As an outsider to interprovincial conflicts, I’m actually interested to know if the sentiment that Quebec should just become yet another anglophone province is actually widespread. I myself hadn’t heard much of such comments, but my circle is rather small, and they generally view Quebec favourably, and wish we (as in, Ontario, cause I live here) could do more together with Quebec, but is sometimes worried that they’ll be treated badly for their lack of ability to speak French properly if and when they visit. I too, in my very limited knowledge of interprovincial politics, wish that Quebec can continue to be its own province, with its own colours, cultures, influence, and politics.
That said, my impression of Canada’s multiculturalism isn’t one of assimilation, but rather one of a mosaic. But of course, that might not be true for some people (and “some” being some unknown percentage of the population), and I can understand the fear of demographic dilution; we’re literally seeing the likes of Russia and China playing this game in Ukraine, and West and Southwest China, respectively, using it as a justification to take over foreign land. But I don’t think it’s such a simple game of demographics. Quebec has put a high degree of requirement for good French proficiency to live effectively in the province, and if played properly with properly progressive policies, you can attract people who would want to defend Quebec’s status. If we’re simply rejecting anglophones because of a rejection of demographic dilution, and essentially rejecting the notion that these people may stand up for and with us, not only does that discredit us from criticizing others about assimilative multiculturalism, how are we different from racists? Having protectionist reasons doesn’t give us a free pass from racism.
And I also don’t agree with your defence of Quebec’s secularism laws. While I agree that state and religion should be separated, and yes that secularism laws should be in place, some policies that have been applied, such as the recent Bill 21, banning of hijabs and crosses in certain levels of professions, is nothing more than a gesture, to just show a facade of secularism without actually enforcing it, all while disrespecting the people practicing their religion, and essentially placing limitations on people’s cultures. Once again, we can’t preach multiculturalism while doing the exact opposite of it: erasing people of their cultural identity, even if it’s just in public. And if anything, such actions only push the influence that religions may have over civil and state affairs into the shadows, hiding behind suits and hair free of religious symbols on their bodies. I understand that Quebec’s is heavily influenced by the same secular principles practiced in France, but they seem to have a healthier take on secularism, allowing the Sikhs to continue wearing their turbans in all settings, for example. I can understand the fear of losing that balance and giving control back to religious institutions, but gestures that do not improve secularism are pointless, period, and they are much less when the side effects are similar to the very thing Quebec seems to fear happen to themselves: an erasure of their own identity.
I understand that this is a pretty sensitive topic for Québécois, and I understand that I may not have the full historical context to properly understand the viewpoints and stances of Québécois, and perhaps I’m just too firmly rooted in the viewpoint of humanism, but I find it difficult to be persuaded that the recent policies that are essentially protectionist or, even, nationalist, are helpful for Quebec’s position in public discourse, especially when it comes to criticisms from the rest of Canada, or the other way around.
All that’s to say, please enlighten me, about this threat from anglophone Canadians about essentially erasing Quebec identity, whether it’s a true threat or the amplification of a minority voice, and about how you think Bill 21 is good for Quebec and is actually progressive, and it’s not just a crude move towards secularism.
And I also don’t agree with your defence of Quebec’s secularism laws. While I agree that state and religion should be separated, and yes that secularism laws should be in place, some policies that have been applied, such as the recent Bill 21, banning of hijabs and crosses in certain levels of professions, is nothing more than a gesture, to just show a facade of secularism without actually enforcing it, all while disrespecting the people practicing their religion, and essentially placing limitations on people’s cultures. Once again, we can’t preach multiculturalism while doing the exact opposite of it: erasing people of their cultural identity, even if it’s just in public. And if anything, such actions only push the influence that religions may have over civil and state affairs into the shadows, hiding behind suits and hair free of religious symbols on their bodies. I understand that Quebec’s is heavily influenced by the same secular principles practiced in France, but they seem to have a healthier take on secularism, allowing the Sikhs to continue wearing their turbans in all settings, for example. I can understand the fear of losing that balance and giving control back to religious institutions, but gestures that do not improve secularism are pointless, period, and they are much less when the side effects are similar to the very thing Quebec seems to fear happen to themselves: an erasure of their own identity.
I understand that this is a pretty sensitive topic for Québécois, and I understand that I may not have the full historical context to properly understand the viewpoints and stances of Québécois, and perhaps I’m just too firmly rooted in the viewpoint of humanism, but I find it difficult to be persuaded that the recent policies that are essentially protectionist or, even, nationalist, are helpful for Quebec’s position in public discourse, especially when it comes to criticisms from the rest of Canada, or the other way around.
