The spectacle was painful to see in the streets of Montreal and several other large Canadian cities, as the convoys of hatred of the 1 Million March for Children paraded.
Far fewer people than organizers hoped responded to the call to demonstrate to “protect our children from indoctrination [sic] and sexualization,” as can be read on the march’s website. The fact remains that there is no longer any doubt: anti-sexual and gender diversity forces are now well established from coast to coast, and their capacity to influence the political debate is increasing at a maddening speed.
It must be said that the ingredients were already all at hand: the “debate” that presents itself to us is a carbon copy of the war waged, for several years already, by the extreme right in the United States and the United Kingdom. United against children and trans people. The same words. The same false beliefs. The same rhetorical strategies that construct the threat that hangs over the purity of childhood.
We took everything up, as a whole: the figure of the queer or trans adult as a predator, the fear of “contagion” surrounding transidentity and, more recently, the attacks on the probity of researchers, speakers and professionals who try to debunk all these myths based on scientific knowledge.
The most tragic gain won by the far right in this issue is to have succeeded in creating the impression that this “debate” is based on both sides on enlightened, benevolent arguments prioritizing the interest of the ‘child. We don’t agree, what do you want, but everyone wants the best for our children – it has nothing to do with a broader political program, they say. There are good arguments and good people on both sides, it is claimed.
Never mind the alarming prevalence of mental health issues and suicidal ideation among trans and non-binary youth. Never mind the clear and documented positive impact of social transition on young people experiencing gender dysphoria. Never mind the data that indicate that parental support is a determining factor in improving the mental health of young people who begin a gender transition. Never mind that trans people are constantly targeted by harassment and hate crimes, and that their safety is directly compromised by the normalization of speech that questions their existence.
Hate is here cleverly camouflaged by the construction of an equivalence between two postures. Even if only one of them is backed by science. And if only one of them orchestrates a frontal attack on the right to exist of certain children.
The most alarming thing is to see the ease with which, from the center to the starboard, the political class has jumped with both feet into this dangerous train of “good arguments on both sides”. On the sidelines of Sunday’s demonstrations, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, said he was truly “unable to decide” on the questions raised by the demonstrators of 1 Million March for Children.
François Legault, for his part, underlined in his weekly homily on Facebook that he had been disappointed by the virulence of the demonstrations in the streets of Montreal and argued that his government intended to act in this matter as a “bulwark against the extremes” – the extremes that are expressed on both sides.
What exactly is extreme in the posture of defending the existence and dignity of trans and non-binary children?
We understand that the Prime Minister is referring here to the manner and tone of the demonstrations. This is perhaps another subject, but it nevertheless seems to me that the demonstration is a place of legitimate expression of political affects: anger, joy, songs of hope and rage. This does not totalize the political struggle and says nothing about the “extreme” nature of the posture defended. On the contrary, affirming that all people have fundamental rights, regardless of their gender expression, is a completely liberal position.
The “other side” in this debate is quite simply the one that is based on an informed knowledge of the issues and on respect for the right to dignity and security of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. He is also the one who knows how to detect that attacks against children and trans people advance hand in hand with attacks against all sexual minorities, against women’s rights and against reproductive freedom.
It’s not very difficult to anticipate, it’s exactly what’s happening south of the border.
No matter, the Legault government decided that the “debate” deserved to be held. Faithful to his anti-intellectualism, he announced the creation of a “committee of wise people” responsible for looking into the question – not a committee of researchers, professionals or people concerned by these issues. No, “wise men” with mysterious qualifications, who will look into questions that are themselves quite vague, knowing that all the points raised by the demonstrations have already received the attention of the legislator, in one way or another.
As it stands, doesn’t François Legault’s strategy of creating a “bulwark” against the far right risk having the effect of lowering the drawbridge?
Columnist specializing in environmental justice issues, Aurélie Lanctôt is a doctoral student in law at McGill University.