Tag: antiracism

Political Neutrality versus Religious Neutrality

Should We Impose One Without the Other?

2024-07-14

Almost everyone agrees that civil servants should be politically neutral on the job. Why is this principle not applied to religious affiliation as well?

Sommaire en français Presque tout le monde s’accorde pour dire que les fonctionnaires devraient être politiquement neutres au travail. Pourquoi ce principe ne s’applique-t-il pas également à l’appartenance religieuse ?

In many countries, there are laws or regulations which require that civil servants refrain from partisan behaviour—or behaviour which may appear so—while on the job, and sometimes off the job.

For example, in the USA, a set of principles adopted in 1989 specifies that employees of the executive branch “shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap” and “shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards…”

The values and ethics code of the Canadian government specifies that employees must carry out their duties “in a non-partisan and impartial manner.” The United Kingdom’s Civil Service Management Code states that “Civil servants must not take part in any political activity when on duty, or in uniform, or on official premises.” New Zealand’s Public Service Commission requires that “public servants must be politically neutral.” In the Canadian province of Ontario, the Public Service of Ontario Act specifies that “A public servant shall not engage in political activity in the workplace” or “while wearing a uniform associated with a position in the public service.” Similarly, in the mainly French-speaking province of Quebec, the Public Service Act specifies that “A public servant shall be politically neutral in performing his duties” and that “A public servant shall act with reserve in any public display of his political opinions.”

Political & Religious Symbols

In the above codes, the question of an employee wearing a partisan political symbol while on the job is not addressed explicitly, but it is reasonable to assume that wearing such a symbol—such as the logo of a political party or movement—would indeed constitute a violation. For example, in 2017, a judge in Hamilton, Ontario was suspended for 30 days for wearing a hat displaying the Trump slogan, “Make America Great Again,” while on the bench, because such a partisan message compromised his duty of impartiality. His action was meant as a joke, admittedly a bad one.

It should be noted, in passing, that the USA code quoted above is inconsistent with various neoracist ideologies which falsely claim to be antiracist (such as Critical Race Theory) and which have inspired some institutions to adopt racist hiring practices and dubious training programs. Let us hope therefore that the code can be helpful in getting rid of DIE (“Diversity, Inclusion & Equity”) programs in such institutions. But that is not the focus of this article.

There are also many countries which restrict partisan religious behaviour by banning civil servants and/or schoolteachers from wearing religious symbols while at work. France and parts of Germany, Switzerland and Belgium have such bans. There are many more countries, including several Muslim-majority countries, which ban the wearing of face-coverings—some of which are religious, such as the niqab and the burqa—by civil servants. Some face-covering bans apply also to users of civil services and some apply everywhere in public. Starting in 2017, Morocco even bans the manufacture and sale of burqas.

In the USA, head-coverings were banned in the House of Representatives starting in 1837. However, in a blatant victory for religious privilege, the ban was repealed in 2019 in order to accommodate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. The state of Pennsylvania bans teachers from wearing religious symbols in the classroom.

For the last thirty years, France has imposed a ban on pupils wearing religious attire in school, […] This ban has been found to be advantageous to girls from Muslim families, significantly improving their academic performance.

For the last thirty years, France has imposed a ban on pupils wearing religious attire in school, implemented first by ministerial directive in 1994, then ratified by legislation in 2004, as recommended by the Stasi Commission on secularism. (Recently France’s education minister Gabriel Attal added the abaya to the category of religious attire, thus banning it.) This ban has been found to be advantageous to girls from Muslim families, significantly improving their academic performance. The hijab, which some girls were forced by their parents or community to wear before the ban came into effect, is a major impediment to the education and socialization of the child who wears it, essentially robbing her of a normal childhood. Indeed, obliging a child to wear the veil for an extended period of time—weeks, months, years—must be denounced as a form of child abuse.

A Case Study in Religious Hysteria

In June of 2019, Quebec adopted its Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (act respecting State secularism), known simply as Bill 21, which declares that citizens have a right to secular government services, while defining secularism to include both religious neutrality of the State and separation between religion and State. The bill bans some civil servants (those in position of coercive authority, i.e. police, judges, prison guards and prosecutors) and public-school teachers from wearing religious symbols on the job. In addition, it bans all government employees from wearing face-coverings on the job and also requires users of civil services to show their face to obtain service.

Although polls show that this legislation enjoys solid support from the Quebec population, the reaction from Canada outside Quebec has been outrageously hostile. This hostility is also echoed inside Quebec by the so-called “far left.” A torrential rainfall of accusations of xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism have flooded the media, especially the English-language media. Several cities and provinces have adopted resolutions against Bill 21 and some have even declared their intention to contribute financially to court challenges to the legislation. Fortunately, the Superior Court of Ontario ruled in July 2023 that the City of Toronto may not make a contribution of $100,000 to challenge Bill 21 because such action “is not for a valid municipal purpose and is therefore ultra vires.”

[…] no-one voiced any objection to Quebec’s Public Service Act which imposes political neutrality on civil servants. Why should religious neutrality be so contentious while most people evidently understand the importance of political neutrality?

And yet, no-one voiced any objection to Quebec’s Public Service Act which imposes political neutrality on civil servants. Why should religious neutrality be so contentious while most people evidently understand the importance of political neutrality? After all, the dangers represented by religious partisanship are patently obvious. Many religions, especially the three Abrahamic monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are notoriously misogynous, homophobic and intolerant of non-believers, adherents of other religions and so-called “heretics.” The insufficiently pious are often vilified by fundamentalists. Religiously motivated hatred and intolerance can be so extreme as to promote violence, even deadly violence. In Islam, apostasy—leaving Islam—is considered a horrific sin for which the punishment may be death. It is eminently reasonable that the symbols of such toxic ideologies not be displayed by State employees. Even if a particular individual wearing a symbol may be unprejudiced, tolerant and open-minded, the symbol they are wearing continues to speak loudly, and the message it sends is very prejudicial.

The purpose of bans on religious symbols is not to deny Ilhan Omar or anyone else, regardless of their religion, access to their position or job. A religious symbol, whether crucifix, hijab, turban, kippa or whatever, can be removed, just as an article of clothing displaying a slogan such as “Vote Trump” or “Vote Trudeau” or “God is Fiction” can be removed before going to work. It is a question of professional ethics.

