This story crept up on me in slow stages. When we were first alerted to how far it had gone, in a comment on this post below, I couldn't quite believe it, nor could pogge, as you will see from our first comments. I still can't quite believe that it has received as little media attention, mainstream or alt, as it has. It bugs me. I keep chewing away at it. I gotta spit it out.
At least this story was a good reminder to me never to get all my news about anything from the Globe and Mail, especially news about ... the Globe and Mail.
As a Globe reader would have known it, the chronology of the scandal went like this: on the Saturday following the shootings, murder, and suicide at Montreal's Dawson College two weeks ago, Globe features writer and Montreal native Jan Wong wrote what was clearly a features article about the trauma of some individuals directly affected by the shootings. ( I have used the word "features" twice in the sentence preceding for a reason.) Midway through her narrative, centred mainly on a mother and son caught up in the crisis, Wong shifted to a personal reflection on the impact of the "decades-long linguistic struggle" in Quebec on allophone immigrants, and their consequent alienation. You can read the relevant passage of her article in the comments section of the post I've linked to above. Although it was the source of the controversy that followed, and although I and other contributors here criticized it as well, that passage is not my present concern.
On the Wednesday following, the Globe printed a long and affecting letter from Premier Charest reacting to Wong's analysis. I didn't object to that letter at the time, given his position and his genuine closeness to events, although I wonder now about his concluding paragraph. On the same day the Globe published a column by the editor of La Presse, similarly critical of Wong's analysis of Quebec society if predictably more detailed. A day later the Globe printed a letter from Stephen Harper that characterized Wong's analysis as "grossly irresponsible" and "prejudiced" but that interestingly managed to sound more like a personal than an official condemnation. Right next to Harper's letter ran the Globe editorial board's first reaction to the reactions, in which the standard, anondyne defence of the journalist who raises questions was balanced by an earnest acknowledgement of the offence taken by many.
And then this past Saturday, Edward Greenspon, Globe ed-in-c, weighed in with his summary of the controversy, still sort of defending his writer although seeming to retreat a step or two, taking refuge in that old distinction between "reporting" and "opinion" and conceding that Wong's analytical paragraphs should have been excised from the article or run in a separate piece clearly labelled "opinion."
Perhaps unbeknownst to Mr Greenspon, his own letters editor was publishing the same day a noble piece of writing that the Globe editors should days before have been capable of composing on their own. It was a better piece of reporting than the Globe itself had done, on a development crucial to Canadian democracy that the Globe had finessed, and it was a ringing reminder of principle that editors and politicians all seem to have forgotten in their scramble to save their own public images.
Here is that noble letter, written by Howard M. Greenfield of Montreal:
In Turkey, public denigration of Turkishness is a crime. Novelists, journalists, publishers and historians have all been prosecuted for violating this law. This is one of the reasons that Turkey is still being denied entry to the European Union.One day after our House of Commons passed a resolution seeking an apology from either Jan Wong or The Globe and Mail for remarks denigrating Quebec, one of Turkey's leading authors, Elif Shafak was acquitted of charges of insulting Turkish identity through fictional characters in her latest novel (Author Acquitted Of 'Insulting Turkishness' -- Review, Sept. 22).
Were Canada a European country seeking admission to the EU, one wonders what weight our parliamentary resolution attacking a reporter's article would have in assessing its eligibility. Should the state really have any place in the newsrooms of the nation?
As far as I know, Mr Greenfield's letter constitutes the first and so far the only mention in the Globe and Mail of that extraordinary act of our parliamentarians last Wednesday, the day before the PM's letter was published, the day before the Globe's first editorial on the controversy was published.
