Magali Picard, visiting Télé-Québec, visiting the high priestess of political correctness Marie-Louise Arsenault, took the liberty of spitting all her venom against Pierre Poilievre.
I leave aside her most absurd accusations, for example she accuses Poilievre of specifically addressing different segments of the electorate, which today is simply called playing politics.
And I come to the main point: Picard accuses Poilievre of being not a man of the right, but a man of the extreme right.
Picard
Obviously a simple question arises which she will not answer: what distinguishes, according to Picard, the right from the extreme right?
Is the far right just a radicalized right, or is it something else entirely?
Obviously, we’ll never know.
For a simple reason: in Quebec as everywhere else in the West, the concept of extreme right does not refer to anything specific and is used by a good part of the elites like a fear machine, to make voters believe that fascism would be back.
There is no rigorous definition of the extreme right.
The only definition that could hold is the following: the left calls extreme right everything it really hates, and all those who oppose it head-on.
Depending on the circumstances, and depending on the country, there are supporters of economic liberalism, cultural conservatives, traditionalists, identity nationalists, social democrats hostile to mass immigration, fascists, libertarians, critics of gender theory, supporters of referendum democracy, anti-Semites and convinced defenders of Israel.
Intolerance
This term adds nothing to the public debate: it is ideological and media intimidation.
It serves to stigmatize voters who do not take up the slogans of worldly progressivism and who have not internalized its ideological prohibitions.
It serves to dehumanize those who are not left-wing.
Anyone who uses it claims to denounce intolerance when all they do is confirm their own.
