Mark Kelly: "Journalist"?

Mark Kelly examines in his CBC Montreal piece the issue of race and the treatment of migrants in the reasonable accommodation debates, and in all of Kelly’s throwing around of ‘two-dollar words’ like multiculturalism and racism, not to mention his tone which drips with condescending ire and the manipulating of the viewers heart-strings by interviewing the ‘innocent voices’ of schoolchildren, he seems to overlook the real topic at hand, which is not racism or the freedom of religion, a shield that plagued Quebec during the Duplessis era, which Quebecers worked hard to liberate themselves from, but rather the difference between tolerance and what reasonable or unreasonable accommodation really is.

Kelly’s news piece is framed in a manner that serves his own bias: he interviews only those who would serve his own framing devices, and he frames the lack of the opposition’s comments as cowardly, especially when he employs “ambush journalism” tactics on Premier Jean Charest, who remains silent, since he is not bound to answer anyone who doesn’t conduct themselves in a manner befitting a professional journalist. He also frames himself as a sort of hero of the proletariat, claiming that only he can ask the “tough” questions, and points his finger at the “rich white” bourgeoisie schools that forcefully sent migrant students to separate educational institutions.

The argument that Kelly makes ignores the true argument of what reasonable accommodation is, and instead hides behind words like racism and intolerance, and the shield of “freedom of religion”. The reasonable accommodation debates are not inherently racist or prejudiced, but exist to serve a Quebecer identity and to help migrants fully integrate into a society that is yearning for a unified Quebec identity.

“Religion divides, especially when fueled by politics”, says Kelly in his own expose, who seems to forget which side he is arguing for, as it is true that religion is a dividing force in society, the reasonable accommodation debates do not seek to strip the religion from the migrant, but rather to ensure the rights of all citizens of Quebec, native and migrant, are equally represented without any special treatment for any parties.

Willful Ignorance

Canada treats its Aboriginal population like second class citizens, and unlike immigrants who are the subject of commissions like ‘reasonable accommodation’, the treatment of Aboriginal communities in Canadian history is downright racist. This article from the National Aboriginal News describes Aboriginal woman “Le Claire” and her confrontation with two men who berated her based on their racist convictions. She confronted the two men and demanded the Lifeguard on duty to do something, but was met with no help and more offenses. After writing a letter to the mayor, she was still ignored.

“Despicable” is the term that Helmut Harry Lowen, sociology professor at the University of Winnipeg, uses to describe the reaction from the bureaucracy. Lowen is an expert on hate groups and continues saying that “Aboriginals face these kinds of comments on a daily basis, it’s willful ignorance on the part of these people.” People don’t know or care about the true history of the country and its treatment of the Aboriginal population.

It begs the question that would people act this ignorant if they knew the real history of the country and the hardships that aboriginal communities are forced to endure? It is unacceptable to treat others of another culture in such a way, especially since it is one of the main standards of the Canadian charter to treat everyone with respect, regardless of race, gender or creed. One must also ask, is this treatment similar in ways to reasonable accommodation?

The Myth and Having it Both Ways

The Myth and No More Having It Both Ways is a response to a letter written in to the Montreal Gazette. The letter is in response to an article written by activist G. DeWolf Shaw, who boldly accuses Quebec of "ethnic cleansing" by forced migration (one of the factors in the U.N. definition of ethnic cleansing) of its Anglo Population.

"Anglo Go Home", "Canadian Get Out" and "Maudit Anglais" are all slogans spray painted on the sides of English homes in Francophone Quebec, and the response article states that Anglophones have two choices: change or leave.

The article reports a staggering six hundred thousand Anglophones in Quebec that have more or less evacuated the province, leaving their homes and jobs, moving their entire families and everything they know. It should be noted, however, that this statistic has no evidence backing it up in the article. This article accuses the author of the letter of buying into the myth that "the English speaking world is out to get us [the Francophones]" and accuses him of not providing any evidence to support his claims. "He, like all those that have bought into the myth never ofers any evidence, statistics or proof of this 'peril' the French language is in. Generally only offering shouting, defamatory comments, and vulgar insults". However, in the letter, there aren't any vulgar or defamatory insults to be found.

The article, from the Anglo point of view, is written in a hostile tone. It embellishes and exaggerates just how hard and tough it is for an Anglo living in Quebec. Though I and my co-writer are two English speaking residents of Quebec, we have had very little hostility to deal with, even outside of the townships.

The article takes on an extremist and sensationalist tone, especially accusing Quebec of 'ethnic cleansing'. Of course, the article is written by the "Defense Association of Anglophone Quebec", so it is easy to see from their title along where their biases lie.

The Old Stock

It is strange that Quebec, a primarily French speaking province with laws and policies in place to protect the language rights of French Quebecers, that there is a large influx of non-French migrants, and once the migrants arrive, they prefer to speak English rather than French. This is causing a clear conflict between those who stress the primacy of French in Quebec’s value system and the various groups who refuse to abide by the rules set out to protect the French language.

More than ever, there is a need for clear rules to outline the extent of cultural and religious accommodation. “We believe that general rules must be adopted to avoid numerous exceptions, and piecemeal and arbitrary decisions," states Yohanna Loucheur, stressing the importance of putting in place rules that would facilitate social conduct within Quebec.

A major concern presented within this article is the profile given of the native English community within Quebec, which as been steadily declining. It is feared if the discussions become too narrow, it may pit “old-stock” Quebecers against everyone else, which could damage an already falling population. The migrants moving into Quebec who refuse to speak French are seen as a threat to the Franco population.

This article brings up an extremely interesting and relevant point about reasonable accommodation that no other news source examined has so far, due to the framing of the media, since it discusses the Muslim and Jewish communities and their demands in depth, but this article brings up the important fact that it is the Protestant communities that make the most demands, because they are a less visible minority, as examined by Sociologist Yao Assogba.

Assogba continues to state “considering the history of Quebec and the current context, I think it should be secular, where demonstrations of religion should be prohibited in the public place”.

It seems strange that people who migrate to Quebec do not wish to speak French, there are plenty of other English speaking provinces to migrate to, why choose Quebec if one doesn’t wish to conform to the cultural standards? One wouldn’t move to Germany and expect people to speak to them in English, they would expect them to speak German.