- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
In Defence Of Herouxville
Anecdotally this is something I've been watching for some time. Even in this forum, the most liberal-minded person tends to regard the influx of Mexicans into the United States with ill-concealed distaste.
The city of Herouxville in the Canadian province of Quebec recently authored a 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.")
Far from conservatives themselves, these people nonetheless drew a line against unfettered acceptance of incoming cultures. I guess the question is whether this is a good thing, bad thing or neutral thing. Being somewhat paranoid of organized religion myself, I can't say that non-acceptance of an intolerant culture is something that I am against - the whole bit about if you sense injustice, it's every citizen's duty to bring it to light. However, it looks like overreactions and an absence of dialogue is the way we're going.
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.
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?
Anecdotally this is something I've been watching for some time. Even in this forum, the most liberal-minded person tends to regard the influx of Mexicans into the United States with ill-concealed distaste.
The city of Herouxville in the Canadian province of Quebec recently authored a 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.")
Far from conservatives themselves, these people nonetheless drew a line against unfettered acceptance of incoming cultures. I guess the question is whether this is a good thing, bad thing or neutral thing. Being somewhat paranoid of organized religion myself, I can't say that non-acceptance of an intolerant culture is something that I am against - the whole bit about if you sense injustice, it's every citizen's duty to bring it to light. However, it looks like overreactions and an absence of dialogue is the way we're going.