Monday 3 September 2012

Why I'm a Young Anglo Immigrant Voting for Quebec Solidaire


If you're like many people my age, you are struck, from time to time, by a sense of dread about the future. The trendlines are negative- we are deforesting, cultivating, and polluting the land like no society before us. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer- traditional middle class jobs making things people need are shipped overseas, leaving many poorly-paid service and very few highly-paid management positions in their wake. Our elected officials attack each other while sweeping problems under the rug. Almost everywhere in the world, young people feel disenfranchised, ignored; sometimes they are attacked outright for having the temerity to call for the end of exploitative practices in every field.

On Tuesday, September 4, we can take a step in the right direction in Quebec. No-one needs to tell you that none of the 'three main' parties will do nothing to save us from the ongoing global economic and environmental crises. The PLQ are hopelessly corrupt and have been playing defense. They gambled that taking a hard line against the student strike would win them the election- they banked on the rentrée being bloody, to show more clearly his resolve- and lost. The students went back to class, knowing that with a new government coming soon, they will soon need a new approach.

The PQ and the CAQ are both weathervanes, although in different alloys of reactionary. The PQ have made 'identity politics' their bag this campaign, with predictable results. The people who feel most threatened in 'their identity' are members of the majority in their own communities- that is to say, white, Catholic francophones living in majority white Catholic francophone areas. Parachuting a Muslim candidate into a semi-rural riding is convenient cover, yes, but proposing to end the right to a CEGEP education in English, forcing all companies with more than 10 employees to speak exclusively French, and banning all religious symbols from public buildings (except the massive crucifix in the National Assembly) are all propositions to weaken the vitality of minority communities thereby, somehow, enriching French. This is a dangerous road to walk- most Quebeckers I know, when they think of an independent Quebec, envision a modern, progressive, pluralistic country, with respect and tolerance for all. With these the stated goals of the PQ, are they really the party to lead us to that kind of country?

The CAQ, rather than defining their campaign in terms of religious, cultural, and linguistic identity, are making their stand on 'the economy'. Their position on sovereignty is 'wait and see', but they do promise to get every Quebecker a family doctor by next year (how?), making school run from 9-5, to better suit working parents (what?) all while lowering taxes for individuals and companies! This feat of economic antigravity is possible, Mr. Legault assures us, because of all the spending currently being wasted by corruption and collusion. The only interesting thing about the CAQ is that they are the 'not-Liberal' alternative for those voters put off by Marois' heritage sideshow, and who are more interested in 'the economy' than 'independence'.

So Anglos can vote for the CAQ because they aren't really separatist, and francophones can vote 'Not Liberal' in two ways, depending on how much danger they feel Quebec society is in. Now there is an analogy to be drawn between the CAQ and the NDP, but also a distinction. The analogy is that both parties faced a decrepit incumbent out of touch with contemporary values and priorities (Charest and Harper), and an uninspiring opposition who don't propose to do anything substantively different, but who make a lot of noise about how awful the incumbent is (Marois and Ignatieff). The distinction is that NDP values are Quebec values- progressivism, communitarianism, tolerance, and fairness- whereas the CAQ's values are- elusive. Whereas voters could feel good about ticking their ballot for le bon Jack, voting for a peanut seller is harder to swallow.

So, pretty hopeless. Nothing to counteract our feeling that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, nothing looking likely to pull us out of a nosedive into calamity. But then, a challenger appears.

I have been blown away in the last four weeks at the sheer number of people who are unaware of the very existence of Quebec Solidaire. I've been asked if it's a wing of the PQ, whether it's the communist party- all sorts of ridiculous distortions. But no- QS is the progressive alternative to the three main parties, with a realistic, albeit radical platform to start taking serious steps to save our world. Let's deconstruct.

