Creating political ghettos in Quebec
Pauline Marois and the Parti Quebecois are proposing partitioning the citizenry of Quebec in order to constrain the political influence of undesirable citizens. Creating ghettos has a long and proud tradition among certain political movements.
Quebec seems hellbent on causing trouble for itself. Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Quebecois, has tabled a bill that fundamentally changes the model of citzenship in order to compel more "Frenchness":
The Parti Quebecois has tabled a bill in the legislature that would prevent immigrants who can't speak sufficient French from running in elections.
The bill was one of two the sovereigntist party introduced with the aim of shoring up Quebec's identity.
The effort comes as provincial hearings are being held into reasonable accommodation for immigrants in Quebec.
Among the measures proposed by the PQ are the creation of a Quebec constitution and a certificate of citizenship, the reinforcement of the province's language laws and the revision of the provincial charter of rights.
Under the proposed law, immigrants who can't speak proper French after an appropriate apprenticeship in provincially funded language courses would be forbidden from running for election in provincial and municipal elections as well as those for school boards.
PQ Leader Pauline Marois said she sees the measure as "normal."
Normal? Not normal at all.
Participation in the political process is a right confered by citizenship. Participation means equally to vote or to run for office. There are circumstances under which a citizen can be barred from either of these, but they are tied to questions of behaviour. For instance, currently serving a sentence in prison can limit your rights to vote in some jurisdictions, or to run for office.
So there is a concept of a second-class citizen.
For obvious reasons, you don't want to be designating large numbers of people as second-class citizens, and certainly not for anything but the most serious reasons. Along that path lies civil unrest. But for the PQ, it seems obvious and natural that a skill be used to determine the quality of your citizenship.
Think about it. Citizenship is in most countries defined either by the location of your birth (jus soli) or by your parentage (jus sanguinis). Canada uses location -- if you are born in Canada, you are a citizen. There is also naturalization by which a person comes to Canada, establishes his or her intent to stay in Canada, and after a suitable amount of time, becomes a citizen.
But once that person is naturalized, he or she is a citizen. No hedging or limits.
The PQ would still allow a person to become a citizen by a process of naturalization. But the PQ does intend to create two classes of citizenship for naturalized immigrants, specifically defining limits of civic participation, based not on where you were born or your family tree, but on whether you have an ear for languages:
Pauline Marois says all immigrants without an 'appropriate knowledge of French' would be barred from running for political office, helping fund political parties, or having a petition tabled in the National Assembly.
Well, whether you have an ear for the French language.
And only if you are an immigrant, according to these reports. No mention is made on restrictions on people born in Quebec. So if a child is born in Quebec, is taken out of the province and never picks up French, then returns to the province of his or her birth, can this person run for office? This person is not an immigrant, so presumably this person can give money to a political party or run for office.
So jus soli trumps jus lingua for Pauline Marois. I suppose that makes sense. It's one thing to punish those immigrants -- they aren't real Quebecers, after all.
But perhaps the most insidious element of the PQ proposal is the limitation on funding and petitions. Money and power go hand in hand -- it would be naive to believe otherwise. That a working knowledge of French is required to run for public office offends me, but the practicality of such a requirement is clear. But the bill would also restrict the right of these second class citizens to help fund political parties.
Not only is an immigrant whose French is bad not allowed to offer his services to his fellow citizens as an elected representative, his money is no good either. That means the ability to influence this law in the future, should it ever be passed, is diminished. French-speakers, even those uncomfortable with this law, are not directly affected by it. Those who are affected cannot contribute money, and so are rendered literally worthless.
They don't like it? Then get a petition -- no wait, your name is no good either. Given that a petition is a form of vote (informal, of course), taking away their right to table a petition is a form of political ghettoization. For the PQ, these people are not even to be heard.
But then the PQ has always been offended by the sound of anything that was said in French.
And as with all slippery slopes, there is one more thing to consider. To make sure that the political influence of the demi-citizens is sufficiently circumscribed, it would be necessary to maintain a list of these people, and to compel them to carry identification that correctly identifies their secondary status. I mean, how else would you make sure that they could accidently help fund a political party by mailing in a cheque, for example.
Maybe a asterisk beside their name. Just not a six-pointed asterisk. That one's been used already, at another time and in another place, for an entirely different purpose, utterly unrelated to the PQ proposal to limit the participation, and even the visibility, of people considered not considered inferior in some way to the population at large.