And it did happen. Here is the text in both English and French of the motion introduced by Denis Coderre, assented to by "some hon. members" in the English version of Hansard, since generally referred to as a motion "unanimously" adopted by our House of Commons:
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement by my colleague, the member for Laval—Les Îles, left us with the impression that this entire House was disgusted by Jan Wong's article in The Globe and Mail. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of this House to introduce the following motion: That, in the opinion of the House, an apology be given to the people of Quebec for the offensive remarks of Ms. Jan Wong in a Globe and Mail article regarding the recent Dawson College tragedy.The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Bourassa have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)
L'hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Monsieur le Président, la déclaration de ma collègue, la députée de Laval—Les Îles, nous a donné le sentiment que l'ensemble de cette Chambre a trouvé odieux ce que l'on a pu lire dans l'article de Mme Jan Wong du Globe and Mail. Je demande donc le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour proposer la motion suivante: Qu'il est de l'avis de la Chambre que des excuses soient présentées au peuple du Québec pour les propos offensants de Mme Jan Wong, récemment écrits dans le Globe and Mail par rapport à la récente tuerie du Collègue Dawson.Le Président: L'honorable député de Bourassa a-t-il le consentement unanime de la Chambre pour présenter cette motion? Des voix: D'accord. Le Président: Plaît-il à la Chambre d'adopter cette motion? Des voix: D'accord. (La motion est adoptée.)
As it happens, I was watching the case of Elif Shafak last week, a novelist hauled into court only days before she was expected to give birth, charged by men who see themselves as the guardians of right-thinking about Turkish culture (and these are secular zealots, too), who expect to control not only governments and states but minds. (Yes, the charges against her were dropped, as similar charges were against Orhan Pamuk, both protected, perhaps, by their international celebrity. Does anyone know whether she has had her baby yet?)
Any Canadian citizen -- any Canadian citizen, including members of Parliament when they are off the Hill, or premiers of Quebec or prime ministers if they agree to step out of office to speak or write personally -- has the right to respond critically to anything that Jan Wong or any other writer writes, to respond however she or he wishes, short of hate speech, of course. Any of us, in our roles as responsible citizens, should feel free to pipe up when we believe that a writer has misrepresented a community or an issue. That's what it means to be a citizen, to make the voices of the people heard ever more clearly and honestly.
But no elected or appointed official, no one with the special powers that the people have delegated to our public representatives or servants, ever has the right in her or his official capacity to pronounce judgement on a private citizen, and writers are private citizens. Denis Coderre's motion last week was anything but honourable, and those present in the Commons who assented to it were at best ignorant in a way that is dangerous to us all.
What happened in the House of Commons last Wednesday was deeply wrong and should be disturbing to all democrats. What happened in the editorial offices of the Globe and Mail seems hardly more edifying. First of all, the paper has slid for almost a week past that major insult to democracy, as though the Globe alone were vulnerable to public officials who have decided to blur the boundaries of their own power. There is a reason that every modern democratic constitution begins with an affirmation of the freedom of expression of opinion and the freedom of conscience. The special position that we have accorded a free press in democratic societies flows directly from those principles, which is why it matters so much to ordinary citizens to see publishers and editors standing up on their hind legs and bloody well defending their writers from ignorant or cynical politicians intent on manipulating public sentiment against independent or unpopular thought.
Should Jan Wong have to face any amount of civil criticism from individual fellow citizens? Sure. Should she have to face state censure? Absolutely not. We don't burn books in this country, and we sure as hell do not lay legal obligations to "apologize" or to take loyalty oaths on their authors. Denis Coderre can wear his heart on his sleeve if he likes (and if it earns him votes); I don't expect Jan Wong to, and Coderre damn well does not have the right to demand that of her or any other citizen.
Did the ed-in-c of the Globe and Mail say any of this? Well, how could he, after all, when he was still disguising the fact that it had happened? No, he sold his own writer out as he took refuge in some hoary distinction between reporting and opinion, a distinction few would bother to defend any longer anyway and certainly not in the case of Jan Wong. When was the last time Greenspon tried imposing that template on the supposed "reporting" of Christie Blatchford, for instance, whose files from Afghanistan also run on the news pages, simply sodden with Blatchford's opinions about the nobility of men in uniform and flaming with anger at the ignorant citizens who don't "support" them in precisely the way that she does?
