We will have recognized the argument with which François Legault justifies Law 21 on religious symbols. Whether or not we support the Act respecting the secularism of the state, it is difficult to ignore the double shift caused by this statement.
custom and law
It can first refer to traditions and customs from the past. Here, the problem is to elevate particular uses to the rank of law. In some cases, a tradition may take precedence over a law, but there must be an exceptional circumstance. This was the case with Law 101 (the survival of the nation), but it seems to me to be excessive to see an equivalent in the prohibition of religious symbols.
Majority and citizenship
The other way to interpret Mr. Legault’s remarks is to understand that, as soon as a policy receives the consent of the majority, it becomes legitimate. This is to discount the fundamental principle of equal rights for all citizens, from which stems a duty to protect minorities.
In the case of Bill 21, the majority believes it has a privilege that gives it formal precedence. We are here in full violation of the spirit of democracy and we understand why the courts, based on the charters, can sometimes restrict or even cancel parliamentary provisions. The majority—in this case, the cultural majority—has rights, but they must be accorded with those of other citizens.
Mr. Legault tied up his argument by linking it to the higher interests of Quebec and to the values that are the foundation of the nation and its identity. The fight for secularism (CAQ version) is thus part of the long history of our national struggles. As a result, advocating for the protection of minorities (or opposing Bill 21) becomes a kind of betrayal. This would be flouting the best interests of Quebecers and siding with the Anglophone adversary with all its repressive apparatus: the federal government, the Supreme Court, “the Trudeau charter” and multiculturalism. However, respect for minority rights is part of our own charter. It is also at the heart of the rights promoted by the UN.
In the short term, this rhetoric can serve circumstantial interests. But it goes against a major diversification movement that is transforming all societies, including ours. Mr. Legault still reasons as when Quebec was considered homogeneous.
Identity and nationalism
It is the same philosophy that inspires identity nationalism. For me, nationalism represents the attachment, the deep friendship that one feels for the nation to which one belongs. It is also the commitment to make it progress in the direction of the most generous common values. Finally, it is the sense of a heritage to be extended and the desire to work collectively in pursuit of the dreams of the ancestors.
As for identity, I see it nourished by the memory of what we have done well together and the resulting feeling of pride. It is also common belonging, union and solidarity that it establishes. Finally, the Quebec identity is one that articulates both the majority and the minorities. The idea of posing as culturally distinct seems secondary to me. What matters is to really be so through courageous collective choices and original achievements, in line with our dreams.
For a united nationalism
I am therefore not very seduced by identity nationalism. It is a conservative nationalism that tends to close, while the world in which we live pleads for openness. But make no mistake: I say openness not at the cost of self-denial, but in the sense of an enrichment of what we are. This is what the transformations of our society invite us to do, provided we know how to do it.
Nothing condemns us to sacrifice our values, our collective dreams. We just need to formulate them to make them more accessible, more attractive to newcomers. This is what I call a nationalism of solidarity, consistent with interculturalism.
It is a formula based on integration that promotes rapprochement, exchanges, action in mutual respect, under the banner of common values and projects, in the spirit of democracy. It is also a nationalism which grants the majority and the minorities all the attention they need. In short: a tide that raises all the boats. This is my vision of the “us” from Quebec.
Listening to the recent remarks by Mr. Legault and Mr. Boulet on immigrants, I have the feeling that we are unfortunately very far from there.