People’s Summit Against War and Militarism to be held in Montréal

UPDATE: The People's Summit, announced below, has been postponed to November 19-21, 2010. A notice issued in early March by the sponsoring collective, Échec à la guerre, said the decision to postpone the summit was based on the fact that the public and parapublic unions in Quebec are planning to hold a major demonstration in Montréal on March 20 in support of their demands in contract negotiations with the Quebec government. This, they explain, "would have deprived us of significant participation by many union activists as well as others torn between their participation in the Summit and their support for the Common Front" of the union centrales. The new dates for the Summit were chosen in consultation with various participating organizations. The organizers invite us "to take advantage of this new delay to spark more extensive preparatory discussions in all of your networks."

The Montréal-based antiwar collective Échec à la guerre (which translates roughly as “Stop war”) is organizing a People’s Summit Against War and Militarism to be held March 19-21 in that city. Featuring workshops and panels as well as a plenary session that will issue a Joint Declaration, the People’s Summit promises to be an important step in creating an understanding of the underlying issues that alone can sustain and build an ongoing movement against war and imperialism in this country.

This is not the first major initiative of this type by Échec à la guerre — which, in the months leading up to the Iraq war, organized massive demonstrations in Quebec including the march in Montréal of nearly a quarter million people, the largest antiwar demonstration in Canadian history. In February 2008 the collective held Public hearings for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, and in October 2008 it sponsored publication of an Open Letter to federal election candidates under the heading “Sur le retrait des troupes canadiennes de l'Afghanistan, la démocratie c'est pour quand ? (When will we have a democratic decision on the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan?).

The call-out for the People’s Summit explains:

The purpose of the Summit is to strengthen the movement against war and militarism in Québec by deepening its reflection, clarifying its demands and consolidating its unity in action. It is urgent to do so. As the war of occupation in Afghanistan runs into more and more resistance and is now spilling over into Pakistan, the voices in favour of extending Canada’s military intervention in the region are already starting to be heard.

In this context, the period of preparations for the Summit and the Summit itself will offer a space and tools for further deconstructing the warmongers’ rhetoric and arguments. Canada’s role in the occupation of Afghanistan, a pamphlet in 18 talking points put out by Collectif Échec à la guerre, is still very pertinent. But although opposed to the war in Afghanistan, many Quebecers may feel at a loss when faced with some of the arguments put forward in militarist propaganda, such as:

· “It’s a UN mission”;

· “We have to honour our NATO commitments”;

· “Immediate withdrawal would be irresponsible.”

Countering such arguments requires a more thorough examination of important topics on which people often don’t have much information: the UN, NATO and issues of war and peace in our times. A shared understanding of these major issues becomes a necessity for the citizen-based anti-war movement if it wants to help transform the majority opinion against the war into a force capable of obtaining the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan and questioning the alignment of Canada’s foreign policy on that of the U.S. empire.

And the call-out adds:

It goes without saying that these objectives are in no way specific to the Québec context, and the Collectif Échec à la guerre will work in close collaboration with the Canadian Peace Alliance and its member groups to hold similar summits in other cities across Canada.

As part of the preparation for the People’s Summit, the collective has published three downloadable pamphlets discussing the major topics to be addressed at the Summit. The first two were issued in June 2009. One, entitled (in translation) “NATO: Defensive Alliance or Instrument of War?”, outlines the alliance’s origins in the Cold War and its evolution since 1991 as a keystone in imperialist foreign policy. The other, the title of which could be translated as “Are They Making War on Behalf of Women?”, exposes the faux-feminist rationale frequently peddled in defense of the Canadian and NATO war on Afghanistan. It makes effective use of quotations from Ms. Malalai Joya, the Afghan antiwar MP who recently toured North America.

Canada's corporate-military linkages

Last month, the collective published a third pamphlet, La militarisation de la politique étrangère du Canada: qui dicte l’agenda? (MPEC – “The Militarization of Canada’s Foreign Policy: Who Dictates the Agenda?”) A fourth pamphlet, yet to be published, will analyze the role of the UN Security Council and international law.

MPEC makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of Canadian foreign policy since the Second World War. It describes Canada’s central role as a close partner of the United States in the founding of NATO in 1949 and how the alliance provided the framework for Canada’s intervention in the Korean civil war in the early 1950s, the occupation of Germany, and this country’s production, sale and research and development of weapons throughout the Cold War. Since the Cold War, it explains, NATO has expanded its role as an instrument for Washington to secure its global hegemony amidst increasing inter-capitalist rivalry for resources and markets.

The pamphlet outlines the corresponding militarist shift in Canada’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War period, tracing its evolution through the build-up of the Canadian military as a “true combat force” participating in the 1991 Gulf War, the naval blockade of Iraq between 1990 and 2003, the army’s intervention in Somalia in 1992-93, the air force participation in the 78-day NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, and of course most recently in the now almost decade-long intervention in Afghanistan. It analyzes this shift in the context of the increasing trade and investment linkages with Washington through “free trade” and investment blocs and the related repressive measures in the post-9/11 period as expressed in the Anti-Terrorism Act (modeled on the U.S. Patriot Act), the security certificate detentions, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and of course the massive increases in military expenditures.

Finally, MPEC documents the leading role of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) in promoting the deepening alignment of Canadian foreign and military policy with that of the United States. The CCCE includes the country’s major business executives, including the heads of the banks, oil companies and military producers — among them such leading stalwarts of “Québec Inc.” as Bombardier, SNC-Lavalin, Power Corporation and CAE. It is now headed by John Manley, the former deputy prime minister. In short, Canada’s ruling class. MPEC notes: “A comparison of the CCCE’s positions since 2001 with the Canadian government’s foreign policy and defence statements reveals a troubling fact: they often contain the same ideas, the same arguments, sometimes even word for word....”

Peacekeeping?

