Soft solidarity | The Press

Sometimes politicians make such incoherent decisions that they fuel cynicism towards the political class.

This week, the elected officials of Québec solidaire acted in this way.

How ? Québec solidaire supported the passage of Bill 96^⁠1 on the reform of the Charter of the French language while undertaking to render inoperative, if the party were to come to power, the provision obliging the public administration to communicate exclusively in French with immigrants six months after their arrival in Quebec^⁠2.

Let’s examine it.

In recent weeks, a lot of ink has been spilled on the subject of Bill 96. Among other things, there was talk of the legitimate need to protect the French language, of the most relevant way of analyzing the state of French in Quebec, the rights of Anglophones and allophones living in the province, the stigmatization of these people in the context of the current debate, abuse of power, administrative problems that may arise from the application of legislative measures, threats to independence of the judiciary and the use of notwithstanding clauses restricting, once again, the possibilities of constitutional challenges to the law.

First Nations also argued how Bill 96 violated their rights. Finally, many voices were raised to explain the harmful effects of the bill for immigrants and refugees.

Obviously, the famous obligation of the public administration to offer services only in French to immigrants six months after their arrival in Quebec was part of the lot of criticism. Québec solidaire has also proposed amendments to the bill in order to extend the deadline provided for therein. Experts and columnists, such as Rima Elkouri, have exposed how this part of the bill was “inhumane and counterproductive” ^⁠3.

On Tuesday, at the end of the adoption of the bill, Ghislain Picard, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, affirmed that “denying the rights of others to assert one’s own and brutally assert one’s supremacy over others nations that share the same territory is unworthy of a self-respecting government”.

Where then lies the inconsistency of Québec solidaire?

First of all, it should be noted that this political party wishes to protect the French language, and with good reason.

At the same time, let us remember that justice, equality and solidarity are founding principles of this party. In its Declaration adopted at its founding congress in 2006, the party states that it “dedicates its energy to the search for equality and social justice, to the respect of individual and collective rights”.

However, Québec solidaire seems well aware of the violations of rights resulting from the adoption of Bill 96.

None other than Ruba Ghazal, MP for Québec solidaire, said this week that the six-month clause created “a lot of concern among people, especially minorities and the most vulnerable people”. She even added that “the six-month clause [était] totally arbitrary” and that “it is not[était] not with a clause like that we [allait] protect French”. The party also expressed concern that the new law would penalize English-speaking Aboriginals.

This is the first inconsistency that jumps out at me: while Québec solidaire recognizes the negative consequences of Bill 96, how can the choice to support its adoption be reconciled with the founding principles of the party?

I try to explain this situation to myself other than by the desire to seduce part of the Quebec population as well as the lack of courage. I can’t. Why does this party exist if, greedy for power, it acts contrary to the foundations of its raison d’être?

And if only the inconsistency ended there… but no. Québec solidaire has promised to make the six-month clause inoperative if it forms the next government. Sounds like a really bad joke.

Of course, being optimistic and appearing as a winning party is part of the political game. Nevertheless, everyone knows that unless there is an event worthy of science fiction films, Québec solidaire will not form the next government. So why on earth agree today to violate fundamental rights by promising that this violation will stop tomorrow, provided that an almost impossible event occurs?

This is a political gesture which, in my view, corresponds to cognitive diversion, a phenomenon also known by the English name gaslighting : Québec solidaire conceals its support for Bill 96 by announcing to the population a protest that is not really one.

Worse still, the inconsistency of Québec solidaire is also due to the fact that by taking a position, the party is bargaining with human rights.

In other words, the party sends the following message: “We accept today to violate the rights of vulnerable people within the population, but if you vote for us, we will change our tune. This position does not hold water. A party that suspends, conditionally, its protection of the rights of the most vulnerable lacks integrity.

It is said that for the population to have confidence in the political class, we must do politics differently. This week, for all the above reasons, Québec solidaire receives a score of 0 in this regard.

1. Since its adoption, Bill 96 has been officially titled An Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French.

2. This provision has some exceptions.