Demand an explanation, ask for an apology, demand her dismissal, then accuse the federal prime minister, Justin Trudeau, of “supporting contempt for Quebecers” by keeping her in office. The reaction of the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, to the update of past statements by the Canadian special representative in charge of the fight against Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby – “the majority of Quebecers seem influenced not by the primacy of law, but out of anti-Muslim sentiment”, for example — was reasonable, says historian and sociologist Gérard Bouchard. “Me, I understand the position of Mr. Legault. And, I approve of it,” he says bluntly.
Don’t Quebecers — and the head of the Quebec government — have sensitive skin? Amira Elghawaby still offered an explanation, then an apology, in the middle of the week. “They mostly have worn skin because that’s been going on for a long time. It is a very negative image that English Canada constructs about Quebec, and French-speaking Quebecers in particular, whereas, when we are lucky enough to see reliable polls and statistics, we realize that Quebeckers are no worse than English Canadians in terms of pluralism, racism, etc. », replies Gérard Bouchard, seeing in it the perpetuation of the « old tradition » of denigration of Quebec (Quebecbashing) in the rest of Canada.
Denounce Quebec bashing
“Quebec is not very comfortable with a Canadian philosophy which is expressed more and more now by a kind of morality which is not very sophisticated. We can clearly see it in this gesture of asking a person who has humiliated us to come and work with us,” continues the former co-chair of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences (2007-2008). .
I understand Mr. Legault’s position very well. And, I approve of it.
“There, Mr. Legault, he speaks loudly, he is very angry”, observes with a good eye Gérard Bouchard. According to him, this is “the first time that a Premier has stood up like this to defend the image of Quebec, to denounce the Quebec bashing “. “Several spokespersons for our society were doing it, but through the voice of the Prime Minister, to do it in such a clear, forceful way, it seems to me that there are not many precedents, ”adds the holder of the Canada Research Chair in Collective Imaginaries.
In 2021, François Legault complained about the question on “discriminatory” bills on the secularism of the Quebec state (law 21) and on the official and common language of Quebec, French (law 96) posed by Shachi Kurl during a leaders’ debate. In 2017, Philippe Couillard denounced the diatribe “Why are there so many massacres in the ‘progressive’ province of Quebec? launched by JJ McCullough in the washington post the day after the attack on the Great Mosque of Quebec. In 2010, Jean Charest criticized Maclean’s for having invited Bonhomme Carnaval to pose proudly, with a briefcase overflowing with 20-dollar bills, on the cover of its September edition to illustrate a file on the most corrupt province in Canada… Quebec. In 2006, he scratched the “sectarian analysis” made by Jan Wong according to which the “marginalization” of immigrants, the result of Quebec’s “quarrels and linguistic laws”, could have led to the killings of Dawson College, the University Concordia and Ecole Polytechnique.
Political tensions
Gérard Bouchard rather remembered this week the response of Prime Minister Robert Bourassa after the failure of the Meech Lake accord. He maintained that “English Canada must understand very clearly that, whatever one says and whatever one does, Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society, free and capable of assume its destiny and its development”.
The Liberal Prime Minister had acted on “the moods” of Quebecers, notes Gérard Bouchard. ” [Ce faisant, il s’était attiré] political capital for it. And then finally, nothing came of it. It was absolutely without follow-up, ”he says.
François Legault “built political capital from” the incomprehension and indignation aroused by the appointment of Amira Elghawaby within the Quebec population. What will he do with it? “Is it going to go further? asks Gérard Bouchard. Before adding: “To say the word, will it rekindle the wick of independence? The historian and sociologist wouldn’t bet on that.
One thing is certain, the strong reactions heard from coast to coast about the Elghawaby affair “reveal that the tensions between Canadian society and Quebec society are increasingly important and that the national question – that journalists and chroniclers have denied it for years — is still at the heart of many aspects of Quebec society,” said professor emeritus in the Department of Sociology at UQAM Micheline Labelle.
She has nothing to say about the reaction of the Quebec government to Amira Elghawaby’s remarks so far. But, the “survival nationalism a little more modern than [celui en vogue] at the beginning of the Quiet Revolution” to which he subscribes has its limits, she warns. “It is not a political nationalism, citizen, worthy of an independent country. »
“It may also be that Mr. Legault gets angry,” suggests Gérard Bouchard.
Moreover, François Legault said on the way to the National Assembly Hall on Thursday that his federal counterpart, Justin Trudeau, “will live with” the “bad decision” he made in recruiting and keeping in office Amira Elghawaby. As if he wanted to move on to another call.