There are some weaknesses in the pamphlet, in my view. In its discussion of Canadian policy in the Cold War, it unduly emphasizes Ottawa’s “differences” with Washington, citing such examples as the refusal to deploy nuclear arms on Canadian soil, the maintaining of economic (and diplomatic) links with Cuba, and the welcome accorded to U.S. draft resisters and deserters during the Vietnam war. A further examination would reveal that these examples had their limitations; they were exceptions, not the rule, and often served as cover for more nefarious practices.

Canada partnered with the U.S. in the North American Air Defence Alliance and allowed the U.S. to establish air bases on Canadian territory. It even built two nuclear missile bases of its own north of Toronto and Montréal-Ottawa, but then declined to equip the Bomarc missiles with nuclear arms — a decision Lester “Peace Prize” Pearson campaigned against as leader of the Liberal Party.

Although it did not send troops to Vietnam, Canada covered for U.S. aggression through its membership in the International Control Commission, while (as MPEC acknowledges) selling hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons annually to the U.S. throughout the war. The influx of young educated Americans fleeing the war helped temporarily to reverse the Canadian “brain drain” to the U.S. during a period when this country was rapidly expanding its post-secondary education facilities.

More seriously, MPEC fails to note how Canadian participation in “peacekeeping” forces under UN auspices, which it lauds as an example of Canada’s “mediation role”, was actually part and parcel of its alignment with the U.S. and other imperialist powers, often in opposition to the national liberation struggles that the pamphlet correctly cites as an important feature of the post-WWII world. In fact, Pearson’s role in establishing UN peacekeeping (for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize) was part of an attempt on Washington’s behalf to extricate its NATO allies Britain and France, along with Israel, from the consequences in the Arab world of their attack on Egypt in the wake of its nationalization of the Suez Canal. The more recent “peacekeeping” operations in Somalia, the Balkans and, yes, Afghanistan (which the UN has ex post facto endorsed) are likewise motivated by pro-imperialist considerations, now in the post-Cold War context of a less fettered scope for imperialist aggression in the dependent nations.

This omission is especially regrettable in light of Canada’s ongoing “peacekeeping” effort in Haiti, the second largest recipient (after Afghanistan) of Ottawa’s “foreign aid”. In 2004 the Canadian military participated in the overthrow and kidnapping of the country’s elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and since then the RCMP have been heavily involved in training police and security forces in Haiti. Canada’s response to the recent earthquake was primarily military, sending up to 2,000 soldiers to Haiti to patrol the streets of Port au Prince while Haitians frantically searched the ruins for loved ones and neighbours. Ottawa now has as many troops in Haiti as it does in Afghanistan! Yet Haiti is not even mentioned in this pamphlet.

However, these are the kind of questions that can be discussed at the forthcoming People’s Summit. The MPEC pamphlet concludes with a call for a public debate and redefinition of Canada’s foreign policy, and in particular for “the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan”. The Summit is an important initiative by Échec à la guerre that deserves the support of all antiwar activists, and not only in Quebec.

-- Richard Fidler, January 29, 2010

Secularism – For a broad, open and democratic debate

 

by Françoise David, President and spokesperson for Québec solidaire

and Amir Khadir, MNA for Mercier and spokesperson for Québec solidaire

This article was published in the Montréal daily Le Devoir, January 18, 2010.

An intense debate has been going for several months, nay several years, on secularism and how we can achieve a fully secular Quebec. The crisis over reasonable accommodation has propelled this issue to the forefront of social debates.

Québec solidaire is in favour of a secular Quebec — both the state and its institutions. At the same time, our members, meeting in convention last November, signified their commitment to fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religious belief.

We maintain that a debate is needed to complete the process of secularizing the Quebec state and its institutions. Like the Mouvement laïque québécois [Movement for a secular Quebec], Québec solidaire has called on the Quebec government to organize a debate on secularism in an effort to achieve the strongest possible consensus, and to enshrine that agreement in documentary form. This debate should include all Québécois of all origins. In our view, the discussion about secularism is not a discussion about immigrants!

A number of questions remain undecided and they affect both the Francophone majority as well as minorities. For example, the crucifix hanging over the head of the Speaker of the National Assembly is considered by some to be a matter of heritage that should remain. For others, it is first and foremost a symbol placed at the heart of a secular institution by Maurice Duplessis to seal the alliance between the Church and the state. This crucifix therefore has to go.

Secularism: mother of an inclusive modernity

Among the supporters of secularism “à la française”, the law of 1905 is often invoked. The law on secularism, introduced in France by the socialist MP [Aristide] Briand, was the product of a great republican movement aimed at decisively carrying out a separation between the state and religious authorities and thus to entrenching the neutrality of the French state in relation to all religions. At the same time, the law put an end to discrimination against Protestants, who had been denied access to positions in the civil service and education.

At the time, France was torn between two visions. The radical current of Émile Combes, a senator of the democratic left and heir to a very assertive anti-clerical tradition, wished to instrumentalize the state and the principle of secularism in order to wage a battle on the terrain of beliefs, which could lead potentially to a limitation on freedom of belief. However, for the moderate current of socialist leader Jean Jaurès and the minister Aristide Briand, themselves non-believers, the ideological battle against the clergy had to be set apart from the responsibility of the state.

The state had to ensure that it was sheltered from religious authority, but “the republic is the right of every man, whatever his religious belief, to have his share of sovereignty,” as Jaurès pointed out. As conceived by Briand and Jaurès, secularism is equally solicitous of the neutrality of state institutions toward beliefs and of the freedom of conscience of each, in accordance with the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

It is this modern conception that eventually prevailed. Freedom of conscience is one of the principal contributions of the Enlightenment to Western civilization and has played an undeniable role in the emergence of modernity. In 1905 it became one of the pillars of French secularism, entailing equality in law of religious and spiritual options and the neutrality of the political authority.

In the opinion of Québec solidaire, to defend the freedom of conscience of others is therefore a founding act of modernity, the purpose of which, in a manner of speaking, is to include and not to exclude.

The veil: Neither obligation nor prohibition

We are often challenged about our position on the subject of the veil worn by a minority of Muslim women in Quebec. We would like to remind people that the wearing of religious insignia by public employees is only one of the questions that we ought to debate in the framework of steps to achieve a fully secular state. However, as our position on the wearing of the veil attracts questions, we will explain it here again.

