Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The Government of Quebec has proposed
a bill to recognize and affirm
certain values that define us as Quebecois.
We also propose to affirm, in this Charter, the State's religious neutrality
and the secular nature of our institutions.
For this religious neutrality to be present in public institutions,
it must be adopted by those who work there.
We propose that religious neutrality
apply to everyone who works for the State.
In virtue of this duty,
employees of the State will not be able to wear
any conspicuous religious symbols during their work hours.
Bernard Drainville, Minister of Democratic Institutions, is here with us.
Good evening, Bernard Drainville. Good evening, Ms. Dusseault.
So you want a... unifying trial.
You want a unifying project.
But, people are already saying, because this project
restrains freedom of religion,
it is dividing Quebecois.
It doesn’t restrain freedom of religion,
it ensures freedom of religion.
This documentary was created and produced independently by
three civil media groups.
present
The Charter for me
really reflects the colonialist mentality of the government.
It’s a denial of the Native people
because it talks about the common Quebec values
while the Native people
have been living here for thousands of years.
They never asked us our opinion about the Charter.
They never asked us what the most important values were for us.
As a citizen and a jurist,
I couldn't accept
that we would want to strike such a hard blow
on the freedom and rights that are considered fundamental.
Yes, yes to the Charter.
Who are these Others who take our place,
what we perceive as being our place,
and who we don’t yet accept
as some of us.
No, no to the Charter.
Nothing would make me
wish upon someone
to be
a Muslim woman in the world today.
Rather than presenting it as a unifying project
to integrate the whole of Quebec society
particularly through education,
understanding and dialogue,
we wanted to legislate peaceful coexistence.
What's happening is that it’s making
the Quebecois turn against each other.
I just hope that we’re going to recover from this.
It would have been fun to build a society,
not a private club.
The Charter of Distractions
Everything is turned around and used for electioneering,
or almost,
where the conflicts of interest
surpass the interest in the common good
and that’s what saddens me
the most about this.
The common good and collectivity
don't even comes in second place,
but in third, fourth or fifth,
after private interests, after electioneering interests.
I am very proud to see the ADQ family grow so much tonight.
The great tragedy for the PQ in 2007-2008
was that the ADQ became the official opposition
with its racially dividing discourse
regarding the crisis on reasonable accommodations.
It’s like a slap in the face of the PQ
and it’s from that moment
that certain intellectuals,
who we call conservative nationalists,
in liaison with certain members of the Parti Québécois,
using reasonable accommodations,
that were well publicized by the Journal de Montréal,
developed the idea that
we must put the emphasis on
the French Canadian Catholic identity.
It’s nationalism
centered on the past.
There are a lot of them and they’re not alone,
like Jacques Beauchemin,
who is really the central intellectual of the group.
Matthieu Bock-Coté
Mr. Bédard, historian, etc..
who are very sensitive on the identity front
and who have had a tendency to
bring the idea of
what they call the Quebec identity
to the frontline as if it was being threatened
by the phenomenon of diversity and multiculturalism.
But, we don’t know if they’re talking about Canadian policy
or the social phenomenon of diversity itself
when they use these terms.
They're people who were often part of think-tanks,
like Beauchemin, who was nominated Deputy Minister after their victory.
It’s something, because Beauchemin was at the centre of it all.
So, when they set up a think-thank,
they have Péladeau now as well who is part of several think-tanks,
it’s all intellectuals that meet with different think-tanks.
That doesn’t mean it’s bad. Everyone networks.
They can't be just by themselves.
So they are well connected, so to speak.
They are people with power.
It brought back the idea
that we must,
as Mario Dumont said in 2007,
assert ourselves
as Quebecois because
on the identity front, there’s a
lack of collective affirmation.
I think we need to raise our heads
and say, Look...
They need to apply our common life principles.
They need to apply our common values.
Equality doesn’t mean that we set aside our identities,
that the people living in Quebec set aside their identities,
that they must disappear with their way of life, their culture,
their values and their traditions.
History is more complicated than that.
For us to understand history, we must keep in mind
the economic causes, the social causes, and so on.
