islam Archives - David Rand

Le conformisme lassant de Toula Drimonis

Normaliser le hijab est inacceptable

2024-08-08

Journaliste et antilaïque Toula Drimonis récidive ! Elle affirme que l’image d’une femme en hijab à l’entrée de l’hôtel de ville de Montréal, récemment rénové, est géniale et n’a aucune signification religieuse ! Pourtant, le hijab est chargé de sens religieux et politique, que la femme qui le porte en soit consciente ou non.

Summary in English Journalist and antisecularist Toula Drimonis is at it again. She claims that the image of a hijabi at the entrance to Montreal’s newly renovated city hall is just hunky-dory, with no religious significance! On the contrary, the hijab is loaded with religious and political meaning, regardless of whether the woman wearing it is aware.

This blog is available in English: The Tedious Conformism of Toula Drimonis

S’il y a jamais eu le moindre doute sur la vacuité des mots « inclusif » et « diversifié » lorsqu’ils sont utilisés par des idéologues antilaïques, ce doute a été dissipé par la dernière diatribe de Toula Drimonis “Montreal City Hall’s inclusive gesture is met with anger” (« Le geste inclusif de l’hôtel de ville de Montréal suscite la colère »), parue le 25 juillet 2024 dans The Gazette. Drimonis refuse de reconnaître la duplicité du choix de l’image qui accueille les visiteurs dans l’hôtel de ville récemment rénové. Après avoir retiré le crucifix de la salle du conseil pour respecter la laïcité, la nouvelle image montre trois personnes, dont une femme portant le hijab.

Mais, affirme Drimonis, cette image ne se trouve pas dans la salle du conseil, elle « n’a donc aucune influence, ni sur la mairie, ni sur la gouvernance civique » et « ne représente pas la religion ». Absurdité. Le choix de l’image d’une hijabi est chargé de signification, tout comme le hijab lui-même a une signification objective quelle que soit l’intention de la femme qui le porte. Drimonis elle-même admet que l’image correspond à la nature « multiculturelle et diversifiée » de Montréal, ignorant allègrement que le multiculturalisme est une idéologie très tendancieuse, un euphémisme pour le relativisme culturel et le multi-tribalisme. Il est incompatible avec l’universalisme nécessaire aux droits humains. Mais le multiculturalisme, soutenu par des mots galvaudés tels que « diversité » et « inclusivité », est l’idéologie promue à la fois par Drimonis et par la mairesse Valérie Plante.

…les religions et leurs signes bénéficient d’un niveau de respect et de déférence au-delà de toute raison et qui ne serait jamais accordé aux idéologies et symboles politiques.

Ce choix d’image est un affront délibéré à la laïcité et à la population québécoise qui la soutient avec enthousiasme. C’est une déclaration qui signifie que l’appartenance religieuse prime sur toute autre considération. En particulier, les religions et leurs signes bénéficient d’un niveau de respect et de déférence au-delà de toute raison et qui ne serait jamais accordé aux idéologies et symboles politiques.

Drimonis comprend-elle la signification du hijab ? Bien entendu, il s’agit d’un symbole religieux, raison suffisante pour l’éviter dans ce contexte. Toute manifestation partisane, religieuse ou politique, serait inacceptable. De plus, le hijab est un étendard de l’islam politique, un symbole de la culture du viol et de l’asservissement de la femme. Le hijab, comme toutes les variantes du voile islamique, est un sceau de pureté, indiquant que celle qui le porte est une bonne musulmane et, plus important encore, que toute femme — en particulier une femme musulmane — qui n’en porte pas est impure et mérite de passer l’éternité en enfer. Cette signification est indépendante de la mentalité de la femme qui le porte. Celle-ci peut être inconsciente de cette signification, comme Drimonis l’est, ou du moins prétend l’être.

…nous devrions prendre des mesures pour freiner la propagation d’un symbole aussi extrêmement misogyne…

Le voile islamique est odieux. Le normaliser est inacceptable. Le célébrer, comme le font la mairie et Drimonis, est obscène. En tant que société, nous devrions prendre des mesures pour freiner la propagation d’un symbole aussi extrêmement misogyne, d’autant plus que cette propagation est une stratégie volontaire des islamistes.

Les interdictions de symboles dans la fonction publique telles que celles prévues dans la Loi 21 imposent une éthique professionnelle. C’est exactement le genre de mesure qu’il faut : interdire les symboles de toutes les religions (évitant ainsi toute discrimination) dans certaines circonstances formelles, c’est-à-dire lorsque le porteur est un fonctionnaire ou un enseignant en service, mais maintenir une pleine liberté dans d’autres contextes. Mais Drimonis ne parvient pas à faire la distinction entre le contexte civique où l’interdiction s’applique et le contexte public mais non civique (par exemple, des non-employés vaquant à leurs occupations privées en public) où elle ne s’applique pas.

La laïcité repose sur le constat que la religion et l’État ne font pas bon ménage et que leur séparation est nécessaire pour protéger les droits humains, en particulier la liberté de conscience.

Drimonis est tristement connue pour son opposition à la laïcité en général et à la Loi 21 en particulier. Elle utilise un stratagème malhonnête, courant parmi les antilaïques : elle prétend soutenir la laïcité tout en proposant une fausse définition de celle-ci, la minant et l’affaiblissant. Dans un article publié peu après l’adoption de la loi en 2019, elle a écrit que « la véritable laïcité de l’État n’a rien à voir avec l’interdiction des signes religieux ». Mais si ! Il faut les interdire dans certains contextes. La laïcité repose sur le constat que la religion et l’État ne font pas bon ménage et que leur séparation est nécessaire pour protéger les droits humains, en particulier la liberté de conscience. Cette liberté comprend à la fois la liberté de croyance religieuse et la liberté de s’en affranchir. La Loi 21 reconnaît que les citoyens et les élèves méritent des institutions et des services publics exempts de prosélytisme religieux, y compris le prosélytisme passif des symboles portés par le personnel qui travaille.

