Exaggerating Historical Injustices

The indigenous residential school controversy


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Links

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

The CRTC, Pierre Vallières and Postmodernism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisecularism and Postmodernism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Links

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

The Bullshitization of the Term “Systemic”


How antisecularists have overused and abused the expression “systemic racism” as a weapon to fight Quebec Bill 21.

Sommaire en français Comment les anti-laïques ont usé et abusé de l’expression « racisme systémique » pour en faire une arme contre la Loi 21 au Québec.

The word “systemic” is a perfectly legitimate adjective. According to the on-line dictionary Wiktionary.org, systemic means (1) “Embedded within and spread throughout and affecting a whole system, group, body, economy, market, or society” or (2) “Pertaining to an entire organism.” (This is not to be confused with the term “systematic” which refers to something which is orderly, planned or methodical.)

For example, discrimination against atheists and other non-believers is systemic in Canada, because it is specified repeatedly in the country’s constitution and federal legislation. The very first line of the constitution’s preamble declares “the supremacy of God.” Hate propaganda legislation grants impunity to statements which would otherwise be considered hate-speech provided that they are based on a religious text. Religious institutions are granted sweeping fiscal privileges. Citizenship judges are required to allow “religious solemnization” in ceremonies. And so on.

Another example: Systemic colonialism and racism in Canada’s “Indian Act” which regulates relations between the federal government and First Nations. Although amended many times since, the Act was first adopted in 1876 unilaterally, i.e. without negotiation with First Nations.

Canadian history is replete with systemic prejudice against Francophones, although less so today, now that laws suppressing the French language in several provinces have been repealed. Historically, anti-French and anti-native bigotry converged, as the French mixed with native populations (e.g. intermarriage) much more than did the English. This convergence of prejudice was most evident in the Louis Riel case in the 1880s.

The fact that the French language is dominant in one province, Quebec, gives Francophones a degree of autonomy and agency not enjoyed by First Nations peoples who are much fewer in number and scattered in many small, isolated reserves. Nevertheless, prejudice against Francophones remains a reality, and that situation has systemic aspects. The 1982 constitution was adopted without the approval of Quebec. Judges in the Quebec Superior Court and Quebec Court of Appeal are appointed by the federal government and thus, not surprisingly, tend to be prejudiced in favour of ideologies (such as cultural relativism) which are promoted federally. (This was patently obvious in the 2021-04-20 decision of Justice Marc-André Blanchard.) Furthermore, the federal government financially supports court challenges to Quebec laws such as Bill 21 (which partially implements State secularism in Quebec) via the Court Challenges Program. Strong—in fact, fanatical—opposition to Bill 21 by Anglo-Canadian media and politicians is an example of cultural imperialism.

One more example: Child sexual abuse is systemic in the Roman Catholic Church. It is not the result of a few bad apples, so to speak, but rather a consequence of how the Catholic system is organized. Priests are endowed with divine authority, thus granting them a great deal of moral authority over adherents of that religion. At the same time, priests are forbidden to marry or to have sex (at least theoretically), thus creating an overwhelming degree of sexual frustration. The combination of these two circumstances makes widespead sexual abuse practically inevitable.

However, in recent years the word “systemic” has been greatly misused for ideological reasons. In particular, the expression “systemic racism” has become almost ubiquitous because it is a major element of Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT began as an academic discipline of legal scholars, studying racism from a systemic point of view, i.e. as a consequence of legal, cultural and social systems rather than the prejudices of individuals. CRT is the ideological centrepiece of the current so-called “antiracist” movement, but which should more accurately be called neo-racist or racialist as it rejects colour-blindness and is obsessed with race which it sees everywhere. Partisans of this ideology dogmatically interpret all disparities as caused by some kind of prejudice such as racism or sexism, never even bothering to consider that other factors—even random chance—might play a role. Thus, if a profession does not display the same demographic diversity as the general population, they then assume that prejudice must be the cause.

Ideologically motivated accusations of “systemic racism” have become commonplace. This is especially the case in the context of Quebec and secularism. The adversaries of secularism, in their zealous opposition to Bill 21, regularly accuse Quebec, Quebeckers or the Quebec government of “systemic racism.” They rarely if ever define exactly what is meant by that term. Questions such as: What system in Quebec is infected with racism? are never answered. Much has been made of the case of Joyce Echaquan, a Atikamekw woman who was the target of racist comments in a Quebec hospital and died of pulmonary edema. But that was obviously a case of individual racism, not systemic, unless accusors can point to objective evidence of some kind of systemic phenomenon.

