quebec Archives - Page 6 of 7

The Dishonesty of the Globe and Mail

2018-10-16

I criticize a particulary dishonest editorial, recently published by the Toronto newspaper The Globe and Mail, which opposes secularism and denounces the new CAQ government for doing what the newspaper itself proposes, that is, leaving the crucifix in the National Assembly. The editorialists also indulge in a little Quebec-bashing along the way.

Sommaire en français Je critique un éditorial particulièrement malhonnête, récemment paru dans le journal torontois The Globe and Mail, qui s’oppose à la laïcité et prône la même mesure qu’il dénonce chez la CAQ, c’est-à-dire, laisser le crucifix à l’Assemblée nationale. Les éditorialistes font aussi un peu de Quebec-bashing en passant.

On October 11^th, the Globe and Mail published an editorial under the title: “By defending a crucifix, Quebec crosses the line into hypocrisy.” It is replete with misconceptions and misleading assertions. The key thesis of the editorial is the contrast between two announcements made by Quebec’s new CAQ government led by François Legault:

Banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority.
Leaving the crucifix above the speaker’s chair in the National Assembly where it is, using the excuse that it is part of Quebec’s heritage.

All secularists in Quebec agree: that crucifix must go…

There is indeed a serious inconsistency here. But the editorial declares that “Quebec” is hypocritical. No, if anyone is being hypocritical here, it is Legault and the CAQ, not Quebec or Quebeckers in general. All secularists in Quebec agree: that crucifix must go, perhaps moved to a museum. (Furthermore, the law governing the National Assembly must be modified to prohibit any future displays of religious symbols in the legislature, including symbols worn by MNAs.) And yet the Globe and Mail editorial itself calls for leaving the crucifix in place! Why? In order to justify their opposition to any ban on religious symbols. The editorialists simply want to block any progress towards secularism.

The editorial mentions that, ten years ago, the Bouchard-Taylor commission recognized that the crucifix in such a prominent place in the N.A. is a powerful symbol linking legislative power to the majority religion. Exactly! That is why it must be removed. But the editorial neglects to mention that the same Commission recommended a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, very similar to what CAQ has recently proposed! (There is one important difference: CAQ would extend the ban to apply to teachers.)

Identity Politics

The editorial whines repeatedly that Quebec is indulging in “divisive identity politics.” This is a common complaint made by English-Canadian journalists in order to denigrate Quebec. Yes, leaving the crucifix could certainly be called identitarian. But the ban on religious symbols is the direct opposite of identity politics, the goal being to make the Quebec public service religiously neutral, in the same way that it is already politically neutral (because political symbols are already banned for all public servants).

The Canadian government regularly practices its own aggressive brand of identity politics by promoting dangerous cultural relativism…

When it comes to identity politics, nothing can compare to fundamentalist Islamists who aggressively promote the hijab and even the niqab as markers of identity. The Canadian government regularly practices its own aggressive brand of identity politics by promoting dangerous cultural relativism (which it euphemistically calls “multiculturalism”) as essential to the Canadian identity—and denigrating anyone who might question it, as many Quebeckers do. Canadian multiculturalism is very divisive because it attaches greater importance to ethno-religious identity than to citizenship; most importantly, it is incompatible with the secularism which most Quebeckers support.

Demonizing Secularism

The editorial is particularly tendentious when it refers to the “Parti Québécois’s odious Charter of Quebec Values.” Firstly, the name is incorrect. Secondly, the PQ Charter of Secularism was anything but odious. If adopted, it would have constituted a major step towards secularism. All secularists in Quebec supported it, as did a majority of the population. But since it contained a ban on religious symbols, the Globe and Mail hates it. It was the Charter’s opponents who were odious, slandering both the PQ government and Quebeckers in general with all sorts of egregious epithets. And now, enemies of CAQ’s proposed ban are at it again.

The editorial claims that there is “public outrage” against CAQ. Nonsense. On the contrary, there is a wave of great hope generated by the promise of this new government, and a fervent desire that it not back down in the face of the virulent opposition, such as that from the Globe and Mail.

The demo was basically a circus of anti-Quebec bigotry and fundamentalist Islam…

There was a so-called “anti-racist” demonstration held in Montreal less than a week after the CAQ victory. The demo was basically a circus of anti-Quebec bigotry and fundamentalist Islam, along with various sympathizers such as the “Antifa” (who should more properly be called “anarcho-Salafists”) who denounced the CAQ as “racist”—thus conflating race with religion in order to slander secularists. Noticeably absent, however, were those of a Muslim background who support secularism, such as AQNAL (Quebec Association of North-Africans for Secularism).

Freedom of Conscience

The employee can put their crucifix, hijab, turban, tin-foil hat, Pastafarian colander or whatever back on at the end of their shift.

But let us get to the crux (forgive the pun) of the matter: Why should religious symbols be banned for state employees, especially those in positions of authority? The answer is obvious: to protect the freedom of conscience of all citizens, who have a right to public services without staff pushing their personal ideology in the public’s face. Political symbols are already banned; this must be extended to religious ones. Such a measure does not threaten freedom of religion. On the contrary, it protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion, both of which are encompassed by freedom of conscience. The ban would only apply during working hours. The employee can put their crucifix, hijab, turban, tin-foil hat, Pastafarian colander or whatever back on at the end of their shift.

No rights are absolute, for they are limited by effects they have on the rights of others. The Globe and Mail editorial laments that CAQ would limit religious believers’ “right to express their religious beliefs as they see fit” but there is no right to practice one’s religion while on the job! The ban would have zero effect on religious practice outside the workplace.

Discrimination Against Non-Believers

…the Globe and Mail supports a world in which religious advertising is allowed everywhere…

The editorial enjoins Quebec politicians to show a “rational generosity of spirit.” Yet the Globe and Mail supports a world in which religious advertising is allowed everywhere, even on the bodies of government employees, thus threatening the rights of everyone—believer, atheist, agnostic—who does not want such propaganda imposed on them. I own several t-shirts which declare loudly and proudly that I am an atheist. But I would not wear any of them to work if I were employed in the public service, because I would not be so boorish as to push my personal convictions onto a captive audience in the workplace. I demand the same courtesy of religious believers. A rational generosity of spirit would imply accepting the duty of discretion when one works in such a position.

…the Globe and Mail promotes discrimination against atheists…

The Globe and Mail editorialists demand no such discretion from religious believers. Rather, they promote a major privilege for Roman Catholicism by leaving the crucifix in the N.A., even after hypocritically denouncing the CAQ for doing the same. The Globe and Mail then promotes privilege for all religions—to the detriment of non-believers—by opposing any ban on religious symbols in the public service. Thus, the Globe and Mail promotes discrimination against atheists and other non-believers.

Next blog: My Favourite Graph

The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Antisecularists

The movement against Legault and the CAQ has zero credibility.

2018-10-08

A recent demonstration in Montreal by so-called “anti-racist” activists illustrates yet again that the enemies of secularism are sadly lacking in moral and intellectual integrity. In particular, they deliberately conflate race and religion, thus aiding and abetting religious fanaticism.

Sommaire en français Une récente manifestation à Montréal par des militants soi-disant “anti-racistes” montre encore une fois que les ennemis de la laïcité manquent tristement d’intégrité morale et intellectuelle. En particulier, ils confondent délibérément la race et la religion, favorisant ainsi le fanatisme religieux.

Shortly after being elected on October 1^st 2018, the new premier, François Legault, and his CAQ party announced their intention to start implementing various secularism measures, in particular, banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, i.e. police, judges, prosecutors, prison guards and teachers. This is incomplete, but nevertheless an excellent start to implementing secularism in Quebec and supported by the majority of the population and basically all secularists in Quebec.

Click to enlarge
Demo poster, slightly modified
to make it more honest.

But there are forces who oppose secularism and do so in an extremely dishonest manner. Yesterday (2018-10-07) a demonstration was held in Montréal to protest the new measures. The demo was announced as being against racism, but a major focus was on denouncing Legault and the CAQ as racist.

