Are Quebeckers Being Brainwashed?- Part One

In doing some research over the weekend in support of the next couple of posts, I turned up a rather amazing document which I must admit, I had never seen before.

My theme for the next couple of posts is the contention that Quebeckers are subject to a relentless and ongoing process of separatist brainwashing through the historically tried and true methods of disinformation coupled by the repetition of a big lie. I also wanted to explore Quebeckers propensity to distort or ignore facts that don't fit neatly into the separatist narrative..

Poo-Pooing unpleasant facts while distorting the truth has been a hallmark of the sovereignty movement for forty years. Repetitively drilled into the public, are doomsday scenarios of assimilation coupled with a Shangri-la description of a sovereign Quebec. Of late, this brainwashing has become more and more overwhelming and pervasive.The dirty little secret is, that sovereignists continue to use dubious and dishonest methods to manipulate what people hold as true, in a desperate effort to 'subvert'  public opinion.

My first stop was to go way back to the 1995 referendum where the Parti Quebecois refused to acknowledge some unflattering reports that they themselves had commissioned.
Richard Le Hir, a PQ minister was the godfather of these reports and ultimately became a patsy when those reports showed exactly the opposite of what he had set out to prove.
Rather than painting a rosy picture,  the results showed that Quebec would suffer financially under sovereignty. The PQ government decided not to publish the results once the contents were known and Mr. Le Hir was forced to defend the government's decision, something later in life, he seems to regret.
You can listen to a radio interview where Le Hir defends that decision rather clumsily and gets raked over the coals by an interviewer. LISTEN HERE{FR}

When Lucien Bouchard took over the faltering referendum campaign, his first act was to banish any mention of the so-called Le Hir reports and refused to answer any question about them. Curiously reporters seemed to let the whole thing go, even anglos.

And so, poof, they were gone, just like that!
This cynical manoeuvre was my first taste of how the sovereignist public relations machine works to manipulate public perception, a policy that the official and semi-official sovereignty movement continues to maintain today.

Ten years after the referendum Le Hir wrote a shockingly frank and honest assessment of his role in the referendum and provided a candid inside view of the the Parti Quebecois' preparations for the referendum.

While my research in the Le Hir affair was just a small preface to what I wanted to write about, the following translation of the article that Mr. Le Hir wrote, ten years after the referendum, bowled me over.
I had never seen the article before, nor an English translation. I haven't heard or read of any journalist discussing the bombshell implications that he described. 

In the article, Le Hir accuses the PQ government of planning to literally brainwash the Quebec population. The entire article which contains other starling revelations can be found here. LINK{FR}


I have endeavored to translate the article as best I could and modified language to make it more readable in English, without in any way changing the authors meaning. My translation is an abridged version.
Mr. Le Hir

In the footsteps of Goebbels by Richard Le Hir
"A few weeks after the swearing in of the new Government, I received a call from the Office of the Prime Minister. Mr. Parizeau wanted me to meet him forthwith to give me a special mission.......
The solemn and concerned, PM pointed me towards two thick volumes lying on his table. It was, according to his explanation, a study that the PQ had commissioned in 1985 on a strong recommendation from Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, a few months before being defeated in the general election by the Liberals. I was to make quick study of the report and get back to him within two weeks with my recommendations.
..... I returned to my office, eager to immerse myself into these two tomes. It took a while to understand what it in fact they were. The PQ had undertaken a study with a well-known Laval University professor (his name escapes me) who was known for his expertise in psychoanalysis. He was commissioned to discover what was the basis of the fears that a large proportion of Quebecers held toward sovereignty.
In conducting his study, the professor had used a degree of subterfuge. He established control groups according to people's origins, old stock francophones, anglophones, allophones, and indigenous, etc..

He presented himself as a film director working on a project on the history of Canada, who needed input from a number of different Canadians to write his script.