When we talk about the French Canadian Catholic memory,
there are a lot of things that we must reject.
You are not considering the native people.
You are not considering the women’s movements
that fought against chauvinistic men.
You are not considering the workers
that fought against business owners,
including French Canadian Catholic business owners,
to defend working conditions and salaries.
And that’s what makes up the history of Quebec.
A huge part of our identity
is the result of social struggles.
As if human rights,
especially freedom of conscience and religion,
which are being called into question here,
were not the result of social struggles
or the Quebec identity.
It's based on the idea that
they need the vote from those people.
Here, last year,
the Charest government was following ADQ trends
which were to get people to oppose each other
in order to rule more efficiently and pass their neoliberal policies.
Creating hate this way is dangerous
and, today, Pauline Marois
is reacting the same way with another issue.
So what do we do?
We have certain things written to distract people
but also to get people to oppose each other
instead of giving them time
to think about their common well-being.
With the Charter, we are going to create this situation
that didn’t exist before.
Afterwards, once we’ve had more and more reactions,
we’re going to say, you see, it was that.
How do we go looking for votes?
By reusing
what had made the ADQ win.
That means playing on reasonable accommodations,
going after Muslims.
Why is it that these debates immediately turn into
“Us” against “Them”?
When we talk about Quebec values,
they’re just as much Christian as Muslim or Jewish; it doesn’t matter.
It’s just to make men happy,
and when they don’t wear it,
they’re reprimanded.
Integrating into a community
or society
is doing what the majority of that society does.
In a context of symbolic violence, those who have the political power
give new definitions to the concepts they put forward.
It’s not all of the elements
of the Charter that we object to.
Fairly quickly, everyone realized that
the focal point of this public debate is based on one article in particular,
which is the prohibition of conspicuous religious symbols.
As far as I’m concerned, in any case, it’s really
at that moment that it was very clear to me that I would,
completely and unquestionably,
mobilise to oppose this Charter,
particularly because I believe
that it renews ideas of marginalization,
stigmatization,
an unacceptable type of political ostracism
regarding certain categories of Quebec citizens
who, for all sorts of reasons, are being perceived as
second class citizens
by a group of fellow Quebec citizens,
and, for me, it’s unacceptable.
The women
who work in the public sector,
because those are the women being targeted,
are women who have high levels of education,
have gone through many very difficult stages,
including selection processes, etc.
to get the positions that they have now.
When jurists and philosophers
rise up
practically unanimously
to denounce this project,
because we can’t say it’s unanimous,
there are certain jurists that are very involved with the Parti Québécois
that have quietly supported
the fact that there might be a way
to save the constitutionality of this Charter of Values.
But the grand majority of jurists
do not share that same opinion.
I’m in a good place to see it all
because, last year, in 2012,
I was part of an organization of jurists
marching against Jean Charest’s special law,
which, in the legal field,
people had very divided opinions about.
This year, I don’t feel
this duality of opinions in the legal community at all.
We are very close to unanimity.
I think that, in general,
we realize very quickly that
the PQ’s Charter
doesn’t add anything
to the legal tools that already exist.
We already have one of the most
solid legislative tools in the world.
We have two charters of rights and freedom in Quebec,
the Canadian one and the Quebec one.
It’s pretty incredible.
I’m not a jurist or constitutionalist, but
I think there's probably not a lot of cases of that in the world,
a political jurisdiction
where there are two charters of rights and freedom that apply.
There’s a possibility, for instance,
to have reasonable accommodations
that consider certain collective rights
and a certain notion of secularism, etc.
And these reasonable accommodations are subsequently
defined by the principles that already exist
in Quebec charters.
Whether it’s the Quebec Association
of Health and Social Service Establishments,
the daycare associations,
the chambers of commerce,
all those who are dealing with
the supposed problem of religious accommodations on a daily basis,
they are saying, "We don’t have a problem with it,
there is no crisis."
There’s no coherence
or rationale behind
banning conspicuous religious symbols
in the Charter.
