Hypocrisy or Pragmatism: “Why don’t you act upon your beliefs?”
Have you ever listened to someone boasting about their convictions only to see them cower when it’s time to act? Should you still take these people seriously? Or are there times where hypocrisy is justified?
The politics of my Chinese immigrant parents
Let’s start this simple and low stake. My parents are not politicians nor business or social leaders, so their words have no power.
When the first COVID-19 lockdown started here in Canada, my parents were quick to voice disappointment with the measures announced by the Quebec government.
They said loudly in front of Legault’s COVID briefings.
“啊呀！这管屁用。” (Tsk! How fucking useless.)
“要把路路口口挡住才行，就像中国一样。” (You have to block every road intersection to work, just like China did.)
Premier Legault then announced a ban on private gatherings. I asked them about what they would do if they saw the neighbors hosting a party. They quickly responded by saying that they would denounce them to the police. The TV then played a footage of Chinese officials welding the doors of citizens to prevent them from leaving their home. My parents applauded at the necessity.
Shortly after, that is one month or two, our next-door neighbor invited people to their house. They were hanging out in the yard, mask-less and barely 2 m apart. It was a violation on the ban of private gatherings, because the guests were from another household, even if they were outside, since there wasn’t a distinction at that time.
In hindsight, this outdoor gathering wasn’t a big deal.
I asked my parents if we should denounce them to the police for breaking public health rules. Surprise, surprise. They said that I shouldn’t be minding other people’s business. What about that affirmation of calling people out for breaking coronavirus rules? Silence. Not one single word out of them.
My parents still picture the arbitrary legal system in China
I came to Canada when I was 8 years old with my parents from China. They never lived anywhere else before immigrating. They experienced the Chinese legal system, where the conviction rate is 99.9%. Such near guarantee of condemnation is not the sign of a fair justice system. No one is thinking that Chinese prosecutors only find the criminal needle in the haystack of innocents.
With this mental image of justice in their heads, no wonder they don’t escalate anything to the authorities. Calling out our neighbors for breaking COVID-19 rules would expose our family to the legal system. This would be quite dangerous in China if you don’t have the proper connections to government officials via bribery and favors. Even though the Canadian legal system is not that corrupt at all, the fear of collateral damage is still vivid. And this dissuades any further action.
Now. What to make of my parents’ claims?
Is it fair that my parents yell in front of the TV, beating their chest, about how far they are willing to go to make people follow the pandemic rules, when they clearly won’t follow through? Should I even take the boasting seriously? Isn’t this just virtue signalling?
I would say they are allowed to say whatever they want. After all, freedom of speech is a thing here in Canada. But taking them seriously? No, of course not. And I do think this is virtue signalling. They truly believe and care about what they say. They don’t follow through with actions because it’s not worth it pragmatically. Think of all the hassle denouncing your neighbors entail. What’s there to gain but a boost in ego?
Virtue signalling is a derogatory term, and it implies that people shouldn’t be doing it. But in my view, ordinary, low-stake conversations can make place for some virtue signalling. It at least demonstrate a minimum of care for an issue. Even if the care is purely superficial, it is better than nothing! In some way, virtue signalling is like lying, which is sometimes acceptable.
Jagmeet Singh’s turban and the NDP on Quebec’s religious symbol ban
A completely different situation…
Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NDP as of 2021, wears a Sikh turban. He has been shown removing it when pandering to Quebecers. In Quebec, Bill 21 bans religious symbols on public servants, including teachers. Unsurprisingly, Singh has spoken out against this ban because he falls under it.
But that’s it. Singh isn’t pledging any actions against the ban. He is just being vocal, a stance echoed by one of his candidates in Montreal.
I pressed harder on NDP candidate Fabiola Ngamaleu Teumeni about it.
As you can see, the NDP has sympathy for minorities in Quebec and people who wear religious garments like Singh. But it stops there. Just like with my parents, when it comes to act, the NDP is dead silent on Bill 21. Even the Liberals pledged more against Bill 21 in 2019. Though in 2021, all parties seem to pledge no intervention.
A pragmatic analysis of Singh on Quebec
The religious symbol ban is popular in Quebec with 63% support, which correlates with only 28% of Quebecers having a positive view of Islam. Singh is not a Muslim, he is Sikh, but the turban on his head lobs him into the same category of people. People of ostentatiously visible religion.
In 2019, Singh’s first federal election, the NDP lost all but one seat in Quebec. They had 16 seats before the election and 59 seats in the election before that — the Orange Wave of 2011.
It is the wish of another Orange Wave that keeps the NDP stuck in the same mentality as Jack Layton ten years ago. For the NDP progressive base outside of Quebec, the exceptions promised to Quebec by the former NDP leader Jack Layton is no longer compatible with Canadian progressive values. We can see this play out on Jagmeet Singh’s head. But the NDP keeps on trying to follow the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration which says Canada should be hands-off with Quebec, including making it easy for Quebec to separate if it wishes. Not even the European Union made Brexit easy for the UK.
No to Bill 21, but yes to doing nothing.
Should Canada even be hands-off with human rights? According to the NDP, Canada is a defender of human rights and advocates those rights around the world, but it can’t go inside its own borders and fight for human rights in Quebec. Human rights are provincial jurisdiction.
Compared to my parents’ situation, the stakes are much higher. Words matter. As such, Singh is not morally allowed to claim that he is against Bill 21, when he does not put his position into practice. Because not doing anything perpetuates human rights violations in Quebec, it renders his stance as meaningless as thoughts and prayers.
By simply being “vocal” on the issue of Quebec religious discrimination, Singh is turning himself into a low-stake, casual conversation starter. Yet, he is running for the highest office in the country. A Prime Minister is not just some conversation starter. A Prime Minister can make use of the government and intervene. Singh’s stance would be more appropriate for an activist who is only seeking to change some minds.
That’s why some people don’t take the NDP seriously on the freedom of religion, even if there is a turban on Singh’s head. Polls ahead of the 2021 elections show the highest hesitancy among NDP supporters.
Nuance
Are there situations where you can signal your position but not follow through, even as a politician?
In principle, it is never justified. Politicians must be held accountable for their ideological contradictions. In practice, politics is a human endeavor in a time- and attention-limited world. Parliament doesn’t have time to do everything.
We need to set priorities.
For example, every democratic leader in Canada should be consistent in their belief in democracy and advocate for the abolition of the monarchy. The idea of having a Queen goes against what democracy is about. But taking up time in parliament to push for a republic is taking time away from other issues, such as the economy, climate change, the pandemic and human rights! Should removing the Queen of England be the top priority? That’s for each politician to decide and to justify in front of the electorate.
When Jagmeet Singh says he is against the ban on religious symbols, he is putting the issue somewhere on his priority list. But since he doesn’t follow through with actions, freedom of religion is at the bottom of the NDP agenda. Minorities in Quebec are not top priority for Singh. This is a pragmatic decision.
