Article content continued

Whether it should use precisely the same tools as governments did then, notably the power of disallowance, is open to debate. The power is there, and has not — some claims to the contrary — lapsed. It is not a nuclear weapon, as it has been described, but a provision of law; certainly it is no more radical in its implications than the notwithstanding clause, and of no lesser legitimacy, just because one is a federal power and one is a power typically used by the provinces.

But there are other powers, and other ways for the feds to intervene. What they all require is political will. It may be that this will is in short supply: the reaction from federal leaders Thursday was noticeably timid. But we should at least be honest with ourselves why. It is not because there is anything inherently wrong with federal intervention. It is because it would be unpleasant. It is because it would anger Quebec, or at least its political class. It is because we are afraid.

That is not new. Over the years we have taught ourselves on several occasions, as a country, to accept the unacceptable: to accept, for example, that the state may forbid the display of a minority group’s language, as if it were a kind of pollution. But it will take another level of cowardice to look the other way as jobs for teachers and police officers are posted with the unstated rider that no Sikhs or Muslims need apply.

So the choice of instruments is not the question. The first question we have to ask is: is it any of our business? Are the rights of minorities still of concern to us, in whatever part of the country they may live? And if they are, and we still abandon them to their fate, then let us not dress that up as anything but what it is.