Home » Posts tagged 'immigration' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: immigration

PKP’s major Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Immigration Muck-up (#213)

March 19, 2015 3:09 pm / Leave a comment

Yesterday, during the Parti Québécois debates, Pierre Karl Péladeau (PKP), the most likely contender to be the next head of the PQ, stated (and I’m quoting as accurately from French as possible, with context being provided in square brackets):

“We will not have [another] 25 years to achieve [Québec independence]. With [Québec’s] demographic [changes], with its immigration [rates], it is a sure thing that we are losing [the support of the equivalent of] one riding every year. We wish we could better control [this situation], but let us not hold any illusions [about it]”

“Who is in charge of the immigrants who come to settle in Québec? It is the Federal government. Of course, there is shared jurisdiction [in immigration between the provincial and federal governments], but [immigrants] still pledge an oath to the Queen [to become citizens, and thus are eligible to vote in any referendum]. Therefore, we don’t have another 25 years ahead of us. It is now that we must work [on this problem].”

Reactions to PKP’s statement have so far boiled down to two camps:

One camp believes immigrants are “not” the problem. Rather this camp believes the issue is with either sovereignist ideology (which is what federalists argue), or the successful communication of this ideology to all sectors of Québec’s society (both federalists and sovereignist can share point of view, as did Alexandre Cloutier, another contender for the leadership of the PQ). What they mean by this is that rather than (a) turning off the immigration tap, or (b) choosing only immigrants who would be demographically “more apt to support sovereignty”, the PQ should instead concentrate more on getting their argument to resonate with all immigrants. Federalists will argue that in the end, if immigrants will not support their proposal, then the PQ should question the validity of their own proposal rather than the intelligence of immigrants. To do otherwise creates a “them-and-us” society (A similar analogy would almost be as if the Federal government were to restrict immigration numbers so as to garner enough votes in the off-ball chance they were running on a platform that was about… I don’t know… ceasing subsidization of education [I just chose this completely at random]). This means Québec has to determine if it wants a globalized, cosmopolitan (ie: all inclusive, multi-ethnic/racial, we’re-all-in-this-together) society, or if we want a “them-and-us” society, with a sovereignty debate axed on ethnic nationalism. This camp believes that you can’t just turn immigration on and off depending on how you think this segment of the population will vote (otherwise it becomes a question of ethnically rigging our entire system and population — very dangerous!).

Another camp believes that immigrants are the roadblock to sovereignty because they are statistically less apt to vote for sovereignty in any referendum. This camp argues that a referendum should be held as quickly as possible to beat a demographic time bomb against sovereignty as Québec continues down the road to becoming more cosmopolitan (some veteran, high-profile sovereignists, such as Denise Bombardier, argue Québec is already past this point and will never achieve sovereignty). This camp believes part of “beating the demographic time-bomb would involve controlling immigration levels so that, in the eyes of supporters of this camp, no more “damage” could be done. This argument can be summed up in the following statement: Québec sovereignty should be decided by those of New France origins, and also by those who are allied with citizens of New France origins and culture, and to hell with the rest. (harsh, but that’s kind of where this camp stands). This argument advocates that, if at all possible, “the rest” should be prevented from coming to Québec, for fear that they may influence any referendum’s outcome. It also insinuates that those of Non-New France origins would never support sovereignty (yet, interestingly, 20% of visible minorities did support the “yes” side in 1995). It is interesting to see that there are are people who advocate this view — and based on what was said at a number of pro-Charte des valeurs rallies in 2012, perhaps there are more people who support these views than what one may think (it is a view which very much echoes the 1995 Parizeau statement).

One little factoid I wish to explain, one which is not very well understood in Québec or elsewhere in English Canada: Under the constitution, Québec and all provinces have sole jurisdiction to decide which immigrants can settle in their respective provinces. However, Québec is the only province which has opted to exercise this jurisdiction (all other provinces, with the exception of some limited immigration categories, have “voluntarily decided” to let the Federal government handle selecting their immigrants for them). What this means is that in Québec’s case, Québec has provincial immigration officers, posted abroad in Québec immigration bureaus, who receive applications from foreigners to “immigrate to Québec”. These provincial immigration officers then decide which immigration applications will be approved (it is not Ottawa who chooses the immigrants to Québec, unless they fall under certain categories of refugees. However Ottawa conducts the police and health checks on all immigrants before the permanent resident card is granted — but this has nothing to do with choosing the “person” who is about to immigrate). In this sense, all immigrants in Québec have been chosen by Québec, for Québec (including by the Parti Québécois when they were in power). That’s why I find PKP’s statement quite curious – (in many, many respects) – as well as misleading, ill-informed, and frankly ignorant.

The intention of this post is not to report the news. Believe me when I say this story has already become one of the most reported individual stories of 2015 (and it has only been news for 24 hours). We have not seen this sort of political statement since Parizeau cried foul of the “ethnic vote” on referendum night in 1995.

Nor is the intention of this post to analyze the validity or invalidity of PKP’s statement (the above is more of a backgrounder, than anything else). Again, reporters, columnists, other bloggers, and political circles are covering this topic like oil takes to the sands in Fort McMurray.

The intention of this post is to question “why” PKP made such a statement “now” – at this point of time. This is a question I have heard absolutely nobody talk about. I have some initial thoughts, and it’s worth pondering aloud.

In English Canada, the whole debate of reasonable accommodations (mostly orbiting around headscarf & facial-veil issues), and the political capitalization of religious tolerance issues (in light of recent jihadist-related events) has only become acute in the last few weeks (with the introduction of Bill C-51, recent court decisions, questions of extensions of military action in the Middle-East, homegrown terrorism issues, etc.).

Whereas this debate is relatively new news in English Canada, in Québec this debate has already been going on for the better part of three years — starting with the PQ’s initial proposal of the Charter of Values, and subsequent arguments for codifications and limitations of reasonable accommodations (within the framework of a debate surrounding multiculturalism and interculturalism).

This has allowed more than enough time for segments of Québec’s population to become quite galvanized along certain views in this debate – much more galvanized that in English Canada, which is still doing a lot of soul-searching. In many respects, such soul-searching is already “finished” in Québec, and we see clear lines of public opinion already being drawn in the sand; “for” and “against” various degrees of accommodation, “for” and “against” measures such as bill C-51, “for” and “against” increased or decreased levels of immigration, etc, etc.

Over the past year, many in our media in Québec have been stating that PKP’s manner of frank speech and political naïveté are a mix which makes him prone to severe verbal gaffs. More than a handful of veteran reporters have been predicting for months that it would only be a matter of time before PKP says something which would land him in very hot water – to the point that it could jeopardize any public support he has garnered (be it for his run at the PQ leadership, or his status as the leader of the PQ after the leadership race). Today, the vast majority of the media establishment have been citing yesterday’s statement as one such gaff.

However, I’m not so sure they are right. PKP is an extremely intelligent individual, surrounded and counseled by skilled, veteran political warriors. I actually have the funny feeling PKP knew exactly what he was saying when he made the above statements. I would venture to bet that he was fully aware of the type of public attention such statements would garner. It could very well have been part of his strategy.

Over the past months, even over the past couple of years, we’ve seen a stark galvanization of Québec’s population around issues of immigration, and how immigration touches upon matters involving integration and accommodation. In part, this galvanization has garnered unprecedented, historic support for “post-Alliance party” Conservatives in Québec — to the extent that they are for the first time leading in some polls of some regions in Québec, such as in Québec City.

The PQ has had a very difficult time attracting support over the past three years. I have a hunch that PKP saw how the Conservatives were able to capitalize on immigration & integration issues (as well as related security issues) to gain support in Québec – and I’m almost lead to believe that PKP is trying his hand at the same antics.

If this truly is part of his strategy, of course it is not without risk to PKP (and I’m sure he would be aware of that). Having one’s remarks labelled in the same breath as those of Parizeau’s 1995 remarks comes with the risk of a heavy political price. But unlike Parizeau’s remarks which we pronounced on a stage at the “end” of a highly emotional political process, PKP’s remarks came during a time when “other coincidental public debate” on related issues could provide him with a wider, more receptive audience towards yesterday’s remarks. In addition, unlike Parizeau’s remarks which went down in the history books as “closing” remarks at the “end” of the referendum process, PKP’s remarks yesterday are coming at the “beginning” of several political processes which will be debated for quite some time (such as the PQ’s leadership race, the 2015 Federal election, the 2018 provincial election, and a possible future referendum).

For a couple of reasons, it is important to be cognizant of the fact that his remarks are coming at the “beginning” of a whole set of political events (rather than at the end). In Canadian & Québec politics, the longer the time-frame that issues are debated, and the more certain issues are debated, the more our population has a tendency to become “numb” towards what is being debated. Parizeau’s remarks did not come at a time when sovereignty was still being debated (the debate was finished) — and thus the population did not have the opportunity to become “numb” towards them, or to “rally” around them as part of a campaign. Perhaps PKP is hoping the population, over time, will become “numb” towards the controversial aspects of his words, and that he may eventually succeed in rallying a segment of the population which perhaps would have otherwise lent its support to other parties (or did in fact lend its support to other parties in the last provincial election).

Perhaps PKP is willing to risk a few weeks of “uproar”, believing that criticism of his statements may eventually die down at some point — and in the meantime he may be hoping to pick up some of the same support that the Conservatives have managed to garner.

I’m sure there are people who agree with PKP, but to what extent they may be close to (or far from) a majority (even within the Parti Québécois) is a whole other question.

I suppose only time will tell.

Update 2015-03-20, 18:00pm: This is quickly becoming a very fluid topic. As of this evening (26 hours after first making his statements), it is being reported that PKP has apologized. I’m going to try to catch 24/60 in a few minutes to find out what is happening.

Public condemnation of PKP has been swift, hard, and virulent from the full range of the political spectrum, from friend and foe alike (even from some of his closest allies). It is rare to see such across-the-board condemnation of a Canadian political figure (at least without them resigning – which he likely will not). If you wish to read the full-range of condemnations he has attracted, you can view them here in the Radio-Canada article, PKP présente ses excuses. (sorry, no time to translate the article — but “google translate” works great!).

Regardless, I’m not sure what is going to hurt him more; having made the above statements in the first place, or having retracted them and now coming across as completely incoherent and incompetent, especially as the aspiring head of a major political party.

———————

Update 20:00pm: Evening news & talk shows, their guests (from all political streams) and the windows they’re giving into the public’s perception is unanimous condemnation of PKP’s statements. People are still questioning whether his apology is sincere or not, or if it is a mere reflex after he realized it did not have the desired effect (he was sure sticking by his remarks earlier in the day). But frankly, at this point, I don’t care. What matters the most is that Québec, as one society, has dropped all political labels to says with one voice that this is not acceptable. That’s worth more than anything else – and really sums up what we’re all about as a society, in Québec and coast-to-coast across Canada!

———————

Update 20:30pm: Oh, and in case anyone is wondering how PKP’s own television network, TVA, covered this story today (considering it was the top news event on every other network, on the radio, and in the newspapers), well, TVA’s main evening newscast in Québec City, the capital city of Québec (Le TVA Nouvelles 18h de Québec) buried it behind 7 other stories in their major evening news broadcast, behind

A funding story about a skating rink in Québec City,
A union dispute at Olymel,
A loud city counsel session in a small city near Québec City,
A court case regarding students who want to attend university when other students are striking,
A story about an ex-juge convicted of murder three years ago and who is now appealing,
A story about Québec City’s airport terminal expansion

And PKP and the PQ want to have us believe there is no conflict of interest between his position as a politician and that of a media mogul. I just shake my head. As we say… “mon oeil!”