The veil originated at least 4,000 years ago, among the Sumerians, well before Islam, Christianity, and even Judaism. Under the Judeo-Christian and Muslim religions it became an instrument to control the bodies of women and, unquestionably, a sign of patriarchal oppression. Conceptually, it was imposed by “sacred” texts, written by the hands of men who lived in archaic societies which did not recognize the equality of rights between women and men. A feminist party like Québec solidaire therefore rejects the obligation to wear the veil: there is no ambiguity about it.

We reject just as clearly the attacks on the rights and freedoms of women, any and all attempts to dictate to women how to behave, be they by religious or political powers. Women must be free, autonomous, and full-fledged citizens in all societies. Their bodies belong to them, and they must be free to do what they wish with them.

What does this mean in Quebec, then? Among us we have women of very different life trajectories and references. They are evolving in a Quebec that, in the last 40 years, has made great strides in achieving equality between women and men. Nevertheless, this is also a Quebec that is not free from sexism and that discriminates in particular against immigrant women, refused jobs by employers under various pretexts.

Domestic space

How then can we protect the rights and freedoms of all women without excluding some of them from the labor market, for example? For what purpose would we deprive the veiled women of the space of participation in active life which comes with work, condemning them to remain prisoners of often conservative communitarian ghettos? Does rejecting the obligation to wear the veil mean the right to deprive Muslim women of the possibility to work for the largest employer in Quebec: the state? The holders of religious power who prescribe the veil would be the first to rejoice in seeing women confined to domestic space, more easily subjected to their control. If we did that, we would be adding a veil of exclusion to the veil of cloth.

In our view, it is important to wage the battle against sartorial and behavioral religious obligations on the terrain of ideas. We should say that these obligations, including the imposition of articles of clothing that cover women — for their bodies might become “an occasion of sin”! — are sexist and retrograde. And we ought to offer assistance and protection to women who wish to resist their imposition by some men or by some communities.

Defend all the rights of all women

Québec solidaire has therefore opted for a solution — we make no claim it is perfect — that consists in accompanying these women who have battles to fight and liberties to conquer. This defense of others, even other women and men who differ with us in ideas or beliefs, is, as we indicated earlier, the very essence of democracy and the republican principle of secularism. It has nothing to do with cultural relativism and multiculturalism.

The neutrality of the state, which secularism demands, is determined by the actions of those who work there and not by their clothes. We have therefore chosen not to prohibit the wearing of religious insignia in the civil service and public services, while agreeing that discussion needs to continue regarding situations in which the wearing of religious signs may prove to be inappropriate.

Here, then, is what we propose: to protect all rights at the same time, without losing sight of the need for complete neutrality of the state toward all religions and the absence of influence of any religion on the decisions of the state.

Secularism is not racism

In conclusion, we would like to dispel any misunderstanding that might leave the impression that Québec solidaire is accusing the secularists of being complicit in racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia. Such is not the case. How could we accuse secularism and its defenders when it is one of the central axes of our political project and our raison d’être? We are striving, like many other social and political actors, to complete the secularization of Quebec society. All points of view must be heard, with respect for the fundamental rights of everyone and in the search for the common good.

That said, we note that we are not the only ones who speak of secularism. Some xenophobes also speak of secularism — very selectively — in order to exclude more effectively, to discriminate virtuously. They use secularism as a veneer for their fear of others, of strangers who practice religions other than Christianity, for, in their eyes, that threatens the Québécois identity. They seldom say anything about the Catholic or Protestant religious authority, much less question Catholic doctors who invoke their religious beliefs in order to refuse to perform abortions, or elected officials who open their municipal council sessions with a prayer.

In brief, the defense of Québécois identity, however legitimate it is, is sometimes the pretext, these days, to mask a growing intolerance of others, especially newcomers. Muslim communities in particular bear the brunt of it. That we cannot tolerate, in Québec solidaire.

Secularism as we understand it is inclusive, but it excludes the fear of others or any intolerance with regard to those who arrive in Quebec each year. If these principles are clear and, as we believe, are widely shared by the people of Quebec, irrespective of their origins, pressure must continue to be put on the Charest government to engage in a broad, open, and democratic debate on secularism with the goal of arriving at the most unifying consensus for all Québécois.

The above article, translated from the January 18 issue of the Montréal daily Le Devoir, is preceded by the announcement of a symposium sponsored by the magazine À bâbord! [Portside] to be held on Friday, January 22 at the Université du Québec à Montreal, on the theme of “Québec in Search of Secularism”.  Québec solidaire leader Françoise David is a guest of honor at the event, along with Prof. Guy Rocher.

I translated this for Socialist Voice. Another English translation of this article was published in Mrzine.

Québec solidaire members defend party’s position on secularism, women’s rights

 

The article below was submitted last week to Socialist Voice.

LeftViews articles by Benoit Renaud and Bernard Rioux
Translated and introduced by Richard Fidler

The January 6 edition of the Montréal daily Le Devoir featured a hard-hitting op-ed defense of Québec solidaire’s position on separation of church and state and its opposition to the imposition of Islamophobic dress codes for civil servants. The left-wing party’s adoption of a “model of secularism” at its November convention, which parallels a similar position taken by the Quebec Women’s Federation (FFQ), has been harshly criticized in Quebec right-wing and nationalist circles campaigning against Muslims and other ethnic minorities who wear “ostentatious symbols” of their faith such as the Muslim hijab or headscarf.

The first article that we reproduce below is by Benoit Renaud, the general secretary of Québec solidaire, who also signs himself as an “antiwar, global solidarity and anti-racist activist”. It responds to an article likewise featured in Le Devoir, on December 30, by Michèle Sirois, who described herself as a “specialist in sociology of religions” and a “founding member of Québec solidaire”. Titled, in translation, “Secularism – Québec solidaire goes astray”, Sirois’ article argued that “our governments are not protecting with sufficient firmness two founding values of Quebec society: state neutrality and the predominance of equality between men and women over religious or cultural particularisms.” She attacked QS for its “unreasonable” accommodation of religious minorities, which she maintained was contrary to its claim to be a feminist party of the left.[1] An earlier version of her article entitled, in translation, “Why I am leaving Québec solidaire”, was published with laudatory support in Presse-toi à gauche, an on-line journal edited by members of Gauche socialiste, a collective within QS and the Quebec section of the Fourth International.

