A Pandemic of Cowardice


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.


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.


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…

Trudeau Appoints Anti-Québécois Racist to Combat so-called ‘Islamophobia’

Amira Elghawaby will stifle criticism of Islam & Islamism and fight against secularism.


Canada’s irresponsible Prime Minister has appointed a notorious anti-Québécois racist to a well-funded office whose mandate is to combat so-called ‘Islamophobia,’ i.e. her job will be to censor blasphemy against Islam and Islamism.

Sommaire en français Le premier ministre irresponsable du Canada a nommé une raciste anti-québécoise mal famée à un poste bien financé dont le mandat est de lutter contre la soi-disant « islamophobie », c’est-à-dire que son travail consistera à censurer le blasphème contre l’islam et contre l’islamisme.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has appointed anti-Québécois bigot Amira Elghawaby as Canada’s first “Special representative on combating Islamophobia.” Elghawaby is well known for her opposition to secular legislation such as Quebec Bill 21. She worked for five years with the extremely dubious National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM). Recall that the NCCM promotes several retrograde policies, including weakening Canada’s national security agencies, which would make it easier for political Islam to infiltrate the country.

In 2021, University of Toronto philosophy professor Joseph Heath authored an article, published in the Globe & Mail, in which he observed that the American model of race relations does not at all apply to Canada and that, in particular, “the largest group of people in this country who were victimized by British colonialism, subjugated and incorporated into confederation by force, are French Canadians.” A cursory review of Canadian history is more than enough to confirm the validity of Heath’s statement: the hanging of Louis Riel, the deportation of Acadians, the activities of the Ku Klux Klan in Canada and in Maine, the closure of French-language schools in several provinces, the October Crisis of 1970, etc. And most recently, the fanatical opposition of English Canada to Quebec Bill 21.

Elghawaby was evidently outraged by professor Heath’s very reasonable declaration, because she tweeted that “I’m going to puke.” Such a statement reflects her hatred of the Québécois people. It also illustrates her desire to reserve the status of victim for herself and her Islamist colleagues who claim a monopoly on victimhood. The reality, of course, is that Islamists systematically weaponize anti-Québécois racism in order to demonize Quebec Bill 21 and the majority of Quebeckers who support it.

Ms. Elghawaby has slandered Quebec secularists by falsely alleging a link between Quebec Bill 21 and the Quebec City mosque massacre of 2017-01-29. Recall that the attack occurred years before Bill 21 was adopted and years after previous similar legislation—the Charter of Secularism proposed by the PQ government in 2013—was defeated. Similarly, she has also promoted the preposterous idea of a link between Quebec Bill 21 and the 2021-06-06 anti-Muslim attack in London, Ontario. Recall that Ontario is a different province.

Ms. Elghawaby’s incendiary pronouncements are irresponsible as they can only exacerbate social tensions which increase—not decrease—the risk of violent incidents. Secular legislation such as Quebec Bill 21 reduce social tensions by showing the population that their government is taking reasonable measures to reduce religious influence in civil institutions. Ms. Elghawaby, on the other hand, does everything she can to inflame such tensions.

Elghawaby’s office will have an initial budget of $5.6 million. As her mandate is to fight against so-called ‘Islamophobia,’ what this means in practice is that those funds will be used to censor criticism of Islam and Islamism and to propagate hatred of critics of those ideologies. Recall that the tendentious term ‘Islamophobia’ is basically a synonym for blasphemy against Islam. Recall as well that Islam specifies the death penalty for apostasy, i.e. leaving the faith, thus making it incompatible with fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, the Islamic religion, both in the quran and in various hadiths, propagates hatred of women, Jews, homosexuals, believers in other religions and non-believers. To fear Islam is certainly not a “phobia.” Rather, to fear Islam—especially its fundamentalist variant Islamism—is both prudent and necessary.

Furthermore, recall that Bill 21 puts no restriction whatsoever on freedom of belief. Rather, that law puts a restriction on freedom of religious expression (not belief) for civil servants in positions of authority and for public school teachers and principals, so as to provide civil service users and schoolchildren with an environment free from religious proselytism. Bill 21 applies only while on the job. There is no restriction whatsoever when the civil servant is not at work. Elghawaby’s refusal to accept this very reasonable restriction indicates that she is a religious fanatic—the worst sort of person whom the government could appoint to a position dealing with human rights.

Clearly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is an incompetent fool to have made such an unwise appointment.

I happen to be familiar with Amira Elghawaby and her unctuous manners. I personally participated in two panel discussions recorded for the “Canadian Justice” television show in 2020 and 2021, panels in which I was the only person who supported Bill 21, outnumbered by the other panelists (including Ms. Elghawaby) and by the hosts of the show.