And on top of it, TVA was the only network which did NOT broadcast video of his apology. They only broadcast a short, face-paced clip of him saying “It was only my intention to say that we need to act faster than taking 25 years”. I can tell you one thing, if this is the tone they’re setting for themselves in front of the public, things ain’t gonna go very far for ’em. Unbelievable… absolutely unreal.

———————

ADDENDUM 2014-03-15: Radio-Canada knocks down PKP’s argument (bluntly saying PKP was wrong) that the Federal government is responsible for what PKP perceives to be Québec’s immigration woes (I’m still shaking my head with it buried in my hands after what he said yesterday).

Here’s Radio-Canada’s article: http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/politique/2015/03/19/005-parti-quebecois-pkp-peladeau-immigrants-vote.shtml

It basically says the same thing that I said above with respect to how immigrants are chosen (by Québec, for Québec). They go a bit further by stating that

Ottawa takes Québec’s advice into consideration when deciding immigration numbers
Québec looks after integrating and allowing immigrants to learn French
That Ottawa gives Québec $320 million annual for the above integration and “Frenchisization” process.

ADDENDUM 2015-05-19

It has been over two months since PKP has made the above statements. Four days ago he became the head of the PQ. There has been no more talk of the subject since the statements were made last March.

I’m left wondering:

if this means the PQ believed the initial virulent reaction to the statements were so strong that it remains too dangerous to evoke the immigration card any further?
if this means that the PQ continues to let Québec’s population quietly ponder the who question of immigration? (after all, the seed was planted, but will it sprout into something in favour of PKP’s initial arguments at a later time?). Like I said earlier, Canada’s and Québec’s population often changes their minds on issues of a social and societal nature if slowly eased into the idea (we’ve seen this many times over the past 50 years… think of how many subjects used to be taboo in the past, but are no longer taboo now). Far-right wing parties in Europe have played their immigration cards in this way.
if PKP may try to reinvoke this same argument in the run-up to the 2018 election, but in a re-packaged format – perhaps in a different format? He perhaps may try to invoke an “immigration crisis” on another issue. Perhaps he will try to make an argument that temporary foreign workers are taking jobs (the Couillard government has been bucking Ottawa’s bid to quell temporary foreign worker numbers). Perhaps he will try to invoke an argument that massive immigrant investment in the real-estate sector is driving up prices. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps… Regardless, such arguments (even if incorrect) have the potential to diminish public appetite towards immigration. I would hedge my bets that we’ll see something of the making of this 3rd point in the run-up to the 2018 election. But as always, who knows. Only time will tell.

Elvis Gratton – “Unveiled” (#188)

February 23, 2015 1:54 am / 7 Comments on Elvis Gratton – “Unveiled” (#188)

The last few posts touched on matters which have much to do not only with societal accommodations, and political correctness, but also matters involving society’s respect for others. Thus, for those of you who DO know “what” Elvis Gratton is, you may think I’m lacking a bit of tact and judgement by writing a post on Elvis Graton directly after a series discussing multiculturalism.

You may even be thinking “There he goes…– he’s going to hold Elvis Gratton above everyone’s heads as a statement of societal intolerance, bigotry and narrow-mindedness”.

Well, actually… don’t get ahead of yourself. I want to say that I AM going to hold Elvis Gratton up as a statement regarding bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and gross prejudice. BUT, I’m sure my take on it is going to surprise you. I’m actually going to tout Elvis Gratton’s place in Québec’s culture to illustrate some of the best of what Québec is – the best of its people, the best of its society, and Québec’s deep concern for others, regardless of their backgrounds.

I need to first explain who and what “Elvis Gratton” is (considering that many Anglophone Canadians may not know about Elvis Gratton).

To start, if I were to mention “Cheech and Chong”, most people in Anglophone Canada will definitely remember this iconic Canadian-American comedy duo (at least those who have a cultural recollection of 1980s)

Québec also has two similar cultural phenomenon – which are some of the most iconic, most widely referenced and biggest Québec pop-cultural hits of the last 35 years:

The Québec equivalent which could embody the “stage comedy” aspect of Cheech and Chong could be the stage comedic duo “Ding et Dong” (popular in the 1980s & 1990s).
But the Québec equivalent which could embody the “movie” aspect of Cheech and Chong probably would be “Elvis Gratton” — which not only spanned the 1980s with the release of several movies, but also continued will into the 1990s, and up to 2009 in a later televised series format.

Elvis Gratton was a series of comedy movies, centred on one main character named Bob Gratton. He had an ever-present sidekick best-friend, Méo. In the movies, Bob Gratton won an Elvis impersonation competition, it went to his head, and he lived a frankly bizarre life and an even more bizarre view of the world.

Posters for two of the six movies, not to mention 40+ television episodes

What made the movies stand out was the bigoted nature of its characters, the political incorrectness of the plots, nasty cheap shots at every possible aspect of society, and some of the most crass language and behaviours I have ever seen of any movies in Québec or Canada (if you want to learn every Québec swear word under the sun, you only need to watch 10 minutes of any of the given movies). The movie was so raw and crass, in fact, that I’m even a little embarrassed to attempt to describe it. I could go so far to say that it plays on themes which are downright racist (think of the themes of South Park x 10, or Borat x 20). Needless to say, you’ll be able to find sufficient movie footage of it online to see what I mean.

Why and how could such a series of movies and television shows be such a hit (to the point that I would describe it as an iconic cultural hit)? I think you have to understand the timing of it in Québec’s own modern history, in addition to understanding the movies’ creator’s own place in society.

In a nutshell, the first movie came out shortly after the first 1980 referendum. The subsequent movies came out between the two referendums and during the first several years following the 1995 referendum.

The movie director, Pierre Falardeau (died 2009), was one of Québec’s few larger-than-life directors (it’s difficult to not think of Québec cinema without thinking of Pierre Falardeau). Falardeau was a very public supporter of sovereignty, and brought a good deal of philosophical perspective to the arena – debating it from his unique vantage point of the creator of many of Québec’s most appreciated cinematic works. The loss of the 1980 referendum would have been a tough blow for Falardeau, as would have been the loss of the 1995 referendum. It’s pure conjecture on my part, but men and women like Farlardeau often express their frustrations through their artistic works. Their works can also embody a healing process for their own anxieties.

The fact that Falardeau chose to use the Elivs Gratton movies to make fun of the most taboo, most delicate, most emotional and most intense topics in Québec before and after the referendums could possibly have been his way of not only coping with the issues, but perhaps helping society to cope with the issues themselves.

When individuals internalize their own pain and thoughts, the psychological damage can be crippling. Thus phycologists encourage people to find a way to externalize pain and painful. I wonder if Falardeau felt that Québec society as a whole was also in need of a psychological therapy session and a way to externalize its referendum anguish. Perhaps he was using the Elvis Gratton movies as a “psychologist’s sofa” to allow Québec, as a collective society, to revisit and externalize what it had been going through during the 15 – 20 years surrounding the two referendums. Perhaps he used Elvis Gratton as a catalyst for Québec to “get it all out”, on their movie and television screens, so that society could begin its own healing process. After all, the referendums tore apart aspects of society, pitting segments of society against each other. The fact that Pierre Falardeau used some of the most crass and politically incorrect plots and humour with which to make people laugh was perhaps the only way he felt he could compel society to look at these issues head on.

Regardless if my above take on Elvis Gratton is or is not correct, the movies were a monstrous success. They were so successful and so popular that lines and language from the movies have been immortalized in every-day common Québec French (I have even used some of them myself in some earlier posts). In this respect, lines and scenes from Elvis Gratton movies could be to Québec what the lines and scenes of Monty Python are to Great Britain.

Because Falardeau perhaps used the movies as his own substitute for a defacto “Truth & Reconcilliation Commission”, he took on issues as complex and sensitive as the chummy relationship between the federal Liberals and Power Corporation (a media corporation), how Québec viewed and treated visible minorities and immigrants, how sovereignists and federalists treated and viewed each other, how disabled people were viewed by society, religion’s place in society, how people seemingly followed ideologies like blind sheep without understanding what they were following, some of the least desirable aspects of marriage… and the list goes on. He created comedic sketches making fun of all these matters, in the most crude and extreme ways – using the most crass language in French vocabulary. But it made the masses pay attention, and laugh. People laughed like you would not believe. Years later, I know people who still recall Elvis Gratton scenes, and who continue laugh at them.

I’m not sure if you read my earlier post on “Sugar Sammy” (click HERE for it). If you have not read it, I recommend you read it before reading the remainder of this post (it will put the following into perspective).

In the “Sugar Sammy” post, I made the specific point of emphasizing that laughter is the best medicine – especially when people can laugh at themselves. In the Sugar Sammy post, I used the example of comedy + language politics to make the point. However, in the case of Elvis Gratton, I’m using comedy + “sovereignty vs. federalism vs. society vs. everything else” to make the same point. Laughter lets people heal, and it allows people to reconcile. Under any other circumstances, the type of politically incorrect and controversial humour we saw in Elvis Gratton would have been condemned (after all, it contains repeatedly strong undertones of racist humour and other taboo topics). But in this case, the movies were not condemned at large – probably because Falardeau did a great thing… he used his talents as a producer to portray these topics in a manner to invoke laughter for the sake of society’s healing.

I think these movies did serve their purpose, and they did allow Québec, at large, to heal and to come to terms with the turmoil and emotion which stemmed from the referendums.

One specific example I can give you was during the Bouchard-Taylor Commissions (it was a commission which explored the whole issue of reasonable accommodations in the context of multiculturalism and interculturalism). The commission suggested that Québec cease to use the expression “Québécois de souche” (“purebred Québécois”) when refering to anyone whose roots in Québec can be traced back to white settlers in the 1600s and 1700s. Rather, the Bouchard-Taylor Commission suggested using the expression “French Canadian”.

Pierre Falardeau knew that these latter terms stirred up strong emotions from opposing aspects of society, almost to the point that it pitted certain groups against other groups, based on lines drawn by the opposing use of these expressions; invoking notions of nationalism, federalism and sovereignty. He therefore incorporated a puzzling mix of this confusing “identity” vocabulary into Elvis Gratton to come up with some of the funniest scenes. Prior to these movies, society likely thought there would be no way they could ever laugh at such emotional and gut-wrenching issues. But after the movies, everyone was laughing at these matters – to the point that many of these former “society-shredding matters” simply became cursory points of discussion. That is a very powerful transition – by any definition.

The scene to which I’m referring to above can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZS7sOOpELI.

From 2007 to 2009, for a period of three years, the movies were re-interpreted into a 3 year television sitcom. The fact that Elvis Gratton made the jump from the big screen to television in no way diluted the crassness or political incorrectness of the scenes. The television series was named “Bob Gratton” (not “Elvis Gratton”). It aired on TQS (today known as Télé-Québec). Again, I’m sure you’ll be able to find video clips of Bob Gratton online.

At the beginning of this post, I mentioned that Elvis Gratton’s place in Québec’s culture illustrates some of the best of what Québec is – the best of its people, the best of its society, and Québec’s deep concern for others, regardless of their backgrounds.

