I’d always followed Jan Wong’s career because I found her writing
consistently interesting: her books about China and her tragic flirtation with
Maoism—now there’s teenage rebellion
carried to extreme—her work as a journalist there during the Tiananmen era, her
articles about going undercover as a domestic worker, the occasional “Lunch
With” columns, etc. etc. etc.
And then there was her work about the Dawson College
shooting.
My son was at Dawson
College on Sept. 13, 2006--a date “that
will live in infamy” in my overloaded cranium, I’m afraid--and I’ve written about the Dawson shooting, too. But my slant was on the necessity for more and better gun
control—Lepine, Fabrikant, and Gill all managed to legally purchase their
lethal weapons—why were guns so easily available to these men?
Unlike Jan Wong, I didn’t give a rat’s ass about the “why”
of the shootings:
My response is not to launch a
fruitless inquiry into the “root causes” of this catastrophic occurrence. I
couldn't care a whit whether the perpetrator of last Wednesday's atrocities was
refused academic admission to Dawson College, whether he was bullied as a
child, either in school or at home. I think it's irrelevant if he grew up with
a chip on his shoulder because of some imagined slight, or even if he or his
family suffered in the past from some form of persecution, be it real or
imagined, in Canada
or elsewhere.
To me, there can be no mitigating factors
for murder, whether the locus of attack is a college campus in downtown Montreal, a nightclub in Tel Aviv, a skyscraper in New York City, or some parched crossroads among the rubble
of Afghanistan.
Murder is murder is murder. Each one should fall under the rubric of “hate
crime.”
But I’ve always had a feeling there’s something wrong with
Jan Wong’s approach to the world, something I couldn't quite put my finger on, but something that made me uneasy nonetheless. Maybe she’s the sort of person who would be
great in a war zones or in places undergoing great upheaval, but who can’t make
a go of it in the quiet of everyday life in Canada. Too bristly, always looking
for a way to make misery out of nothing.
A person obsessed with the notion that the main point of
journalism is to afflict the comfortable.
In which case I doubt I will ever be a journalist, because I
believe most people are fundamentally good, even if they’re comfortable (though
look how far that attitude got Anne Frank…or Blanche Dubois!).
According to Anne Kingston in a recent issue of Macleans
When shots rang at Dawson,
the third-generation Montrealer was the logical go-to for a big feature. Under tight
deadline, Wong observed that the Dawson
shooter, and the shooters at the École Polytechnique and Concordia, were
children of immigrants. All three, she wrote, “had been marginalized in a
society that valued pure laine,” argot for “pure” francophones: “Elsewhere,
to talk of racial ‘purity’ is repugnant. Not in Quebec.”
…[Wong] still contends she was misunderstood. She fishes
in her knapsack for a piece of paper with the contentious paragraph. “Everybody
is saying I said they shot people because of Bill 101. Where does it say that?
I never said that!”
Let me make an admission here: unlike Anne Kingston, or
Wong’s laudatory apologist Heather
Mallick (who, unbelievably, is mentioned in the Out of the Blue preface and still managed to get a column published
in The Toronto Star about Wong’s new “workplace
divorce memoir”), I am not Jan Wong’s friend; I’ve never met her. However,
I am both similar to and different from Jan Wong: a non-pure laine third
generation Quebecer, albeit one who never left Quebec.
And, seriously, Wong as the go-to person? Why didn’t they
use a Quebec-based journalist? Surely The
Globe and Mail had some….
I found the episode as facilely presented in the above
articles, and on Wong’s website and youtube video http://youtu.be/zxNQq366gfU , very
disturbing, and not at all as I recalled it. I know I was hopping mad about
Wong’s article when I read it at the time and remember firing off an infuriated
letter to the editor in response.
So from the bowels of the internet, I pulled up the article
Wong wrote about the Dawson
College shootings.
Wong makes it sound like the origin of the uproar was a
single sentence in the 3,000+ words of her 2006 article. But the truth is, she
spent over 400 words on this whacko analysis: not a throw-away sentence but a
major integral part of her piece. Her thesis is clearly that Quebec’s emphasis on ethnic/racial purity is
profoundly alienating and is part of the explanation for Kimveer Gill’s—and Marc
Lepine’s, and Valery Fabrikant’s--murderous rampages.
