First, Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois (the separatist party at the national level, as opposed to the Parti Quebecois, which is the separatist party at the provincial level) got in the news this weekend by comparing Quebec's fight for independence to the French resistance during World War II. And now he is upset that people made the connection that he wanted everyone to make--that Canada = Nazi occupation.
As I have blogged before, one of the key problems for the sovereignty movement (that is, separatism) is that Canada is not oppressive. Quebeckers are simply not that motivated to become independent because they have won all of the major political battles except referendums on independence. The Canadian government does not arrest those who foment political dissent along linguistic lines. Indeed, Duceppe and the BQ members are treated much the same as the rest of the parliament. And they get to play the role of spoiler in the political system, preventing any party from gaining a majority lately. Consequently, the BQ and the PQ have a significant challenge--how to remain relevant when things are going pretty well.
Which leads to the second nationalist crisis du jour--reasonable accommodation. Yep, it is back, as there are folks who want to make it official that Quebec is a secular province and that religious displays or rights ought to take a backseat. The sparks for this renewal are two incidents--a woman who was tossed out of a French language class because she wears a niqab and the regulation of religious private schools. The provincial Liberal party stepped into it with the latter issue, as it was considering creating exceptions for the Jewish private schools so that they would meet various regulations. But it is really the niqab issue that seems to be motivating the media and politicans, if not the public.
And there is something to this--that not all demands can or should be accommodated. But there is this dynamic where any event, such as this, is blown up into a major crisis with demands for regulated secularism.
What do these two events have in common? Well, one of the leaders of the secularization manifesto is Bernard Landry, former leader of the PQ. What does this manifesto call for?
On Tuesday, 100 intellectuals, including former premier Bernard Landry, sociologist Guy Rocher, writer Jacques Godbout and journalist Marie-France Bazzo, signed a manifesto in Le Devoir calling for Quebec to become a secular state where the wearing of any religious garb like a hijab, cross or yarmulke by civil servants would be banned.
So, these folks find France to be a model for policy on religion. Lovely. Anyhow, what is driving this? Insecurity about Quebec identity? A long standing grievance against religion due to the oppressive role the Catholic church used to play here? Political opportunism? Oooh! We have a winner. Obviously, there is a lot going on here, but there is a fight for relevance by the diehards of the sovereignty movement, and using xenophobia is not a bad way to go. The Aughts saw a third party, Action Democratique du Quebec, rise on this issue and then fall when the other two parties of the province jumped on the anti-immigration bandwagon.
Indeed, the gutless provincial Liberal party is now seeking to cut subsidies for day care that has religious instruction. Nice to know that the day care subsidy program, which was ill-conceived to begin with (creating an immensely expensive entitlement program that distorts the marketplace, leading to a friend of mine paying $60 a day despite the promise of $7 per day, but that is a rant for another day), is the gift that keeps on giving. I have long opposed programs proposed in the US to move some public financing to private schools, including religious ones, so excuse my inconsistency here. But, once you decide to subsidize day care and not care at first about the religious orientation, then jumping to exclude religious day care seems politically motivated and not about figuring out the role of the state and of religion.
Of course, recent events in Texas (excluding Thomas Jefferson from some parts of the history books) that focus on separation of church and state remind us that this stuff is not completely settled. But I am a big fan of the American solution--let people do what they want as long as it does not impose too much on others. Niqabs are fine, but if you want a driver's license, you have to show your face briefly. You can ask for a doctor of your gender, but if one is not available, then oh well. You can wear what you want where you want.
Of course, the hardly original irony here is that the folks who complain about oppression--the sovereigntists--threaten to be oppressive themselves. And that is one of the major reasons why I am very much opposed to Quebec independence. If independent, Quebec might vive but it is unlikely to vive libre (might live, but unlikely to live freely).
No comments:
Post a Comment