Tag: homosexuality

Lettre aux médias pour dénoncer le Conseil québécois LGBT

2020-08-10

Notre lettre aux médias pour dénoncer l’antilaïcité et le comportement antidémocratique du Conseil québécois LGBT. Le principal auteur est André Gagnon, auquel s’ajoutent de nombreux cosignataires. Voir à ce sujet mon blogue précédent Le Conseil québécois LGBT refuse mon adhésion.

Summary in English Our letter to the media to denonce the antisecular position and antidemocratic behaviour of the Conseil québécois LGBT. The main author is André Gagnon, joined by numerous co-signers. For further information, see my previous blog Le Conseil québécois LGBT refuse mon adhésion.

Le Conseil québécois LGBT est-il devenu une chapelle ?
QUAND ON PRATIQUE L’EXCLUSION AU NOM DES ‘VALEURS D’INCLUSION’

Les 13 et 14 mars derniers, se tenait à Montréal le premier congrès du Conseil québécois LGBT, un regroupement LGBT qui se présente comme la voix des communautés LGBT au Québec. Issu de la Table de concertation des lesbiennes et gais du Québec, c’était la première consultation qui se voulait ouverte à la communauté en 15 ans de ce Conseil depuis qu’il a mis fin à sa pratique initiale de tenir aux 3 ou 4 ans des États-généraux des communautés LGBT pour établir ses priorités d’action, le dernier exercice du genre s’étant tenu à Québec en 2004. Depuis sa reconnaissance et son financement par le Secrétariat à l’action communautaire autonome, cette pratique démocratique avait été abandonnée.

Lors de l’annonce de ce congrès, plusieurs militants et militantes LGBT se sont dit que ce serait l’occasion de s’exprimer sur la prise de position contre le projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de ce Conseil adoptée en catimini en mai 2019, prise de position qu’elles avaient vivement dénoncée. Une prise de position contraire aux positions d’une très nette majorité des membres des communautés LGBT et d’autant plus étonnante qu’en 2013-2014 le même Conseil s’était abstenu de prendre position sur le projet de Charte de la laïcité présenté par le gouvernement Marois en invoquant l’absence de consensus en son sein. C’est ce silence qui avait amené plusieurs membres de nos communautés à créer le collectif LGBT pour la laïcité pour porter les préoccupations LGBT dans ce débat. Est-il nécessaire de rappeler que les LGBT ont été parmi les groupes sociaux à le plus bénéficier de la séparation progressive des Églises et de l’État, l’homophobie et la transphobie étant d’abord et avant tout religieuse à l’origine dans l’histoire du Québec ? Et qu’encore aujourd’hui les attaques contre nos droits se font largement en Amérique du nord au nom de la primauté de la liberté religieuse sur la non-discrimination ?

Dans la convocation de ce congrès, les organismes et les personnes LGBT étaient toutes invitées à adhérer au Conseil et on leur disait qu’elles pourraient ainsi faire entendre leur voix dans l’établissement des priorités d’action. Le collectif LGBT pour la laïcité et plusieurs personnes ont donc décidé de s’inscrire pour participer à ce congrès. Quelle ne fut pas leur surprise de se faire répondre dans un premier temps que les demandes d’adhésion seraient étudiées par le Conseil d’administration après le Congrès ce qui contredisait les termes mêmes de sa convocation. Quand le porte-parole du collectif LGBT pour la laïcité, André Gagnon, lui-même un ancien co-président de l’organisme et l’un des principaux organisateurs et hôte des derniers États-généraux tenus en 2004, s’est présenté pour participer au Congrès, le conseil d’administration a refusé de le laisser y participer même comme observateur. Quand il a invoqué qu’il était éditeur de médias LGBT depuis plus de 20 ans et a demandé d’y participer pour couvrir l’événement, on lui a même refusé en arguant que les médias n’étaient pas admis même si on a reconnu qu’aucune directive n’avait été explicitement émise à cet égard, une première dans la communauté LGBT. Les membres du Conseil d’administration dudit Conseil dont le président Thierry Arnaud et la trésorière Mona Greenbaum lui ont même demandé de quitter les lieux et mis la sécurité à ses trousses même dans le lobby de l’hôtel, menaçant de faire intervenir la police s’il ne partait pas.