Drimonis laisserait apparemment libre cours aux religions, comme si elle les trouvait totalement anodines. Ignore-t-elle que, dans l’islam par exemple, l’apostasie est considérée comme un péché abominable ? Cette doctrine est complètement incompatible avec la liberté de conscience. Quant à nous qui soutenons la séparation entre la religion et l’État parce que nous voyons les religions comme des menaces potentielles aux droits humains, ce qui est effectivement le cas si elles acquièrent une influence politique, Drimonis nous traite avec mépris, comme si notre attitude n’était que le symptôme malheureux d’une maladie mentale. Elle affiche un mépris similaire pour le droit des enfants à une éducation exempte de prosélytisme idéologique.

En Europe, la France est à l’avant-garde en matière de laïcité. Celle-ci est menacée par des fanatiques religieux tels que les islamistes et les catholiques pieux, et cette menace est encore aggravée par le soutien des islamogauchistes tels que le parti politique La France Insoumise (LFI).

Ici en Amérique du Nord, le Québec est à l’avant-garde et la laïcité y est également menacée. Les alliés objectifs de l’islam politique et des autres intégristes ici au Canada sont des conformistes imbuvables comme Toula Drimonis, prête à bafouer les droits des élèves, tout en prétextant défendre les minorités religieuses « stigmatisées », alors qu’en réalité son action favorise les fanatiques religieux. Les plus fanatiques sont des hommes qui ont pour but de normaliser le port du voile et de le rendre pratiquement obligatoire pour les femmes musulmanes. La fonction du hijab est de stigmatiser les femmes musulmanes qui ne le portent pas, qui sont donc insuffisamment pieuses selon ces intégristes.

Next blog: Bouazzi ne lutte pas contre le racisme

The Tedious Conformism of Toula Drimonis

Normalizing the Hijab is Unacceptable

2024-07-31

Journalist and antisecularist Toula Drimonis is at it again. She claims that the image of a hijabi at the entrance to Montreal’s newly renovated city hall is just hunky-dory, with no religious significance! On the contrary, the hijab is loaded with religious and political meaning, regardless of whether the woman wearing it is aware.

Sommaire en français Journaliste et antilaïciste Toula Drimonis récidive ! Elle affirme que l’image d’une femme en hijab à l’entrée de l’hôtel de ville de Montréal, récemment rénové, est géniale et n’a aucune signification religieuse ! Pourtant, le hijab est chargé de sens religieux et politique, que la femme qui le porte en soit consciente ou non.

Ce billet de blogue est disponible en français : Le conformisme lassant de Toula Drimonis

If there were ever any doubt about the vacuity of the words “inclusive” and “diverse” when used by antisecular ideologues, that doubt has been dispelled by Toula Drimonis’ latest diatribe “Montreal City Hall’s inclusive gesture is met with anger,” published 2024-07-25 in the Montreal Gazette. Drimonis’ refuses to recognize the duplicity of the choice of image which welcomes visitors to the newly renovated city hall. After removing the crucifix from council chambers in accordance with Bill 21, the new image displays three persons, of whom one is a hijab clad woman.

But, claims Drimonis, this image is not in council chambers, so it “has no influence whatsoever over city hall and civic governance” and “doesn’t represent religion.” Nonsense. The choice of an image of a hijabi is laden with significance, just as the hijab itself has objective meaning regardless of the intention of the woman wearing it. Drimonis herself admits that the image is in line with the “multicultural and diverse” nature of Montreal, blithely ignoring the fact that multiculturalism is a very tendentious ideology, a euphemism for cultural relativism and multi-tribalism. It is incompatible with universalism which is necessary for human rights. But multiculturalism, supported by buzzwords such as “diversity” and “inclusivity,” is the ideology promoted by both Drimonis and mayor Valérie Plante.

This choice of image is a deliberate affront to secularism and to the Quebec population which enthusiastically supports it. It is a declaration that religious affiliation takes precedence over all other considerations. In particular, religions and their symbols are afforded a level of respect and deference beyond all reason and which would never be granted to political ideologies and symbols.

…the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women […] a stamp of purity…

Does Drimonis grasp the meaning of the hijab? Of course it is a religious symbol, which is reason enough to avoid it in this context. Any partisan display, religious or political, would be unacceptable. Furthermore, the hijab is a banner of political Islam, a symbol of rape culture and the subjugation of women. The hijab, like all variants of the Islamic veil, is a stamp of purity, indicating that its wearer is a good Muslim woman and, more importantly, that any woman—especially a Muslim woman—who does not wear one is impure and deserves to spend eternity in hell. This meaning is independent of the mentality of the woman wearing it. She may be unaware of that meaning, as Drimonis is, or at least pretends to be.

The Islamic veil is odious. To normalize it is unacceptable. To celebrate it, as city hall and Drimonis do, is obscene. As a society we should be taking steps to discourage the spread of such an extremely misogynistic symbol, especially given that that spread is a deliberate strategy of Islamists.

Civil service symbol bans such as those in Bill 21 are a matter of professional ethics. They are just the sort of measure that is required: banning all religious symbols (thus avoiding discrimination) in certain formal circumstances, i.e. when the bearer is an on-duty civil servant or schoolteacher, but maintaining full freedom in other contexts. But Drimonis fails to distinguish between the civic context where the ban applies and the public but non-civic context (e.g. non-employees going about their private business in public) where it does not.

The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience.

Drimonis is notorious for her opposition to secularism in general and to Quebec Bill 21 in particular. She uses a dishonest ploy which is a common among antisecularists: she claims to support secularism while offering a false definition of that term, robbing it of meaning. In an article published shortly after the law was adopted in 2019, she wrote that “true state secularism has nothing to do with the banning of religious symbols.” Yes it does, in certain circumstances. The basis of secularism is the observation that religion and State make for a very bad combination, and that separating them is necessary to protect human rights, in particular freedom of conscience. That freedom includes both freedom of and freedom from religious belief. Bill 21 recognizes that citizens and schoolchildren have a right to civil services and institutions free from religious proselytism, including the passive proselytism of symbols worn by working staff.

Drimonis would apparently allow religions free rein, as if she considered them to be totally innocuous. Is she unaware that, in Islam for example, apostasy is considered a heinous sin? This tenet is utterly incompatible with freedom of conscience. As for those of us who support separation between religion and State because we see religions as potential threats to human rights, which indeed they are if they gain political influence, Drimonis treats us with contempt, as if our attitude were the unfortunate symptom of a mental illness. She displays similar contempt for the rights of schoolchildren to an education free of ideological proselytism.

