As voting day approaches
In 2012, 1.5 million eligible voters did not vote in Quebec’s general election that saw Pauline Marois win a minority government. I know many colleagues and neighbours who were among those 1.5 million. Oddly enough, these are the same individuals who seem to do the most complaining about Quebec’s leadership.
This week, I was able to convince two non-voters to vote. My tactic was simple. I said, “I hear you complaining a lot, but you didn’t even vote last election. Why don’t you get your butt to the voting booth?”
They both voted on Sunday, and their opinions will count.
By turning one vote into three, I believe I have made a difference. I suggest that others do the same and convince some of those other non-voters to help make sure the best men and women will win election on Monday. Nathan Friedland
Roxboro
Re: “La laïcité is not racism” (Opinion, April 3)
Let me first say I am what would be referred to as a WASP. I am seriously shocked that you would publish Frédéric Bastien’s opinion. He says, among other questionable assertions, that if he were to call the po- lice on his “turban-wearing neighbour” and that a “turban wearing policeman” were to answer the call, he could not expect the officer to act and adjudicate in a fair and neutral way.
Does this also mean that if my neighbour is French and the police officer who answers the call is also French, my neighbour would be favoured over me? Does this mean that if the police were called in a complaint against my African- Canadian neighbour and the officer were AfricanCanadian, he or she would side with the neighbour? If this is the case, we are in serious trouble.
David L. Mitchell
Baie D’Urfe
Frédéric Bastien is right to point out that “la laïcité” is not racism — the importance of secularism is, in fact, one of the values that binds all Canadians togeth- er from coast to coast.
However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and many of the measures in Bill 60 amount to nothing more than shaving the poor cat’s head to humiliate it.
Bastien’s absurd example is a case in point: I believe a policeman wearing a turban can be respectful of his ethical obligations, regardless of what he has on his head, while a “nonostentatious” bigoted policeman might not be so respectful.
And as for Bastien’s use of the hypothetical example of a dispute between him and a neighbour who wears a turban, with a police officer wearing a turban coming to settle it, we know historically that the minority-group neighbour is the one who is more likely to get the short end of the stick when it comes to fair treatment by the state.
Secularism shouldn’t be reduced to a yes-no question. It is an important issue (although not as pressing as the health care, education and infrastructure crises in this province). Let’s make sure it’s addressed with an appropriate legal and political framework, not a tokenistic and hurtful one.
William Raillant-Clark
Montreal
To be fair, the PQ government of Pauline Marois did not invent euphemistic language when it comes to the Charter of Quebec Values, or as it is more often referred to in the street, the secularism charter.
Indeed, the list of government euphemisms that define the modern age is a long and depressing one. “Extraordinary rendition” (kidnapping), “revenue enhancement” (taxation), “proactive reaction strike” (attack), “ethnic cleansing” (genocide), “collateral damage” (unintentional killing) and “correctional facility” (prison) are but a few examples.
But couching statesanctioned discrimination against people based on non-Christian religious affiliation as a values or secularism charter is a doozy. And Marois and her followers go even further. They claim, with righteous indignation, that their manifestly discriminatory charter is designed to promote gender equality.
The wordplay has had some success, as evidenced by the number of people in Quebec who still support the PQ in its quest for a majority government.
Not that there is any doubt that Marois would ever backtrack from the proposed legislation. She has said repeatedly that the first thing she would do if re-elected with a majority would be to enact the regressive bill. She now even says that she would invoke the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to shield the charter from legal challenges.
I am reminded of the old advertising trick wherein the challenge is to sell mayonnaise with a fat content of 10 per cent. The product could never compete if that little fact- oid were stated plainly, so the ploy is to promote it as “90 per cent fat free.” And guess what? People buy it, assured that they are making a healthy choice.
If Marois does lose this election and finds herself out of a job, she should take heart. There’s always room for new blood in the advertising business.
Paul Globus
Montreal
As we head to the polls on Monday, remember Dr. Seuss’s words: Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot Nothing is going to get better
It’s not
On Monday, we will decide Quebec’s future. A good political campaign clarifies the issues, converts the cynics, and coalesces the community. Unfortunately the leaders of the various provincial parties have done an excellent job of obfuscating the issues, alienating the voters and dividing the population.
If you want to separate from Canada, vote PQ. If you really, really want to separate from Canada, vote Québec solidaire. If you do not want to separate from Canada, vote Liberal. If you like uncertainty, vote Coalition Avenir Québec. If you like trees, vote Green.
Regardless of whom you choose to vote for, take Dr. Seuss’s words to heart — and vote!
James Watts
St-Laurent