Le chat est sorti clairement du sac quand trois mois plus tard on a reçu la réponse aux demandes d’adhésion individuelles faites avant le Congrès. Le militant pour la laïcité bien connu David Rand qui a piloté jusqu’à la Chambre des communes une pétition pour obtenir l’abrogation de l’article 319.3.b du Code criminel (article qui permet de se réfugier derrière ses textes et opinions religieuses pour tenir des propos haineux, une exception élargie en 2004 à la demande des Conservateurs pour protéger l’homophobie religieuse lorsqu’on a rajouté l’orientation sexuelle à la définition de groupe identifiable) s’est ainsi vu refuser l’adhésion en raison de son appui à la loi 21 sous prétexte que ses positions sont contraires ‘aux valeurs d’inclusion’ de l’organisme. Ce qui revient à dire que le conseil d’administration de ce Conseil sans jamais en avoir discuté largement avec la communauté qu’il prétend représenter, ni même lors d’un débat ouvert à son congrès, se permet d’exclure de ses rangs toute personne LGBT favorable à la laïcité, c’est-à-dire la très nette majorité des membres de cette communauté au Québec. Voilà qui en dit long sur les ‘valeurs d’inclusion’ et les pratiques ‘démocratiques’ du Conseil d’administration de cet organisme qui se comporte comme une chapelle politique ou idéologique et non comme un mouvement démocratique ayant le souci de défendre les droits et intérêts et de représenter les communautés LGBT.

Ces pratiques sont d’autant plus condamnables que ce ‘conseil’ est essentiellement financé par des deniers publics à travers différents programmes des gouvernements du Québec et du Canada. De plus, elles constituent un dangereux précédent. Jamais dans l’histoire de ces communautés on a exclu d’un organisme LGBT des personnes membres de ces communautés sans que leurs convictions ou agissements portent directement atteinte aux droits des personnes LGBT ou aient porté gravement atteinte à l’organisme.

Aussi, nous croyons que ce Conseil doit revenir sur sa décision, admettre en ses rangs les militantes et militants LGBT pour la laïcité et tenir un débat vraiment démocratique sur les enjeux de laïcité eu égard aux droits LGBT et sur comment contrer l’homophobie religieuse qui demeure le seul rempart légal de l’homophobie au Québec et au Canada. À défaut de quoi, nous croyons que les gouvernements devraient reconsidérer le financement de ce Conseil qui agit comme une chapelle idéologique en violation de tous les droits et libertés démocratiques garanties aux citoyennes et citoyens. À défaut, nous croyons aussi qu’il faudrait après quinze ans de fonctionnement en vase clos penser sérieusement à mettre en place un organisme vraiment démocratique et représentatif des communautés LGBT de toutes les régions du Québec.

Signataires :

  • André Gagnon
  • David Rand
  • Jean-Yves Ahern
  • Maxime Archambault-Chapleau
  • Steve Audy
  • Claude Barabé
  • Robert Beauchamp, libraire
  • Maude Beaulac
  • Martin Bédard
  • Thomas Bélanger
  • Mario Bérubé
  • Michelle Blanc
  • Claude Blouin
  • Jacques Brosseau
  • Gilles Brouillet
  • Daniel Campeau
  • Alain Canty
  • Louis Cardin
  • Perri Casagrande
  • Stéphane Casselot
  • Sébastien Charbonneau
  • Claude Daigle
  • Fernand Delorme
  • Nicole Demers, humaniste
  • Richard F Desrosiers
  • Jean-François Dion
  • Nathalie Di Palma
  • François Doyon, philosophe
  • Jacques Dupuis
  • Jean-Yves Duthel
  • René Gagné
  • Ghislain Garneau
  • Johanne H Gaudreault
  • Christian Généreux
  • Pierre Girard
  • Yvon Goulet
  • Maggye A. Gravel
  • Marie-Andrée Guilbault
  • Louis Guillemette
  • Alexandre Guilmette
  • Danielle Haché
  • Paul Haince
  • Louis Labrecque, gay agnostique et humaniste
  • Éric Lacoursière
  • Michel Lapointe
  • Patrick Larochelle, gay et athée
  • Dominique Larocque
  • Brian LeCompte
  • Serge Lemay
  • Luc Lemoine
  • Christine LeSeigle
  • Émilien Létourneau
  • Éric Malouin
  • Pierre Paquette
  • Gilles E Pelletier
  • Guy Perkins
  • Danièle Perreault
  • Richard Plamondon
  • Ulysse Plourde
  • Daphné Poirier
  • Guy Prémont
  • Samuel Pierre-Alexandre Rasmussen, libre-penseur.
  • Élaine Riel
  • Sylvain Riendeau
  • Jérémie Patrick Sammon
  • Stéphanie Maude Savard
  • Michel Soulard
  • Éric Tremblay
  • Mario Venditti

