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 his 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 right, elementary, to name the work Nègres blancs d' America without amputating the title.
In the second, dated July 21, she disagreed with those who now call women “people with a uterus”.
I quote her. “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. We do not censor the title of a work.
Likewise, there is something twisted about making women invisible by now referring to them as “people with a womb”. We could go further by recalling that there is something degrading, as we see in the British health care system, in proposing to speak no longer of the vagina, but of the “hole in front”, of replacing the mother's milk formula with “human milk” or to affirm, as we heard recently in the United States Senate, that a man can be pregnant.
Is it any surprise when we replaced in many places the terms father and mother 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 White Negroes of America.
And how many of them no longer tolerate this inclusive Newspeak which derealizes existence?
There there is probably a generational dimension there, as we saw in the New York Timesin 2020, when old-fashioned, yet “left” journalists have seen the arrival of a new generation of militant journalists who believe themselves to be at the service of an ideological crusade, and who censor as they breathe.
Will old-fashioned journalists hold their own?
There is something I fear, however. 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 envisage it. 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.