In his last two texts in Duty, emergency pediatrician and professor at McGill University Samir Shaheen-Hussain uses the term “systemic racism.” In doing so, he espouses the vision of indigenous leaders who use it extensively.
However, it is important to remember that retired judge Jacques Viens, again in his recent testimony before the parliamentary committee on Bill 32 on cultural security, continued to stick to the notion of systemic discrimination and not to that of systemic racism, as the latter had cautiously but rigorously done in the report of his commission, in 2019.
During his testimony last week, the Minister responsible for Relations with First Nations and Inuit, Ian Lafrenière, recalled the importance of words. He therefore attempted to obtain from Judge Viens a clarification, in my opinion essential, on his use of the expressions “systemic discrimination” and “systemic racism”. The judge did not respond directly. For what ? I don’t know. Instead, he calls on the Quebec government to recognize “systemic discrimination and the Joyce Principle right now,” he said by videoconference. What can we understand from this cryptic response?
Essentially, I read there his refusal of the term “racism”. Indeed, if he agreed with the diagnosis of racism, he would only have had to encourage the government to recognize Joyce’s Principle, since the latter poses the observation of racism as a premise… but he took care to clarify systemic discrimination AND the Joyce Principle.
The question does not arise only on the level of semantics. As would not be, in a court of law, an effort to choose between the terms “manslaughter” and “premeditated murder”. The two are distinguished by the intention of the accused. The effect is the same. But justice requires making a distinction between intentions to judge guilt and the corrective measures to be imposed.
This is the whole problem created by the Attikameks’ demand that their text be adopted in full as a precondition. Let’s recognize it, the Viens commission clearly exposed and concluded, the government’s health, justice and other systems can cause discrimination against Aboriginal people. For example, when laws intended to protect the common language of Quebec have the undesirable effect of depriving remote indigenous communities of access to professionals unable to speak French. Let us nevertheless recognize that there is systemic discrimination, but not systemic racism.
For Quebecers concerned about their identity and proud of their history and their society, the fact that we say that their successive governments have set up and maintain a system based on racist intent is an insult and an insult. For many, this unfair accusation produces anger which can only lead to a blockage in resolving the problem in the direction sought by the six pillars of the Joyce Principle and by the 142 calls to action of the Viens commission.
I call on indigenous leaders to admit that the accusation of racism against Quebec is inappropriate and to modify their text accordingly. This can only help to unblock and advance the concrete, effective and lasting corrective actions requested by Judge Viens.