Regressive Left Pt. 1: Recent Regression

A thorough exploration of the theory and history of regressive, illiberal leftism in today’s world is a massive project.  I cannot begin to cover it all here.  What I offer is not a thorough, comprehensive explanation but an introduction and perhaps some perspective.  In this social media age, regressive leftism and social justice warriors came seemingly out of nowhere, appearing to both create and thrive off of chaos, dissention and controversy.  What I intend to show here is that the regressive left of the present day, though new and unique in some respects, is part of a tradition as old as western civilization itself.    

What is new about it is that the English speaking world at least has had, up until now, little experience with authoritarian leftism in the modern sense.  While Marxist-Leninist and Maoist groups have existed in the 20th century, and utopian communities can be traced back to or even before the days of the French and American revolutions, they have not been significant forces in the politics of the US and other English speaking and European countries to nearly the degree that politically correct social justice movements are today.  This is, I think, a significant factor in their recent success.  The liberal tradition in America struggles to cope with illiberal movements from the left because it has so little real experience with them.  The revolutionary socialist tradition in America never really recovered from its red-scare and McCarthy era repressions.

Dating back to 1930s Germany,
 Antifa is a relative
newcomer to regressivism.

It is important to bear in mind therefore that regressivism is not inherently left wing, and leftism in America or Europe is not inherently regressive.  Pro free speech and anti-censorship voices in America have, for the vast majority of its history, come from the left against repressive forces on the right and only very recently has the reverse been true.  Had he been born at any other time in history, Milo Yiannopoulos would have been a leftist. 

Ten times this much material could be written about the regressive right.  The present day hostility towards the far right seen in most American media and public discourse is the exception and not the rule historically.  Most of the time it has been right wing thought that was tolerated and encouraged while the left was frowned upon, although the overall trajectory of social progress in the western world has been towards greater degrees of liberalism. 

This is why I think the present day regressive left is worth paying attention to.  It advances under banners that historically have meant increased rather than decreased liberty, equality and public accountability.   This is what is dangerous about it.  There has been, at least as far back as the dissolution of the USSR, a tendency to see greater threat in fascism than in communism, a greater willingness to censor material offensive to feminists and gays rather than material offensive to conservatives and Christians, and a greater willingness to condemn and punish the racism of the Ku Klux Klan while remaining lax towards the racism of the Nation of Islam.  It is acceptable to bash white males in mainstream media in a way that would be beyond the pale if done to women or minorities. 

At first glance, the rationale behind this seems solid.  All things considered, the capacity of white America to oppress its blacks is greater by orders of magnitude than the capacity of black America to oppress its whites.  But as the recent rise of the latest incarnation of the regressive right – the “alt-right” as represented by the likes of Richard Spencer and the politically incorrect forums on 4chan demonstrate, white male America’s tolerance for these kinds of reverse double standards is not infinite.  This is especially so since the white male working class has been hard hit by recent structural changes to the economy, and admonitions of white male privilege are increasingly ringing hollow to those who are themselves unemployed and down on their luck.  No privilege to check there.  

The surprising electoral successes of Brexit, Donald Trump’s bid for the white house and the sudden rise of populist nationalism in Europe shows us that regressive leftism poses a dual danger to the western world: its own illiberal tendencies on the one hand, and the very real possibility of a regressive right wing backlash to it on the other. 

It is therefore imperative that regressive leftism be seen and understood clearly, and this requires a look at its chief doctrines and the history of how those doctrines came about. 

The term “regressive left” entered the political parlance of our times in 2012 when UK politician and author Maajid Nawaz used the term to describe left leaning people who are reluctant to challenge bigotry and oppressive cultural practises that occur within minority communities, especially Islamic ones, out of a fear of being labeled as racist or otherwise politically incorrect.  This issue entered mainstream consciousness following Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s heated debate with Ben Affleck on a 2014 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.  

Debates over "Islamophobia" reveal deep seated dysfunctions in the culture of western leftism.  Dysfunctions that have long and deep roots in the culture of western progressive and radical thought, as we will discover.  The equation of criticism of the genuinely harsh and retrograde nature of Shari'a Law, or the social consequences of mass immigration, Muslim and otherwise, with "racism" is now the signature argumentative tactic of the regressive left, with the term "Afflecking" now being used to describe it, based on the above video.

The obvious and correct response: that Islam is a religion, not a race, and that to use the moral shield of anti-racism to shield Islamic theology from scrutiny and criticism is not only disingenuous, but dangerous, naturally fall on deaf ears.  It must be pointed out, of course, that a strong line of demarcation is needed between honest criticism of religious tenets on the one hand and an attitude of bigotry and hatred towards adherents to the religion in question on the other.  The former must be acceptable, the later must not be.