The fallacy of conflating race and religion is a common tactic used by anti-secularists. It has been refuted countless times, but because of the extreme dishonesty of anti-secularists who falsely claim to be “anti-racist,” it is necessary to do so once again. So I summarize:

Race involves innate and immutable characteristics of the individual, whereas a religion is an ideology—a collection of ideas and beliefs—which can change overnight.
Religion and race are thus completely different phenomena.
Religion may be freely chosen if and only if there is freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, most religious believers have a religion forced on them as children, via indoctrination.
One of the key pillars of secularism is freedom of conscience, i.e. to make sure that individuals have the freedom and the autonomy to choose or reject an ideology which others may try to force on them. Thus, public institutions must not show preference for any religion.
The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are obviously not racist. Their purpose is to keep religious bias out of the affairs of state and government. They apply to all religions.
The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are clearly necessary because public servants in positions of authority must not display any religious partisanship.

Furthermore, the anti-secularists masquerading as “anti-racists” are dishonest in several ways:

The conflation of race with religion is clearly a fallacy, a strategy used in order to defame secularists as “racist.”
The conflation of race with religion constitutes a denial of freedom of conscience, condemning individuals to the religion into which they were born, a product of pure chance. It is a denial of a basic human right, the right to think for oneself.
They use the crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly as an excuse to allow public servants in authority to wear blatant religious symbols. Of course that crucifix must be removed, and Legault’s decision to keep it there is unacceptable, but that is no excuse. Two wrongs do not make a right. The government needs to remove the crucifix:
1. because it is the right thing to do; and
2. in order to deprive anti-secularists of one of their favourite propaganda ploys.

Furthermore, the opposition to any form of dress code is nonsensical and dishonest, because:

In the Quebec public service, politically partisan symbols may not be worn by employees on duty. It is thus hypocritical to allow religious symbols to be worn. Religious symbols are generally very political.
Dress codes are a widespread phenomenon throughout society. For example, the Canadian parliament imposes certain restrictions on Members of Parliament. The Rules of Order and Decorum stipulate that “to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire.” Why should any MP be allowed the privilege of being exempted from this rule simply because of his or her religion?
It is a major goal of Islamism to impose the wearing of the Islamic veil anywhere and everywhere. By opposing all dress codes, anti-secularists are objectively allied with extreme right-wing political Islam. Anti-secularists are not anti-fascist, they are objectively pro-fascist.

Given the above considerations, we see that those who denounce the new Quebec government as “racist,” because of its secular measures, are both intellectually bankrupt, for their arguments are fundamentally irrational, and morally bankrupt, because they oppose freedom of conscience and support the agenda of a far-right religious movement.

One small glimmer of reason from an individual who is normally a staunch ally of the anti-secularists: Manon Massé of Québec solidaire has publically stated that Legault and the CAQ are not racist. Very good. But she nevertheless opposes Legault’s plans because QS would not include teachers in the religious symbol ban. Furthermore, she did not, as far as I know, distance herself from the so-called “anti-racist” demonstration.

Anyone who cares sincerely about child welfare, especially the well-being of believers’ children, will support Legault’s proposed ban on religious symbols worn by teachers, thus helping to make public schools a refuge from religious indoctrination.

One final observation about the modern anti-racist movement, and this should come as no surprise to anyone: that movement is often racist itself. In particular, here in Quebec, so-called “anti-racist” activists often accuse Quebeckers in general of being racist. This itself is a racist attitude, an expression of anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry. In reality, the vast majority of Québécois, including those who voted for the centre-right CAQ, are more progressive that many of those activists.

Relevant Links:

Les manifestants contre le racisme s’adressent à Legault, Ugo Giguère, La Presse, 2018-10-07.
Des manifestants contre le racisme ciblent la CAQ, La Presse canadienne, 98.5 Montréal, 2018-10-07.
Signez cette lettre d’appui à la laicité., Marco Leclerc, Discernement, 2018-10-07.

Next blog: The Dishonesty of the Globe and Mail

The Quebec Election, Oct. 1^st 2018

Some Good News & Some Bad

2018-10-04, 2018-10-11, update to table of election results

My assessment of the good and bad results of the recent Quebec election, on October 1^st.

Sommaire en français Mon appréciation des bons et mauvais résultats des élections au Québec du 1^er octobre.

In the October 1^st 2018 elections in the Canadian province of Quebec, a major upset occurred. The Quebec Liberal Party (QLP), which has held power for most of last 15 years, was swept from power and a new party, the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), won a solid majority in the legislature. Its leader François Legault thus becomes premier of Quebec. In addition, the Parti Québécois (PQ) lost many seats and was reduced to a shadow of its former importance, while the ostensibly far-left but communitarian Quebec Solidaire (QS) went from marginal status to being about equal to the PQ. There are 125 seats in the Quebec National Assembly. Thus, 63 are required to form a majority government. The following table sums up the situation before and after the election.

Political Party	Seats before election	Seats after election	Seats after recounts 2018-10-11
Quebec Liberal Party	66	32	31
Parti Québécois	28	9	10
Coalition avenir Québec	21	74	74
Quebec Solidaire	3	10	10
Independents	6	0	0

First, the bad news:

Click to enlarge
Ève Torres, a QS candidate.
Fortunately she did not win.
Unfortunately she came second.

The very weak vote for the centre-left PQ, the only social-democratic party of the four major ones, and the party which in 2013-2014 proposed a very good Charter of Secularism. Unfortunately the PQ’s position on secularism has been erratic since then.
The election of the centre-right CAQ as the new government. However, the CAQ is probably no further to the right than the former PLQ government which imposed a lot of economic austerity. Also, the CAQ is nowhere nearly as far right as Doug Ford in Ontario or Donald Trump in the USA. For example, all four parties including the CAQ recognize that global warming is a major problem to be faced. As this is the first time the CAQ has held power, we will have to see just how they position themselves in practice.
The new premier François Legault plans to keep the crucifix in the legislative chamber (salon bleu) of the National Assembly. This old symbol of Catholicism must be removed, perhaps installed in a museum in the National Assembly, but Legault will evidently not do that. Its continued presence in the legislature is an unacceptable violation of secularism.
The worst news of all: the gains made by Quebec Solidaire, a group of sectarian regressive leftist anti-secularists, objective allies of political Islam, whose politics are seriously corrupted by identity politics, the conflation of race with religion and related errors. The gains by QS are a major cause of the losses by the PQ.

Now, the good news:

Legault plans to ban face-coverings in the public service, thus replacing the PLQ’s bill 62 whose article 10 (which banned face-coverings) was suspended by two court decisions.
Legault plans to ban religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, i.e. police, judges, prison guards and teachers.
Legault has indicated that he is prepared to use the so-called “Notwithstanding” clause if necessary (for example, if the courts attempt to suspend a ban on face-coverings or religious symbols). This pro-secular decisiveness is admirable, especially considering the waffling and hostility of most other politicians when dealing with secular issues. Also, this is very different from the situation in Ontario where premier Doug Ford’s use of that clause was for rather frivolous reasons based at least partly on a personal settling of accounts with Toronto City Council.
The best news of all: the decisive defeat of the Quebec Liberal Party, a party which is anything but “liberal” despite its name, a corrupt gang of anti-secular multiculturalists who regularly denigrated the Quebec population which they were supposed to represent. Good riddance. Note that the QLP remained in power largely thanks to overwhelming, unwavering and obsessive support from Quebec’s anglophone regions (which, by all appearances, would continue to support the QLP even if that party chose a stone statue of Queen Victoria as its leader). Despite continued support from them in the recent election, the QLP lost much support outside anglophone regions. Thus Quebec’s francophone majority, which is very pro-secular, has finally regained some control of its government. The tail no longer wags the dog.

A final reminder:

As the anti-secular forces have no rational arguments to justify granting privileges to religion, they will do what they regularly do: resort to slander and defamation.

We can expect the fanatical multiculturalists who currently control most political parties, especially the federal ones, to go ballistic in reaction to Legault’s secular initiatives. As the anti-secular forces have no rational arguments to justify granting privileges to religion, they will do what they regularly do: resort to slander and defamation. They will accuse Legault and his supporters of “racism” or any number of similar sins. In fact, they have already begun. Their slander must be resisted resolutely. Remember, anyone who conflates race and religion is incompetent to deal with either. Such accusations simply underline the intellectual sloth and vacuity of those who oppose secularism.

