By making questionable amalgams between immigration, violence and extremism, this week, Prime Minister François Legault would have (once again) shown clumsiness, or even simple spontaneity. We now know well the character who speaks directly to “ordinary” people, in simple language, saying aloud what some think in silence: in short, an accessible politician, close to the “real” world.
Mr. Legault quickly apologized (again) to claim that deep down, his intention had always been to “bring together” Quebecers. He even went so far as to add that immigration is wealth as he has been highlighting his so-called “risks” for four years. While some opposition parties have not minced their words to describe their indignation at such comments, several realistic political analysts have drawn attention to the fact that this “clumsiness” would certainly not be held against the CAQ. the day of the vote because its electoral base recognizes itself in this deaf fear of immigration and in this identity discourse advocating that “in Quebec, that’s how we live”.
In this case, it is perhaps time to ask ourselves if behind this alleged awkwardness (and many others) does not hide rather a thinly veiled desire to release a certain identity claim in what is less reasonable. : his fear of difference. In addition to having no basis in our social reality, associating immigration with violence and extremism, comparing the context of Quebec to that of Germany, while veiling themselves in innocence — Quebecers do not like chicanery — is to stir up fear and open the floodgates to xenophobic remarks.
To justify his immigration thresholds and oppose federal reception policies, François Legault could have stuck to the need to protect the French language, which studies clearly tell us is under threat. He could have insisted on his desire to receive fewer immigrants in order to be able to offer them better services. At the limit, he could have, without sinking deeper, reconsidered the “Quebec values” that he intends to shove down the throats of newcomers by demanding of them the impossible mission of mastering French in six months and prohibiting veiled women from several employment sectors.
But that’s not what François Legault chose to do. Instead, he used words whose significance one cannot ignore when one is prime minister. Because, no offense to his great modesty, from the moment he accepted his political office, Legault could no longer claim the status of Mr. Everyone who says with impunity everything that goes through his head. Political notoriety confers on public speech a power which should be accompanied by an equivalent responsibility.
By saying aloud what many are thinking in a whisper, the words of the Prime Minister legitimize a discourse that is at the very least divisive if not hateful. And even if he quickly retracted, we cannot take back what was said: “Speech is like a bullet from a rifle: we cannot catch it if it escapes. Claiming that a politician can do one thing (divide) and its opposite (unite) in the same day does not help the situation: everyone has of course heard both sides of the story.
Need we remind you that this lack of seriousness with regard to immigration and this lack of respect for newcomers are not new in the political life of François Legault? To recall only a few of his escapades, he campaigned four years ago by showing his total misunderstanding of immigration laws in Quebec and Canada. Once in power, he allowed the destruction of 17,000 files of migrant families, many of whom were already in Quebec, to set up his famous Arrima portal. It has complicated the path for foreign students wishing to settle in Canada.
Moreover, it is under the gag that he passed the Immigration Act and the Act on the secularism of the State, some will say for the sake of efficiency, others out of pure and simple contempt for the debate Politics. Thus, we are entitled to wonder who is this “real” world to which Legault says he is so close. Who is really part of this exclusive “we” that he brandishes with more and more arrogance. To justify his cavalier way of (mis)treating delicate issues, François Legault has frequently justified himself by this majority having brought him to power, that is to say the 24.84% of the population of voting age in 2018.
We would be tempted to remind him that in a democratic society, once elected, the Prime Minister becomes that of all Quebecers, including the 75.16% who did not vote for him. We would be tempted to remind him, through the ballot box, that in Quebec, in compliance with our laws, there are several ways of living that coexist, that meet, that interbreed.