Jan Wong is not the Pope

Recently, the media has been focusing on Pope Benedict XVI’s quoting of a 14th-century Christian emperor on an ‘evil and inhuman’ Islam and the global political storm that followed.

Closer to home, Globe and Mail journalist Jan Wong has also created a growing controversy with her interpretation of what motivated the authors of Canada’s three infamous shooting rampages which, coincidentally, all took place in Montreal, in the Province of Quebec. Jan Wong argued that the shootings at the University of Montreal, Concordia University and Dawson College are the results of a pure laine mentality that marginalizes and aleniates Quebeckers that are not direct descendants of French colonialists (the «pure laine»). Pointing out that Lepine, Fabrikant, and Gill were all immigrants or children of, she writes:

What many outsiders don't realize is how alienating the decades-long linguistic struggle has been in the once-cosmopolitan city. It hasn't just taken a toll on long-time anglophones, it's affected immigrants, too. To be sure, the shootings in all three cases were carried out by mentally disturbed individuals. But what is also true is that in all three cases, the perpetrator was not pure laine, the argot for a "pure" francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial "purity" is repugnant. Not in Quebec.

Her analysis of the reason behind the shootings was of course rejected and denounced by the media in Quebec and elsewhere. Premier Charest and Prime Minister Harper both wrote to the Globe and Mail to vilify her writing and demand an apology.

Before I give my opinion, a disclaimer: Jan Wong is my ex-husband’s sister. But we live in different cities and have not been in contact for the last 10 years.

Let me cut right to the chase: I do not agree with her analysis. I’ve been living in Quebec for a longer time and have had more friends and contacts with the «pure laine» society than she has and I think I understand the francophone mentality better than she does. So, no, the shooting was not precipitated by the exclusion of non-pure laine (or «ethnics» as we're called).

BUT

- It is difficult for immigrants to be really integrated into Quebec society;

- People still say : «No, I mean, really, where are you from?» when I tell them I am a Canadian or a Quebecker.

- My children are regularly victims of racial harassments from older Quebeckers on the subway or the bus.

- On TV and in the movies, non-whites are not represented or only by the same couple of tokens.

- Only yesterday, a Quebecker friend said to me: «Oh I see, you do it this way, but us Quebeckers we do it this way» and she was talking about peeling a cucumber!

Etc...

Before I’m denounced as anti-francophone and forced to apologize, let me tell you this anecdote. In the late 80s, the newly formed Equality Party [http://tinyurl.com/nb64b] was trying to recruit members. One of my colleagues, an Egyptian immigrant, invited me to join. I told him: «Why, this is not my war, just as the defense and protection of the French language is not my war». «But the Anglophones are being discriminated against by Bill 101» «W., look at me! I’m a non-white, I’m being discriminated against every day, by Anglophones and by Francophones. Let them fight this out among themselves».

Of course, examples and anecdotes do not a theory make, but they are numerous enough to stop us from crucifying Jan Wong for her interpretation and from sweeping all the underlying factors under the rug. I don’t see any improvement of the situation in the near future, until we all agree to air the problems and really discuss the issues. Pure laine Quebeckers are shocked and indignant, sputtering demands for apology «to all Quebeckers» and I can understand that. It is not pleasant to read ugly depictions of your character in the newspapers, especially if you believe in your own righteousness and even more so if you are convinced that the rest of the country is out to get you. So you tend to protest too much, to give too much importance to what is simply the opinion of a single person.

Jan Wong is not the Pope and she only represents herself. She has the right and, as a journalist, the duty to try and find a cause for an inexplicable crime. You can agree or disagree with her. But politicians who are using the occasion for demagogical reasons to boost their standing with voters, in preparation for the next election, are hypocritical or, if they really believe in what they are saying, sadly delusional.