In Europe, France is in the vanguard of secularism. That secularism is under threat from religious bigots such as Islamists and pious Catholics, and that threat is made much worse by the support of islamogauchistes such as the political party La France Insoumise (LFI).

Here in North America, Quebec is in the vanguard and secularism is similarly threatened. The objective allies of political Islam here in Canada are tedious conformists like Toula Drimonis who are willing to flout schoolchildren’s rights, just so they can claim, self-righteously, that they are defending “stigmatized” religious minorities when in reality they are facilitating religious fanatics. The most fanatical are men whose aim is to normalize the veil and make it practically mandatory for Muslim women. The aim of the hijab is to stigmatize Muslim women who do not wear it.

Next blog: Les critiques de la cérémonie d’ouverture des Jeux Olympiques se trompent de cible

Another Antisecular Screed

Trashing Secularism in France is a Favourite Anglo Sport

2024-06-04

My analysis of yet another example of the English-language media totally misunderstanding—and deliberately misrepresenting—secularism in France. The underlying cause is the anti-universalist ideology prevalent in the Anglo-American world.

Sommaire en français Mon analyse d’un autre exemple de médias anglophones qui méconnaissent totalement — et déforment délibérément — la laïcité en France. La cause sous-jacente est l’idéologie anti-universaliste qui prévaut dans le monde anglo-américain.

One of the favourite sports of Anglo media is to defecate on secularism in France, deploring the sad fact that the French do not do everything just like Americans or Anglo-Canadians. A recent article in The Conversation by Armin Langer, “France’s headscarf ban in the 2024 Summer Olympics reflects a narrow view of national identity, writes a scholar of European studies”, is an example of such arrogance and dishonesty. Some highlights:

Langer fails to distinguish between religious belief and religious practice. Bans on religious symbols affect only the latter, never the former.
Langer states that religious symbol bans discriminate against persons, in this case Muslims, specifically Muslim women. This is false. Such bans are behavioural. They ban certain behaviour, wearing religious symbols in certain contexts. They do not ban persons. A religious symbol can be removed and put back on after leaving the context where the ban applies. If a person refuses to remove their symbol, they are excluding themselves and are responsible for their own behaviour. The State or athletic organization is under no obligation to accommodate every whim of employees and participants.
Langer laments the ban on religious symbols worn by Olympic athletes, claiming that “no one should impose on a woman what she needs to wear, or not wear.” This is nonsense. Does Langer think that female police officers need not wear the uniform? Or that women need not obey the hardhat rule on constructions sites which impose such safety regulations? Or that female medical workers need not respect medical hygiene by dressing appropriately?
Langer laments the ban on religious symbols worn by pupils in French schools, claiming that it causes “feelings of exclusion and isolation.” The reality is quite the opposite. Langer fails to mention that the academic performance of daughters of Muslim parents has significantly improved in the decades since the ban was imposed in schools in France, because those girls are less isolated thanks to the ban.
Langer refers to multiculturalism as if it were a good thing, whereas the French are fully aware that that ideology is anti-universalist, hence incompatible with secularism.
Even the title is dishonest: there is no “headscarf ban.” The bans apply to all religious symbols. Furthermore, the term “headscarf” implies that the Islamic hijab is just an article of clothing, when in reality it is the banner of a supremacist, misogynist ideology and a symbol of rape culture.
Langer refers to the hijab as “an expression of religious identity and empowerment.” Identity, yes! But the only people who are empowered by the hijab are religious fanatics and Islamists.

There is a major theme that runs throughout this appalling text by Langer. That theme is mainly implicit, but becomes explicit when the author says that we must not tell women what to wear or not to wear. That theme could be called “impunity for the oppressed” and it is a consequence of a toxic ideology, neoracism (which falsely claims to be antiracist and is based on intersectionality and Critial Race Theory or CRT), an ideology which is anti-universalist and anti-Enlightenment (hence anti-European). Neoracism has corrupted every social movement it has touched, including of course antiracism (but not limited to that issue). It divides the world into two categories of people, (1) the oppressors or dominant, and (2) the oppressed or dominated. The former are always bad and wrong, while the latter are always right and good. Hence, “impunity for the oppressed.”

According to the neoracist worldview, oppression (such as racism, sexism, etc.) is always a one-way street, with the dominant always oppressing the dominated. For example, racism is a one-way street by which “whites” (i.e. those of European descent) are always racist towards non-whites, whereas non-whites are never racist. Furthermore, white-on-white racism and non-white-on-non-white racism simply cannot and do not exist in this worldview. Furthermore, neoracists have a strong tendency to racialize (i.e. essentialize) religious affiliation, especially Muslimness, thus turning Islam into a “race” (which of course it is not) and allowing neoracists to accuse critics of Islam of “racism” as a form of social censorship.

Women are classified as an oppressed category (hence the stupid idea that women must not be subject to dress codes), as are Muslims. Partisans of neoracism classify Islam as the religion of oppressed non-Europeans (hence non-“whites”) and grant Muslims impunity (which is of course an enormous privilege, but neoracists only use that word “privilege” when speaking of “white” men). Thus, Muslim women are, according to neoracists, triply oppressed: as women, as Muslims and as non-Europeans. They can do no wrong. If Muslims or Muslim women experience problems related to their religion, those problems cannot be the fault of the religion itself (when in fact such is often the case, because Islam is very misogynistic and utterly rejects freedom of conscience); rather, the fault must be with “Islamophobia” directed against them by non-Muslims. Thus Muslims must be granted the privilege of wearing religious symbols when everyone else has to obey certain restrictions in certain contexts. All this happens, of course, to the great delight of Islamists.

What antisecularists like Langer are promoting is not equality. They promote the maintenance of religious privileges, especially for fanatical Muslims, those who intransigently refuse to follow the rules which secular States like France apply to everyone.

Next blog: Ideological Capture

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Conversion: An Act of Desperation

2023-12-29

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s conversion to Christianity is a desperate and irrational attempt to use that religion as a shield against several threats to Western civilization.

Sommaire en français La conversion d’Ayaan Hirsi Ali au christianisme est une tentative désespérée et irrationnelle d’utiliser cette religion comme bouclier contre plusieurs menaces qui pèsent sur la civilisation occidentale.

