And then there were three – three former premiers joined in their critique of the proposed Charter (and Landry has changed from his initial support), in addition to former Prime Minister Chrétien, and another federal minister, Christian Paradis, unlike Denis Lebel, reinforces the government’s line against the Charter:
Bernard Landry joins Bouchard, Parizeau in charter critique – Montreal – CBC News.
Jean Chrétien weighs in on Charter of Quebec Values
La charte est un message hostile aux immigrants, selon Paradis
Mixed signals from the PQ government on how they will, if they will, respond to this strong political signal to back down, starting with Premier Marois who signals an opening but her Minister, Bernard Drainville, does not:
Charte des valeurs: Marois attentive à l’appel de Bouchard et Parizeau
Drainville garde le cap sur la Charte en dépit des dissensions
Some commentary advising the PQ government to follow the advice of the former premiers and go for the Bouchard-Tayor model of laïcité ouverte, and other commentary arguing for a broader debate, situated outside political and electoral considerations:
La voie de la raison
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Alors, que fait-on?
La Charte de l’inconfort collectif
And a piece by Stéphane Dion, former Liberal Cabinet Minister and Leader, on the difference between showing political allegiance and religious faith for public servants:
Signes politiques, signes religieux : une dangereuse analogie
A reminder from a former professor of Egyptian origin, Nadia Alexan, who has experience with fundamentalists, that our openness creates space for fundamentalists. One of the risks in an open, democratic society, but one that applies to all religions, not just Islam. Singling out one religion without acknowledging integration-related issues for the fundamentalist strains of all religions, and recognizing the balance between religious and other freedoms, is not tenable:
Arrêtons de dorloter l’intégrisme
And lastly, while I think Andrew Coyne goes too far in his portrayal of the internal contradictions of the PQ (and the Bloc), he does have a point of the challenge for a society like Quebec to define what “nous” means without it being reduced to Québécois de pure laine, or ethnicity.
There were significant efforts to enlarge the definition of “nous” to include the “cultural communities” and interculturalisme, the Quebec subtle variant of multiculturalism, does have an inclusive element:
There is a basic, unresolvable incompatibility between a pluralist, open, civic nationalism and a nationalism devoted to the interests of a particular ethnocultural group. No amount of careful obsequies can paper this over. Once you have freed yourself from the obligation, incumbent on governments in every other liberal state, to govern on behalf of all your citizens equally — once you have decided, frankly and unashamedly, to speak of and for “nous” — you have made your choice. If the province’s ethnic minorities have failed to respond to the PQ’s entreaties, that may explain why. If, after all, it were really about an inclusive nationalism, with equality for all, if that were the society you were trying to create, what need would there be to separate?
Péquistes, then, can be divided into two groups. Those who have persuaded themselves there is no contradiction, that they can be both inclusive and exclusive at the same time. And those who have shed the illusion.
Don’t be fooled, the Parti Québécois has never been inclusive
