The monopoly on “true” reporting
by Mathieu Bock-Côté*, Quebec
(Bild wikipedia)
jpv. In France, the national bioethics law must be revised every seven years. In September, the latest version of it was discussed in the Commission of the National Assembly and adopted by this chamber in October. Now the commission consultations in the Senate (2nd chamber) will take place for two weeks from 21 January onwards.
In this context, a national demonstration “Manif pour tous” [demonstration for all] will take place in Paris on 19 January. Among other things, it is about the controversial introduction of not medically justified artificial insemination (i.e. for lesbian women and single women) and surrogate motherhood in this law.
The promotion campaign of the organisation Alliance Vita, mentioned in the article below and which was arbitrarily dismissed by the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, is also in this context.
Alliance Vita – in solidarity with the most vulnerable
Alliance VITA is an association which was founded in France in 1993 as the first bioethical laws were introduced. The association acts on two principle axes:
• Aid for persons confronted with life’s trials and tribulations.
• Raising awareness among policymakers and the public to protect human life.
The telephone consultations of Alliance Vita, SOS Bébé and SOS Fin de vie offer the opportunity for an exchange of ideas in the greatest discretion. They are for people who are confronted with blows of fate, either in connection with pregnancy or the end of life, dependencies or grief. Further information (in French) can be found on the homepage alliancevita.org.
(Translation Current Concerns)
There would be nothing ideological about advertising veganism, feminism or multiculturalism in public transport. You must only see it as an expression of progress.
Now it is clear to everyone: Freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to say everything. The only question that remains is what “everything” means and who is allowed to determine this. The public space is constantly shrinking. Looking at it from abroad, one might ask, for example, what legitimacy there is for a control body such as the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel CSA (High Council for Audiovisual Media). The control body is less concerned with journalistic ethics than with the ideological restriction of statements in public. Several of his grotesque interventions, reminiscent of Orwell, would deserve to be compiled in an anthology of stupidity.
Those who tenaciously refuse to praise the zeitgeist are marginalised. We have just witnessed the strange controversy surrounding the Alliance Vita organisation, which has launched an advertising campaign in the public transport of Paris, highlighting the importance of father and mother in the context of the ongoing debate on artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. This campaign has brought Paris City Hall into a state of turmoil. Mayor Anne Hidalgo has been very clear: the views expressed on the posters should not be accepted by the public. They would have to be removed. Progressivism forces us to do so.
The reference to paternity and maternity by Alliance Vita is presented as a pathological provocation. By the way, does the modern development of language not already demand that “father” and “mother” is to be replaced by “parent 1” and “parent 2”? Are not men and women called upon to gradually dissolve in the face of the fluidity of identity, which would resist any symbolic and legal framing? Today one would no longer be born as a man or a woman: At birth, a gender is assigned to you by a medical power that is still ingrained by patriarchal logic. Everyone is called upon to free himself from this. Those who do not see the world in this way should remain silent.
In other words, what is very imperfectly called “conservatism” has no right to exist anymore. It is reduced to some inadmissible prejudices. If “conservatism” nevertheless succeeds in making itself heard, this is only because the mechanisms for regulating the public language have failed. Normally such statements should be limited to marginal areas and not reach the ordinary citizen, who could then believe that the language has normalised. Anthropological constants should only appear as obsolete remnants of a world of yesterday. Positive statements about the traditional family already belong today to the “discriminatory” and “hateful discourse”. The guardians of the diversity revolution are serious about this.
Emancipation
It’s not a surprise: Progressivism does not tolerate that the world is seen differently than it does. However, it is heavily offended if it is accused of its fanaticism. It considers itself neutral. There is nothing ideological about advertising veganism, feminism or multiculturalism in public transport. This is solely an expression of progress. Herbert Marcuse theorised in his time that tolerance should not be applied to ideas that are contrary to the movements supporting “emancipation”. Recently, a North American student association declared that freedom of opinion is not justified to any “racist, colonialist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist, socially discriminatory or anti-disability” expressions.
But it would be wrong to believe that censorship is based solely on the authorities. In the last weeks of 2019, the anonymous digital activists “Sleeping Giants” appeared in public. Their goal is to deprive the advertising revenue from all media that allow “dissenting” opinions. They aim at the anxiety of the advertising companies, that are always careful not to create a stir and not to get a “bad reputation” if a press medium is associated with “hate”. Advertisers who place advertisements in such a medium are accused of “phobic complicity”.
The magazine Valeurs actuelles was recently targeted when it was specifically accused of “ideological disobedience”. During the last massive smear campaign against the journalist and columnist Eric Zemmour, some companies tried to pressure his employers and supporters to drop him – this time without success. These methods must not only be referred to as economic intimidation, but also as intellectual terrorism. It is difficult to see this as anything but an attempt of ideological cleansing, which shows a tyrannical attitude.
Progressivism dreams of exercising a monopoly on “proper” media coverage and controlling all social beliefs allowed in the public sphere. The “old world” is spoken of only to curse it, and one openly dreams of socially eliminating the new dissidents. We are not forbidden to note that progressivism is enthusiastically reviving its totalitarian temptation. – As if this were its nature.
Source: © Mathieu Bock-Côté/Le Figaro from 3 January 2020
(Translation Current concerns)