Addendum: Oops, I seemed to have accidently drawn a line between the proposal to partition Quebec citizenry according to their command of the French language with some other notorious efforts identify and limit the participation of certain groups. That was unfortunate, as well as the use of the word "ghetto" in a metaphorical sense. Perhaps "marginalization" is a better word. Helps avoid making supporters of Pauline Marois' idea feel bad.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Pauline Marois Parti Quebecois France language Quebec Canada citizenship immigrants
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
This sounds an awful lot like the race-based voting restrictions in the US in the past. The following was taken from the web-site www.crf-usa.org:
"But the most formidable voting barrier put into the state constitution was the literacy test. It required a person seeking to register to vote to read a section of the state constitution and explain it to the county clerk who processed voter registrations. This clerk, who was always white, decided whether a citizen was literate or not.
The literacy test did not just exclude the 60 percent of voting-age black men (most of them ex-slaves) who could not read. It excluded almost all black men, because the clerk would select complicated technical passages for them to interpret. By contrast, the clerk would pass whites by picking simple sentences in the state constitution for them to explain.
Mississippi also enacted a "grandfather clause" that permitted registering anyone whose grandfather was qualified to vote before the Civil War. Obviously, this benefited only white citizens. The "grandfather clause" as well as the other legal barriers to black voter registration worked. Mississippi cut the percentage of black voting-age men registered to vote from over 90 percent during Reconstruction to less than 6 percent in 1892. These measures were copied by most of the other states in the South."
I cannot believe that a political party would propose such a thing in this day and age!
Posted by: Larry at October 20, 2007 09:18 AM
Imagine a Francophone marrying a non Francophone and choosing to live in Quebec. Would he/she accept that their non French speaking spouse cannot participate in politics or in petitions? Could he/she run for politics if their spouse wasn't allowed to contribute?
The PQ is in third party status. No longer can they concentrate on widening their support base. Rather, thay must shore up their core.I hope this is just a tawdry stunt by an ignoramous to try and make their party relevant again.
Posted by: david at October 20, 2007 09:20 AM
Quebec is a Nation! Therefore they can do and legislate anything they want to.
I don't see much difference here when compared to the pandering to ethnic communities done by governments both federal and provincial across Canada. Quebec does it by language, the ROC does it by colour. How many times have we seen ethnic MPs held up as an example of our multiculti promotion. Remember Dosanjh making the statement in India that he was so proud to be an MP in the Canadian government and be an Indian? They are dual citizens so why would we allow them to be in our parliament except for multiculturalism blather? Either you are Canadian or you do not have the right to represent Canadians. I agree with Marois--we give them nation status and allow the French language to be superior(Bill C101) so why are we crying now?
Posted by: George at October 20, 2007 10:36 AM
What's this "creating" political ghettos in Quebec stumping??
I thoight Gomery made it abundantly clear that Quebec WAS a liberal maintained political ghetto where deals with cash stuffed brown paper envelopes buy political patronage and electoral fortune.
The reason the Liberals are losing Quebec is they are out of power and no longer have their fingers on the public cash drawer to feed their vote buying/fixing network in Quebec....largess was the number one Liberal tool in Quebec....and it certainly bought a lot of "ballot magic" from the local crime syndicate.....even Gomery ( in his self imposed myopic investigation) was tripping over mafia fixers every where he followed the Librano money trail back to a riding funding "boss".
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at October 20, 2007 10:41 AM
Why the outrage? So be it I say. Quebec has not signed the constitution and she has Bill C101 in her pocket. This is a natural furthering "of the cause" and completely predictable. If the people truly don't like it, she will revolt. If not, that's her ideal of a nation so leave her be.
Posted by: Phil Miller at October 20, 2007 10:53 AM
PQ = Pétain Québec
Posted by: Observer at October 20, 2007 11:29 AM
It's more noticeable in Quebec because people there have a little bit less shame about promoting their scams, but the same practices exist in every part of the country and are used by every party.
You did put your finger on a very important point, which I hope all your "fiberal" obsessed conservative party fanatics will absorb without prejudice. Ghettoes do not exist when people live in a state of freedom, but only come into being through deliberate government policies to isolate and control people. John Tory's rejected plan to fund and control ethnic and religious schools is an example of such a policy, disguised as giving people "choice". ("You can put your kids into any school you want and we'll pay for everything, as long as we control the curriculum and the teachers.") The natives of Canada are obviously in a huge government-created ghetto, and every province east of the Ottawa River is basically a ghetto created by federal "help". Senior citizens live in a ghetto created by free health care, CPP and free or subsidized housing and nursing care. Post-secondary students live like bums mostly off the taxpayer dime, which is why their housing areas are called "student ghettoes". None of these people have been put into ghettoes because it's good for them - they've been put there because it keeps them controlled and docile. Ghettoes are vote farms, stocked with fat, noisy sheep. And the conservative party is not particularly better or worse at ghetto farming, but differ only with respect to which ghettoes are marked for intensive farming at any point in time.