Renaud’s article has proved highly controversial since its publication. In Le Devoir alone, it is by far the most “commented on” article in recent weeks if not longer, registering more than 200 comments, most of them hostile to the position adopted by Québec solidaire. Much of the critics’ language is quite unrestrained. To cite a modest example, Marie-Michelle Poisson, president of the Mouvement laïque québécois, a group that has long been waging verbal warfare on ethnic minorities displaying signs of their religious beliefs, describes Renaud’s article as “a catastrophe”. She signed an open letter to Québec solidaire leaders Françoise David and Amir Khadir identifying the MLQ with the position expressed by Michèle Sirois and urging them to dissociate the party from Renaud’s article. So far, neither David nor Khadir, who are the designated “spokespersons” for the party, has responded or said anything publicly about the article or in response to these attacks. In fact, there is no mention of the controversy on the QS web site. Some QS members have published comments in Le Devoir dissociating themselves from the party position, while those expressing support are a tiny minority of the commentators.

In a “necessary clarification” Renaud posted in Le Devoir January 8 as a “comment” on his article, he explained that he was not “speaking on behalf of Québec solidaire”, that that was the responsibility of Khadir and David “who were not consulted on the content of this article.” Renaud also explained that he “unreservedly supports the position of the Quebec Women’s Federation on the Muslim headscarf: neither obligation nor prohibition”, adding that “The antidote to fundamentalism is dialogue, and if there is to be dialogue it is necessary to avoid excluding or stigmatizing certain beliefs.”

A notable feature of this controversy — the first major test of Québec solidaire’s commitment to a principled position on which there are serious divisions in the Quebec left and nationalist movements — is that it is the two major far-left collectives in QS that have been most prominent in defending the party and its political line. Benoit Renaud, in addition to being Québec solidaire’s general secretary, is a member of the party’s Socialisme International collective.

In the January 12 edition of Presse-toi à gauche, a leader of the Gauche socialiste collective, which until then had stood aside from the controversy, came out strongly in support of the adopted QS position on secularism. The second article reproduced below is a translation of Bernard Rioux’s contribution, which he also published in Le Devoir among the comments on Renaud’s article.

In the following articles the word laïcité (literally, secularity) is translated as secularism, the English term more commonly used now in Canada. Historically, laïcité referred to the concept of equal treatment of all religions — as in Muslim Spain of medieval times, where Islam, Judaism and Christianity coexisted — although more recently it has come to mean separation of church (or religion) and state. This is the sense in which the term is understood in Quebec today.

-- January 14, 2010

The wearing of religious insignia:

Québec solidaire dares to go against the tide

by Benoit Renaud

In her December 30 Le Devoir article, Ms. Michèle Sirois purports to lecture Québec solidaire on method, stating that the position adopted at its November convention concerning religious insignia is lacking in political analysis. But the orientation presented in her article — itself riddled with fallacious arguments, sophisms and problems of method — would lead the left into a totally unacceptable accommodation with the everyday racism that is currently directed against Québécois of Arab origin or Muslim religion. It would also weaken the women’s movement and the antiwar and global solidarity movement by giving in to an ideological offensive that serves the interests of the strongest.

Ms. Sirois assigns great importance to the fact that “the majority of Québécois” think certain accommodations that have been granted recently are “unreasonable”. This is a classic sophism. Using this type of criterion, no political action would be possible other than the basest opportunism. Less than 4 percent of the electorate voted for Québec solidaire in 2007 and 2008. Should we abandon our left-wing political project because the majority continues to vote for the three right-wing parties?

She accuses QS of “softness” on this issue. On the contrary, I think the QS convention showed great political courage and dared to go against the tide of the pervading xenophobia of which the fanatics of secularism constitute the ‘progressive’ branch.

Avoid “wall to wall” thinking

For Québec solidaire, human rights must be taken as a whole, and all are important. You cannot simply deny a group of persons their freedom of speech and religion, for example by prohibiting the wearing of “all” religious symbols by “all” individuals working directly or indirectly for the Quebec government, in the name of the principle of laïcité [roughly, secularism].

What is the interest in prohibiting a civil servant who has no contact with the public the right to wear a Jewish kippa [skull cap] at work? For what reason would we prohibit a woman teaching mathematics in adult education from wearing a headscarf in the classroom? The position adopted by the QS convention establishes a list of criteria that could be used to avoid wall-to-wall solutions and aim to balance the right of government employees to express their religious beliefs with the right of the public and other government employees to interact in a setting that is neutral in terms of beliefs. This is not “softness” but flexibility, an essential quality when the task is to conciliate potentially divergent rights and freedoms.

Ms. Sirois cites as her first argument the droit de réserve [duty of discretion] that applies to political convictions. In the first place, we must be very careful not to push too far the duty of discretion as it applies to politics, or else half a million persons could find themselves prohibited from being politically active in Quebec because their paycheque comes from the government’s budget. Secondly, politics should not be confused with religion. No political conviction requires that its supporters wear a symbol or particular clothing. Prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols by invoking a comparison with politics is therefore an obvious error in method.

More fundamentally, all political currents have some specific and relatively coherent things to say about the government’s orientations. That is the rationale for the duty of discretion: all civil servants must accommodate themselves to the established government whether they voted for or against it. Conversely, persons belonging to the same religious denomination may differ radically in their political beliefs. In Iran today there are imams on both sides of the fierce struggle between the government and the opposition. In Latin America, there are fervent Catholics on both the far left and the far right.