Sorry, I’m trying to find the words to express that
I find it incredible that some people
are lead to believe
that this article
contains the essence
of the notion of secularism and gender equality,
that we must
defend and promote within Quebec society.
I don’t know why
there is such confusion
and misunderstanding of the legal,
social and political reality here in Quebec.
I think that there is a rhetoric that is sometimes dishonest.
Absolutely.
There are also ideological components
that could be worth looking at
to be better understood, on both sides.
Whether it’s by ideological conviction
or fallacious rhetoric,
it leads to consequences that could be
politically disastrous
and morally, completely unjustifiable.
I think in seeing that kind of approach,
one of the reactions I had was,
Oh my God, it’s the Indian Act,
the idea of the Indian Act that’s appearing again as part of
another law.
I am very worried because
I think that intercommunity relations
are like relationships between couples.
It’s not easy
and it’s fragile,
and we cannot count on
the fact that just because a couple’s relationship
is good that it will last forever.
It’s the same thing for intercommunity relations.
If we say
things that we shouldn’t say,
if we go beyond certain limits,
it takes time
to reassure ourselves, to reconcile,
to get close again and to trust each other.
Because, you know, these actions accumulate.
What I mean is,
anger and rejection provoke anger and rejection.
I’m totally for holding hands
with other Quebecois so that we can move forward together
and stop ignoring each other.
But I refuse that the hand I hold out
is used to hit the other person.
It’s very important to me.
I wouldn’t accept a group
of citizens rejecting another
because I want to get along with them.
I think it’s an assimilationist discourse.
When we get into wall to wall secularism,
it’s an assimilationist discourse.
Everyone should be the same.
We could say that this approach
has completely destroyed
our identity,
both social
and economic,
our culture and our language
because the Quebecois wanted to fit us into
their values at the time.
Look at the relationship that formed
between the Native people and non-Native people
over the last 100 years.
It wasn’t established through the Indian Act.
It was through listening and understanding.
It’s precisely one of the fundamental points of this debate
that we cannot allow the majority
to decide on the rights of minorities,
and that’s the essence of religious freedom.
Do you see where we’ve ended up?
We must allow minorities to exercise their rights
over those of the majority.
Not over those of the majority
that’s why there are laws and discernment
and why we try to accommodate
the maximum number of people in a tolerant society.
Our secular culture is defied all the time.
We are secular, we have the right to affirm it
and we’re better off to do so.
When we create
an intellectual and theoretical discourse,
when we take part
in public and social discourse,
I think if we haven’t based
these claims on field work,
it is problematic.
For instance, in the case of reasonable accommodations,
it was in the middle of an election campaign
the mediatised one-upmanship
ensured that
events were scheduled
to question the politicians
about these events
and, of course, there were photos
of the minorities of the minorities.
Anecdotal cases of unreasonable accommodations
were blown out of proportion
in certain tabloids,
on certain all-news channels and
by certain demagogue and populist commentators.
So we caricatured the concept of reasonable accommodation.
There were a lot of journalists
that knew very little about the subject at the time
and who associated it with matters that had nothing to do with it.
The debate expanded and reached a moment
when it was no longer about
what reasonable accommodations are, in a legal sense,
or what real discrimination is.
The first question we need to ask ourselves
when there is a situation of discrimination
or when there is an accommodation issue
is, is it really discrimination?
Not many people asked themselves that question.
In all the media coverage,
there were all sorts of matters
that had nothing to do with accommodations.
In fact, there were three real cases of accommodations
during that whole period.
We’re going to reach a point where
we’ll need to discuss “real concerns”
and Minister Drainville
will have to stop spreading all sorts of falsities
by giving examples of certain accommodations
that are completely anecdotal
and would never be considered
reasonable accommodations.
Contrary to the first debate
which, in my opinion,
was completely constructed by the media,
in many cases,
the Charter,
is a political thing
that was appropriated by civil society,
by all sorts of movements within civil society
that hadn’t taken place,
or rather that weren't involved before.
Now we have
political camps that are being built.
The debate is so much more...
it’s less chaotic,
but it is much more tense
on the political aspect
and the identity aspect.
Because the prejudices against Muslims
are so strong in the media right now.
