Quebec MNA accuses National Assembly of recurring xenophobia: Polarizing lie or uncomfortable truth?

Over the past week, Haroun Bouazzi, the Québec solidaire member for Montreal’s Maurice-Richard riding, has been embroiled in controversy over comments he made about racism in Quebec’s National Assembly. It’s been six whole days of intense media coverage and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down anytime soon.

During a speech at a non-profit organization working with immigrants, Bouazzi stated, “God knows, I see this in the National Assembly every day — the construction of this Other, of this Other who is North African, who is Muslim, who is Black or Indigenous, and of his culture which, by definition, would be dangerous or inferior.” 

Bouazzi’s comments caused shockwaves. Newly elected QS female co-spokesperson Ruba Ghazal and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois leapt into damage control. They told reporters his comments were “clumsy and exaggerated” and insisted that “no elected member of Québec solidaire thinks that Quebec MPs are racist.”

CAQ Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barette referred to Bouazzi’s comments as “radical” and “divisive.” “An MNAs job is to unite,” he said on X. 

Francisation and Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge said that “by insulting the National Assembly, he insults all Quebecers.” 

Liberal MNA Marwah Rizqy said that, as a politician of Moroccan descent, she has never been made to feel “dangerous” or “inferior.”

La Presse columnist Paul Journet said that “instead of building bridges, Bouazzi is burning them.”

The reactions online were far worse. Bouazzi was bombarded with hate and even threats, with demands for the Tunisian-born MNA to be deported, kicked out of caucus and forced to apologize. Bouazzi was accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an associate of Muslim fundamentalists like Adil Charkaoui and a dangerous “radical.” Ample references were also made to him being an “ungrateful” immigrant, which perhaps most eloquently made Bouazzi’s point about the constant double standards and “othering” that minorities experience. 

Despite the backlash, many openly supported Bouazzi, including QS’s former spokesperson Amir Khadir who wrote that, “Haroun is right, and if this shocks some people, it is because, unfortunately, it is true.” Bouazzi’s Facebook page has also been inundated with messages of support. In the end, QS members voted to support their MNA, while disassociating from his comments as a political entity. They also “strongly” condemned the threats and “defamation campaign” against Bouazzi. In a statement on Tuesday, Bouazzi apologized to ministers Christian Dubé and Lionel Carmant, who he had singled out during a radio interview, admitting that his comments were “certainly clumsy.”

For his part, Bouazzi continues to insist that he never said the people elected to the National Assembly were racist, but that he “expressed concerns about daily speeches that point the finger at immigrants as the source of a huge part of the problems in Quebec.”

Polarizing lies or uncomfortable truths? 

Is it hyperbolic to say that the National Assembly demonstrates racism “every day”? Yes. 

Is Bouazzi right, however, in claiming the National Assembly and its members have been complicit over the past few years in creating the Other? Also, yes. 

This is, after all, the same National Assembly where speech after speech has targeted and blamed immigrants for everything that ails Quebec. 

The same National Assembly where Premier François Legault stated that the current housing crisis is 100% the fault of temporary immigrants in the province — even when Quebec itself has often been the one requesting that Ottawa increase those numbers.

The same National Assembly where Premier Legault said that non-French speaking immigration was “a threat to national cohesion,” and that accepting more immigrants would be “suicidal for Quebec.” 

The same National Assembly where Premier Legault cited “extremism” and “violence” as reasons to limit immigration, implying that immigrants are the sources of those things. 

The same National Assembly where former CAQ Immigration Minister Jean Boulet still sits as the Minister of Labour after outlandishly claiming that “80% of immigrants don’t integrate, don’t speak French and don’t work.” 

The same National Assembly that felt it necessary to pass a motion defending the right to use the n word in “academic settings,” dismissing the concerns of Black Quebecers who have repeatedly stated this word has deeply derogatory connotations. Just because the motion was coated in concern for academic freedom didn’t make it any less offensive to many Quebecers. 

The same National Assembly that voted in Bill 21, deemed divisive and polarizing legislation by most Montrealers and many Quebecers. The legislation openly discriminates against Muslim women and contributes to their ongoing stigmatization and marginalization in Quebec society, with research showing it has had “devastating” impact on religious minorities in Quebec. 

The same National Assembly where the CAQ government refused to soften Bill 96 legislation “profoundly affecting Quebec’s Indigenous communities’ right to self-determination and ability to maintain their languages and culture and even driving some Indigenous students out of Quebec.” 

The same National Assembly where Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon recently said that “astronomical levels” of immigration might be affecting Quebec’s birth rate. Even though Quebec’s birth rate has been plummeting since the late 1950s. 

The same National Assembly where Premier Legault has denied that both systemic racism and Islamophobia exist in Quebec, despite ample evidence of both.

