Le Devoir today published a text in the philosophy of Duty series . It's called " Marcuse, inspirer of the Bouchard-Taylor " and was written by a PhD student at UQAM (the latter preferred the newspaper, curiously, has the air to freely publish it in Le Devoir he wants whenever he wants. A daily 'independent' has become his popular blog, you might say!).
The text is puzzling. It does not satisfy the canons of objectivity minimum, nor those of the appearance objectivity. The author initially refused to recognize the distinction between detention by the commissioners 'interculturalism' and 'multiculturalism'. The position of the latter is not yet unclear (see p. 41-42 of the Summary Report ):
" Often mentioned in academic papers, interculturalism as a policy of integration has never been a complete and formal definition from the Quebec government that its main constituent elements have been made long ago. This gap should be filled, especially more than the Canadian model of multiculturalism does not seem well adapted to the reality of Quebec, and, for four reasons: a) anxiety over language is not an important factor in English Canada b) insecurity the minority is not present, c) there is more than the majority ethnic group in Canada (citizens of British origin account for 34% of the population, while citizens of French-Canadian form Quebec a strong majority of about 77%) d) it follows that in English Canada, it is less concerned with preserving a cultural tradition that the founder of national cohesion.
In general, any community interest in maintaining a degree of cohesion. It is through this that it can develop common guidelines, ensure citizen participation in public debate, creating a sense of solidarity necessary for the operation of an egalitarian society, have an ability to mobilize Crisis and enjoy enrichment related to ethnocultural diversity. For a small nation like Quebec, constantly concerned about its future as a cultural minority, integration is also a condition of its development and even survival . "
And if this distinction proved to be 'obsolete' in the eyes of some analysts, they would be clearly seen to demonstrate that otherwise 'poor calls by using the authority -' Mr. X, the prestigious university Y said Z '! Could we make the effort to grasp that we can here (1) build a few bridges, carefully, between so-called diversified crops (inter-cultural approach) or there (2) discourage the drawing of such bridges while encouraging cultural diversity (the multi-cultural)? And for more details, understanding that following the approach cross-cultural bridges between all cultures should ideally submit original profiles, adapted to the banks they unite?
it enough to keep this in mind for fear that the author does violence to the report of the commissioners by sprinkling his own text exaggerations, more or less shameless. So the commissioners, inspired by an "ideological radicalism," a people like "infinitely tolerant" and "relentlessly open to dialogue". They would furthermore "criminalize" (the word is listed more than once - you will forgive the lawyer show) positions opposed to theirs. As if the commissioners had not already shown restraint in expressing their ideas, and wisdom in the development of some dialogues. A careful reading of the report, however, can perhaps allay the reflexes would be terrified of the author. Continuing his tirade
, he suggests - and it is somewhat pathetic on the part of a brilliant young thinker - that the commissioners would have given the task of fighting the totalitarian defense of a perceived national identity as " a brand of xenophobia or racism "while Commissioners have repeatedly said they were facing a rather uncomfortable due to a fear of the unknown. There is a world to discover between these two difficulties, I think he said. Want more objectivity not to be scared more budding intellectual. In short, invite him to talk.