I said this because after Québec’s society had its emotional “release” through laughter, by way of these very politically incorrect movies and television, society never really re-embarked on making fun of such issues, at least at a societal level, ever again (issues which, under any other circumstances, should never be made fun of… i.e.: it’s not OK to laugh at and make fun of people with cerebral palsy, such as the movies did with Bob Gratton’s side-kick friend Méo; nor is it ok to make fun of gay people, or Muslims, or developing countries and their people, etc. etc.). And in this spirit, after Québec’s healing-period via Elvis Gratton, Québec put this kind of humour to rest. It has never really crept back into Québec’s mainstream media again. I think this shows that society knows how and when to put things into context.

In my blog series talking about Multiculturalism and Interculturalism, I spoke of “isolated” flare-ups of culturally sensitive matters, as well as political point-scoring by “lone” political camps. But I truly cannot emphasize enough that these are just what I said: “isolated” and “lone” scenarios. They do not represent a tendency towards societal racism, intolerance, or bigotry. On the contrary, Québec is one of the most welcoming, caring and warmest societies in the Western and developed world. Québec may be soul-searching for the best way to integrate immigrants (and it may have its odd hiccups and growing pains), but frankly speaking, so too are Vancouver and Toronto, and other provinces have issues as they are dealing with these subjects. But on the whole, we (as Canada as a whole or as Albertans, Manitobans, Québecois, or Newfoundlanders, as well as individual towns and cities) do a much better job of dealing with these matters than other parts of the world. We tolerate and empathize with them more than most other countries in the world. How Québec’s society has waded its way through these matters is truly commendable and remains a model for other societies which are undergoing rapid diversification while, at the same time, they are facing questions on how to best deal with serious, complex, and intense questions of cultural and heritage preservation. All-in-all, Québec has pulled it off and continues to evolve.

We really have to be careful to differentiate lone political camps (ones who seek to capitalize on isolated instances from society at large) from society’s individuals who exercise the utmost humanity with which to build a compassionate, just and tolerant society.

Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Des aspects controversés – billet 2 sur 2 (#187)

February 21, 2015 6:45 pm / 2 Comments on Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Des aspects controversés – billet 2 sur 2 (#187)

This is the French version of an earlier post, for Francophone followers of this blog.

Le dernier billet touchait sur ce qui constitue le multiculturalisme et l’interculturlisme.

Ce billet portera sur des aspects les plus controversés, notamment sur “les accommodements raisonnables” – une question qui a tendance à soulever les passions, non seulement au Québec, mais ailleurs au Canada aussi. .

Certaines des questions les plus controversées survenant du multiculturalisme, de l’interculturalisme, et des accommodements raisonnables

Dans le dernier billet, je vous ai offert un exemple où la société a pu trouver moyen d’accommoder une demande culturelle d’un policier sikh, celle d’avoir son turban incorporé dans l’uniforme de la GRC (Gendarmerie royale du Canada). Il s’agissait d’un exemple, suite à un certain niveau de débat, où la société serait prête à offrir des accommodements aux différences culturelles, et de façon très publique. Faute d’un meilleur terme, les accommodements sont une espèce de “partage de l’espace publique” afin de permettre aux autres cultures de mettre en pratique leurs croyances et traditions. Dans le contexte du multiculturalisme et de l’interculturalisme, la société canadienne et québécoise accordent des accommodements dans la mesure que les demandes sont présumées “raisonnables”. Le terme exact s’appelle des “accommodements raisonnables”.

En effet, l’expression “accommodement raisonnable” est un terme juridique, reconnu par la Cour suprême du Canada. Il a également fait l’objet d’études majeures (telle la Commission Bouchard-Taylor) sur ce qui constitue des accommodements raisonnables et ce qui repoussent les limites de ce que la population tolérerait (autrement dit, ce qui n’est pas raisonnable).

Certains pourraient prétendre que la question de porter un turban sikh, lorsqu’on exerce les fonctions de policier, s’agit d’un débat banal avec peu de controverse.

Oui, il est vrai qu’il existe des zones floues où les débats entourant les accommodements raisonnables peuvent devenir bien plus controversées. La société sera toujours en train de débattre ces question, au niveau fédéral quand il s’agit du multiculturalisme, ou au niveau provincial au Québec quand il s’agit de l’interculturalisme – et ce, peu importe le gouvernement en place; que ce soit un gouvernement fédéral, un gouvernement au Québec, ou des gouvernements dans d’autres provinces.

Parmi les questions les plus controversées, quelques-unes qui ont surgi au cours des quelques dernières années sont les suivantes :

Dans des lieux de travail et dans des écoles aux cultures diversifiées, devrait-on remplacer le mot “Noël” par le mot “les fêtes”?
Devrait-on remplacer le mot “arbre de Noël” par le mot “arbre des festivités”?
Est-ce que les foulards qui couvrent le visage devraient être interdits lors des cérémonies de citoyenneté lorsqu’on prête serment de citoyenneté? (Il s’agit des niqabs ou burquas dans le cas d’une minorité de femmes musulmanes, ou les duppatas dans le cas d’une minorité des femmes hindous). C’est une discussion qui est en train de se dérouler dans les coulisses de pouvoir à Ottawa – car il y a une femme qui en fait appel à la décision du gouvernement d’exiger le visage découvert lors du serment.
Est-ce qu’on devrait permettre certains éléments de la charia dans l’application du droit civil comme option au niveau de la législation provinciale (touchant le mariage, la divorce, l’inscription des noms, etc.)?
Est-ce qu’on devrait reporter ou rééchelonner des matchs de hockey pour prendre en compte le jour du sabbat des joueurs juifs?

La nature des éléments très controversés revient à la question suivante : Dans quelle mesure la grande majorité doit-elle être tenue d’accommoder des demandes rares ou anormales d’une petite minorité, surtout lorsqu’on constate que ces accommodements mèneraient à des changements aux modes de vie et aux traditions profondément enracinés, visibles, et symboliques de la majorité? Après tous, de tels changements pourraient avoir d’importantes incidences et pourraient être ressentis par tous. C’est dans ce contexte que la question des accommodements devient controversée, et pourrait impliquer tout le monde.

Je trouve ces débats très intéressants, et je comprends la controverse. Je vous dirai d’ailleurs une chose — Je n’ai pas les réponses à toutes ces questions. Mais voici la tendance, au cours des deux dernières décennies jusqu’à présent, telle que je la vois : les sociétés canadiennes anglophones et francophones semblent toutes les deux d’accord qu’un accommodement quelconque n’est plus raisonnable s’il transformerait les traditions de tout le monde, et si ce changement serait estimé être une transformation majeure.

Dans l’exemple du policier sikh, l’accommodement consenti au policier de porter un turban n’était pas un changement majeur qui impliquerait tout autre policier, ou la société dans son ensemble – précisément parce que d’autres policiers ne sont pas contraints de porter cette tenue religieuse. En outre, le port du turban n’incommode pas, et il ne doit pas nécessairement alourdir ou perturber la vie quotidienne de la société.

En ce qui concerne la question de renommer “Noël”, j’ai l’impression que la société est hautement défavorable à cette idée, du moins dans le sens “collectif” ou au “nom de la société” (et c’est pour cette raison, en passant, pourquoi les publicités à la télévision, les évènements publiques, les marchés de Noël, etc. prononcent toujours, et prononcerons toujours le mot “Noël”). Cependant, concernant la reconnaissance des fêtes au niveau de l’individu, nôtre société (francophone et anglophone) semble être confortable à l’idée de souhaiter une “joyeuse Hanouccah”, ou “Fête des lumières”, etc. Nos écoles au Canada semblent elles aussi à l’aise d’enseigner que Noël et la saison des fêtes peuvent être interprétée différemment par différentes personnes. Tout le monde reconnaît que la saison de Noël peut avoir de nombreuses significations différentes, et généralement on n’est pas vexé par la question lorsqu’on souhaite aux autres un joyeux Noël, une joyeuse Hanouccah, ou une joyeuse saison des fêtes (ce qui comprend le nouvel an et toute autre festivité). Au niveau personnel, j’ai plusieurs amis musulmans qui célèbrent Noël eux aussi. Ils me souhaitent un joyeux Noël, tout comme je le fait envers eux – et ces mêmes amis musulmans dressent même un sapin de Noël chez eux à la maison.

Le changement de nom des “arbres de Noël” s’est avéré bien plus controversé. Ailleurs au Canada, à un moment donné il y avait quelques villes et écoles qui ont tenté officiellement les renommer des “arbres des fêtes”. Pourtant, la réaction négative et le « contrecoup » de la population volaient aussi vite. La réponse fut rapide et même furieuse. Ces écoles et villes ont rapidement fait marche arrière, et depuis ce temps-là, cette question n’a pas réapparu à l’ordre du jour des débats publiques. Contrairement au cas de “joyeuse saison des fêtes”, le débat entourant “l’arbre des fêtes” suscite bien plus d’émotions. Sur ce sujet, je pense que nous avons atteint le point où la société voudrait absolument tracer une ligne dans le sable. Ici, la population est moins inclinée d’accorder des accommodements aux revendications d’une très petite minorité qui préconise le changement de nom des arbres de Noël. Je dirais qu’il s’agit d’un « contrecoup populaire » car un tel changement au nom des accommodements apporterait des modifications majeures aux traditions de la majorité – des traditions qui touchent tout le monde, et qui sont profondément enracinées dans la société.

Dans le cas des femmes qui doivent avoir le visage découverts lorsqu’elles prêtent serment de la citoyenneté, le gouvernement Conservateur (ainsi que le ministère de la citoyenneté) se dit inflexible quant à sa position et ses politiques d’interdire le visage voilé. D’après ce que je suis en train de voir dans les médias, il me semble que les Conservateurs ont le sentiment publique de leur côté (au Canada anglophone et francophone, tous les deux). Au cours des deux dernières journées, le NPD semble appuyer les Conservateurs, et la position des Libéraux fédéraux semblent être plus floue. L’appui public s’explique probablement par le fait que la société estime que le serment de citoyenneté est une valeur partagée par nous tous (par la majorité tout comme par les minorités). Il est donc “raisonnable” de conclure que tout le monde devrait être assujettit aux mêmes critères.

Il y a plusieurs années, il y avait une proposition en Ontario d’intégrer la charia dans certains aspects très minces du droit civil, tels les mariages, divorces, etc. Elle ne visait que les cas où les parties concernées solliciteraient expressément l’application de la charia. Toutefois, les préoccupations publiques contre une telle proposition se sont fait entendre très rapidement et elles étaient quasiment unanimes : Une telle mesure ne serait pas tolérée, et le gouvernement de l’Ontario a fait marche arrière.