Sixth Anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque Attack

Recall that 29th January 2023 (tomorrow, relative to the date of this blog) is the sixth anniversary of that horrific attack on a mosque in Quebec City where six persons were killed and several other seriously wounded. We need to recall certain facts:

  • Islam and its fundamentalist variant Islamism are indeed dangerous ideologies as explained above.
  • Anti-Muslim violence, in addition to being utterly unconscionable and barbaric, is the worst possible response to that danger. Such violence only strengthens the hand of Islamists.
  • Incidents of anti-Muslim violence, such as the 2017 mosque attack, are unrelated to secular legislation, such as Quebec Bill 21, except to the extent that such legislation helps to reduce social tensions, thus reducing the risk of such violence.

Islamists and their dupes unscrupulously attempt to use such anti-Muslim violence as a propaganda tool against secular legislation. See, for example, my blog “No, We Are Not Guilty”, written at the time of the third anniversary of the attack.

See also:

Next blog: Burden of Proof

Bias in 2021 Election Leaders’ Debate

The Quebec Conseil de presse rules that moderator Shachi Kurl was biased.


The Conseil de presse du Québec has ruled that moderator Shachi Kurl and CBC News lacked impartiality at the leaders’ debate, during the 2021 federal election campaign. Kurl asked a “question” which was in fact a specious and dishonest accusation of “racism” against Bill 21.

Sommaire en français La modératrice Shachi Kurl qui a posé une “question” qui était en réalité une spécieuse et malhonnête accusation de “racisme” contre la Loi 21 est l’objet d’une plainte retenue par le Conseil de presse du Québec.

During the 2021 Canadian federal election, a leaders’ debate in English was broadcast on several television networks on the evening of 9 septembre. The moderator of the debate was Shachi Kurl, president of the polling agency Angus Reid Institute.

In reponse to a complaint filed against CBC News and Ms. Kurl, the Quebec Conseil de presse ruled on 28 octobre 2022 that both had indeed lacked impartiality during the leaders’ debate. Kurl asked a “question” which was in fact an accusation of “racism” against Bill 21. Here is the transcript of the question/accusation for which CBC News and Ms. Kurl have been reprimanded:

“Mister Blanchet, to you. You deny that Québec has problems with racism, yet you defend legislations such as Bills 96 and 21 which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Québec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws.”

I wrote about this incident in a previous blog. This is how I summarized the situation:

“the association of Bill 21 with ‘racism’ which is part of Shachi Kurl’s ‘question’ is standard practice for the law’s opponents. Although the law obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with race or racism, opponents like Kurl irrationally and dishonestly conflate race with religion. This allows them to make specious accusations of racism, because defamation is their primary weapon in their war against secularism. Their constant use of such slander against secularists is proof of the vacuity of their arguments.”

This decision criticizing CBC News and Ms. Kurl, although little more than symbolic, is nevertheless very good news, because it shows recognition that slander and anti-Québécois bigotry are indeed tools used by opponents of secularism in order to vilify Quebec Bill 21.


Next blog: Fourteen Observations about Post-Leftism

The CRTC, Pierre Vallières and Postmodernism

The recent CRTC decision, reprimanding Radio-Canada, is unjust and foolish.

2022-07-03 (Link added 2022-07-04)

Instead of puritanical censorship of mere words, we need to be able to discuss freely racism in general and, in particular, the issues raised by Pierre Vallières’ famous 1968 book, in which he drew parallels between anti-Black racism in the USA and anti-Francophone prejudice in Canada.

Sommaire en français Au lieu d’une censure puritaine des mots, nous devons pouvoir discuter librement du racisme en général et, en particulier, des questions soulevées par le livre célèbre de Pierre Vallières de 1968, dans lequel il établit un parallèle entre le racisme anti-Noirs aux États-Unis et le préjugé anti-francophones au Canada.

Recently (2022-06-29) the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) reprimanded Radio-Canada for using the word « nègre » during a radio show without sufficient warning to listeners, calling on the broadcaster to make a formal apology. The word was used in the title of a book being discussed. Fortunately, two members of the Commission disagree with the majority decision and reject the complaint against R-C.

Unfortunately, the controversy over a mere word has obscured the real issue: the ideas in the book whose title contained the word. The Radio-Canada radio broadcast (2020-08-17) discussed those ideas, but the recent CRTC reprimand contains only condemnation of use of the word, without discussion of context. So we need to recall that context.

In 1966, Pierre Vallières, writer, journalist and FLQ activist (Front de Libération du Québec), took refuge in the USA with the help of the Black Panthers. He was arrested for participating in a demonstration before UN headquarters in New York City and was imprisoned for several months. During that period in prison, he wrote the now famous book Nègres blancs d’Amérique, published in 1968, in which he drew certain parallels between the situation of French-speaking Québécois in Canada and Blacks in the USA and expressed solidarity between the two liberation movements.