Recently (2023-11-11), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, well-known critic of Islam and formerly a “central figure of New Atheism” (to quote her Wikipedia entry), published an article on the UnHerd website, entitled “Why I am now a Christian, Atheism can’t equip us for civilisational war.” However, upon reading that article, one will notice a complete lack of any assertion of belief in Christian dogma or mythology. So why then did she convert to Christianity? Apparently, the answer has nothing to do with belief, as explained in the following paragraph:

“Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces: the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism and expansionism in the forms of the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin’s Russia; the rise of global Islamism, which threatens to mobilise a vast population against the West; and the viral spread of woke ideology, which is eating into the moral fibre of the next generation.”

Hirsi Ali goes on to explain that her adoption of Christianity is motivated by her hope that it will be a major weapon to fight against that triple threat of authoritarianism, Islamism and wokism.

“We can’t withstand China, Russia and Iran if we can’t explain to our populations why it matters that we do. We can’t fight woke ideology if we can’t defend the civilisation that it is determined to destroy. And we can’t counter Islamism with purely secular tools.”

Hirsi Ali’s correctly identifies the three principal enemies of Western civilization, especially considering that the latter two—Islamism and wokism—are allies. Those who have adopted the ideology of wokism (which I call post-leftism) passively and naïvely, out of conformism, simply because it is the fashionable nonsense of the day, probably think that qualifying it as a principal enemy of Western civilization is an exaggeration, but they would be mistaken. Those who take that ideology most seriously reject the Enlightenment, which is arguably the greatest achievement of Western culture and which is vilified by the piously woke.

However, Hirsi Ali’s choice of weapon—Christianity—to fight against these threats is not only wrong, but ludicrously wrong.

There have been several responses to Hirsi Ali’s proclamation of her conversion to Christianity. In a brief article published on the AAI website, August Berkshire misses the point. Although he recognizes that “Her critique of radical Islam is accurate,” he nevertheless completely ignores the seriously complicating factor of post-leftism and how it opens the floodgates to radical Islam.

there is no real political left remaining in the USA, the post-left having utterly corrupted the former left, causing it to betray the Enlightenment universalism which defines it.

The prize for the most outrageous response goes to Maryam Namazie for her tweet accusing Ayaan Hirsi Ali of being a “right wing hate monger” even when she was an atheist. This is very mean-spirited. Hirsi Ali is no hate monger. As for her associating with the “right wing,” it must be remembered that there is no real political left remaining in the USA, the post-left having utterly corrupted the former left, causing it to betray the Enlightenment universalism which defines it. The post-left rejected Hirsi Ali because of her uncompromising criticism of its ally, political Islam.

In “Foxholes, Deathbeds, and the Extraordinary Case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali” in Free Inquiry magazine, author Adam Neiblum apparently thinks that we atheists need to be reassured that Hirsi Ali’s conversion does not represent a weakening of our worldview. However, his concern is unwarranted. I do not think that we atheists are so delicate. He points out the obvious: that apostates—former believers leaving a religion—greatly outnumber those who convert to a religion. This particular conversion story is interesting only because Hirsi Ali is a public figure of some importance, but it has no relevance to the atheism-theism debate. Neiblum suggests that her conversion may be related to her religious indoctrination as a child. But he totally ignores the issue of woke ideology, i.e. post-leftism.

In his response “Why I Am Not a Christian,” Michael Shermer does a much better job. He asserts his continued admiration for Ayaan Hirsi Ali and calls her a “heroic figure.”

“Ayaan has pride of place in the pantheon of greats who have had the courage of their convictions to the point of putting their own lives on the line in the name of universal principles of justice and freedom.”

Shermer acknowledges that Hirsi Ali correctly identifies (1) Islamism, (2) China and Russia, and (3) woke ideology as major threats. But he also rejects categorically Hirsi Ali’s conclusion that Christianity is any solution to those threats. Shermer makes the all-important point that “Scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism made the modern world” and they did so in opposition to Christian obscurantism.

Dawkins is also well aware of the problem posed by “postmodernish wokery pokery.”

Perhaps the best response of all is from Dawkins. In his “Open letter from Richard Dawkins to Ayaan Hirsi-Ali” he adopts a tone which is even more sympathetic than that of Shermer. Dawkins also recognizes the threats identified by Hirsi Ali and he is also well aware of the problem posed by “postmodernish wokery pokery.” But he also makes an important observation, one I hinted at in the first paragraph of this blog when I observed the absence of any declaration of belief by Hirsi Ali. Dawkins states:

“As you know, you are one of my absolutely favourite people but … seriously, Ayaan? You, a Christian? You are no more a Christian than I am.”

I tend to agree. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an intelligent person. She cannot possibly believe, really believe, the nonsensical dogmas which constitute Christian mythology. Her decision is a strategic one. She apparently thinks, and hopes, that Christianity will show itself to be an effective antidote to the craziness currently infecting Western societies. Of course she is mistaken.

The waning of Christianity did not cause wokism and restoring Christianity is no solution to it.

Recently there has been a rather bizarre hypothesis making the rounds in social media, based on the observation that the atheist movement in the USA (and also in English Canada) has been largely corrupted and rendered regressive and next to useless by post-leftism. The hypothesis is that the woke movement is somehow a consequence of the atheist movement’s criticism of Christianity!!! Of course I agree that the atheist movement has been compromised, but the hypothesis is baseless. For one thing, correlation is not causation. Furthermore, the roots of the post-leftist phenomenon go back several decades preceding the modern atheist movement. Those roots include postmodernist philosophy, neo-Marxism, American antiracist theory, etc. The waning of Christianity did not cause wokism and restoring Christianity is no solution to it. In fact, even some Christian churches, the more liberal ones, have embraced post-leftist dogma.

The insanity of the woke has been so destructive, so demoralizing, that she is grasping at straws

I suspect that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been influenced by this peculiar hypothesis, this idea that somehow atheists and the weakening of Christianity are to blame. And I think that this has been a significant motivator of her conversion. In fact, post-leftism is itself a sort of parareligion, another irrational ideology competing for marketshare with more traditional ideologies. Replacing one form of nonsense by another is not the solution. Her conversion is an act of desperation. The insanity of the woke has been so destructive, so demoralizing, that she is grasping at straws, or one very dubious straw: Christianity

Whatever Hirsi Ali’s ultimate motives may be, whether I am right or wrong in my suspicions, one thing is clear: irrational ideologies such as Christianity, Islam, post-leftism, etc. must be criticized and opposed. In particular, they must not be allowed to infect State institutions with their mythologies and dogmas. Thus, the necessity of secularism, separating religions and parareligions from the State.