Dans l’exemple des matchs de Hockey qui devaient être reportés ou rééchelonnés afin d’accommoder des joueurs juifs qui refusaient de jouer lors du sabbat (le vendredi et samedi), c’était en effet un cas qui est arrivé au Québec il y quelques années. Un joueur avant-centre de l’équipe des Olympiques de Gatineau refusait jouer deux jours par semaine. Pourtant, l’équipe et la ligue n’étaient pas prêtes à reporter les matchs, car un tel geste modifierait la saison dans son ensemble pour tout le monde à cause d’une seule personne. Dans ce cas en particulier, l’accommodement de la majorité emportait sur l’accommodement d’une minorité infiniment petite. J’avoue que je ne suis pas certain si le joueur en question aurait demandé que l’horaire des matchs soit modifié dans son ensemble. Mais, de toute façon, la réaction publique contre la décision du joueur de “se retirer” des matchs deux fois par semaine était assez unanime pour inciter la direction de l’équipe de se prononcer et de lancer un ultimatum au joueur : c’est-à-dire décider de jouer le vendredi et samedi, ou quitter l’équipe. À la fin de la saga, une solution d’accommodement grandement édulcoré a été trouvée. L’équipe allait tolérer (accommoder) le retrait du joueur deux jours par semaine pendant les quelques semaines qui restaient de la saison en cours, uniquement afin de lui accorder le temps nécessaire de décider s’il voudrait ou non quitter l’équipe de manière permanente lors de la prochaine saison qui s’approchait. Un tel accommodement était considéré raisonnable malgré tout. À la fin du jour, le joueur en question s’est convenu de jouer tous les jours de la semaine s’il pouvait prendre congé trois jours par année durant les commémorations de Yom Kippur. C’était une offre jugée acceptable pour toutes les deux parties et le tout était rapidement aplani.

Les accommodements raisonnables, sont-ils un “jeu à somme nulle”?

Les accommodements raisonnables, sont-ils un “jeu à somme nulle”? C’est-à-dire, lorsqu’on accorde des accommodements, devrait-on les accommoder à 100%, ou rien du tout? La réponse : Elle dépend les circonstances. Le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme sont assez flexibles pour s’adapter aux meilleurs intérêts de la société, tout en étant en mesure de prendre en considération les revendications de la minorité (sur le fond, cette pratique est également la définition de la démocratie : la majorité emporte, mais tout en respectant les droits et les demandes raisonnables de la minorité).

Quant aux accommodements, dans certain des cas ci-dessus, il y avait des exemples de “jeu à somme nulle”, mais il comptait également des solutions de compromis (des deux côtés). On voyait un “jeu à somme nulle” dans le cas de la sharia en Ontario et dans le cas de “l’arbre des fêtes” (franchement parlant, le Canada n’avait pas l’appétit d’engager sur cette voie).

Mais dans d’autres exemples, on a pu constater qu’il y avait des marges de maneouvre pour trouver des compromis. Le cas du joueur de Hockey en est un exemple. Au début, on pouvait croire qu’il serait un jeu à somme nulle (accepter de jouer sept jours sur sept, ou quitter l’équipe). Mais à terme, c’était les trois jours annuels du Yom Kippur que le joueur tenait plus à cœur, et l’équipe s’est accordé à dire qu’elle pouvait lui accorder ces trois jours. De lui accorder ces trois jours ne représenterait pas un accommodement déraisonnable.

Un autre exemple de ce type de question qui pourrait générer des questions nuancées est celui de prêter serment de citoyenneté à visage découvert. Pour beaucoup de femmes qui portent un voile qui couvre le visage, il est acceptable de découvrir le visage en présence d’une autre femme, des membres mâles de la famille, ou les figures d’autorité (police, juges, médecins, etc.). Cependant, il est vrai qu’un problème surgit quand les membres du publique, qui n’ont rien à faire avec la femme en question, peuvent voir son visage (et plus en particulier, des hommes). En ce qui concerne comment cette question va se résoudre au cours des mois et semaines à venir, d’après moi, on va probablement trouver un compromis – un accommodement “mitoyen” si vous voulez. Je ne serais pas étonné de voir si la femme en questions pourrait se tenir debout au fond de la salle, derrière tout le monde, mais avec le visage découvert orienté vers le juge (homme ou femme) en avant de la salle lorsqu’elle prête le serment de citoyenneté. Une telle configuration en fera que personne d’autre dans la salle ne serait en mesure de voir son visage découvert, et elle aurait l’occasion de se “revoiler” le visage dès qu’elle aurait prononcé le dernier mot du serment. Nous avons déjà un système semblable en place pour la prise de photo du permis de conduire et du passeport (on se cache derrière une cloison avec le photographe lors de la prise de photo – mais hors de vue des étrangers). Bref, des concessions mutuelles peuvent égaler des accommodements raisonnables.

Comme vous pouvez le constater, certains accommodements raisonnables du multiculturalisme et de l’interculturalisme peuvent être noir ou blanc, ou ils peuvent être toutes les nuances de gris entre ces deux extrêmes. Tout dépend les questions à trancher et le niveau de confort de la société envers ces enjeux. Mais c’est ça la beauté de l’affaire : le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme vont rarement aussi loin d’accommoder des questions réputées “déraisonnables” par la société canadienne anglophone ou francophone du Québec (du moins j’espère que non). Et de plus, le Canada anglophone et le Québec francophone sont d’accord à 99% du temps sur ce qui constitue des accommodements “raisonnables” et “déraisonnables”.

Je me casse la tête pour trouver des différences entre les deux sociétés, en termes de points de vue (des désaccords entre ce qui constitue un accommodement “raisonnable” ou “déraisonnable”), mais j’ai de la difficulté à y trouver. Je peux penser à des cas exceptionnels au niveau des individus, tel l’affaire des vitres givrées d’une gym à Outremont il y quelques années (pour tenir des femmes qui s’y entrainaient hors de vue des juifs hassidim du quartier), mais ces exemples on rapport aux décisions prises au niveau d’un individu, et non pas de la société. De telles décisions n’ont rien à faire avec le multiculturalisme ou l’interculturalisme (mais je me rappelle que dans le temps, les médias ont complètement confondu cette affaire avec le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme). Je suppose que le fait que je n’arrive pas à trouver des conflits sur le front du multiculturalisme entre ce que pensent les sociétés anglophones et francophones (et je connais les deux assez bien) dénote que les deux sociétés pensent et agissent de la même manière quant à ces questions.

Pendant que le Canada et le Québec ne cesse de se diversifier, quel sera l’avenir dans le contexte du multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme?

Bon, les scenarios ci-dessus ne sont que quelques exemples parmi d’autres qui font sujet de débats publiques. À mesure que le Canada diversifie, je ne sais pas à quel point ces questions continueront ou cesseront d’être pertinentes. Je suppose qu’il y a deux façons de les voir :

D’un côté, plus le Canada devient diversifié, plus la population est en position de constater l’intérêt de préserver notre héritage, nos traditions, et notre patrimoine séculaire comme une fin en soi. On pourrait dire que le Canada serait moins riche, culturellement parlant, si nos traditions à longue durée disparaissent ou serait réduites. Il pourrait arriver que l’ensemble des communautés diverses au Canada se réunissent de concert avec la majorité afin de préserver les traditions de longue durée ainsi que les traditions et le patrimoine du pays – et ce, même si ce patrimoine ne fait pas partie des traditions des communautés spécifiques. En effet, il a y certaines indices qui démontrent le début d’une telle tendance.
Du revers de la main, une diversification accrue des cultures pourrait continuer en même temps que l’on constate une réduction du nombre de traditions canadiennes/québécoises d’autrefois. Mais attention – réfléchissez à deux fois avant de tirer des conclusions hâtives. On pourrait quand-même dire qu’un tel phénomène est une évolution naturelle, car toute société change au cours du temps. C’est justement pour cette raison que les traditions célébrées au Canada en 1600 auraient cessé d’être célébrées de la même manière (ou même célébrées du tout) en 1800, une époque bien avant les vagues de diversification de notre société. De même, il est fort probable que les traditions célébrées en 1950 ne seront plus célébrées de la même manière en 2050. Ces deux dates ne sont pas si loin d’aujourd’hui. Mais c’est quand-même un écart de 100 ans, une période dans laquelle on pourrait s’attendre voir tout un tas de changements de traditions – surtout avec la globalisation, et le fait que nous vivons plus longtemps pour constater ces changements nous-même (car notre espérance de vie est bien au-delà des 35ans d’il y a 150 ou 200 ans). Oui, la diversification ethnoculturelle du Canada pourrait jouer un rôle dans ces changements, mais il faut être conscient du fait que la diversification ethnoculturelle, et les accommodements raisonnables, ne sont pas nécessairement les causes profondes de ces changements (en raison du fait que les traditions évoluent et changent, peu importe le niveau de la diversification de la société).

En résumé :

Le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme sont des sujets intéressants, et j’espère que ces perspectives pourraient inciter à la réflexion.

Lorsqu’on parle du rôle que jouent le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme au Québec et au Canada, il est très important de comprendre ce qu’ils sont, et de bien comprendre les définitions de ces deux idéologies. Beaucoup de nos chroniqueurs, nos journalistes, nos médias, nos politiciens, et même nos intellectuels adorent dramatiser ce sujet. Mais plus souvent, j’ai l’impression qu’ils ne comprennent même pas les notions et les concepts de bases avant qu’ils ne prennent leurs micros et qu’ils appuient sur la détente.

On voit même certains camps qui font de leur mieux pour déformer les faits, et pour diaboliser le multiculturalisme afin de marquer des buts politiques — surtout

dans certains camps politiques lorsqu’ils disent que le multiculturalisme est incompatible avec la société québécoise (mais curieusement, ils omettent de dire que le multiculturalisme s’est évolué pour refléter et incarner la société québécoise même), et
parmi tous les partis politiques lorsqu’ils pratiquent de l’opportunisme pur, sur le dos de certains évènements, afin de faire grimper leur parti dans les sondages de un ou deux points.

Lorsque vous entendez des chroniqueurs célèbres, des hôtes d’émissions très populaires de télévision, des politiciens, ou des acteurs/actrices/chanteurs s’attaquer au multiculturalisme, je vous encourage à bien examiner les preuves, d’examiner les enjeux, de revisiter les définitions de l’idéologie, et de mettre le tout dans son contexte. Nous vivons dans une société sûre et civilisée, malgré tout. Gardons-la ainsi!

————————————————————

COMPLETE SERIES: MULTICULTURALISM AND INTERCULTURALISM (8 POSTS)

ENG – Multiculturalism Redefined? (#179)
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: Lost in definition… (#180) – POST 1 OF 3
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: Sometimes a Headline-Maker (#181) – POST 2 OF 3
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: The discussion in Québec (#182) – POST 3 OF 3
ENG – Where is Multiculturalism heading in the next year or two in Québec? (#183)

FR – Le multiculturalisme redéfini? (#178)
FR – Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Le concept expliqué (#186) – billet 1 sur 2
FR – Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Des aspects controversés (#187) – billet 2 sur 2

Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Le concept expliqué – billet 1 sur 2 (#186)

February 21, 2015 6:41 pm / Leave a comment

This is the French of an earlier post, for Francophone readers of this blog

J’ai récemment écrit un couple de billets en anglais au sujet du multiculturalisme et de l’interculturalisme.

Le premier touchait sur ce qui constitue le multiculturalisme et l’interculturlisme.
Le deuxième portait sur des aspects les plus controversés de ces idéologies.

Je vais vous offrir une version de ces deux billets en français, car je crois qu’ils traitent à des sujets que beaucoup gens au Québec (tout comme ailleurs au Canada) comprennent très mal (du moins ce sujet semble être mal compris dans les médias et par la plupart des gens que je connais).

L’objectif de ces billets sera de rapprocher les deux solitudes, car le multiculturalisme canadien est souvent associé, dans la tête des gens, à un concept déconnecté et dissocié de la réalité de la politique de l’interculturalisme québécois — surtout avec la réalité sociale sur le terrain. Cependant, rien ne saurait être plus éloigné de la vérité.

Multiculturalisme

Le multiculturalisme s’agit d’une politique gouvernementale dont de nombreux pays de par le monde se dotent. Il s’agit d’un concept légal, mais qui peut être interprété différemment par différents pays.