Even after September 11,
the people who wanted to be politically correct were saying
not all Muslims are like that.
But if you read into that properly, it means
that they’re not all like that,
but the ones that are, are Muslims.
While in fact,
it’s more like human beings are not all like that.
We all have stories
of terrible things in our history.
All peoples do.
I think that there is a reflex as a Catholic
for a lot of people to see another person’s religion
as a danger.
At one point, I saw a comment on Facebook
like, Islam is evil!
The Muslim religion is evil!
I was like, Islam never did anything to me,
whereas the Catholic religion has destroyed a lot more
in my culture
and in the history of my nation.
There are people that don’t understand the immigration policy,
why it is that we need immigrants.
They think that immigrants are going to invade.
I think that this uneasiness
is specifically felt
towards Muslim women.
This time, we all understand that.
But I find it a shame
that the government wants to base a law
on uneasiness.
But is it an uneasiness that is founded?
When we go to Montreal, we don't feel like
we are in Quebec anymore.
Islamization is indeed a reality
and it worries us.
The Islamization of Montreal, to begin with,
is 4% of the population of Quebec.
Where are the facts
to support such a hypothesis
that’s fraught with political consequences?
It’s our duty as citizens,
and maybe also the duty
of intellectuals and jurists,
to try and rectify the facts,
and there is no Islamization in Montreal.
It doesn’t exist.
We have based our conclusions
on rigorous scientific studies.
Ok, which studies are they based on?
I presented you personal accounts from citizens.
You wish to legislate on a subject that you know nothing about.
So, personal accounts from citizens aren’t important?
Protest against the Charter of Quebec Values Sept. 14, 2013
"Long live a Quebec that's free to everyone"
"Intolerance is not a value"
When I did my research,
I made a distinction between
what I call discourses of opinion
and the journalists’ coverage of events
because they are two different things.
I try to analyze
from day to day.
In these opinions,
did we see a kind of spiral of racism?
In the last few decades,
we’ve witnessed
a change in how "the other" is perceived,
immigrants.
As a researcher,
after September 11...
I got a team of researchers together to try and examine
whether these perceptions,
this impression that discrimination had increased
could it be verified?
What is proved quite clearly was that
racism in our society
had taken a leap.
This idea of a tolerant society
that we are trying to keep,
trying to protect
is becoming a myth,
we need to start worrying about
intercommunity relations.
I arrived here in Quebec in 2000.
I’ve been here almost 13 years.
I arrived in 2007
and I married Nedal.
For instance, people that say
there are a lot of immigrants that come here
that aren’t capable of adapting.
The dichotomization “Us / Them,” which is negative,
is one of the first steps towards racism.
I was looking for a better future,
what we didn’t have in our country.
I left everyone to come here
with my wife and my children.
And subsequently we get into other mechanisms,
which are more like self-victimization
when we enter the discourse
that the person feels really threatened by the other.
It’s not fair.
They come here and they need to adapt.
It turns into them imposing their ways on us.
I wanted to live in a francophone country.
That’s why I chose Quebec.
There is the gay community here,
the Jewish community,
the Hindu community,
the Sikh community, the Muslim community.
After victimization, there’s a sort of
diabolization of the other person.
They almost become an enemy. It’s no longer
someone who is just different,
they become the type of enemy
that we don’t really want to have contact with.
The current increase in fear, I think,
in countries that have a lot of immigrants,
like ours,
is the fear of losing our privileges.
We have multiple privileges.
So, evidently
a certain level of financial comfort.
It’s also the comfort
of a majority that doesn’t have to think for themselves.
We don’t have to ask ourselves
who we are
because we dominate a social space.
Have you been a victim of racism here in Quebec?
Fortunately not,
I’ve never experienced anything like that.
No incidents, no intimidating,
discriminating or racist gestures. Nothing.
Nothing, nothing at all.
Until recently...
When we want to get rid of the other person,
it's like, "Get lost! Go back to where you came from!"
It’s that we no longer want to be in contact with the other,
so there is a type of spiral
that we climb in the discourses,
and certain discourses stay at a certain level of mechanism.