The word « nègre » in French is roughly equivalent to the English word “negro” which was considered correct at the time. If you put « sale » (dirty) in front of it, then the French word becomes racist, but of course you could put « sale » in front of « blanc » or any other colour and the result could be a racist insult. But taken alone, « nègre » does not have the extreme racist connotations and enormous emotional charge of that other English word, six letters beginning with “n” and ending with “r” and which I cannot even mention here without risking serious repercussions. However, when Vallières’ book was published in English translation, it was precisely that very strong n-word which the publisher chose to use in the title. I assume they did so because they wanted the title to be hard-hitting and highly charged. I think they succeeded.

Francophone men in Quebec were in a slightly worse position (compared to Anglophones) than Afro-American men in the USA (relative to whites).

Vallières’ parallel between the Québécois and Afro-Americans was not spurious. It is important to recall the economic situation of Francophones in Quebec at the time. In the 1960s, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, known also as the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, was set up by the federal government to study the relative situations of the English and French languages and cultures in Canada. Among its findings were that, in 1960, in Quebec, the average employment income of unilingual French-speaking men was 51% of that of unilingual men of British descent. At the same time, in the United States, the average employment income of black men was 56% of that of white men. In other words, Francophone men in Quebec were in a slightly worse position (compared to Anglophones) than Afro-American men in the USA (relative to whites).

This was not to suggest that the two situations were identical. The history of slavery in the USA and the racist propaganda which was used to legitimize the enslavement of Blacks are specific to that country. Vallières’ intent was to express solidarity among oppressed peoples, not to ignore the variety of different forms of oppression.

The CRTC’s dreadful decision to censure Radio-Canada for merely quoting a book title is not the first time that antiracist intentions have degenerated into puritanical censorship. Remember the dismissal of Wendy Mesley in 2020 for quoting Vallières’ title. (And I understand this occurred during a preparatory meeting, not even on the air!) Let us hope that Radio-Canada management does not capitulate and respond with the same abject cowardice which the CBC displayed in the Mesley case.

We should also not forget that this Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was the seed from which the Canadian Multiculturalism Act eventually developed. But that development was a corruption of the original intent. Biculturalism began as a consideration of Canada’s two founding European peoples, the British and French. But over time, that concept faded, to be replaced by multiculturalism which reduced the French to just one minority culture among many, thus assuring the dominance of English language and culture in Canada.

Antisecularism and Postmodernism

Although the situation has evolved considerably since Vallières’ time, anti-Québécois prejudice is nevertheless still present today. It has been recycled and weaponized by antisecularists in order to denigrate Quebec’s secular legislation, Bill 21. In fact, obscuring the content of Vallières’ analysis by censoring its title, as the CRTC is attempting to do, plays right into the hands of those antisecularists. Some particularly dishonest opponents of Bill 21 even accuse that law (and by implication, Quebecers who strongly support it) of “racism.” Their hypocrisy is blatant, for it is they who are using a racist prejudice to oppose the law.

…the obsession with “offensive” words is a particular preoccupation of the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left…

In general, the obsession with “offensive” words is a particular preoccupation of the anti-Enlightenment pseudo-left (a.k.a. the “woke”). It is based on the postmodernist idea of the power of language. As Pluckrose and Lindsay explain in Cynical Theories (page 60),

“The power and danger of language are foregrounded in all the new applied postmodern Theories. […] the idea that words are powerful and dangerous has now become widespread and underlies much scholarship and activism around discursive (or verbal) violence, safe spaces, microaggressions, and trigger warnings.”

Put succinctly, the “woke” choose to conflate words with physical violence.

In this particular case, pseudo-leftists refuse to recognize the existence of the anti-Québécois prejudice which Vallières denounced in his title because most Québécois have the wrong skin colour. Furthermore, pseudo-leftists tend to be resolutely antisecular by virtue of their racialization of religious affiliation. Objecting to an “offensive” word in the title is a convenient distraction from the issues which Vallières raised.

Relevant Links

Next blog: Stillbirth, The Failure of Secularism in the English-Speaking World

The Great Canadian Euphemism

Bonne Fête nationale québécoise !

2022-06-24, Addendum 2022-06-26

In his speech before the Académie française, Quebec Minister of the French Language Simon Jolin-Barrette was totally correct in denouncing Canadian multiculturalism, as well as defamatory reactions against Bills 21 and 96 by English-language media.

Sommaire en français Dans son discours devant l’Académie française, le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Simon Jolin-Barrette, a eu tout à fait raison de dénoncer le multiculturalisme canadien, ainsi que les propos diffamatoires des médias anglophones contre les Lois 21 et 96.

Yesterday, 23rd June 2022, Simon Jolin-Barrette, Quebec Minister of the French Language, gave a formal speech before the Académie française in Paris. It was an exceptional moment, for rarely does the Académie invite foreigners to make such an address. Moreover, this is the first time in its nearly 400 year history that an elected representative who is neither head of State nor head of a government has been so invited.