Next blog: Les « Woke » ne sont pas de gauche

Le Conseil québécois LGBT refuse mon adhésion

Pourquoi ? Parce que j’appuie la laïcité

2020-06-09

Un autre example de l’hypocrisie abjecte de la pseudo-gauche dite régressive. Cette fois-ci, il s’agit d’une association LGBT qui capitule devant l’obscurantisme religieux.

Summary in English Another example of the abject hypocrisy of the regressive pseudo-left. This time, it’s an LGBT organization capitulating to religious obscurantism.

La « gauche » régressive phagocyte et détruit tout mouvement anciennement progressiste qu’elle infecte. En voilà un autre exemple.

Récemment j’ai faite une demande d’adhésion au Conseil québécois LGBT. Ils ont exigé que j’explique les raisons de mon désir d’adhérer. Alors, le 9 avril dernier, j’ai écrit ceci :

« Je désire adhérer au Conseil québécois LGBT afin de faire valoir l’importance d’appuyer la laïcité. J’ai été très déçu de voir que le CA du Conseil a pris position contre le Loi 21. Cette prise de position contre la laïcité est incohérente et va à l’encontre de droits des gais, des lesbiennes et des autres minorités sexuelles. La Loi 21 aide à renforcer les droits de tous les citoyens et de toutes les citoyennes en exigeant la neutralité religieuse des fonctionnaires en position d’autorité. Les religions sont la principale cause d’homophobie et de transphobie dans le monde. L’affichage de signes religieux par les fonctionnaires au travail constitue de la publicité religieuse pour ces idéologies rétrogrades.

Je voudrais donc devenir membre afin de faire valoir, au sein du Conseil, l’importance de la laïcité pour les gais, les lesbiennes et les autres minorités sexuelles. »

Je viens de recevoir la réponse aujourd’hui, le 8 juin 2020 :

« D’abord, je tiens à vous remercier pour votre intérêt envers le Conseil québécois LGBT. Toutes les nouvelles candidatures passent par un processus d’évaluation et la décision est ensuite prise par le conseil d’administration du CQ LGBT. C’est suite à ce processus que nous sommes dans l’obligation de vous informer que votre candidature n’a pas été acceptée.

Vous devez savoir que le conseil d’administration est mandaté par les membres du CQ-LGBT afin d’assurer une gouvernance inclusive de l’ensemble des réalités LGBTQ+. Par ailleurs, les positions endossées par le CQ-LGBT sont prises en consultation avec nos membres. D’ailleurs, ces dernier.es sont impliqué.es dans la construction collective du plan de revendications qui sera porté par le Conseil par la suite.

En raison de vos positions sur la laïcité, comme expliquées dans votre formulaire de candidature, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d’accepter votre candidature. Malheureusement, vos positions vont à l’encontre des valeurs d’inclusion et d’ouverture portées par le Conseil québécois LGBT.

Malgré les divergences de valeurs entre vous et notre organisation, nous tenons tout de même à vous remercier de votre intérêt pour l’avancement des droits pour nos communautés. »

Alors, la phrase fatidique : « valeurs d’inclusion et d’ouverture » !!!!