(J’arrête ici pour un moment, car il faut que je clarifie quleque chose avant de continuer… la définition et l’application du multiculturalisme en Allemagne, en France, en Grande-Bretagne, aux États-Unis, en Australie et ailleurs est différente de la définition et les pratiques au Canada – alors, il ne faut absolument pas confondrer les évènements, et les manières de leur application outremer avec l’équivalent en sol canadien).

Au Canada, nous avons une loi qui s’appelle la Loi sur le multiculturalisme. La définition canadienne s’applique partout au Canada, y compris au Québec, et elle est équitablement applicable à nous tous. Conformément à la Loi sur le multiculturalisme, le multiculturalisme :

permet aux Canadiens de conserver leur héritage ethnoculturel (comme bon leur semble),
permet à tout un chacun, sans égard à leur héritage culturel, de participer pleinement à la société canadienne, sans discrimination,
reconnaît les communautés qui ont contribué à bâtir le Canada, et il contribue à renforcer le développement desdites communautés.
- (En termes pratiques, cela pourrait signifier le financement fédéral à la construction d’un monument qui rend hommage aux Irlandais qui ont perdu leur vie dans le naufrage du paquebot Empress of Ireland dans le St-Laurent, le financement du village du patrimoine culturel ukrainien en Alberta, le financement du site historique du Fort Chambly, ou le financement à travers le pays de divers festivals gastronomiques multiethniques ou de musique multiethniques).
augmente l’usage du français et l’anglais par toutes et tous, mais en même temps permet aux communautés culturelles de garder leur propres langues s’ils le souhaitent.
- (C’est pour cette raison qu’il existe des programmes à financement fédérale à l’échelle du pays, afin d’offrir des cours de français ou d’anglais aux immigrants – étant entendu que les immigrants utiliseront la langue de la majorité (le français au Québec et en Acadie, et l’anglais ailleurs) au travail et à l’école, de même que leurs enfants qui grandissent dans la société canadienne. C’est aussi pour cela que nos institutions gouvernementales, telles nos hôpitaux, nos écoles, nos palais de justice et nos bureaux ne fonctionnent qu’en français ou en anglais (selon la région ou la province). C’est aussi pourquoi les interactions publiques dans un cadre officiel ne sont offertes que dans ces deux langues, et pas dans d’autres, sauf dans certaines exceptions superficielles aux sujets anodins. Les programmes de bilinguisme officiel, tel l’éducation d’immersion française pour les anglophones, tombent eux aussi sous cette bannière).

En un mot, cela couvre déjà la grande partie de quoi consiste le multiculturalisme. Au fond, ce n’est pas compliqué du tout. Il n’y a rien de sournois, et il traite surtout aux sujets qui n’ont rien de “controversé”. À la base, le Canada permet aux gens à vivre tout simplement, comme le ferait toute personne – et tout comme nous et nos voisins en souhaiterions vivre au quotidien.

Pour la grande majorité des immigrants et leurs descendants, cela signifie dans la pratique la notion de ne pas s’en servir des lois “injustes” contre ceux qui désirent vivre à leur façon. Cela veut dire que des mesures extrêmes ne seront pas appliquées injustement contre les immigrants s’ils souhaitent retenir certains aspects de leur identité (j’entends par cela que le gouvernement ne peut pas s’en servir des amendes, des peines de prison, ou encore pire pour menacer les immigrant dans l’hypothèse qu’ils font des choses aussi innocentes et inoffensives telles que parler leur langue entre eux, ou de conserver des traditions culturelles dites normales et inoffensives).

Cela veut aussi dire que nous ne dirons pas aux immigrants qu’ils devront abandonner leurs coutumes, et dans la mesure du possible, nous accommoderons leurs coutumes parce que nous reconnaissons qu’ils ont eux aussi un rôle à jouer dans l’édification du pays. Qu’il s’agisse d’accommodements simples et faciles, ou de mesures qui ne coûtent rien, ces accommodements généralement ne sont pas censés imposer un fardeau pour la société. À titre d’exemple, les villes peuvent délivrer un permis de construction pour un nouveau temple sikh, un organisme peut louer un centre communautaire à un groupe chinois pour qu’il puisse célébrer le nouvel an chinois, des cafétérias d’écoles peuvent offrir des repas sans porc comme option aux étudiants musulmans, etc. Toutes ces mesures sont très simples à implanter, et elles sont très raisonnables – mais aussi très naturelles.

Vous pouvez rétorquer que ces mesures vont de soi. Mais il faut se rappeler que ces genres de libertés de base ne sont pas permis dans certains pays (en fait, elles ne sont pas permis dans beaucoup de pays). Dans plusieurs pays, des musulmans ne peuvent pas prier selon leur religion et ils sont forcés à manger du porc dans les prisons et dans les écoles. Dans d’autres, il est interdit aux minorités ethniques de parler leur langue dans les lieux publics, dans les écoles ou dans les hôpitaux (ou même d’apprendre leur propre langue en école ou à l’université – une situation qui existe toujours dans certains régions en Europe de l’ouest même), et des gens ordinaires sont interdits de se convertir à une religion quelconque. D’ailleurs, on interdit la délivrance des permis de construction si l’usage serait aux fins considérées culturelles ou religieuses, et dans certains pays, les regroupements des minorités ethniques sont interdits (c’est-à-dire les festivals gastronomiques multiethniques ou de musique multiethniques seraient strictement interdits). La plupart des points que je viens de mentionner souscrit au concept d’assimilation (une idéologie complètement à part et très restrictive).

Dans de tels pays (parmi lesquels le Canada en compte de proches “alliés” et de “partenaires stratégiques”), ces personnes peuvent être condamnées à de lourdes amendes, voire à des peines d’emprisonnement, ou même pire tout simplement parce qu’ils participaient dans des activités qui seraient considérées normales au Québec et au Canada. Nous, comme Québécois et Canadiens, nous pouvons nous aussi se voir passibles de lourdes peines si nous voyageons dans ces pays et si nous engageons dans des activités aussi anodines que de manger un repas de Noël avec des amis, de boire une bière, ou de porter des vêtements qui seraient considérés normales dans les rues de Drummondville ou Fredericton.

Alors, en bref, il n’y a rien de mauvais ou rien de choquant au sujet du multiculturalisme. En termes simples, il fait en sorte que d’autres sont traités comme vous aimeriez qu’ils vous traiteraient si vous alliez vous déplacer dans un autre pays. Un seul mot résume cette notion : “liberté”.

Là où les affaires deviennent floues, et où le publique a l’habitude d’entendre qu’il existe des problèmes concernant le multiculturalisme, il s’agit plutôt de rares cas isolés. Dans ce même esprit, ces questions n’ont pas trait à la grande majorité des immigrants ou groupes minoritaires au Canada. Cependant, puisqu’elles impliquent des cas plus rares, les médias parfois leur accordent une attention disproportionnée et excessive. C’est pourtant précisément de cette façon que des petits récits deviennent instantanément et injustement une tempête dans un verre d’eau de proportions sensationnelles – au point même que certaines gens s’en servent des exemples médiatiques pour déclarer que le multiculturalisme est un échec total et irréparable.

Un des cas qui me vient immédiatement à l’esprit, c’est celui du policer sikh qui a pu porter son turban en uniforme avec l’approbation de la GRC (la Gendarmerie royale du Canada). La GRC a trouvé une façon d’intégrer le turban dans l’uniforme de police. Porte-il atteinte à une personne d’une façon quelconque? Entrave-t-il l’exercice des fonctions de l’agent? La réponse aux deux questions est non. Heurte-il la susceptibilité de certaines personnes? Pour la majorité des Canadiens, la réponse serait non, mais il risque d’y en avoir certaines qui ne seraient pas confortables. On est mieux de laisser aux psychologistes la question pourquoi il pourrait froisser les esprits de certains (malgré tout, ce sont les psychologistes qui se spécialisent dans la question pourquoi il existe des gens qui se voient facilement perturbés). Mais au fond, la GRC a reconnu la notion : “Traitez les autres comme vous voudriez vous-même être traité.” Par conséquent, la décision de la GRC de permettre des officiers sikhs de porter le turban avec leur uniforme s’inscrivait dans l’esprit de la définition du multiculturalisme.

Dans ce même exemple, la réalité est celle-ci : un individu, qui se trouve à être aussi un sikh, a répondu à l’appel du devoir. En raison de ce sens du devoir, cette personne voulait participer pleinement à la société, en tant que Canadien. Il a donc décidé de se joindre à la GRC afin de protéger ma vie, ainsi que la vôtre. S’il s’avérait nécessaire, il s’est dit prêt à sacrifier sa propre vie dans l’exercice de ses fonctions au nom de la sécurité et de la protection des Canadiens (encore, vous et moi). J’en suis convaincu que si un jour il sacrifice sa vie pour protéger la vôtre, vous n’allez pas dire “J’aurais souhaité qu’il aurait enlevé son turban avant de sauver ma vie!” Il faut garder les choses en perspective. Tout ce qu’il a demandé en contrepartie, pour s’être joint à la GRC, était de pouvoir garder son turban dans le cadre de ses fonctions. Et nous lui avons répondu oui. Il est émouvant de penser qu’il croyait pouvoir, en tant que sikh, participer pleinement à la société canadienne, au point de se joindre à la GRC. On y était reconnaissant, et on l’a accommodé. Vu sous cet angle, c’est la preuve que le multiculturalisme marche. Ce sont ces genres d’idéologies qui nous permettent de nous rassembler – tous ensemble – comme pays qui croit à l’inclusion.

Interculturalisme

La politique officielle du gouvernement du Québec est celle qui s’appelle “l’interculturalisme”. Il s’agit d’une variation de la même idéologie partagée à la base avec le multiculturalisme. Alors, les deux sont très semblables, mais la principale différence étant que l’interculturalisme est présenté un peu différent, avec l’accent mis plus sur l’intégration, et bien sûr, il porte un “nom” différent. La définition de la version québécoise, toute comme celle du fédérale, est bref et facile à comprendre.

Somme toute, l’interculturalisme :

invite aux groupes minoritaires de conserver leur héritage au Québec,
invite aux groupes d’exprimer leurs propres valeurs, et de vivre ces valeurs au Québec,
encourage les interactions entre les minorités ethnoculturelles, et entre la culture majoritaire francophone au Québec,
affirme que la langue commune du Québec est le français, et qu’elle en demeurera ainsi.

Voilà ce que c’est, en gros. Tout est simple et court, il paraît non compliqué, et c’est une politique très ouverte.

Les similitudes entre le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme:

Étant donné que le Québec est une société francophone d’immigrants issus de divers horizons et d’origines différentes, il est par conséquent nécessaire que les immigrants doivent se conformer à la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec (qui, soit dit en passant, a servi de modèle pour la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés – la raison pour laquelle les deux sont très semblables et complémentaires). Les deux concepts impliquent que les immigrants contribuent à édifier le Québec (du point du vue social, et en ce qui concerne la langue et les coutumes) grâce à une collaboration avec le peuple du Québec.
Appliqué de façon globale et intégrée, la gestion du multiculturalisme au Québec va de pair avec l’interculturalisme québécois. Les deux idéologies ne sont pas des objectives antagonistes, et il n’y a pas d’affrontement idéologique (par ailleurs, jusqu’ici, rien ne permet d’affirmer que le contraire ne soit prouvé).
Les deux sont des idéologies pluralistes.
L’interculturalisme, tout comme le multiculturalisme, ne souscrit pas à une politique d’assimilation (personne n’est menacé par des amendes ou peines d’emprisonnement, et ce n’est pas prétendu qu’on doit rejeter son identité ethno-cultural afin de devenir exactement comme les Québécois ou Canadiens de souche. Tout ce qu’on demande, c’est qu’ils s’intègrent à la société – ce qui est jour et nuit face à l’assimilation).