As Quebec recently adopted legislation, Bill 96, which updates and reforms its Charte de la langue française, adopted in 1977 and known colloquially as Bill 101, Jolin-Barrette’s theme was, not surprisingly, the protection and reinforcement of the French language. He invited France to partner with Quebec with that goal in mind.

Jolin-Barrette referred to the increasing predominance of the English language and technology giants known as GAFAM as the “Anglo-American steamroller.” But it was perhaps his comments critical of multiculturalism—hardly controversial for the French—which ruffled the most feathers back home in this country, especially among Anglo-Canadians:

Although our project is thwarted by Canadian multiculturalism, which finds an equivalent in what you call communitarianism and which fights Quebec’s claims to be a distinct nation, the French language must truly become the language of use for all Quebecers…

He also denounced how many English-language media, both Canadian and American, have defamed Quebec and denigrated the actions of his government, particularly with regard to the secularism law (Bill 21) as well as Bill 96. Such media have endeavoured to paint those laws as regressive and authoritarian. But in his opinion, “Our fight for the French language is just, it is a universal fight, that of a nation that has peacefully resisted the will to power of the strongest.”

Simon Jolin-Barrette is absolutely right on both counts: (1) the perniciousness of the Canadian ideology of multiculturalism and (2) the defamatory reaction against Bills 21 and 96.

Canadian multiculturalism is a dishonest euphemism whose true meaning is cultural relativism, clientelism and a bigotry of low expectations, treating minorities as static, well circumscribed and distinct from the majority. It represents the death of universalism and a return to tribalism. A prime example of the consequences of multiculturalism is the experience of Yasmine Mohammed who, after suffering much abuse as a teenager at the hands of her pious Muslim step-father, was abandoned by Canadian authorities, both police and judge, who refused to take action because “different cultures are free to discipline their children in different ways.” Other consequences include all sorts of so-called “reasonable accommodations” (which should instead be called “unreasonable religious accommodations”) such as depriving children of music because of their parents’ religion, allowing—even celebrating—the veiling of young girls, thus endorsing a form of child abuse, allowing civil servants to wear religious symbols while on duty (which Bill 21 bans in Quebec) and so on.

The Québécois oppose Canadian multiculturalism because it reduces them to just another minority, which leads inexorably to Anglo-supremacy. Under Canadian multiculturalism, every language is reduced to folklore status, except English of course. Bravo Quebec for standing up for cultural and linguistic diversity!

Canadian multiculturalism is incompatible with secularism, because secularism requires that all citizens be treated equally, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Neither Christians, nor atheists, nor Muslims, nor any other specific group should be allowed to display their personal religious opinions or identity while working in the civil service. This is called universalism and it is a core value of secularism. Those Anglo-Canadians who claim to be secularists need to face that reality.

Multiculturalism is the Great Canadian Euphemism. Proponents of this retrograde ideology arrogate to themselves the moral high ground, as if anyone who criticizes it were morally stunted or even “racist.” Their hypocrisy is obvious. Not only is multiculturalism a throwback to tribal days before the advent of universal human rights, it is also a tool used by anti-secularists to rationalize their anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry.

On this 24th of June 2022, a holiday here in Quebec, the Fête nationale, we celebrate Québécois language and culture. (This blog is in English because Anglo-Canadians are the ones who most need to read it.) Taking steps to protect the French language in Quebec is in everyone’s interest, including English-speakers, because without it, Canada and North America would be culturally much poorer. Without French language and culture, without Quebec, would Canada be anything more than a pale replica of the USA?


Here is another example of Canadian multiculturalism in action: No child protection for Syrian refugee punched and lashed in N.S. for texting with a boy

Authorities used confusion about the victim’s age as an excuse to do nothing. The teenage girl was the target of a severe beating, enough to break her nose apparently. Whether she was 15 or 16 at the time, her father must be held accountable. But this is Canada. Would this have been allowed if the family were not immigrants from a Muslim country?

Next blog: Flawed Constitutions

Religious Symbol & Face-Covering Bans in Other Countries

Quebec Bill 21 is only one of many such laws

2021-12-26, Updated 2021-12-27

What opponents of Bill 21 never talk about: the many laws in other countries which stipulate similar bans, but often stronger, more extensive ones.

Sommaire en français Ce dont les opposants à la Loi 21 ne parlent jamais : les nombreuses lois dans d’autres pays qui prévoient des interdictions similaires, mais souvent plus fortes, plus étendues. La compilation des données est disponible en français : Lois restreignant les couvre-visage et les signes religieux

Many other countries have laws similar to Bill 21, but often stronger. For example:

  • Religious symbols are banned for public servants in France, in Geneva and in two “Länder” of Germany. In particular, the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland bans religious symbols throughout the civil service, but with the proviso that it applies when the employee is in contact with the public.
  • Religious symbols are banned in public schools in France, parts of Belgium and in Pennsylvania.
  • Face-coverings are banned in public in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, Denmark, Egypt, France, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, etc. Morocco also bans the manufacture and sale of the burqa.
  • Face-coverings are banned in public services (employees and users, as in Quebec) in Italy [Lombardy], Malaysia, Netherlands and Tunisia.
  • Face-coverings are banned for public servants in Algeria and Germany.

