After François Legault and Marwah Rizqy in 2022, after Catherine Fournier last year, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon joins the club of Quebec political figures threatened with death. How did we get to the point where people find it normal to issue death threats to politicians with whom they disagree?
One does not need to be a great cleric to establish the genealogy of such verbal violence, which, fortunately, has not yet given rise, here, to acts of violence; at least if we except the attack which targeted Pauline Marois just a few years ago: it was in 2012.
Over the past few months, I would bet that we have all witnessed at least once exchanges that quickly get out of hand, debates that turn sour and in which insults respond to arguments, whether it has taken place in the world real or in the virtual world, where part of our social existence now takes place.
We must face reality, our times have become terribly intolerant. Many people consider any opinion that diverges from theirs as an intolerable personal attack, which then justifies an outburst of verbal violence. It’s an attitude that is all too common today.
From insults to threats, there is only one step, quickly taken, and we know that such death or rape threats do not only target politicians, but also journalists and journalists. other public figures. We also know that these can sometimes even be motivated by rather futile pretexts: the case of the mayor of Longueuil is most eloquent in this regard, since she had to be the subject of police protection for having made a controversial decision (at least in the eyes of some) regarding the management of the deer population in the parks of his municipality.
It is no longer ideological blindness, it is no longer misplaced susceptibility, it is furious madness, which is spreading like a veritable epidemic of angry outburst and hateful intransigence! And we helplessly witness this wildness of public speech, while knowing very well what some of its causes are and what its consequences will be.
Causes and consequences
In terms of causes, we must mention our computers and our so-called smart phones. In addition to locking us up, through the magic of algorithms, in bubbles of affinity and thus giving us the illusion of having THE truth, these electronic communication tools offer us a feeling of omnipotence and induce a dangerous narcissism which makes virtual world an extension of the self. Without a real presence, others are nothing more than a dehumanized ghost onto which we can easily project our aggressive instincts and our frustrations. Insults, then threats, then constitute a means of erasing this other in whom we no longer see an equal, a way also of flattering our ego through this fortunately illusory destructive omnipotence.
As for the consequences, it is more than probable that this fury The repressed feeling that all these lonely people store behind their screens will sooner or later end up manifesting itself in reality. And then, watch out…
Before it is too late, society as a whole and its institutions, particularly the judiciary, must strongly remind individuals who indulge in uttering such threats that this way of acting is serious and cannot be tolerated, and also that the fact that these threats are transmitted by email or social media does not change their seriousness. In this regard, the fact that individuals arrested following such threats are immediately released on a promise to appear may not send the right message.
It seems that the courts are sometimes a little too lenient towards these keyboard offenders. While this offense is, according to the Criminal Code, punishable by a prison sentence of five years, the individuals in question are most of the time sentenced to relatively lenient sentences (suspended sentences, to be served at home, hours community work).
This is why I would rather be of the opinion of Judge Bonin, who, in a case of this type where an Internet user had repeatedly uttered threats against the prime ministers of Canada and Quebec, pronounced a sentence much more severe than that which the Crown demanded, on the grounds that it was “an attack on democracy itself”. It is true that the man who was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment was a repeat offender.
It is not a question of repressing at all costs the malicious remarks which are given free rein on the Internet, but of duly publicizing that there is a limit which must not be exceeded. This limit must still be clear, which is not contributed to by the current Bill C-63 tabled by the federal government, which on the contrary blurs the boundary between what is licit and illicit to express. .
In closing, I would like to spare a thought for Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who must have been going through difficult times in recent days. He is a courageous man, I have no doubt; but seeing loved ones threatened requires much more than courage.
Threatening someone with death is a crime. But threatening to harm your family is infamy.