 |
| IMAGES |
|
|
 |
| Shaun Best, Reuters |
|
A Muslim woman argues with residents of the Quebec town of Herouxville in February, 2007. (FPinfomart: Restricted, Canada.com: Allowed) |
|
|
|
MONTREAL -Nativism is supposed to be a right-wing creed.
So why is Quebec, the most socially liberal province in the country, the only
place where Canadians are candidly discussing how far we should go to
"accommodate" immigrants? Why are Canadian cartoonists putting KKK costumes on
the hotheads of Herouxville instead of, say, Calgary or Red Deer? And why is it
the PQ-- not some cowboy-hat party out on the Prairies -- that's proposing a
two-tier citizenship system?
It's not because Quebec is swinging right. It's because mono-culturalism is
swinging left. Having decisively vanquished traditional Christians in the
culture wars, feminists, gay activists and other progressives are no longer
willing to risk their winnings by pledging multicultural solidarity with
traditional Muslims, Hasidic Jews and other socially conservative immigrant
groups.
This is a new phenomenon in Canada, but it's been going on for years in
Europe. The old face of nativism used to be Jean-Marie Le Pen, a right-wing
Gaullist and old-school bigot who complains crankily about Jews and Blacks. Le
Pen is still around. (His National Front party got 10% of the vote in this
year's French presidential election.) But today's young voters are drawn more to
those cast in the mold of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn.
When Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002, he was described in the Western media
as a "right-wing" politician because of his scathing remarks about Muslims. But
the label never fit: Fortuyn was a lusty, openly gay populist who championed
euthanasia, liberal drug policies and same-sex marriage. He opposed traditional
Muslim culture precisely because it conflicted with the Netherlands'
any-thing-goes ethos.
In other words, muscular monoculturalism is no longer the purview of the
right. Having been liberated from the odour of racism, it's becoming a
mainstream ideology, even a fashionable one, on the left.
With his infamous 1995 comments about "money and the ethnic vote," Jacques
Parizeau came off as a sort of Quebecois Le Pen (as do many of today's
separatists, which is why the PQ's two-tier citizenship gambit will ultimately
backfire). Mario Dumont and Herouxville's councillors, on the other hand, sound
more like followers of Fortuyn. In this regard, I would urge all those outraged
Canadian pundits who are taking Herouxville as a byword for bigotry to actually
read the town's 14-page submission to Quebec's commission on reasonable
accommodation, in which the authors approvingly cite Turkey's militantly
secularist founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; celebrate Quebec's rejection of the
Catholic "theocracy" of the Duplessis era; champion the rights of women and
gays; and openly mock Christian fundamentalism ("Recently, the National Assembly
allowed the opening of retail stores on Sundays. [God] accommodated us once
again, sparing Hell to the faithful.")
What these people are doing is claiming Quebec in the name of
state-of-the-art European-style secular liberalism. The idea that "Herouxville
is old Quebec, old Canada" -- which appeared in a Globe and Mail editorial last
week--is not only wrong: It is the exact opposite of the truth.
Left-wing political trends aside, there are other reasons to have expected
that Quebec would be the first part of Canada to decisively challenge
multiculturalism, a doctrine that tends to thrive in wealthy nations beset by
weak identities and postcolonial guilt. Compared to anglo-Canada, Quebec has a
relatively strong sense of collective self. And for obvious historical reasons,
Quebecers are more inclined to see themselves as history's victims rather than
exploiters.
That's why multiculturalism has been a tough sell in Quebec from the get go.
The doctrine became official Canadian government policy largely because Pierre
Trudeau was looking to downplay the unique status of French culture by
pretending it was just one of many filaments in a rich national tapestry. Even
before the word burka entered the popular parlance, many Quebecers rightly saw
it as a scam.
But what starts in Quebec won't end here. The debate will spread, and we
should be glad of that. For all the rhetorical stock Canadians have put in
multiculturalism over the years, the fact remains that it is fundamentally
incoherent:How do you intellectually defend a doctrine that preaches "tolerance"
toward imported cultures that, themselves, are fundamentally intolerant toward
women, gays, heretics and infidels?
Giggle all you like at the bumpkins of Herouxville. At least, they're smart
enough to know this question can't be answered. Maybe when the rest of us anglos
get over our own guilty Western hangups, we'll come to the same realization.
jkay@nationalpost.com
Illustration:
• Color Photo: Shaun Best, Reuters /
A Muslim woman argues with residents of the Quebec town of Herouxville in
February, 2007.
Idnumber: 200710300141
Edition: National
Story
Type: Column
Length: 732 words
Keywords: POLITICIANS; POLITICAL PARTIES;
QUEBEC
Illustration Type: CP
PRODUCTION FIELDS
NDATE: 20071030
NUPDATE: 20071030
DOB: 20071030
POSITION: 1