We know full well what is really happening here. So-called antiracists are indulging in anti-Québécois bigotry—hey, let’s call it anti-Québécois racism to be perfectly blunt—as a dishonest means to denigrate Bill 21. Such “antiracists” are objectively allied with Islamists who regularly weaponize Canadians’ hostility towards Quebec in their efforts to kill Bill 21. Of course Bill 21 has nothing whatsoever to do with racism and is in no way discriminatory. Rather, it is the accusers who are themselves guilty of bigotry and racism. A particularly extreme example of this is Amir Attaran, professor at the University of Ottawa, who calls Quebec the “Alabama of the North.”

So far, Quebec Premier François Legault has resisted all attempts by these ideologues to pressure him to agree that “systemic racism” is endemic in Quebec. He is to be congratulated for his determination. Let us hope that he remains steadfast and continues to refuse to capitulate to such intimidation by antisecularists.

Next blog: Quebec Bill 21 for Dummies

The “White Supremacism” Scam


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

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

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

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

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

British Supremacism

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

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

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

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

Hitching a Ride

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

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

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

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

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

Defamatory Accusations

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

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

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

Crying Wolf

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

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

Next blog: La nécessité de la Loi 21

Racialism versus Secularism

Racialising Religious Affiliation to Oppose Secularism


A few excepts from my long article The Battle Raging Between Racialism and Secularism published recently in Topical Magazine. The article criticizes the tendency of today’s so-called “antiracist” activists towards racialism and towards racialising religious affiliation as an anti-secularism strategy. The text presents several definitions in order to set the terms of the debate, followed by numerous examples of the racialisation of religious affiliation in France, in the United States and finally in Canada, with particular attention to the opponents of Quebec Bill 21.

Sommaire en français Quelques extraits de mon article, assez long, intitulé The Battle Raging Between Racialism and Secularism (La bataille farouche entre le racialisme et la laïcité) paru récemment dans la revue en ligne Topical Magazine. Il s’agit d’une critique de la tendance, chez les militants soi-disant « antiracistes » actuels, à verser dans le racialisme et à racialiser l’appartenance religieuse afin de lutter contre la laïcité. Le texte présente plusieurs définitions afin de préciser les termes du débat, suivies de nombreux exemples de la racialisation de l’appartenance religieuse en France, aux États-Unis et finalement au Canada, en particulier chez les adversaires de la Loi 21 québécoise.

…ethnicity, like race, refers principally to a person’s innate, immutable characteristics. Religion, on the other hand, is an ideology, a collection of ideas, beliefs and practices. Ethnicity is a personal identity, whereas religion is an opinion and an option. The distinction is crucial. To change one’s “race” is impossible. To change one’s religion may be easy or difficult, depending on one’s degree of indoctrination, but it is certainly not impossible. It may be as uncomplicated as changing one’s mind.

If religious affiliation is elevated to the status of ethnicity, then it becomes viewed as practically unchangeable, fixed for the person’s lifetime, making the individual a prisoner of the religion in which he or she was born and raised. Conflating race or ethnicity with religion implies the negation of freedom of conscience. It also opens the door to social—or even legal—censorship of criticism of religion, because if a religion is a “race” then is not criticising religion a form of “racism”?

Religious apologists tend to love the idea of conflating “race” or ethnicity and religion, because such conflation is a perfect tool for deflecting criticism of their religion. However, they need to think seriously about the implications. If we accept seriously the idea that anti-religious sentiment is indeed a form of “racism” then the three Abrahamic monotheisms—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—become, for this very reason, explicitly and unequivocally racist. Judaism asserts that the Jewish people is chosen by Jehovah and tough luck for everyone else. Christianity holds that those who fail to accept Christ are doomed to an eternity of punishment in hell. As for Islam, its holy book the Quran repeatedly expresses violent hostility towards non-Muslims and, in some contexts, enjoins Muslims to kill them. Adherents of these three religions would do well to reflect on this before embracing the religion-equals-race fraud.

It is important to preserve the biological meaning of the word “race” in order to prevent the apologists of certain ideologies from hijacking the concept for their own dubious purposes.

The racialisation of religious affiliation and the specious accusations of “racism” which it facilitates are hallmarks of racialism and probably the most important and toxic propaganda weapons of the fiercest opponents of secularism. These opponents are currently on the warpath in several countries. Let us consider a few examples.

Bill 21 is eminently sensible and moderate legislation. It is a matter of professional ethics. A representative of the State, while on the job, should not display partisan political or religious symbols. To allow the wearing of such symbols by State employees represents an unwarranted and unacceptable privilege accorded to the ideology which the symbol promotes. Several nations—France and parts of Switzerland, Belgium and Germany—also ban the overt display of religious symbols worn by some or all State employees. Bill 21 also bans face-coverings worn when providing or receiving government services, which is also the case for many European and African countries, some of which are Muslim-majority countries.

…one particularly creative opponent of Bill 21 links the bill to anti-black and anti-indigenous racism and asserts that it could very well lead to genocide… In light of the examples listed above, to say that Bill 21 meets with a hostile reaction is an understatement. The reaction has been hysterical, fanatical and patently insane.

