The author is a historian, sociologist, writer and retired teacher from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in the history, sociology, anthropology, political science and international cooperation programs. His research focuses on collective imaginations.
For some time now, we have been witnessing a new offensive by Canadian multiculturalism, but a reinvigorated, radicalized, authoritarian and haughty multiculturalism, engaged in an unprecedented crusade in the form of moralizing militancy. This time, it takes the pretext of major principles quite legitimate stated by the UN: targets for equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and sustainable development goals (SDGs).
The UN had, however, shown restraint, taking care to stick to the statement of major principles that it left open to various methods of application depending on the contexts, traditions and sensitivities of societies. It is this latitude that has disappeared in federal politics to make way for intolerance, orthodoxy and management by diktat, as a few recent episodes show:
First of allthe erection of the n-word into an absolute taboo which authorizes veritable witch hunts among the new crusaders;
Nextat the CRTC, finicky provisions that lead either to censorship or to a form of self-censorship, and which would lead one to believe that the airwaves of Radio-Canada are infested with racist, filthy remarks;
ThenOttawa which, in 2017, redefined its research policy to subject it to its very restrictive definitions of the SDGs and EDI targets, from which arises an immediate danger for the freedom of scientists — as we have seen in Quebec with the three major research funds which have embraced the corollaries of this policy without taking the necessary precautions and which are already facing strong criticism in the name of intellectual freedom;
Finallythe sweeping new guidelines, with no easing measures, regarding hiring for Canada Research Chairs.
Let us avoid any misunderstanding: the primary goal of all these measures, originally laudable, is in no way open to criticism. That is not the question, there is general agreement in Quebec on this subject. The problem lies in the methods of application which can pervert the nobility of the objectives pursued by drowning them in the excess of virtue bordering on infantilism.
What also disturbs is the authoritarian way and the good conscience mixed with paternalism with which they are imposed on us. The room for adaptation and negotiation is lacking, which hardens relations with the people and institutions concerned. Here again, we see that, taken to the extreme, virtue turns into vice.
Isn’t it significant that the critical reactions to these initiatives came from Francophones (I won’t dwell on the tensions that are currently manifesting themselves at the National Gallery of Canada around the same issues)? However, it will have been noted, the protesters are not xenophobes or racists. On the contrary, they are citizens who have acted in the name of very noble values, mainly freedom and equity. The message to remember is that we come up against the Quebec way here: the hierarchy of values, the style of governance, the sensitivity, the temperament, the philosophy that permeate our culture.
Basically, there is nothing new. As early as the 1840s, the British wanted French Canadians to adopt English, a language that was presented as the vehicle par excellence of universal values, of civilization. The affiliation is clear with the Canada of today, which proclaims itself the ” World moral model “. We will recognize in the new offensive another chapter in an old story woven of constantly repeated attempts to suppress the Quebec difference. This is a very strange decolonizer.
Finally, what should we think of this strange intervention by Justin Trudeau according to whom Quebec should welcome 112,000 immigrants per year? A proposal that was obviously rejected (in particular by the government of Quebec and the opposition parties), enough to fuel even more the ” Quebec bashing »: a chilly society, wary of foreigners, which has never really accepted diversity, unable to free itself from its atavisms…
Are we in our place in this country which is increasingly hostile to us, which never misses an opportunity to make us look bad and whose culture, challenges, constraints, needs and aspirations are so different from ours?
I will not dwell on the Elghawaby case, which sums up all the above with emphasis.