I've watched the unfolding drama of the debate over Bill 21 with abject fascination. The separatist media is conducting a dishonest and surreptitious disinformation campaign, an attempt to ignite an internecine war between Quebec and Canada, all in the promotion of the sovereignty option.
Bill 21 itself is of no matter, it is just a phony excuse to mount another battle against Canada in the ongoing war for sovereignty.
For years the argument that Quebec was disadvantaged economically by remaining in Canada was the plan, concocted and promoted to convince Quebecers that their interest lay outside of Canada.
It took years, but in the end, the gambit failed as evidence mounted and the public realized, perhaps begrudgingly, that the opposite was true and that Canada represented a good economic deal.
A deal too good to give up.
So sovereigntist militants needed a new tack, clearly, it was time for a 'Plan B.'
That coalesced around the idea that Canada represented an existential threat to the French language and Quebec culture.
And so here we are, facing off over a manufactured conflict and confrontation over identity.
For sovereigntists, the debate over Bill 21 is a Christmas present wrapped neatly in a bow, an issue that checks all the boxes meant to raise the enmity between Canada and Quebec.
The few Muslim women who will lose their jobs or be refused a chance to teach because of the hijab interdiction, are but inconsequential collateral damage.
And in order to keep the fires of this manufactured controversy and the Canada/Quebec head-butting going, sovereigntist journalists have mounted a ferocious disinformation blitz that includes these five pernicious lies that I'd like to examine.
1. Hijabs are a problem
Your neighbour knocks on your door and asks you to sign a petition to place a traffic light on the corner of your street because it's dangerous.
"Really," you ask, "What's the problem?"
"Too many pedestrians struck by cars"
"I haven't heard of any accidents. How many have happened exactly?"
"Er...I can't really say."
"Then piss off with your petition!"
The government, the school boards and the media have never explained the amplitude of the so-called Hijab 'problem.'
Are there 10, 100, 1,000 or ten thousand evil hijabs being flaunted in the schools?
Why haven't we been told?
Likely because if we were told, we'd realize that it is but a trifling number leading us to conclude that with so few cases, a draconian law that contravenes both the Quebec Charter and the Federal Charter of Rights would not be in order, especially if it entailed the invocation of the dastardly "notwithstanding clause"
In other words, the cure is worse than the disease,
Utter nonsense pedalled by dishonest and frustrated separatists like Richard Martineau who sell this assertion in print in the Journal de Montreal and on QUB radio as if it's an uncontested fact.
Mr. Martineau never provides links or attribution to the poll, but I found some mention of an internal CAQ web poll that indicated 65% of Quebecers supported the bill. Here
Web polls are utter garbage that no legitimate politicians or journalist should use seriously and which the public should take as seriously as horoscopes.
"At worst, online polls can be seriously biased if people who hold a
particular point of view are more motivated to participate than those
with a different point of view. A good example of this was seen in 1998
when AOL posted an online poll asking if President Clinton should resign
because of his relationship with a White House intern. The online poll
found that 52% of the more than 100,000 respondents said he should.
Telephone polls conducted at the same time with much smaller but
representative samples of the public found far fewer saying the
president should resign (21% in a CBS poll, 23% in a Gallup poll, and
36% in an ABC poll). The president’s critics were highly motivated to
register their disapproval of his behaviour, and this resulted in a
biased measurement of public opinion in the AOL online poll."Pew Research
Online polls rely on highly-motivated internet users to answer the question and therefore have thoroughly under-weighted 'undecided' element to the poll.
Readers should always be wary of polls created by political parties or special interest groups because they are notoriously easy to fix.
Pollster: "Madam, are you in favour or opposed to Bill 21?
Mada: "Er, never heard of it"
Pollster: "It's an anti-Muslim law.
Madam: "Then I'm in FAVOUR!!"
By the way, in the radio discussion, Mr. Martineau likened a teacher who wears a hijab to that of a teacher wearing an FLQ T-shirt....yup!
On one side you have those who want to wear religious-type clothing in schools and on the other side, there are those opposed to all religious symbols in school.