The ridiculous decision on part of the Southern Poverty Law Center to include Maajid Nawaz and anti female genital mutilation activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali on a list of "anti-Muslim extremists" exemplifies what goes wrong when this distinction is not properly made.  Maajid Nawaz has as impeccable of liberal credentials as anyone possibly could, and to put him and Ali on such a list is a sad triumph of political posturing and pandering to the base over philosophical principle.

The incompatibilities of Shari'a with the western liberal tradition need not be elaborated on, I would hope.  When it comes to women's rights, LGBT rights, secularism, civil liberties and other indices of liberal thought, what we've seen of Shari'a in action in places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State and Iran make it look orders of magnitude worse than the US religious right, which these same regressive leftists pull no punches in their criticisms of.  

In addition to this are the effects that mass immigration has on infrastructure and job prospects, especially for those already in the lower socioeconomic classes.  While some immigration is a good thing for shoring up shortages of needed skills and population levels in nations with low birth rates, too much immigration strains infrastructure and social services - at least short term - and creates downward pressure on wages, especially for those already at the lower end of the wage earning spectrum, usually immigrants, women or minorities themselves.  Migrant scab labor has a long history of use in strike breaking.  Progressives have no business enabling any of this.

Yet because Muslims are associated with not having white skin and not being of European origin, figures critical of Islam such as Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz are figures of controversy in western liberalism.  It is very telling that people like Linda Sarsour, a defender of Shari'a law are among the leadership of the US women's movement's protests against Donald Trump.  While I do not condone Donald Trump's boorish locker-room talk regarding women, is the crudest of his admittedly embarrassing pubescent-level machismo really worse than the tenets of Shari'a that severely circumscribe the life of women in a way that would make Trump's cringe-worthy phony Playboy persona appear enlightened in comparison?   Another of its leaders, Donna Hylton, served 27 years for the kidnapping, torture and murder of a 60 year old homosexual man.  

Politically motivated refusal to face harsh truths regarding immigration policies in Europe has had devastating consequences, as the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, the 2016 New Year's Eve attacks, the Migrant Crisis of 2015 and a painfully long list of Islamic terror attacks in Europe from 2014 to the present, exemplify.  More tragic still is how politicized the issue has become, with progressives taking a defensive stance vis-a-vis mass Islamic immigration.

This is especially bizarre and vexing in the case of the sex assault cases, like Rotherham and the Cologne attacks.  Regressive leftists do not hesitate to sympathize with feminist demands that we "listen and believe" when women come forward with allegations of sexual assault.  And this is well beyond the reasonable demand for a proper investigation and into the realm of guilty until proven innocent and abandonment of due process for the accused, as has been seen on some college campuses.  Such measures, we are told, are needed to defeat "rape culture" and we are assured that false allegations are rare and, apparently, excusable in light of how many guilty men do go free.  Apparently, however, these demands do not necessarily apply when the men being so accused are not white Christian citizens.  Then, refusal to listen or believe is the surest way to avoid a potentially career ruining accusation of racial profiling.

As previously mentioned, anti-Muslim bigotry does need to be condemned, especially in light of the erosions of civil liberties, expansions of domestic surveillance and hawkish foreign policy stances taken by the Bush White House in response to the threat of Islamic terrorism.  It is equally regressive to condemn the mentality of collective responsibility underlying feminist attitudes towards men accused of date rape on college campuses while endorsing collective responsibility for all Muslim immigrants and refugees, as it is the other way around.

Anti Islamism should not be an impetus to the embrace of regressive politics in the west.  But neither should very real and demonstrable acts of terrorism and violence against women - otherwise so staunchly condemned in progressive circles - be downplayed or swept under the rug out of white male guilt, guilt over western colonialism or the holocaust, and fears of being thought of as racist likewise be an impetus to the embrace of another kind of regressivism.  Islam should no more be subjected to, or shielded from, the scrutiny that all belief systems should get.  Both far right anti-Islamism and the regressive left's willful refusal to countenance anything "Islamophobic" are twin paths into a future no liberal minded person should be interested in.

... Continued in Part 2: Senseless Social Justice

Motion 103: Too Canadian to be Shari'a

Don't Worry Folks, Canadians are Still Much Too Diffident and Timid for Something as Decisive and Firm as Shari'a Law.  It's not Coming Here.

Not yet anyway.  But there's been no shortage of fear and hysteria coming from what's trying to pass itself off as the alt-right in Canada.  

"The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam" states Faith Goldy of Rebel Media, in an article entitled, Freedom to Offend: Freedom of Speech, not Sharia.  

Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.  This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.   According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.  Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.

Ermahgerd!  God help us!  So long as the God we're calling on for help is not Allah.  Then I guess we really are screwed.  

But let's not arm up against the Caliphate of Canadaistan just yet.  

I really do hope we haven't sunk to the level of taking Rebel Media at all seriously.  For those of you who don't know, Rebel was established in February 2015 by a geeky little neo-con by the name of Ezra Levant, who'd been with that paragon of investigative journalism, The Sun News Network, for a few years prior to that and had been writing opinion pieces in Sun newspapers at least as far back as the 1990s.  Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes and one time Canadian Libertarian Party candidate Lauren Southern - two pundits beloved in alt-right and even some alt-left circles for reasons I'll never fully grasp (okay, the baser part of me can understand Lauren's popularity) contribute to Rebel.

Ezra Levant is not exactly Joseph Pulitzer, to put it mildly.   The list of people to whom Mr. Levant has issued retractions and apologies to, or been accused of libel by, isn't exactly short, and he has been on the receiving end of more than one Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruling.  While some of Mr. Levant's positions on free speech issues and criticisms of the vague and far reaching nature of Canadian "Human Rights Commissions"  do resonate with me, he's also an unrepentant neo-con and I've read numerous anti-social democratic editorials penned under his name.  No thanks.

Rebel has not been alone in its fearful attacks on motion M103.  BreakingNews.ca "For alternative breaking news global and domestic", which is totally not a fake news site, proclaims "Toronto: Sharia Police Arrest Trump supporter for speaking vs Islam."  

Sharia police?  Okay.  Sounds like totally not fake news, but whatever.

Not surprisingly, centrist and progressive outlets are claiming that the Liberal Member of Parlaiment who proposed M103 has received huge amounts of hate mail, are claiming that attendees at a rally against M103 put on by Rebel Media were giving Nazi like salutes, or are at least urging a less frantic reaction.  The notion of tackling "Islamophobia" in Canada was given further impetus by the tragic slaying of six and injuring of nineteen more when a gunman opened fire in the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City on the evening of January 29.   Also not surprisingly, a "truther movement" questioning the official narrative that the shooter was a white nationalist has emerged.

InfoWars and Rebel Media.  Like I say, not quite Joseph Pulitzer.

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm no fan of the Islamic faith - or of religion in general.  There are many genuinely barbaric aspects of Shari'a Law.  Secularism and separation of church and state are fundamental components of a free and open society.  From what I've heard of Islamic jurisprudence from places like Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State and Afghanistan under the Taliban, I think any reasonable person can be forgiven for taking a pass on it.  It has no place in the liberal west, and its incursion into western nations is rightly troubling.

But does Motion 103 before the Canadian parliament really amount to the beginnings of Shari'a in Canada?   As on old friend of mine used to say, when you're confused, look at the facts.  The text of M103, submitted by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There IS plenty not to like here.  I am not defending this motion.  But it isn't the implementation of Shari'a law north of the 49th parallel.   It's as simple as that.  It just isn't.

M103 is incredibly vague and ambiguous, and alludes to a vast, sweeping and all but certainly unattainable goal; nice as it would be to be rid of "systemic racism" and "religious discrimination", I think it a safe bet that, human nature being what it is, this isn't going to happen and that a "whole of government" approach to attempting this will be, at best, an extremely expensive exercise in virtue signalling and, at worst, could possibly entail some erosion of civil liberties such as free speech.  Even in that worst case scenario - which I do not think likely - I don't see Shari'a law on the table here. 

Fears of erosion of cultural distinctiveness in the Great White North are vastly overstated.  This is, if anything, a quintessentially Canadian solution to a quintessentially Canadian problem.  The motion calls for:

• A standing committee mandated to collect data to "contextualize" hate crime reports
• Conduct needs assessment for impacted communities
• Present its findings to Parliament within 240 days of the adoption of this motion.  

I would not bet money on their being a report ready for Parliament within 240 days.  I would bet money on a recommendation for more money and an extension of the mandate which, when completed, will most likely either recommend further study or contain recommendations for Parliament. Whatever these recommendations end up being, the sitting government will most likely do what Canadian parliaments usually do: simply shelve them, quietly as possible, ideally, and with no mention of how much money was spent on the whole endeavor.  The figure would no doubt embarrass the sitting government. 

Chopping off hands for theft is just so Saudi Arabia!  Stoning to death for adultery is much too Taliban for us Canucks.  But strongly worded condemnations, standing committees and needs assessments?  Watching Hockey Night in Canada in your Igloo over a beer and back-bacon, and politely apologizing for it all when you're done doesn't get any more Canadian than that, eh?