Arbitrariness is what does not result from the application of a rule or a law. Under the Ancien Régime (in France, until the Revolution and in England, until the establishment of the parliamentary monarchy), people spoke of “royal arbitrariness”. The king being subject only to his “good pleasure”, he could make the decisions he wanted, even if they went against established laws and regulations. In the same way, he could decide on the banishment or confinement (at the famous Bastille, in particular) of anyone who displeased him.
Against this royal arbitrariness, the rule of law established the reign of law, that is to say that the same laws, supposedly known to all, apply to each subject of law, which is thus protected against decisions of power which do not result from the application of such a law legitimately promulgated or against punishments which could arbitrarily be imposed on it. This is the basics of democracy. It is also a principle that guarantees the equality of all, at least before the law.
However, for several years we have been witnessing, in Canada and Quebec as elsewhere, a dangerous drift, a return of sanctions which are applied in a completely arbitrary manner, outside of any law, any rule, sometimes even without has been committed the slightest crime or the slightest misdemeanor duly defined by a rule of law or any code of ethics.
Presumption of innocence
On this subject, we remember the Jutra affair, in 2016, when the name of the famous director, who had died thirty years ago, was banned from public space by decision of the Minister of Culture at the time and the management from Quebec-
Cinema, with which the mayors of Montreal, Quebec and Lévis joined, even though no complaint had been officially filed against him and the incriminating testimonies remained anonymous. At least this post-mortem punishment for alleged pedophile sex crimes only harmed his memory.
It was not the same, four years later, when the teacher Verushka Lieutenant-Duval was sanctioned and vilified by the dean of the University of Ottawa for having uttered a word that no law or regulation forbidden to pronounce. We faced, there, not only the most total arbitrariness, but also the most hideous which attacked, with good conscience and in the name of a good anti-racist conscience, a young academic with a precarious status (at least above all suspicion regarding the racism that people pretended to blame him for) whose careers were unscrupulously destroyed.
This affair was revealing, in an even more striking way than the previous one, of this new arbitrariness which now threatens us all. That an accusation is made against someone, even without proof, now justifies a crowd of anonymous people unleashing themselves against this person who is being thrown to them on social networks.
The accusation constitutes a conviction. There is no longer any presumption of innocence, no adversarial debate, or means of defense for the accused. Public opinion, or at least that fraction of said opinion which feels the pathological need to insult and hate, acts as prosecutor, judge and jury at the same time.
The authorities (administrative, political), whose code of conduct should nevertheless be to keep a cool head, then endorse the angry emotions of the crowd and impose an immediate sanction on the accused. Most of the time this happens in just a few days, as if the authorities in question had
above all, afraid of giving the impression of not sharing with enough enthusiasm these lynching moods, or fearing being carried away in turn by their irresistible current.
Depardieu affair
It only took a few days for Gérard Depardieu to be removed from the National Order of Quebec because of comments he made about women in an extract from a report broadcast on French television. There is no doubt, the comments made by Gérard Depardieu are inexcusable, repugnant, atrociously misogynistic and profoundly stupid; but, to my knowledge, they do not constitute a crime within the meaning of the law.
However, we recently learned, thanks to an article in Duty, that the regulations of the National Order of Quebec only provided for the removal of one of its members if he or she was convicted “by legal, civil or criminal authorities”. It is therefore arbitrarily, that is to say in express contravention of established rules, that the French actor was removed. This arbitrariness would have been avoided if the Prime Minister had waited, before pronouncing his removal, for a possible conviction, since at least three complaints for rape and sexual assault have to date been filed against him.
This difference between accusations and res judicata is not a simple question of form. Let the rules and laws apply to the letter, let the courts and judges rule on the guilt of each person, and not our political leaders or administrators themselves led by a crowd that reacts emotionally, it’s what ensures that everyone — including the guilty, the heinous characters, and the happy fools — can receive fair and equitable treatment. This serves each of us, while arbitrariness only benefits the powerful.