‘Distinct society’ has a distinct problem
No, it doesn’t breed violence — just apoplectic politicians
CARSON JEREMA STAFF
Ethnocentricity is a problem common to all cultures. But acknowledging it anywhere other than in Anglo-American societies is enough to invite any right-thinking liberal to spit on you.
A clear example is the reaction to Globe and Mail columnist Jan Wong’s Sept. 16 article on the Dawson College shootings, which described how Kimveer Gill walked into the school firing his gun at students, injuring 20 and killing one.
Wong provided a highly engaging account of the events of that day. But within her retelling of the tragedy, she broke what has become a cardinal Canadian rule: she criticized Quebec society, sparking a tide of letters to the editor, op/ed articles and other rebukes that, apart from being angry, are illustrative of what is wrong with federalism in this country.
Wong argued that Gill, who is of Indian descent, was marginalized as the result of not being fully francophone or rather “pure laine.” She mused about the impact this marginalization might have had on him. She drew comparisons with Marc Lepine and Valery Fabrikant, responsible for mass shootings in Montreal in 1989 and 1992. Both men were immigrants, and like Kimveer Gill were not fully integrated into Quebec society.
She states, “What many outsiders don’t realize is how alienating the decades-long linguistic struggle has been in the once cosmopolitan city. It hasn’t just taken a toll on longtime Anglophones, it’s affected immigrants too.” Wong bluntly adds: “Elsewhere, to talk of racial ‘purity’ is repugnant. Not in Quebec.”
If Wong — who is Englishspeaking, of Chinese descent and from Quebec — had admonished English Canada for being alienating and unwelcoming to minorities, she would likely have been praised for her boldness in the face of a cruel society. However, from her new home in Toronto she criticized not Canadian society but French Canadian society — and the outrage against her has been apoplectic.
Quebecois separatists have used Wong’s article to bolster their cause. And to placate the separatists, federalist opinion inside and out of Quebec has been reflective of the sentiment that the province is immune from any and all criticisms. Allowing Wong to escape nasty and spiteful rebukes would seemingly cause the entire province to hemorrhage once and for all from our home and native land.
For example, Quebec Premier Jean Charest, in a letter published in the Globe, argued that “Ms. Wong’s article is a disgrace. It betrays an ignorance of Canadian values and a profound misunderstanding of Quebec. She should have the decency to apologize to all Quebeckers.”
Stephen Harper, who before becoming prime minister had built a reputation for ridiculing policies such as biligualism, also issued a letter to the Globe attacking Wong. And parliament itself passed a motion by Liberal MP Dennis Coderre that reads:
“That, in the opinion of the House, an apology be given to the people of Quebec for the offensive remarks of Ms. Jan Wong in a Globe and Mail article regarding the recent Dawson College tragedy.”
The issue here, despite what might be gleaned from the reactions of parliamentarians and others, is not with freedom of the press, nor is it with criticism of Wong in and of itself. The problem with comments like Charest’s, Harper’s and the motion from parliament is that not only are they opportunistic — consistent with the need for all parties to maintain their political importance to Quebec — but it is that they are a political necessity.
The state of the federation is such that while Canada might be a country that works in practice, our politicians desperately want it to be one that works in theory. And all too often that means bending over backwards to quell any hint of Quebec nationalism. It is pathetic and lacks any real understanding of Canada.
One of the angrier censures offered to Wong came from editorial page editor for La Presse Andre Pratte who in an op/ed in the Globe complained that “when such a suggestion as Jan Wong’s appears in print, federalists like myself are hard put to contradict them.”
However, if Wong’s generalization of the alienating nature of Quebec society is the problem, then why are her few words being used to generalize against all of English-speaking Canada? Unless of course there is some truth in Wong’s argument.
Perhaps she is wrong for extrapolating her thoughts on Quebec language laws in the pursuit of an answer for the actions of Kimveer Gill; perhaps not. But, is it really so offensive, so ignorant, so void of so-called Canadian values, to muse about what might be the very real alienation of minorities in Quebec? The reaction to Wong’s criticisms should be considered the betrayal, a betrayal of the pride, if at times misguided, many Canadians have in multiculturalism.
However, because of the general perception that Quebec is distinct, it is granted immunity for its imperfections. And in the search for a workable Canada, everyone not only looks the other way, but fights over who gets to cajole and apologize to Quebec first.