Women’s rights

Ms. Sirois also invites us to “go beyond the diversity of the reasons conveyed in the discourse of individuals to understand the real reasons for their conduct”. This logic should also apply to the supporters of a ‘charte de la laïcité’, a charter of secularism, and the repeated calls to prohibit the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in the Western countries. This debate is in fact unfolding in a context — that of an expanding number of imperialist wars and neocolonial occupations in the Muslim world, from Palestine to Afghanistan.

It is also unfolding at a time when immigration from Muslim-majority countries is an economic necessity for western countries faced with declining demographics. And it is unfolding while the deepening economic crisis is leading to an offensive against the rights of women and the feminist movement.

Ideological offensive

Islamophobic discourse, whether of the right or the left, helps to justify imperialism and colonialism by presenting Muslims as barbarians incapable of governing themselves, incapable of modernity and critical thinking, etc. Muslim women are presented as victims needing an army of Christian men and whites to protect them against their husbands, sons and fathers. They cannot think for themselves, according to some analyses of the wearing of the Islamic scarf such as that of Ms. Sirois.

Secondly, identifying Muslim immigrants as a threat helps to justify discrimination against this population, which allows the authorities to deny it fundamental rights and thus to make it a category of second-class citizens, easily exploitable. The European far right, which has always fought immigration in general, can now assume an air of respectability by targeting the Muslim minority in the name of “secularism” and “values”, the most recent example of this strategy being the Swiss referendum on the minarets. One need only look at the posters used in that campaign to understand that Islamophobia is a major ideological problem.

Finally, and this is the most pernicious aspect of this ideological offensive, identifying Islam and immigrants as the main threat to equality between men and women reinforces the notion that sexist oppression is something that has been overcome in our fine western societies. There is nothing easier than to attack the sexism of “the others”. Ms. Sirois even goes so far as to characterize equality of the sexes as a “founding value” of Quebec! The most minimal study of history should teach us that it is instead Catholic sexism that was a “founding” value against which the feminist movement had to wage a bitter fight.

Common struggle

To respond to the insecurity of identity and the economic insecurities evoked by Ms. Sirois, the left must do something other than repeat in “progressive” language the mantras against accommodation and against minorities. The only solution to the search for scapegoats is the determination of the real sources of economic and cultural dangers weighing on us. It is the comeback of English in the workplace, resulting in large part from our political subordination to the federal authorities, that constitutes the major threat to French and our cultural identity, not the massively Francophone immigration originating from North Africa.

The rational response, therefore, is, as QS proposes, to strengthen forthwith the provisions of Law 101 [the Charter of the French Language] governing the language of work and to make Quebec a country as soon as possible. The main threat to our economic security is not immigration but the present structure of capitalism, which exerts a constant pressure toward the casualization of labour and privatization of public services. We must therefore respond by defending the rights of workers and affirming the responsibility of the government for the protection of these rights and provision of the services that we all require. In short, instead of dividing employees in the public sector with a sterile debate over a charter of secularism, it is necessary to unite them in a common struggle against budget cutbacks and user fees.

 

Secularism: Productive debates require listening,

exchange and the avoidance of abuse!

by Bernard Rioux[2]

Presse-toi à gauche, January 12, 2010

The 165 contributions (to date) in reply to Benoit Renaud’s article entitled “The wearing of religious insignia: Québec solidaire dares to go against the tide” show how complex the debate on secularism is. But they also reveal the emotional level such a debate can generate. In far too many cases the opinions expressed are accompanied by confrontation, blanket denunciations, and mockery.

This complexity is revealed in the fact that this debate manifests convergences of social forces which, on other questions, are normally lined up in opposite camps. To put it clearly, the debate divides progressive and left forces, forces that must be united if they are to fight together against their common enemy. It would be disastrous to try to sweep this debate under the carpet on the pretext that there are more urgent struggles. What is repressed would quickly reappear, you can be sure. Behind the passion that informs and undermines this debate there are some convergences in the left that should be spelled out if we are to establish clearly the actual scope of the issues.

Given all the allegations being peddled about Québec solidaire’s position on secularism, and all the positions being attributed to it, it is necessary, first of all, to return to the facts, to recall what was adopted.

So what did Québec solidaire adopt concerning secularism?

In the recent debates on Québec solidaire’s positions concerning secularism, a lot of positions and intentions were ascribed to QS. Let us recall here the positions actually adopted at its recent convention.

Decision 1: We want to live in a secular Quebec that sanctions the separation of religious institutions and the state. Accordingly, Québec solidaire proposes a model of secularism that combines the neutrality of public institutions in terms of belief (including skepticism and non-belief) with the freedom of individuals to express their own convictions in a context that favours exchange and dialogue. The process of secularizing Quebec’s institutions is still not ended. The further advance of this process depends on both a clear state policy and a willingness by the society as a whole to establish, without concessions and definitively, the neutrality of the state in terms of religion. Because the state is secular, religious symbols should not be allowed in public institutions.

Decision 2: It is the state that is secular, not individuals. The wearing of religious symbols is allowed for the users of services provided by the state. Agents of the state may wear them provided they are not used as instruments of proselytism and the wearing of them does not in itself breach their droit de réserve [duty of discretion]. The wearing of religious symbols may also be restricted should they impede the performance of the duties or contravene safety standards.

Decision 3: To table this question [the proposal to end the state funding of denominational schools or of any religious activity] pending more extensive debate at a forthcoming convention on education and government subsidization policies.

Those are the only proposals that were adopted. As one can infer, there remains a continuing debate within Québec solidaire, and the vast majority of the members are completely at ease with that perspective. It is a time for continuing the discussion, not for slamming doors.

An area of convergence that needs to be defined

Secularism is essential to any democratic society. State neutrality toward the different religions and convictions, including the right not to believe; the separation of state and religion and therefore the fight against any domination of religion over the state; and respect for freedom of thought and religion are essential dimensions of secularism. The members of Québec solidaire seem to share the understanding that secularism is expressed in three spaces: the private space of the individual and the family; the social space of civil society; and the civic social space of the state. Religion does not pertain only to private space. Secularism likewise recognizes the right to manifest one’s religion or conviction individually or collectively in the public space. This convergence signifies that secularism does not mean either denying users of public institutions the expression of their convictions or restricting them to private space alone. No proposal along the lines of restricting the right of expression of religious or philosophical convictions of users in the public sphere was presented in the context of the debate in Québec solidaire. This is a secular position that rejects the logic that presided in the adoption of the 2004 law in France prohibiting the wearing of the veil by pupils in the schools. This convergence is important.

