The author is a professor of literature in Montreal, contributor to the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and Why do our children leave school ignorant? (Boreal, 2008).
The recent decision by the Minister of Tourism, Caroline Proulx, to ask the Quebec City Convention Center to terminate the rental contract that bound it to the Christian organization Harvest Ministries is problematic to say the least. Especially since forcing its organizers to modify, with three weeks’ notice, the place where this congress was to be held practically amounts to de facto prohibiting the holding of this event.
At the risk of shocking, let us specify: whether or not this “Rally fire, faith and freedom” is an anti-abortion event does not change the matter at all. In a democracy, the rights and freedoms, including those of assembly, expression and thought, are not there to protect the views on which there is consensus within the population or those which agree with the views of the government. If that were the case, they would be, let’s face it, very vain rights. In this regard, let’s remember this quote from Bertrand Russell which, if you think about it, comes down to simple common sense: “If you are not in favor of freedom of expression for the ideas you hate, you are not part of all in favor of freedom of expression. »
From this point of view, the minister’s invocation of the “values” or “fundamental principles” of Quebec to justify her decision is somewhat shocking, because it leads to the most complete arbitrariness. On the one hand, these terms “values”, “principles” are vague enough, poorly defined enough to justify almost any form of prohibition and censorship. It is therefore the door open to the most perfect partiality. But above all, such a justification comes into direct conflict with the very principle of freedom of expression and assembly which is guaranteed, in a democratic regime, as a matter of priority, to those who defend ideas which go against majority opinions or those defended by the government; majority or government-backed opinions do not, by definition, need such protection.
In a democracy, the only speech that can legitimately be prohibited or the dissemination of which the government can legitimately hinder are those that are illegal, particularly hate speech or that would call for violence against a particular group of citizens. It would thus certainly be legal to prohibit or hinder the holding of an explicitly anti-Semitic or homophobic gathering (although Canadian law, as we know, exempts religious groups from such potential accusations of holding this kind of speech from the when these hateful remarks are based on a religious text).
But, to my knowledge, anti-abortion discourse does not fall into this category, that is to say that it has never been declared illegal either in Quebec or in Canada. From there, it is illegitimate, and probably illegal, for the government to intervene to obstruct the holding of such an anti-abortion rally.
Drift of liberalism
This case, which will most certainly result in Quebec being condemned to pay financial compensation which will fill the coffers of a fundamentalist religious organization, is indicative of a current drift in liberalism. In this regard, there is something worrying about the fact that all parties in the National Assembly initially supported the Minister of Tourism’s decision.
Conversely, it is to the credit of the leader of the Parti Québécois, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, to have then backtracked by denouncing the “confusion” that there was “between the position of each party on abortion on the one hand, and the position of the parties on freedom of expression and assembly on the other”. That his party, he added, “unreservedly supports the right to abortion” does not imply that we should “allow the government to henceforth give itself the power, on an arbitrary basis, to determine who can meet and express themselves in our society”.
Québec solidaire MP Alexandre Leduc also made a similar journey on Thursday. “I think we realize that there are dangers in starting to go down this path”, at the risk, he says, of becoming “censors of the good values of Quebec”. The two men, in these circumstances, have shown the stature of a statesman, who does not let himself be carried away by his emotions, those of public opinion, or the surge of hashtags on social networks. .
It is fundamental today that our political leaders, like those of our public institutions, strongly resist this tendency of our time to want to delegitimize, even criminalize the opinions with which we disagree. We must drive out this omnipresent shadow of Anastasie, which only contributes to a harmful bipolarization of political and public life.
Moreover, it is not taking the best means to defend women’s right to abortion. As a general rule, prohibiting the expression of an idea only reinforces it, while also giving it the aura of a truth that the authorities want to hide. It’s a double-edged sword. Rather than hindering the holding of anti-abortion discourse, it would certainly be preferable and above all more effective to oppose them, not only with a position of principle, but also with rational arguments in favor of free choice.