Countries which create ghettoes eventually have to build walls around them, either to keep the ghetto-ites in, as in East Germany, or to keep undesirable would-be ghetto-ites out, as in the USA and Israel. Canada looks mostly stable right now, because despite the cratering of industry and hi-tech, the high prices of oil and other resources and the relatively slow decline in the value of the CAD has enabled the ghetto-building to proceed fairly smoothly. Watch what happens when commodity prices slump and some of the ghettoes start to get out of control due to demographic factors. You think the natives are restless right now? You think it's a coincidence that Harper's biggest priority is building up the police state?
Posted by: at October 20, 2007 12:46 PM
Typical evidence yet again that the separatist movement in Quebec is inherently racist.
Posted by: at October 20, 2007 05:43 PM
I wonder how the people of Quebec would react if Alberta proposed the same legislation based on English speaking ability?
Posted by: DH at October 20, 2007 08:19 PM
As long as the same applies to people who can't speak sufficient English then I don't have a problem.
Posted by: kelly at October 20, 2007 08:31 PM
Typical evidence yet again that the separatist movement in Quebec is inherently racist.
Posted by: at October 20, 2007 05:43 PM
WHY IS *NOT* WANTING THE COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN TO DESTROY IT'S MAJORITY RACIAL MAKE-UP CONSIDERED TO BE RACIST ?
Why is wanting to stop race-replacement considered to be racist?
If somebody said to me "were going to flood the country of your birth with enough people of a different race until your majority race is replaced",I'd SMASH their face in.
mr.g
Posted by: mr.g at October 20, 2007 10:28 PM
This will further separate the PQ from the voting public. From a strategic point of view they may be trying to court some of the more extreme ADQ vote. This will blow up in their face and Charest will look like the great public defender. From a rights point of view, this is offensive. Though some of the people commenting here may support such a view it would unlikely pass the Courts. Logically speaking the bill's focus is that if you can't speak the language you can't understand the culture. Quebec's issues are not just cultural issues and even so the idea of restricting a group of funding or voting makes little sense. Cultures and regions evolve based on the participation of its members. Suppressing one side from taking part in the debate creates animosity and restricts its growth. Though, that would be the hallmark of the PQs existence and policies.
Posted by: DarrenL at October 21, 2007 05:39 AM
Would'nt this PIGEON-HOLE all the Muslims in Quebec?
Hmmm.....no wonder Bro wants to retire just outside of Montreal...
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at October 21, 2007 08:11 AM
Marois needs one or more atrocious (but populist/racist) causes to rekindle the old "us versus them" wars. Don't bite. Let Quebecers deal with this. Let the PQ wallow in their bile.
Posted by: burpnrun at October 21, 2007 08:57 AM
Let’s not get too exercised over Pauline Marois’ suggestion.
Before accusing Quebec of racism or ghettoizing people, please consider the following:
• What is the PQ’s principal objective?
To make Quebec an independent country, a state separate from Canada. As such, then, it would require all those who are not citizens by birth to have sufficient knowledge of the official language of that would-be state, i.e. French.
Now compare that requirement to the one for Canadian citizenship (google eligibility for Canadian citizenship):
“How do I apply for Canadian Citizenship?
In order to apply for Canadian citizenship you must be over 18 years of age. You must have lived in Canada as a Permanent Resident for at least three years out of the four years (1,095 days) right before the day you apply. In addition, *you must know how to speak or write either English or French which are Canada's two official languages.*”
Furthermore, compare Marois’ proposal - that's all it is at this point - to similar proposals in Europe and Australia:
(From a Daily Telegraph story - sorry, the filter won't accept the link)
"True blue citizenship test
By Nicolette Burke
September 18, 2006 12:00am
"MIGRANTS who want to become Australian citizens may soon have to understand the notion of a "fair go" and be able to name green and gold as our official national colours.
The Federal Government yesterday released a discussion paper on a mandatory values and English test for all new citizens, with an emphasis on national symbols, the legal system and democratic institutions.
Compassion for those in need and respect for others would also feature prominently. ..."
(From a Forbes online article 2006/11/17 re: multiculturalism-assimilation-europe)
"Europe Backs Away From Multiculturalism
Oxford Analytica 11.20.06, 6:00 AM ET
Across Europe, politicians have been questioning multiculturalism and urging more assimilationist policies. The result has been greater emphasis on civic integration, linking of family reunification to integration policy and new rhetorical emphasis on loyalty, integration and commitment to European values. ...