Some Relevant Links:

Le voile islamique doit disparaître des services de garde, selon un groupe laïque, TVA Nouvelles, 2018-10-04.
François Legault would invoke notwithstanding clause to ban hijabs from civil service, Benjamin Shingler, CBC News, 2018-10-02.
Et si nous avions eu un mode de scrutin proportionnel?, Naël Shiab, Radio Canada, 2018-10-02.
Nous souhaitons une fonction publique à la neutralité absolue dans son apparence et dans ses actions. (Petition for absolute neutrality of the public service, in both appearance and action), Denis Gaumond.
La CAQ veut imposer la laïcité de l’État, Alain Laforest, Journal de Montréal, 2018-08-19.

Next blog: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Antisecularists

Ensaf Haidar Challenges Canadian Orthodoxy

Raif Badawi’s wife refuses to kowtow to the “diversity” ideologues

2018-09-22

I congratulate Ensaf Haidar for her call to ban face-coverings in public services and for her support for Maxime Bernier’s criticism of Trudeau-ite multiculturalism.

Sommaire en français Je félicite Ensaf Haidar pour son appel à interdire les couvre-visage dans les services publics et pour son appui à Maxime Bernier qui critique le multiculturalisme à la Trudeau.

As most people are already aware, Ensaf Haidar is the wife of Raif Badawi, a Saudi writer, dissident and activist who has been imprisoned since 2012 in Saudi Arabia. His only “crime” was to call for a liberalisation of the Saudi regime.

Ensaf Haidar now lives with her children in Quebec and all received Canadian citizenship on July 1^st 2018. Haidar has worked tirelessly for her husband’s release and for human rights in general, and has received several awards for her efforts. Two recent examples are the 2017 Goldene Victoria, awarded by the Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger (Association of German Magazine Publishers), and the 2018 Henry Zumach Freedom From Fundamentalist Religion Award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

2018 Henry Zumach Freedom From Fundamentalist Religion Award
Ensaf Haidar: 2018 Recipient Henry Zumach Freedom From Fundamentalist Religion Award

Just as her husband defied Saudi orthodoxy by calling for freedom of expression, Ensaf Haidar challenges Canadian orthodoxy […]

Just as her husband defied Saudi orthodoxy by calling for freedom of expression, Ensaf Haidar challenges Canadian orthodoxy by exercising her freedom of expression in defiance of the conventional ideology monolithically imposed by most Canadian mainstream media and politicians, especially the federal government of Justin Trudeau. On her Twitter account @miss9afi, she has repeatedly urged the new Premier of Ontario to follow Quebec’s lead and ban the niqab in Ontario schools, public transportation and government services.

2018-09-16, Tweet, Ensaf Haidar
“I urge Ontario PM to follow Quebec’s and outlaw the Niqab
from schools, public transportation & all govt services”

Unfortunately the comparison with Quebec no longer applies, because article 10 of Quebec’s Bill 62, which banned face-coverings in public services, has been suspended by the courts and the Quebec government has failed to make any effort to fight back against the suspension.

Furthermore, Ensaf Haidar has expressed her support for Maxime Bernier’s criticism of Trudeau’s dubious cult of “diversity,” despite the fact that Bernier has been the target of an enormous degree of contempt and demonisation from the media for a position which is, in reality, eminently reasonable. Tarek Fatah writes about this in his article of September 18^th, Why Raif Badawi’s wife supports Maxime Bernier in the Toronto Sun. Haidar expressed her shock at the negative reaction to Bernier and his new political party (People’s Party of Canada or PPC) in a tweet on September 18^th.

2018-09-20, Tweet, Ensaf Haidar
“I am shocked at the reaction to my support of the #PPC and @MaximeBernier,
I will listen to myself and look for the new change”

Trudeau’s “diversity” is simply […] a buzzword which he uses to set the stage for spurious accusations of racism or xenophobia against anyone who criticizes his pandering to religious minorities.

I do not support Bernier’s new party—its economic policies are those of the libertarian right—but I agree with his and Haidar’s criticism of Trudeau’s obsession with what Bernier calls “extreme multiculturalism.” Indeed, Trudeau’s multiculturalism is cultural relativism, leading to complacency and inaction in the face of religious fanaticism. Trudeau’s “diversity” is simply code expressing his extreme intolerance of any disagreement with his ideology, a buzzword which he uses to set the stage for spurious accusations of racism or xenophobia against anyone who criticizes his pandering to religious minorities.

I congratulate Ensaf Haidar for her principled support for Bernier’s criticisms and for her opposition to the Trudeau-ite obsession of allowing religious face-coverings anywhere and everywhere.

Quebec-Bashing: Three Recent Examples

2018-09-11, Updated 2018-09-12

In this blog I present three recent articles, published in English-language media, each of which denigrates Quebec and the Québécois in a spurious, dishonest and sometimes slanderous manner.

Sommaire en français Dans le présent blogue je décris trois récents articles, parus dans des médias anglophones, dont chacun dénigre le Québec et les Québécois, et ce, d’une manière fallacieuse, malhonnête et parfois diffamatoire.

Quebec-bashing is a very popular sport in Canada outside (and sometimes inside) Quebec. Ever since the British conquest of New France some 250 years ago, the Québécois have been the whipping boys and girls of Canada, the poor, weird people, from a priest-ridden region, who talk funny and fail to practice the obviously superior religion of Anglicanism. For two centuries, poverty and second-class (or lower) status were the norm for the majority of Québécois. A few decades ago, in the Montreal area, French-speakers earned less than all major immigrant groups who in turn earned less than English-speakers.

Of course, things have changed greatly since then. The change has been especially significant during the last half-century, and for that, the Québécois themselves can take most of the credit. With the Quiet Revolution, Quebec shook off the yoke of Roman Catholic domination (which had been maintained by the British conqueror for pragmatic reasons of social control) and made dramatic progress politically, socially and economically.

With that major rite of passage, that movement towards collective maturity, the idea of forming an independent nation, preferably a secular republic, became popular. But, not suprisingly, the Quebec independence movement scared the fucking bejesus out of other Canadians, who reacted strongly against it, sometimes with rational argument, but more often than not with panic and bitter resentment. And thus, a new wave of Quebec-bashing was born, this time adding fear to the already overwhelming contempt which had always been there. According to the bigots who engage in this sport of Quebec-bashing, Quebec nationalists in general, and independentists in particular, are “racist,” “xenophobic” or worse. And these slurs have simply been recycled in the context of Quebec’s recent attempts to complete the secularization process which it began a half-century or more ago.

This all came to a head in 2013-2014 when the independentist Quebec government of the time proposed a Charter of Secularism. The identitarian left, allied with political Islam, has added its poisonous voice to the chorus of Quebec bashers and haters. The propaganda offensive is overwhelming. But resistance is strong too.

The following are three examples of articles which have appeared recently in the English-language media and which continue this ignoble tradition of contempt for the Québécois.

Slander and Misconceptions in The Guardian

Published in the Guardian (UK) on 2018-07-12, Martin Patriquin asks the extremely loaded question How did Quebec’s nationalist movement become so white? in an article which is so tendentious that it would take dozens of pages to refute all of its deliberate misconceptions and slanderous implications. Patriquin trots out the old chestnut of Jacques Parizeau’s alleged racism, something I deconstructed in a previous blog, and claims that Parizeau initiated a “drift into ethnic nationalism” culminating in the Quebec Charter of Secularism proposed in 2013 (and which Patriquin incorrectly calls the “Quebec values charter”). Patriquin thus indulges in the same dishonest ploy used by the enemies of secularism: deliberately conflating religion with race and ethnicity. He even claims that that Charter was “designed to pit multicultural Montreal against the rest of the province” and accuses the PQ of promoting “scorched earth nationalism!” Huh? What the hell has Patriquin been smoking? He refuses to make the necessary distinction between multiculturalism (a divisive anti-secular ideology unpopular in Quebec) and cultural diversity (a fact of life welcomed by Quebeckers).