Différences entre le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme:

Le Canada, à l’exception du Québec, ne compte pas de programmes d’apprentissage de langue institutionnalisés afin d’expressément intégrer les immigrants à la société majoritaire (Le Canada anglais compte des programmes tels que le CLIC – Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada. Cependant, comme Andrew Griffith a souligné dans la section des commentaires de mon billet Le Multiculturalism redéfini?, les immigrants au Canada anglophone traditionnellement s’intègrent eux-mêmes à la langue anglaise, et l’adoptent naturellement comme la “lingua franca”. Par contre, au Québec ce n’est pas forcément le cas que les immigrants adoptent le français comme la lingua franca de la société. Désormais, le Québec exige que les immigrants suivent une formation linguistique en français dans certaines circonstances).
L’Inteculturalisme vise à contrecarrer l’attrait de s’établir au Québec sur la base des forces attractives que s’offre aux immigrants le multiculturalisme (c’est à dire, d’empêcher l’établissement au Québec de ceux qui pense pouvoir s’y établir sans devoir apprendre le français, puisque le multiculturalisme est moins axé sur une intégration linguistque forcée). Par conséquent, l’interculturalisme contient des dispositions supplémentaires d’intégration plus explicites, et dont le but est plus concret et plus immédiat. Ces derniers éléments de l’interculturalisme vont au-delà des points que partagent les deux idéologies ensemble. Pourtant, cet élément d’intégration plus prononcé de l’interculturalisme ne va pas aussi loin que l’assimilation. Du même coup, il n’est pas aussi souple que le multiculturalisme.
Le multiculturalisme facilite une intégration bilingue (hors Québec), tandis que l’interculturalisme “dirige” les immigrants vers le français et une intégration dans la société francophone au Québec (sans aucune “canalisation” vers l’anglais).
L’Interculturalisme cherche à assurer la “sécurité linguistique” du Québec, et ce dans différents domaines de la vie (le travail, l’éducation, et le gouvernement). Ces mêmes politiques ne sont pas nécessaires (et n’existent pas) dans les mécanismes ou dans la “quincaillerie” du multiculturalisme ailleurs au Canada. La raison en est que l’anglais ailleurs au Canada n’a pas besoin d’être protégé car il n’est pas menacé en l’absence des politiques de protection de langue.

Si nous examinons quelques-unes de ces comparaisons en termes d’aides visuelles (très abstraits), elles pourraient ressembler ainsi :

Graphique 1 : Sur un échelle parallèle, la graphique ci-dessous vous offre un aperçu comment le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme sont compatibles :

Graphique 2: Sur une échelle parallèle, la graphique ci-dessous vous offre un aperçu à quel point le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme partagent les politiques d’intégration des immigrants:

Graphique 3 : Sur une échelle parallèle, la graphique ci-dessous vous offre un aperçu jusqu’à quel point les gouvernements ont de la souplesse et de la latitude politique afin d’attribuer des éléments d’intégration, en tant que politique durable, à l’implantation du multiculturalisme et de l’interculturalisme

Il y a quelques jours, certains d’entre vous auraient peut-être lu mon billet “Le Multiculturalisme redéfini?”. Dans ce billet-là Andrew Griffith nous a offert quelques commentaires (ces commentaires se trouvent à la fin dudit billet). En effet, M. Griffith est un des plus éminents spécialistes canadiens sur le sujet du multiculturalisme. J’ai beaucoup apprécié ces commentaires, et je vous encourage donc à lire son blogue, Multicultural Meanderings (parfois il publie des billets en français). Les sujets couverts dans son blogue constituent une lecture très intéressante.

Le blogue à M. Griffith, Multicultural Meanderings, comprend une grille (ci-dessous) très instructive. Elle fait la comparaison de plusieurs éléments partagés par le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme. D’ailleurs (qui serait sans doute d’intérêt aux Québécois), c’est une grille à laquelle il a travaillé ensemble avec Gérard Bouchard (le frère de Lucien Bouchard), un des coprésidents de la Commission Bouchard-Taylor. Cette grille est directement liée aux sujets en question, et je tiens à remercier M. Griffith pour l’autorisation d’utiliser sa grille.

Cliquer afin d’agrandir la grille

Dans mon dernier billet, M. Griffith a commenté que le gouvernement Conservateur est en train d’accorder un degré plus élevé au côté discrétionnaire de l’intégration du multiculturalisme (voir la graphique 3) – c’est-à-dire qu’il est en train de produire un effet de levier pour faire en sorte que le multiculturalisme puisse pencher sur ses propres mécanismes pour mieux intégrer les immigrants.

Dans mon billet “Le Multiculturalisme redéfini?” j’ai souligné que la définition du multiculturalisme, telle que définie récemment par Justin Trudeau, semble vouloir pencher plus vers un intégration accrue des immigrants elle aussi (pas loin du point de vue des Conservateurs mêmes).

Ce degré accru d’intégration n’est certes pas incompatible avec la position propre du Québec, tel qu’appliqué sous forme d’interculturalisme québécois. Je crois bien que les positions des Conservateurs et des Libéraux fédéraux, qui penchent de plus en plus vers l’intégration des immigrants, font en sortes que le multiculturalisme canadien est maintenant plus compatible avec l’interculturalisme québécois, plus qu’à toute autre époque de l’histoire moderne du pays.

Dans le billet “Le Multiculturalisme redéfini?” j’ai fait le point de dire que la différence entre le multiculturalisme et l’interculturalisme n’est pas aussi grande que certains nous laissent croire. On pourrait même les voir comme deux idéologies complémentaires, voire symbiotiques – les deux qui travaillent ensemble pour répondre aux besoins du Québec. Dans des zones où le multiculturalisme ne satisfait pas tous les besoins du Québec, l’interculturalisme est ensuite appliqué afin d’ajouter une couche supplémentaire pour faciliter un niveau d’intégration encore plus accru – tout en étant conforme aux réalités spécifiques du Québec.

Suite à ce billet, je vous offrirai un autre qui portera sur certains aspects les plus controversés du multiculturalisme et de l’interculturalisme, notamment sur “les accommodements raisonnables” – une question qui a tendance à soulever les passions, non seulement au Québec, mais ailleurs au Canada aussi (mais comme vous allez voir, ces aspects plus controversés ne sont pas insurmontables).

À très bientôt!

————————————————————

COMPLETE SERIES: MULTICULTURALISM AND INTERCULTURALISM (8 POSTS)

ENG – Multiculturalism Redefined? (#179)
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: Lost in definition… (#180) – POST 1 OF 3
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: Sometimes a Headline-Maker (#181) – POST 2 OF 3
ENG – Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: The discussion in Québec (#182) – POST 3 OF 3
ENG – Where is Multiculturalism heading in the next year or two in Québec? (#183)

FR – Le multiculturalisme redéfini? (#178)
FR – Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Le concept expliqué (#186) – billet 1 sur 2
FR – Le Multiculturalisme & l’interculturalisme: Des aspects controversés (#187) – billet 2 sur 2

Where is Multiculturalism heading in the next year or two in Québec? (#183)

February 18, 2015 6:30 pm / 1 Comment on Where is Multiculturalism heading in the next year or two in Québec? (#183)

The last few posts put the spotlight on multiculturalism and interculturalism, what they are, what role they play regarding controversial matters, and what place they have in public discussion in Québec.

In this post, I’d like to give you a political commentary and place the issue of multiculturalism, interculturalism and reasonable accommodations in the context of current political events in Québec.

This post deals with a number of complex issues, and unfortunately it would be difficult to break it up into smaller posts. Also, because it is a subjective opinion piece (with many conjectures), I would rather keep it together as one piece and label it as being just that: a subjective opinion piece with a good number of political conjectures.

Before going further, the essence of this post will only really make sense if you have read the previous posts:

I also strongly urge you to read an earlier post I wrote which covers much of what has happened in Québec politics from March 2012 until January 2015. The post is entitled Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois (but it discusses many pertinent matters beyond GND). Without this backgrounder, it may be difficult to understand the “political feeling and atmosphere” of matters discussed below.

The post entitled “Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: The discussion in Québec”, discussed how there are a number of public columnist and opinion-maker figures in Québec (often, but certainly not always in the sovereignist camp) who have taken a very public position against multiculturalism. The post “Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: The discussion in Québec” explained what their arguments are.

Because their arguments against multiculturalism have been repeated for at least a couple of decades by a good number of high-profile sovereignists, these long-standing arguments have given swaths of the public a misleading view of what multiculturalism is. At the very least, it makes segments of the public unjustly hostile to certain aspects of multiculturalism. At the most extreme end of the scale of public sentiment, the projection of anti-multiculturalism views has the potential to influence referendum results should another referendum for sovereignty ever be called (2018, 2022 or 2026 election cycles?).

Québec’s recent history already saw how the Parti Québécois capitalized upon this perceived mismatch and estrangement between multiculturalism and interculturalism. When the PQ introduced the Charte des valeurs in 2013 (the “Charter of Values”), it was with the intention to “beef-up” interculturalism (a matter within Québec’s provincial jurisdiction) under the claim that multiculturalism doesn’t cut the mustard. The Charte des valeurs was supposed to legislate (essentially codify in a Napoleonic model) what may be considered “reasonable” accommodations (but more specifically “unreasonable accommodations”) by Québec’s society towards religious devotees in Québec.

Regarding this “codification”, you have to keep in mind that in civil matters, Québec operates under the Napoleonic Code. This means that laws, regulations and rules are stipulated in writing ahead of time. Judges simply have to determine if the prescribed legal matter adheres to the written word or not. However, in the rest of Canada, civil matters fall under Common Law principles, meaning case law evolves as matters are dealt with by the courts, case-by-case. To date, matters around “reasonable accommodation” have not been codified in Québec (both the federal Multiculturalism Act and Québec interculturalism have been dealt with through evolutionary case law).

With that being said, because Québec exercises jurisdiction over its own interculturalism, I get the sense that people in Québec may not be opposed to the idea of embarking on a codification of certain aspects of “reasonable accommodation” (after all, Québec’s population is very used to, and comfortable with using a codified system of rules. Likewise, aspects of Québec’s society may feel a bit more awkward when civil and other societal matters are left to – what they may perceive as being – “the winds” of Common Law).

I have no idea if this codification will or will not happen, but there are signs out there that things may be moving in this direction. If it does occur, it would be a major shift on the multiculturalism and interculturalism front, with major implications – and a Charter of values could be the vehicle under which this may occur. Keep this in mind as you read on.

In the last post, Multiculturalism & Interculturalism: The discussion in Québec, I discussed that accommodations under multiculturalism and interculturalism are deemed reasonable to the extent that society deems them to be reasonable. If certain accommodations are not deemed reasonable by society at large, then they are not accorded. If certain requests for accommodations are deemed reasonable, society is then more than willing to grant them. Yet if other accommodation requests generate mixed feelings from the public, then society may be willing to strike a compromise with respect to accommodations.