This disinformation was repeated by many mainstream media as if it were fact, thus establishing a false link between an act of violence directed at a particular religious community and an extreme form of racism. Proponents of racialism and their Islamist allies pushed for M-103 as a result. Furthermore, that motion led to the formation of a parliamentary committee whose recommendations would open the door to allowing federal funds destined for anti-racism programmes to be misdirected into defending religious minorities and, through them, the religions themselves.

Racialism and the racialisation of religious affiliation are both profoundly dishonest and a considerable step backwards towards religious obscurantism and tribalism. It amounts to jettisoning freedom of conscience and abandoning universalism by labelling each individual indelibly with an attribute—i.e. religious affiliation—which is no more significant than an opinion, an opinion which not only may change, but which must be allowed to be changeable if we are to respect the individual’s fundamental human rights.

Read the full article.

Next blog: Lettre aux médias pour dénoncer le Conseil québécois LGBT

Sometimes Makeup Is Just Makeup

By apologizing, Trudeau merely confirms his fatuousness.


My observations about the recent controversy surrounding Justin Trudeau’s use of makeup.

Sommaire en français Quelques remarques au sujet de la récente controverse à propos du maquillage utilisé par Justin Trudeau.

Canada’s national bimbo and Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has been in hot water recently because of several photos which came to light showing him wearing black or brown makeup. One of the photos shows a young Trudeau as Aladdin, wearing a turban and heavy, dark makeup; another shows him made up to imitate Harry Belafonte for a performance of one of Belafonte’s hit songs. There are a number of observations that can be made about the controversy which has ensued:

  • The intensity of the controversy is outrageous, totally out of proportion to the triviality of the incidents in question.
  • It is nevertheless poetic justice that Trudeau—a darling of the identitarian left—should now be a target of that movement’s ire and condemnation.
  • The controversy is an example of imposing American (i.e. USA) standards outside the USA, showing just how Canada is so overwhelmingly colonized culturally by our neighbours to the south.
  • The whole hullabaloo illustrates, yet again, the damage done by the identitarian, intersectional, regressive pseudo-left—that pretentious and retrograde movement which has almost destroyed progressive politics in several countries and in particular here in Canada—and the necessity of doing what we can to reverse that damage.

Given the history of slavery and extreme anti-black racism in the USA, it is no surprise that blackface is now considered unacceptable in that country.

First of all, it is important to understand what blackface is all about. According to the Wikipedia article on blackface, it is an old theatrical tradition in the USA, involving a non-black person wearing black makeup in order to represent a caricature of a black person. The article goes on to explain that today blackface is “generally considered offensive and disrespectful” in the USA—a fair description, although perhaps understated. Given the history of slavery and extreme anti-black racism in the USA, it is no surprise that blackface is now considered unacceptable in that country.

Dany Laferrière is a Québécois writer, born in Haiti, and member of the Académie française. In a recent comment on the Trudeau photos, he comments that true blackface does indeed involve ridiculing and dehumanising people of black-African origin, a tradition from an era when Afro-Americans were considered to be little more than chattel. Often, the makeup was applied leaving some pale skin around the eyes, making them look menacing, while the lips were often exaggerated, to augment the caricatural effect.

However, that is not the case with the Trudeau photos. The first involved Aladdin, a fictional character from a dream-filled tale taken from Arab literature, nothing to do with Afro-Americans. The second was an imitation of a singer who happened to be black: there is nothing wrong or offensive about such role-playing. To imitate Harry Belafonte, Trudeau donned costume and makeup. Such impersonation might even be considered positive, displaying a desire to be the person one is trying to depict. According to Laferrière—and I agree completely—Trudeau’s behaviour was not racist and there was no need for him to apologize.

It is foolish to interpret every action involving blacks through the distorted lens of the traumatisms of American history.

But Trudeau did apologize, saying that he now sees that what he did was racist. He thus validates the indentitarian left’s toxic obsession with race, seeing racism everywhere (except where it really exists, such as the anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry so blatant among anti-secularists). I don’t know where the Trudeau photos were taken, but it was not in Alabama or Mississippi. It is foolish to interpret every action involving blacks through the distorted lens of the traumatisms of American history. As Laferrière points out, Trudeau’s apology is a matter of partisan politics, an affair of white politicians who have to keep up appearances for electoral and popularity purposes.

Trudeau himself is one of the most avid practitioners of the highly dubious politics of those who are now criticizing his so-called “racism” (or excusing him for behaviour they would condemn mercilessly in any politician they do not like). Trudeau has not been at all shy about using such gratuitious accusations against Quebeckers who disagree with his opposition to secularism, even though that issue has nothing to do with “race.” At least makeup has the possibility of being relevant to the issue of racism, but in this case it is not.