Everything was going very well
until one day when I started receiving
intimidating letters.
At the beginning, I was scared.
We had just moved into this building.
We didn’t know anyone.
I was worried about
what they would think of us.
I spend most of my time alone at the house.
I go out and come home alone.
I got really worried
when we received the second letter like that.
It became even more difficult to live.
I don’t know what they are hoping to accomplish.
We are being pursued
in the street
and at our house.
Why? ... Why?
There are two interpretations here.
If we look at the photo closely,
it’s the veil that is crossed out,
not the woman.
But I think that in terms of interpreting the picture,
it was as if the person had been erased.
You see how,
when we read between the lines,
we can have two interpretations.
Maybe for the person who sent this message,
their intention was to attack the symbol of the veil,
which is the object of public controversy right now.
But the interpretation that the family is going to make,
is that it is us as people
that you want to eliminate, annihilate.
When we cross something out, it means
that we want to get rid of it.
I don’t know what he wants.
I would love to meet with him, talk to him.
Say to him, why did you do that?
Come, let’s sit
and talk about it, discuss it.
No problem.
We don’t know if it’s going to stop there
or if it’s going to escalate, get out of control.
The second thing is that we’re living in instability.
Do we stay?
Do we sell our condo at a loss?
Leave the neighbourhood,
even leave the province
if we want stability?
The increase in discrimination
that we are witnessing now in Quebec
is not isolated
and should be seen
in the context of globalization.
These tensions that we see at an international level,
accompanied by the rise of a more security-oriented State
where privileges of the West are being threatened
by the rising economies of emerging countries,
translates into damaged
intercommunity relations.
And we can see this right now
in all of the western countries,
all of the countries that
are traditionally called developed countries
and have a lot of immigrants.
So, Europe
and all of North America,
but also Australia.
I think that they are importing
a certain discourse from France
and that they are not aware
of the social reality in France.
I decided to leave because
I wanted to have a place
in the society where I was living.
Either we consider,
and I always say this,
either we consider the planet
to be one country
and everyone has the right to live wherever they want
or we consider
there to be nations, countries,
laws,
and in that case, these people are invaders.
We are witnessing enormous regression
regarding asylum policies,
immigration policies
and the general view of immigrants.
Before, immigrants were seen as an advantage,
refugees were seen as
vulnerable people that needed protecting,
but now they’re seen as a threat,
potential criminals or barbarians
that are coming to invade us.
You can see the difference.
I was always proud when I was in Morocco or France
and I heard statements like,
"In France, we can’t work with a hijab."
I said that I had never had a problem. On the contrary,
I go to the Chamber of Commerce,
I go to the centre for economic development
and I’m really well received as a businesswoman.
I never felt any different from anyone else.
All of these phenomena are going to be
more prominent
for the minorities that have been
targeted by the Charter.
Muslims,
whether the women wear a veil or not,
have the impression
that they are the ones that are not wanted.
The charter is being interpreted
as being essentially Islamophobic.
Now there is a minority that feels targeted...
that feels...
we don’t want them here anymore.
I started wearing a hijab recently
and people see me differently.
They push me in the metro.
They glare at me
and I feel scared of them.
I think that, as young native women
and men, we have the right to say,
No, we don’t want a law
that will create racial tensions again
between citizens, whether they're native or not.
What happened is, ever since Bernard Drainville proposed the bill,
he’s been trying to justify
a certain Islamophobic discourse
by saying that, if you’re uncomfortable,
it’s okay to discriminate in the workplace.
It’s okay
to not want to entrust your children to women wearing veils
and we’ve been hearing discourses that we'd never heard before in Quebec.
Because they feel like they are being supported by
political institutions.
I think that the most disturbing aspect of this democratic debate
is the increase in racism
and Islamophobia.
Public figures,
with all the respect and affection that certain people may have
for these iconic figures of Quebec culture,
such as Ms. Filiatrault and Ms. Bertrand,
it’s just unacceptable that,
just a few months ago,
the speeches that they gave and that others gave
shamelessly in public
with regards to a category of fellow citizens,
speeches that would have been considered unacceptable,
or intolerable, just a few months ago,
are now acceptable in public
because of the famous democratic debate.