An area of divergence that requires balanced regulation

There is divergence as to the extent of the civic space of the state. The question is not whether institutions should be neutral, but rather what conditions will effectively implement both neutrality and separation between the institutions and religion. For a significant number of Québec solidaire members, adopting the following proposition represents a definite departure from a thoroughly secular orientation: “... Agents of the state may wear them [religious symbols] provided they are not used as instruments of proselytism and the wearing of them does not in itself breach their droit de réserve. The wearing of religious symbols may also be restricted should they impede the performance of the duties or contravene safety standards.” In fact, what Québec solidaire is saying, over and above the social justification, is that the wearing of religious symbols by civil servants does not itself constitute an instrument of proselytism and may be consistent with respecting the droit de réserve. What it says is that judgments must be based not on the symbols alone but on actual conduct. As Micheline Milot writes (in her book La laïcité, at p. 100):

The state’s neutrality is expressed in the impartiality of the exercise of the duty and the justification for the decisions made.... In most cases, support of a particular belief is not apparent, which does not mean that beliefs do not interfere in the service provided by the individual who holds them or even that they are not offensive to someone else. Freedom of expression would be significantly limited if we were to assume that the noxiousness of an object or a piece of fabric would inevitably affect the judgment of the person wearing it. That could amount, in law, to a rejection of the presumption of innocence, while the person whose convictions are not visible would enjoy a sort of safe-conduct, his or her decisions being presumed neutral.

Secularism, foundation for citizen tolerance

Secularism is founded on citizen tolerance, it should not be an instrument for the ethnicization of citizenship. It should not adopt for its own purposes the discourse on insecurity as to identity. It is the struggles for effective equality of social conditions for all components of the population that will be the central vehicle for integration. It is completely unproductive to call for rallying around common values if those values are not the product of common struggles for genuine social equality. Above all, it is not the struggle to make the members of minority cultures invisible that will enable them to become actively involved as true citizens. The path to their integration into citizenship proceeds through social, economic and political equality.

We must stop playing with words

Equality of men and women in Quebec is far from being a reality; it is an ongoing struggle. We must stop viewing the patriarchy of cultural minorities as the sole and unique danger of women’s continued oppression while patriarchy is still doing very well, unfortunately, within the majority. If we fail to recognize this, we avoid examining how the necessary alliances can be achieved. The secularism of the Quebec state is far from being an accomplished fact; a major part of our youth attend private denominational schools subsidized by the government, and Catholic religious symbols remain in public institutions, justified by heritage considerations. The Charest government’s decision to leave a crucifix hanging in the National Assembly is eloquent in this regard. Where is the sign that will signify the membership of non-Christians and atheists in Quebec society?

The struggle for secularism is central to the fight for true citizen integration. It cannot be reduced to the defence of an abstract universalism or repeated claims about values that most often serve to conceal the reality. In short, the task is to reduce the disparities between citizen equality as proclaimed and the reality of inequality and discrimination. We must refuse to stigmatize entire populations and we must show that it is concrete social struggles that can provide the effective crucible for mutual sharing and a genuine transformation in the habits of everyday life, the concrete sources of new solidarities.

---

[1] Ironically, the Le Devoir version of Sirois’ article was accompanied by a photo of a Muslim woman clad in a niqab (showing only her eyes) apparently staffing a government telephone hot-line — in other words not visible to her interlocutors. This, to illustrate an article protesting “ostentatious” symbols of religious belief by government agents!

[2] Active in the student and international solidarity movements (Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.) during the 1970s, Bernard Rioux has fought for many years in the teachers’ unions, at the local level in both the CSN and the CEQ. A socialist activist since the early 1970s, he has been involved in the process of unifying the political left. He participated in the founding of the Parti de la démocratie socialiste and later the Union des Forces progressistes. He is a member of Québec solidaire and its policy commission, and participates in the Gauche socialiste collective, where he has long been in charge of its web site, www.lagauche.com. He is a founding member of Presse-toi à gauche [where this note appears with his article].

Quebec needs workers’ unity, not a ‘charter of secularism’ – Québec solidaire

 

Introduction

Today’s edition of the Montréal daily Le Devoir features a hard-hitting op-ed defense of Québec solidaire’s position on separation of church and state and its opposition to the imposition of Islamophobic dress codes for civil servants. The left-wing party’s adoption of a “model of secularism” at its November convention, which parallels a similar position taken by the Quebec Women’s Federation (FFQ), has been harshly criticized in Quebec right-wing and nationalist circles campaigning against Muslims and other ethnic minorities who wear “ostentatious symbols” of their faith such as the hijab or scarf.

The article, which I reproduce below, is by Benoit Renaud, the general secretary of Québec solidaire, who also signs himself as an “antiwar, global solidarity and anti-racist activist”. It responds to an article likewise featured in Le Devoir, on December 30, by Michèle Sirois, who described herself as a “specialist in sociology of religions” and a “founding member of Québec solidaire”. Titled, in translation, “Secularism – Québec solidaire goes astray”, Sirois’ article argued that “our governments are not protecting with sufficient firmness two founding values of Quebec society: state neutrality and the predominance of equality between men and women over religious or cultural particularisms.” She attacked QS for its “unreasonable” accommodation of religious minorities, which she maintained was contrary to its claim to be a feminist party of the left.[1] An earlier version of the article entitled, in translation, “Why I am leaving Québec solidaire”, was published with laudatory support in Presse-toi à gauche, an on-line journal edited by members of Gauche socialiste, a collective within QS and the Quebec section of the Fourth International.