The government claims to be "neutral" but bans religious articles, clearly siding with one side.
Pretending that banning hijabs demonstrates neutrality is a farce.
A mother is faced with a question from her two daughters.
The first daughter proposes that all the women in the family wear red dresses to the family Christmas party.
The second daughter suggests that all the girls should wear blue dresses.
The Mother looks at them both and with the judgment of Solomon replies;
"Girls, as your mother, I need to remain strictly 'neutral,' so we're going to wear red dresses...
Uggghhh!!.
But Quebec did create its very own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which pretty much says the same thing as the national version.
3. Every
person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom
of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of
expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
10. Every
person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his
human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference
based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy,
sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law,
religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin,
social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a
handicap.Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
13. No one may in a juridical act stipulate a clause involving discrimination.
16. No
one may practise discrimination in respect of the hiring,
apprenticeship, duration of the probationary period, vocational
training, promotion, transfer, displacement, laying-off, suspension,
dismissal or conditions of employment of a person or in the
establishment of categories or classes of employment.
While the defenders of Bill 21 attack the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms as illegitimate, have you ever heard any of them comment on the fact that the law contravenes Quebec's own charter?
This is my favourite nose stretcher because it is meant to feed and nourish Quebec's general paranoia, hopefully raising resentment of Canada.
In the debate over Bill 21, it is actually Quebec doing the bashing of Canada with journalist after journalist describing Canada in the most unflattering and insulting terms.
Aside from one University of Ottawa professor who was quite mean in his assessment of Quebec's Bill 21, the articles written attacking the law in Canada's mainstream newspaper have been pretty much respectful.
Compare that the vicious attacks made against Canada and Canadians by Quebec journalists using insulting terms like "Rhodesians, " "Colonizers" "Colonialists" "Enemies"
“ This is what Quebec has become in the eyes of many of our compatriots in the ROC. A scarecrow that they wave to avoid questioning the excesses of their crazy multiculturalism.” Link{fr}
When English Canada enters a debate like this with its big boots and its money, it damages the quality of the debate in Quebec. Link{fr}
“Quebec is alone. We will have to fight with uncompromising and fearless energy and will.
We must admit that our enemies are more devious and more hypocritical than we are inclined to believe.” Link{fr}
“Canada is no longer a country culturally distinct from the United States.The violent reactions of English Canada should hardly surprise us.” Link{fr}
“ The Rhodesian spirit once fought against by René Lévesque wears the face of militant multiculturalism.” Link{fr}
“It is an old habit among radical Anglos, who have always behaved like local Rhodesians, criminalizing our collective aspiration to protect our language and to place it at the heart of collective life.” Link{fr}
“The clash of values between English Canada and us is massive and frontal.”
“ There are two countries in this country.” Link
And as firebrand anglophobe Gilles Proulx wrote in Le Journal;
“ English Canada wants a fight. It will happen.What are we still doing in this madhouse?”
The recurring theme in all these articles is the disparagement of Canada and Canadians meant to paint Quebec as a victim, unloved and misunderstood with a not so oblique subtext that Quebec has no place in Canada.
At any rate, not everyone is drinking the Kool-Aid.
I'll leave with some words of sanity by Quebec journalist Michel C. Auger,
“ Does a single case in two years pass the test of a "real and urgent goal"? Was Bill 21 intended to solve a major and urgent problem or was it not rather a fairly transparent attempt to gain political capital?
Prime Minister François Legault certainly does not help himself by often repeating the fact that Bill 21 is popular.”
“ The fact is that the Charters of Rights exists precisely to protect minorities against unjust laws but which are popular with the majority. An opinion poll, in court does not weigh very heavily.
Meanwhile, in Ottawa, there is mounting pressure on the Trudeau government to intervene in court, which it will no doubt do when the case goes to the Supreme Court.
But what is certain is that the legal debate is far from over and that new players and arguments will be added in the coming months. And these will not necessarily be twists and turns that will go in the direction that the Legault government wants.” Link{fr}
If you read French read this thoughtful piece from La Nouvelliste;
Bill 21: A retreat and a denial of the achievements of the Quiet Revolution
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