Everyone who has ever read a paragraph she has written knows that Jan Wong, like Blatchford, is a features writer, and she is valued by the Globe for that reason. She can be a good reporter, but there will always be spin. There will be acid. There will be a certain puritanism. The contested article was set up and designed as a features article, clearly distinct in the print version from any straight "reporting." She was advertised by name on the front page because that's how she and the Globe sell; she is a brand, just like Blatchford.
But let the clowns in the Commons pass a motion usurping the democratic freedoms of the citizens of Canada, and what does Jan Wong's ed-in-c do? Concede the field and hide behind some textbook.
Flaccid, Mr Greenspon. Like, very limp.
Great post and I agree 100%. You should see the utter histrionics over this going on in the French media here in Quebec. They not only want Wong and the Globe to apologise, retract everything, they're also going nuts now because the outrage isn't happening in the rest of Canada.
Good post. We don't need politicians setting up an "Un-Canadian Activities Commission" or anything.
While I agree wholeheartedly with skdadl on the fact that an official motion by parliament about a journalist's or writer's work is utterly out of line and a menace to freedom of speech, I'm not surprised to see that anti-Québec attacks on "utter histrionics going on in the French media" were not long in crawling out from under their grate. I certainly agree with the demand for an apology from Wong and the Globe, with their ridiculous assertions about "once-cosmopolitan" Montréal, Québec society and the causes of gun rampages.
I was horrified by Wong's article when I read it, and most of the people I know here who read it felt the same.
To lagatta - i'm not anti-Quebec. I live in Montreal et je suis 50% francophone. The reaction is over the top, pure et simple.
Well, I've perused your blog, and see that you find our use of "National" as in "National Assembly", "Confédération des syndicats nationaux" etc "offensive". And yet you claim Scottish descent - I daresay you probably see Scotland as a nation whether or not it ever should choose to be a sovereign state. Québec is a nation, as are Scotland, Catalonia ... and the First Nations here.
Sorry, I do think denial of our right to exist (and I'm not "pure-laine" either, my background is probably similar to yours, with allophone, francophone and Celtic components) is anti-Québec.
I don't think the Québec reaction was over the top - Wong should apologise for her bigoted screed. That said, I agree with skdadl, as Parliament had no business passing any resolution, nor should sanctions be taken unless hateful screeds step over the line to calling for violence or discrimination - as some of the talk-show hosts did here during the Oka crisis, fuelling mob attacks on unarmed Mohawks fleeing the Kahnawake reserve. (We have our rednecks too...).
"Sorry, I do think denial of our right to exist [...] is anti-Québec."
In fact I believe Irwin Cotler calls it the "New Anti-Quebecism."
Great post, skdadl.
Good catch skdadl. I missed this as well, and now that you have pointed it out I am kicking myself in the rear for doing so. You are absolutely correct, for Parliament to have taken this action is horrific. If a politician acting in his/her own behalf wants to object to the writings of someone, fine. There is a difference though between that and placing the formal tools of State behind such an objection as appears to have been done here. Your comparison to the nation of Turkey in this was apt and on point and illustrates clearly and directly why this action is so abhorrent to a free and open society. This was way, way, WAY over the top and that the editor of the G&M let it go by is a sad commentary on the state of the national media in this country and the willingness of editors to stand up for their people against the government.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060915.wxshooting-main16/BNStory/National/home
Sorry, I do think denial of our right to exist ... is anti-Québec.
What is that even supposed to mean? This is one of those bullshit lines that people spew without ever thinking about it for the two seconds it would take to realize it's vague, nebuluous, meaningless garbage. How can stating an opinion that "National" as in "National Assembly", "Confédération des syndicats nationaux" and so on "offensive" in any way "deny" Quebec's "right to exist," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean?
