Isabelle Craig is one of Radio-Canada's best hosts.
She does not confuse her role with that of an activist, or a preacher, prized, alas, by some of her colleagues.
Whoever is interviewed by her does not feel like going to court, any more than bowing to a session of social gossip. Never complacent, she conducts her interviews with intelligence, honesty, insight and empathy, whoever the guest is.
In the space of a few weeks, she split two important tweets.
In the first, dated June 30, she claimed the elementary right to name the work White Nègres d’Amérique without amputating the title.
In the second, dated July 21, she disagreed with those who now call women "people with a uterus".
I quote it. “No, I am not a person with a uterus […]. And no, saying that doesn't make me transphobic or homophobic. I don't walk in there, not after spending 30 years reaching out to victims of exclusion. [...]".
These are not political tweets, but simple common sense. The title of a book is not censored.
Similarly, there is something twisted in making women invisible by now referring to them as “people with a uterus”. We could go further by recalling that there is something degrading, as we see in the British health system, in proposing to speak no longer of the vagina, but of the "hole in front", of replacing the breastmilk formula as "human milk" or to assert, as we heard recently in the US Senate, that a man can be pregnant.
Should we be surprised when the terms father and mother have been replaced in many places by parent 1 and parent 2?
Let's be sure of one thing, Isabelle Craig's discomfort is widespread.
As we know, several Radio-Canada personalities opposed the CRTC's decision by calling for censorship of the title Nègres blancs d'Amérique.
And how many are no longer tolerating this inclusive newspeak that derealizes existence?
There is probably a generational dimension here, as we saw in the New York Times in 2020, when old-fashioned, yet “left” journalists saw the arrival of a new generation of militant journalists who believe themselves at the service of an ideological crusade, and who censor as they breathe.
Will old-fashioned journalists hold their own?
However, I fear something. The price to pay for denouncing censorship or inclusive newspeak is high. The dominant ideology does not forgive it. You can lose your reputation there.
And that, many cannot imagine. They are psychologically paralyzed.
They would rather censor themselves than stand together with what they call the evil “right-wing columnists”. They will even want to forget that they have already thought otherwise.
Am I too pessimistic? I hope I'm wrong.