On January 24, the mayor of Brampton, Patrick Brown, gave an interview to La Presse. His city started the ball of Canadian municipalities which now finance opponents of Bill 21.
It should be noted first that the person concerned embarked on this crusade when he has been entangled in scandals for several months. Among other things, the chief magistrate of Brampton would have visited a former employee at her home, three days after her dismissal, when she had just accused the municipality of corruption. This meeting took place while the case was under police investigation and after the city turned to an outside firm to conduct an administrative investigation. According to an inside source quoted by the Toronto Star, this case is “a top-down mess and captures the attention of the municipality while serious problems, including the pandemic, must be addressed”. Many public criticisms have also been leveled at the mayor. In such circumstances, what better way to create a diversion than to attack secularism?
Anyone who evokes an “odious law” takes the trouble to specify that he loves Quebec and its culture. However, he compares Law 21 to the internment of the Japanese during the Second World War. Ottawa had then expelled Canadian citizens of Japanese origin from their home on the west coast, to put them in internment camps in the interior of the country, and this without proof of espionage for Japan. What is the relationship with Law 21?
This legislation is also paralleled with residential schools. We know the story. These federal institutions were to assimilate the natives for their own good, much like Lord Durham’s scheme with the French Canadians. Many Native Americans suffered abuse in residential schools. Once again, what connection with the law on the secularism of the State?
In fact, these comparisons show that the supporters of diversity are ready to do anything to attack our collective choices when they contradict the political religion of the regime, that is to say Canadian multiculturalism. During the Bill 21 trial, Judge Marc-André Blanchard, as well as lawyer Azim Hussain, since appointed judge by Trudeau, also used these same comparisons (Japanese and boarding schools), not to mention that Hussain even compared Law 21 to Nazism.
On the strength of these outrageous attacks, Patrick Brown criticizes the mayors of Quebec cities, who lack bravery in refusing to do like him. Our mayors, whether for or against Bill 21, understand that this issue falls within our jurisdiction. It is not for the English-Canadian majority and its cities to decide for us. In that sense, they show loyalty to their nation, which of course is completely unacceptable to Brown.
The former leader of the Ontario Conservative Party also denies accusing us of racism, a phenomenon that is no more important here than in other places. It is rather Bill 21 that is racist, which, it will be noted, is supported by a majority in our country. The only possible conclusion from Mr. Brown’s remarks is that a majority of Quebecers are rooted in racism, even if he plays on words to hide the substance of his thoughts.
Secularism is expressed in several ways in the world. Among the Anglo-Saxons, this concept does not even exist in the language. The principle of state religious neutrality is minimalist, as evidenced for example by the fact that our Queen, Elizabeth II, is also head of the Anglican Church, a flagrant violation of the separation of powers between the church and the State. On the other hand, democratic countries like Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and of course France have a much more demanding view of secularism.
By the simple fact of siding with this second camp, the Quebec national minority is being dragged through the mud by the mayor of Brampton. This is what it means, in Canada, to be open to diversity.