Is the PQ Down for the Count?

In the wake of the recent Quebec election, all the pundits are saying it is all over for the PQ, and perhaps for separatism. A new age has dawned. Quebec is opening to the outside world.

It may be so, but it is the job of pundits to see something historic in every minor event. Elections come, elections go, and this time’s big losers are entirely likely to be next time’s big winners. Witness, for example, the PQ and Liberals in Quebec, eighteen months ago. We have seen, federally, both the Conservatives and the Liberals rise again from the ash heap of history after far worse election losses than the PQ's this time out. And, if the polls are right, had the election been held two months ago, the PQ would have won. Then the narrative would have been completely different.

They ran a lousy campaign. That could be the extent of it.

In Quebec, it is indeed possible for well-established parties to suddenly disappear. Some of us still remember the mighty Union Nationale. The fact that the most recent example of a party suddenly imploding is the separatist BQ on the federal level may give added hope that something larger is happening. But it may just be coincidence. Two stars may have aligned, the personal attractiveness of Jack Layton in Quebec, and the inept PQ campaign.

It is also possible for popular sentiments to shift very quickly, so that movements that seem dead now may rise tomorrow. There was a time, not long ago, when the thought of the NDP electing anyone in Quebec seemed absurd.

I do think time is on the Federalist side; Quebec separatism is a xenophobic movement, a rearguard action against the intrusion of the modern world. But anything can still happen.

Quebec's Charter of Values

Absolutely everybody is against Quebec’s proposed new Charter of Values, which makes me suspect it must be a good idea.

Mind you, it is ridiculous if its intent is, as stated, to make the provincial government religiously “neutral.” Firstly, banning religious expression does not make the government neutral; it makes it anti-religion. Secondly, this, if seriously enforced, would drive a wrecking ball through the width and depth of Quebec culture. It is not just the matter of the large crucifix in the National Assembly. There is the cross on Mount Royal, recently refurbished with $2 million in provincial funds. There is the cross in the French version of “O Canada.” There is the cross on the provincial flag, originally flown in honour of Mary. Not to mention holidays for Christmas, Easter, and St. Jean Baptiste Day, or the Christian customs of dividing the week into seven days, or numbering years from the birth of Christ. Need I continue?

Possibly too large?

But the bill does not really foresee banning religious expression. It expressly grants exemptions to religious symbols that are part of Quebec’s “cultural heritage.” The real problem with the bill, perhaps, is the hypocrisy of this. It leaves the bill wide open to criticism, indeed ridicule.

But suppose the bill were slightly reframed to instead explicitly enshrine Catholicism as the cultural heritage of Quebec, and prohibit very public displays of other religious commitments? Is that so awful?

Just as Quebec has some real reason to feel culturally vulnerable as a small island of Francophones surrounded in North America by a vast English sea, it is also and equally a small island of Catholics surrounded in North America by a vast sea of Protestants. This experience, at least as much as language, is what makes Quebec culture distinct. Witness, indeed, the cross on Mount Royal, the provincial flag in honour of Mary, St. Jean Baptiste Day, and so on.

"Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix."

Moreover, the religion, if measured by church attendance, seems to be under greater threat currently than the language. If it is permissible to protect the language, in part by prohibiting large public displays of other languages, why is it not permissible to protect the religion too—say, by prohibiting large public displays of other religions?

We in North America might be inclined to see this as a violation of human rights. But there has long been an established church much like this in the United Kingdom, which does not do particularly badly, overall, in the human rights tables. Similar customs are found in Germany, Norway, Greece, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and Israel. Also not among the most repressive countries one could name.

Let it be said, however, that any such law would not, in fact, legitimately prohibit the burqa. It is not a part of Muslim religion; it is simply an expression of feminine modesty. Just like the Catholic ban—still in force—on women uncovering their heads in church.