Yeah, there is historical context. Public schools used to be run by the catholic church. When Québec finally decided to end this, there was a slow transition. Nuns still taught in schools, but it became forbidden for them to wear their religious clothing and any religious symbols. Prayers were stopped in class. Crucifixes and religious imagery were removed. It no longer had its place in public schools. So when they’re saying that teachers can’t wear religious symbols in class, it’s really a continuation of this. Why would some students have special accommodations for them to do prayers if that privilege was removed for everyone else? Why would some teachers have accommodations for them to wear religious clothing when this was banned for everyone else? If they want to practice their religion, they can do so on their own time, in their own places of worship. Nobody’s stopping them from practising their religion, they just can’t do it in a public school. Or they can open their own private religious schools if they want.
As an outsider to interprovincial conflicts, I’m actually interested to know if the sentiment that Quebec should just become yet another anglophone province is actually widespread. I myself hadn’t heard much of such comments, but my circle is rather small, and they generally view Quebec favourably, and wish we (as in, Ontario, cause I live here) could do more together with Quebec, but is sometimes worried that they’ll be treated badly for their lack of ability to speak French properly if and when they visit. I too, in my very limited knowledge of interprovincial politics, wish that Quebec can continue to be its own province, with its own colours, cultures, influence, and politics.
That said, my impression of Canada’s multiculturalism isn’t one of assimilation, but rather one of a mosaic. But of course, that might not be true for some people (and “some” being some unknown percentage of the population), and I can understand the fear of demographic dilution; we’re literally seeing the likes of Russia and China playing this game in Ukraine, and West and Southwest China, respectively, using it as a justification to take over foreign land. But I don’t think it’s such a simple game of demographics. Quebec has put a high degree of requirement for good French proficiency to live effectively in the province, and if played properly with properly progressive policies, you can attract people who would want to defend Quebec’s status. If we’re simply rejecting anglophones because of a rejection of demographic dilution, and essentially rejecting the notion that these people may stand up for and with us, not only does that discredit us from criticizing others about assimilative multiculturalism, how are we different from racists? Having protectionist reasons doesn’t give us a free pass from racism.
And I also don’t agree with your defence of Quebec’s secularism laws. While I agree that state and religion should be separated, and yes that secularism laws should be in place, some policies that have been applied, such as the recent Bill 21, banning of hijabs and crosses in certain levels of professions, is nothing more than a gesture, to just show a facade of secularism without actually enforcing it, all while disrespecting the people practicing their religion, and essentially placing limitations on people’s cultures. Once again, we can’t preach multiculturalism while doing the exact opposite of it: erasing people of their cultural identity, even if it’s just in public. And if anything, such actions only push the influence that religions may have over civil and state affairs into the shadows, hiding behind suits and hair free of religious symbols on their bodies. I understand that Quebec’s is heavily influenced by the same secular principles practiced in France, but they seem to have a healthier take on secularism, allowing the Sikhs to continue wearing their turbans in all settings, for example. I can understand the fear of losing that balance and giving control back to religious institutions, but gestures that do not improve secularism are pointless, period, and they are much less when the side effects are similar to the very thing Quebec seems to fear happen to themselves: an erasure of their own identity.
I understand that this is a pretty sensitive topic for Québécois, and I understand that I may not have the full historical context to properly understand the viewpoints and stances of Québécois, and perhaps I’m just too firmly rooted in the viewpoint of humanism, but I find it difficult to be persuaded that the recent policies that are essentially protectionist or, even, nationalist, are helpful for Quebec’s position in public discourse, especially when it comes to criticisms from the rest of Canada, or the other way around.
All that’s to say, please enlighten me, about this threat from anglophone Canadians about essentially erasing Quebec identity, whether it’s a true threat or the amplification of a minority voice, and about how you think Bill 21 is good for Quebec and is actually progressive, and it’s not just a crude move towards secularism.
Yeah, there is historical context. Public schools used to be run by the catholic church. When Québec finally decided to end this, there was a slow transition. Nuns still taught in schools, but it became forbidden for them to wear their religious clothing and any religious symbols. Prayers were stopped in class. Crucifixes and religious imagery were removed. It no longer had its place in public schools. So when they’re saying that teachers can’t wear religious symbols in class, it’s really a continuation of this. Why would some students have special accommodations for them to do prayers if that privilege was removed for everyone else? Why would some teachers have accommodations for them to wear religious clothing when this was banned for everyone else? If they want to practice their religion, they can do so on their own time, in their own places of worship. Nobody’s stopping them from practising their religion, they just can’t do it in a public school. Or they can open their own private religious schools if they want.