Allowing religious symbols, but banning political messages, is tantamount to granting a privilege to religious dogma while simultaneously infantilizing religious believers by assuming them to be incapable of behaving ethically on the job. Religious believers are responsible for the religious practices they have chosen to adopt. The secular State has no obligation to accommodate.

Hostile reactions to secular measures are certainly not a purely Canadian phenomenon. When, in 2021, in the wake of the beheading of Samuel Paty, France prepared legislation to counter Islamist influence and strengthen secularism, the New York Times denounced the law. Then, to no-one’s surprise, the NYT reacted to the recent ban on abayas in schools by dismissing French laïcité as “dogma.” Several media in the USA (NPR, Washington Post, Sojourners) have reacted virulently against Quebec’s secularism law. On the other hand, theHumanist.com published a very fair-minded analysis of that law.

A False Distinction

There is no legitimate reason why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religious belief should be treated with greater respect or deference than political ideologies such as Marxism, capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, monarchism, fascism or any other option.

The tendency to treat political symbols and religious symbols as qualitatively different is an obvious manifestation of religious privilege. There is no legitimate reason why Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religious belief should be treated with greater respect or deference than political ideologies such as Marxism, capitalism, libertarianism, republicanism, monarchism, fascism or any other option. Each and every one of these religious and political ideologies is a personal conviction. None of them deserves respect.

Only persons deserve respect—by respecting their fundamental freedoms, i.e. freedom of conscience, which is unlimited because internal, and freedom of expression, which involves external action which may impact others and thus must be limited in some contexts. Limits on freedom of expression in the workplace, especially for State employees, are necessary in order to protect the freedom of conscience of users of civil services as well as that of schoolchildren.

Consider, for example, a pupil who is in conflict with her pious Muslim parents who are trying to force her to wear the hijab. Imagine her difficult situation if she arrives at school only to find that her teacher wears the hijab in class.

Consider, for example, a pupil who is in conflict with her pious Muslim parents who are trying to force her to wear the hijab. Imagine her difficult situation if she arrives at school only to find that her teacher wears the hijab in class. School should be a refuge from authoritarian ideology, but in this case the pupil has been betrayed by her school. The solution is to require teachers to conduct themselves with religious (and political) neutrality, refraining from partisan displays.

The refusal to recognize the political aspects of religion opens the door to major problems. A religious believer who insists on wearing an ostentatious symbol of his or her belief everywhere, even on the job, is committing a political act, asserting the overwhelming importance of the religious ideology thus symbolized. This is especially true if the workplace is the civil service. The religious symbol thus becomes a political symbol. This is particularly obvious in the case of Islam, arguably the most misogynistic of all major religions. The Islamic veil in all its various forms—hijab, chador, niqab, burqa, etc.—is the exemplar of that misogyny and a flag of political Islam, its purpose being to assert the supremacy of Islam anywhere and everywhere. Indeed, promoting the ubiquity of the veil is a key strategy of Islamists for fighting secularism.

Group Prayers in Public

Recently in Montreal, groups of Muslims have begun holding collective prayers in public places such as parks and streets. In the first case, the group obtained permission from the Ahuntsic-Cartierville borough to hold the event in a park (although the borough’s website states clearly that religious ceremonies are not allowed in outdoor public spaces). However, the space was cordoned off, making it inaccessible to the public and, within that space, sexual segregation was applied, with all women and girls placed behind all the men and boys. The prayers in the streets, on the other hand, were spontaneous events which grew out of pro-Palestine demonstrations. Both types of event are illustrations of the Islamist strategy for asserting occupancy of space. According to Mandana Javan, a Québécoise secular activist of Iranian origin, collective Muslim prayers held in public spaces are purely political and ideological, a tool of Islamist propaganda and a non-military dissuasion strategy. I would add that this is especially true for prayers held in the street, without municipal permission and with a clear political objective.

Islamism & Secularism

Some definitions are in order here.

I define Islamism or political Islam to be a movement whose goal is to obtain significant political recognition, influence, privilege and power for the religion Islam. Some people prefer to limit the definition of Islamism to the use of violence in the pursuit of those aims, but I consider that definition too narrow. My definition is based on the objectives of the movement, not the means it may use to try to get there.

As for secularism, it can be defined briefly as the practice of government based on human wellbeing rather than on so-called “divine” considerations, as the latter are simply the prescriptions of a small cabal of self-appointed religious authorities. In other words, human law should take precedence over any laws attributed to god(s). A more complete definition encompasses four principles: [1] equality of citizens, including of course male-female equality; [2] protection of freedom of con¬science, including both freedom of and freedom from religion (and thus freedom to apostatize); [3] religious neutrality of the State; and, most importantly, [4] separation between religions and State.

[…] the rhetoric of inversion […] consists of re-branding privileges as “rights” and using, or rather abusing, the language of human rights to fight against human rights.

While it is important to recognize that politics and religion often overlap significantly, it is essential to distinguish between privileges and rights. Allowing a civil servant to wear a political or religious symbol while working as an agent of the State is to grant a privilege to that person and to that ideology, because the symbol violates the rights of users of State services. The wearing of such a symbol in that context is not a right, and to call it one—as antisecularists do—is an example of what the French author Naëm Bestandji calls the rhetoric of inversion which consists of re-branding privileges as “rights” and using, or rather abusing, the language of human rights to fight against human rights. Opponents of bans on such symbols often argue that only the State need be secular, not its employees, but State employees are the State. Both the physical installations of the State and the employees who represent it must be free of partisan symbols in order for the State to be non-partisan.

The antisecular designs of Islamists are greatly facilitated by their de facto alliance with neoracists. We are all familiar, of course, with the contentious term “Islamophobia” regularly used by Islamists and their dupes in reaction to any criticism of Islam, no matter how legitimate, falsely conflating such criticism with bigotry against Muslims. Accusations of “Islamophobia” function mainly as social censorship of “blasphemy” against Islam. Just as pernicious is the habit of associating it with racism. Islamists in Canada scored a major victory when, in March of 2017, they succeeded in having the federal Parliament adopt motion M-103 which condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” Islamists in the USA scored an arguably even greater victory in 2021 with the passage of H.R.5665, an act which establishes, within the Department of State, the “Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia”—but at least that act does not play the race card as M-103 does.