Titled, in translation, “The wearing of religious insignia: Québec solidaire dares to go against the tide”, Renaud’s piece argues that Sirois’ orientation “would lead the left into a totally unacceptable accommodation with the ordinary racism that is currently directed against Québécois of Arab origin or Muslim religion. It would also weaken the women’s movement and the antiwar and global solidarity movement by giving in to an ideological offensive that serves the interests of the strongest.”

“She accuses QS of ‘softness’ on this issue,” Renaud writes. “On the contrary, I think the QS convention showed great political courage and dared to go against the tide of the pervading xenophobia of which the fanatics of secularism constitute the ‘progressive’ branch.”

Sirois had urged her readers to “understand the real reasons” for the “conduct” of those who support reasonable accommodation of the practices of religious minorities — suggesting that they embrace misogynist concepts in Islam. “This logic,” writes Renaud, “should also apply to the supporters of a ‘charte de la laïcité’, a charter of secularism, and the repeated calls to prohibit the wearing of the Islamic scarf in the Western countries. This debate is in fact unfolding in a context — the expanding number of imperialist wars and neocolonial occupations in the Muslim world, from Palestine to Afghanistan.

It is also unfolding at a time when immigration from Muslim-majority countries is an economic necessity for western countries faced with declining demographics. And it is unfolding while the deepening economic crisis is leading to an offensive against the rights of women and the feminist movement.

Islamophobic discourse, whether of the right or the left, helps to justify imperialism and colonialism by presenting Muslims as barbarians incapable of governing themselves, incapable of modernity and critical thinking, etc. Muslim women are presented as victims needing an army of Christian men and whites to protect them against their husbands, sons and fathers. They cannot think for themselves, according to some analyses of the wearing of the Islamic scarf such as that of Ms. Sirois.

Secondly, identifying Muslim immigrants as a threat helps to justify discrimination against this population, which allows the authorities to deny it fundamental rights and thus to make it a category of second-class citizens, easily exploitable. The European far right, which has always fought immigration in general, can now assume an air of respectability by targeting the Muslim minority in the name of “secularism” and “values”, the most recent example of this strategy being the Swiss referendum on the minarets. One need only look at the posters used in that campaign to understand that Islamophobia is a major ideological problem.

Finally, and this is the most pernicious aspect of this ideological offensive, identifying Islam and immigrants as the main threat to equality between men and women reinforces the notion that sexist oppression is something that has been overcome in our fine western societies. There is nothing easier than to attack the sexism of “the others”. Ms. Sirois even goes so far as to characterize equality of the sexes as a “founding value” of Quebec! The most minimal study of history should teach us that it is instead Catholic sexism that was a “founding” value against which the feminist movement had to wage a bitter fight.

To respond to the insecurity of identity and the economic insecurities evoked by Ms. Sirois, the left must do something other than repeat in “progressive” language the mantras against accommodation and against minorities. The only solution to the search for scapegoats is the determination of the real sources of economic and cultural dangers weighing on us. It is the comeback of English in the workplace, resulting in large part from our political subordination to the federal authorities, that constitutes the major threat to French and our cultural identity, not the massively Francophone immigration originating from North Africa.

The rational response, therefore, is, as QS proposes, to strengthen forthwith the provisions of Law 101 [the Charter of the French Language] governing the language of work and to make Quebec a country as soon as possible. The main threat to our economic security is not immigration but the present structure of capitalism, which exerts a constant pressure toward the casualization of labour and privatization of public services. We must therefore respond by defending the rights of workers and affirming the responsibility of the government for the protection of these rights and provision of the services that we all require. In short, instead of dividing employees in the public sector with a sterile debate over a charter of secularism, it is necessary to unite them in a common struggle against budget cutbacks and user fees.

– Richard Fidler

* * *

Port de signes religieux - Québec solidaire ose aller à contre-courant

par Benoit Renaud - Secrétaire général de Québec solidaire, militant pacifiste, altermondialiste et antiraciste

Le Devoir, 6 janvier 2010

Dans son texte publié dans Le Devoir du 30 décembre, Mme Michèle Sirois vise à donner une leçon de méthode à Québec solidaire, affirmant que la position adoptée au congrès de novembre sur les signes religieux dénote un manque d'analyse politique. Mais l'orientation présentée dans son texte — lui-même truffé d'arguments fallacieux, de sophismes et de problèmes de méthode — conduirait la gauche à un accommodement totalement inacceptable avec le racisme ordinaire qui afflige présentement les Québécoises et les Québécois d'origine arabe ou de religion musulmane. Elle affaiblirait également le mouvement des femmes et le mouvement pacifiste et altermondialiste en cédant à une offensive idéologique qui sert les intérêts des plus puissants.

Mme Sirois accorde une grande importance au fait que «la majorité des Québécois» considère que certains accommodements accordés récemment sont «déraisonnables». Il s'agit d'un sophisme classique. Avec ce genre de critère, aucune action politique ne serait possible, sauf le plus bas opportunisme. Moins de 4 % de l'électorat a voté pour Québec solidaire en 2007 et 2008. Devrions-nous abandonner notre projet politique de gauche parce que la majorité continue de voter pour les trois partis de droite?

Elle accuse QS de «mollesse» sur cette question. Au contraire, je considère que le congrès de QS a fait preuve d'un grand courage politique et a osé aller à contre-courant en ce qui concerne la xénophobie ambiante dont les fanatiques de la laïcité constituent la branche «progressiste».

Éviter le «mur à mur»

Pour Québec solidaire, les droits de la personne sont à prendre en bloc, et sont tous importants. On ne peut pas simplement nier à un ensemble de personnes leur liberté d'expression et de religion, par exemple en interdisant le port de «tous» les signes religieux par «toutes» les personnes qui travaillent directement ou indirectement pour le gouvernement du Québec, au nom du principe de laïcité.