Patriquin thus indulges in the same dishonest ploy used by the enemies of secularism: deliberately conflating religion with race and ethnicity.

Patriquin complains about “oodles of crucifixes dotting Quebec’s landscape.” Apparently he is living in 1950, or perhaps 1850. Arguably Patriquin’s worst comment is his assertion that “the PQ’s current leader [Jean-François Lisée] echoes the sentiments of America’s 45^th president.” This is the sort of denigration we could expect from Justin Trudeau, and indeed did get a few years ago, shortly after Trudeau was elected.

Patriquin would like us to believe that the Quebec independence movement has lost steam because it is “so white” and has failed to attract new blood, in particular immigrants. But he ignores several major reasons why the main independentist party, the Parti québécois (PQ) has dropped in popularity: (1) its very success, in particular the success of Bill 101, which offers some protection to the French language and thus makes independence appear less necessary; (2) the competition of a new and regressive (i.e. Islamophilic) leftist and ostensibly independantist party, Québec Solidaire (QS), which has split the independentist vote by sapping the PQ of its left-wing; and (3) Ideologues like Patriquin himself (and QS) who have done considerable damage poisoning the waters of political discourse with their intolerant attitude towards nationalism.

Innuendo in Quillette

Commenting on the recent controversy surrounding the play SLĀV which was cancelled by the Montreal Jazz Festival over concerns of so-called cultural appropriation, Dan Delmar misses the point with his Quillette article of 2018-08-14, The Furore Over a Quebec Theatre Production Has Missed the Point. After an introductory nod to the progressive nature of Quebec politics, the article quickly descends into the typical Quebec-bashing rhetoric which associates Quebec nationalism with xenophobia. Like Patriquin, Delmar laments that Quebec is not enamoured of multiculturalism. More on that later.

Like Patriquin, Delmar laments that Quebec is not enamoured of multiculturalism.

Delmar sinks even lower by rehashing the old slanderous idea of a parallel between Quebec nationalists and resentful white Confederates in the Deep South after the American Civil War. He even accuses Québécois of having a “persecution complex.” Given that denigration of Quebeckers is an ongoing, ever-present phenomenon to which Delmar himself is contributing, his admonishments are hypocritical. Delmar claims that Quebeckers have a “blind spot” when it comes to the race question, but it is Delmar who is blind, expecting Quebec to follow the cultural norms of the USA where the race issue is distorted by the horrific history of slavery in that country, whereas Quebec’s history is completely different. Delmar needs to learn that Quebec is not USA-North.

Ignorance and Racism in the Washington Post

The two examples above are bad enough, but the Grand Prize for Quebec-bashing goes to J. J. McCullough for his diatribe Maxime Bernier’s rebellion comes from the right to upend Canadian politics in the Washington Post on 2018-08-23. Bernier recently issued a series of tweets criticizing Justin Trudeau’s cult-like obsession with the buzzword “diversity” and his “extreme multiculturalism” (which I have discussed briefly in a previous blog). Like Patriquin and Delmar, McCullough cannot abide criticism of multiculturalism.

It gets worse. McCullough goes completely off the rails when he writes:

Bernier is a uniquely flawed vehicle for this message. As a Quebecker, he is an ambassador of a province whose French chauvinism represents the most striking refusal of any Canadian community to conform to the norms of the country’s English majority. A thickly accented French Canadian who complains about “people who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto” inevitably opens himself to charges of hypocrisy, […]”

Is it possible that McCullough could be so astoundingly ignorant that he does not even know that Canada has two official languages, and that French is one of them?

Is it possible that McCullough could be so astoundingly ignorant that he does not even know that Canada has two official languages, and that French is one of them? On what basis does McCullough assume that Bernier or any other Francophone Québécois has some obligation to “conform to the norms of the country’s English majority?” If Bernier’s bilingualism is mitigated by a less than perfect command of the English language, in what way does that invalidate his opinion? McCullough’s use of the expression “French chauvinism” is hypocrisy of the most extreme order, given his blatant English chauvinism and ethnocentrism. Comfortable in his ignorance, he reduces Anglophone culture to a monoculture to which all must slavishly conform.

A Common Thread

There is a common thread running through all three articles: a condemnation of the Québécois for not supporting multiculturalism. The three authors blather on about multiculturalism, blissfully ignorant of valid critiques of that ideology which promotes ghettoization and impedes the integration of immigrants.

Racism is a widespread phenomenon and probably exists in all societies, including Quebec. But if the three authors discussed above were truly concerned about that issue, they would have addressed the very problematic nature of Canadian multiculturalism which is not a panacea for racism—as some ideologues maintain—but is in reality a close cousin of racism. Multiculturalism is not a synonym for cultural diversity but rather one way of managing such diversity, and not a very good one at that. Secularism is a different way, a far superior alternative.

The problems with multiculturalism are well known. Already a quarter century ago, Neil Bissoondath gave us a useful critique: Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Maryam Namazie, Kenan Malik, Trevor Phillips and others have criticized it extensively. But Patriquin, Delmar and McCullough ignore the obvious fact that multiculturalism has become an ideology promoting cultural relativism which should be rejected. This ideology remains a sacred cow in Canada outside Quebec for various reasons, one being that it is a convenient excuse for bigotry against the Québécois who, less naïve, less monarchist and more (small-r) republican than most Canadians, retain a healthy scepticism with respect to it.

Summing Up

Trashing Quebec and Quebec nationalists has the important function of denigrating both secularism and national sovereignty, both of which are necessary for democracy and both of which are under attack from Islamists, neoliberals and their multiculturalist allies. Whatever the intentions of the three authors may be, they objectively promote that reactionary programme.

In fact, I find the expression “Quebec-bashing” a bit too mild. I hesitate to use the term “racism” because that epithet has been so over-used and abused by regressive pseudo-leftists—and in particular by Quebec-bashers. But if the shoe fits… The degree of contempt often found in writings such as those discussed above sometimes reaches the level of racism; that is the case with McCullough in my opinion. Here I am using the term racism in the more general sense of ethnic bigotry as explained in a previous blog. By recycling age-old Anglo-bigotry, Patriquin, Delmar and McCullough have done their part to poison political debate within Canada and without, while displaying their ignorance of the salient issues.

Next blog: Les extrêmes se touchent : Twitter censure une caricature de Charb

In Praise of Cultural Appropriation

2018-08-01 2018-08-02: Addition of several epigraphs and photo of R. Lepage

Some thoughts on the current controversy surrounding the dubious concept of “cultural appropriation” which has led to the unfortunate and dangerous cancellation of two apparently excellent theatre productions.

Sommaire en français Quelques pensées au sujet de la controverse actuelle autour du douteux concept dit d’« appropriation culturelle », controverse dont le résultat malheureux et dangereux a été l’annulation de deux productions théâtrales, toutes les deux apparemment de grande qualité.

Ever since protesters attacked the play SLĀV and accused it of “cultural appropriation,” the debate has been raging. The concept of cultural appropriation is extremely dubious. It is easy to parody it using arguments of the reductio ad absurdum type. If appropriating from or imitating other cultures were forbidden, then:

The cast of any production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet would have to composed mainly of Danes.
The two principal characters in the movie Brokeback Mountain should have been played by gay men.
Anyone who ever learned a second language should abandon any use of it and go back to using only their native tongue.
Only Afro-American musicians should be allowed to play jazz. On the other hand, Afro-Americans should not be allowed to play the saxophone, because it was invented by a Belgian.
etc., etc.,…

Robert Lepage in 2010
Robert Lepage, stage director of SLĀV,
Kanata and Coriolanus, in 2010.
Photo: TBWA/Busted – Flickr.com, via Wikipedia.

Furthermore, here is a very real example: Shakespeare’s Coriolanus is currently playing at the Stratford Festival in southern Ontario, directed by none other than Robert Lepage himself. In the Stratford production, the principal role of Caius Martius Coriolanus, a military leader and politician in ancient Rome, is played by a black man. I have not heard of any protests against this case of “appropriation.” The irony is overwhelming.

Artistic Expression Requires Permeable Boundaries

the expression “cultural appropriation” is just a pejorative way of describing something which is, on the contrary, very positive: openness to other cultures, i.e. cultural exchange and mutual cultural enrichment.

