So, who is “dividing” and who is “extremist”?

So who is 'divisive' and 'extremist'?


During the election campaign, François Legault often talked about immigration, sometimes with difficulty.

Dominique Anglade therefore spent his time saying that the CAQ “divided” while the PLQ was “gathering”.

It should be noted that Mr. Legault's remarks did not cost him a vote, and that the PLQ did not bring together many people.


I have a friend who has a rare gift for seeing the hidden meaning in things.

It is fascinating, he said, to see how political correctness has redefined the use of words.

By political correctness we mean that sanitized language which, under the pretext of inclusion and diversity, glorifies minorities ethnic, religious and sexual, and practically forbids any criticism. 

Let us take precisely this word: divide.

  • Listen to the chronicle of Joseph Facal on the show of Richard Martineau on QUB radio:

For Ms. Anglade and for a large fringe of the media commentary, “to divide”, says my friend, is to tackle delicate subjects frankly, directly and without detour.

You say that immigration is not always beneficial, that there is sometimes an incompatibility of values? 

You are “dividing”.

So as not to “divide” , you have to shut up, or speak only to consent or praise.

It's the same thing, observes my friend, with the defense of the French language and secularism.

For many of our commentators, for Ms. Anglade, for Justin Trudeau, Bills 21 and 96, like Bill 101 in the past, “divide”.

But becoming anglicized does not divide. 

Defending your culture is divisive. Losing one's culture does not divide.

Wanting to stand up, it divides. Going to bed doesn't divide.

Another word whose meaning and usage has been redefined is 'extremist'.

Just who is 'extremist'?  

Have you noticed that the only extremism that is condemned – with good reason, of course – is right-wing extremism, but left-wing extremism has become socially acceptable or, at least, more tolerated?

Do you want examples?

Mathieu Bock-Côté noted that Will Prosper, confiding in his disappointment following the election results, had suggested applying “the German method” to older voters who don't vote for QS.

Hmm, which “German way”? 

That of making sauerkraut or a Mercedes-Benz?

Scandal? Not really. Unease in the room, yes, but no media outcry.

Obviously, Mr. Prosper is a self-proclaimed champion of far-left anti-racism. White gloves required.


The other day, after the Italian elections, Richard Martineau and I wrote that poorly controlled immigration makes the bed of the hard right.

Two olibrius write in Le Devoir that we pour into “indulgence” and “neo-fascist apologies”. Anything…

The truth is quite simply that peoples and cultures do not want to dissolve in the great multicultural soup.

Our media is full, to quote Pierre-André Taguieff, “professional panickers” living in their own fantasy world. 

And it is the meaning of the words and the clarity of the debates that suffer.

< img class="aligncenter" src="/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/18f64a1c02140e3c87c0afe4e1780e53.jpg" alt="So who 'divisive' and who is 'extremist'?" />< /p>