Next blog: The Fall of Minneapolis: A Dishonest Documentary

Repeal Citizenship Regulation 17.1.b

Canadian Media Continue to Promote Religious Privilege

2022-03-25

A recent article in The Toronto Star reminds us of the niqab controversy from several years ago, and how Canadian elites supported extreme right-wing political Islam at that time, as they continue to do today.

Sommaire en français Un article récent du Toronto Star nous rappelle la polémique autour du niqab d’il y a plusieurs années et comment les élites canadiennes ont soutenu l’islam politique d’extrême droite à cette époque, comme elles continuent de le faire aujourd’hui.

Never underestimate the fatuity of Canadian mainstream media. There is no way that The Toronto Star can justify its recent publication of an asinine article by Haroon Siddiqui, under the title Will Charest and Brown force the Conservatives to confront their Islamophobia problem?. Siddiqui excoriates the Conservative Party, especially its former leader and prime minister Stephen Harper, for their so-called “Islamophobia,” in particular for Harper’s attempts to prevent the wearing of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies.

We all remember the events of 2015: the religious fanatic, Zunera Ishaq, succeeded in getting the courts to force the federal authorities to allow her to wear a niqab at her citizenship ceremony. This obscene situation, where the strictures of an extremely misogynistic and obscurantist medieval (or pre-medieval) politico-religious ideology were given precedence over common sense, was made possible by two things: (1) dubious Canadian legislation, especially article 17.1.b of the Citizenship Regulations, and (2) the scurrilous Canadian media and political elites who regularly bully anyone who may disagree with their mollycoddling of Islamism by showering them with ridiculous accusations. For example, in a Feb. 16, 2016 article in the Globe & Mail, Gerald Caplan of the NDP declared that attempts to ban the niqab constituted a “demagogic racist campaign against the niqab by Mr. Harper and associates.” The idea that there could be anything “racist” about trying to restrain the spread of political Islam is beyond moronic.

At the time, the Harper government was vilified for opposing so-called “barbaric cultural practices” but such opposition is eminently reasonable. Insisting that women wear the niqab anywhere and everywhere for religious reasons is certainly a barbaric practice, although I would not call it “cultural” but rather “anti-cultural.”

The problem with the Harper government of the day was that it did too little to try to stop Ishaq and her fanatical allies.

The problem with the Harper government of the day was that it did too little to try to stop Ishaq and her fanatical allies. Its efforts were limited to court appeals, i.e. it appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn the 2015-10-05 decision by the Federal Court of Appeal in Ishaq’s favour. The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, elected only two week later, simply withdrew that appeal.

The Harper government could have done much more, if it had acted earlier. It could, for example, have adopted legislation to repeal article 17.1.b of the Citizenship Regulations, part of the Citizenship Act, which stipulates that the oath must be administered with “the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation thereof.” That stipulation was one of the foundations on which Ishaq’s lawyers built their case.

But of course, the Conservative government would never consider repealing that article, because it would alienate their Christian base who would surely not tolerate the repeal of such an important religious privilege. Thus, Ishaq, Islamists and their anti-Enlightenment dupes were able to benefit from Christian bigotry in order to a further the agenda of political Islam.

The Conservatives favour Christianity because that is their tradition, while the Liberals and NDP favour Islam because it is the current fashion.

All three major federal political parties—Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives—are antisecular, pro-religious and utterly lacking in intellectual integrity whenever the issue of religiour privilege raises its ugly head. The Conservatives favour Christianity because that is their tradition, while the Liberals and NDP favour Islam because it is the current fashion.

Speaking of a lack of integrity, where were all those so-called “secular” organizations in Canada outside Quebec back in 2015? Why did they not all oppose the niqab at official ceremonies as any secularist must obviously do? Allowing such a religious privilege is a clear violation of the principle of religion-State separation as well as a violation of religious neutrality. It must be emphasized that religious neutrality does not mean the State should grant privileges equally to all religions! On the contrary, it means that privileges cannot be justified for religious reasons if such privileges are not also allowed for non-religious ideologies.

If there had been a secular movement in Canada outside Quebec in 2015, that movement would have massively opposed allowing religious privileges at citizenship ceremonies. Similarly, if there were a secular movement in Canada outside Quebec today, in 2022, it would currently be fighting massively in support of Quebec Bill 21 and against the hysterical opposition to that very reasonable legislation.

A Léger Marketing poll at the time of the niqab controversy indicated that 82% of Canadians favoured banning face-coverings at citizenship ceremonies, while the percentage was even higher in Quebec. Thus, so-called “secular” organizations in English Canada are hypocrites who are less secular than the majority of ordinary Canadians.

Next blog: The Patriots of Lower Canada

La Loi 21 pour les nuls

Version abrégée

2021-12-14

Un résumé des faits essentiels concernant la Loi 21 québécoise et la controverse à son sujet.

Summary in English
A summary of the basic facts about Quebec Bill 21 and the controversy surrounding it.
This blog is available in English.

Étant donné que la Loi 21 du Québec fait de nouveau l’actualité et que plusieurs incompréhensions, idées fausses et mensonges purs et simples se répandent, il est temps de rétablir quelques faits importants. Voici le minimum que vous devez savoir.

