Blog 136: Multiculturalism and Colonialism

Pierre Marchand


Canadian multiculturalism is pure colonialism. The descendants of British colonists and American loyalists who took refuge here are the masters of the country, regardless of which political party is in power. Nowhere is this colonialism more patent than in its treatment of First Nations. But it does not stop there. The colonialists have no other choice than to let people from their former colonies and elsewhere immigrate because they need cheap labour. However, since they wants to maintain their power, what better way than to incite immigrants to congregate along cultural, religious or ethnic lines. Divide and conquer. This is multiculturalism.

Under the guise of tolerance and inclusion, the WASP (white Anglo-Saxon protestant) colonialists pride themselves on having superior morals but share none of their privileges and do not ask immigrants to adopt anything from their culture other than requiring them to speak the language. Anyone who is not WASP is “ethnic.” In no way is the immigrant allowed to approach them. To WASPs, French speaking Quebecers are an ethnic group just like First Nations and immigrants, as evidenced recently by Michael Rousseau. Similarly, even Paul Desmarais (senior) never succeeded in being totally accepted by the Anglo-Canadian establishment, though not for lack of trying.

The colonialists never adopt anything from ethnic groups. Some of them pretend to adopt certain cultural (mostly religious) aspects of an ethnic group, but this is only theatre. For instance, Trudeau sometimes wears the kippa, at other times the kifu or traditional Indian dress, or a minister may wear a hijab when meeting Muslims, etc.

Some self-righteous judges appointed by the colonialists in Canada and Great Britain exhibit moral relativism and are reluctant to apply the laws of the land to ethnic groups under the pretense of inclusivity and tolerance. They have difficulty recognizing an honour crime as murder as it is part of the culture of such and such an ethnic group. Similar reasoning for genital mutilation, child marriage or wearing the niqab. Some of them would even be willing to apply sharia law when dealing with crimes perpetrated by Muslims. But it is above all their belief that religious liberty tales precedence over all other liberties that motivates them. Here again, colonialism. “If a member of an ethnic group commits a crime, we will be tolerant if that is his religion. But we are morally superior and would never tolerate that among ourselves because our religion is superior.” Indeed, the “God” mentioned in the preamble to the Canadian Charter is not Allah or Vishnu or the Catholic god, but the “God” of the Anglican Church of England directed by her gracious British majesty.

On the other hand, Quebec’s model tries to integrate the various cultures with the purpose of achieving a more harmonious society. It is true that Quebecers are descendants of French colonialists who dominated the First Nations of the time. But today’s Quebecers do not have a colonialist mentality since they have no intention of conquering other territories. Moreover, they are themselves colonized like the First Nations and other ethnicities, but they are more numerous and represent the majority in their territory (for now).

For Quebecers, religious freedom is a liberty on a par with other freedoms and does not take precedence over them. And this is because for them religion is a free choice and not an innate characteristic inseparable from the individual’s identity. Quebecers do not boast of moral superiority over anyone. For them, the Church is separate from the State and the difference is that the State recognizes no religion, whereas the Anglo-Saxon colonialist’s multiculturalism recognizes all religions (their own first).

Quebecers accept most aspects of immigrants’ culture and attempt as best they can to integrate them into their own. In exchange, they expect immigrants to drop any aspects of their culture that may be unacceptable to Quebecers such as genital mutilations, child marriage or wearing the niqab. Moreover, Quebecers care about their language and secularism. They do not like ostentatious signs of religious affiliation. Their priests and nuns understood this 50 years ago and have become discreet. Quebecers expect the same discretion from other religions. In Quebec, there are immigrants from many ethnic groups and religions and a great many of them have integrated harmoniously without losing their cultural or religious identity. But this can only be achieved by limiting the number of immigrants and with effective integration mechanisms.

There are extremists who immigrate with the intention of replicating here the same tyranny that prevails in their home country. Quebecers prefer that such extremists stay at home because they cannot be integrated.

Canadian colonialism is one of the reasons we have not managed to abolish the function of General Governor and to distance Canada from the British crown like Australia intends to do after the death of her gracious British majesty, or to resolve the problem of First Nations. By resisting multiculturalism, the Quebec model of society aims to free Quebec from colonialism. This is one of the reasons why laws such as Bill 21 and Bill 101 face so much opposition from the ROC (Rest of Canada). Indeed, when a powerful group feels threatened, its politicians foment hostility among the people against the most threatening ethnic group and this is how fascism begins. At the present time, Quebecers are perceived as being the most threatening ethnicity and this is the reason why we see so much Quebec-bashing and uninhibited Anglo-supremacism from old-stock Canadian whites.

Finally, every time a Quebecer criticizes Canadian colonialism, it is pointed out to him that Quebecers are themselves colonialists towards their First Nations. This omits the fact that it is the Government of Canada that has the ultimate responsibility towards the First Nations with its shameful Indian Act. In spite of that, Quebec is one of the only provinces to sign treaties with one of its First Nations, notably on the occasion of the Paix des Braves agreement between Quebec and the Cree. Besides, certain First Nations have integrated very well with Quebecers without losing their identity or their culture.

One comment on “Blog 136: Multiculturalism and Colonialism
  1. Jean THIBAUDEAU says:

    “the difference is that the State recognizes no religion, whereas the Anglo-Saxon colonialist’s multiculturalism recognizes all religions (their own first).”

    I like especially this one. Of course, this is true. But it’s not something written in any law, neither in Québec, nor in Canada. In such a way that all pros and cons on either side can deny it if it fits with their ideology.

    Also, both may assert that their State is neutral between religions. But there is an important nuance. Laïque Québec is not pro-religions and may say it treats all its citizens equally, including non-believers. Multicultural Canada is pro-religions and deals with the reality of non-believers as if it just does’nt exist, precisely because it considers “religions as an innate characteristic inseparable from the individual’s identity”. In other words, non-religious humans CAN’T exist. At best, to settle the problem, it will consider non-believing AS a religion amongst the others (notwithstanding the obvious contradiction).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Print This Page Print This Page