In his March 4 column, Jean-François Lisée suggests that I set a nasty trap for other political parties when I tabled a motion to mark International Women’s Day. I am blown away by Mr. Lisée’s overflowing imagination.
To read Mr. Lisée, you would think that I secretly arranged with the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ) and the Collectif 8 mars to introduce a whole new concept in the motion on the sly and that I would have hidden its impact from others. legal with the aim of fueling the battle against Law 21 [Loi sur la laïcité de l’État].
He sees a “concerted strategy” (why not a conspiracy for that matter!) where there is only a normal and usual procedure for adopting motions in the National Assembly. Amazing from a former elected official who should know how it works. At the risk of disappointing him, the story I’m about to tell is much more banal than his chronicle worthy of a Sherlock Holmes film.
This year, with the agreement of the other parties, it was Québec solidaire who had the initiative to table a motion to mark the Day of March 8. Knowing this, the March 8 Collective, made up of labor and feminist organizations representing nearly 800,000 members, contacted me to have its representatives present at a transpartisan press briefing preceding the tabling of the motion, as is often the practice.
The Collective drafted the motion which was sent in advance to the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ), the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) and the Parti Québécois (PQ). The word intersectional was there and nobody said anything. All the parties, except the CAQ, agreed to participate in the joint press briefing with the Collective.
Contrary to what Mr. Lisée asserts, intersectionality is not a new concept. Françoise David reminds us that already in 1995 during the Bread and Roses march, feminists affirmed that we had to be concerned about the diversity of women: “impoverished women, lonely and deprived seniors, racialized women, Aboriginal women , those living with a disability, etc. »
Intersectionality means taking into account the fact that minority women earn on average 59% of the salary of men, compared to 89% for all women.
This concept is so widespread that the Government Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2022-2027 tabled by the CAQ last June contains 13 occurrences of the word “intersectional”.
How is it that a year ago this concept was so wise as to put it in an official government document 13 times, and a year later it is hated by the same government?
Martine Biron herself mentions in an interview published in The sun of March 3 that her rejection of intersectionality has nothing to do with Bill 21. She could therefore very well have agreed to include it in the motion in line with the Strategy for Equality without this contradicting with Law 21.
If there is a trap in this whole story, it is that the CAQ has set itself by refusing to adopt the motion.
As for Jean-François Lisée, I do not understand his desire to replay in the same film as that of 2018, when in the midst of the leaders’ debate, he asked Manon Massé who was the “real leader” of Quebec solidaire. This is not the first time that Mr. Lisée has tried to mislead the public about the “real motivations” of Québec solidaire.
It is clear that in 2023, his imagination continues to play very bad tricks on him.
Columnist’s reply
Dear Ruba Ghazal, let’s stay close to the facts. You do not deny that the concept of intersectionality is used by the Fédération des femmes du Québec in court to invalidate the law on secularism. You do not deny that the FFQ wanted to see it appear in the motion you presented. You do not deny that by adopting this motion, the National Assembly would have recognized its existence for the first time by an act of Parliament. You don’t deny that it would have been used in court against the State Secularism Act. You do not deny that you did not mention this fact to the other parliamentarians. That’s all. Respectfully, Jean-François Lisée