The recent publication on the Web of the Guidelines for Inclusive Writing by the Translation Bureau of the federal government offers a document containing several dozen pages of instructions and claiming six main principles “which should guide the application different processes of inclusive writing”. Make no mistake about it: the tone is directive, as evidenced by the repeated use of the injunctive infinitive, for example, “Respect the preferences of the persons concerned”. The unacknowledged objective is the in-depth reformatting of the collective culture and consciousness of the French-speaking population of Canada, among others, so that it bends to the demands of the minorities who now govern us. A reverse acculturation of the majority, in a way.
But above all, do not believe that inclusive writing is a reform of spelling. This one is desirable, without being really necessary, but this one is a real manipulation of minds. As much as the feminization of job names and titles, for example, is in line with our values of equality and democracy, the intrusion of diversity into the written code is part of a totalitarian approach that enjoins you to communicate so that a “person feels respected”. But what am I getting involved in? I have the right to respect who I want and I am not responsible for the sensitivity of others. I am the only judge and I assume it.
Added to this ideological offensive of Canadian multiculturalism is the voluminous document containing the directives, more nuanced, it must be admitted, of the Office québécois de la langue française. This is divided into four parts: epicene writing, neutral formulation, non-binary writing and inclusive writing. The least that can be said is that these official bodies are pulling out all the stops to achieve their ends. Instead of simplifying the teaching of French and making it more attractive, these government documents are “toxic” because they will only poison the lives of teachers and our students by making this school subject even more daunting than we say so.
Basically, these two undertakings only perpetuate the same spirit of normativity as that which devolved to the French Academy, founded in 1634 and so decried by some (and some, it goes without saying) “reformists” of today. today. However, the difference in context is enormous. At the beginning of the XVIIe century, the French language of royal power aimed to rally the dialectal diversity of France by providing it with a common language that still did not exist despite the ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts proclaimed almost a hundred years earlier by François Ier in 1539. Nowadays, constitutional diversity imposes the anathema of discrimination on the individual who writes in a traditional French language that has finally become common for two hundred years. It is no longer a question of language policy, but of religion.
Indeed, the traditional writing in French language would have become discriminatory by virtue of the religious belief which defines “the new culture of the offense” made with the next, as writes it so well Salman Rushdie. The masculine is an offense to the feminine. Gender is an offense to non-binarity. His default deal is an offense to diversity. Epicene is the redemption of all denominations. The alleged offense has thus become the stock in trade of the Anglo-American communal bigotry that is sweeping the entire world, not just the West, with money from the Evangelical, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, and sectarian churches. affiliates, whose apostolic zeal provides the soil necessary for the spread of radical and deadly Islamism supported by the petrodollars of the Muslim monarchies.
It is neither more nor less than pushing through the throats of the ignorant the writing practices of diverse propriety. The stratagem is as old as the world: to use power to make anyone feel guilty who deviates from the standards that this power decrees in terms of language, language, communication and grammar. Also, inclusive writing adopts the process of intention as the basis of its implementation. A “censorial” plague, as at the time of the Calas affair made famous by Voltaire. […]
Failure to write according to the new standards of linguistic propriety will make you a person who adheres to “all forms of discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin, disabilities”, including including “any other identity factor”. The French language defining the identity of a Francophone, writing in traditional French language, that is to say not in accordance with inclusive writing, makes you by default a “normatif.ve” delinquent.
In short, not writing in inclusive writing relegates you to the camp of racism if you deviate from “Principle 4: Make choices representative of diversity”. This is how diversity ideology goes about formatting the mind of the ideal writer (or woman writer, of course) (need we specify?). Writing according to the traditional rules therefore implies that you do not respect your recipient, as if you do not know anything but Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or TikTok.
Any comments or suggestions for Ideas in review? write to [email protected].