Race-Religion Conflation

A religion is an opinion which can change, […] But race is a biological concept, involving the innate genetic makeup of the individual, and is immutable.

How many times must it be repeated that a religion is not a race? A religion is an opinion which can change, even instantly, depending on the degree of indoctrination of the believer. But race is a biological concept, involving the innate genetic makeup of the individual, and is immutable. Racism is the deliberate exaggeration of the importance of genetic differences between different groups in an attempt to establish a hierarchy of “superior” and “inferior” races. It has nothing to do with religion. Apologists for Abrahamic religions who are tempted to claim that criticism of their religion is “racist” need to be reminded that their own beliefs include denigration of other religions, and thus must be considered flagrantly “racist” if such conflation is accredited.

Media hysteria against Quebec’s Bill 21 has been so outrageous that there have even been attempts to associate it with the death of George Floyd in May 2020 in Minneapolis, using the vague buzzwords “systemic racism” as pretext to vilify that legislation. Just what a law imposing religious neutrality in the Quebec civil service has to do with the death of a black man in police custody in a foreign country is never explained.

The absurdity of race-religion conflation was strikingly illustrated by the late Sinead O’Connor who in 2018 announced her conversion to Islam, started wearing the hijab and declared her intention to avoid henceforth associating with “disgusting” white people, as if donning religious garb could suffice to change her skin colour!

Accusations of racism thrown at critics of Islam are obvious nonsense. Does anyone really think that we who denounce the toxicity of Islam—its extreme misogyny, its condemnation of apostasy, its calls for violence against non-Muslims, its defence of child marriage, etc.—are simply using that religion as a decoy to hide racist hostility against Arabs, or Kabyles, or Persians, or Indonesians? Of course not. The target of our criticism is the religion Islam, not the ethnicity of some of its adherents. Race has nothing to do with it.

[…] race-religion conflation […] means throwing freedom of conscience out the window. If a religious belief is like a “race” then it is innate and immutable, a status to which the believer is condemned for life.

Moreover, race-religion conflation is far worse than merely absurd. It undermines fundamental freedoms, because it means throwing freedom of conscience out the window. If a religious belief is like a “race” then it is innate and immutable, a status to which the believer is condemned for life. To conflate race and religion is simply the light version of the ban on apostasy, and Islamists love both. Were you born into a Muslim family? Or did you convert to Islam later on? Either way, you are now condemned by that random event (in the former case) or that choice (in the latter) to remain Muslim for the rest of your life.

And because such conflation is incompatible with freedom of conscience, it is therefore incompatible with secularism—which explains why religious fundamentalists in general and Islamists in particular fight secularism relentlessly, especially in countries where it has made the most progress, such as France and Quebec.

Race-religion conflation was a major strategy used by antisecularists who challenged Bill 21 before Quebec Superior Court in late 2020. The testimonies of several expert witnesses opposing the law were almost entirely dedicated to this false parallel, this confusion between the inalterable and the changeable. One expert admitted during his testimony that he makes no distinction—and does not even understand the distinction—between religious identity and other types of identity. The testimony of another expert dealt only with racial minorities, especially Afro-Americans, in the United States. One lawyer declared that all conclusions based on race can be applied to religious affiliation, thus evacuating the concept of freedom of conscience.

Neoracism

The current so-called “antiracist” movement, based principally in the USA but whose ideologies have spread throughout the English-speaking world and to several European countries, is at the centre of an anti-Enlightenment movement which claims to be on the political left and is colloquially known as “wokism.” I prefer to call it the post-left because it has abandoned and betrayed the very Enlightenment values which define the left and constitute, in my opinion, the greatest achievement of European civilization. This movement has a particularly bizarre and irrational concept of racism, with an unhealthy hatred for “whiteness” resulting from its denigration of Europeanness.

For the post-left, racism is a strictly one-way street, from whites towards non-whites, as whites are always racist while non-whites are never racist. Moreover, racial groups are viewed monolithically.

For the post-left, racism is a strictly one-way street, from whites towards non-whites, as whites are always racist while non-whites are never racist. Moreover, racial groups are viewed monolithically. Thus, white-on-white racism and non-white-on-non-white racism are not recognized. The biological basis of race is denied, allowing the adoption of an arbitrary definition—or rather non-definition—of what constitutes “race” or “racism.” (For example, in a talk given in 2019, Ibram X. Kendi declared that “Racism is a collection of racist policies, that lead to racial inequities, that are substantiated by racist ideas,” a definition which is circular and hence meaningless.) This allows the post-left to racialize religious groups such as Muslims. Furthermore, leftist criticism of European colonialism has degenerated into an overweening post-leftist prejudice in favour of Islam, inconsistent with its hostility towards Christianity which it views as European, thus “white,” thus abandoning the principle that all religions merit critical examination.

The English-speaking world has shown itself to be obstinate in its failure to understand religion-State separation as implemented in the French-speaking world. This situation has been significantly exacerbated by the spread of the post-left with its race-religion conflation and its irrational Islamophilia. Hence, the absurd accusations of “racism” directed against bans on religious symbols in civil services. Even among those who reject post-leftist ideologies and do not hesitate to denounce the follies of the “woke,” there is a general failure to muster the courage to support secularism consistently by defending measures which separate religion from the State and remove religious privileges.

Who Are the Real Racists?

The irony here is that opposition to Bill 21, including all those accusations of “racism,” is inflamed by racism. The accusers are themselves often motivated by racism, i.e. anti-Québécois prejudice. Anglophone hostility towards Francophones is a recurring theme throughout Canadian history. But that would be white-on-white racism, so for the post-left, it can be ignored. Historically the French in North America were both colonizers in service to the French Empire and colonized by the British Empire which conquered New France and subjugated its inhabitants, but such subtleties are too much for the simplistic Manichaean worldview of the post-left.

The Orange Order was active in Canada starting in the early 19th century, promoting bigotry against Catholics, the French, Jews and Blacks. Similar prejudices were incited by the Ku Klux Klan which was active in the 1920s and 1930s in several provinces, as well as in the US border state of Maine where many Franco-Canadians had migrated in search of employment. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, several provinces banned the use of French as a teaching language in public schools. The goal was to overwhelm French language and culture by assimilation, in the long term.