There is no limit to the number of absurdities that a taboo against cultural appropriation would imply. In fact, the expression “cultural appropriation” is just a pejorative way of describing something which is, on the contrary, very positive: openness to other cultures, i.e. cultural exchange and mutual cultural enrichment. It should be encouraged, not discouraged. In the case of theatre, Robert Lepage expresses this very well:

Depuis la nuit des temps, la pratique théâtrale repose sur un principe bien simple : jouer à être quelqu’un d’autre. Jouer à l’autre. Se glisser dans la peau de l’autre afin d’essayer de le comprendre et, par le fait même, peut-être aussi se comprendre soi-même. Ce rituel millénaire exige, le temps d’une représentation, que l’on emprunte à l’autre son allure, sa voix, son accent et même à l’occasion son genre.

As Lepage says, the very purpose of theatre is put oneself into someone else’s skin for the brief period of a performance, to borrow their looks, voice, accent and even gender, to play at being a person other than oneself, in an effort to understand that other person, and perhaps, in the process, to understand oneself better as well. A similar sentiment was expressed by the famed Argentine Canadian writer Alberto Manguel in a letter to the newspaper Le Devoir:

L’Art est artifice et le théâtre est imitation. Toutes les actrices qui ont tenu le rôle d’Anne Franck sur scène n’étaient pas juives et tous les acteurs qui ont tenu celui d’Othello n’étaient pas noirs. Imposer de telles règles en invoquant l’appropriation culturelle revient à limiter l’art à l’autobiographie. […] En essayant de réduire Robert Lepage au silence, ses critiques donnent des arguments aux idéologues de droite qui désirent que chaque communauté (définies par les hiérarchies au pouvoir) reste dans son propre ghetto et se soumette ainsi à une simple tolérance ou à une prohibition absolue. Si nous exigeons que seules les victimes soient autorisées à parler pour elles-mêmes, nous les enfermons dans un statut permanent de victime sans espoir de libération.

if we required that only victims speak for themselves […] then art would be reduced to autobiography

Manguel concludes that if we required that only victims speak for themselves, that no-one else is ever allowed to borrow their voice for the purposes of an artistic performance, then art would be reduced to autobiography and victimhood would become a permanent status with no hope of liberation. It would also strengthen right-wing ideologues who favour the ghettoization of various groups.

Yes, there are cases where such borrowing is done in way which denigrates or misrepresents the culture from which the borrowing is done, in which case the expression “cultural misappropriation” would be far more appropriate. An example that comes to mind is a major sports team which uses a caricature of a Native American as its logo, a caricature which conveys a negative racial stereotype. However, this was certainly not the case for the play SLĀV. Nor was it true for the play Kanata which came under scrutiny for similar reasons shortly after the first play. I have not seen either production—and unfortunately it will be difficult or impossible for me to do so since both have been cancelled—but, by all reports, both cases, both plays are high quality productions which treat their subject matter with seriousness, respect and indeed empathy.

The real guilty party here is the FIJM (Festival international de jazz de Montréal). The fact that Jazz Festival cancelled SLĀV after very few performances was a dangerous act of cowardice, capitulating to a small but very vocal number of moralistic “antiracist” protesters who spoke as if they represented all the slaves of the American south and all of their descendants. In fact, the play did not deal exclusively with black American slaves: its subject was slavery in general, including those in several other countries and eras, and slaves of various races. Furthermore, black people in Quebec, unlike those in the USA, are for the most part not descendants of slaves in the American South. Slavery in New France and Quebec was a very marginal phenomenon, very few in number, and most being native persons, not of African origin. There is simply no comparison to the history of slavery in the USA.

Who Are the Real Racists?

It must be recognized that the so-called “antiracist” movement has been largely infected by postmodernism which, when taken to an extreme, amounts to denial of objective reality or common values accessible to all and promotes extreme identity politics, isolating groups from each other. This seems to be particularly the case for those who protested the play SLĀV outside the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde (TNM), but less so for those who criticized Kanata. The demonstration outside the TNM was basically a form of bullying, benefiting no-one and nothing other than the egos of the demonstrators, a form of intimidation which unfortunately worked when the FIJM capitulated to it and cancelled the play.

The most radical “antiracist” elements are apparently based in universities such as Concordia and UQAM. Judging from a recent article Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University by graduate student Terry Newman, Concordia has become a cesspool of radical postmodernism, populated by fanatics and those afraid to stand up to them.

Montreal “antiracists” […] ignore or deny the very real cultural differences between Québécois and Americans, simply lumping the former into a general disparaged category of “whites.”

Paradoxically, the “antiracist” movement has itself become, in a very real way, racist, because it erects barriers between groups based on old 19^th century concepts of race such as “white,” “black,” etc., and would make it taboo to cross those barriers. Furthermore, in the Quebec context, the Montreal “antiracists” are even worse because they ignore or deny the very real cultural differences between Québécois and Americans, simply lumping the former into a general disparaged category of “whites.” Ironically, this itself is a form of cultural misappropriation, i.e. a misrepresentation of Quebec culture. It is also an example of the homogenisation of culture which results from naïve globalisation, applying American standards and mores to all other countries and cultures, as if the differences were of no importance or relevance. To put it bluntly, the Montreal “antiracist” movement displays anti-Québécois racism (in the wider sense of ethnic chauvinism as explained in a previous blog).

Furthermore, self-styled antiracists—and this is especially true here in Quebec—often conflate race (innate, immutable) and religion (an opinion which can easily change), foolishly accusing critics of religion of “racism.” Whether they do this out of ignorance or dishonesty is not always clear. At any rate, anyone who fails to distinguish between race and religion is incompetent to deal with either.

the modern “antiracist” movement, ideologically corrupted by postmodernism, racism and a pro-religious bias, has largely discredited itself.

Thus, the modern “antiracist” movement, ideologically corrupted by postmodernism, racism and a pro-religious bias, has largely discredited itself. Its demands should therefore be met with a great deal of scepticism, if not rejected outright. Having said that, I think that criticism of the play Kanata had some validity (unlike the specious protests against SLĀV), but, even in that case, cancellation of the production was not justified.

Cultural Appropriation and Multiculturalism

The taboo against cultural appropriation is an American disease, just as radical multiculturalism is a Canadian disease. The two are closely related. Both are based on identity politics, hence an obsession with group identification, usually minority groups. On that note, I leave the final word to Philip Theofanos, author of the article Cultural Appropriation ‘Outrage’ Strikes Again – Musical Play ‘SLAV’ Suffers:

Those decrying cultural appropriation cannot simultaneously sing the praises of multiculturalism with any logical consistency — the inevitable terminus of policing cultural appropriation is segregation, with each individual locked into playing out an amorphous, arbitrary concept of one’s culture corresponding to an inalienable personal background. That accusations of cultural appropriation apply so inconsistently is a hallmark of spuriousness, and makes obvious the following: culture is appropriation, and “cultural appropriation” as a neologism is a misnomer for cultural exchange — no matter how clumsily undertaken. It is best to err on the side of freedom when evaluating the practices, merits, and shortfalls of cultural exchange, as the alternatives amount to endorsing notions of thought-crime, and attempted murder of the arts.

Laïcité, législation et gouvernement au Québec

2018-05-29, mise à jour 2018-05-31

Le 26 mai 2018, j’ai participé au Colloque « Éducation et laïcité : où en sommes-nous ? » organisé par le Mouvement laïque québécois. J’ai ouvert et géré l’Atelier 5 intitulé « Laïcité, législation et gouvernement au Québec » lors duquel les panéllistes Jérôme Blanchet-Gravel, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay et Djemila Benhabib ont pris la parole. Voici mon court texte de présentation de l’atelier.

Propos haineux et blasphème

Summary in English On May 26^th 2018, I particpated in a colloquium, organized by the MLQ (Quebec Secular Movement), on the subject of secularism in education in Quebec. In particular, I opened and conducted the workshop on “Secularism, Legislation and Government in Quebec.” The panelists Jérôme Blanchet-Gravel, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay and Djemila Benhabib each made a presentation. Here is the brief presentation with which I opened the workshop.

