Periodically, on one side or the other of the political or ideological spectrum, calls for censorship or extreme gestures, such as book burnings, target books or other expressive manifestations. These excesses are criticized with varying fervor depending on the sympathy or repugnance that the statement inspires. However, the lack of rigor in the distinction between what can be censored and what must be tolerated feeds the appetite for book burnings.
The tendency to excuse censorship when we don’t like it and to condemn it when it corresponds to our opinions complicates debates on freedom of expression. Indeed, when we tolerate the censorship of ideas that displease us, we are in a bad position to condemn that which targets works that we appreciate.
In the United States, Valentina Gomez, candidate for secretary of state in Missouri, burned the book with a flamethrower Naked (translation of All naked!), by Myriam Daguzan Bernier and Cécile Gariépy, who makes the mistake of contradicting her beliefs regarding sexual diversity. We can also recall the pathetic vendetta against the puppet representing a self-caricature of the comedian Frank Sylvestre which pushed local leaders to cancel some of his shows or the pressure to censor activities hosted by drag queens.
Fabien Deglise reported, in The duty of April 7, 2023, that “Texas tops the list of politically guided literary censorship in the United States, established by the organization PEN America. » No fewer than 801 books were banned in 22 school districts by the Republican majority in this southern state. Far-right politicians order censorship of books about gender identity, racial tensions or diversity. Closer to home, decision-makers censor what does not suit them. For example, in Quebec in 2020, a school board censored the citation of the title of a book by Pierre Vallières in a history textbook.
Censorship is not new. The virtual exhibition proposed by the Library of the National Assembly entitled Perspectives on literary censorship in Quebec shows that censorship has changed over time. Religious censorship dominated in Quebec until its upheaval in 1978, when fundamentalist groups called for censorship of performances of the play The fairies are thirsty, by feminist author Denise Boucher. More recently, religious alibis have been used to justify the censorship of caricatures of Charlie Hebdo.
Censorship is often justified by attaching pejorative labels to targeted works. In March 2023, The Nouvelliste reported that the organization responsible for Secondaire en spectacle asked a student to replace a word in the poem Speak White by Michèle Lalonde, claiming a concern to “fight against hatred”! You have to have serious gaps in understanding the meaning of the words to find something resembling hatred in this poem… In this specific case, the censors alleged that guidelines were needed: they invented some of their own! Indeed, in this case, no law prohibited the use of the word which we nevertheless decided to censor.
But all is not lost ! It is reassuring that the leaders of the Jewish Public Library of Montreal, after removing from the open access shelves the books of an author critical of the policies of the Netanyahu government, have finally stopped complying with the demands of those who assimilate the criticism of policies of the State of Israel to anti-Semitism. Condemning legitimate speech by improperly labeling it as hateful is a strategy frequently used by censorship zealots.
Predictable criteria
Obviously, everyone has the freedom to criticize a work or express their disagreement with a statement. But the mere fact that a work is open to criticism or that the author’s theses are criticized is not sufficient justification for censoring it or making it inaccessible to others.
Censors of various tendencies ignore not only the laws, but also the expertise of specialists such as librarians. Professionals working in venues are authorized to evaluate the works. It is up to them to determine, based on evidence, what is appropriate for the public served. They must know the standards resulting from the laws which prescribe guidelines for freedom of expression and evaluate, in the light of these standards, the claims of those who claim to censor a book, a film, a song or an object exhibited in a museum or other public place.
Indeed, the decision to censor must be based on explicit and predictable criteria, not on the political opinions of decision-makers and even less on the whims of those who, often indiscriminately, demand the censorship of books or other works. which bother them or to which they arbitrarily choose to attribute meanings of their own.
In a democracy, the only censorship that is obligatory is that provided for by law. And the law is subject to a mechanism ensuring that the restrictions are justified in a democratic society. Taking for granted that censorship can validly result from decisions that are not justified by law is like making matches to start the book burnings.