What it means is the right to national self-determination.
As if I should waste my time arguing with bigots.
lagatta:
So nice of you to resort to the "bigots" card so early in your exchange/dialogue here, it makes it very easy to see you are not worthy of much consideration. Thanks for showing your true colours so rapidly on this point, for someone protesting they are not pur laine your attitude on this certainly smacks of it. I spent many of my school breaks visiting family in Quebec growing up and I have had more than a few encounters with the pur laine. Indeed we have something similar down here in NS and I don't have any more use for it from a Quebecois then I do from a fellow Bluenoser. So you can take your charge of bigotry on this point and take it to an environment that allows you to toss off such comments without having to make your case to show why it is. This is not one of those venues, goodbye.
What it means is the right to national self-determination.
Did I miss a referendum somewhere along the line? Because last I checked, Quebec was a province, not an independent self-determining nation, and that was the way the majority of Quebeckers wanted it.
Of course, that little bit of flippancy is a distraction from the ridiculousness of the original claim, which is that simply saying that pretenses to nationhood by a province are ridiculous is the equivalent of deny a group their right, not to be an independent country, but to simply exist. The Holocaust, the attempted genocides, both physical and cultural, of North American and Australian indigenous peoples, the vicious inter- and intra-religious wars, those were attempts to deny a group their right to exist. To equate someone saying 'I think it's silly that Quebec calls their provincial legislature the National Assembly' with those acts is beyond ridiculous.
About as ridiculous, in fact, as the federal government dictating to a press organ what it must print and distribute.
I was born in Montreal, lagatta, so don't pull that "bigot" bullshit on me. Answer the question.
First, no one here (so far) is a bigot. We can talk about these differences without the labels that dismiss discussion or other people outright. That is a ruling.
Second, no one orders anyone else to do anything here. People write and reply -- or not -- as they please. And that's an order.
Maybe it was naïve of me to think that we could keep this discussion focused on the fact that neither our parliamentarians nor the editors of the Globe and Mail seem to grasp the responsibilities and the limits of their roles in a democracy, but that was the topic, y'know? And I still think it is a serious one.
On the other issues that have been raised, though, I think I should now make a couple of small points, unqualified as I am to say much more. At least I'll be breaking 50-50, agreeing with everyone else at least some of the time.
As a great lover of Scotland and the Scots, as a supporter of the position of Canada's First Nations, I have no problem grasping the importance of national self-identification and the right to self-determination, and no problem grasping that those principles do not have anything necessarily to do with independence or separation.
I often think that the way this discussion goes on in North America is just silly. The Scots -- including the third-generation Pakistani-descended charmer who lives next door to my cousins in Edinburgh -- the Scots are a nation, and no sensible person would deny that. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to separate, although having their own national assembly has indeed been important. And the scandal of our treatment of our First Nations will go on until some federal government finally recognizes that nothing short of dealing at a national level will work or is fair. My thoughts on national questions, period.
I know less about the culture of Montreal than I know about the culture of Edinburgh (which isn't that much, if it's enough to love 'em), so I was reluctant to pass judgement one way or the other on Jan Wong's few paragraphs, although even I could see holes in her argument when I stopped to think about any of the other shooting rampages in North America that I know of. I don't blame people for getting their backs up when someone informs them that their home is not "cosmopolitan" enough for her. Sheesh. That is not insulting? Of course it is insulting.
Whether allophones in Quebec live with a special level of alienation, unseen by the majority -- that I cannot judge. Many of them live in Toronto with a special level of alienation. North American culture is no bowl of cherries for a lot of people.
To the issue of demanding apologies, though: I have a horror, an utter horror, of mind control, thought control. No matter how passionately anyone might want to criticize Jan Wong (or me, or anyone else), how on earth can the critic demand that someone who hasn't changed her mind "apologize" for what she said/wrote? That makes no sense to me, and I don't want to see it. To me, that is an attempt at mind control, or an assumption that one has the right to put words in another's mouth, or a demand for confessions or professions of faith and/or loyalty, all of which to me are evil (with special exceptions -- officials given special powers must take oaths of loyalty to the people, as must police and the military).
