Posted at 12:00 p.m.
The words that follow are not meant to be an argument for EDI, equity, diversity and inclusion. Rather, they are intended as an attempt to correct fallacies, generalizations and simplistic conclusions that are scattered throughout Stephan Fogaing’s text.1with no disrespect to the author’s beliefs.
Let’s start with the title of the article to which Mr. Fogaing refers: “The future of Quebec depends on citizenship and not identities2 “. This assertion has the appearance of rigor and evidence, but the reasoning of the inverse correlation between citizenship and identity carries falsehoods.
Of course, the future of Quebec depends on citizenship. It would have been more accurate to stick to that rather than to oppose the identities. This has neither the advantage of reinforcing your primary assertion nor that of helping to elucidate the opposition between identities and citizenship.
Let’s talk about citizenship. Citizenship has as its corollary the recognition of belonging de facto as de jure. It refers to the full possession and enjoyment of rights and freedoms and active participation in the life of a State. Citizenship therefore engages the responsibilities of the State, yes, of the State, but not only of the State.
An immeasurable effort
You argue that inclusion “requires a reversal of the duty of integrating new members into a group”. Claiming the EDI principles does not deny the individual effort expected of the immigrant.
These people deploy an immeasurable effort through their immigration action and they never stop deploying it once in the country to ensure a dignified life. The “duty of integration”, these populations demand it before it is demanded of them by the host society.
Placing this burden on the individual is not only false and unrealistic, but also carries violence in what it requires of a person who often deals with issues (including discrimination) on a daily basis.
Then, linking the individual’s obligation to integrate to the notion of immigration and welcoming “new members” into a society is an amalgam that improperly associates groups with ideas. What about people born here who only know this land and who have different identity components from the majority? Will you consider them as “new members” from whom you will demand this duty of integration into the group?
Categories
Now let’s talk about those cursed categories that “enclose[nt] individuals into identity groups based on their “race”, gender, religion, etc. (This last reason doesn’t seem to bother you, you include it in Quebec values, isn’t it a category in itself?)
Then, you state that the principle of diversity “stupidly associates the diversity of identity with the diversity of points of view”. In your place, I would retain a little humility before formulating a statement that calls into question conclusive conclusions that have consensus.
To categorize is to name the sources of discrimination. It is not by eliminating the category race that racism will no longer exist.
To name the issues is to recognize the obstacles and the differentiated effect of a similar measure on different groups. Naming is then putting in place the corrective measures that restore equality of opportunity.
The purpose of the EDI principles is to put in place favorable conditions for equal opportunities in the enjoyment of civil, political and socio-economic rights in order to promote the effective and active citizenship of Quebecers. equity is justice.
The EDI Principles are not intended to “favour identities perceived to be more oppressed and discriminate against identities perceived to be privileged”. Oppression is not esteemed. Oppression is the act of oppressing and the fact of being oppressed. Correcting it is not a privilege, it is a duty and this duty rests on the recognition of what produces and feeds it. These oppressed people experience obstacles that the privileged, as you call them, do not face. Some are systemic, some are not.
In the end, I question the usefulness of the Quebec-Canada dichotomy on these issues if not to unnecessarily awaken the nationalist flame on issues of fundamental rights to polarize the debate. EDI values are rooted in our Canadian and Quebec legal systems. Do we still need to remember that the specificity of Quebec does not necessarily have to be in opposition to Canada? Should we still denounce the falsity of the amalgam between the otherness of identity and the model of the Quebec nation?
As for what you claim to build as a Quebec universalist model, it is rather the French republican model which instrumentalizes universalism by a pseudo-unity which is more a uniformity and which legalizes discrimination. If you denounce the American/Canadian models, how can you claim the social acceptability of the French model in Quebec?
Putting words on the evils is not focusing on what divides us, it is demanding the necessary actions to aspire to a fair, prosperous and equitable Quebec that unites through a social project.