Alas, poor Justin, stung by his own stinger, target of the disapproval of his erstwhile adoring allies. Trudeau is not a racist; he is an airhead. He gets no sympathy from me.

Next blog: Two Questions About Bill 21

An Open Letter to the Council of Canadians

2019-02-12 Epilogue ajouté le 2019-02-13

In this blog, I respond to an article which appears on the website and in a bulletin of the Council of Canadians. The article, which apparently represents the position of the Council, associates the massacre of January 29th 2017 with so-called “Islamophobia,” “racism” and “white supremacy” and exploits the massacre in order to denigrate secularism and vilify those who support it.

Sommaire en français Je répond un article paru récemment sur le site web et dans un bulletin du Conseil des Canadiens (Council of Canadians). Ce texte, qui représente apparemment la position du Conseil, associe le massacre du 19 janvier 2017 aux soi-disant « islamophobie », « racisme » et « suprémacisme blanc » et instrumentalise cet événement pour dénigrer la laïcité et diaboliser ceux et celles qui l’appuient.

Your email bulletin of January 30th 2019, contained the following article by Rachel Small: Commemorating the second anniversary of the Quebec City Mosque attack.

The content of Small’s article is dishonest and extremely tendentious. It makes repeated use of the unacceptable expression “Islamophobia” whose purpose is to stifle legitimate criticism of both Islam and Islamism. The fact that Canada’s parliament was manipulated into adopting a motion (M-103) endorsing this concept is no excuse. Progressives have a duty to reject its use. To fear a religion, especially a monotheism such as Islam or Christianity, is not an irrational “phobia” but rather a sane and healthy response to danger. The crime committed by the assassin of January 29th 2017 was not his fear, but rather where he directed it — at innocent individuals — and how he expressed it — with murderous violence. We certainly do NOT need to fight against “Islamophobia”; rather we must encourage rational discussion and criticism of religion while directing that criticism first and foremost against ideologies (rather than against human beings) and against censorship of debate.

Even worse is the article’s conflation of religion and race. Race has absolutely nothing to do with the event. Rather, it involved religion which is completely distinct from race. Small’s evocation of “white supremacy” is completely irrelevant and so misleading as to be a bald-faced lie. The misuse of this expression is an insult to the many blacks, Jews and others who have indeed been persecuted because of that ideology, especially in the USA. Currently, white supremacism is very marginal here in Canada. However, when it did have a strong presence, when the KKK had many Canadian chapters, it was virulently anti-Catholic and anti-Quebec and engaged in acts of terrorism against French-language churches and schools. The use of “white supremacy” to characterize the motives of the 2017 mosque killer is ahistorical and an insult to all Québécois.

Small’s mention of “decades of wars against Muslim-majority countries, state policy which has normalized the killing of millions of Muslims” is particularly inappropriate. Need I remind her that we are talking about a crime which occurred here, in this country, not elsewhere? If Small wishes to complain about the foreign policy of the USA, the UK or any other country, then I suggest she take her complaint to the appropriate government instead of trying to dump the blame on someone in Quebec City.

The tendentious nature of Small’s article reaches a paroxysm when she approvingly links to two other very revealing documents: The article by Jasmin Zine in The Conversation, which has published several diatribes imbued with anti-Québécois prejudice, repeats and deepens Small’s dishonest assertions. The text by Toula Drimonis in the National Observer uses the all-too-familiar false accusation of “far-right” (and again “white nationalist”!) to slur the secularism measures proposed by the newly-elected CAQ. Both Zine and Drimonis manifest a total ignorance of secularism, in particular republican secularism (laïcité).

Si la Charte de la laïcité avait été adoptée en 2014, si les partisans de cette Charte n’avaient pas été si massivement diabolisés et ciblés par des fausses accusations diffamatoires, si la population québécoise n’avait pas été si complètement abandonnée par ses chefs politiques après la prise du pouvoir par le PLQ en avril 2014, alors le massacre du 29 janvier 2017 n’aurait probablement jamais eu lieu.

Quebec has legislation which forbids public servants from wearing partisan political symbols while on the job, an eminently judicious measure. It is both reasonable and necessary to extend this ban to religious symbols, given that religions are inevitably political when they insinuate themselves into state institutions. Both the Charter of Secularism proposed by the PQ government in 2013-2014 and the measures announced by the new CAQ government are laudable efforts which progressives have a duty to support. Neither Zine nor Drimonis makes any attempt to address the solid arguments for a ban on such symbols. Their failure to do so represents journalistic incompetence. Secularism — including banning religious symbols in government — is not only the will of the people in Quebec, it is a noble and enlightened program which helps to reduce the risk of inter-religious conflict.

Regardless of the intentions of the authors of these three articles, the objective result is opposition to secularism, complacency towards political Islam and an endorsement of anti-Québécois racism.