Évidemment, la position du Conseil québécois LGBT est d’une hypocrisie et d’une incohérence abjectes.

Mais pire encore, c’est le fait que cet organisme reçoit des subventions importantes des fonds publics. Voici une citation d’un communiqué de presse du gouvernement fédéral, le 6 septembre 2019 :

Aujourd’hui, l’honorable Maryam Monsef, ministre du Développement international et ministre des Femmes et de l’Égalité des genres, ainsi que Randy Boissonnault, conseiller spécial du premier ministre sur les questions LGBTQ2, ont annoncé l’octroi d’un montant de près de 670 000 $ à deux projets menés par le Conseil québécois LGBT, un organisme-cadre LGBTQ2 à Montréal.

Ce sont nos impôts qui paient pour imposer la politique anti-laïque de cet organisme.

Prochain blogue : L’ineptie d’Émile Bilodeau

Pride & Shame in Toronto & London

Islamophilia Infests LGBT Pride Marches

2017-07-20, updated 2017-07-22

A report of how pro-Islamist groups have attempted to censor criticism of Islamic homophobia at two recent LGBT pride marches.

Sommaire en français Comment plusieurs groupes pro-Islamist ont essayé de faire taire la critique de l’homophobie islamique lors de deux récents défilés de la fierté LGBT.

Recently two pride marches — in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and in London, England — have been marred by attempts to censor legitimate criticism of Islam, Islamism and Islamic homophobia.

Toronto

At the Toronto event on June 25th, a contingent of Iranian gays and other sexual minorities marched to protest the extreme homophobia of the brutal regime which rules their home country. However, they were almost prevented from doing so by a group of so-called “anti-fascists” as can be seen in the video Leftists call Muslim refugees islamophobic at Toronto Pride. I am not sure what group it was, as Antifa Toronto claims that they were not involved. At any rate, as Maryam Namazie reports:

[…] some ‘anti-fascists’ surrounded Iranian refugees and LGBTQ activists and absurdly chanted ‘No Hate at Pride’ – as if defending LGBTQ people in Iran or countries under Islamic rule is ‘hateful’.

Police intervention ensured that they weren’t able to stop the Iranians from joining Pride as the video below shows.

The irony of “anti-fascist” activists accusing an Iranian holding a sign saying “I am Muslim and condemn the persecution of LGBTQ+ in Islamic countries” of “Islamophobia” was clearly lost on them. It’s just another example of how criticism of Islamism or even Islam is conflated with bigotry against Muslims at the expense of dissenters and to the advantage of Islamists.

Source: In Toronto LGBT Iranians were branded as ‘Islamophobes’

This incident is yet another clear example, as if one were needed, of how use of the censorious accusation of “Islamophobia” enables Islamofascism by making it even more difficult to criticize the excesses of political Islam and Islamist theocracies. In particular this harms the people who are already in a difficult position: gays, other sexual minorities, apostates, etc. who are persecuted by Islam.

Last year (2016) Toronto Pride was disrupted by the organization Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesting the presence of police in the march. BLM activists were successful in forcing Pride organizers to ban police participation, so this year a contingent of Toronto police went all the way to New York City to march in their gay pride parade!

When I was very actively involved in the gay movement back in the 1970s (we quaintly called it “Gay Liberation” in those days), even the thought of police actually participating in our march would have been preposterous. The police were there on duty, only for basic security and control, certainly not as participants. Relations between gays and the police were very strained indeed because the police were often very homophobic and barely tolerated our existence. But times have changed greatly since then.

The 2016 incident with BLM may appear unrelated to this year’s attempt to block Iranian refugees and LGBTQ activists. But the two incidents are indeed related. (1) Firstly, if one consults the list of demands on the web site of BLM-Toronto, we see that the demand “END ISLAMOPHOBIA & WHITE SUPREMACY” features prominently. That statement is extremely problematic for two reasons: it declares “Islamophobia” to be something one should fight against, which is nonsense, because there is nothing irrational or objectionable about fearing a dangerous religion such as Islam (or Christianity, or several others). Even worse, the statement lumps “white supremacy” — which indeed is a very dangerous and reprehensible form of racism — in with it. Such an inconsistent and ridiculous demand shows that whoever prepared the list is not even clear about what racism is, because a religion has nothing to do with race. How can we support an ostensibly anti-racist organization which is so evidently incompetent? (2) Secondly, Toronto police were involved in both incidents.