When it comes to restrictions on religious symbols and/or face-coverings, there are two extreme positions:

  1. Ban them everywhere. I have only known one person who held such a draconian view.
  2. Ban them nowhere. This extremist position is apparently held by most opponents of Quebec Bill 21 (because they rarely specify any alternative, just a complete repeal).

A reasonable position is somewhere in between these two extremes: i.e. ban religious symbols (for secular reasons) and face-coverings (for reasons of security, identification, communication and women’s rights) in contexts where a ban will not unduely encroach upon some people’s freedoms while it protects others’ freedoms. That is precisely what Bill 21 does, although it is a little too weak and needs to be extended to the entire civil service.

Secularists choose a position somewhere midway between the two extremes, not because it is midway (that would be just the Fallacy of the Mean) but because in this situation it maximizes human rights, whereas the two extremes threaten such rights. Banning religious symbols worn by civil servants while on the job extends everyone’s freedom from religion, while putting only a small, well-circumscribed restriction on freedom of religious expression (i.e. religious practice) for State employees. Such a ban puts no restriction whatsoever on freedom of religious belief. In other words, it treats religious expression similar to how political expression is treated: with some restriction in the workplace.

The extremist position (2) holds that any ban is an encroachment on personal freedoms. This is libertarianism on steroids and is unacceptable because it gives absolute freedom to the wearer while completely neglecting the rights of others.

By adopting Bill 21 in June of 2019, Quebec joined the many countries listed above. In reaction, the arrogance and ignorance of Canadian anti-secularists have been infinite. Will they now claim that all those countries are populated or controlled by Christian supremacists with nefarious motives?

The page Laws Restricting Face-Coverings and Religious Symbols provides a compilation with full details. I update it periodically. Please let me know if you find any errors or omissions. (Links to relevant on-line articles are helpful. Links to actual legislation are even better.)

Next blog: Repeal Citizenship Regulation 17.1.b

Unworthy To Be a Judge


The recent appointment of Azimuddin Hussain to the bench of Quebec Superior Court reveals extreme bias.

Sommaire en français La nomination récente d’Azimuddin Hussain à la magistrature de la Cour supérieure du Québec révèle un parti pris extrême. Ce blogue est disponible en français : Inapte à être juge.

Yesterday (Dec. 20, 2021) we learned that the lawyer Azimuddin Hussain has been named to the bench, as judge of Quebec Superior Court. Hussain was very much in the news a year ago, when in November and December of 2020 he represented an opponent of Bill 21 before that very court. In his comments at that time, Hussain drew an outrageous parallel between Bill 21 and the Nuremberg Laws adopted by Nazi Germany in 1935. Basically, Hussain observed that the Nuremberg Laws led to genocide and holocaust, thus implying that Bill 21 could lead to something as serious.

Recall that the Nuremberg Laws denied German citizenship to Jews (as well as Romani and Blacks) and banned intermarriage and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans. On the other hand, Bill 21 requires that some civil servants and teachers remove any religious symbols they normally wear when they are on the job. That is all. Bill 21 does not apply when off the job.

Hussain’s words were much worse than just comparing apples and oranges—more like comparing a teapot with a Tyrannosaurus rex. To make matters worse, the judge Marc-André Blanchard did not object in any way. This incident is part of the general campaign, by the opponents of secularism, to denigrate and demonize Bill 21 and its supporters.

Hussain’s comment was made on a Friday. The following Monday morning, Hussain claimed he had been misinterpreted by the media and the judge responded, “I assure you that I understood your comparisons as being purely rhetorical.” In my opinion, this constitutes serious bias and a major lack of judgment by Blanchard.

However, other incidents during that case last year were arguably as bad or even worse. At one point, Hussain, in his determination to discredit the testimony of the expert witness (for the MLQ) Jacques Beauchemin, referred to him as “an older white male heterosexual who does not wear a religious symbol.” In an earlier court session, Hussain also belittled another expert witness, professor Georges-Auguste Legault, by calling him “a white man” in order to discredit his testimony. Given that sex, age, skin colour and sexual orientation are of no relevance in this context, Hussain’s comments were completely inappropriate. Even more disturbing was that Judge Blanchard listened to all this passively and made no objection, no attempt to reprimand Hussain for his improper behaviour.