If the Charter of Secularism had been adopted in 2014, if supporters of that Charter had not been so overwhelmingly demonized and slandered by false accusations, if the Quebec population had not been so totally abandoned by its political leaders after the Quebec Liberal Party took power in April 2014, then the massacre of January 29th 2017 would, in all likelihood, not have occurred.

The perpetrator of the mosque shooting was a psychologically unstable individual who had been the target of bullying throughout his young life. He also feared Islamist terrorism. In addition, he, like all Quebeckers, had been for years inundated with a tsunami of propaganda condemning anyone who had even the slightest misgivings about Islam or Muslims with specious accusations of Islamophobia, racism, intolerance, xenophobia, far-right affinities and a plethora of other sins. In other words, Quebeckers were subject to incessant psychological intimidation by mainstream media and many politicians, denigrating them for having legitimate concerns, vilifying them for desiring a secular state, bullying them into silence and removing all hope of healthy debate. At some point, the young man snapped.

The attitude of Small, Zine and Drimonis is dangerous and can only increase the probability of future violent acts by stigmatizing necessary criticism of religion. If the Charter of Secularism had been adopted in 2014, if supporters of that Charter had not been so overwhelmingly demonized and slandered by false accusations, if the Quebec population had not been so totally abandoned by its political leaders after the Quebec Liberal Party took power in April 2014, then the massacre of January 29th 2017 would, in all likelihood, not have occurred. I earnestly hope that the current Quebec government will keep its secularization promises because that will help repair some of the enormous damage done by irresponsible ideologues such as Small, Zine and Drimonis.


Pour faire contrepoids à la propagande anti-québécoise dénoncée ci-dessous, lisez donc ceci : Le calme dans la tempête, Le calme digne, le calme fort, Léolane Kemner, Journal de Montréal, 2019-02-13.

Next blog: Quebec’s Draft Bill 21 Implements State Secularism

Three Strategies of Islamists

…and their dupes and allies in non-Muslim countries

2019-02-08 Epilogue added 2019-02-08 @ 21:00

This blog summarizes three major strategies employed by Islamists and their objective allies: (1) accusations of “Islamophobia”; (2) conflation of race and religion; and (3) defamation by association with the far-right.

Sommaire en français Dans ce blogue je résume trois stratégies majeures utilisées par les islamistes et leurs alliés objectifs : (1) les accusations d’« islamophobie »; (2) confondre race et religion; et (3) diffamation par association avec l’extrême-droite.

In non-Muslim countries, Islamists, i.e. promoters of political Islam—a variant of Islam with serious political ambitions—have several key strategies. Here are three important ones:

  1. Accusations of “Islamophobia”: This strategy needs little explanation. The dishonest and incoherent nature of the term “Islamophobia” is well known and well documented. The main purpose of such accusations is to stifle, i.e. censor, legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamism.
    • The suffix “-phobia” implies an irrational fear, whereas to fear a religion, especially a dangerous monotheism like Islam or Christianity, is eminently rational, especially if that religion has political ambitions.
    • Furthermore, the term is often used incorrectly to mean a prejudice against Muslims, i.e. a group of persons, whereas Islam is not a group of persons but rather a religious ideology.
  2. Conflation of Race and Religion: Again, this strategy is well known. And again, the main purpose is to stifle criticism of Islam or Islamism by labelling the adherents of those ideologies as belonging to a “race” (which is of course nonsense) so that accusations of “racism” may be used against critics.
    • The dishonesty of this strategy is obvious: whether or not one considers race to be a fictional or a real phenomenon, it must necessarily be based on innate, immutable attributes of the individual (such as genetic inheritance, skin colour or some other physical characteristic). But religion, on the other hand, is an idea or an ideology which one can (or at least should be allowed to) change at will. When an individual adopts a new religion, or abandons their former religion, they do not thus belong to a new race, obviously. Furthermore, the conflation of race and religion amounts to a denial of freedom of conscience for religious believers.
    • If an individual has the misfortune of being born and raised in religion X, then identifying that person with religion X amounts to a denial of his/her right to think for himself or herself. In fact, identifying a child with the religion of his or her parents is already a violation of that child’s freedom of conscience. Religion should be a matter for adults only, like marriage or alcohol. Until an individual reaches adulthood and attains the maturity necessary for informed decisions on such matters, he or she should not be identified with any religion.
  3. Accusations of Far-Right Political Affinity: This strategy is very often used by the identitarian left (or more accurately, pseudo-left) to slander anyone who disagrees with it—often using or misusing the vague expression “alt-right”—and it has been gleefully borrowed by Islamists to their great advantage. This slur is based on an extremely loose definition of “far-right” or, even better, no explicit definition at all, thus allowing the label to be stuck on any person or thing one dislikes.
    • This strategy works very well for Islamists as it converges greatly with the two strategies described above, especially the second.
    • This strategy is particularly ironic and hypocritical as Islamism is itself an extreme far-right ideology, far worse than even the classic fascism of Mussolini.
    • One major example: the denigration of the Quebec government of the party CAQ (Coalition Avenir Québec) elected to power on October 1st 2018. The CAQ is a centre-right party which places it close to the defeated QLP (Quebec Liberal Party) on the left-right political spectrum in terms of economic policy. Yet the English-language media in Canada, which were very sympathetic to the PLQ, do not hesitate to associate CAQ with far-right groups. Why? Because the CAQ has committed itself to implementing several very good secular measures in Quebec (which, by the way, places it far to the left of any other government, provincial or federal, in Canada on that issue). Secularism is of course an anathema for Islamists; thus, the CAQ has already been the target of a tsunami of negative propaganda from Islamist ideologues and their dupes—just as the Parti Québécois (PQ) was several years ago and for similar reasons—and we can expect it to continue for some time.