When so-called “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist” groups take actions which are more regressive than those of the police, then it is time for the leaders and members of those groups to undertake some serious reflection.

In both incidents, a group denouncing “Islamophobia” and thus showing its affinity with the regressive pro-Islamist “left” disrupted or attempted to disrupt the event. In both incidents, Toronto police took a position which was ironically more progressive than that of either BLM or the “antifas.” In the first incident police wanted to march for gay rights but were prevented. In the second they intervened and allowed the Iranians to march for gay rights. When so-called “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist” groups take actions which are more regressive than those of the police, then it is time for the leaders and members of those groups to undertake some serious reflection.

London

Meanwhile, across the pond in London, events transpired which somewhat resembled those in Toronto two weeks earlier. The group Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain marched in the July 8th Pride parade carrying banners with slogans such as “ALLAH IS GAY,” “FUCK ISLAMIC HOMOPHOBIA,” and my personal favourite “WE’RE HERE, WE’RE KAFFIR, GET USED TO IT.” (The term “kaffir” or “kafir” means a non-Muslim or an apostate of Islam.) It was a great success, as can be seen in the video The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) participates in Pride and in the report on the CEMB web site. CEMB’s participation was not blocked, although “police initially tried to remove placards with the slogan ‘Allah is Gay’ because of complaints of ‘offence’.”

More negative reactions came quickly in the aftermath of the march. The East London Mosque was so upset that it filed a formal complaint with Pride festival organizers. They of course denounced CEMB’s participation as “Islamophobic” and they criticized placards naming the Mosque as promoting homophobia. And they were particularly irate about the “ALLAH IS GAY” slogan.

Now, the slogan “Allah is gay” is of course meaningless, because Allah is a fictional character. It is like saying, “Superman likes blueberries” or “Thor is left-handed.” Nevertheless, it is a very useful slogan because it exposes homophobia. Indeed, the very fact that the East London Mosque was so offended by it means that they are homophobic, because they consider that calling their god gay is shameful. But in reality, it is the other way around. It is insulting to gays to be associated with such a distasteful character as Allah. But we know he is fictional, so we are not offended. And even if he were real, that would not justify censorship of the slogan.

The mosque accused CEMB of inciting hatred of Muslims, which of course they were not at all doing. CEMB was simply denouncing homophobia — and sometimes very violent and even deadly homophobia — based on Islam and enforced by theocratic regimes. As Maryam Namazie, speaking for CEMB in an email, declared:

the very reason CEMB was at Pride was to combat hate and to highlight the 13 states under Islamic rule that kill gay men (14 if we include Daesh-held territories). We included placards on the East London mosque to bring attention to the fact that there are mosques here in Britain that promote the death penalty for homosexuality and apostasy.

As ex-Muslims, we are at risk from hate preachers that speak at some mosques and universities; our gay members are at an increased risk.

The East London Mosque has a long history of hosting hate preachers who incite against blasphemers, apostates and homosexuals so we felt naming and shaming them was very apt.

Unfortunately, Pride organizers have so far reacted badly, denouncing CEMB. In the words of a spokesperson:

“All volunteers, staff and parade groups agree that Pride celebrates diversity and will not tolerate any discrimination of any kind. While our parade has always been a home to protest, which often means conflicting points of view, Pride must always be a movement of acceptance, diversity and unity. We will not tolerate Islamophobia.”

Evidently, the organizers do not accept a diversity of opinion and have bought into the dishonest propaganda of those who use accusations of “Islamophobia” as a form of bullying to silence legitimate criticism of Islamic ideology.