In my opinion, for the above reasons, as well as for many other aspects of the court case last year, both Judge Blanchard and Azimuddin Hussain must be considered unworthy of the position of Judge of Quebec Superior Court. Both lack the necessary objectivity to occupy that position.

The appointment of Hussain also reveals that Federal Justice Minister David Lametti and those who advised Lametti must also be extremely biased.

Relevant Links

Next blog: Inapte à être juge

Bill 21 as Seen by Four Quebec Secularists


Four perspectives on Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, from four prominent secular activists.

Sommaire en français Quatre points de vue sur la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi 21) du Québec, de quatre éminents militants laïques.

Here is a collection of articles about Quebec Bill 21. All four authors support the law, of course, as do all secular organizations in Quebec. Each gives his or her own perspective on Bill 21 and why that legislation is so significant. I have translated into English a few excerpts from their articles originally in French.

Marie-Claude Girard

Retired from the Canadian Human Rights Commission & Board member of the Rassemblement pour la laïcité (RPL)

Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, Une loi résolument féministe (State Secularism Law, A Resolutely Feminist Law), 2021-12-17.

Mme Girard reminds us that most religious symbols are very different for women and for men; “each of them conveys distinct social status, values, roles and responsibilities, which exacerbate their sexist character.” Thus, it is false to claim that Bill 21 somehow penalizes women. Rather, it is religion which imposes the disparity between symbols and thus religion which causes different impacts.

In the Muslim religion, for example, it is women who wear more visible religious symbols (the hijab, for example). However, it is not the law that discriminates, but sexist religious demands.

Furthermore, Quebec is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979). Of course it is not up to the State to regulate sexist religious practices everywhere, but it must nevertheless ensure that its own institutions are free from sexism. By banning State employees in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols, Bill 21 is a resolutely feminist law.

Daniel Baril

President of the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ)

Hijab à l’école, Un cas qui illustre la nécessité de la loi 21 (Hijab at school, A case illustrating the necessity of Bill 21), 2021-12-16.

Mr. Baril reminds Justin Trudeau that seven parents testified for the MLQ before Quebec Superior Court in late 2020, in support of Bill 21, underlining the importance of protecting the freedom of conscience of their children “in the face of the illegitimate desire of some teachers to display their religious beliefs in an ostentatious and permanent manner in the classroom.” In particular, Muslim parents argued that “wearing the hijab in class constitutes an incitement to fundamentalist religious practice…” Thus, it is teachers who wear religious symbols in class who violate freedom of conscience and religion. Bill 21, on the other hand, protects those freedoms.

Mr. Baril also reminds Bob Rae that no international declaration grants the right to practise one’s religion in the workplace. And we are dealing with practice here, not belief.

As for recent events in Chelsea, the teacher Fatemeh Anvari admitted that her hijab represents a religious and ideological combat. Thus, her intention is to transmit a message.

It is precisely this kind of militant proselytism that the Secularism Law seeks to prevent in schools. While the hijab carries meanings, these meanings conflict with the duty of religious and ideological reserve that a teacher owes to her students.

Mr. Baril also denounces the overwhelming naïveté and dishonesty of Jagmeet Singh who falsely claimed that Bill 21 discriminates against women. In reality, it is religion which discriminates, not secularism, by imposing different social norms on men and women. Finally, it is ridiculous to claim that reassigning Fatemeh Anvari to a non-teaching position had the effect of reducing “diversity” among teachers. By that logic, all teachers would be obliged to wear some kind of partisan symbol in order to maximize diversity. How about “God Does Not Exist” on t-shirts? Maybe then Trudeau and Singh would understand the need for secularism.

André Lamoureux

Political Scientist and Lecturer at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

La loi 21 n’est ni raciste ni antimusulmane (Bill 21 is Neither Racist nor Anti-Muslim), 2021-12-16.

Mr. Lamoureux underlines the denigration of Quebec which is evident in recent hostility towards Bill 21. Banning religious symbols worn by agents of the State is not a manifestation of anti-Muslim sentiment. For example, since 2004, Algeria imposes such a ban on customs agents, police and security personnel and the military, and bans the full veil for teachers. Yet Canada allows the full veil in citizenship ceremonies and when voting, ignoring the fact that it is

a symbol of enslavement for women, a cloth prison promoted in fact by oppressive politico-religious ideologies, including those of the Muslim Brotherhood, salafist movements and Iranian fundamentalist currents.

Belgium, France, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark have all banned the full veil in public. Germany and the Netherlands have banned it in some contexts. These are democratic countries which have not been admonished by the courts of the European Union. Morocco has even banned the manufacture of the burqa. Sri Lanka also banned the full veil in the wake of a major terrorist attack by the Islamic State. Are all these decisions “Islamophobic”?