All three of these strategies are variants of the same theme: slander, in varying degrees of intensity. Furthermore, all three are blithely deployed in the service of Islamism by non-Muslims who are duped by that ideology into becoming its unwitting allies.

Anyone who employs all three of the above strategies is an objective ally of political Islam. By “objective ally” I mean that, regardless of the person’s intentions (which are often difficult or impossible to judge), their words and/or actions objectively benefit the spread of Islamist ideology whether intentionally or not, whether they realize it or not.


Aislin cartoon
Click to enlarge
Source: Facebook page of cartoonist Aislin

Only hours after putting the above blog on line, I received some news that illustrates all too graphically my point, in item 3 above, about slandering the CAQ by falsing associating it with the far-right. The cartoonist of the Montreal Gazette produced the caricature on the left. It is available on-line, on the cartoonist’s Facebook page. This image does not merely transmit a message which defames the CAQ. It is a major slur directed at all those who support the CAQ’s secularism measures, including the majority of Québécois. Although the Gazette decided not to run it—a wise decision, I think—I am publishing it here because it needs to be seen in order to expose the profound and virulent hatred for Québécois which underlies opposition to the CAQ’s very reasonable and laudable plans. This is the face of anti-Québécois racism, so prevalent in English-speaking Canada.

Next blog: An Open Letter to the Council of Canadians

The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Antisecularists

The movement against Legault and the CAQ has zero credibility.


A recent demonstration in Montreal by so-called “anti-racist” activists illustrates yet again that the enemies of secularism are sadly lacking in moral and intellectual integrity. In particular, they deliberately conflate race and religion, thus aiding and abetting religious fanaticism.

Sommaire en français Une récente manifestation à Montréal par des militants soi-disant “anti-racistes” montre encore une fois que les ennemis de la laïcité manquent tristement d’intégrité morale et intellectuelle. En particulier, ils confondent délibérément la race et la religion, favorisant ainsi le fanatisme religieux.

Shortly after being elected on October 1st 2018, the new premier, François Legault, and his CAQ party announced their intention to start implementing various secularism measures, in particular, banning religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of authority, i.e. police, judges, prosecutors, prison guards and teachers. This is incomplete, but nevertheless an excellent start to implementing secularism in Quebec and supported by the majority of the population and basically all secularists in Quebec.

Poster for 2018-10-07 demo, slightly modified Click to enlarge
Demo poster, slightly modified
to make it more honest.

But there are forces who oppose secularism and do so in an extremely dishonest manner. Yesterday (2018-10-07) a demonstration was held in Montréal to protest the new measures. The demo was announced as being against racism, but a major focus was on denouncing Legault and the CAQ as racist.

The fallacy of conflating race and religion is a common tactic used by anti-secularists. It has been refuted countless times, but because of the extreme dishonesty of anti-secularists who falsely claim to be “anti-racist,” it is necessary to do so once again. So I summarize:

  • Race involves innate and immutable characteristics of the individual, whereas a religion is an ideology—a collection of ideas and beliefs—which can change overnight.
  • Religion and race are thus completely different phenomena.
  • Religion may be freely chosen if and only if there is freedom of conscience. Unfortunately, most religious believers have a religion forced on them as children, via indoctrination.
  • One of the key pillars of secularism is freedom of conscience, i.e. to make sure that individuals have the freedom and the autonomy to choose or reject an ideology which others may try to force on them. Thus, public institutions must not show preference for any religion.
  • The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are obviously not racist. Their purpose is to keep religious bias out of the affairs of state and government. They apply to all religions.
  • The secular measures announced by Legault and CAQ are clearly necessary because public servants in positions of authority must not display any religious partisanship.

