Seite 187 [187]
OCR
GROWING TOGETHER OR APART?... CONCLUSION This paper has reflected on how Godbout’s film highlights the complex question of integration of children of immigrant heritage into Québec society and values. It has done so through a focus on examples from the first generation of Bill 101 children and snippets of comparisons with the young people of today, some of whom seem less interested in being Québécois than the representatives of the earlier generation. Godbout’s initial statement that many immigrants are “far from integrated” develops as the film progresses into a more nuanced approach. In privileging discussion and exchange among people of very different values, the very question of what integration means or should mean is thrown into question. One of the most useful political points to emerge from the film is the segregation between immigrants and the majority population in certain districts of Montreal. Arguably, this has become exacerbated on a moral level in the ideology of “them and us” in the Charte des valeurs, which led to the 2019 Charte de la laicité, banning the display of ostensible symbols of religious affiliation by people in positions of authority in the workplace, including teachers. While the films by Godbout and A loisio do not focus on religion, the comments by Guerina and her mother on “values” resonate with this debate (the Hérouxville declaration and the Bouchard Taylor Commission were roughly contemporary with both films). As the boy from the authoritarian family in Madame Tardif’s class puts it: “Qu'est-ce qu'on fait de leurs valeurs?”, by which he seems to mean “How can Québécois values fit with those I’ve grown up in, and will I be forced to lose my own values of obedience to my father and mother if I integrate?” In terms of the values debate, Akos notes that he has seen many instances of parents allying with their children against teachers in the Québec system, while Ruba notes with real admiration the respect that Québec schoolchildren are afforded by their teachers. It is difficult to see how the boy from the authoritarian family, certainly at this moment in his adolescence, might engage with prevailing Québécois political thought on the need for a shared culture of egalitarianism, since that egalitarianism extends to the relationship between parents and their children. Yet the film has the merit of giving him a voice, as does his teacher’s democratic and egalitarian approach in the classroom. Part of the thrust of the film is to advocate for the egalitarian participation of young people of immigrant extraction in Québec politics and society, and of immigrants in general. There is much footage devoted to the political campaigns of both Farouk and Ruba. Akos is shown as an activist, encouraging young people, whether immigrants or not, to play a part in Québec democracy by voting and by following politics. Clearly, the need to give a voice to immigrants is important to Godbout, not just in his film but in the wider political domain.