This process can be called cultural genocide (but not physical genocide), just as the indigenous residential school system constituted cultural genocide of First Nations peoples. (Some ideologues have attempted, unfortunately with some success, to impose a new definition of genocide such that indigenous residential schools would be considered a case of real physical genocide, despite the fact that the scandal of alleged unmarked graves has turned out to be baseless, at least so far.) Of course there are major differences between the situations of the French and of First Nations. French language and culture remain dominant in one province (but the spectre of “louisianisation” looms), thus with some political autonomy, while native peoples only have some autonomy in a number of tiny First Nations territories spread throughout Canada. On the other hand, English Canada’s attempts to have Bill 21 repealed show that it does not respect Quebec’s provincial autonomy. Moreover, fighting against anti-indigenous racism is currently very much in fashion, whereas the reality of anti-Québécois prejudice is hardly even acknowledged.

A more complete implementation of religion-State separation is rooted in the history and culture of the Francophone world. The iconic French Loi de séparation des Églises et de l’État of 1905 is arguably the best secular legislation ever adopted by any country, and it continues to set the standard. Opposition to Quebec’s Bill 21 is partly motivated by anti-Francophone prejudice, a continuation of long-standing Anglophone bigotry.

Conclusion

Of the three attributes—political opinion, religious affiliation and racial identity—the first two must be considered closely related, whereas the last two must be clearly differentiated. To do otherwise is incompatible with freedom of conscience, undermines secularism and gives religious zealots a free ride.

Given the ruthless hostility of antisecularists and their allies, inflamed by anti-Enlightenment ideologies, it is urgently necessary to support the defense and advancement of secularism in all countries.

Given the ruthless hostility of antisecularists and their allies, inflamed by anti-Enlightenment ideologies, it is urgently necessary to support the defense and advancement of secularism in all countries. I encourage you to read the document “International Solidarity with Religion-State Separation” and, if you represent a secularist, atheist, humanist or similar organization, to consider endorsing it.

Next blog: Is “Punch-A-Nazi” Still Fashionable?

A Pandemic of Cowardice

2024-05-14

Defamatory accusations of bigotry are systematically used by promoters of gender theory, neoracism (which falsely claims to be antiracist) and anti-secularism. These three movements reject Enlightenment values such as universalism and objectivity, and use social censorship to silence dissent and debate. This behaviour is illustrated using several examples: the false assertion that sex is a spectrum, the Roland Fryer case, the suicide of Richard Bilkszto, the unmarked graves fiasco, and opposition to Quebec Bill 21. The solution to this conundrum is straightforward, but not easy: courage! We must not allow anti-Enlightenment ideologues to silence criticism and debate.

Sommaire en français Des accusations diffamatoires (de transphobie, de racisme, de xénophobie, etc.) sont systématiquement lancées par les promoteurs de la théorie du genre, du néoracisme (qui se prétend faussement antiraciste) et de l’anti-laïcité. Ces trois mouvances rejettent les valeurs des Lumières telles que l’universalisme et l’objectivité, et utilisent la censure sociale pour faire taire la dissidence et le débat. Ce comportement est illustré par plusieurs exemples : la négation de la binarité du sexe, l’affaire Roland Fryer, le suicide de Richard Bilkszto, le fiasco des tombes près des pensionnats pour autochtones et l’opposition à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État au Québec. La solution à cette problématique est simple, mais pas facile : du courage ! Nous ne devons pas permettre aux idéologues anti-Lumières de faire taire les critiques et les débats.

We all know (or at least we did, before various institutions started succumbing to ideological capture) that sex is a binary biological phenomenon, defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ovum) which the individual can produce. Male and female are the only sexes. Even rare “intersex” individuals represent a combination of the two sexes, not some intermediate sex. The binarity of sex is not an opinion. It is a scientific fact, just as the evolution of species and the spheroidal shape of the Earth are scientific facts.

And yet, it has become fashionable to assert the falsehood that sex is on a continuum, a spectrum. This fashion has even spread to the sciences. In 2023, the American Anthropology Association (AAA) and Canadian Anthropology Association (CASCA) issued a joint statement denouncing “transphobia in anthropology.” In 2019, Scientific American published a blog claiming that binary sex is “phoney science” whose purpose is to “justify transphobia.”

The binarity of sex is not an opinion. It is a scientific fact…

How and why has this occurred? The accusations of transphobia made in both examples reveal clearly what is going on: emotional blackmail. If one fails to conform to currently fashionable gender ideology, then one is a bad, bigoted person. Forget scientific fact. The hurt feelings of a few fanatics take priority. Never mind the fact that “gender affirming care” is just a euphemism for mastectomy or castration (chemical or surgical).

Just as we must respect each adult’s right to self-determination of their own body, we must protect children and adolescents from unnecessary, irreversible, dubious medical interventions.

Neoracism

A similar fanaticism has infected the ostensibly “antiracist” movement, which has increasingly become little more than a cult. I call that movement neoracism. Neoracists are obsessed with so-called “whiteness” because of their hostility to Europeanness.

Classical European racism and 21st century neoracism differ in that the former considers European civilization to be superior to all others, whereas the latter considers it to be morally inferior to all others. They are flip sides of each other. Both are equally racist and Eurocentric. Both are equally irrational, toxic and reprehensible.

I offer three striking examples to illustrate the follies of neoracism.

The Roland Fryer Case

Roland G. Fryer Jr. is an economics professor and, in 2007, at age 30, the youngest black American to receive tenure at Harvard. One of his major research interests is the empirical study of race. In 2016, Fryer published a paper in the Journal of Political Economy in which he concluded that “blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police.” However, he also found that, in the most extreme cases, i.e. shootings, there are “no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.” He suggested a possible explanation: the potentially heavy cost, legal and psychological, incurred by police officers if using lethal force. But neoracists were not buying it. According to neoracist dogma, anti-black racism is ubiquitous and cannot not exist, so Fryer’s finding of no racism in police shootings was heresy.

According to neoracist dogma, anti-black racism is ubiquitous and cannot not exist…

In March 2018, Fryer was accused of sexual harassment, although the allegations involved only verbal behaviour, i.e. inappropriate jokes. He was barred from his research laboratory and, in July 2019, was suspended from the Harvard faculty for two years without pay. One of the members of the disciplinary panel which judged Fryer was the notorious Claudine Gay, dean at the time. Gay later became president of Harvard, but resigned after only 6 months, under accusations of failure to deal adequately with antisemitism on campus and of repeated plagiarism in her (not very numerous) publications.

