Article content continued

It is rather his conclusions — that there is a “malaise” at the root of Quebec society, a crisis of trust, a loss of social cohesion — that raised such heat. Or rather no, it was that these were the conclusions of what I see we are delicately calling a “perceived outsider.” This is as revealing in itself as any observation Potter might have offered; the scale and tone of the reaction, even more so.

Was it a stretch to cite the failure of the authorities to respond to a recent snowstorm as an example of this malaise? Probably. Did he clinch his case, in the course of a 1000-word column, that Quebec suffers a particularly advanced case of this disease? Probably not. But for goodness sake: if every overstated thesis or mistake of fact were a resigning offence, then fire all the journalists, and the academics, too, including those lining up to put the boot into Potter now that he is down.

The peculiar thin-skinnedness of the Quebec political class is not some innate quality: it is ideological.

Criticize the piece, mock it if you like, as you would any piece you disliked. Or do as most people do: shrug, roll your eyes, and turn the page. But that is not what happened here, as it has not in past cases where Quebec has come under scrutiny. Rather the same well-worn rituals of outrage, out of all proportion to the actual offence, were performed by the same pantomime cast of journalists and politicians, in the style that has become all too familiar.

We are urged at all times to consider Quebec’s uniqueness. Very well. But if that uniqueness includes unique virtues — perhaps even that sense of social solidarity Potter called into question — it is not impossible that it could also embrace unique vices. Complaints about “Quebec-bashing” may have less to do with the volume of critiques from “outsiders” than the political class’s terminal habit of rising to the bait. Criticism that is the stuff of five-alarm meltdowns in Quebec passes unnoticed elsewhere.