La Loi 21 est une législation qui réalise partiellement la laïcité d’État au Québec et qui impose une restriction très mineure, voire insignifiante, à la liberté d’expression de certains employés de l’État, en leur interdisant le port de signes religieux au travail. Cela n’affecte en rien leur liberté de croyance. Ceci est fait dans le but de protéger les libertés d’autrui : les usagers de la fonction publique et surtout les écoliers. C’est fondamentalement ce que font toutes les lois : rechercher un équilibre entre des libertés conflictuelles. La Loi 21 fait un assez bon travail à cet égard, même s’il est trop faible.
Le Québec est à l’avant-garde dans les Amériques en matière de laïcité. Beaucoup de gens au Canada anglais ne comprennent pas cela, ou refusent de le comprendre.
De nombreuses personnes et groupes s’opposent à la laïcité pour diverses raisons. Mais il existe une force anti-laïcité particulièrement virulente et dangereuse : l’islam politique, qui est un mouvement politico-religieux d’extrême droite international, également connu sous le nom d’islamisme.
L’un des outils de propagande préférés de l’islam politique est le voile islamique, dont il fait la promotion n’importe où et partout où il le peut. Cette mouvance a eu un énorme succès à imposer le voile dans les pays à majorité musulmane où, il y a quelques décennies, le voile était rarement vu dans les villes. En faisant porter aux femmes cet outil de propagande, on peut très efficacement jouer la carte de la victime. Le voile est à la fois religieux et politique, surtout ce dernier. Sa signification est indépendante de la mentalité des femmes qui le portent. Celles-ci ignorent souvent les implications du voile mais ressentent une forte pression pour le porter afin de se conformer.
L’islam et même l’islamisme bénéficient d’un énorme traitement préférentiel de la part de la soi-disant gauche (et, de plus en plus, du centre aussi, comme Justin Trudeau), pour des raisons historiques et idéologiques liées aux succès spectaculaires et aux échecs ultimes tout aussi spectaculaires du marxisme.
Le préjugé ethnique contre les Québécois francophones est un thème majeur de l’histoire canadienne. Les islamistes l’ont largement exploité. La peur anglo-canadienne du mouvement indépendantiste québécois a accru ce préjugé au cours des dernières décennies. L’opposition hystérique du Canada anglais à la Loi 21 est en grande partie (mais pas entièrement) une campagne de propagande haineuse contre les Québécois.

Prochaine blogue : English Canada’s Messiah Complex

Quebec Bill 21 for Dummies

Abbreviated Version

2021-12-14

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.

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.
Quebec is in the vanguard of secularism in the Americas. Many people in English Canada do not understand this, or refuse to understand it.
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.
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.
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.
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

The Swiss Face-Covering Ban is About Deterring Religious Fanaticism

Accusations of racism are dishonest and slanderous.

2021-03-14

Face-Coverings in general impede identification, communication and security. Islamic full veils are even worse, expressing extreme misogyny and religious fanaticism. The newly approved Swiss ban on face-coverings in public is a progressive step to deter such fanaticism.

Sommaire en français Les couvre-visage en général empêchent l’identification, la communication et la sécurité. Les voiles intégraux islamiques sont encore pires, exprimant une misogynie extrême et un fanatisme religieux. L’interdiction suisse nouvellement approuvée de se couvrir le visage en public est une mesure progressiste pour freiner ce fanatisme.

Recently, Swiss voters approved, by referendum, a ban on face-coverings in public, including (but not limited to) the Islamic full veil. To the surprise of no-one at all, this event was met with the boisterous whining of those who systematically oppose restrictions on religious practice, as if freedom of religion should be absolute (especially if that religion is Islam), regularly trumping the rights and freedoms of others.

The Swiss referendum result is good news, although the narrow majority by which the ban passed is disconcerting. Face-coverings cause problems for identification, communication and security. However, Islamic (or should I say Islamist) face-coverings, i.e. full veils such as the niqab and burqa, are particularly egregious and problematic. They are an expression of the most extreme misogyny of fundamentalist, radical, political Islam. They should not be tolerated.

Prevention

The argument that few women currently wear the niqab or burqa in Switzerland is irrelevant. If Switzerland passed a law against slavery, who would complain that it is unnecessary because there are currently no slaves in that country? And yes, I am saying that the Islamic full veil is on a par with slavery. Both are barbaric practices.

The face-covering ban is a preventative measure. If nothing is done, the number of veiled women will continue to increase in future years. Islamists will continue to claim territory by promoting the veil (both hijab and full veil) anywhere and everywhere, asserting that any Muslim woman who does not wear it will go to hell. The veil is a choice, you say? Sure, a choice between wearing one and going to heaven or not wearing one and going to hell. Islamists use the veil in the same way that dogs use their urine: to mark their territory.

Secular Muslims

One of the leaders of the Swiss campaign to ban face-coverings is Mohamed Hamdaoui, a secular Muslim. Apologists for fundamentalist Islam almost never talk about secular Muslims or ex-Muslims. They only talk about pious Muslims who promote the veil, presenting them as victims of persecution, but who are, in reality, religious fanatics. As for women who wear the veil in non-Muslim countries, some are religious fanatics too, but some are forced by pressure from family or community. Face-coverings, including the full Islamic veil, are banned in numerous countries of Europe and Africa, including several Muslim-majority countries.

The assertion that the ban “tells women what to wear” is dishonest. The ban, where it applies to the niqab and burqa, bans a symbol of Islamism which is arguably the most extreme-right-wing movement on the planet. The ban tells no-one “what to wear.” It bans the most atrocious symbol of Islamism in order to prevent its use for politico-religious proselytizing.

The organization Amnesty International has shown itself to be especially unprincipled and cowardly by opposing the Swiss ban, just as it has taken a cowardly position against Quebec Bill 21 (which by the way, does not ban the full veil in public, but only in civil services).

Islamist Propaganda

One particularly dishonest ploy frequently used by opponents of bans on religious symbols is the false equivalence between racial identity and religious affiliation. They claim that such bans are “racist.” This is a blatant lie. Restrictions on religious practices such as the Islamic full veil have nothing to do with race. A Muslim (or an Islamist for that matter) can be Arab, black, white, Indonesian, French, American, Apache or any other “race,” ethnic group or nationality. To conflate “race” with religion is standard Islamist propaganda.

The ban on the full veil is largely motivated by fear of Islamism, and that fear is legitimate. I repeat: it is reasonable to fear Islamism, especially in Europe (although even moreso in Muslim-majority countries). Invoking “racism” in opposition to the ban is also based on fear—fear of racism—and that fear is irrational because Islam is not a race.

Although Islamists do sometimes engage in spectacular physical violence such as terrorism, they do so only occasionally, because it is easier and much less costly to use disinformation. They do not even have to spread such disinformation themselves. They can rely on unscrupulous fools to spread it for them, fools like those who make accusations of “racism.”

It’s about religion, stupid.