The first thing to clarify concerns sovereignty. Yes, Quebec Solidaire is a 'sovereigntist' party. Keep reading. QS is a party of diversity and inclusivity- not all members of QS are sovereigntist, and not all sovereigntists have the same ideas about the specifics of independence. QS recognizes that the process of separation should be done once, and done properly. Now, even the most hardline federalist must recognize the right of any people to self-determination, the consent of the governed being crucial to any democracy. QS have laid out the fairest possible roadmap, informed by the experiences of countless other independentist movements worldwide- elect a citizen's assembly, draft a constitution, then put the constitution to a referendum. We will have our say many, many times before anything even goes to a vote- and QS celebrates the right of all citizens to vote how they want to of their own free conscience.

This aside, the rest of the platform is exactly what we need. It's radical to build 50 000 units of social housing, and it's radical to pay for free schooling with a capital gains tax levied only on financial institutions. It's radical to do environmental assessments on big projects planned up north, and radical to suggest that our natural resources be used for the common benefit, and not the profit of speculators and shareholders. It's radical to guarantee a minimum income to all citizens to provide for their basic needs. It's radical to electrify Montreal's transit. We live in radical times, and radical solutions are needed.

QS proposes to start the real work of reforming our society. They don't just differ from the other parties in terms of policy- they differ in worldview. Close to half their candidates are women. Many work in the community and non-profit sector, giving them real understandings of the challenges faced by ordinary people. QS proposes that we all work to help each other- not just to line our own pockets, but to protect and preserve our beautiful land for generations to come. The other parties are wrapped up in the short-term thinking symptomatic of big companies, afraid to spook the shareholders with a disruptive, innovative vision of the path to come. QS is thinking about building a Quebec which can be sustained, and which can be held up as an example to the world.

QS is the party of inclusion. They will help artists and make education truly accessible, both better ways of defending the French language than banning English. They will make it a priority to integrate immigrants not by erasing their culture and overwriting it with the dominant one, but by stitching newcomers into the tapestry. They will actually take the protection of the environment seriously, and the importance of this point in 2012 cannot be overstated. And in many, many ridings, they could win. If you live in Montréal, September 4, vote for QS. In Quebec City, Sherbrooke- anywhere that people who share the progressive vision congregate, vote for QS. Don't vote against someone- vote for a positive vision of the future. Together, it can happen.


9 comments:

  1. This article comes a bit late but it's a blessing. I'll try to share it as much as I can because this article was necessary. Félicitations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was voting QS until their announcement that they would tax incomes above $5 million at 100 percent. Too far for me, this is where i get off. I am voting Green for that reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. " they would tax incomes above $5 million at 100 percent"
    I'am a member of QS and I never heard and/or read about it anywhere do you have sources?

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, "anglo immigrant" is just another way of saying that you have no idea what it's like to grow up and live in this province as an anglophone quebecer.

    Second, sovereignty: you say that QS doesn't play identity politics, yet a few paragraphs later you claim that all "people" have the right to self-determination. Which "people" are you referring to then - are you part of the "quebecois people", having immigrated here? Are anglophones whos families have lived in Quebec for generations part of the "quebecois people"? Simply, no; the same peoplehood equation used by the PQ is used by the QS and any other seperatist party, period.

    Third, their economic plan reads more like a pipe dream than anything. They need to realize that their plan is an overspending mess which couldn't even function in the current economy, let alone the economy that would exist if a sovereigntist party would be elected - read exodus of business/business owners.

    "They will help artists and make education truly accessible, both better ways of defending the French language than banning English" - what, you're just going to throw in that artist funding now? Charest govt. really doesn't have a bad record in that regard, which is why it's been a non-issue in the campaign. Secondly, I don't understand how you like that, and making education free with preserving the french language; it's a non-sequitur.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your commentary! MereRhetoric- I'm not pretending to know what it's like to be an Anglo Quebecker, but I know what it's like to be Canadian (though I wasn't born in ROC either). "People" having the right to self-determination is just what it says in your first-year poll sci textbook- any people who want to hold a referendum have the right to do so, be they Walloons, South Sudanese, East Timorese, or other- if you then wanted to hold a counter-referedum to separate from the separatists, I'd support your right to do so.

    While the PQ may argue anglos aren't part of Quebec society, I disagree that QS would contend that. I also disagree with your assessment that their economic plan is a 'pipe dream'- no one is talking about appropriating the means of production here, just a slight bump in taxes on financial institutions (many of which are multinational anyway, and who I can tell you from experience aren't going to walk away from Quebec's markets and whose head offices aren't even here anyway. Things have changed since the 70s...)