I don't have a confessional bone in my body. If I change my mind about something, I'll say so. If I truly feel apologetic, I will apologize. But am I going to do that on command? No way. No more than lagatta is going to let thickslab call her out.
I can see why many would want to denounce Jan Wong six ways from Sunday, but I cannot grasp the demand for an apology (and I doubt she's feeling apologetic, given the death threats and all).
To coerce a mind, even to attempt to coerce a mind: to me that is both wrong and pointless.
And all of the foregoing is addressed strictly to other citizens. The restrictions on what elected or appointed officials may say about individual citizens are even more strict. Our parliamentarians violated them; the Globe editors failed in their responsibility to hold the usurpers to account.
I like thwap's metaphor: we don't need no stinkin' Un-Canadian Activities Committee.
Pardon me for getting just a bit offended at being called a bigot because I strongly object to the use of misleading crypto-separatist talking points.
I understand, thickslab, and it won't happen again.
I too applaud Skdadl. Although I do not like Jan Won one little bit -- she can be awfully mean to people whom she interviews -- in the case of the article referenced here, it seems to me that she asked for consideration of a different point of view which was not especially outlandish, nor bigoted. She was referencing what she considers to be bigotry in some Quebec attitudes, though she did not use that word, and she pointed out that the three murderers were indeed very hateful people.
I will apologise for talking about bigotry - but not because thickslab demanded that I do, simply because I was speaking out of anger.
There are, however, references to "bullshit", "bullshit lines" "vague, nebuluous, meaningless garbage" and similar things ... that could perhaps have prompted me to describe people in such a fashion. Thickslab was trying to provoke me, and I do apolgise for falling for it. I have no idea whether he or anyone else on this board is a bigot - except that I'm sure that pogge and skdadl are definitely not.
I never claimed that Québec or QuébécoisEs were threatened with genocide. I was angry about someone seeing the term "National" as "offensive" in a Québec context, and meant right to exist in the sense of self-affirmation, as I think was patently obvious.
Nor does such self-affirmation necessarily entail the creation of a sovereign state.
It is rather self-evident that people who would commit acts of mass killing were full of hatred and violence - in two cases killing and wounding people they had never met and didn't know.
The Fabrikant case, a workplace killing, is somewhat different - there are quite a few people including at least one Concordia prof I know who think that Fabrikant had legitimate grievances, but horrific means of addressing those grievances. He also didn't shoot himself afterwards - seems a more classic psycopath, not that I'm an expert on such pathological behaviour.
lagatta, I never demanded that you apologize for talking about bigotry. What I wanted was an answer to my question, how can objections to the use of "National Assembly" be construed as "denying" Quebec its "right to exist."
I see now from your explanation that you weren't talking about any "right to exist," but instead something about self-affirmation. That's something completely different.
Saying "you want to deny us our right to exist" is interpreted in most people's minds as implying something about genocide or oppression, neither of which Quebec is suffering from and neither of which people who find terms such as "National Assembly" offensive (at least not the people here from what I can see) advocate. Expressing an opinion has nothing to do with denying anyone anything, and that's the point people here are trying to make about Parliament's reaction to Jan Wong's article.
It was the "You want to deny us the right to exist" line that provoked my response. It's the kind of misleading political rhetoric that deliberately provokes.
I understand, thickslab, and it won't happen again.
Don't do anything because of me. Just do what you always do.
I never claimed that Québec or QuébécoisEs were threatened with genocide. [...] and meant right to exist in the sense of self-affirmation, as I think was patently obvious.
I can't imagine why you would think that would be 'patently obvious', since it's a totally incongruous use of the term 'right to exist'.
Great post skdadl. This habit of censuring journalists is getting noticed outside of Canada too.