I’m not accusing the PQ,
or the people that created the Charter
of having xenophobic or racist intentions to start with.
It’s not at all what we’re saying.
Not in any of our public critiques.
But are they aware,
and all those that defend the proposed Charter,
are they aware that the burden of proof is incumbent on them?
To disassociate themselves
from the Islamophobic, xenophobic
and racist charges
that are truly polluting the debate
and, I think, removing all of their credibility
in the process.
You see how quickly we can
lose the sense of
security and tranquillity
that we've always counted on in Quebec.
It’s very, very precious,
but also very fragile.
We are looking for an identity together
because we share the same space.
Because we cannot cohabitate
if we are not able to accept each other,
because if we don’t, we will be in a bad situation for many years to come.
I am very scared
that we are going to miss an opportunity to reach
a very interesting definition
of what it means to be a Quebecois "we".
So So So Solidarity
with women from all over the world.
So So So Solidarity
with the Janettes from all over the world.
Thank you! Let us march!
That shows that feminists haven’t understood a thing.
The Quebec feminists that are on TV right now
haven’t understood a thing.
One of the aspects of the debate that really baffled me
was the feminist aspect that
these young women are treated in a certain way
and are forced to wear a veil.
Again, it’s looking at it
with our own eyes and our own values.
There comes a time when it becomes dangerous
because we've also had to deal with the whole,
“We're going to save you; we're going to help you.”
At the beginning, I would hear,
“You are oppressed women, so we need to help you.”
There are veiled women
that have spoken out to the media and said,
“No, we are not oppressed; it’s my freedom of choice.”
Then it was like, “Ha! It’s a political thing!”
The veil is a political symbol,
that’s why you can’t wear one.
The veil is often presented,
and this is one of the main arguments of this debate,
as a symbol of the submission of women
and a symbol of oppression.
But, all religious
and political symbols are polyvalent symbols.
They symbolize a lot of things
at the same time.
But just in regards to the relationship with power,
the veil right now
is just as much, if not more,
and I would say more after all the research I’ve done,
a sign of resistance as a sign of oppression.
By wearing a veil,
I’m establishing my identity
as a Muslim.
The young girls
in Parc-Extension where I work,
a neighbourhood that’s 60% immigrant and South Asian,
don’t wear veils
because their families or
fathers or brothers ask them to.
They wear them mainly
to show that they are resisting Islamophobia.
It’s their way of telling us, no!
Not their fathers or brothers.
And it’s not a unique phenomenon. It’s something that
we’ve observed and was very well documented in Turkey
when Turkey was secularized, which was an imposed secularism
that lead to women taking back the veil
as an act of political protest.
I think that's what we're witnessing here.
That doesn’t mean that in certain cases, it’s not
a symbol of oppression in a patriarchy.
It can be,
it is in certain cases,
but it’s not the majority.
We must not forget the First Nations,
the First Nations women,
we have a strong form of feminism that already exists.
Quebec women have their own feminist history as well.
We want to be involved in the feminist history
of Muslim women,
while they have the right to claim their own history as well
and decide for themselves.
It’s a matter of giving the women the time
to create their own
feminist movement.
We have to respect that as well
and it’s difficult
because we often think that our own values are better.
I think that their idea of gender equality,
because of this idea of secularism,
is renewing
a Eurocentric concept,
a paternalistic concept
and an
imperialistic concept.
For over 50 years now, women have been saying to men,
“Let us think for ourselves.
We have the right to choose our own lives.
We have the right to choose our own paths.”
Now, we are going to say to white women,
“Let us choose our own paths.”
I’m 100% sure that I am equal to my husband.
There is no difference.
I am the president of the company.
He is the vice-president of the company.
He works with me, but it’s me who founded the company
and it’s me who invited him to join the company.
So, more equal than that, I don’t know what that is!
What is the difference between forcing women to wear a veil
and forcing them to remove it,
without ever considering these women’s independence?
