Patrick Moreau is a professor of literature in Montreal, editor-in-chief of the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and The prose of Alain Grandbois, or reading and rereading The Travels of Marco Polo (Note bene, 2019).
If I affirm that the Earth is round, then that I state a certain number of elements which appear to me as proofs of this roundness, I am in no way threatening the safety of those who firmly believe that it is flat or detracts from their dignity. Similarly, to assert that dinosaurs existed is a statement of fact and not a Christianophobic attack on those who practice a literal reading of the Bible and therefore consider that the dinosaurs in question have no never been able to walk on Earth in the Jurassic or the Cretaceous, since the Earth was created, according to them, just over 6000 years ago.
To equate any speech contrary to the theses that one defends with aggression opens the door to the most extensive censorship there is. This conception of things is, however, spreading more and more today. It is she who justifies the prohibition to pronounce certain words, whatever the context; it is also invoked to oppose the coming of lecturers or to justify the heckling organized in order to prevent them from expressing their point of view, like those transgender activists who want to prevent Professor Robert Wintemute from giving a lecture soon at McGill University, alleging that this English specialist in human rights peddles “hateful and transphobic remarks” which undermine their “security” and their “dignity”.
Such confusion between violence and counter-arguments is the poisoned fruit of a double phenomenon whose effects, unfortunately, we have not yet finished measuring: on the one hand, a relativism which establishes as an absolute principle the fact that everyone has the right to his ideas (an indisputable fact, provided that he does not say anything about the truth of the said ideas); on the other hand, a therapeutic approach to social life, which, by confusing aggression and microaggression and by psychiatrizing any malaise or discomfort, assimilated to a trauma, that words can cause in certain individuals, tends to make intolerable, even to criminalize (by assimilating them to “hate speech” prohibited by law), the expression of all but the most trivial disagreements.
In order to counter this drift, we must learn or relearn to distinguish between what is simple disagreement, and therefore the most legitimate freedom of expression, and what is “hate speech”, which is prohibited by law. Neither the university nor society as a whole are “safe spaces” (safe spaces) where everyone would be protected from anything that might offend them, nor should they become so.
This obviously does not amount to saying that gratuitous offenses or public insults must be legitimized, but a question such as the definition of what a woman or a man is is clearly in the public interest and concerns all of the society. Like so many others, this question must not be left to lobbies that try to suppress all debate in order to make their own particular interest prevail over the general interest.
The communitarian narcissism which currently triumphs diverts to its advantage the generous ideas of tolerance, respect, and dignity of individuals which are at the heart of the ideals of democracy. But this diversion is carried out at the expense of these ideals and puts democracy in danger. Because, contrary to what one might think, relativism, which stems from such communitarianism, does not lead to more tolerance and respect for others, but to the confinement of each in a reassuring self-segregation. and, at best, on a generalized indifference towards others, that is to say its fellow citizens, at worst, to the war of all against all.
A hidden war
Encouraged in particular by social networks, but also by a loss of both intellectual and moral landmarks, this latent war then leads to speeches that are, for good, intolerable. Write, as Sandro Grande did on Twitter, following the 2012 Metropolis shooting: “The only mistake the shooter made last night was missing his target!!! Marois!!! Next time, dude! I hope ! This sounds a lot like “hate speech” within the meaning of the law.
Publicly hoping someone is dead and calling for a “next time” clearly constitutes incitement to murder. And I wonder why no complaint was filed at that time against this individual and how he was able after that to continue his career as a soccer coach as if nothing had happened. Would he have had the same career for the past ten years if he had publicly rejoiced at a feminicide or the attack on the Quebec mosque?
Beyond a double standard which, in this case, is quite obvious, one can also think that the repeated denunciation of so-called “hate speech” goes hand in hand with a savagery of society which authorizes a whole everyone wishes for the death (real or symbolic) of adversaries who are now considered enemies. By constantly crying wolf, we lose not only the sense of nuance and distinction, but also that of the tolerable and the intolerable.