Matt Friedman, a guy who teaches history at Rutgers University, recently wrote an annoyingly self-righteous letter to Pauline Marois, premiere of Quebec. I find Friedman's letter annoying because I always find pretentious academics who don't know what they're talking about annoying. But let's get into some specifics.
Friedman is writing to protest against the imposition of the "Charter of Quebecois values" currently being proposed by the government of Quebec. After an impassioned recital of his bona fides as a real Quebecois who holds real Quebecois values - though he is temporarily in exile from sa patrie -, he gets into trying to tell us what is wrong with the Charter.
He first explains that the law would allow certain things and disallow others, then, after making the accusation that the proposed Charter is essentially totalitarian, he writes: "Indeed, it is an axiom of both the Common and Civil Law that, for a law to be just it must apply equally and without discrimination. Yet the secularism you seek to impose on Québec is fundamentally unequal and discriminatory. It is therefore unjust."
Now I'm pretty sure the axiom he refers to means that the law must apply equally to all of those who fall under its prescriptions. It doesn't mean that the law itself must fail to make any distinctions, that is, that the law itself must not discriminate, that the law must regard every possible state of affairs as 'equal' - in other words, that the law should be nihilistic. The purpose of law is precisely to discriminate, and to do so in a way that is just and that will promote the common good... isn't it?? Friedman's claim is analogous to the claim that laws against murder discriminate against murderers - yeah, that's the point! (This all-too-common argument is one that annoys the heck out of me: "X is discriminatory; therefore X is unjust." No; to be discriminating is a good thing; it is to be capable of seeing reality and making sound judgments. To call something unjust is an act of discrimination, so if discrimination as such was really unjust, then it would be unjust to call anything unjust! That way of talking is thoroughly nonsensical.)
But then we might ask, how do advocates of unfettered tolerance, like Friedman, feel about someone wearing a KKK outfit, or displaying a big swastika tattoo? I'd actually be okay with that (i.e., tolerate it, not be happy about it) in some cases, perhaps in the case of a student, for example - but students are not agents of the state. As students they are expected to be open-minded, to want to learn, to be willing to examine their beliefs and values. But they are not representatives of the state and of societal values. (On the other hand, when it comes to a student having a covered face, I would incline towards intolerance. I think seeing someone's face is an important part of communicating with her, and I don't think that there are any real religious or cultural values tied specifically to the niqab that are worth defending. Are there any??) But Friedman, like Marois, seems reluctant to talk about - let alone defend - any of the specific values that are associated with any specific cultural symbols.
Friedman goes on to accuse Marois of not understanding her own cultural patrimony, of embracing, without realizing it, a "profoundly Christian secularism." [Insert extended discussion of this apparently oxymoronic concept here.] He writes: "To prohibit the display of religious symbols by citizens in public employment while the government of Québec displays them on its letterhead, in the Assemblée nationale, on Sureté de Québec cruisers – the physical embodiment of state power – and our society displays it in its geography and calendar, is not to preserve neutrality but privilege."
He thinks that Marois and co. don't understand this, and perhaps there's some truth to that [again, insert extended discussion here of exactly what that truth is], but he is just as confused as they are, because his own viewpoint no less than theirs pretends to value value-neutrality (to promote a culture of cultural neutrality) - which is impossible. And Friedman is even more confused than Marois, because he ignores the fact that most Quebecers - especially the Francophone ones - support the proposed legislation and fails to recognize that he too is endorsing a similar individualistic anti-cultural multiculturalism, which at its core is merely nihilistic. He thus fails to realize that the Charter is perfectly congruous with mainstream Quebecois culture - of which he is unwittingly a good representative in many ways -, because, au contraire de his conceited panegyric, mainstream Quebecois culture is simply nihilistic and shot through with irrationalism. I suspect that Friedman's self-righteous endorsement of Levesque and the noble humanism (or whatever) of the Quiet Revolution is simply nonsense and that in reality Marois and Drainville are, if anything, better interpreters and more genuine heirs of the legacy of Levesque than is Friedman. In any case, if Friedman wants to pretend to promote neutrality, it is a mystery how he can so baldly privilege (his interpretation of) the ideological legacy of Levesque.
And finally, I'm disgusted by Friedman's lack of ingenuousness: First he writes, "I believe that you are a very reasonable, well-meaning person, Mme. Marois, and I don’t doubt that you are motivated by the best-possible intentions." Then he concludes, "It appears that you believe that you can play the people of Québec like a violin; that you have so much contempt for us that you can manipulate us at the basest level. I hope I am wrong about you..." Really, Mr. Friedman? Make up your mind, man! But hey, let's face it: that kind of double-speak is just how lefties roll. Friedman or Marois, take your pick: when it comes to fundamentals, I don't see much difference here.
No comments:
Post a Comment