So I’ve been wondering when she’ll see fit to ascribe
alleged cannibal killer Luka Magnotta’s rampage on Bill 101 and Quebec racism, too? Or
maybe it’s our lack of acceptance of alt lifestyles that pushed him over the
edge? Oh wait—Quebec
is a Canadian leader in acceptance of gay lifestyles, so maybe that won’t wash.
What about the psychology behind the Robert Picton, Homolka-Bernardo, or
Russell Williams affairs? Any zany thoughts on the psychosociality of those
criminals? Either she’s learned her lesson (though she denies it) or it’s only
in Quebec
that such links occur.
I remember reading Wong’s 2006 article and thinking both she
and her editor deserved to be fired over it. It read like the ravings of some
anglo-Quebec dinosaur from the Equality Party, not the purview of Canada’s
newspaper of record.
I’m no great friend of the Société Saint Jean Baptiste--or of
Bill 101--but I believe the fury that rained down on Jan Wong and The Globe and Mail as a result of her
article was deserved, if in some measure disproportionate. Self-inflicted,
even.
And if anyone in the article deserves to be skewered as
racist, surely it was Jan herself:
For security reasons — security of the equipment —
that is, the computer lab had three vast windows that looked onto the hall. All
50 or so students hit the floor, everyone that is, except for a couple of
students who continued working at their computers. Were they Asian?
“Everyone asks me that,” says Alex
laughing, much later, from the safety of his home. “One was a white guy who was
writing an essay. The other was a black guy who was searching the Internet.”
Maybe she thought she was being funny, or that this was
QED--highlighting Montrealers’ racism.
I haven’t read her new book, Out of the Blue, but if the premise is that her depression came “out
of the blue,” I’m afraid Jan Wong is still out to lunch in the land of denial.
And I’m not talkin’ Egypt
here.
Jan Wong’s depression sounds to me to have been pretty well
self-inflicted, and I say this in sorrow and as a person not wholly
unacquainted with depression. That The
Globe and Mail used whatever pretext it did to fire her—and, eventually,
editor Edward Greenspon--doesn’t surprise me. The article should have been
rejected or those damning 400 words altered.
Wong’s book-long skewering of The Globe for firing her reminds me of the standard definition of
chutzpah: a young man who murdered both his parents throwing himself on the
mercy of the court because he's an orphan.
It was about her judgement. It was about her editor’s
inability to save her from herself.
Maybe
Wong's editor Edward Greenspon should have borne the brunt of the ire. Her
writing crossed the line. As a seasoned journalist, a deadline doesn't qualify
as an excuse when the result is provincial character assassination. It was her
editor's job to rein her in, to correct her lapses. Another epic fail. Her
remarks revealed an appalling ignorance of and lack of respect for the
evolution of Quebec
society over the past 30 years. Not to mention the sort of
pseudo-intellectualizing that would have been shot down in a CEGEP termpaper.
If there was still a CEGEP term, I mean.
I'm sure The Globe and Mail would’ve had a hard time printing an article--even one of "analysis" or "opinion"--that baldly asserted Marc Lepine's murderous instincts were the result of his Algerian Arab heritage. How, then, could it justify tarring an entire neighbouring community of millions of people?
I'm sure The Globe and Mail would’ve had a hard time printing an article--even one of "analysis" or "opinion"--that baldly asserted Marc Lepine's murderous instincts were the result of his Algerian Arab heritage. How, then, could it justify tarring an entire neighbouring community of millions of people?
A former colleague puts it another
way: “The instincts that led her to Maoism in her early years never left her personality.”
Yeah,
I'll say.
Jan Wong is scum. She is human garbage. I was
delighted to hear that the Globe eventually severed their relationship
with her. And I am equally delighted that she continues to drown in her own
bile, and her own irrelevance.
As long as I live, I will never forgive Jan Wong
for what she did to our family. May her misery be long and deep.
Kinsella’s
diatribe links to the origins of his problem with Jan Wong
in the piece “Eat this Jan Wong.”
1