Avant la loi 62, il y a eu le projet de loi 59 qui devait lutter contre les discours haineux mais qui constituait une grave menace pour la liberté d’expression. Heureusement que ce projet a été abandonné par le gouvernement en mai 2016. Mais on peut se demander si cette histoire se serait terminée de la même manière si le massacre de la mosquée de Québec était survenu quelques mois plus tôt – sachant comment les partisans de l’islam politique et leurs dupes ont instrumentalisé cette tuerie pour faire avancer leur programme, et sachant aussi combien ce projet de loi 59 avait plu aux islamistes les plus rigoristes.

Le projet de loi 59 aurait, au fait, constitué une nouvelle interdiction du blasphème et une nouvelle loi draconienne contre la propagande haineuse, mais au niveau québécois. Ces deux mesures existent déjà au niveau fédéral. Heureusement que la loi fédérale anti-blasphème est sur le point d’être abrogée. La loi fédérale contre la propagande haineuse est généralement beaucoup mieux formulée, mais comporte tout de même une exception religieuse qui accorde l’impunité aux propos haineux motivés par une croyance dans un texte religieux. Malgré une récente pétition demandant l’abrogation de cette exception, la ministre fédérale de la Justice a carrément refusé d’en faire quoique ce soit, allant jusqu’au mensonge en citant une version périmée de cette exception, une version dont la formulation était moins problématique.

De plus, la très inquiétante motion fédérale M-103 condamnant la soi-disant « islamophobie » sent, elle aussi, le délit de blasphème et constitue un écho, pour ainsi dire, d’une motion similaire adoptée par l’Assemblée nationale du Québec un an et demi avant.

La loi 62 n’est pas laïque

Ensuite est venue la loi 62, qui, selon son titre, porte sur la « neutralité religieuse », adoptée à l’Assemblée nationale par le gouvernement du PLQ en octobre 2017. Son titre est à la fois malhonnête et habile, car le gouvernement prétend ainsi régler la question des rapports entre les religions et l’État, répondant ainsi aux forts désirs de la population québécoise pour une solution laïque. Mais cette loi n’est pas une loi sur la laïcité, un terme qu’elle ne mentionne même pas, et, de plus, elle n’est même pas une loi sur la neutralité religieuse, une approche plus faible que la laïcité.

À peu près tout ce que fait la loi 62, c’est d’interdire les couvre-visage, mais en les interdisant très faiblement, permettant des accommodements, c’est-à-dire des exemptions, sur la base de critères assez flous et subjectifs. De plus, en prétendant instaurer la neutralité religieuse sans interdire aucun signe religieux à part les couvre-visage, elle approuve ainsi le port de ses symboles par les fonctionnaires en service.

Si le but du PLQ était de flouer le public, alors il faut se rendre compte que, pour le moment du moins, il a très bien réussi. Déjà le noyau de cette loi, l’article 10 qui interdit les couvre-visage, est suspendu par la Cour supérieure du Québec qui a donné raison aux Conseil national des musulmans canadiens, appuyé par le l’Association canadienne ces libertés civiles, qui l’ont contesté. Le PLQ peut maintenant dire qu’il a essayé de régler la question, mais les tribunaux l’en ont empêché, une façon de s’en laver les mains.

Dans les médias hors-Québec, cette loi, qui en réalité ne fait presque rien, est dénoncée comme une atteinte à la liberté de religion de certaines musulmanes, ou plus précisément une atteinte à la prétendue « liberté d’expression religieuse » (qui me semble un néologisme assez douteux). Les partisans du multiculturalisme et les promoteurs de l’islam politique, qui sont des alliés objectifs, ont gagné cette bataille. J’ai même trouvé dans la revue américaine Free Inquiry, une périodique normalement excellente, un texte qui met la loi québécoise 62 sur un pied d’égalité avec la très louche motion fédérale M-103, les deux étant, selon l’auteure de l’article, des menaces pour les libertés civiles.

Il faudrait donc faire abroger cette loi 62 parce qu’elle ne va pas assez loin, c’est-à-dire qu’elle ne va à peu près nulle part en ce qui concerne la laïcité. Au contraire, le Québec a besoin d’une loi sur la laïcité.

Toutefois, en s’opposant à cette loi 62, il faut éviter le piège de conforter les gens qui s’y opposent pour des raisons diamétralement opposées. Cette loi ne va pas trop loin, comme de nombreux commentateurs mal informés le prétendent, au contraire. Pour que cette loi soit minimalement recevable, il aurait fallu au moins y supprimer les accommodements religieux et y ajouter l’interdiction des signes religieux portés par les fonctionnaires, surtout ceux et celles ayant un pouvoir coercitif comme la police et les juges, ainsi que les enseignantes et les enseignants.

La soi-disant « islamophobie »

À propos de l’« islamophobie », il y a eu au fait trois motions à ce sujet, dont une à l’Assemblée nationale, proposée par Françoise David, adoptée de 1er octobre 2015. Les deux autres ont été adoptées au Parlement fédéral, la première proposée par Thomas Mulcair et adoptée en octobre 2016, et l’autre étant la motion M-103 adoptée en mars 2017. Ces motions défendent des gens sur la base de leur appartenance religieuse, non pas sur la base de droits universels. Elles ne font rien pour faire progresser la laïcité.

L’école publique

Au niveau de l’école publique québécoise, ce système supposément laïque rencontre tout de même assez mal les critères de laïcité. Il y a un besoin criant de retirer le programme Éthique et culture religieuse (ÉCR) imposé à tous les élèves et à tous les niveaux primaires et secondaires depuis 2008, ou au moins de lui retirer complètement le volet « culture religieuse » comme de nombreux militants laïques l’ont déjà recommandé depuis des années. De plus, il faudrait exiger l’abolition du Comité aux affaires religieuses du Ministère de l’Éducation (nom actuel : MEEQ = Ministère de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur). Ce comité a travaillé à l’élaboration du programme ÉCR, il est un vestige des anciens comités confessionnels catholique et protestant et il a pris position pour la laïcité dite « ouverte » – ce qui veut dire une pseudo-laïcité à peu près équivalente au multiculturalisme –, rejetant ainsi l’interdiction des signes religieux ostentatoires stipulée dans la Charte de laïcité proposée en 2013-2014 par le gouvernement précédent.

Communications présentées dans le cadre de cet atelier :

« Le multiculturalisme en question: les universitaires contre la laïcité », Jérôme Blanchet-Gravel
« Démocratie et laïcité », Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay
« La Loi sur la neutralité religieuse n’est pas la Loi sur la laïcité », Djemila Benhabib

Liens pertinents :

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay au colloque du Mouvement Laïque Québécois, par Annie-Ève Collin.

Prochain blogue : Banning Religious Symbols: When & Where?

Screw the Monarchy!
Vivent les patriotes !

2018-05-21

The double significance of this holiday, “Victoria Day” or “Journée nationale des patriotes.”

Sommaire en français Aujourd’hui, c’est à la fois la « Fête de la Reine » et « Journée nationale des patriotes ».

Today is a legal holiday in Canada, both federally and in most provinces and territories. In most places it is called “Victoria Day” or, more colloquially, the queen’s birthday, in honour of the birthday of Queen Victoria. In other words, it is a celebration of the monarchy, that antiquated institution which is ridiculous enough in Great Britain, but even more ridiculous in former colonies such as Canada, because it means that Canada’s head of state is a foreigner!

Patriots’ Flag of Lower Canada,
used from 1832 to 1838.

But here in Quebec, things are done a little differently, fortunately. Here, this late-May holiday is officially named “Journée nationale des patriotes” or “National Patriots’ Day” in honour of the patriots of 1837-1838 who fought for democracy, freedom and national recognition for Lower Canada (now Quebec). Their fight for reform led to a number of armed confrontations with British colonial forces and inspired a similar movement in Upper Canada (now Ontario). Several of those involved ended in exile, while others paid with their lives and were hanged.

Lately we have been inundated with news (i.e. propaganda) about the British royal family, what with the recent marriage of a certain Harry with somebody. This led me to make the following Facebook posting:

Screw the monarchy. I do not give a sweet flying fuck about the goddamn royal wedding. Screw the media for promoting it so stupidly.

