I was struck by the metaphor used by Louis Robert, a famous agronomist at the Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs, who said in an interview with Radio-Canada that, even to talk about the life cycle of earthworms in a journalist, you had to go through the communications department. This story reminded me of a few situations where omerta took over freedom of expression.
The health sector
I had the strong impression, during the first months of the pandemic, that Quebec doctors spent their time agreeing with Premier François Legault. However, the management of the latter has been open to criticism in more ways than one. Thus, they aligned themselves with Mr. Legault’s obstinacy in denying the usefulness of wearing a mask and repeated ad nauseam that hand washing and distancing were the preferred measures to deal with the pandemic.
In Ontario, the Dr Brooks Fallis was fired by William Osler Hospital two weeks after criticizing Doug Ford’s management by saying on Twitter that Doug Ford had no idea what he was doing. During her tenure as Minister of Health, Danielle McCann had risen against omerta in the health sector and had set up an e-mail box to collect the grievances of nurses anonymously. Years of omerta accumulated, as if the disproportionate workload suffered by this profession were not enough.
Other sectors are not spared
When I accepted a job in Ottawa, my employer at the time insisted on specifying in the employment contract that I was to refrain from criticizing the Government of Canada in any way. This employer had service contracts with the federal government and was visibly afraid of losing them. For this company, the choice between freedom of expression and business was made.
During the Maple Spring celebration, a journalist from Noovo indicated that a lawyer who participated in the 2012 demonstrations refused to grant her an interview on the pretext that he had a duty of discretion towards his employer. How would this interview have harmed his employer? Is it okay to cling to money so much that you fear that even the slightest statement from an employee could hurt business?
The duty of reserve, an attentive term at first sight, in reality designates only the prohibition of expressing oneself publicly. Gloriane Blais, a lawyer, had her title revoked for refusing to submit to a medical examination requested by the Barreau du Québec. Indeed, the lawyer had publicly displayed her opposition to the vaccine in addition to criticizing, on another occasion, the work of a judge, which was not to the taste of the Bar.
A simple question arises: if an ordinary citizen has the right to oppose the vaccine or criticize the work of a judge, why shouldn’t a lawyer have the same rights?
Palpable consequences
I rarely see civil servants, doctors or professionals expressing opinions in the press or on social media. This indicates two things: either that the people occupying these professions do not have an opinion to express, or that they cannot do so by censorship or self-censorship.
I immediately rule out the first hypothesis, because a citizen necessarily has an opinion on current issues, regardless of his job. Without these contributions to public debate, public opinion will remain misinformed. It also makes it easy prey for misinformation or, at best, government propaganda. There is no need to recall that criticism is nevertheless the essence of progress.
Legislators should prohibit any rule preventing public or private employees from speaking publicly. The law must also prohibit any form of reprisal. These reprisals, like those suffered by the Dr Fallis and M.and Blais are just as reprehensible as the censorship of a political opponent who criticizes the government in an authoritarian regime.