What a boon for all those who thrive on indignation! A member of parliament has a few lapses in language, he gets hit with two parliamentary motions and a national volley of green wood (or would it rather be blue wood?), and all the instant commentary falls on him. It's a bit easy.
Yes, Haroun Bouazzi said stupid things. In fact, he was particularly depressed when he tried to defend himself, for example when he imagined that Minister Lionel Carmant had said that it was the fault of immigrants if youth center workers slept with minors. . Frankly…
But when Mr. Bouazzi says he sees “in the National Assembly every day – the construction of this Other, of this Other who is North African, who is Muslim […] and its culture which, by definition, would be dangerous or inferior”, is it really so far from reality?
It is still the National Assembly which took away from several of our fellow citizens the rights guaranteed by our own Charter, without any demonstration of what this should resolve. And, unless you've lived in a cave for the last 15 years, we all know what community this was aimed at. Moreover, many of those who supported Bill 21 have never held back from saying that the problem is essentially Muslim, and repeat it every time they have the opportunity.
It is also the current Prime Minister who accused those who do not agree with Bill 21 of not wanting to “defend Quebec values”. Is it possible to be clearer?
I personally believe that Mr. Legault is wrong. These are universal values which are enshrined in our Charter. This is why its title is “Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms”, and not “Charter of Quebec Rights and Quebec Freedoms”. I also believe, like René Lévesque and unlike François Legault, that fundamental rights should not be guaranteed only when it suits the majority or the government in place.
But that does not change the message repeated by Mr. Legault, his government and the government-in-waiting to the Parti Québécois: Quebec values are superior to others, and we are so convinced of this that we will use all legislative and judicial tools at our disposal to defend them.
The latest news is that these questions are still being debated in the National Assembly. To maintain that all this constructs an “Other who is North African, who is Muslim, and whose culture would be dangerous or inferior” is a statement that can be debated, but can we really be surprised that the first targeted people think so?
If you're not convinced, go talk to Muslim women who wear the hijab and ask them how they feel about constantly having to justify to themselves that it doesn't make them fundamentalists. My brother-in-law – a slightly dark “native”, who could pass for an Arab – was already told in the street to go back to his country. The discourse on Muslims has become so uninhibited that it has become acceptable to apostrophize strangers to reproach them for their origin, real or imagined. And we're not talking about social networks…
Since the saga of reasonable and unreasonable accommodations, through the episode of the charter of values (with a lowercase one, please, out of respect for others), certain religious practices of full-fledged Quebec Muslims — we must insist — have been repeatedly targeted as a threat to our way of life. It was not hidden or subtle, it was the main, explicit, fundamental argument for violating our own Charter of Rights. We should still at least assume it!
Is everything that resulted the entire fault of elected officials? Once again, between adults, this is debated. But it is certainly not preposterous to assert that the action of parliamentarians has legitimized certain speeches towards our Muslim fellow citizens. At a minimum, we can rigorously and factually maintain that by exempting Law 21 from the application of Articles 1 to 38 of our Charter, the National Assembly has confirmed by legislative means that not only discrimination on the basis of membership to a religious community is acceptable, but that it has the force of law in Quebec, and that our fundamental rights have been reduced to make it incontestable.
Haroun Bouazzi may have said something stupid, but he didn't take away anyone's rights.
* * * * *
Now, if we take a broader view: at the microphone of Patrick Masbourian, Mr. Bouazzi estimated that the fact that the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) regularly pointed to immigration as responsible for problems in public services contributed to portraying “the 'Other as being a danger for Quebec'. Does anyone think he exaggerated? Really ?
In September 2022, before the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, François Legault, outgoing Prime Minister, explained that it would be “suicidal” for Quebec to welcome more than 50,000 immigrants per year. Can we at least agree that suicide is dangerous, even for a nation?
A few days earlier, Jean Boulet, another member of the CAQ cabinet, let slip that “80% of immigrants […] do not work, do not speak French or do not adhere to the values of Quebec society.” It was all wrong. Mr. Boulet was then outgoing Minister of… Immigration.
Demonstrating that immigration — and therefore immigrants — are a threat to Quebec is the method that the CAQ used to get elected and then stay in power. The last two elections were about this. This wasn’t a fluke or circumstantial, it was the game plan. Since then, every time something is blocked in Quebec, the CAQ blame immigrants, even when it comes to problems that have afflicted us for years, even decades, and in regions where immigrants are almost absent.
Haroun Bouazzi may have expressed himself clumsily, but above all he observed what populist politicians try to do on a daily basis.
It's a bit heartbreaking that other politicians have chosen to take part in this easy lynching.