Gay’s appointment to the Harvard presidency was a result of the demise of meritocracy in higher education. Furthermore, the charges against Fryer were apparently a result of ideological bias, i.e. because Fryer’s objectivity was incompatible with the neoracist ideology which undermined that meritocracy in the first place. In the words of Glenn Loury, “She defenestrated Roland Fryer. She tried to destroy him… by the time she was through with him, he was suspended, his lab was closed, his teaching was supervised, and he was treated like a sex criminal.”

Diversity, Inclusion, Equity

In 2021, Richard Bilkszto attended DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) training sessions imposed by the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). When the trainer, Kike Ojo-Thompson of the KOJO Institute, asserted that anti-black racism is worse in Canada than in the USA, Bilkszto, who himself had experience in antiracist activism, expressed disagreement. In response, Ojo-Thompson insinuated that Bilkszto was motivated by white supremacism. Ojo-Thompson is evidently the sort of trainer who brooks no dissent and who imposes the Kendian view that anyone who is not actively antiracist must be complicit with racism.

The situation degenerated from there, with Bilkszto taking mental health leave, the TDSB then refusing to reinstate him to the position he held prior to taking leave, then Bilkszto suing the TDSB, which subsequently sued the KOJO Institute. Bilkszto concluded that his reputation had been destroyed and, tragically, he committed suicide in 2023.

Unmarked Graves

In 2021, the possible presence of unmarked graves was detected using ground-penetrating radar near several former indigenous residential schools in Canada. These schools had already been recognized as vehicles of cultural genocide, as one of their purposes was to suppress the languages and cultures of First Nations peoples, often separating children from their families and communities for extended periods. But now, with the possible discovery of children’s graves, the spectre of real physical genocide was raised. Speculation about unspeakable atrocities committed in the name of Canada circulated internationally. As the administration of these schools had been delegated to various churches, especially Catholic, there was a rash of arson and vandalism targeting Christian churches, some of which had been in use by First Nations peoples themselves.

However, as I write these lines, years later, no graves of children from indigenous residential schools have been found. Some sites have not been excavated. At those that have been, only previously marked graves associated with known cemeteries have been found. Thus the entire sensational story has turned out to be null and void, so far at least. And yet, mainstream media continue to repeat the allegations, as if physical genocide had indeed occurred. Already, in July of 2021 the Canadian Historical Association (CHA) published a statement asserting the “genocidal intent” of official Canadian policy. A group of some sixty dissident historians published an open letter, shortly thereafter, rejecting the CHA’s allegations.

…the more serious the accusation, the greater the accusers perceive their own virtue to be. In other words, they do it out of conceit.

Why do some people insist on promoting the worst possible interpretation of historical events, even when the evidence is lacking? Here is one obvious reason: the more serious the accusation, the greater the accusers perceive their own virtue to be. In other words, they do it out of conceit. In October 2023, I had personal experience of this fanatical disregard for objectivity. I was expelled from a Facebook group for Canadian secularists for the sin of posting about this issue. Just before my expulsion, one “antiracist,” true to form, claimed that my posting was “racist.”

Secularism and Quebec Bill 21

In June of 2019, Quebec adopted its secularism law, Loi sur la laïcité de l’État or Bill 21, which bans some civil servants, as well as public school teachers, from wearing religious symbols while on the job. This is a positive measure, although rather weak and should be extended to the entire civil service as well as to all physical installations. If civil servants and teachers are allowed to wear religious symbols while on duty, then separation between religion and State is obviously violated. And yet, very few Canadian secular organizations outside Quebec have expressed support for Bill 21, and some have even opposed it.

Banning the wearing of religious symbols […] targets behaviour, not people.

Some dishonestly accuse Bill 21 of “racism,” but that is clearly a category error. The law deals with religion and secularism and has nothing to do with race. Even more dishonestly, some accuse it of discrimination. But that is clearly false, because it applies to all religions equally. Banning the wearing of religious symbols—which can of course be removed while on the job—is a disciplinary measure (like hygiene standards, for example, or uniforms), not a discriminatory one. The ban targets behaviour, not people.

Civils servants in Quebec and many other jurisdictions—even the federal government of Canada—are required to behave with political neutrality, yet no-one objects to such a requirement. There is absolutely no reason why the expression of religious convictions by civil servants should be allowed greater latitude than expression of political opinions.

The Common Thread: Social Censorship

These three issues— gender theory, neoracism and anti-secularism—are linked by a common ideology which rejects universalism and objectivity. This anti-Enlightenment ideology elevates personal identity and feelings to a level that is unreasonable and does real harm to real people, including the very members of the minorities that that ideology claims to protect. In all three cases, there is a common strategy of social censorship, i.e. using intimidation to silence debate and dissent, using threats of ostracism—loss of job, loss of friends, loss of reputation, loss of contracts, etc.—in order to silence any opposition.

We all know the chorus here: specious and defamatory accusations of transphobia, racism, “Islamophobia,” xenophobia, etc. Any criticism of or disagreement with the ideology is instantly dismissed with accusations of being “right-wing” or “far right.” And it works, because people fear such accusations. It is because of widespread cowardice that the fanatics of gender theory, neoracism and anti-secularism are able to continue doing the damage they do.

To make matters worse, neoracist dogma has greatly strengthened anti-secularism. Neoracists denigrate European culture and elevate non-Europeanness. They thus consider Christianity to be the religion of the privileged and Islam the religion of the oppressed, leading to an absurdly complacent and positive attitude towards Islam, even though it is just as dangerous—arguably more so—than Christianity. Neoracists refuse to recognize the biological basis of race and racism, thus making the category error of conflating racial identity and religious affiliation and allowing them to make specious accusations of “racism” against those who criticize Islam. Finally, according to neoracist dogma, racism is always a one-way street, with whites being racist and non-whites targets of racism. Thus, neoracists refuse to recognize white-on-white racism such as anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry which is a major aspect of opposition to Quebec Bill 21.