…which generated quite a few likes among my friends. One Polish friend observed:

I support your opinion, David. For ages they are parasites identically as a clergy of all religions.

…to which I replied:

Yes, and the monarchy is a religious institution, founded on the principle of “divine right”—the monarch owes his or her title to “the grace of God.” It would be difficult to be more arrogant than that.

Local Montreal media published several good commentaries on this orgy of super-star worship. For example, Antoine Robitaille, in an article published Saturday (May 19^th) entitled Pourquoi la monarchie m’énerve (“Why the Monarchy Annoys Me”), observes:

The monarchy and royal families continue to fascinate us. The members of these dynasties are as famous as film stars, perhaps even moreso. This is because we are bewitched by the super-rich. Perhaps even more interesting is the anachronistic aspect which links the present to the nation’s distant past. Nevertheless, the monarchy represents an infantile stage of politics. First and foremost because it is so simple: one person rules, that’s it. This person’s children will take over eventually. Hidden beneath all the glitz and glitter, politics in all its aspects—debate, division, conflict—is obscured. Thus, we tend to be spontaneously monarchist with children. The stories which captivate them often involve kings, princesses and princes.

In another article published the same day, Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay considers the cost, both material and symbolic, of this monarchistic nonsense:

All this pomp and pageantry illustrates one thing: that the monarchy as an institution is on life support. Its only remaining option to assure its survival in people’s hearts and minds is to project a cool and fashionable image.[…]

Everyone agrees: royal power today is essentially symbolic and decides absolutely nothing. So be it. But this is an admission that we pay the lifetime salary of governors-general, amounting to close to $300,000 annually, not to mention their 160 employees, including three photographers and four chauffeurs, for no reason whatsoever. […]

But the monetary cost of these positions is not the principal problem. Even if all of them were unpaid volunteers, even if they somehow earned revenue for the state, their positions should nevertheless be abolished. Symbols have meanings. Our head of state is officially Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. She follows us everywhere, on all our coins. Our members of parliament must swear allegiance to her and must declare that their decisions and actions are guided by an unelected person who holds power, for life, for strictly hereditary reasons […]

All these positions being symbolic, they nevertheless constitute a living reminder that we are still subjects of the queen. […] this backward old institution, which even the most magnificent marriage cannot rescue from irrelevancy, should be consigned to oblivion.

To conclude, two days before the holiday Monday which, in English Canada, is known as Victoria Day, I prefer to wish you an excellent National Patriots’ Day. You remember, right? The patriots who were hung for treason against the British crown? I remember.

Finally, in an article from two years ago, Les patriotes : un devoir de mémoire (“The Patriots: A Duty to Remember”), Joseph Facal offers a brief reminder of the historical context:

The patriots were certainly poorly armed, lacking in experienced military leadership, with no support from the United States, with no clear strategy, and divided between radicals and moderates. However, well-armed, ultraloyalist, paramilitary organizations, tolerated by the British authorities, were determined to kill in the bud any plans for an independent republic of Lower Canada. […]

Was this merely an “ethnic” conflict between French and English? Certainly there were cultural and linguistic animosities. However several anglophones, especially those from an Irish background, were members of the patriot camp and fought against British imperialism. Several francophones, on the other hand, had advantageous social positions and supported the status quo controlled by London.

The patriots fought not only for an independent republic, but also had demands concerning universal suffrage, free education, the death penalty, equality of rights and others. They were inspired by the great principles of the century of Enlightenment and by other emancipation movements on the American continent.

In conclusion, the best way to celebrate this queen’s birthday, 21 May 2018, is to promote abolition of the monarchy and to honour those who fought for freedom and against the monarchy. Joyeuse Fête des Patriotes !

Next blog: Laïcité, législation et gouvernement au Québec

Religious Symbols and the Montreal Police

Cultural relativists are on the warpath again.

2018-04-13

Once again, the airheads who promote cultural relativism and religious privilege are on the warpath, trying to impose religious symbols in public services, this time in the Montreal police force.

Sommaire en français Encore une fois, les écervelés du relativisme culturel et du privilège religieux partent en guerre dans le but d’imposer des symboles religieux dans les services publics, cette fois-ci dans la police de Montréal.

Once again, conformism and fashionable nonsense are winning out over common sense. Some doofus on Montreal City Council, someone obviously with more time than brains, came up with the brilliant idea of having the Montreal Police force allow officers to wear religious symbols such as Islamic hijabs and Sikh turbans while on duty. And a lot of other doofuses (doofi?) — the usual suspects, including Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Couillard and Mayor Plante — are jumping on the bandwagon, either agreeing completely or at least declaring their openness to the idea.

To consider this idea, and to keep it simple, let us set aside most of the issues which such an idea raises. Forget for now the fact that the hijab is a flag of an international extreme right-wing political movement, as well as a symbol of that movement’s abysmal misogyny, a symbol of rape culture, and a marker identifying the woman wearing it as “taken,” i.e. as the property of her family and religious community.

Let us also set aside the fact that only the most pious, fundamentalist or even extremist Sikh men would bother to wear the turban which is a marker indicating that their religion is more important to them than anything else in their lifes.

Let us also set aside the fact that such unnecessary religious attire can be a very real impediment to a police officer’s work, interfering with or completely preventing the wearing of a protective helmet or a gas mask, and, in the case of the hijab compromising the person’s peripheral vision.

Finally, let us set aside the very real problem of how the police officer’s religious symbol may interfere with their work because of how it is perceived by the public. Police officers wear a uniform for a reason: because it is, well, uniform, that is, in order to present a neutral appearance. Imagine the predicament of a young women who is being seriously harassed by her Muslim father because she refuses to wear the hijab; how will she feel if she calls the police and a hijabi officer shows up? Or imagine the predicament of a man attacked by homophobes who, when the police arrive, finds that one or more officers are wearing symbols associated with a highly homophobic religion. Or consider the plight of a woman beaten by her husband who appeals to the police for help but finds that several officers are wearing symbols of a very misogynistic religion.

Let us leave all that aside and consider one core issue. On what basis can one justify granting such a privilege to the Muslim and Sikh religions? Are we supposed to accept a police officer who wears a giant Christian cross on his/her chest while on duty? How about a Pastfarian who wears a collander or a bowl of spaghetti on his/her head? Or a Raelian who wears only a G-string to symbolize that cult’s sex-positive beliefs? Or a Scientologist who wears a symbol of that religion?

Should we also accept officers wearing swastikas on their uniforms? Ah, but that is a political ideology, not a religion, you protest. Bullshit, all religions are potentially political, and indeed they become highly politicized if and when their symbols are worn by an agent endowed with the coercive power of the state and the mandate to use it. An Islamic hijab, a Sikh turban, a Christian crucifix or any other religious symbol becomes a political symbol (if it was not obviously one already) as soon as it is displayed by an agent of the state while on duty.

The solution is simple. A uniform must be uniform. No modification to the uniform is acceptable unless it responds to a real, objective need, such as body size, sex, handicap, health condition, etc. A person’s religious affiliation is not an acceptable excuse to provide an accommodation because it does not represent any objective need; in other words, there is nothing real to be accommodated.

Anyone who attaches greater importance to their religion than to their duties as a police officer (or in other position as employee of the state), even while on duty, is unfit for the job. All the person has to do is to wear the standard uniform while on duty. When off duty, they can wear whatever they want.

Quebec’s Right to Self-Determination

Are you a progressive Canadian?

2017-07-27

In this blog I discuss the question of Quebec independence and I make the point that recognition of Quebec’s right to self-determination (which need not imply promotion of the independence option) is a necessary component of any progressive political stance. Failure to recognize this right constitutes a serious impediment to secularism in Canada in general, not just in Quebec.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je considère la question de l’indépendance éventuelle du Québec. Je maintiens que la reconnaissance du droit du Québec à l’auto-détermination (ce qui n’implique pas nécessairement de prôner l’option indépendantiste) est une composante essentielle de toute orientation politique progressiste. Le refus de reconnaître ce droit représente une entrave majeure à la laïcité au Canada en général, et pas seulement au Québec.

