Geneviève Guilbault, the Deputy Prime Minister, deplored that demonstrators could disturb the Carnival of Quebec this year. As if this popular celebration had to be forever considered flaccid because of having been stripped of all its political substance over time.
The carnivals were however, for a long time, the fact of backfiring charivaris. By all sorts of festive artifices, the figures of power and the principles of their authority were mocked there, sometimes even in gross exaggerations which rested on the springs of songs, libations and frenzied celebrations.
At a time when truckers and their followers were not yet inviting themselves with their behemoths to the Quebec Carnival, such a party served to purge social tensions on the occasion of great popular outbursts, in the common hope of spring, c that is to say, better days.
In the winter of 1694, a lieutenant named Jacques de Mareuil set out to go up to Quebec The Tartuffe of Molière, just to entertain at least those who in their hearts despair of the power exercised by the Holy Church. The play is authorized by Governor Frontenac, who had already heard it read by Molière himself.
Play Molière? This will not happen, replies the very limited Mgr of Saint Vallier. In his name, the Church waves a charge with one hand and stretches out her fist with the other. The bishop forbids anyone to attend the play. The main actor is arrested for impiety.
Frontenac may love the theater, he recognizes the need not to disturb that of power. He leaves the chilly conservatism of Mgr de Saint-Vallier to make its nest, as if New France could remain hanging in the air, out of time, by banning Molière. Encouraged by his successes as a censor, Monseigneur will continue to rail against the theatre. In this mirror, his power will refuse to see himself and to be seen.
Born 400 years ago this year, Molière will never, during his lifetime, have considered enjoying a radiant posterity to the point of seeing his name confused with that of his language. He would smile to listen to actors play it to the comma, he who cared so little about the edition of his plays. On the other hand, that the world of today still counts so many tartuffes, these patented hypocrites, these people who always present their false virtue as proof of their beautiful rectitude, that would not have surprised him.
If it is quite conceivable to criticize, both in Ottawa and in Quebec, the confusion of thoughts that presides over outlets mounted on truck wheels, it seems all the same ill-advised to deny the carnivalesque expression under the pretext not to understand the language well. After all, the culture of asphalt, gas, big pick-ups and crowds on overpasses says something about our time.
In the midst of all this, should we be surprised to see Canada celebrating more discreetly the 400and anniversary of Molière, yet recognized as the father of a language that we would like to be common and shared? Canada continues to play its role poorly with respect to French. This curious country has even tried to take advantage of the ambiguity of its Official Languages Act to avoid taking measures to protect Francophones. The Federal Court of Appeal has just slapped him on the wrist and called him to order. Is it in vain, again?
While the implementation of such flaccid laws is never enough to ensure that French is maintained throughout Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, in a report it published last year, reduced the problems linguistic experiences experienced by State officials to the extent of their individual will! The Commissioner of Official Languages believes that we must reassure federal public servants about their ability to speak French. In other words, French-speaking civil servants must feel proud, amongst themselves, of speaking the language of Molière. Big deal !
The report blithely confuses, once again, the linguistic insecurity felt in the face of oneself in Francophone groups in a minority situation with the nevertheless obvious forms of deleterious Anglonormativity and Francophobia that are exercised against them. However, the report offers many examples of exclusions, but without having the courage to name them for what they are. Civil servants questioned recall that they are not well seen to speak French. “If I use my first official language, people will think I’m a troublemaker,” said one of these officials among many others quoted. So, what to do, if not learn to be silent?
“The responses to the survey clearly revealed that Francophones were not worried about the quality of their French, but rather worried about annoying their colleagues and supervisors with communications in French,” observes the human rights lawyer. the person Anne Levesque in a rich and caustic analysis of this poor report.
How could individual “motivation”, to use the word of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, be the key to freeing Francophones from a structural problem? Proposals like this, meaningless by ignoring power dynamics, have been offered endlessly to minorities around the world.
While human rights advocates everywhere rightly criticize the effects of racism, transphobia, sexism, colonialism, ageism, ableism and heteronormativity, why does the Commissioner of Official Languages show himself- Is he incapable, for his part, of clearly denouncing the outrageous weight that Francophobia brings, again and again, to a substantial part of the population of Canada, to the point of crushing and laminating it?