If I told you everything I read during my Maoist period in the late 1970s, you wouldn’t believe me. See all the same.
I typed the three volumes of the “autobiography” of Enver Hodja, the Albanian communist dictator. Surprisingly, it was quite addictive. I now assume that the real author was a talented but dissident novelist, chained to a metal table in a cell in the third basement of the presidential palace, who had been promised, if he made it thrilling, to upgrade him to the second. There was also And the steel was tempered, by Soviet Nikolai Ostrovsky. A story of the atrocious post-1917 battles where the hunt for the Trotskyists, these ex-revolutionaries who we discover with horror that they were henchmen of big capital from the start, leaves you speechless. These were the entertaining readings. The serious readings focused on theory, especially those of the Great Helmsman Mao, whose masterpiece, Of the just solution of the contradictions among the people. The small group to which I belonged persisted in declaring that, despite the gulag and other atrocities, Stalin was ultimately a good guy. He relied to defend this absurd point of view on the assessment that Comrade Mao had drawn from it in his text On the ten major reports. In conclusion, Mao gave 7 out of 10 to the little father of the peoples. As a law student, I started reading the book, pencil in hand, to follow the demonstration, noting positively or negatively each of the 10 aspects covered. I arrived at 7/10, but at 7 negative results. Was Mao’s text coded? How many of us, in China, in Russia and in the world, have correctly deciphered it? On the question of Stalin, therefore, I would remain on my positions, a dissident. Then I came across a book by the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh, whom I held in high esteem, like Jane Fonda. It dealt with the thorny question of the quant-à-soi. It is understood, the communist militant must blindly obey his superiors who, thanks to dialectical materialism, a science we were told, itself operationalized in the cogs of democratic centralism, could only produce the right line. A way of saying that they were always right. But if the activist had a doubt? Did he have the right, not to express it, which would weaken the discipline of combat, but to preserve it in his head, in the depths of his self? Comrade Ho was formal. The answer was no. The militant had to banish doubt from his mind. The quant-à-soi was, on its face, counter-revolutionary. I admit that because of this reading, Hô fell a lot in my esteem (not Jane Fonda). I decided that I would keep my own self about me whatever the comrades might say.
Ho’s prose has come to mind in recent days as a debate rages on at the intersection of human rights and clothing choices. To celebrate Gay Pride and support LGBTQ rights, since 2018 the National Hockey League has made a habit of organizing a benefit game, before which it asks all players to wear, during the warm-up period. , a sweater in the colors of the rainbow.
Several players fought back. In Montreal, the Russian Denis Gurianov spoke of “reasons of family security”. The power – and the opinion – Russian being very refractory to LGBTQ rights, he implied that, if he wore the rainbow, it could go wrong for his people. Three Russian players from the Chicago team did the same. Then, a player from San José, two from Florida, one from Philadelphia and one from Vancouver expressed the same refusal, citing in their case religious beliefs. Indeed, several major religions are homophobic. There could be other scenarios. Players who support LGBTQ rights and efforts to make hockey more inclusive, but prefer not to display a logo. The majority of gay people, if you think about it, don’t participate in Pride parades. Then there are those who are supportive in general, but feel that some of the claims of groups represented in the LGBTQIA2S+ alphabet may be problematic. Especially with this “+”, which can mean a lot of things. Demand, for example, the presence of trans women, therefore born men, in women’s sport. Why take the risk of associating with what you don’t support, or don’t understand?
Fortunately, in Quebec, and in the absence of the late Denise Bombardier, we can fall back on the wisdom of Québec solidaire’s female co-spokesperson, Manon Massé, to guide our thinking. Responding this week to the NHL’s decision to maintain its annual activities in support of LGBTQ causes, Black History Month and Indigenous causes, but to end its practice of requiring players to wear symbols of these causes during a practice, she jumped: “I do not understand why the NHL has so easily bowed to the pressure of people who are against us by withdrawing the day of practice in the colors of Pride. She wants the NHL to back down, adding, “If a few players don’t want to wear it, let them warm up the bench for a long time!” Because excluding LGBTQIA2S+ people from sports means putting them and them on the bench of exclusion. »
A decoding is needed on the question of inclusion/exclusion. Mme Massé believes that not forcing all players to show LGBTQ colors means excluding gay people from sports. What even Hô would have called a non sequitur, that is, an argument devoid of logic. The right of gays to be included in all spheres of society, including locker rooms, is an excellent collective decision, enshrined in our charters of rights. But nowhere is there an obligation to wear the colors of this cause, or any other. On the contrary, and contrary to communist regimes, our charters guarantee “freedom of conscience”, our legal version of self-esteem. If Mme Massé wishes to exclude and stigmatize players who, in conscience, refuse to wear a jack strap rainbow, I have in my archives an old book of Ho Chi Minh which she will love, I’m sure.
Father, columnist and author,
Jean-François Lisée directed
the Parti Québécois from 2016 to 2018.
[email protected] /
blog: jflisee.org