Yet, with the introduction of the Parti Québéois’ Charte des valeurs, the party was proposing to “tell” the public (the majority and minorities alike) what they “should” view as reasonable and unreasonable accommodations. Up until now, such a codified approach has not been how multiculturalism worked, nor has it been how interculturalism worked. Accommodations are a societal choice, which fit the situation at the right place, and at the right time. Little-by-little, society then evolves. But what the Charte was proposing was a complete one-upping over multiculturalism, under the premise that multiculturalism was broken, and that aspects of interculturalism should be codified under the Charte des valeurs.

The primary goals, under the Charte, would have been to forcefully prevent any provincial public civil servant from wearing any “ostentatious” (ostentatoire) religious symbol (no crosses, no veils, no kippahs, no religious beards, no turbans, etc.). Thus, religious symbols, by way of a Napoleonic code, would not be accommodated – essentially rendering the Multiculturalism Act (and the flexibility it accords for accommodations) ineffective and defunct in the realm of such matters (there are questions regarding constitutionality of such a Charte, but I’ll get to that a little further down).

But the proposal for the Charte des valeurs didn’t stop there. During public forum debates of winter 2014 and the 2014 election campaign, fringe elements of the sovereignist movement capitalized on the perceived political momentum that the Charte was generating. They called for it to include other controversial elements: applying Bill 101 to CEGEPs which would compel all non-Anglophones to attend college only in French. Other fringe proposals were to compel federal government operations within Québec to be subject to Bill 101 – meaning that the federal government would not be allowed to operate in English in Québec, nor would it be allowed to render bilingual services. Pauline Marois (the leader of the PQ at the time), found herself between a rock and hardplace with these supplementary proposals for the Charte. On one hand, it was not the party’s intention to go this far. But on the other hand, these fringe proposals were energizing and engaging the PQ’s grassroots base. There was the appearance that a new momentum was building in favour of the PQ (as a side note, we later learned that this perceived “momentum” was actually an illusion, one which played a role in the PQ’s downfall). In the end, the PQ did not expressively reject these fringe proposals (for fear of alienating their base), but they did not expressively approve of them either.

This lead to even more “off-shoots” of the “off-shoots”. One off-shoot proposal was a very grass root movement to control English at the university level, and thus to control out-of-province Anglophone students’ rights to reside in Québec or pursue their studies in Québec. This proposal further branched into some of the most bizarre sub-proposals, regarding residency rights, voting rights… you name it (the super-star celebrity Jeanette Bertrand took the reins of this one). A wholly independent “citizens action” movement took root. The movement was called Les Jeanettes, and the superstar wife of Pierre Karl Péladeau (and perhaps the second most well-known celebrity in Québec after Céline Dion), Julie Snyder, joined forces with Jeanette Bertrand to spearhead a general feminist movement in support the Charte (they even organized large-scale parades in the streets). You can watch someone’s home footage of it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm7LKpW4acc.

The Parti Québécois was hoping that proposals for the Charte des valeurs (both official ones the PQ endorsed, in addition to non-official ones from off-shoot ones from fringe movements) would garner them support from key voting sectors of Québec’s society – and perhaps it did in some ways. After all, the Parti Québécois and sovereignists in general were bombarding the public with the argument that multiculturalism ran counter to Québec’s interests, and counter to the objectives of interculturalism. It was an argument used to score political points. It was intended to make the public believe that (1) they needed a saviour from multiculturalism (thus, in came the Charte), and (2) that Québec needs independence owing to the incompatibility of Canadian multiculturalism with Québec values.

Whereas the Charte proposals gained supporters in some areas of society (mostly with white Francophone voters, particularly residing in suburbs surrounding Montréal – a suburban region which contains ¼ of Québec’s population), the Charte proposals also had the opposite effect of alienating large swaths of other segments of Québec’s society. This alienation, combined with other semi-related events of spring & summer 2014 (read the post on Gabriel-Nadeau Dubois) sealed the fate of the Parti Québécois. In 2014, they lost the 2014 election with their worst election results in more than 30 or 40 years.

Despite the failure of the Parti Québécois’ plans to create a Charte, which would codify a denial of accommodations, damage was likely done in the sphere of how the public perceives multiculturalism. I say this because almost 18 months was spent with a government in power (the Parti Québécois) telling the public repeatedly that multiculturalism was broken, was not compatible with Québec or Québec values, and that it needed to be replaced (or be superseded).

What prompted the proposal for the Charte des valeurs Québécois to come about in the first place?

With respect to sovereignty, Steven Harper’s Conservative government has seemingly adopted a stance of not debating it in public in Québec, and of “ignoring” it to death (with the latter being the main strategy… i.e.: if you don’t talk about sovereignty, scars will have time to heal, people will concentrate and re-centre their political views around other matters of importance, and the issue will die). In this respect, on anything regarding the topic of sovereignty, the Conservatives have avoided discussions which could cause emotions to run high, not only in Québec, but also elsewhere in Canada.

In a number of ways, it actually it is a strategy which has worked (I will be the first to admit that I am surprised that it seemed to have worked – on several fronts no less). Other parties (provincial and federal) appear to also be going down the same path, and all have publicly stated they will not reopen the constitution at any time in a foreseeable future – preferring instead to make many small policy and legal decisions, one incremental step at a time, in order to deal with matters which could otherwise be dealt with in one major fell swoop through a re-opening of the constitution.

The Parti Québécois was well aware that the wind was taken out of their sovereignty sails by this new “ignore-it-to-death” strategy. After all, the PQ’s adversaries (Ottawa, the provincial Liberals, the provincial CAQ, and other provinces) refused to hand them a public battle on a silver plate. Traditionally, when emotions run sky high in Québec – particularly anti-“Ottawa” emotions – the PQ and their sovereignty proposals also ride high in the polls. But in the absence of flash-points of tension with Ottawa, in the absence of a federal-provincial battle, and in the absence of ideological fights between Québec and the rest of Canada, the PQ flounders (very public infighting withing a very diverse PQ party begins) and public support for their ideologies go by the wayside.

The Parti Québécois therefore sees it in their interest to try to find an emotional subject which would forge a poignant wedge between the people of Québec and Ottawa/Anglophone Canada. Once they believe they have found the magic harp, they traditionally play it until the strings fall off.

Multiculturalism has been one such scapegoat which the Parti Québécois fixed squarely in their sights. Even if they twisted multiculturalism in every way it could be twisted, and even if they gave it a few more wrings for good measure, they continued to hope that this would be one area which the public might finally latch on to for the purposes of building support and an argument for sovereignty.

I do not believe that the Parti Québécois cared if their proposals were constitutional or not. Rather, they simply wanted the population to latch on to their proposal for the purpose of igniting an emotional constitutional battle. If their proposal would have been judged unconstitutional, the Parti Québécois would have probably basked and rejoiced in such a ruling. They would have touted such a ruling as proof that their anti-multiculturalism and pro-Charte vision of Québec could only be settled by sovereignty, thus giving ammunition to a claim that even “Canada’s constitution is against Québec”. They may have very well been prepared to invoke the notwithstanding clause to implement the Charte des valeurs, which would have dragged, quite unwillingly but unavoidably might I add, the federal government and federalist opposition parties into the arena – an event the Parti Québécois was bargaining on. It would have been the emotional constitutional battle they were hoping for.

Commentary: I routinely hear Anglophone Canadian opinion-makers, politicians outside Québec, and other “quick-lipped” figures say the Charte would be unconstitutional, and thus the Charte cannot come to fruition. These people say the PQ cannot, and should not introduce the Charte, otherwise they would face a “battle”. They may be right regarding its constitutionality, but this kind of rhetoric — at least with this type of wording — plays right into the PQ’s hands, and should be avoided (Harper seems to have realized it, and we have not heard him invoke this sort of rhetoric, and he has not spoke publicly about the Charte’s constitutionality… other Federal party leaders also seem to be tip-toeing around the issue, much like Harper). Yes, if the PQ really wants it, the Charte can be implemented through use of the notwithstanding clause, and yes, it would result in a battle with sky-high emotions — exactly what the PQ wants. Opinion-makers outside Québec would be wise to reconsider spouting off about the constitutionality of such a move and to look at the bigger picture when developing alternative strategies. To do otherwise would run the risk of alienating large segments of Québec’s public which feels they ultimately control the levers of their own destiny (sovereignists or not). There is more at play that just a simple matter of it being constitutional or not. This one area which is poorly understood by Anglophone Canada .

So what happened that derailed all of this?

However things did not go quite the way the Parti Québécois had hoped. In the past 10 years, the Parti Québécois has had 3 leaders, 1 long-term interim leader, and they will have a fifth leader in May (Bernard Landry, André Boisclair, Pauline Marois, Stéphan Bédard + possibly Pierre Karl Péladeau in May 2015). With so many leaders, and with each of them trying to create a flash-point of conflict with Ottawa, multiculturalism as “the holy flash-point” has been lost on the public among many other potential “hot flash-points” the PQ has trumpeted (employment insurance, provincial-federal fiscal imbalance, foreign affairs, cultural affairs, agricultural free trade hurting Québec’s milk & cheese industry, language issues, worker re-training, CRTC decisions, military shipbuilding grants not being given to the Davie Ship Yard in Québec City, fisheries and Ocean matters, oil pipelines, international climate change accords, carbon markets, Canada’s aversion to publicly-funded universal daycare and pharmacare stances, perceived Québec bashing [but Sun News TV is now shut down]… and the list goes on, and on, and on).

In the 10 years that the PQ has had 5 leaders – with each trying to find a new and better federal-provincial flash-point for battle – the public realizes that it is impossible for every little thing to be a flash-point between Québec and Ottawa. In this respect, I think the public simply lost faith in the Parti Québécois (the PQ simply shot themselves in the foot by always crying wolf). Thus, the public has not latched on to the multiculturalism argument quite in the same way as the Parti Québécois had hoped.

So then, multiculturalism is no longer a controversial subject in Québec, right? Well, not so fast…

However (and I say “however” with a very strong tone), multiculturalism has taken a prolonged, hard flogging in the public arena in Québec. I know a number of people whose backs go up the moment the “M”-word is uttered (and these are reasonable, well-educated people). When I hear the reasons why people have an adversity towards multiculturalism, many are the same reasons invoked by the Parti Québécois. This demonstrates that two generations spent of beating it into the ground has taken a toll on the public’s perception of multiculturalism. On top of that, multiculturalism is not taught in Québec high schools with any seriousness. And those who I know who have had teachers teach them about multiculturalism say that their teachers’ own understanding of multiculturalism is not accurate either (it is often more about negative perceptions than reality).

The “general” public perception for many in Québec (as a result of a couple of decades of certain political camps trying to score political points) is that multiculturalism cannot protect French, that it is harmful to French, that it was never designed to and cannot help immigrants integrate into a society as different as Québec’s, that it cannot be adapted to Québec’s unique legislative and social programs, that it suffocates and strangles any interculturalism initiatives the government takes, that it is stagnant, that it cannot be reactive, proactive or evolve to reflect changes in Québec’s society, that it can be manipulated by immigrants to allow them to retain English as their lingua-franca, and that it is essentially and culturally an Anglophone solution for an Anglophone society’s way of life – completely incompatible with Québec society.

Whao! That is a quite a long conveyor-belt of assertions towards multiculturalism.