Au nom de quoi interdirait-on à un fonctionnaire qui n'a aucun contact avec le public le droit de porter une kippa juive au travail? Pour quelle raison interdirait-on à une femme qui enseigne les mathématiques à l'éducation des adultes de porter un foulard en classe? La position adoptée par le congrès établit une liste de critère permettant d'éviter les solutions mur à mur et de viser un équilibre entre le droit des fonctionnaires à exprimer leurs croyances religieuses et celui du public, et des autres fonctionnaires, à interagir dans un milieu neutre sur le plan des croyances. Il ne s'agit pas de mollesse, mais de souplesse, une qualité essentielle lorsqu'il s'agit de concilier des droits et des libertés potentiellement divergents.

Mme Sirois évoque comme premier argument le droit de réserve qui s'applique aux convictions politiques. D'abord, il faut faire bien attention à ne pas pousser trop loin le droit de réserve applicable à la politique, sinon 500 000 personnes pourraient se voir interdire tout militantisme dans la politique québécoise parce que leur chèque de paye est issu du budget de l'État. Ensuite, il ne faut pas confondre politique et religion. Aucune conviction politique ne demande à ses adeptes de porter un symbole ou un vêtement particulier. Interdire le port de signes religieux en invoquant une comparaison avec la politique est donc une erreur de méthode évidente.

Plus fondamentalement, tous les courants politiques ont des choses précises et relativement cohérentes à dire sur les orientations de l'État. C'est la raison du devoir de réserve, tous les fonctionnaires devant s'accommoder du gouvernement en place, qu'ils aient voté pour ou contre. À l'opposé, des personnes appartenant à la même dénomination religieuse peuvent se situer aux antipodes sur le plan politique. En Iran aujourd'hui, il y a des imams des deux côtés de la lutte féroce entre le gouvernement et l'opposition. En Amérique latine, on retrouve des catholiques fervents tant à l'extrême gauche qu'à l'extrême droite. [...]

Droits des femmes

Mme Sirois nous invite aussi à «dépasser la diversité des motifs véhiculés dans les discours des individus pour comprendre les véritables raisons de leurs comportements». Cette logique devrait s'appliquer également aux partisans de la «charte de la laïcité» et aux appels répétés pour l'interdiction du port du foulard islamique dans les pays occidentaux. Ce débat se déroule effectivement dans un contexte, celui de la multiplication des guerres impérialistes et des occupations néocoloniales dans le monde musulman, de la Palestine à l'Afghanistan.

Il se déroule également alors que l'immigration en provenance de pays à majorité musulmane est une nécessité économique pour les pays occidentaux en proie au déclin démographique. Il se déroule aussi pendant que l'approfondissement de la crise économique conduit à une offensive contre les droits des femmes et contre le mouvement féministe.

Offensive idéologique

Les discours islamophobes, de droite ou de gauche, permettent d'abord de justifier l'impérialisme et le colonialisme en présentant les musulmans comme des barbares, incapables de se gouverner eux-mêmes, incapables de modernité et de réflexion critique, etc. Les femmes musulmanes sont présentées comme des victimes qui ont besoin d'une armée d'hommes chrétiens et blancs pour les protéger contre leurs maris, leurs fils, leurs pères. Elles ne peuvent penser par elles-mêmes, selon certaines analyses du phénomène du port du foulard islamique, telles que celle de Mme Sirois.

Deuxièmement, le fait d'identifier les immigrants musulmans à une menace permet de justifier la discrimination contre cette population, ce qui permet aux autorités de lui nier des droits fondamentaux et ainsi d'en faire une catégorie de citoyens de seconde zone, facilement exploitable. L'extrême droite européenne, qui s'attaque depuis toujours à l'immigration en général, peut maintenant se donner un air de respectabilité en ciblant la minorité musulmane au nom de la «laïcité» et des «valeurs», le dernier exemple de cette stratégie étant le référendum suisse sur les minarets. On n'a qu'à voir les affiches utilisées dans cette campagne pour comprendre que l'islamophobie est un problème idéologique majeur.

Enfin, et c'est l'aspect le plus pernicieux de cette offensive idéologique, le fait d'identifier l'islam et les immigrants comme la principale menace à l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes renforce la notion selon laquelle l'oppression sexiste serait une chose du passé dans nos bonnes sociétés occidentales. Rien de plus facile que de s'attaquer au sexisme des «autres». Mme Sirois va jusqu'à qualifier l'égalité des sexes de «valeur fondatrice» du Québec! Un minimum d'étude de l'histoire devrait nous enseigner que c'est plutôt le sexisme catholique qui a été une valeur «fondatrice» contre laquelle le mouvement féministe a dû se battre avec acharnement.

Lutte commune

Pour répondre à l'insécurité identitaire et aux insécurités économiques qu'évoque Mme Sirois, la gauche doit faire autre chose que répéter dans un langage «progressiste» les mantras contre les accommodements et contre les minorités. La seule solution à la recherche de boucs émissaires est la détermination des sources réelles de dangers économiques et culturels qui pèsent sur la population. C'est le retour en force de l'anglais en milieu de travail, résultant en bonne partie de notre subordination politique aux autorités fédérales, qui constitue la principale menace pour le français et notre identité culturelle, pas l'immigration massivement francophone originaire d'Afrique du Nord.

La réponse rationnelle consiste donc, comme QS le propose, à renforcer le chapitre de la loi 101 sur la langue de travail dès maintenant et à faire du Québec un pays aussi tôt que possible. La principale menace à notre sécurité économique n'est pas l'immigration, mais bien la structure actuelle du capitalisme, qui exerce une pression constante vers la précarisation du travail et la privatisation des services publics. Il faut donc répondre en défendant les droits des travailleuses et des travailleurs, et en affirmant la responsabilité de l'État pour la protection de ces droits et la prestation des services dont nous avons tous et toutes besoin. Bref, au lieu de diviser les employés du secteur public avec un débat stérile sur une charte de la laïcité, il faut les unir dans une lutte commune contre les compressions budgétaires et la tarification.

---

[1] Ironically, the Le Devoir version of Sirois’ article was accompanied by a photo of a Muslim woman clad in a niqab (showing only her eyes) apparently staffing a government telephone hot-line — in other words not visible to her interlocutors. This, to illustrate an article protesting “ostentatious” symbols of religious belief by government agents!