Removing books from the shelves of a library is not a trivial action. Neither will burn them. We can therefore be pleased that the motion tabled by Québec solidaire to reiterate the National Assembly’s support for “freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and the free circulation of ideas” was unanimous. . This followed the flamethrower destruction by a Missouri politician of a book by Myriam Daguzan Bernier illustrated by Cécile Gariépy which deals with sexuality and is aimed at adolescents. We also learned that the Jewish Public Library of Montreal had moved Élise Gravel’s children’s books so that they were no longer directly accessible to readers, the institution reproaching the author for having published on social networks messages favorable to the Palestinian cause and, according to her, “anti-Semitic”.
However, it should be noted, despite these solemn declarations from our politicians, that censorship is becoming commonplace and becoming normalized. Not as much as in the United States, of course, but the idea is there. The public, like the heads of institutions who should be committed to the protection of works, now find it normal and completely commonplace to disappear books or films, particularly when their authors or their leading roles are suspected of having committed acts odious. It has even become their first reflex, a type of decision taken without delay and which no longer requires any thought, or very little.
Cases are still rare in Quebec, but we will remember that the National Library removed Gabriel Matzneff’s diary from its collections in 2020, after he was accused of having sexually abused minors. (So as not to leave room for misunderstanding, I would like to point out that, if this newspaper promotes pedophilic acts, and therefore illegal, it would indeed deserve to not be freely accessible on the shelves; but, in this case, why did you acquire it and then censor it).
In the same way, or at least according to the same logic, Télé-Québec decided at the end of last year to no longer broadcast films in which Gérard Depardieu played (a decision all the more unfair since a film is a collective work and thus sanction other actors, a director, a screenwriter, etc., who have done nothing).
Let us add that in Ontario, following official directives, books have been burned or beaten in the name of “reconciliation” with the Aboriginal people, and school libraries have also been expunged because certain works were supposed to contain “dated depictions” of certain minorities. I am very afraid that, whatever our deputies say, the phenomenon will inevitably end up reaching Quebec, and we can be sure that we will see, here too, one day or another, a politician in bad reputation burning with a flamethrower a book that displeases him.
Besides, is it so certain that we are collectively so attached to “freedom of expression and the free circulation of ideas”? Among the people who protest against the censorship of Élise Gravel’s books, are there not some who rejoice at the one who attacks Matzneff’s diary or Depardieu’s films? Of course, someone could reply to me that there is a priori nothing comparable between an author who is scandalized by the bombings on Gaza and a middle-aged writer who boasts of liking barely pubescent teenage girls or a star of the cinema that is full of crude and misogynistic remarks. Certainly. But the same logic is at work in these three cases.
First, this censorial logic confuses the individual and his work (or, in the case of Depardieu, a work which is only partially his). The immorality of one thus — in the minds of many — irremediably taints the other. However, things are much less clear than they seem: to take just one famous example, the appalling anti-Semitism of Louis-Ferdinand Céline does not prevent journey to the Edge of the Night to be one of the greatest French novels of the 20the century.
Then, censorship always takes the pretext, these days, of the “sensitivity” of each person which should not be “hurt”. Whether or not we are offended by the words of an author or the content of a book, this should in no way appear to be a sufficient reason to censor them.
Especially since the “sensitivity” of some is not that of others and that relying on something so subjective to place a ban on a work opens a Pandora’s box: if I wish that we bans such a film whose main actor is a misogynist or accused of rape, or such a book which contains “dated representations” of women, homosexuals or even Aboriginal people, I am reaching out to others so that they ban from their side authors or books that talk about gender theory, homosexuality or the bombings on Gaza.
The quote which makes Voltaire say “I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death so that you have the right to say it” is perhaps apocryphal, but that does not mean it. That doesn’t stop you from being full of common sense. Let us then hope that this evil habit of the spirit of censorship disappears. Freedom and tolerance are much better catalysts for “living together”.