The Cathy Simpson affair, mentioned by some English-speaking media, shows the extent to which freedoms of opinion and expression are too often trampled underfoot. Polarized, some individuals find it difficult to tolerate the expression of ideas opposed to their own, but even more serious is the problem of “follower” administrations, which follow suit.
Until recently, Cathy Simpson managed the library in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. She was fired by her board of directors, due to an open letter in which she expressed concern about the decline in the diversity of points of view in Canadian and American libraries.
Her employer suspended her shortly after a reader, Matthew French, accused Mme Simpson as a far-right propagandist, accusing her of being critical of EDI programs, of spreading “inflammatory” ideas and of having affinities with FAIR (Foundation Against Racism and Intolerance), an American organization whom he judged — wrongly — to be far-right. The organization in question is concerned with issues such as human rights and the fight against racism, but through an approach that is more humanist than identity-based.
In his letter of February 22, Mme Simpson was concerned about the rise in demands for censorship: some library users want to have books removed from the shelves that they consider offensive or dangerous. But she said she noticed another form of pressure – less extreme than censorship, but just as worrying – stemming from the same desire to repress certain ideas. Basically, the clear increase in acquisitions of works of so-called progressive allegiance (issues of systemic racism, gender diversity, etc.) seemed disproportionate to him compared to more traditional points of view, or even counter-discourses, which are rarer on the Rays. Correct or not, the hypothesis of Mme Simpson contains nothing that makes it immediately intolerable.
Mme Simpson then came to worry about a possible decline in the diversity of points of view. Opposed to censorship, she did not propose the withdrawal of the aforementioned works, but wanted other voices to be added to the discussion in order to balance the debate. Again, one may or may not agree with this suggestion, but it is difficult to characterize it as inflammatory.
Mme Simpson appealed to humanist values, including those formulated by the FAIR organization and inspired by the thoughts of Martin Luther King. Still no scandal in sight.
However, it was enough for the discontent of citizens like Mr. French for Mr. French’s employer tome Simpson suspends her. Mr. French had every right to express his opinion: freedom of expression cannot be a one-way street. But nothing seems to justify the sanctions imposed on Mme Simpson.
The irony is striking: Mme Simpson used her freedom of expression to promote openness to diversity of points of view, but she was reprimanded precisely for the exercise of this freedom and for her heterodox point of view. The sanction alone suffered by Mme Simpson seems to confirm the validity of his concerns.
This story may seem anecdotal. But such a dismissal, anecdotal or not, remains intolerable. Moreover, each new episode of the culture of banishment brings to mind others: through repetition, the thing unfortunately seems less and less anecdotal.
We can imagine that the defenders of the culture of banishment want to defend the repression of certain inappropriate comments or dangerous ideas, in the name of a healthier society. But, in addition to the exceptions to freedom of expression already provided for in the Criminal Code (defamation, encouragement of genocide, etc.), we must wonder in what sense ideas — some of which seem rather banal — can be qualified as dangerous. Are people now so easily influenced, so incapable of thinking for themselves, that they should be protected from any contact with such ideas? Such reasoning obviously does not hold water, because to think for oneself, one must be able to grasp and judge various ideas, as well as the arguments that support each of them.
The danger, if there is one, therefore does not lie in exposure to this or that idea, but in the incapacity to think freely and autonomously. Such an inability becomes difficult to overcome if we are constantly deprived of the freedom to compare various ideas, rationally and calmly. Thinking, as with anything, you learn by doing it. It is perhaps appropriate, in this regard, to recall the words of Hannah Arendt: “There are no dangerous thoughts, for the simple reason that the act of thinking is in itself a very dangerous enterprise. But not thinking is even more dangerous! »