FIGAROVOX / HUMEUR - For André Bercoff, behind the amateurism of the LREM deputies, the anti-racist amendments related to the law of moralization show a will to silence all those who do not enter the nails of the "police novlangue".
André Bercoff is a journalist and writer. His last book, Donald Trump, the reasons for the anger was published by First (2016).
In politics as elsewhere, it may be good to know nothing, but it should not be abused. Many of them rejoiced, and legitimately, at the eruption of the young shoots of civil society in the Republic in March. The New World finally emerged on the banks of the Palais Bourbon, sweeping the tired caciques, the jaded septuagenarians, and the old government formations in rout. Still, being a member requires a certain amount of knowledge about the functioning of the legislative apparatus: to make the difference between article and amendment, to know how to formulate its question so that it does not appear as a sabir with the strange taste besides; from this point of view, the present show appears, depending on whether one belongs to the sound majority or to the indignant, rejoicing or distressing opposition.
It must be admitted that an almost zoological dimension has just been reached with MPs who vote against a section of the law of "confidence in public action" which they had nevertheless ratified in committee. What may be called in psychoanalysis happy schizophrenia; in reality here, the reverse of an amateurism probably called to fade when the neophytes will learn both the basis of the trade and control of their affects. For the moment, they seem to work blindly while waiting for the instructions of Messrs Ferrand and Castaner, and the baton of Rugy's conductor: in the absence of these, all despair is allowed, which leaves to the amiable actors of France Insubstantial leisure to engage in the role-playing games of which they are, for lack of real power, so fond of.
But all this is nonsense next to amendments that have just been voted and which permanently render ineligible any candidate who has indulged in discriminatory declarations, public insults, provocations to racial hatred: all the vocabulary of associations " one-sided, anti-racist, double-standard rights of morality, which is to censor and paralyze anyone who dares to speak outside the nooks and crannies of the Newlanguage police. Let us be clear: there is no question here of endorsing or admitting racism from wherever it comes and hatred from wherever it comes. But as the dominant word and the ever-unique thought attach themselves to blaming and condemning only those who do not think like them, one realizes that the cursor is set so as to strike only on one side. Today, it is aimed at politicians and already intellectuals, tomorrow comedians and soon - why not - citizens. I was re-reading a magazine collection recently Hara-kiri the years 60-70; I listened to the monologues of Pierre Desproges, Coluche, and others; they would all be in the sights of the new Inquisition today. Under the pavements of false parliamentary debates, the beach of Big Brother extends. Regressively. Dangerously.