At the same time, if you were to ask the majority what multiculturalism means (the true definition), as well as “how” it works, these same people who hold the above views would not be able to answer you. Wham! There’s the problem!

Here is a video of example of what I mean by the public taking opinion-makers at their word: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iNMMGVJXw3A

[In the above video, the commentator on the left, Mathieu Bock-Côté, is a very well known, high-profile and sovereignist newspaper columnist. He regularly makes the television and radio talk-show rounds on LCN, Télé-Québec, and RNC radio network. He has a regular column in the Journal de Montréal and op-eds in La Presse and Le Devoir newspapers. Needless to say, he is quite recognizable in Québec. I’ve regularly seen and heard him on TV and the radio for several years now. He is also a university professor; with his main staff position at Université de Montréal, and as the head of a political science course at the Université de Sherbrooke. He’s not some fly-by-night figure. It would be very concerning if he is teaching this inaccurate version of multiculturalism at university, let alone seeing it in the media so often. You’ll note when the host, Mario Dumont (also very well known; he used to be the ADQ leader and leader of the official opposition in Québec – and I would not even place him in the sovereignist camp anymore) asked for the true definition of multiculturalism, the response given by Bock-Côté was from another planet. Dumont appeared to not even know the himself, thus it gave Bock-Côté free reign to carry on with his re-wired and distorted version of multiculturalism and what it is doing to Québec. When asked what multiculturalism is, in one sentence Bock-Côté described it as the host culture having to erase itself so as to make way for every other culture, for all of them to be neutral so every grievance can be accommodated, and so it works against the existence of the host or national culture. The rest of the interview took this tone (Big sigh – Deep breath). We have been seeing this far too often in the media].

If you read my previous few posts, you would know that the reality of multiculturalism is quite the opposite of the above assertions. Nonetheless, damage has been done in the sphere of public perception. This is likely a reason why provincial parties (the Liberals and CAQ) and federal parties (Conservatives, Liberals and NDP) are all reluctant to even bring up the word “multiculturalism” in Québec. They know that significant segments of the public will not accurately interpret whatever they say about it. Thus political speeches, political interviews, and political literature in Québec are devoid of the “M”-word. Nor has there been a call to include learning about multiculturalism in provincial high school curriculums (likely owing to the fact that teachers may themselves have strong misgivings towards multiculturalism, making it a high-risk topic to incorporate into high school curricula without knowing how it would be conveyed to students. Plus many may come to believe that a government which implements learning about multiculturalism is one which is trying to score political points).

I will say this – if a non-sovereignist government is looking for a strong political strategy in a related arena, one which could rally the masses, trumpeting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a far better and much safer bet. The CCRF is much better understood and much more respected by Québec’s population than multiculturalism. It is more black and white, and people can see it in action on a daily basis. It too has its deterrents in some political camps (that’s a whole other book), but nonetheless, most people recognize it is something to be valued. It is the CCRF which federalist parties are much more willing to openly discuss in public (and they do). They routinely hold it up as an example of collective values which we all share as one country.

Where does multiculturalism in Québec go from here?

It will take time – a long time – to repair multiculturalism’s public perception in Québec, let alone to even begin to think it could be a topic with which to rally the population around a common cause.

I’m not sure what the best way is to repair its image considering how invisible it has become in education, political discourse, and in the media (that is, when it is not being attacked in certain media circles). I’m wondering if ignoring multiculturalism – at least as a point of discussion in the public sphere, and similar to recent strategies taken towards sovereignty – might actually be the best solution. Right now, the “M”-word is not seen in the best light… so perhaps it should be put to sleep as a public debate (at least for the next little while). Of course, this would be a touchy and controversial strategy. But an “out-of-sight and out-of-mind” approach would mean that negative perceptions towards multiculturalism would also disappear from public view while the topic is parked for a while. That might allow time for the M-word’s “rehabilitation” – and its gentle and slow reintroduction as a public discussion topic (perhaps over several years).

The Parti Québécois learned the lesson that it cannot continuously flog this and every other topic under the sun in the hopes that they will all become the holy grail of political conflict needed to incite public support for sovereignty. Thus, the Parti Québécois has already “backed-off” – and this might just afford the breathing space that multiculturalism needs in order to slowly have its image repaired.

The Charter 2.0

With that being said, there is one more chapter on the horizon in this murky realm: La Charte 2.0 (The Charter of Québec Values, version 2.0). When you now mention la Charte 2.0, almost anyone in Québec who follows politics will know what you’re talking about. Following the utter failure in 2014 of the PQ’s Charte des valeurs québécoises, an elected Parti Québécois MNA, Bernard Drainville (a famous and former Radio-Canada reporter and the author of the original Charte des valeurs) decided to run for the leadership of the Parti Québécois. Yet, he is running on a platform of a “toned-down” version of the Charte (which has been nicknamed the Charte 2.0).

Unlike in 2014, Drainville and his supporters will not allow the Charte 2.0 to be highjacked and torn in all directions by “fringe elements” of the party or extreme fringe supporters of sovereignty. Thus, he has considerably narrowed the focus of the Charte 2.0. The original version of the Charte would have banned anyone receiving a paycheque from adorning oneself of any religious symbols. Those who would have been affected by the original version included as wide range of people as public daycare workers, a payroll clerk distributing paycheques in a Northern Inuit village’s community centre (ie: no beads on Inuit jackets if they had to do with Inuit religious beliefs), a person responsible for cutting municipal grass with a weed-whacker, a trucker hauling septic tanks between provincial camp gounds – anyone receiving public pay, period.

La Charte 2.0 would be much narrower and would contain only two proposals for codified accommodations / non-accommodations:

It would only ban religious symbols for the most visible and most authoritative public servants (those making decisions in which avoidance of a perception of bias would be deemed paramount). These professions would likely only be restricted to provincial police officers, judges, provincial immigration officers (those working in Québec’s provincial immigration ministry), and perhaps physicians and certain teachers/professors (although these last two professions are still up for debate within Bernard Drainville’s own ranks).
The second proposal foresees that those already working in the above professions would be subject to a grandfather clause. This means they would not be subject to the news rules and only those entering the professions would be subject to the Charte 2.0. There is still a debate within the Parti Québécois if the grandfather clause would be for a 5 year period, 10 year period, or indefinitely.

Can this proposal come to fruition?

La Charte 2.0 has not gone unnoticed by the ruling provincial Liberals. During the 2014 election campaign, the Liberal leader and Québec’s Premier, Philippe Couillard, said a Liberal government would be prepared to “quickly” adopt similar value-based legislation, but repackaged under the label of “secularism” rather than the label of “values” (i.e. a “Charter of Secularism” or Charte de laïcité). After all, the watered-down version of the Charte 2.0 is not very harsh, nor is it nearly as radical. I would dare to say that 2.0 could possibly be swallowed by sufficient portions of Québec’s population (and it could possibly even be swallowed by a sizeable portion of Anglophone Canada’s population, had this occurred elsewhere in Canada… But then again, there’s no way of truly knowing unless circumstances were to play themselves out).

This was a political strategy decision on the part of the provincial Liberals. I’ll explain:

The Liberals know that the Parti Québécois’ long leadership race will concentrate primarily on sovereignty and the introduction of a new referendum as quickly as possible (which differentiates this Parti Québécois leadership race from any past PQ leadership races). The Parti Québécois has said themselves that any new referendum initiative would likely be the very last one in Québec’s history (at least for the next 50 – 100 years) regardless of which way it goes. Thus, they do not want to make the errors of the past election – that of running on a complex, multi-faceted platform. They want to restrict political debate squarely on sovereignty and the next referendum (rather than other governance issues). This is one of the main reasons why Pierre Karl Péladeau looks set to win the leadership of the party in May 2015. He publicly stated that he is not at all interested in governance issues should he become premier, and that his only concentration would be to hold a referendum as quickly as possible, then resign and get out of politics.

However, Bernard Drainville, one of the party leadership contenders, has ruthlessly kept alive the idea of the Charte 2.0. Perhaps he truly believes in its merits, or perhaps he still believes it continues to have the potential to invoke a constitution crisis on the multicultural front with Ottawa should a referendum be called (or perhaps he believes both – which is what I would venture to say he believes).

Nonethless, the provincial ruling Liberals have taken note, and they appear ready to “one-up” the Parti Québécois. I mentioned above that the provincial Liberals have publicly stated (no less as part of their 2014 election platform) that they would be prepared to “quickly” invoke secularism legislation very similar to la Charte 2.0. Their proposals were not unlike Drainville’s Charte 2.0. Yet five months have gone by since the Liberals were elected, and their “quick” secularism legislation has not yet been proposed.

What are they waiting for? Well, I think they’re waiting to see how Drainville’s Charte 2.0 goes over with the public during the Parti Québécois’ own leadership debates from February 2015 to May 2015. If the Parti Québécois only selects two major issues to form their new mantra (that of fast-tracked sovereignty and the Charte 2.0) then the provincial Liberals may make their move and introduce their own Charte 2.0 – thus stealing the thunder from half of the Parti Québécois’ new mantra. I believe the provincial Liberals would do this knowing that it would (a) avoid a constitutional showdown with Ottawa (the provincial Liberals would be much better able to navigate these waters with Ottawa so that it does not become a constitutional crisis), and (b) the Parti Québécois will have half their new raison d’être taken away from them by the Liberals in one fell swoop.

There is also another reason why the Liberals may be stalling with respect to introducing a Secularism Charter (Charte de laïcité); they may feel it prudent to see if the Parti Québécois’ proposal leads to public condemnation. If the PQ’s Charte 2.0 proves to once-again polarize Québec’s public while the PQ hashes it out among themselves, the Liberals may simply want to let the Parti Québécois have it. This means the Liberals may not want touch it (after all, why would the Liberals want to assume responsibility for divisive, poisonous legislation if, on the other hand, leaving it to the Parti Québécois would result in the public once again tearing the Parti Québécois to shreds?).

However, if Québec’s public does appear to develop an appetite/tolerance for a greatly watered-down Charte 2.0, the Liberals may then want it for themselves, and thus kill many birds with one stone by introducing a Charte de laïcité.

In this sense, multiculturalism (and especially issues around accommodations) has now become the new political ping-pong toy – and is quickly becoming a pawn on a chessboard, rather than an ideology for societal advancement and progress. The unfortunate direct side-effect is that its true meaning, goals, and worth has been lost on the public, and many out there simply look at it as an objectified component in overall competing political platforms.

We likely won’t know what the Liberals will do until after October 2015. In the meantime, they will probably want to wait to see how the PQ leadership campaign pans out, what the PQ will do with the Charte 2.0, what the public reaction will be, how it will all play out during the federal election campaign, and then the provincial Liberals will make their move (one way or the other), after the federal election in October 2015.

At the end of the day, any provincial legislative bills regarding a Charte 2.0 will directly butt-up against the federal Multiculturalism Act, and there may be additional constitutional implications. The Québec Liberals first need to know who their partner in Ottawa will be (Conservative? Liberal? Minority? Majority?). Only after October 2015 will they be in a position to make some major (but quite sensitive and delicate) decisions.

That’s where we’re sitting on the multiculturalism front in Québec right now. It’s certainly not boring. Although the next chapter will be written over the next few months, the final phrases of the chapter may not be finalized until late in 2015/early 2016.

I guess we’ll all have to wait to find out what happens. 🙂

————————————————————

COMPLETE SERIES: MULTICULTURALISM AND INTERCULTURALISM (8 POSTS)