is somewhat of a surprising position from ashton & caron. the article does a good job of explaining the context, and the idea of quebecois sovereignty being paramount does make sense in a canadian context.

i don't agree with the narrative that the ndp's fall in quebec was about the niqab. the liberals had the same position as the ndp. the article makes more of an attempt to cycle around this by providing a more complex narrative, but i still think it's ultimately flawed. rather, what happened in quebec in the 2015 election was that the bloc pulled enough support away from the ndp to allow the liberals to leapfrog them; the bloc and the ndp split the left-of-liberal vote, and the liberals came up the middle. a lot of these ridings were won with 25-30% support as a consequence of truly competitive four-way races that were almost impossible to predict beforehand, but what i pulled out of the trending was a bloc bump - and that bloc bump was really mere percentage points away from leading to a return of the bloc, which would have also left the liberals with a minority government. that's what i predicted, anyways, and it was really the only error i made (i underestimated liberal seat counts by the amount that i overestimated bloc seat counts, helped by the fact that i saw the ontario sweep coming when nobody else did).

there does remain some possibility that a resurgent bloc could return the liberals to minority status in 2019. this is a far greater threat to the liberals than andrew scheer is. the ndp is a complicated player in this, as they exist between the two parties in multiple ways and can consequently pull support from either party - it is the fight between the ndp and the bloc for the left sovereigntist vote in quebec that will probably determine the outcome of the next election.

attempts to be more appealing to quebec voters are consequently extremely rational.

nor do i agree that quebec's silent revolution is unique to the province, or that canadians outside of quebec have a different viewpoint on this. rather, i'd argue that the western provinces - primarily alberta - are isolated, here, and even that is potentially an overstatement. canada is an overwhelmingly secular society, from coast-to-coast.

what is different about quebec is merely the political dynamic at play, which gives a stronger voice to nationalist parties. but, these nationalist parties are actually comparably tame. if a nationalist party of the sort were to pop up in alberta, it would be of the sort that they are warning against, not the sort they are cautiously accepting under the parameters of quebec sovereignty. nor is it clear that this is outside the realm of realistic probability. ezra levant remains popular on the canadian right; the conservative party's attempt to distance itself from him may potentially even backfire.

but, what the sovereigntist dynamic in quebec allows for is a vehicle to discuss things that does not (currently) exist elsewhere. both error bars are correct here: the spectrum in quebec amplifies voices to emulate the systems that exist in france, while the spectrum in the rest of the country silences those voices. scratch the surface, and you'd be unlikely to find a real difference.

my advice to the ndp was to avoid this. and, you'll note something that the pundits seem to forget: the values charter underlying the debate has actually failed every vote that has been centered around it. quebeckers have, in fact, consistently rejected the values charter. the existing provincial government's mandate is partially based on it's rejection of it!

recent history has demonstrated that the handful of seats that are up for grabs in rural quebec are in fact not worth abandoning the island over.

the best thing to do is to avoid this debate. but, charlie angus has the right electoral strategy, if the goal is to actually win. quebeckers, themselves, do not actually support this.

what do i think about the substance of the policy, though?

well, i'm partial to the idea of banning religious symbols on public service employees - that is crosses or crescents or stars of david. but, here's the thing: the niqab isn't actually a religious symbol. it's a fashion decision rooted in cultural hubris, sure, but it's not actually a part of islam.

...and, i'm opposed to the fashion police.

the constitution isn't likely to uphold any laws of the sort, but they can always use the notwithstanding clause, and no doubt will, as they did with the language laws. but, the fact is that there isn't even a logical connection between upholding a ban on religious symbols and enforcing a ban on niqabs and burqas. it's just not what these things actually are.

they're just scarves. really.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/24/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-split-on-religious-rights-in-battleground-quebec_a_23177599/