But CEMB has fought back rapidly, declaring that ‘They are trying to silence us’. Speaking for CEMB, Maryam Namazie said:

“Why are signs critical of Islam (a belief) and Islamism (a far-right political movement) ‘anti-Muslim’?” Muslims are people, with as many different opinions as anyone else. They are not a homogeneous group but individuals. Some will agree with us, others won’t. In fact, several Muslims visiting from Bangladesh joined us. The incredible support we received from minorities in the crowd cheering us on is a reflection of that. Not everyone was offended. And offence can never be a reason to censor and silence dissent.”

“[…] the climate we live in where bullies and homophobes are rewarded and victims blamed.”

As for the East London Mosque:

“The fact that […] their complaint is taken seriously by Pride speaks volumes about the climate we live in where bullies and homophobes are rewarded and victims blamed. The real problem for them is that we are ex-Muslims. We are not allowed to speak or show ourselves or challenge views that degrade and denigrate us.”

Apostasy is a Human Right!

Bravo to the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and to Iranian and other Muslim refugees who support LGBT rights! And shame on all those who attempt to silence criticism of Islam or Islamism! Freedom for Muslim gays and other sexual minorities and freedom for ex-Muslims whose only “crime” is to exercise their freedom of conscience!

Next blog: Quebec’s Right to Self-Determination

Fools Against “Islamophobia”

How the Regressive Left Neutralizes the Gay Movement

2017-01-29

In this blog I present two examples of LGBT activists who, instead of pursuing the necessary fight against religious homophobia, become dupes of the imposture of “Islamophobia.”

Sommaire en français Dans le présent blogue je donne deux exemples de militants LGBT qui, au lieu de faire la nécessaire lutte à l’homophobie religieuse, se font duper par l’imposture de l’« islamophobie ».

First, a quick reminder of the horrific event in Orlando, Florida, last June, as described by Wikipedia:

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a terrorist attack/hate crime inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. […] It was both the deadliest mass shooting by a single shooter and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in United States history. It was also the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the September 11 attacks in 2001. In a 9-1-1 call shortly after the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the shooting was “triggered” by the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month.

Thus we have a massacre, an act of murderous terrorism, motivated primarily by Islamism and homophobia.

Now consider the following quotation taken from a “Solidarity Statement from LGBTIQ communities against Islamophobia” issued by the AIDS Network of several southwestern Ontario communities and co-signed by dozens of gay, lesbian and other organizations from Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa and other localities in Ontario. (A copy of the document is also available here.) The statement, dated June 24th 2016, less than two weeks after the Orlando atrocity, declares:

We issue this statement against Islamophobia and in support of Muslim communities across Ontario. In the early hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016, (7 Ramadan, 1437), in Orlando, Florida, 49 people were killed and 53 people wounded in a shooting at a nightclub popular with members of the LGBTIQ communities. Most of those killed were LGBTIQ People of Colour, primarily Latino and Black. […] For people in LGBTIQ communities who identify as Muslim, this past week has also been particularly challenging as they deal with the shock and pain of the attack on LGBTQ people as well as facing the fear of increased racial profiling and Islamophobia. […] There has been a rise in hate speech against Muslims. Some are using this attack on LGBTIQ people to justify their racism and Islamophobia. […]

So let us summarize: An atrocious act of religiously motivated homophobia occurs, and what do these Ontario organizations do: they issue a statement in support of co-religionists of the perpetrator of the act, because somehow, in their warped imaginations, the possibility of antipathy towards those who practice Islam is worse than murdering gays in the name of Islam. They even give the Islamic date of the attack! Disgusting.

Imagine if a Christian fanatic, motivated by their faith, were to attack an abortion clinic, killing and wounding dozens of doctors, nurses and patients, and suppose that feminists, instead of condemning Christian misogyny and asserting their support for women’s right to control their own reproduction, were instead to sympathize with those poor Christians who might have to suffer dirty looks from their neighbours for the next few days because of resentment over this act. The total inversion (and perversion) of priorities here is obvious.

