With good reason, we are concerned about the electoral divide between Montreal and the rest of Quebec.
We must however understand that it is not only a question of an electoral fracture, nor even a sociological one, opposing a large metropolis to the regions, as we see everywhere else in the West, but of an identity fracture, resulting from the mutation demographics of the greater Montreal area generated by the waves of massive immigration of the last quarter century.
No surprise here: a country cannot be indifferent to the population that composes it.
A new people is taking shape in the metropolis, a Montreal people, in a way, unless it is just a shift from Quebec identity to Canadian identity in the Montreal population, under the sign of multiculturalism and an open bilingualism which is nothing more than the mask of a new Anglo-conformity.
Newcomers are invited to integrate into this Montreal society more than into the Quebec identity, even if we try to conceal this by constantly manipulating the meaning of words. The Canadian state works naturally in this perspective and contributes to this dissociation between Quebec and its metropolis.
For those who claim to speak in its name, this new Montreal people, and this is a central element of the present identity dynamic, is constituted by rejecting French-speaking Quebec, considered too homogeneous, regressive, closed, xenophobic and focused on identity withdrawal. . He imagines himself dominated by the regions and wants to free himself from them. This will be seen as an effective ideological ruse: it is by claiming to be rejected by the historic French-speaking majority that we then give ourselves the right to reject Quebec. It is in the name of inclusion that we want to self-exclude. It suffices to read the most active anti-nationalist columnists to find this discourse.
Moreover, on the territory of the metropolis itself, the historical French-speaking majority tends to become a minority among others – but it is a community increasingly rejected, because it is associated pell-mell with the white privilege, systemic racism and a form of linguistic supremacism associated with Bill 101, from which the metropolis should free itself in order to reinvent itself under the sign of inclusion and diversity. We will keep this in mind: it is once again in the name of inclusion and diversity that French is trampled on today. The Aboriginal cause is often exploited by these “inclusive” activists who go so far as to make the fight against French in the name of English a struggle for decolonization.
To be accepted in the new diverse Montreal, Francophones must go through the stage of identity self-criticism, and jeer as much as possible French-speaking Quebecers in the regions and suburbs, who would not be as open as them, and who would have the bad taste of voting for nationalist parties, such as the CAQ and the PQ. Joining wokism is a good representation of this identity self-criticism.
This identity fracture is now reflected in a new political fracture, which brings back, without his claiming the name, the post-1995 partitionist movement, then associated with Howard Galganov. It was then a question, in a strategy of intimidation linked to what was then called Plan B, of announcing that in the event of independence, the west of Montreal would ask for its attachment to Canada. The discourse has evolved. It is no longer defined by the fear of independence, for a time put on ice, but by the rejection of the identity laws put in place to free Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism and allow a better defense of French. It is now the whole of the island that we intend to detach from Quebec, without it even being on the threshold of independence.
This movement is not limited to the radical fringes of the English-speaking community, even if it is expressed among them in an uninhibited way. Balarama Holness is its most militant representative. This ideology is now advancing in mainstream political discourse, as can be seen on social media.
This diverse neo-partitionism is also available in a more “moderate” version, which has become widespread since the reasonable accommodation crisis of 2007-2008 – this one presents Montreal as a distinct society in relation to the rest of Quebec and calls for it has the right to evade the laws of identity. This discourse is dominant among municipal political elites.
Some consider this mental separation, and perhaps, tomorrow, administrative separation between Montreal and the rest of Quebec inevitable. They are sorry, but believe the thing insurmountable. We can see things differently, and consider that the government of Quebec must set itself the task of politically reconquering the metropolis, by relying precisely on the historic French-speaking majority, which for a time still retains its political power.
We do not have to consent to the emergence of the self-proclaimed Republic of Montreal.
In this perspective, it is a question of reintegrating the metropolis into the Quebec national imagination, by pursuing a policy of active francization throughout the island, and more broadly, by placing Quebec culture at the heart in a thousand ways. of the metropolis. This is what Law 21 allowed. This is what a strengthening of Law 96 will allow. It will also be necessary, and I apologize for rewriting it, but pedagogy is a work of repetition, significantly immigration thresholds. This is what the independence of Quebec would allow, without which Quebec society is condemned, in the present historical context, to break up.
It is also a question, and this is vital, of criticizing diverse neo-partitionism and of recalling that the historic French-speaking majority, which represents the core identity of the Quebec people, cannot be symbolically or politically expelled from its metropolis. The Quebec state must make its presence felt everywhere in Quebec’s largest city. The nationalist movement has its role to play in this matter, by starting to mobilize again in the heart of the metropolis, as it did from the 1960s to the 1990s. Ultimately, these actions will allow for better integration of immigrants, which we should all care about.
Montreal is unimaginable without Quebec, and Quebec is unimaginable without Montreal, whose vocation is to be a cosmopolitan and French-speaking metropolis, all at the same time, which prevents it from being Canada, which anglicizes and pushes towards a multiculturalist ideology which clashes with the Quebec nation.
It is a question, symbolically, of reconquering Montreal. For the greater good of Montreal and Quebec.