Equality amongst people is equality between men and women,
but it’s also equality between women!
We are equal.
There are no women who have to give lessons
to other women on how to become independent.
Regarding physical appearance, it’s a catastrophe.
It’s something that’s very superficial.
We talk about equality between men and women, about secularism,
but we only target what’s visible.
But the question of values and gender equality
is something that is invisible.
In the mission of our institutions,
do we advocate gender equality?
Do we respect these values?
Do we use them daily in schools?
That’s the real issue.
I think that the consensus that would be much more acceptable
to all feminists, would be to say,
You know that the emancipation of women,
which would allow
individual women to be completely independent,
happens by improving socioeconomic conditions.
It happens by giving equal access to opportunities,
education and jobs,
especially in the public sector.
If we don’t fight economic inequalities,
if we don’t fight social inequalities,
we might as well have all the legislations in the world,
it won’t change anything,
and these women, for instance,
Muslim women who wear a hijab,
who will no longer have access to positions in the public sector,
what will they do?
They'll go back home and have to deal with inequality all over again.
The compromise of gender equality has not been reached.
It hasn’t been reached
not only because of the
religious practices of certain people.
All patriarchal societies are based on gender inequalities
and social inequalities.
Capitalist societies are societies of inequalities
and we don’t protect an oppressed person by oppressing them again.
The women who, after the public debate
should be the ones we are protecting the most,
are without a doubt, those who feel the most threatened.
So we have our first paradox.
We want to protect them
against their will,
these immigrant women who wear a veil.
But this time,
in the metro, in the street,
and even in their homes,
it’s these women that are experiencing the most anxiety
and distress.
They are trying to distract us from this incoherence
by bringing up debates on gender inequality
with a policy regarding conspicuous symbols
that has nothing to do with the real emancipation of women.
So, in this case, I see an incoherence
that is hidden or even misunderstood
by certain defenders of the Charter,
but that, in my opinion, deserves to be brought forward
to help us understand
what the real issues are.
We must accept that there are people who don’t think like us,
who don’t live like us,
who are not like us
so that we can grow together.
We are telling ourselves that we should make everything uniform, standard.
There are problems that haven’t been addressed.
There is an identity that is not being clearly defined.
There are unspoken words that are creating a sort of discontentment.
If we want to peacefully coexist,
establishing a Charter of Quebec Values is necessary.
For common values,
what are common values?
Who is going to decide, this is common and this isn’t?
Someone asked me,
“Melissa, would you remove the cross from the National Assembly?”
I would remove the pipelines.
I mean to say that there are other things that are more pressing
and I understand that we need to fight for our identity,
but I think that given that it’s a non-issue,
I think that I’m going to fight for the pipelines first.
It’s more pressing
if we want to have an Earth where we can have an identity.
If we really think about it,
a headscarf doesn’t mean anything; it’s a symbol.
A cross doesn’t mean anything; it’s a symbol.
So we’re saying that we want to attack symbols.
But why don’t religious institutions pay any taxes?
Property taxes, school taxes?
There shouldn’t be denominational schools anymore
that are subsidized by the State.
If we want to be consistent, we have to go all the way
and propose pure secularization of public institutions.
Because if we tackle that,
we could go a lot further
because it’s not just the symbols.
It’s the fundamental economic reality.
Democracy, as we know it, is based on four pillars of equality:
equal rights to vote,
equal rights to justice,
equal rights to education
and there should be a forth pillar that is economic equality.
Why?
Because if this relative economic equality does not exist,
the three other pillars will crumble.
The government should
increase the number of work integration programs
and do more to raise awareness amongst employers.
It took me almost 6 years,
it took my almost 6 years to find a job that I love.
Economic inequalities corrupt
the other pillars of democratic equality.
That is why I maintain that an economic equality ideal
would allow for a better democratic life.
Are you afraid of taking the Champlain Bridge?
We’re going to discuss that
and talk about this ultra-orthodox Jewish sect that fled St-Agathe-des-Monts
to escape from the DPJ
after being suspected of child abuse.