It’s about religion, not race. Even if all Muslims in Switzerland were black or brown and all non-Muslims white, that does not change the fact that the issue here is fundamentalist religion and everyone knows that. The dishonest conflation of race with religion greatly confuses the issue and slanders those who support reasonable measures such as this face-covering ban. To those who oppose the ban, I suggest they try to come up with rational arguments for their position, if they have any, rather than indulging in slander.

Anyone who conflates race with religion is incompetent to deal with either. Anyone who conflates them deliberately is lying in order to promote a political agenda.

The wearing of the full veil such as the niqab and burqa is an extremely retrograde practice, an implementation of the subjugation of women. Banning full face-coverings in public is one small and reasonable step that can help to put a break on the advance of radical Islam in Europe. Banning the wearing of all religious symbols for civil servants and schoolteachers while on the job (but not everywhere in public) is also a good measure.

Balancing Conflicting Freedoms

Restrictions on religious symbols do not interfere with freedom of belief but only with freedom of religious practice, because that practice, when done in public, can and does sometimes compromise the freedom of conscience of others. Freedoms are not absolute. The challenge is to find an equilibrium between freedom of religion and freedom from religion, an equilibrium between the freedoms of some and the freedoms of others.

Three Examples of Cultural (Mis)Appropriation

Christianity, Islam and Canada

2019-12-03

In this blog I present three instances when a idea or a set of concepts was appropriated from an existing culture by a newly forming religious or political entity. Should we call it cultural appropriation, or cultural misappropriation?

Sommaire en français Je présente dans ce billet de blogue trois exemples d’une idée ou d’un ensemble de concepts qu’une nouvelle entité religieuse ou politique s’est approprié à partir d’une culture existante. S’agit-il d’appropriation culturelle ou de « mésappropriation » culturelle.

In a previous blog, I argued that the taboo against so-called “cultural appropriation” is irrational and harmful, because intercultural borrowing is not only very widespread—being practically the norm rather than the exception— and furthermore because it enriches human cultures and improves the general quality of life. I also suggested, in those rarer cases when such borrowing is harmful in some way to the orginating group and may thus be reasonably considered a sort of plagiarism or even theft, that the term “cultural misappropriation” be used instead. Of course, determining the category into which a particular case should be classified often leaves plenty of room for debate.

In this blog, I give three examples of borrowing where the resulting concept is so well known, so commonplace, that most people are probably unaware, or have forgotten, that any borrowing had occurred.

Christianity

It is well-known that Christianity is basically a rip-off of Judaism. I call it Judaism for ancient Greeks. The religion of the Hebrews, Judaism, was just another of countless tribal religions among various peoples of antiquity in and around the Roman Empire. It was not even a monotheism until rather late in its history, starting first as a polytheism, then evolving into a monolatry (worship of one god while recognizing the existence of many others) and finally emerging as a monotheism, where all gods were subsumed under their one god Jehovah. (This last step was a rationalization used by the defeated Hebrews to explain how the god of a rival tribe could defeat theirs—at least that is the explanation put forward by author Jean Soler to explain the origins of monotheism.)

Then along came Paul of Tarsus, a rather dysfunctional individual, especially his views on sexuality, whom Christians venerate as “Saint Paul.” Paul took an obscure Jewish reform movement and turned it into a new religion Christianity, and the rest is history. Paul was the founder of Christianity, not Jesus, because the existence of Jesus is uncertain, and even if he did exist, we know almost nothing about him. Christianity borrowed heavily from both Judaism (a large chunk of the Christian bible is lifted directly from the Hebrews) and from the religion of the ancient Greeks (for example, the concept of hell is an extension of Hades, but much worse). Of course Christianity also borrowed from Egyptian and other religions, in particular the concepts of virgin birth and the son of god.

Christians were persecuted for centuries by the Roman authorities, because their dogmatic monotheism was so intolerant that they refused to recognize the gods and authority of Rome. Constantine put an end to that persecution in the early IV^th century C.E. and later that century the spectacularly intolerant Theodosius I^st made Nicene Christianity the empire’s state religion, while banning all other religions including the traditional cults of the Roman and Greek gods.

Thus, in creating the new religion of Christianity, a tribal religion was transformed into one with universalist pretentions and which persecuted anyone, regardless of ethnicity, who refused to adopt it. In particular, Jews who refused to convert to the new fashionable religion were particularly reviled, and the crucifixion story, an essential part of Christian mythology, was used as a convenient excuse for that persecution on the pretext that it was Jews who had murdered Jesus Christ. It is amusing to note that the word “pagan” is derived from the Latin “pāgānus” meaning “rural” or “rustic” (and related to “peasant”), as non-Christians were apparently considered country bumpkins not yet hip to the cool new religion of Christianity which was all the rage in urban centres of the empire.

Islam

Several centuries after the Christians plagiarized Judaism, along came Muhammad, calling himself a prophet of the one true god—indeed claiming to be the last prophet of god for all eternity! He borrowed heavily from Judaism and Christianity, the so-called religions of the Book, which he apparently envied for their scriptures which gave them an aura of wisdom and sagacity. His new religion Islam is sometimes considered to be a derivative of Arian Christianity. Arianism was a non-Nicene variant of Christianity (i.e. no trinity) which was rejected as heresy by the First Council of Nicaea, convoked by Constantine in 325.

I call Islam Judaism for Arabs. Muhammad initially attempted to convert some Jewish tribes, living in the Arabian peninsula, to his new religion, but when they refused, he had them massacred. Basically, Muhammad took two bad ideas, Judaism and Christianity, combined them and put himself at the centre of the result, which became arguably even more intolerant than the two already very intolerant source religions. The quran contains many expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment, as well as lots of misogyny and violent hostility towards unbelievers and polytheists.

Canada

According to the Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism by James Stuart Olson, “The name Canada probably is derived from the Huron-Iroquois kanata, meaning a village or a community.” So we can consider the use of the word Canada by Europeans to be a form of cultural appropriation, although a rather trivial one, as many languages borrow heavily from others. However, a far more significant form of cultural (mis)appropriation occurred centuries after Europeans overran the Americas.

Until the British conquest of New France in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), Canada was basically just another name for New France. This territory was divided by the British into Upper and Lower Canada (« les deux Canadas ») and its inhabitants, « les Canadiens » or « Canayens », were of course mainly French-speaking and descended from settlers from France with some intermarriage with native peoples. The two Canadas were re-united by the Act of Union of 1840-1841 into a single colony known as « Canada-Uni » or the “Province of Canada” in an attempt by the British to assimilate francophones into the anglophone majority.

