Let's abolish "inclusive" writing
The recent publication on the Web of the Guidelines for Inclusive Writing by the federal Translation Bureau gives us the reading of a document containing several dozen pages of instructions and claiming six main principles "that should guide the application of the various processes of inclusive writing". Make no mistake: the tone is directive, as evidenced by the repeated use of the infinitive injunctive, for example, "Respect the preferences of the persons concerned". The unstated objective is the profound reformatting of the collective culture and consciousness of Canada's francophone population, among other things, so that it can comply with the demands of the minorities that now govern us. An upside-down acculturation of the majority, so to speak.
But above all, do not think that inclusive writing is meant to be a reform of spelling. This one is desirable, without really being necessary, but this one is a real manipulation of minds. As much as the feminization of trade names and titles, for example, is consistent with our values of equality and democracy, the intrusion of diversity into the written code is a totalitarian approach that enjoins you to communicate so that a "person feels respected". But what am I meddling in? I have the right to respect whomever I want and I am not responsible for the sensitivities of others. I am the sole judge and I assume it.
IDEAS IN REVIEWSEvery Tuesday, Le Devoir offers a space to the artisans of a periodical. This week, we offer you an abridged version of a text published in the journal L'Action nationale, October-November 2022, volume CXII, nbone 8-9.
This ideological offensive of Canadian multiculturalism is joined by the voluminous document containing the directives, more nuanced, it must be admitted, of the Office québécois de la langue française. It is divided into four parts: epicene writing, neutral formulation, non-binary writing and inclusive writing. The least we can say is that these official bodies go all out to achieve their ends. Instead of simplifying the teaching of French and making it more attractive, these government documents are "toxic" because they will only poison the lives of teachers and our students by making this subject even more daunting than we say.
Basically, these two enterprises only perpetuate the same spirit of normativity that was devolved to the Académie française, founded in 1634 and so decried by some (and some, of course) "reformists" today. However, the difference in context is enormous. At the beginning of the XVIIe century, the French language of royal power aimed to rally the dialectal diversity of France by endowing it with a common language that still did not exist despite the ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts proclaimed almost a hundred years earlier by Francis Ier in 1539. Nowadays, constitutional diversity places the anathema of discrimination on the individual who writes in a traditional French language that has finally become common for two hundred years. It is no longer a question of language policy, but of religion.
Indeed, traditional writing in French has become discriminatory by virtue of religious belief that defines "the new culture of offense" against others, as Salman Rushdie writes so well. The masculine is an offense to the feminine. Gender is an offense to non-binarity. Its default agreement is an offense to diversity. The epicene is the redemption of all denominations. The alleged offense has thus become the stock in trade of the Anglo-American communitarian bigotry that sweeps over the whole world, not just the West, thanks to the money of the evangelical, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, and affiliated sects, whose apostolic zeal provides the necessary breeding ground for the spread of radical and deadly Islamism supported by the petrodollars of Muslim monarchies.
It is no more and no less than to sink through the throats of the ignorant the writing practices of diversitarian propriety. The stratagem is as old as the world: to use power to make anyone who deviates from the norms that this power lays down in terms of language, language, communication and grammar feel guilty. Inclusive writing therefore adopts the process of intention as the basis for its implementation. A "censurielle" wound, as at the time of the Calas affair made famous by Voltaire. [...]
Not writing according to the new standards of linguistic propriety will make you a person who adheres to "any form of discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability," including "any other identity factor." The French language defines the identity of a Francophone, writing in traditional French, that is, not conforming to inclusive writing, makes you by default an offender "normatif.ve".
In short, not writing in inclusive writing relegates you to the camp of racism if you deviate from "Principle 4: Make choices representative of diversity". This is how the diversity ideology goes about formatting the mind of the ideal scripter (or scriptwriter, of course) (need we specify?). Writing according to traditional rules therefore implies that you do not respect your recipient, as if you know nothing other than Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or TikTok.
But above all, do not think that inclusive writing is meant to be a reform of spelling. This one is desirable, without really being necessary, but this one is a real manipulation of minds. As much as the feminization of trade names and titles, for example, is consistent with our values of equality and democracy, the intrusion of diversity into the written code is a totalitarian approach that enjoins you to communicate so that a "person feels respected". But what am I meddling in? I have the right to respect whomever I want and I am not responsible for the sensitivities of others. I am the sole judge and I assume it.
IDEAS IN REVIEWSEvery Tuesday, Le Devoir offers a space to the artisans of a periodical. This week, we offer you an abridged version of a text published in the journal L'Action nationale, October-November 2022, volume CXII, nbone 8-9.
This ideological offensive of Canadian multiculturalism is joined by the voluminous document containing the directives, more nuanced, it must be admitted, of the Office québécois de la langue française. It is divided into four parts: epicene writing, neutral formulation, non-binary writing and inclusive writing. The least we can say is that these official bodies go all out to achieve their ends. Instead of simplifying the teaching of French and making it more attractive, these government documents are "toxic" because they will only poison the lives of teachers and our students by making this subject even more daunting than we say.
Basically, these two enterprises only perpetuate the same spirit of normativity that was devolved to the Académie française, founded in 1634 and so decried by some (and some, of course) "reformists" today. However, the difference in context is enormous. At the beginning of the XVIIe century, the French language of royal power aimed to rally the dialectal diversity of France by endowing it with a common language that still did not exist despite the ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts proclaimed almost a hundred years earlier by Francis Ier in 1539. Nowadays, constitutional diversity places the anathema of discrimination on the individual who writes in a traditional French language that has finally become common for two hundred years. It is no longer a question of language policy, but of religion.
Indeed, traditional writing in French has become discriminatory by virtue of religious belief that defines "the new culture of offense" against others, as Salman Rushdie writes so well. The masculine is an offense to the feminine. Gender is an offense to non-binarity. Its default agreement is an offense to diversity. The epicene is the redemption of all denominations. The alleged offense has thus become the stock in trade of the Anglo-American communitarian bigotry that sweeps over the whole world, not just the West, thanks to the money of the evangelical, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, and affiliated sects, whose apostolic zeal provides the necessary breeding ground for the spread of radical and deadly Islamism supported by the petrodollars of Muslim monarchies.
It is no more and no less than to sink through the throats of the ignorant the writing practices of diversitarian propriety. The stratagem is as old as the world: to use power to make anyone who deviates from the norms that this power lays down in terms of language, language, communication and grammar feel guilty. Inclusive writing therefore adopts the process of intention as the basis for its implementation. A "censurielle" wound, as at the time of the Calas affair made famous by Voltaire. [...]
Not writing according to the new standards of linguistic propriety will make you a person who adheres to "any form of discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability," including "any other identity factor." The French language defines the identity of a Francophone, writing in traditional French, that is, not conforming to inclusive writing, makes you by default an offender "normatif.ve".
In short, not writing in inclusive writing relegates you to the camp of racism if you deviate from "Principle 4: Make choices representative of diversity". This is how the diversity ideology goes about formatting the mind of the ideal scripter (or scriptwriter, of course) (need we specify?). Writing according to traditional rules therefore implies that you do not respect your recipient, as if you know nothing other than Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat or TikTok.
