We are two young people in our thirties who do not share the same political views. Tristan is a sovereignist. Simon believes that it is still possible to reorganize Canadian confederation. We work together for a publishing and cultural organization.

That is probably enough for some to accuse of belonging to the Left Wing Plateau Clique. And yet the organization we work for publishes a French language weekly in six regions of Quebec, an English language weekly in Montreal and another in Ottawa, and producing a television program about the different trends in Quebec and Canadian culture.

We, and our colleagues, are commited to openness and dialogue.

Yes, we are decidedly different, but we defend common values: freedom of expression, the free circulation of ideas, freedom of the press, freedom of association. These are not federalist or sovereigntist values. These are liberal values, in the true sense of the word, values that are threatened in the current political context.

Freedom Distorted and Misrepresented

Let’s call a spade a spade. We are talking about certain radio talk show hosts and newspaper columnists who hide behind the idea of the freedom of the press to say whatever comes into their heads. We are talking about groups like the Reseau Liberte-Quebec for whom freedom of expression means attacks on Montreal left wingers, sovereignists, journalists, and unions. We are also talking about the Conservative Party of Canada that finds this narrative fertile territory and a great media spin.

We are being promised less government intervention, lower income and consumer taxes, fewer subsidies but also fewer dues. That’s enough to win over the people who think freedom is abut spending, or not. As if the purpose of citizenship is simply about your bank account.

We get angry we hear these right wing spokes people heralding “freedom” to better hide their conservative and conformist views, traditionalism which flirts dangerously with religious fundamentalism.

While we are being promised more money and less government, never have the risks to personal freedoms and private life seemed higher.

Since the Quiet Revolution there has never been a politcal party that has come closer to negating what freedom really means than the Conservative Party of Canada. During the current campaign Prime Minister Stephen Harper a simply refused to answer questions from reporters. His Communications Department sends out dozens of “news releases” containing absolutely no substance ie “Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife Laureen went ski dooing with their children” April 18, 2011.

Citizens are turned away from Conservative Party rallies. The reasons? One person had posted a photo of herself with Michael Ignatieff. Another had taken part in activities organized by the environmental movement. Those are only two examples. Before coming around to recognizing the troubling nature of these incidents Stephen Harper answered disingenously “Better to turn people away than not to be able to attract enough people.”

These facts and statements by the Prime Minister are worthy of attention. Harper’s Conservatives violate freedom of expression and association, while those who excercise their rights to express their views are marginalized and excluded from the political debate.

These are flaws of conservatism and conformism. All opposition is suspect, any deviation from the rules of the Leader means exclusion. Worse-there is a stronger and stronger odour of religious fundamentalism.

for several years now there have been concerns that the gangrene that has eaten away at the political life of the United States has worked its way north. The influence of the fundamentalist religious right and the “God fearing” have been obvious and direct in US politics. (We know that in the US creationists, people who believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time, have the ear of powerful politicians and decision makers.)

On this side of the border we take for granted that this will never work its way into our political landscape. We take secularism for granted. And yet….

In 2009 were we paying attention to the ambiguity of the response of the Minister Responsible for Science when he was asked what his views on evolution were? Gary Goodyear answered a journalists question about this by saying “I am a Christian and I do not believe that it is appropriate to ask me questions about my religious beliefs.”

In 2005 did we really grasp that Stephen Harper told an anti-gay marriage rally that gay marriage goes against the God’s creation , and that those who opposed gay marriage upheld “real Canadian values”?

We were sufficiently stunned when evangelical groups directly influenced Conservative Party policy? These groups benefitted from a favourable climate with regard to their dislike of gay rights, abortion and anyone who doesn’t agree with them?

These proponents of right wing views proclaim freedom on their car bumper stickers and do not hesitate to denounce religious extremism in other cultures. Why do they close their eyes to the fundamentalist views that permeate the Conservative Party of Canada?

What’s at Stake on May 2

In sovereignist circles some hold the view that a Conservative majority would constitute the “winning conditions” to launch the process leading to the next referendum on the future of Quebec.

In some federalist circles some take the view that a Conservative majority would protect Canadian unity.

We find both these theories not only opportunistic, but also unhealthy. At a time when political discourse amounts to marketting slogans, we refuse to sell off our democratic ideals in some strategic calculation with the goal of advancing some constitutional option or other. The freedom and equality of citizens are not negotiable.

Pursuing this line of thought is a step backward for both options: for those who support renewed federalism and those who support sovereignty. Both options would be tarnished and weakened. Both projects rely on a liberal exchange of ideas. Whatever your leanings, neither side can exclude one group or another based on religious criteria.

Let us be clear: We are open to debate about the scale of the State. It is a good idea to question the role and weight of unions, just as it is a good idea to call into question the power of the empires of finance. Whether federalist or sovereignist, whether left or right, we cannot, we think, accept a version of freedom that undermines past victories.

Conservatism and fundamentalism do not represent the way of the future.

We call on our fellow citizens not to vote Conservative on May 2.

Simon Jodoin, Columnist and director of new media development for Voir

Tristan Malavoy-Racine, Editor in Chief of Voir

———————–

Merci à Anne Lagacé-Dowson pour la traduction