The appropriate response to the Orlando terrorist attack should have been, and was, for those of us who preserved our sanity, to denounce religious homophobia in general and Muslim homophobia in particular. Islam does not deserve special treatment any more favorable that Christianity receives. Islamic homophobia is just as virulent as Christian homophobia, and arguably much more so currently. Just as we categorically and resolutely condemn Christian homophobia, Islamic homophobia deserves at least similar condemnation.

LGBT Against Islamophobia at Birmingham Pride 2015Click to view full size
Source: LGBT Against Islamophobia

Another example: Consider the photo on the right found on the web site of LGBT Against Islamophobia. We see a bunch of colourful people at Birmingham Pride 2015 carrying a banner denouncing “Islamophobia,” “racism” and “fascism” and promoting “diversity.” It must be pointed out that:

  1. The term “Islamophobia” is obvious bullshit, a word whose purpose is to censor criticism of Islam.
  2. The word “racism” is inappropriate here because Islam is a religion and has nothing to do with race.
  3. The term “fascism” is worse than inappropriate, indeed it is hypocritical, because fundamentalist Islam is every bit as totalitarian as fascism, indeed more so.
  4. Furthermore, “diversity” is just a nonsense buzzword whose true meaning is that if you disagree with the previous sentiments, you will be accused of xenophobia or racism or worse. In the age of Islamophilia, the word “diversity” has become a form of bullying just like the other three words.

Fortunately, some clever individual had the perspicacity to take the Birmingham photo and join another relevant photo to it. Here is the result:

Gays for Islam, Islam for GaysClick to view full size
Gays for Islam, Islam for Gays

Blasphemy in the XXIst Century

The obsession with “Islamophobia” and similar specious accusations are used by the regressive left to silence necessary criticism of Islam and Islamism (the latter being a subset of the former). The accusation is a modern form of censorship of blasphemy, where the ban is enforced using intimidation. This bullying has effectively neutralized entire sections of the gay rights movement (but fortunately not all, see below) and other progressive movements.

Those who practise this form of bullying are partially responsible for the current wave of events such as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, both of which were motivated in part by a desire for popular sovereignty, the ability of the people to have some control over their condition (i.e. democracy), a concept which has been denigrated and vilified by the regressive left by associating nationalism and populism totally with racism and xenophobia. In the words of Sohrab Ahmari of the Wall Street Journal:

[…] freedom of movement is unraveling now because liberals won central debates—about Islamism, social cohesion and nationalism. Rather than give ground on any of these fronts, they accused opponents of being phobic and reactionary. Now liberals are reaping the rewards of those underhanded victories.

[…]

For too many liberals, every Islamist atrocity was cause to fret about the “Islamophobic” backlash it was sure to trigger. This had become an almost an automatic reflex: When a jihadist would go boom somewhere, liberal hashtags expressing solidarity with threatened Muslim minorities were never far behind. But liberals didn’t bother nearly as much about the pathologies in Muslim communities, and in Islamic civilization itself, that were producing so much carnage. Some liberals would sooner abandon their own feminist and gay-rights orthodoxies than criticize what imams in certain suburbs of Paris and London were telling their congregations about Afghanistan and defending the honor of the ummah.

How Liberals Killed the Freedom of Movement

Where Ahmari refers to “liberals,” he is talking of course about regressive liberals. (In the USA, where there is basically no political left left, the term “liberal” is about as far left as one can generally go.)

An Appropriate Response

As mentioned above, the appropriate response to the Orlando terrorist attack should have been to denounce religious homophobia in general and Muslim homophobia in particular. That is indeed what I and my friends of the group LGBT pour la laïcité (LGBT for Secularism) did at the Montreal Gay Pride march in August of 2016, about a month after the Orlando atrocity. In the photo below you can see the banner of the group with the slogan “L’HOMOPHOBIE RELIGIEUSE TUE” or “RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBIA KILLS.”

LGBT for Secularism in 2016 Montreal Pride ParadeClick to view full size
Contingent of the group LGBT pour la laïcité (LGBT for Secularism)
in the 2016 Montreal Pride Parade

Next blog: The Quebec City Attack: Some Context