To reject the dogmas of religious fundamentalism and separate religion from State is a matter of democracy and the protection of the freedom of conscience of all, including that of children. Bill 21 is therefore not anti-Muslim. This is why the federal government must withdraw from the process of legal challenges to Quebec’s law and cease all funding for groups seeking to destroy it.

Jean-François Lisée

Journalist, Politician, Former Leader of the Parti québécois (PQ)

Laïcité et obscurantisme (Secularism and Obscurantism), 2021-12-15.

Mr. Lisée’s message is straightforward, bold and indispensable. After all the defamatory accusations and outrageous denigration,

The time has come to respond without inhibition on the subject of the Quebec law. It is feminist, anti-discriminatory and avant-garde. It is part of a centuries-old fight for enlightenment and against obscurantism. It is exemplary and courageous.

Bill 21 is feminist because it bans the display, by civil servants in positions of authority, of the misogynistic signs of religions, symbolizing modesty and submission, thus refusing to normalize them. By doing so, Bill 21 renders an important service “to all women in Quebec who are subject to a retrograde religious and family influence and who try to extricate themselves from it.”

Bill 21 is anti-discriminatory because (1) it applies to religious convictions the same duty of reserve which was previously applied only to political convictions and (2) because it applies equally to all religions.

Bill 21 is avant-garde because of Quebec’s unique experience with religion. Nowhere else in North America has a society been so overwhelmingly repressed by religious domination in the past and then progressed so rapidly and so decisively along the road towards secularization and personal freedoms.

Bill 21 is courageous because, in spite of all the venom and vilification which have been heaped on Quebec for affirming its language, culture and identity, both the PQ and the CAQ mustered the courage to propose important secular legislation. And during all that, the promoters of secularism such as Guy Rocher, Jolin-Barrette, Bernard Drainville and others have shown far more respect for their opponents than they received in return. The opponents of Bill 21, whether they like to admit it or not,

play into the hands of misogynist forces who would display symbols of women’s subservience within the very apparatus of the State, they advocate discrimination that puts religious convictions—and therefore superstitions—above all other convictions, they protect ostentatious and minority religions, to the detriment of those which are more respectful of civil rule, and they turn their backs on the growing number of citizens who are abandoning religious myths and dogmas. Far from participating in enlightenment, equality or the primacy of science and reason, opponents of Bill 21 hinder the march of progress. It is high time we let them know.

Next blog: Unworthy to be a Judge

English Canada’s Messiah Complex


English Canada has gone completely nuts—again—in it reaction against Quebec’s secular Bill 21.

Sommaire en français Le Canada anglais est viré complètement fou — et pas pour la première fois — dans sa réaction contre la loi laïque québécoise, la Loi 21.

I never cease to be amazed by the arrogance, self-righteousness and wilful ignorance of Anglo-Canadian opponents of secularism. There is usually a huge dose of contempt for Quebeckers underneath everything they say about Bill 21, as if Quebeckers were retarded troglodytes who need to be controlled and enlightened by the intervention of their wonderfully superior English-speaking neighbours.

…as if Quebeckers were retarded troglodytes who need to be controlled and enlightened by the intervention of their wonderfully superior English-speaking neighbours.

English Canada’s hysterical reaction to Bill 21 has reached new extremes. Its Messiah complex is out of control. Now Brampton (ON) and Calgary (AB) want to fight Bill 21, as if it were any of their phoquing business. The mayor of Toronto has endorsed Brampton’s idea. Many other Canadian municipalities and provinces have made pronouncements against Bill 21 in the past. Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, declared recently that Bill 21 violates the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a bald-faced lie. Just consult article 29(2) of that declaration.

Even Mayor Valérie Plante of Montréal, a politician whom I do not particularly like, had the good sense to warn mayors of municipalities outside Quebec that they should not be using taxpayers’ money to finance a challenge to a law in a different province. Even Quebec Solidaire (QS)—notorious for having dishonestly abandoned its previous pro-secular position only shortly after the last provincial electionexpressed similar misgivings.

Bill 21 is very moderate, even timid. Several European countries have similar but stronger legislation dealing with religious symbols, and many more countries ban full-face coverings (including many Muslim-majority countries). A person who refuses to remove any religious symbol while on the job, especially if working as a civil servant or teacher, is behaving unethically. To allow the wearing of such symbols by civil servants and teachers is to grant an obvious religious privilege.

The English- and French-speaking worlds have two different ways of managing religion-State relations. Much can and has been written to explain the differences, but the most important distinction can be summed up in one simple but crucial principle: Separation between religions and State. So-called secularists in the English-speaking world regularly use this term “Separation” but rarely apply it completely. But the 1905 French secularism law has that term in its very title, “Loi de séparation des Églises et de l’État)”, and the principle is applied much more consistently in France.

All secular organizations in Quebec support Bill 21, but NO so-called “secular” organization in Canada outside Quebec supports it. Think about that for a moment.

