Marois – How Much More?
By Kenneth Bagnell
A renowned theological thinker of the last century, Harry Emerson Fosdick, years ago made a comment that was then original now obvious: “What happens anywhere,” he said, “matters everywhere.” For example Quebec. Its long history of xenophobia –- defined as fear of the stranger — has taken on new life. Now even those of us living outside Quebec wonder. For if its so-called “Charter of Quebec Values” is put in place (banning religious dress and symbolism for public employees), it might only be a legislative amendment or two, until they’re banned for wearing in the public sphere. It truly is only a step from the public service to the public square. Hence, will “outsiders” visiting Quebec be welcomed to dress as they wish, with their own religious customs. Consider this possibility: a clergyman in Ontario has promised a friend that upon her death he will go to Montreal and conduct her funeral. He’s now perplexed. For if, as Premier Pauline Marois envisions, Jewish yarmulkes and Muslim turbans will in time be widely banned, why not my friend’s clerical collar which he wears at weddings and funerals? I know it’s ridiculous. Exactly. That’s the point.
The seeds of xenophobia have, sad to say, been in Quebec’s cultural soil a long time. Some argue that its origin dates to the French Revolution of the 18th century when anti-religious sentiment reached a peak, attempting to de-Christianize France, destroying monasteries and exiling many thousands of clergy. It is impossible not to conclude that this sentiment, (albeit more muted than in Europe, past and present,) is a response to Canada’s recent and ever expanding immigration pattern which, most evidently, is increasing the Muslim population. (At the outset of the new millennium, 2001, Canada’s Muslim population stood at about 580,000. In 2010, the very reliable Pew Research Group put that population at 940,000. The largest community is in Ontario forming roughly 4 percent of the population; the second in Quebec, 3.1 percent. So one inevitably wonders: why does Quebec have such a problem on this issue while in general Ontario doesn’t. One vivid example of Quebec’s near hysteria must do: in the spring of 2012, the PQ party expressed displeasure over the proliferation of halal meat and how it was or was not labeled. (I assure you I did not make that up.)
In most of Canada, despite a bit of anxiety here and there over the issue that provoked her, Marois’ main success is defining herself and her party as extreme. The Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, reacted with a firm defense of diversity as strength, and Calgary’s Mayor, Naheed Nenshi, riding the waves of his national popularity, invited Quebecers to move to Alberta. Smile. Given my own inclination to the moderate middle of the road, I recognize the rights of Quebecers to try -– underline that word — deciding their future, though their future is not exclusively theirs to decide. But I regret that it so deeply divides the society with most Francophones — almost 60 percent — in support. In fact, just over 40 percent of the Canadian population is reported to be in support.
In my opinion such people, given increasing secularization, fear religious, ethnic and racial solidarity will overtake the more crucial values of the liberal democratic state. Its more reasoned voices are united against the self centered charter: Unity Quebec, the Quebec Liberal Party and Quebec’s Teacher’s Group. But Pauline Marois, given the polls, has chosen to exploit their fear with partisan rhetoric and selfish ambition, placing both above the interest of a Quebec future that is rational and inclusive to all. Her campaign is rooted not in sensible policy but in the soil of hysteria. The Toronto Star, opposing almost all she stands for, gave her on September 8, one of its most critical editorials: “It’s little surprise Marois would display such rank ignorance about this country and its record of dealing with immigration and social diversity. Her political experience is long but exceedingly narrow.”
The best example of her misdirected campaign came a few days ago, when she went out of her way recklessly to attack a cornerstone of Canadian values: multiculturalism. She actually claimed that it leads to terrorism when in fact, given its inclusive nature, it’s a bulwark against it. (Moreover, she claimed France did things better, when in fact its capital is fraught with riots because Muslims are denied inclusivity.)To no one’s surprise, the provincial Liberal leader, Philippe Couillard, seized the opportunity to portray her for what she is: an imprudent, opportunistic politician. “I find it unacceptable,” he said, “to make a link between multiculturalism and violence….” Even a federal cabinet minister spoke up to make a quite unusual intervention in a provincial matter. “Canada,” said Jason Kenney, Minister for Multiculturalism, “has been one of the most successful countries in the world in terms of integrating immigrants because we respect fundamental freedoms and fully include immigrants in our society and economy.” Premier Marois may be good at stirring the pot but given her reckless opportunistic style she’s neither a seasoned politician nor a mature stateswoman. As an editorial comment in the province’s main Anglophone paper, The Gazette, was headed in early September: “One year later, the PQ’s main quality is divisiveness.”
Now what? For one thing, Pauline Marois’ ambition for a Quebec Charter of Values (which by the way would seek to overtake and hence override the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms) will cause the much worrying divisiveness The Gazette now sees beginning. But in the end it’s doomed. It will not become policy. While the Prime Minister has thus far been rather quiet on the issue, the leaders of both the Liberal Party, and the NDP, have signaled their opposition. Justin Trudeau even claimed the Quebec ambition would be a setback as dark and divisive as the days of segregation in the American south. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair put it, as is his style, firmly but briefly: “The NDP is not going to allow something that goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” I especially liked his blunt additional comment: “And I don’t want to see scapegoating particularly of Muslim women….”
The proposed Quebec charter is doomed. If it manages to pass despite the opposition in the Quebec legislature it faces an endless river of federal opposition. Last June, the Globe & Mail editorial board saw it coming: “Far from bringing the debate over the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities to an end, as its backers, somehow believe,” it wrote, “the charter could spark court challenges lasting years.” Must we have that? About seven years ago Quebec’s intellectual luminary, philosopher Charles Taylor was co-commissioner of an inquiry into accommodation of Quebec’s minorities. So in June when the current ambition of Quebec’s government became public the CBC obviously sought Dr. Taylor’s opinion. “It’s unprecedented,” he said, “This will feed an attitude of exclusion……” He ended with a sentence that almost shocks: “It’s like something we would see in Putin’s Russia.” Strong language from a brilliant scholar. And as Harry Emerson Fosdick reminded us those many years ago, it matters everywhere.
30
All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.