Striking Unemployment Rates for Immigrants, particularly in Quebec
There is a lot of job discrimination
and that explains the high unemployment rates
for immigrants,
for instance, of Arab origin and especially from the Maghreb.
There’s also a problem with the recognition of foreign diplomas.
Before, you used to have to wait about 3 months,
but now it’s a lot more.
It takes longer for the simple reason that
we cut funding to those programs
with regards to staff
and the Ministry of Immigration.
There was a program that allowed
everyone from 18 to 90 years old,
or any age really,
to go to school, and it was organized by Immigration Quebec.
Unfortunately, Bouchard’s PQ government,
and even Pauline Marois who was the Minister of Education at the time,
cut funding to reach a zero deficit.
The economic austerity policies are not neutral;
they are socially devastating.
These so-called austerity policies
aim to give or transfer the responsibility
of our social situation to the person, the individual.
It is no longer the community that is collectively responsible,
so the social links are no longer responsible
for our own personal situation.
This policy completely undermines
and deliberately destroys the solidarity ties
that are the foundation of cohabitation and social ties.
I know very well that’s not the intention.
We can’t be completely demagogic either and say that
the government wants to completely destroy social ties, obviously.
But the result
is that we undermine
the desire to have social ties or cohabitate.
In this sense, it seems completely immoral.
What I fear is that we are emphasizing
economic, social and political differences that already exist in Quebec.
Something that is very important
is to avoid these simplifications.
These simplifications are not the result of bad faith.
They are the result of media hype.
The image of the other, or the image of Muslims,
has been oversimplified over the past few years.
When we look at the debate over the Charter,
there’s a sort of obligation to take sides
because it’s a debate that was politically infused by the Parti Québécois.
So people feel obligated to take sides
and there are political camps that are being
created with a much more entrenched position.
We must not forget that these reactions stem from fears.
If we want to recreate harmonious living in Quebec,
and I don’t think it’s totally lost, but
I think it’s been shaken up and stirred by recent events,
if we want to build it again, consolidate it,
we must take care of our collective fears,
we must take care of the majority’s fears.
I think they must be heard
because they’re real.
The results collected
by Radio-Canada a few minutes ago show
that the NO option is going to win,
I repeat, the results collected
by Radio-Canada a few minutes ago
show that the NO option is going to win this referendum.
We are obviously
very divided,
but tomorrow we have to continue living together.
I deeply regret
that Quebec finds itself in a position today
that has become
one of the fundamental traditions
of the Canadian federal government.
Quebec is all alone.
Whatever we say and whatever we do,
Quebec is today and will always be
a distinct, free society
that is capable of
defining its own future and development.
In a case like this, what do we do?
We roll up our sleeves and start again.
It’s true that we were defeated,
but by what?
By money and the ethnic vote, essentially.
So that means that next time,
instead of 60 or 61% voting YES,
we’ll be 63 or 64
and that’ll be it!
I salute, in passing,
Jacques Parizeau's recent statement on the proposed Charter,
but I’m from the generation
that voted YES to the last referendum
and I didn’t see it coming
when Parizeau came out the day after the defeat of the referendum.
My heart was broken, completely shattered,
and it took me years to recover.
There is a risk that the sympathies
that a whole generation of neo-Quebecois
could have had for an independent Quebec could dwindle,
and now, with the proposed bill,
they are once again asking themselves questions
like the ones my generation asked themselves
the day after Jacques Parizeau's declaration
and the failed referendum.
As long as we continue saying
that it’s not with the native people that we must define Quebec,
that it’s not with the newcomers that we must define Quebec,
that it’s not with the old wave of immigration that we must define Quebec,
that Quebec is just French Canadians,
we will always be in some form of denial.
What Minister Drainville’s announcement
stirred up inside of me
was a reaction to reinforce my solidarity towards immigrants
of first and second generation
and a desire to claim my neo-Quebecoise status.
If, in fact,
you consider
certain Quebec citizens to be less "Québécois" than others,
then I don’t want to participate in this ideal
of a sovereign Quebec.
It’s not the image that I had of a sovereign Quebec
that is confident, serene and proud to be that way.