When it comes to cowardice, it would be difficult to compete with ostensibly “secular” organizations in English Canada which oppose Bill 21…

When it comes to cowardice, it would be difficult to compete with ostensibly “secular” organizations in English Canada which oppose Bill 21 (and opposed the Charter of Secularism proposed by the PQ government in 2013-2014). Although they claim to support secularism, they hypocritically oppose it in the one place in North America—Québec—where secularism is making the most progress. By opposing Bill 21, such organizations are rejecting religion-State separation—the most important aspect of any secular program—and are thus antisecular. They are evidently incapable of freeing themselves from the assumption of religious privilege; that is, they cannot envisage treating religious ideologies fairly along with other ideologies by removing religion’s privileges.

Conclusion

If you support children’s rights, you will support restricting or banning unnecessary, irreversible medical interventions on underage persons, whether those practices are labelled female genital mutilation, male circumcision or the euphemistic “gender affirming care,” and regardless of the particular ideology used to rationalize such practices. You will also oppose the veiling of children.

If you support gay rights, you will oppose medically unnecessary procedures which attempt to change the sex of an underage individual, because studies have shown that a large proportion of young people suffering from gender dysphoria will, if allowed to mature without such procedures, grow up to be homosexual without gender dysphoria. In other words, applying such procedures prematurely often amounts to anti-gay conversion therapy. Furthermore, there is little evidence that medical transition decreases suicide rates.

If you support women’s rights, you will have no trouble defining the term “woman” objectively, as an adult female human.

If you oppose racism, you will oppose racist hiring practices and DIE programs in civil services, universities and all public institutions. You will support restoration of meritocracy.

If you support secularism, you will endorse religion-State separation and support legislation which bans civil servants, as well as public school and childcare centre personnel, from wearing religious and political symbols while on the job.

If you care about objective truth, you will speak up against the fanatical practices described in this article. To fear defamatory accusations is eminently reasonable, but you will not allow that fear to silence you. Remember the aphorism (attributed to Socrates, but I got it from Michael Sherlock): “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

Other Links

Next blog: Another Antisecular Screed Trashing Secularism in France…

Racism, Neoracism and Antiracism

2024-05-13

This is the English translation of a blog previously published in French under the title « Racisme, néoracisme et antiracisme »

It is taken from a talk which I gave on 27th April 2024, at a forum on universalism organized by the Association des Québécois unis contre le racialisme (AQUR or Association of Québécois United against Racialism), held at the Grand Bibliothèque in Montreal.

Sommaire en français Ce blogue est disponible en français : « Racisme, néoracisme et antiracisme »

Influenced by postmodernism and cultural relativism, the post-left rejects universalism and sees the world as a collection of groups, each with its own interests and its own “truth,” often irreconcilable with those of other groups. Thus, the interests and feelings of the group (real or presumed) take precedence over objectivity, leading to an overvaluation of emotion. as well as social censorship of comments deemed “offensive” towards a group perceived as a target of injustice.

During the era of European colonialism, Europeans considered themselves to be the centre of the universe, having a duty to civilize the rest of the world. Today, the post-left continues to place European civilization at the centre of the universe, but that centre is now considered to be rotten and the source of all forms of oppression. This latter attitude is simply the flipside of the first. Both racism and neoracism are Eurocentric. Both are false. Both are harmful.

Classical European Racism Neoracism
(self-styled “antiracism”
of the post-left)		 Antiracism
Eurocentrism:
Europe = the greatest civilization		 Eurocentrism:
Europe = source of all evil and oppression		 Universalism
Prejudice against certain groups Prejudice against certain majorities, especially “Whites” Colour-blindness
Tribalism based on pseudoscience Multi-tribalism based on postmodernism “Racial” identity: just one of many personal attributes
Exaggeration of genetic differences.
Hierarchy of “races.”		 Obsession with “racial” identity.
Racialization of religious affiliation.		 Only one human “race.”
Respect for freedom of conscience.
Discrimination against “inferieur” groups Any inequity is considered resulting from injustice.
Positive discrimination.		 Anti-discrimination.
Meritocracy.

According to classical European racism, Europe is the origin of the greatest civilization. This racism constitutes tribalism rationalized by pseudoscience, for example Nazi racial pseudoscience. This racism exaggerates the biological differences between so-called “racial” groups and creates a hierarchical classification of these groups.

For the neoracists of the post-left, who falsely claim to be antiracist, Europe remains the centre of everything, but it is now the origin of all evil, of all oppression. Neoracism promotes prejudice against certain groups considered dominant, especially against the so-called “white” majority. Neoracists are obsessed with racial identity, the importance of which they exaggerate. However, they have no clear definition of either “race” or “racism,” thus allowing religious affiliation to be racialized. For them, any inequity must be the result of injustices and their solution is positive discrimination in favor of “oppressed” or “marginalized” groups.

Finally, an authentic antiracist approach, that is to say universalist, favours colour-blindness in matters of skin colour and considers that the “racial” identity of the individual is only one attribute among many others. The innate aspect of “race” is recognized, but also that all humans belong to the same “race.” Freedom of conscience is respected. Universalist antiracists oppose discrimination and favour meritocracy.

The post-left denies the existence, even the possibility, of anti-White racism, even while practicing it. For the post-left, racism is always a one-way street: it is always white people who are racist and it is always non-white people who are the targets of such racism.

Thus, the post-left refuses to recognize anti-Quebec prejudice, a major theme in Canadian history and an important aspect of opposition to Quebec secularism. After all, Quebecers are just whites!

The post-left also ignores the danger that anti-Zionism may degenerate into anti-Semitism. After all, Jews are just whites.

The post-left also refuses to recognize anti-Black racism and slavery in the Arabo-Muslim world. This is because, according to post-left dogma, non-Whites cannot be racist.

Next blog: A Pandemic of Cowardice

The Fall of Minneapolis: A Dishonest Documentary

2024-05-05

In connection with death of George Floyd, did the four police officers get a fair trial? Whatever the answer to that question may be, the documentary film The Fall of Minneapolis cannot be trusted to inform us honestly.

Sommaire en français En rapport avec la mort de George Floyd, les quatre policiers ont-ils bénéficié d’un procès juste ? Quelle que soit la réponse à cette question, on ne peut pas faire confiance au film documentaire The Fall of Minneapolis pour nous en informer honnêtement.