The same National Assembly that unanimously adopted a motion to denounce “genocidal acts committed against the Ukrainian people” but couldn’t even support a simple motion calling for an immediate ceasefire by all parties in the Gaza conflict. 

The same National Assembly where Premier Legault recently expressed concern about a possible “massive influx of immigrants” the minute Donald Trump was elected. 

I won’t even bother relaying the alarming columns certain pundits treat us to weekly, where immigrants and Muslim Quebecers are constantly scapegoated and treated as a problem, while French Quebecers are told they’re being demographically replaced. 

Truth still exists in excessive emotions

Were Bouazzi’s words tinged with emotion and perhaps unhelpful in the context of politicians working together? Perhaps.

But being subjected to cumulative microaggressions against the very same communities Bouazzi is part of — as an immigrant and as a Muslim Quebecer — also creates hyper vigilantism and feelings of invalidation and isolation. Bouazzi’s comments reflect not only his feelings as an MNA but also potentially many of the Quebecers he represents in his riding and who elected him.

Roman educator and orator Quintilian insisted that hyperbole isn’t a deceitful lie, but rather “an elegant surpassing of the truth.” While it can potentially weaken your arguments, the underlying truth of said arguments doesn’t cease to exist.

Perhaps Bouazzi’s concerns could have been better stated, but judging by the ample examples I just provided, I could easily argue the same thing about many of our MNAs — starting with our very own Premier. Where’s the almost-weeklong public and political outrage over those statements? Were they deemed more acceptable because they attack immigrants, or were they stated in vaguer, hazier terms? The truth is that the political debates that Quebecers have been exposed to over the past few years often actively alienate and “other” immigrants and many minority groups in Quebec. If that truth makes some uncomfortable, well… I can assure you that, as the daughter of immigrants, many of these constant anti-immigrant declarations certainly haven’t made me feel more at ease.

When I see calls for Bouazzi to “go back to where he came from,” to “show gratitude” or be accused of “bridge-burning,” I also see attempts to tone-police and control the conversation. Often, when minority groups call out racism (systemic or otherwise) and long-standing social structures producing inequalities, attempts are made to discredit them and quickly shut down criticism. But friction in a democracy isn’t new or even undesirable, and these conversations need to be had. 

Despite the outrage, the handwringing and columnists least likely to experience racial inequalities like Isabel Maréchal making tone-deaf assertions that “systemic racism doesn’t exist in Quebec,” systemic racism is not only a well-documented reality, but the National Assembly — like all institutions and systems of government — is certainly not exempt from it. 

Can we focus on the problem at hand?

I have seen far more media outlets talking about Bouazzi’s misstep in attacking systemic racism than addressing the systemic racism itself. In many ways, the argument has been reduced to quibbling over semantics, where many have successfully avoided engaging with the main issue Bouazzi brought up by focusing on the ambiguities of the language he used. 

Immigrants or the children of immigrants are asked daily to perform the necessary mental gymnastics expected of us to understand that “an attack on immigration isn’t an attack on immigrants per se, but on the immigration system.” Yet somehow, politicians, now asking for Bouazzi’s head on a platter, aren’t required to do the same and ponder the possibility that when he says he sees racism at the National Assembly, he’s not really referring to individual colleagues but the very mechanisms that create inequality? In essence, he’s referring to a system that prioritizes the concerns and grievances of the majority, while often enacting legislation that directly attacks and marginalizes minorities. 

Immigrants have, for years now, been hyperbolically and irresponsibly treated as the source of all of Quebec’s problems. Many politicians haven’t held back in using immigration as an easy scapegoat. The very same people who think they’ve managed to remove the sting of marginalization and alienation by using “immigration” instead of “immigrants” now seem incapable of making the same distinction when Bouazzi says he was referring to “systemic racism” and not individual racism. 

Politicians like Jolin-Barette, now claiming that Bouazzi is divisive, have done what, exactly, for Quebec over the years? Foster unity? 

It’s true that hyperbole can make people defensive and reticent to acknowledge a problem. But constantly smoothing over chauvinist and xenophobic declarations doesn’t help us either. It’s irresponsible to pretend that political rhetoric that creates panic and suspicion and marginalizes doesn’t affect the majority’s perception of immigrants, asylum seekers and ethnic and religious minorities. These perceptions have clear and often punishing consequences for these “others.”

Why are Bouazzi’s comments now being treated as “a threat to Quebec’s unity” and “an insult to all Quebecers,” yet relentless political rhetoric blaming immigrants (and ultimately every Quebecer descended from immigration) has left so many of Quebec’s political class utterly indifferent? It’s a question worth pondering. ■

---

Read more weekly editorial columns by Toula Drimonis.