    Free education results in a more educated population, educated populations tend to have better understanding of and appreciation for the arts. I don't think this is all that counter-intuitive?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You dodge the issue here. I didn't say I disagreed with the right to self-determination for people. But you again avoid definition of the people in question here. Ultimately, the peoplehood status belongs to the white catholic "pure laine" quebecois, not the anglophones who've been here just as long, or any of the immigrant groups who've also been here for generations. In that sense, I hope you can see, QS is disingenuous about being inclusive since the entire premise for self-determination singles out a particular part of the Quebec populace.


    As for the non sequitir, let's come back to it again, since you didn't answer the question. Here it is again: "They will help artists and make education truly accessible, both better ways of defending the French language than banning English"
    So we have the gov't helping artists, and making education more accessible. These then power morph into ways of protecting the French language. Listen, I'm not sure if that's some sort of subtle way to suggest that maybe they're going to be rid of bill 101, but in any case you shouldn't suggest that since it's not going to happen. Education is plenty accessible in this province as you well know we have the lowest tuition fees in all of canada and we are not the poorest province.

    But back to your explanation above: "Free education results in a more educated population, educated populations tend to have better understanding of and appreciation for the arts" Which does not at all explain the link between education, art, and the "preservation" of the french language, but rather explains a tenuous connection between the former two. (I say tenuous because studies have shown that art appreciation comes from exposure in childhood; a student in business, sociology, or biochemistry would actually have little exposure to art in university).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi there,

    I agree with you that 'the people' is intractable, but what people have the right to tell this self-defined people which country they should be a part of? If you're trying to get me to say that 'Quebecker' applies to only to white Catholic francophones, you'll be disappointed. Let's call 'the Quebecois nation' everyone with a RAMQ card, because those will be the people voting in a referendum. Yes, I agree that this glosses over Acadiens, franco-Ontarians, and franco-Manitobans, but it's besides the point- I'm voting for who I want to represent me in the National Assembly, not whether I want 'Quebec', howsoever defined, to be a country.

    I'll address your second point very quickly in passing, because I agree that it's not the strongest part of my argument (you may notice it's tucked away at the end!)- I am only trying to draw a contrast between the PQ's idea of strengthening French by banning English, and the idea of strengthening a language by valourizing it. Yes, valourizing is a vague word. the 'strength' of a language is a vague idea. I don't recommend looking any further into it than that.

    I also agree that art education, in french, should be strengthened in childhood, and that cultural institutions should be more accessible. The point here, sir or madam, is that we seem to agree most things here, and are quibbling about details- this will be my last post to you on the subject, but I hope sincerely that you voted your convictions today, and recommend you send me an email if you're in Montreal and want to get a beer and discuss further! Thanks for taking the time!

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a lot to discuss in here, but I must insist on two questions :

    1. Where does it say in the PQ's program that non-francophones are not part of Québec's citizens?
    2. Which referendum proposed "Separation"?

    Here are the answers :

    1. Nowhere.
    2. None. Both proposed "Souverainté-association", with no borders (open borders), canadian money, laws made by QC and our taxes paid to QC.

    You have the right to argue, but I believe you also have the duty to leave aside false perceptions and wrong facts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Duly noted, Robert- since posting this article originally, I've picked up Parizeau's 'An Independent Quebec' and my views on 'the national question' have evolved. For me personally (and this is a personal topic) I support absolutely the right of any and all 'peoples' (expansively defined in theory, explicitly defined on a case-by-case basis in practice) to decide how they wish to be governed. The fact that Quebec is the only province who hasn't signed the constitution is at the least indicative of a serious weakness in the confederation (and throws into relief similar issues in a First Nations and Inuit perspective)- but the wording of any eventual referendum question would be to get a mandate to negotiate, not to light the Ottawa River on fire. Anyway, it's a discussion for another day, but just wanted to drop back in and respond- cheers!
    .

    ReplyDelete