The Veil

There's some talk wondering if the PQ's loss, under Andre Boisclair, in the recently concluded Quebec provincial elections was because Quebecers are homophobic and couldnt deal with the idea of a gay Premier.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/03/032907quebec.htm

I think this is completely wrong.

Quebec is arguably the most left-leaning and social democratic province in all of Canada. Quebec has been the most progressive on issues ranging from having the lowest post-secondary tuition rates to one of the most extensive systems of health and childcare. Likewise, the PQ is arguably one of the most left-of-centre political parties in Canada advocating a variety of social programs and supporting initiatives like same sex marriage (which was legalized in Canada in 2005 and reaffirmed as law by the House of Commons in 2006).

For a federalist like myself, the PQ, in terms of social issues, is terrific...'cept for that whole separation issue.

The article that questioned Quebec's tolerance for gays and lesbians linked the working-class and union base of the PQ as the potential culprit in derailing Boisclair's victory. These blue collar unionists, the article thought, werent ready for a gay Premier. I dont think this is accurate at all. Without diving into the specifics of Quebec politics, of which I am happily admitting I am not an expert, I will say that there's precedent for a political party to be able to successfully and peacefully put together seemingly competing interests. If we're talking about left-of-centre Canadian political parties and examples, there's the case of the New Democrats which grew out of the CCF, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and the Canadian Labour Congress. Advocating universal social programs, the NDP's been the traditional home of farmers, labourers, unionists, feminists and activists who, while having very different identities, strategically coalesced and cooperated around t key issues (like establishing universal healthcare or an old age pension system). A similar case existed in Quebec and the PQ where different groups formed around the push for sovereignty in the belief that sovereignty would give them a better deal on social issues than Canadian federalism's been able to provide.

Canadian federalism is the key point to the PQ's loss. It wasnt about Quebecers being homophobic. It was about Quebecers getting tired of the PQ's separatist message. It was about Quebecers being open to Stephen Harper's overtures (and his provincial stand-in Mario Dumont and the ADQ) of a "new" kind of decentralized federalism with Ottawa giving more money to the provinces to use as they wish. Jim Flaherty declaring that "the fiscal imbalance is over" is the flipside of Stephen Harper declaring that "Quebec is a nation *within* a nation." The PQ's loss and the ADQ's rise is about Quebecers open to seeing how much they can be their own nation...within Canada.

It doesnt have much to do with Boisclair being gay or not. During the party leadership race, it was revealed that Boisclair used cocaine. That didnt seem to hurt his bid. During the last phase of the campaign, Boisclair declared he would change the electoral law so that it would be mandatory for Muslim women who wear the niqab (the face veil) to show their faces to be able to vote. If I were a Quebec voter, this would be the reason that would make me reconsider voting for Boisclair and the PQ and not because he was gay. The rights of minorities, specifically Muslims, became a hot issue in the Quebec election and resentment and fear of Muslims, was partly responsible for Dumont and the ADQ's popularity since they took a hard stance against accommodating these interests. The right-wing consolidation against what little there already is to accommodate minorities and to negotiate acceptable ways of being in the public sphere is the far more interesting and continuing story of the Quebec elections and not Boisclair's sexuality.

In so many Western countries, from France to England to Canada, the focus has been on Muslim women and the veil and how it's anti-social and dangerous and oppressive. The goal is to remove the veil and for these women to show their faces. By showing their faces, it's as if we can understand the dark mysteries of the Orient (and that there is, in fact, a mystery and a secret that's rightfully bedeviled and beguiled us). But that's not nearly as telling as our collective cultural obsession in getting these women to remove their veils. It's not their faces that's worth examining but ours.