The Fall of Minneapolis is a documentary film, available to watch free on-line, which makes the claim that Derek Chauvin was wrongfully convicted of murdering George Floyd in 2020. When I first viewed the film, I was convinced by it that there were indeed excellent reasons to doubt the fairness of the trial of Chauvin and the other three police officers. I have observed, both from following current events and from my personal experiences, that the so-called “antiracist” movement is often extremely dishonest and fanatical. I have become so accustomed to that movement’s excesses that it was easy to believe the allegations made by the film. Furthermore, I did not want to assume that, because the filmakers are right-wing politically, they must be incapable of reporting the facts honestly. Again, so-called “antiracists” make a habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being far-right or even fascist, thus constantly crying wolf, thus destroying their credibility.

However, after reading Radley Balko’s critical analysis of the film, I am no longer convinced. Although I still have doubts about some aspects of the case, I no longer trust the film to describe the situation honestly. It would appear that, in this case, the filmmakers did indeed let their political biases influence them so much that they lied outright, letting their pro-police prejudices take priority over truth.

The most important issue, the one which convinced me that the film could not be trusted, concerns the so-called Maximal Restraint Technique or MRT, approved by the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), which involves holding the suspect on the ground, face down, while the police officer uses their knee to keep the suspect in that position. The film leads the viewer to believe that Chauvin, while holding Floyd on the ground, was using the MRT correctly and in a way which did not impede Floyd’s breathing. The film even includes footage from the trial in which witnesses, testifying before the court about police procedures, deny that such a technique is even approved by the MPD or taught in its training session, whereas training manuals clearly show that that technique is indeed approved and taught. This makes it appear that some witnesses are lying, and that the truth would exonerate Chauvin!

However, as Balko explains, Chauvin was not using the Maximal Restraint Technique correctly, and the witnesses were simply testifying that whatever Chauvin was doing, it was not an approved technique because he was not using the MRT as it is taught. The MRT is meant to be used only very briefly in order to install a “hobble” because the prone position can indeed hamper breathing. In Balko’s words, “They train them to use a technique where you put a knee on the side of the neck. You put most of your weight on your foot, but you do that to keep the person in place just long enough to administer this device called a hobble, after which you’re supposed to roll the suspect over to their side so they can breathe.” Chauvin and his fellow officers never administered the hobble, and they kept Floyd on the ground and on his stomach, unnecessarily, for some nine minutes.

There are other issues of course, in particular the autopsy results and how the documentary film reports them. Furthermore, one of the two filmmakers is the wife of a former head of the police union of the MPD. Thus there is a possible conflict of interest. But the MRT issue is the most important.

I still have some major misgivings about the trial. The fact that it was held in Minneapolis itself, with the courthouse basically under siege by demonstrators demanding revenge against the police officers, means that the trial could not have been completely fair. The jurors were under enormous pressure to find the officers as guilty as possible, probably even fearing for their lives if they rendered a verdict less severe that what the mob demanded. I seriously doubt that Chauvin merited the draconian sentence of 22.5 years in prison. If the trial had been held in a different city, under calmer conditions, things might have turned out differently.

Links

Next blog: Racisme, néoracisme et antiracisme

The George Floyd Case

2023-12-19, Withdrawn 2024-02-26

I have decided to withdraw this blog because it was insufficiently critical of the film The Fall of Minneapolis, based on information I received after writing it. I have since written another blog about the film: The Fall of Minneapolis: A Dishonest Documentary

Sommaire en français J’ai décidé de retirer ce blogue car il n’était pas suffisamment critique à l’égard du film The Fall of Minneapolis, au vu des informations que j’ai reçues après l’avoir rédigé. Depuis, j’ai écrit un autre blogue au sujet de ce film : The Fall of Minneapolis: A Dishonest Documentary

Next blog: Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Conversion: An Act of Desperation

Exaggerating Historical Injustices

The indigenous residential school controversy

2023-09-08

So far, no human remains have been found at several indigenous residential school sites where the presence of unmarked graves was alleged. Unscrupulous “antiracists” seem to care very little about historical truth.

Sommaire en français Jusqu’à présent, aucun reste humain n’a été retrouvé sur plusieurs sites de pensionnats autochtones où la présence de tombes anonymes a été alléguée. Les « antiracistes » sans scrupules semblent se soucier très peu de la vérité historique.

In Canada, mainstream media and the so-called “left” have become so biased, so dishonest—especially on any issue involving racism or alleged racism—that it is apparently necessary to consult right-wing or foreign media to get any common sense reporting on such issues.

Consider allegations, made in recent years, that unmarked graves of children murdered in native residential schools have been found in several locations. A recent article “True North’s reporting on the ‘unmarked graves’ narrative has been vindicated” in True North points out that whenever excavations have been carried out in such locations (the article lists three: Pine Creek in Manitoba, Shubenacadie Residential School in Nova Scotia and Camsell Hospital in Edmonton), no human remains have been found. An article “What happened to Canada’s ‘mass graves’?” in the UK’s Sp!ked lists four sites (including a former Mohawk school in Brantford and Kuper Island Residential School in B.C.).

The True North article also laments the attacks (both verbal and physical) on Christian churches resulting from these allegations. Normally, I would not particularly care about the churches, but I do care about false accusations of murdering children—even if directed at Catholic and Anglican priests and nuns. And of course we must denounce the wave of vandalism and arson directed at several churches in western Canada in 2021. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau foolishly dismissed the church burnings as “understandable.”

I especially denounce those fanatics who slander anyone who questions the dominant narrative about native residential schools by labelling them “denialist,” as if there were any comparison to be made with the Nazi holocaust, an outrageous implication. Some scepticism is healthy and wise.

Of course not all the data are in. […] But based on the evidence—or rather lack of evidence—so far, it is reasonable to maintain that the native residential school system implemented cultural genocide at worst…

Of course not all the data are in. There are apparently other alleged burial sites which have not yet been excavated. But based on the evidence—or rather lack of evidence—so far, it is reasonable to maintain that the native residential school system implemented cultural genocide at worst, not physical genocide. People of European descent have, in many situations, been guilty of genocide against the First Nations of North and South America, including Canada, but apparently not in this case.

Exaggerating the degree of injustice suffered by a group is counter-productive, because it leads to discrediting those allegations which are indeed valid. If self-righteous “antiracists” continue to use the word “genocide” to describe the situation, many will begin to doubt the reality of even the cultural genocide which did occur.

So why do some people continue to indulge in such exaggeration?

So why do some people continue to indulge in such exaggeration? The greater the persecution of which they can accuse their adversaries, the greater they perceive their own virtue to be. In other words, they do it out of pure conceit, to inflate their egos.