There has been a recent change in tone in Europe concerning migrants' commitment to Europe's liberal values, with a new emphasis on integration. These developments have been accompanied by a change in government approaches to multiculturalism:
-- United Kingdom. A U.S.-style citizenship ceremony was introduced in 2004; from 2005, naturalizing migrants have had to pass language and citizenship tests.
-- France. In 2004, a ban was imposed on the wearing of Muslim hijab in school. Policymakers also adopted a "social integration contract."
-- Germany. The government provides for 600 hours of language training and 30 hours of civics instruction for migrants. Head scarves have been banned for teachers in six German states. Berlin is currently debating new naturalization tests.
-- Netherlands. Policymakers have explicitly embraced integration as a policy aim. Both new and settled immigrants are now required to pass an integration test. Rules on family reunification were also tightened.
-- Denmark. All new migrants attend obligatory civics and language classes. Their family members must wait three years to enter the country and must pass an "attachment test."
-- Sweden. The new integration minister is proposing a ban on veils for girls under 15; examination of young girls to detect signs of genital mutilation; an end to arranged marriages; and a ban on funding for religious schools.
While these trends are most pronounced in Europe, they are also occurring elsewhere. For example, in Australia, an official policy of multiculturalism was abandoned in the 1990s.
By contrast, multiculturalism has failed to come under serious pressure in Canada. ..."
Until now, when newcomers have come in such large numbers AND with very noticeably different customs and value systems ... all of this immigration viewed under the optics of 9/11.
Please don't tell me that similar questions have not been raised elsewhere in Canada, for I am sure they have.
Posted by: Gabby in QC at October 21, 2007 09:43 AM
I have no issue with this. In fact, I think it should be mandatory across the country that someone know how to speak, fluently, either one of Canada's official languages in order to run for political office. Quebec should do everything it can to set the rules in its national boundaries. The other provinces are free to do the same.
Posted by: KSingh at October 21, 2007 08:55 PM
If the reverse of this were true, wouldn't Stephane Dion be out of a job?
Posted by: ScottS at October 22, 2007 12:40 PM
I have no issue with this. In fact, I think it should be mandatory across the country that someone know how to speak, fluently, either one of Canada's official languages in order to run for political office. Quebec should do everything it can to set the rules in its national boundaries. The other provinces are free to do the same.
Why set rules for what the marketplace will enforce on its own? If a person tried to run for office who couldn't speak the language in general use, then how far do you think that person will get? Voters aren't dumb -- they don't need to be protected from bad candidates. Indeed the Stephane Dion case is very pertinent. Imagine if someone ruled his English wasn't quite good enough. The idea that Dion is not capable of leading the Liberals is absurd (of course, that he's not doing a great job is a different story). His English was good enough for hundreds of Liberal delegates.
The PQ is not protecting the voter, but enhancing the rights of French-speakers over the rights of others. And playing to a particular PQ constituency which has no problems espousing socialist dogma ("for the people") while at the same time being extremely exclusionary in their search for a Quebec nation ("for the right sort of people").
They're socialists and nationalists at the same time. Hey, doesn't that make them...?
Right. I'm stopping there. Got too close again.
Posted by: Steve Janke at October 22, 2007 01:12 PM
Hmmm...
As an ex-Albertan who grew up with the whining of the PQ, I can totally guess what would happen if Alberta was to pass a similar law regarding the english language. The PQ would use it as ammo to pass their own bill, point the finger and say, "see? If they can do it, so can we."
Seriously though, a lot of people here in Canada forget that Quebec is not just French. There are a LOT of Anglophones and Allophones. Taking away the right to vote in matters of Quebec would guarentee separation and a sovereign nation of Quebec. I do not fancy living as a second class citizen, especially since a portion of my tax dollars goes towards finding these freaking parties.
I say Hang Marois for what she is. Treat her the same way we treated Louis Riel. As a matter of fact, lets try the whole PQ and Bloc as traitors, and put these scum where they belong, in jail. This is basically a precursor to something like what happened over 50 years ago with the Nuremburg laws. What's next? Perhaps we could detain and deport every non french speaking person into a ghetto?
I have a great idea, and it allows both parties a win win situation. Quebec GETS to separate, and we are free of these whiny assholes once and for all. It goes like this:
You LOST the war. The English won. This means you have no claim to your land. The treaty of Paris gives you the right to your culture, language and civil rights. No problem. Separate. There is no claim to land though, but you know what, we will even give that to you. You can live in a reservation like those you oppressed before, the natives. Don't like it? No problem, go back to France. Ahhh.... that's right, they abandoned your ancestors here back in the day huh.
Looks like you do not really have any options, hence all the braying that we hear. Ignoramouses.
Carnugan
Posted by: Greg Carnugan at October 28, 2007 07:22 PM
 
|
|
