.

Mark your calenders, because I rarely sit back to talk politics.

Last monday, in the province of Québec, it was time to (re)elect our prime minister. It honestly was the first campain I really followed, since I got the right to vote. It was the first time that five parties were running for our votes, and with everything that happened the past two and a half years, there were a lot of issues to adress in our province.

The now deputy of our county, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, is the leader of the Parti Québécois. The only party that clearly works to make Québec an independant country. The bright, young and passionate politician did something that no one has ever dared to before.

Not even one of the members of his own party, from its beginning in the seventies, to this day.

As a statement and a proof of his dedication to seperate Québec from Canada, he declared that he would not take the oath and officially recognize King Charles III as the head of our government.

The problem being that if he doesn’t, even if he was duly elected, he wouldn’t be allowed at the parliament, and couldn’t use his seat to speak up (and vote) to influence the future of Québec.

But! (There’s always a ”but”, right?)

I didn’t get a chance to thoroughly check the following, but I have reasons to think that it very well might be true (and I SO hope it is).

A good friend of mine always says that when you face a dead end, you just have to find a loophole, and jump through it. And there might be a loophole Paul could use, to refuse to take the oath and still have full power as a deputy and party leader.

Apparently, a constitutional law says that ”chaque député élu doit prêter serment….” (every elected deputy has to take the oath…). But, apparently again, the French version of the constitutional laws isn’t recognized as ”official” in Canada.

So be it, right? Let’s follow the ”official” version, in English. But according to the article I read, it seems like said ”official” version says that ”every elected deputy shall take the oath…”

There is a slight difference between ”has to” and ”shall”, wouldn’t you say? I’m no lawyer, but I think my English is good enough to grasp the nuance between the two verbs.

I have nothing against the British monarchy… As a matter of fact, I admired the Queen for her long reign. But I never considered her ”my” Queen, other than being on my dollar bills and passport.

And if Paul St-Pierre Plamondon can elude the obsolete (if you ask me) oath, that will be a big step forward to a new Québec, and perhaps, a new Canada.

We’ll see, I guess.

Go Paul, go!

OK, I’m done… No more politics! I promise 😉