Let us consider a little thought experiment. Suppose that at some date in the near future, the Parti Québécois (or another sovereignist political party) holds power in Canada’s province of Quebec, and that they plan to hold a referendum to decide whether Quebec should become an independent country. Furthermore, in order to simplify our thought experiment, let us suppose that, after intensive negotiations, all significant players in this drama—whether passionately in favour of Quebec independence, or fervently opposed to it, or holding some intermediate opinion—have agreed on the following three major points:

the wording of the referendum question;
the criterion for victory or failure of the independence option;
in the event of failure, a restriction on the holding of similar referenda in the future.

Point (1) means that all have agreed on the wording of the question which will be put to voters. For example, “Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada to become an independent republic?” or whatever the various players agree to.

Point (2) means that all have agreed on what threshold will be necessary to decide that the referendum results represent a victory for independence. For example: 50% + 1 of all votes cast; or 50% + 1 of all eligible voters; or 60% of all votes cast; or 60% of all eligible voters; or whatever the various players agree to.

Point (3) implies that, if the independence side loses, all players agree that another referendum posing the same or a similar question may not be held again for a minimum number of years—for example, 15 years, or 25 years, or whatever the various players agree to. This will avoid the so-called “neverendum referendum” scenario, i.e. repeated and frequent referenda.

Thus we have what I think is a comprehensive set of conditions to make the referendum as fair as possible. Perhaps I have forgotten some other condition which should be met and which could be negotiated by all the major players in addition to the three listed above. I assume that all such major issues have been dealt with before the referendum is held.

I now ask you, dear reader, what your reaction would be if—after all these conditions had been met and the referendum held—the YES side won. What, in your opinion, should be done? In particular, what course of action should be adopted by the federal government in Ottawa?

I think the answer is obvious. Having agreed to a set of conditions assuring the fairness of the vote, and the YES side having won, the Ottawa government would have no choice but to accept the decision and to begin negotiations, in good faith, with the Quebec government, to facilitate the transition to sovereign nationhood for Quebec. If you disagree with this course of action, then you do not recognize Quebec’s right to self-determination. Furthermore, if you do not recognize Quebec’s right to self-determination, then you and I disagree on a fundamental principle of Canadian history and politics.

Now, in practice, I recognize that the conditions I have set up in preparation for the referendum are probably unrealistic. Indeed, if any of the parties to that preparation did not recognize Quebec’s right to self-determination, as I am certain some would not, then they would probably demand conditions to which independentists could never agree, such as, for example, an unrealistically high threshold for victory (condition 2). In practice, any referendum would probably occur in a context where controversy about the terms of the referendum continues to abound. Nevertheless, my goal in presenting such an idealized situation where most agree on those terms is to reduce the number of variables, i.e. to simplify the situation in order to expose one major variable, that variable being whether or not the stakeholders recognize a right to self-determination.

It is the duty of every […] progressive […] to support Quebec’s right to self-determination.

The bottom line is this: It is the duty of every person who considers himself or herself to be progressive in any real sense of that word—that is to say, in favour of fundamental human rights, in favour of social justice (an expression I continue to use despite the frequency with which it is bandied about and often abused), in favour of values which the left has traditionally defended (but in recent years has unfortunately tended to forget)—it is such a person’s duty, I say, to support Quebec’s right to self-determination. That does not mean that they must promote Quebec independence. Indeed, one may quite legitimately oppose it for a variety of reasons—for example, the political and economic instability which might (or might not) be the consequence of splitting up the Canadian federation and might (or might not) impoverish the population or otherwise significantly reduce their quality of life. But in that case one must respect Quebec’s right by opposing it honestly, with rational argument. And if the will of the Quebec nation—as expressed through a fair referendum—is to become independent, then one has a duty to respect that decision.

(Yes, Quebec constitutes a distinct nation within Canada: definition (1) of the Wiktionary definition of nation is “A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity and/or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.”)

Furthermore, if one opposes the Quebec sovereignty movement irrationally, for example by claiming that it is “racist” or “fascist” or some such nonsense, that is by simply slandering it, then one is guilty of ethnic bigotry against the Quebec nation. And ethnic bigotry is a form of racism (in the extended sense, as I have defined it in a previous blog, although not in the strict sense, because Quebecers constitute an ethnic group and a nation, but not strictly a “race”). Thus such specious accusations are blatantly hypocritical because the persons making them are themselves guilty of racism.

The strategy of slandering the Quebec sovereignist movement by associating it with repressive and xenophobic right-wing political movements is […] hate propaganda against the Quebec nation.

Let us be very clear. There is nothing about the Quebec independence option which is essentially “racist” or “intolerant” or “fascist.” The strategy of slandering the Quebec sovereignist movement by associating it with repressive and xenophobic right-wing political movements is an extreme form of what has become known as “Quebec-bashing” but which I would simply call hate propaganda against the Quebec nation. Racism and ethnic bigotry are present in all societies and any nationalism may be vulnerable to the influence of such tendencies. However, any right-wing clerico-nationalist tendencies in Quebec have been largely eclipsed in the last half-century by the resolutely secular nature of Quebec’s Quiet Revolution. The conflict between Quebec sovereignists and Canadian federalists (i.e. for and against Quebec independence) is essentially a confrontation of two competing nationalisms:—Québécois and Canadian—and it is largely a matter of taste which of the two one prefers. Opposition to Quebec independence often takes the form of ethnic bigotry against the Quebec nation, and that bigotry is often expressed through the vehicle of Canadian nationalism—which can be very intolerant.

A lesser issue related to self-determination needs to be asserted as well. Respect for Quebec’s right to self-determination also implies respect for decisions of political importance but of lesser consequence than independence, decisions which may clash with values held by many Canadians outside Quebec. The obvious example of this is the desire of the majority of Quebeckers for a version of secularism in keeping with the republican tradition, i.e. laïcité. As Quebec is a separate province within Canada and Canada is a federation in which provinces hold significant powers, the right of Quebeckers to decide for themselves already has some legal basis, but that right is compromised by the fact that federal law takes precedence (which, in fact, constitutes an excellent argument for Quebec independence).

[…] old bigoted anti-Quebec memes were trotted out in order to demonize the Quebec Charter of Secularism […]. Partisans and dupes of Islamofascism made full use of such demonization to oppose the Charter.

We saw how old bigoted anti-Quebec memes were trotted out in order to demonize the Quebec Charter of Secularism proposed by the Parti Québécois government in 2013-2014. Partisans and dupes of Islamofascism made full use of such demonization to oppose the Charter. This bigotry rendered the Charter debate highly toxic and impeded rational discussion of the important issues involved. If Quebec’s right of self-determination had been respected, this problem would have been greatly reduced.

So-called secularists […] who allow their hostility towards Quebec nationalism to cloud their judgement […] constitute a major threat to the very secularism which they claim to support.

Why am I making this point in a blog normally devoted to issues of atheism and secularism? Because the demonization of Quebec independentists (and even softer nationalists) is a major impediment hindering efforts at secularization in Canada. Secularism is a major value of the Quebec nation, something which that nation shares with French culture in general, the result being that progress towards greater autonomy for Quebec and progress towards secularization tend to go hand in hand. This has been the case throughout the Quiet Revolution of the late XX^th century and it continues to be the case. So-called secularists in Canada outside Quebec who refuse to recognize Quebec’s right to self-determination, who allow their hostility towards Quebec nationalism to cloud their judgement, who allow themselves to be manipulated by Islamists, constitute a major threat to the very secularism which they claim to support.

References

nation, Wiktionary.
Self-determination, Wikipedia.

Epilogue

If the above blog speaks to you then you may be interested in the organization Anglophones for Québec Independence (AQI) founded in 2015. I personally am not a member, because I prefer to remain neutral on this issue, but I am very glad that such a group exists because they work to alleviate the stigmatisation of Quebec nationalism. Indeed, part of AQI’s mission is “to demystify inaccurate stories about Quebec and to answer insulting attacks, including the tired accusation that Quebecers are racist or xenophobic.” In other words, they promote intellectual hygiene, which can only make secularism debates healthier.

Next blog: Notes on the Regressive Left, Part II: ANTIFA: Shock Troops of the Regressive “Left”