Furthermore, the anti-secularists masquerading as “anti-racists” are dishonest in several ways:

  • The conflation of race with religion is clearly a fallacy, a strategy used in order to defame secularists as “racist.”
  • The conflation of race with religion constitutes a denial of freedom of conscience, condemning individuals to the religion into which they were born, a product of pure chance. It is a denial of a basic human right, the right to think for oneself.
  • They use the crucifix in the Quebec National Assembly as an excuse to allow public servants in authority to wear blatant religious symbols. Of course that crucifix must be removed, and Legault’s decision to keep it there is unacceptable, but that is no excuse. Two wrongs do not make a right. The government needs to remove the crucifix:
    1. because it is the right thing to do; and
    2. in order to deprive anti-secularists of one of their favourite propaganda ploys.

Furthermore, the opposition to any form of dress code is nonsensical and dishonest, because:

  • In the Quebec public service, politically partisan symbols may not be worn by employees on duty. It is thus hypocritical to allow religious symbols to be worn. Religious symbols are generally very political.
  • Dress codes are a widespread phenomenon throughout society. For example, the Canadian parliament imposes certain restrictions on Members of Parliament. The Rules of Order and Decorum stipulate that “to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire.” Why should any MP be allowed the privilege of being exempted from this rule simply because of his or her religion?
  • It is a major goal of Islamism to impose the wearing of the Islamic veil anywhere and everywhere. By opposing all dress codes, anti-secularists are objectively allied with extreme right-wing political Islam. Anti-secularists are not anti-fascist, they are objectively pro-fascist.

Given the above considerations, we see that those who denounce the new Quebec government as “racist,” because of its secular measures, are both intellectually bankrupt, for their arguments are fundamentally irrational, and morally bankrupt, because they oppose freedom of conscience and support the agenda of a far-right religious movement.

One small glimmer of reason from an individual who is normally a staunch ally of the anti-secularists: Manon Massé of Québec solidaire has publically stated that Legault and the CAQ are not racist. Very good. But she nevertheless opposes Legault’s plans because QS would not include teachers in the religious symbol ban. Furthermore, she did not, as far as I know, distance herself from the so-called “anti-racist” demonstration.

Anyone who cares sincerely about child welfare, especially the well-being of believers’ children, will support Legault’s proposed ban on religious symbols worn by teachers, thus helping to make public schools a refuge from religious indoctrination.

One final observation about the modern anti-racist movement, and this should come as no surprise to anyone: that movement is often racist itself. In particular, here in Quebec, so-called “anti-racist” activists often accuse Quebeckers in general of being racist. This itself is a racist attitude, an expression of anti-Québécois ethnic bigotry. In reality, the vast majority of Québécois, including those who voted for the centre-right CAQ, are more progressive that many of those activists.

Relevant Links:

Next blog: The Dishonesty of the Globe and Mail

Notes sur le racisme, IIe partie

Les races humaines ne sont pas que des constructions sociales.

2017-07-15, mise à jour 2017-07-16

Le terme « racisme » est souvent utilisé de façon déformée par de faux antiracistes, surtout des islamistes, dans un but politique malhonnête. Nous devons insister sur le sens originel du terme afin d’éviter cette manipulation. Ce blogue poursuit les thèmes abordés dans mon blogue précédent Notes on Racism, Part I ainsi que dans l’article Amalgamer race et religion relève de l’incompétence paru dans le Huffington Post Québec et sur le site de Libres penseurs athées.

Summary in English The term “racism” is frequently misused by false anti-racists, expecially Islamists, for dishonest political reasons. We must insist on its original meaning in order to counter such manipulation. This blog continues discussing themes first presented in my previous blog Notes on Racism, Part I and in the AFT blog Conflating Race & Religion Shows Incompetence.

Je rejette l’idée que la race et le racisme soient des constructions purement sociales.

Cette précision est devenue très importante à cause d’un phénomène qui empoisonne les débats politiques depuis quelques années : le faux antiracisme. Il s’agit d’une tendance politique à dénigrer ses adversaires par de fausses accusations de racisme basées sur des critères que n’ont rien à voir avec la race. L’exemple le plus courant concerne les islamistes qui réagissent aux critiques de leur idéologie par des accusations de « racisme » ou d’« islamophobie » (ce « racisme imaginaire » pour reprendre la belle expression de Pascal Bruckner). Une idéologie politico-religieuse comme l’islamisme n’est aucunement une race. Confondre race et religion est une imposture. Les fausses accusations de racisme sont tendancieuses, odieuses et diffamatoires. Il est devenu donc urgent de dénoncer cette imposture en insistant sur le vrai sens des mots.

Si le terme « race » est vidé de son sens — en prétendant que les races soient de pures constructions sociales, sans base génétique — alors, cela permet aux islamistes de redéfinir le terme « racisme » pour vouloir dire n’importe quoi qui serve leurs intérêts, et le « n’importe quoi » dans ce cas, c’est l’appartenance religieuse. Afin de nous opposer aux faux antiracistes, nous devons insister sur la base génétique de la race et du racisme. Sinon, les islamistes peuvent allégrement galvauder le terme. D’ailleurs, leurs fausses accusations finissent par trivialiser le vrai racisme, rendant plus difficile la lutte contre le vrai racisme.