Quebec follows the French model, but has some distance to go. Bill 21 needs to be strengthened at least by (1) extending religious symbol bans to the entire civil service and all school personnel, and (2) ending fiscal privileges still granted to religious institutions. However, Quebec is far ahead of the rest of Canada. All secular organizations in Quebec support Bill 21, but NO so-called “secular” organization in Canada outside Quebec supports it. Think about that for a moment.

…they must at least recognize Quebec’s jurisdiction in this matter and stop meddling in that province’s internal affairs.

When the separation principle is included, I call this “republican secularism” in order to avoid confusion (because the word “secularism” alone may be ambiguous). The republican model is clearly superior to the Anglo-American model, but if English Canadians are too ethnocentric or pig-headed to admit this, they must at least recognize Quebec’s jurisdiction in this matter and stop meddling in that province’s internal affairs.

Canada is a federation in which provinces have a certain degree of autonomy. Bill 21 is within Quebec’s provincial jurisdiction. When people from outside Quebec intervene in an attempt to repeal a Quebec law like Bill 21, democratically adopted and supported by the majority of the population of that province, then those intervenors are practising a form of neo-colonialism and cultural imperialism. And this from a people who swear by so-called “multiculturalism” as some kind of dogma! Obviously, that prefix “multi” does not include the Québécois.

Given a choice between republican secularism and religious privilege—including privileges for political Islam—only a fool, or a religious leader, would choose to support the latter. But that is what opponents of Bill 21 are choosing.

Their cowardly conformism to the dominant ideology of cultural relativism confuses other secularists and weakens the cause enormously.

Those organizations which claim to be secular, while hypocritically opposing secularism in the one place in Canada which is making real progress in that direction, are arguably the worst. Their cowardly conformism to the dominant ideology of cultural relativism confuses other secularists and weakens the cause enormously. The very people who should be putting their energies into supporting initiatives such as Bill 21 and making public statements to counter the hysterical anti-secularism of the Anglo-Canadian press and politicians are doing just the opposite. They have betrayed this important cause—and the many Canadians who support Bill 21—by choosing convenience over principle and religious privilege over separation.

If the current court challenge to Bill 21 reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, which is probable, and if that Court strikes the law down, which is possible, that decision will surely cause a major constitutional crisis. This in turn will, in all probability, lead to a huge increase in support for the Quebec independence movement, which eventually may lead to a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec.

Quebec will continue its process of secularization which it started over half a century ago at the beginning of the Quiet Revolution. It can continue that progress either as a province within Canada, or as an independent secular republic.

Next blog: Bill 21 as Seen by Four Quebec Secularists

Quebec Bill 21 for Dummies

Abbreviated Version


A summary of the basic facts about Bill 21 and the controversy surrounding it.

Sommaire en français
Un résumé des faits essentiels concernant la Loi 21 et la controverse à son sujet.
Ce blogue est aussi disponible en français.

Given that Quebec Bill 21 is in the news again and many misconceptions, misunderstandings and outright lies are being spread, it is time to establish a few important facts. Here is the minimum you need to know.

  1. Bill 21 is law which partially implements State secularism in Quebec and which imposes a very minor, even trivial, restriction on the freedom of expression of some State employees, by banning them from wearing religious symbols on the job. This in no way impacts their freedom of belief. This is done to protect the freedoms of other people: users of civil services and especially schoolchildren. This is basically what all laws do: seek an equilibrium between conflicting freedoms. Bill 21 does a reasonably good job at that, although it is too weak.
  2. Quebec is in the vanguard of secularism in the Americas. Many people in English Canada do not understand this, or refuse to understand it.
  3. Many people and groups oppose secularism for various reasons. But there is one anti-secularism force which is particularly virulent and dangerous: political Islam, which is an international extreme right-wing politico-religious movement, also known as Islamism.
  4. One of political Islam’s preferred propaganda tools is the Islamic veil, which it promotes anywhere and everywhere it can. It has had enormous success imposing the veil in Muslim-majority countries where a few decades ago the veil was rarely seen in cities. By having women wear this propaganda tool, they can play the victim card very effectively. The veil is both religious and political, especially the latter. Its meaning is independent of the mentality of the women who wear it, who are often unaware of the veil’s full implications but feel pressure to conform by wearing it.
  5. Islam and even Islamism enjoy enormous preferential treatment from the so-called left (and increasingly from the centre, like Justin Trudeau), for historical and ideological reasons related to the spectacular success and equally spectacular ultimate failure of Marxism.
  6. Ethnic bigotry against Francophone Quebeckers is a major theme throughout Canadian history. Islamists have greatly exploited it. Anglo-Canadian fear of the Quebec independence movement increased this prejudice in recent decades. English Canada’s hysterical opposition to Bill 21 is largely (but not entirely) a hate-propaganda campaign against the Québécois.

Next blog: La Loi 21 pour les nuls