It’s a very sad spectacle. Tempers are heating up in Quebec around questions of gender identity, to the point where the government pulls out of its hat a “committee of wise men” in the hope of calming tensions.
This creature could be capable of the best and the worst, depending on those who compose it and, above all, the nature of its mandate. Already, a major concern is looming: by holding a public debate on issues that are already defined and based on a base of rights, are we going to advance the cause or, on the contrary, fuel discrimination?
In a chronological sequence that has crescendoed in recent weeks, the polarization of exchanges on gender diversity, particularly within schools, has invaded the political-media space. It started at the beginning of September with the adoption of a resolution by activists of the Conservative Party of Canada banning, under the leadership of a possible conservative government, medical or surgical interventions changing the lives of minors. It continued with the firm ban on mixed toilets in schools by the Minister of Education, Bernard Drainville. Then by demonstrations in several cities in Canada, including in Quebec, denouncing the teaching of gender identity in schools and loudly contested by defenders of the rights of LGBTQ+ people.
Since then, media opinion columns have been filled with various theories where approximation and science rub shoulders with activism. But where exactly are we going with this concert of theories? By wanting to debate widely a question which, for many, seems “settled” and framed by laws, policies, action plans and ministerial directives, is there not a risk of going backwards on the precious question of the protection and inclusion of sexual minorities?
In this area, Quebec has a proud record. In 1977, he included sexual orientation among the grounds of discrimination in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2009, it was the first in Canada to adopt a policy to combat homophobia. Its latest action plan to combat homophobia and transphobia includes areas of openness to sexual diversity, respect for the rights of minorities and the creation of safe and inclusive environments.
A national table on the fight against homophobia and transphobia in education networks exists and its mission is based on the fact that social equality has not been achieved, despite significant progress in recent years. Countering prejudice and discrimination remains a primary objective in schools to avoid accentuating the distress of minority groups. In its guide written for schools and relating to sexual and gender diversity, the Ministry of Education recalls the legal frameworks on which actions of inclusion, kindness and safety must be put in place at school. This short 17-page guide contains a gem of a glossary, a reminder of the laws, policies and fundamental principles that should guide the school’s action. Everything exudes respect and inclusion.
So what is missing in Quebec to get its head around ways to better respect sexual minorities in the public space, if indeed this should be the objective of a committee of wise people who must (re)debate of this question?
Prime Minister François Legault, author of this idea, promises a “serene debate”, discussions based on “common bases”, an exchange which will not fall “into extremes”. Very good. But we look forward to understanding the precise mandate of this committee and knowing its composition. It is the Minister of Families, Suzanne Roy, former president of the Union of Municipalities of Quebec, who will lead this project. To date, she has particularly distinguished herself in cases relating to daycares. Mr. Legault, who describes her as a moderate connected to the concerns of the people, gave her a whole hot potato.
The facts remain, it seems to us, the best defense against errors. No matter who will compose this cell of “wise men”, its members will first have to agree on what they are talking about. The last few days have allowed us to witness the exposure of certain soft facts, the imprecision of which outweighed the accuracy. It is not by discussing alternative facts that a committee will be able to advance thinking. Hopefully they establish common terms and definitions before launching into the big talk.
If, in the course of this collective debate, we came to erase from school teachings any reference to the existence of sexual minorities in the expression of their various forms, that would be a grandiose failure. School is a place of openness to others and learning about modes of inclusion and the fight against stereotypes. Make sure we don’t turn it into an incubator of prejudices that feeds intolerance. It would be a very tragic step backwards.