In very detailed interviews he used his expertise in psychoanalysis, to get the respondents to reveal their deepest innermost feelings in regard to Québec, Canada, and what inspired their views of a possible sovereign Quebec.
As I continued my reading, a feeling of uneasiness grew over me. From my experience in the private sector, I was very familiar with the process that market research firms use to understand the motivations of consumers. But in this case, it went far beyond what private industry would be permitted to do, and worse we were doing it for political ends, which immediately raised some very serious ethical issues. The future of a people is something completely different than the selection of a new car.
I finished reading the first volume late at night, worried by the implications and already wondering what recommendation I was going to be able to make.

With a sinking feeling, I couldn't resist jumping into the second volume immediately. At dawn, I realized with horror that I had been sucked into a very dirty business.

Basically, the second volume contained the recommendations of the analyst to "treat" these fears that Quebecers harboured towards sovereignty. We were to deliver nothing less than a collective dose of psychotherapy over a period of five years by organizing, across Quebec, "sensibility sessions," that would externalize and tame these fears gradually through exposure to those who were not afraid and foresaw independence with confidence.
I was appalled. I couldn't believe that I belonged to a Government that might for a moment consider using such methods, or even use of such data. I decided to give myself a few days of reflection, after all, my reaction was perhaps excessive. So I took the initiative to ask the Office of the PM to meet with the expert who wrote the study. I heard he was suffering from terminal cancer and was bedridden. He nevertheless agreed to receive me at the same time he would meet with  Jean-François Lisée.
After an hour of discussion with the Professor in question, I knew that his analysis made sense, but it only served to make more acute the question of whether to use this information for political purposes, and especially the idea to use a group therapy. I needed a professional opinion. I therefore resolved to call Dr. Denis Lazure, psychiatrist, who had just been re-elected in Laprairie..... Explaining briefly what it was, I asked him if he would consider the study and tell me what he thought and he kindly accepted to do so.
As he was late in coming back to me with his response, I decided to reach out. His comments were rather evasive and so I asked him very directly what he thought of using such methods in a political context. He replied that indeed it was perhaps not entirely appropriate. And so I had the confirmation that I needed to confront the Prime Minister.
I got my appointment quickly and briefed Mr Parizeau as to my discomfort. If I could somehow accept the conclusions of the first part of the study, even though I disapproved of the use of such methods in politics, I found the second part totally unacceptable. "This is Goebbels" I said, not mincing words. My message was not having a positive effect on Mr Parizeau and as I advanced my remarks, I saw his face take on a gradual and increasing shade of crimson.

From that moment on, the PQ was aware of the deep attachment that Quebecers held towards Canada and their commitment to what is still their country, it became impossible to claim, as it still does today, that sovereignty would be a  smooth departure. And that, they've  known since 1985.

Wow. At the highest levels of the PQ it was understood that if Quebec was to achieve sovereignty, the population would need to undergo a five year program of thought re-engineering!

Reading the article I could only think of those sexual re-orientation clinics that purport to teach young gays how to become heterosexuals at the behest of their parents, who want them 'changed'.

I don't think the PQ government ever acted on the reports and undertook any direct campaign of brainwashing, the referendum loss left the party licking some rather deep wounds. But the implications were there, many read the report and understood it's meaning.

Clearly sovereignty had plateaued and could not advance without  convincing a lot of francophones who had voted NO , to vote YES.

Today, there remains little economic benefits to sovereignty. Nobody in the PQ will say any different, at least in private. As long as Canada sends Quebec billions and billions in equalization payments, its hard to cut the purse strings.

And so sovereignists have set out on a new plan, one where they will sell a new and improved version of the necessity of sovereignty based on a two-pronged narrative.
The first part is to constantly remind Quebeckers that they are victims, conquered in the past, continually screwed in the present by a continuing English plot. The second part of the narrative is of course the language issue and the contention by separatists that French in Quebec is disappearing and that Francophone culture is on the way to extinction.

Both these themes have been hammered home over the last decade with uncertain results. Support for sovereignty has actually decreased.

That being said, efforts continue to attempt to fool Quebeckers into believing that the sky is falling.

I'll have more to say about all that tomorrow.