Then in 1867, year of Confederation, the two then became distinct provinces, Ontario and Québec, in the newly founded nation which we call Canada. By that time, only Quebec was majority French-speaking, because immigration into Upper Canada, a.k.a. Ontario, had made it mainly English-speaking. At Confederation, Canada was composed of four provinces (with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), and since then six more have been added to make ten today.

The point of this brief historical review is to explain that the name “Canada” and the adjective “Canadian” refer primarily to New France and its inhabitants, but those terms have been appropriated by the country Canada founded in 1867 in which English was and remains the dominant language. That dominance increases with each passing decade, for a variety of reasons. Thus, the word “Canadian” should properly refer to the Québécois who are the descendants of the inhabitants of New France.

Of course, that is not how things have worked out. The name “Canada” now refers to a country which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and from the Arctic islands in the north to the U.S. border in the south. Those who once referred to themselves as « Canayens » now prefer, or at least have become habituated to, the term « Québécois » and have abandoned the now quaint-sounding « Canadiens français ». However, even after all these years, the two language groups in this enlarged Canada, English and French, are still divided by some major differences in culture and values.

So, the next time you hear some Canadian ideologue complain about how Quebecers are so stubborn and backward (or worse) and fail to worship fashionable Canadian ideals such as so-called “multiculturalism” (i.e. communitarianism) or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just remember that Canadians appropriated the term “Canada” and now, using that plagiarized name, wish to impose forcefully on Quebecers values they do not agree with. It must not be forgotten that the Charter is part of the 1982 Constitution which has never been approved by Quebec and was indeed foisted upon it against its will. If anyone gloats about the fact that Quebec is legally required to obey the Charter, what they are basically saying is that “Might Makes Right”—ethics and democracy be damned. This whole scenario reminds me of how Christians plagiarized Jews and polytheists, then vilified the former as Christ-killers and denigrated the latter as pagans.

Appropriation or Misappropriation?

Should the three cases explained above be considered appropriation or misappropriation? I think it is clear that the borrowing in each case ended up being rather harmful to those who were plagiarized. This is especially the case with Christianity and Islam, both of which have been, and often continue to be, very anti-Jewish. The final example, that of Canada, is much less extreme, but nevertheless harmful to the plagiarized Québécois. I consider all three examples to be cases of misappropriation. However, I do not think that any kind of corrective re-appropriation, for lack of a better expression, is in order. That would be akin to rewriting history. It would absurd to ban the use of the Pentateuch by Christians because they copied it from the Hebrews. It would be equally absurd to require that Muslims stop referring to Abraham and Jesus as (lesser) prophets of Islam. And it would be ridiculous to insist that the country we now know as Canada change its name.

Rewriting history, in the sense of erasing parts of it, is for fools and demagogues. What we do need to do is to remember history, to preserve it, to enrich our knowledge of it, to learn from it and to use it as one resource among many as we face the future. We can learn two lessons from the above historical considerations: (1) neither Christianity nor Islam had anything particularly original to offer; and (2) Canadians have no right to feel self-righteous and superior to the Québécois.

Next blog: Décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec, 2019-12-12

This Does NOT Promote Child Health

2019-08-16

In this blog I criticize the decision of the editors of a paediatrics journal to use a photo of a veiled girl on the journal’s cover.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je critique la décision prise par la rédaction d’une revue de pédiatrie de se servir de la photo d’une fillette voilée pour faire la couverture de cette revue.

It has come to my attention (via a tweet from Ensaf Haidar) that a recent issue (July 2019) of the academic journal Paediatrics & Child Health, Journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, published by the Oxford University Press, featured a photograph of a young girl wearing an Islamist veil as shown in the accompanying image. (Here I use the word “Islamist” instead of “Islamic” for reasons explained in my previous blog.)

Click to enlarge
Paediatrics & Child Health
Vol. 24, #4

Why would the editors of a paediatrics journal choose a photo of a veiled girl, given that the veil is a flag of an international far-right political movement? The kindest thing that can be said about this choice of cover photo is that it is airheaded fashionable nonsense. The editors have obviously fallen under the influence of the identitarian, islamophilic “left” and their centrist emulators, who are obsessed with religious minorities, especially Muslims, and therefore act as if Muslims can do no wrong, even when it is a radical fringe of fanatic Islamists who are setting the agenda, pretending (falsely) to speak for all Muslims.

Using a cover photo of veiled female of any age, as if such a phenomenon were perfectly banal and ordinary, is bad enough. After all, the Islamist agenda is to promote the veiling of females anywhere and everywhere, regardless of circumstances, with the goal of rendering the veil just that: banal and ordinary, that is to say, to normalize it, to make us forget just what a disgusting icon of women’s subjugation it is. But to use a photo of a minor, especially for a journal devoted to children’s health of all things, is inexcusable!

In my writings I have already pointed out several times that imposing the Islamist veil on a child for any extended period of time (weeks, months, years) is a form of child abuse and should be illegal. Even if the child wears the veil of her own volition, that does not change the situation: after all, we do not allow children to make their own decisions about many things, and I would suggest that wearing such a retrogressive symbol should be one of those things.

As I wrote in a previous blog discussing a similarly unacceptable photo used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “The consequences of wearing the veil are very serious for a young girl. There may be negative physical effects (such as Vitamin D deficiency or an impediment to the child’s normal physical activity), but the most grievous consequences are psychological and social. When the person wearing the veil is a child, the social segregation is much more serious, depriving the young girl of a normal childhood and erecting a barrier between her and other children.”

Of course I do not know the context in which the cover photo was taken. Perhaps the girl wore the veil only for the duration of a photo shoot, in which case no harm has been done to her personally. Nevertheless, the use of such a photo for a paediatrics journal remains dubious at best and arguably harmful. Indeed, it is literally unhealthy. It is an affront to children’s physical and mental health, especially the latter.

In fact, I would say that any paediatrician who accepts the long-term veiling of young girls lacks the ability to deal competently with the psychosocial development of children.

Next blog: Another Notch Lower for Canada

Tag: islam