Le choix d’utiliser ou non le mot « race » est un choix politique, pas une question scientifique. On peut changer de terme — par exemple « variété » ou « groupe génétique » — pour éviter le mot race mais la réalité derrière reste la même. Ces variétés existent, c’est une évidence, une constatation objective. D’ailleurs, si on se prive du mot « race », les termes comme « racial » et « raciste » sont alors privés du lien avec leur racine, ce qui nous empêche de critiquer les dérives des faux antiracistes et des vrais racistes. Donc, pour le moment, je continue à l’utiliser.

Qu’est-ce que c’est la « race » ? C’est une classification taxonomique à l’intérieur de la sous-espèce, donc très fine. Nous, les humains, sommes des animaux et évoluons comme les animaux. Normalement (incluant chez les humains), l’évolution des variantes est le résultat de la sélection naturelle, mais, pour un petit nombre d’espèces domestiques, la sélection artificielle joue un rôle important. Les races (chez les humains du moins) sont des ensembles aux frontières très floues. Y en a-t-il cinq ou 50 ou 500 ? Difficile ou impossible de les compter car cela prendrait des démarcations, des frontières claires. La race est une affaire de populations et de statistiques, pas d’individus ou de certitudes.

Il n’y a qu’une espèce humaine. Il n’y a même pas de sous-espèce dans l’espèce humaine à ce que je sache. (Mais cela aurait pu se produire, par exemple si les Néandertals vivaient encore, séparés de nous.) La « race » est une catégorie encore plus fine que la sous-espèce. Les différences entre les races humaines sont plutôt superficielles et infimes (mais tout de même parfois évidentes) par rapport à ce que tous les humains ont en commun. Ces différences peuvent parfois être importantes, par exemple dans l’étude des maladies héréditaires. Avec la mixité, ces différences vont en s’estompant. (Par contre, les différences peuvent aussi devenir plus importantes si des populations évoluent dans des milieux bien séparés. Par exemple, si les humains réussissaient à coloniser une autre planète pour suffisamment de générations, cela pourrait engendrer l’évolution de différences majeures.)

Qu’est-ce que c’est le racisme ? C’est la discrimination basée sur la race, c’est-à-dire sur le patrimoine génétique de la personne. Les racistes exagèrent les différences entre les races, sous-estimant ce que nous avons tous en commun, et ils essaient de hiérarchiser les races pour en faire des « supérieures » ou des « inférieures », préconisant souvent des rapports de domination et de soumission.

Pourquoi le racisme est-il si répréhensible ? Pour deux raisons au moins :

  1. Parce que ce n’est pas scientifiquement valable, puisque les différences entre les races humaines sont superficielles et infimes par rapport à ce que tous les humains ont en commun.
  2. Parce que c’est discriminer sur un attribut inné de la personne, un attribut qui est inchangeable, que la personne ne peut ni choisir ni contrôler. (Par contre, la religion est un attribut acquis, comme une opinion politique.)

Nier l’existence des races humaines pour s’opposer au racisme (ou à son cousin le darwinisme social), c’est jeter le bébé avec l’eau du bain. C’est jeter Darwin par-dessus bord et prôner l’ignorance scientifique. C’est supposer que les gens sont tellement abrutis qu’ils ne sont pas capables d’entendre parler des mécanismes de l’évolution sans tomber dans la promotion de la ségrégation raciale.

Si les races existent chez les autres animaux, elles peuvent très bien exister chez les humains. Reconnaître leur existence, cela n’a en soi aucune implication politique. Mais si on nie leur existence en prétendant que c’est purement de la construction sociale, sans base génétique, cela veut dire que l’on est prêt à mentir pour la cause. Le mensonge n’est pas une bonne stratégie, surtout à long terme, même si la cause est noble. Surtout si la cause est noble.

Nier l’existence des races humaines, c’est donner un statut très particulier à une espèce ; c’est fortement apparenté au créationisme. En effet, pour que la variation génétique chez l’espèce humaine soit si parfaitement homogène, cela prendrait pratiquement une création ex nihilo. Et une fois l’espèce créée, maintenir son homogénéité malgré les très divers milieux géographiques, climatiques et autres dans lesquels les humains évoluent, cela exigerait une continuelle intervention divine ou autrement magique.

Si dans le présent blogue je fais des erreurs au niveau scientifique, n’étant pas expert en sciences biologiques, alors je vous invite à me les signaler. Toutefois, je rejette d’emblée et catégoriquement tout propos diffamatoire à mon sujet.

Prochain blogue : Pride & Shame in Toronto & London