More Links

Next blog: Quatorze observations à propos de la post-gauche

The “White Supremacism” Scam

2021-03-30

Accusations of “racism” and “white supremacism” have become increasingly meaningless because those who make such accusations have an agenda, an ideology, which has nothing to do with fighting racism.

Sommaire en français Les accusations de « racisme » et de « suprémacisme blanc » sont devenues de plus en plus dénuées de sens parce que ceux qui font de telles accusations ont un programme, une idéologie, qui n’a rien à voir avec la lutte contre le racisme.

The ideology of white supremacism is of course a reality. It was certainly a very serious reality in the U.S.A. during the many decades of legal enslavement of black people in the southern states, when it served as an excuse for that servitude. White supremacism remained a reality for many years more, even after the emancipation proclamation which came into effect on January 1st 1863. Even after blacks gained the right to vote, in theory at least, that right was often denied using various stratagems, such as making voter registration difficult.

After such a long history of extreme anti-black racism, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the ideology of white supremacism survives even today in some parts of the U.S.A. However, identifying it has become more difficult in recent years because of the pseudo-left’s noxious habit of seeing racism and white supremacism everywhere, whether it exists or not.

Furthermore, Canada is not the United States, despite the similarities. And Quebec is certainly not the United States, the similarities being less pronounced. On the Canadian side of the border, slavery was much less extensive, it was never a major aspect of the economy, it was prohibited earlier and it did not involve blacks exclusively. Racism in Canada may target various groups, but racism against First Nations persons is probably more serious than racism against blacks.

British Supremacism

One aspect of the Canadian situation which is very different from the American is the importance here of anti-Francophone prejudice. It is reasonable to assume that racist attitudes against groups originally from Europe are much less pronounced that those against non-European groups. Nevertheless, we must not forget that one of the original sources of anti-Francophone racism in Canada, especially in the early years of Canadian history, was the phenomenon of frequent intermarriage between North American natives and the French, so there is a link between these two racisms.

…in Canada the more appropriate expression would be British supremacism..

To summarize, white supremacism may exist anywhere, but in Canada the more appropriate expression would be British supremacism. Even in the USA, white supremacism is much less prevalent than it was only decades ago.

You have no doubt heard about the University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran who recently became notorious for his remarks on Twitter calling Quebec the “Alabama of the north” and asserting that the province’s culture is racist and its government white supremacist. These remarks by Attaran, based on two isolated incidents of racism in Quebec, are themselves racist, i.e. anti-Québécois bigotry.

Hitching a Ride

Attaran’s anti-Québécois comments […] are just another installment in that propaganda.

Of course, we have heard a lot of anti-Québécois bigotry in recent years, It reached a fever-pitch in 2013-2014 when the PQ government of the time proposed a Charter of Secularism, calmed down a little when the PQ lost power, then rose again to an even hotter fever pitch in 2018 when the newly-elected CAQ promised to pass secular legislation and then did just that in June 2019. The anti-Quebec propaganda machine has not let up since then. There is an objective alliance between the anti-Enlightment pseudo-left (which I call the post-left) and political Islam which both oppose secularism fanatically and obsessively. Both essentialize (i.e. racialize) religious affiliation, thus conflating race and religion, which allows Islamism to hitch a ride on the coattails of the so-called “antiracist” movement.

Attaran’s anti-Québécois comments, even if Attaran made no reference to religion, are just another installment in that propaganda.

…recognizing “systemic racism” would allow Islamists to weaponize that concept and use it against secularism, i.e. against Bill 21.

For several months, Quebec premier François Legault has been under a lot of pressure to recognize the existence of so-called “systemic racism” in the province. He has resisted that pressure, refusing to acknowledge such a thing. Legault recognizes of course that racism exists in Quebec as it does everywhere, and he has expressed his commitment to fighting against it. But the expression is an ill-defined concept which contributes nothing to that fight. In fact, if racism is labelled “systemic” then individuals cannot be held fully responsible for their racist actions, if any, thus undermining that fight. Furthermore, it is obvious that “systemic racism” is a vague buzzword of both the post-left and Islamism, and that to recognize its existence would simply be a genuflexion in their direction, a gesture of submission to their retrograde ideologies. It is also obvious that recognizing “systemic racism” would allow Islamists to weaponize that concept and use it against secularism, i.e. against Bill 21. I congratulate premier Legault for his determination in refusing to capitulate.

Defamatory Accusations

Recently I was expelled from the Facebook group The Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse after posting a blog about the Swiss referendum which approved a ban on face-coverings, including Islamic full veils. I supported the ban and criticized Islamism’s promotion of the veil. In response to my posting, one very imaginative (and very “woke”) group member accused me of being “racist”, “alt-right” and “White Supremacist”!! I objected strongly, calling the accusations slanderous and insane. A group moderator then expelled me for being “rude” and having a “chip on your shoulder”!! (Indeed, that chip is exactly where it should be, because such accusations are completely unacceptable.) To summarize, I was expelled for supporting a restriction on Islamist proselytism.

If the moderator had had any sense of ethics, he would have expelled the person making defamatory accusations, not me. Ironically, the moderator was also angry at me for saying that many people in the group get pissed off at any criticism of Islam and that the moderators sometimes censor such criticism. He then proved I was right on both counts by expelling me.

Anyway, the above example is hardly exceptional, because the post-left “woke” mentality has infested so much of our society—and not just social media—that such manipulations occur with alarming frequency. Given the de facto alliance between the post-left and political Islam, accusations of “white supremacism” and similar slanders are becoming standard Islamist propaganda. I have described two examples above, one involving a U. of Ottawa professor, the other a personal experience. Accusations of “systemic racism” serve a similar purpose.

Crying Wolf

With the post-leftists and Islamists crying wolf all the time, such accusations are taken less and less seriously.

In other words, “White Supremacism” has become a scam, a specious accusation used by post-leftists and Islamists to defame and ultimately silence their critics. This is a toxic situation for several reasons: it stifles debate, it prevents necessary criticism of a very dangerous politico-religious movement, Islamism, and, finally it make it more difficult to recognize real instances of white supremacism. With the post-leftists and Islamists crying wolf all the time, such accusations are taken less and less seriously. If everybody is a white supremacist, then nobody is.

Next blog: La nécessité de la Loi 21