8 BAD CHOICES Democrats Make Every Day

NEWS

Calvin Freiburger reports the left-wing coalition is basically one big identity politics racket, which can get tricky when identity groups come into conflict with one another.

Because its foundation is pandering and bribery rather than a coherent set of values that impartially apply to all people, it was inevitable that a ranking of identity groups would emerge. Black and female are of course up there, though these days they usually play second fiddle to LGBT or immigrant.

But nothing beats Muslim.

At the Daily Wire, Paul Bois details a story out of Vancouver, Canada. It seems a local gay pride parade blocked one particular pro-gay organization from participating.

Why? The group’s anti-sharia focus would have risked the parade getting labeled Islamophobic.

We couldn’t make this up if we tried:

Founded by Shawn Shirazi, an Iranian immigrant of Vancouver, the group “Cirque de So Gay” featured both transgender and gay Middle Eastern men known for getting a little too direct in their criticism of Islam. Though they marched in the Vancouver pride parade for several years, even earning awards for originality, the age of Trump stirred in parade organizers a different attitude toward their act, which they now deem “culturally insensitive.”

When applying for entry into the parade, “Cirque de So Gay” described the act as “casting off the shroud of oppression to unveil the Persian Princess beneath … The Islamic attire is more than just a piece of black fabric. It’s a tool used by governments to impose absolute control and authority over their citizens and even tourists.”

Shirazi said he wanted the act to have an open dialogue about Islamic society “so people can express themselves as they choose, without threat of being flogged, stoned or beheaded.”

Well, Vancouver Pride Society would have none of that. According to the group’s co-executive director, Andrea Arnot, framing the burka as a tool of coercion and submission does it a disservice, because, “Many women choose to wear burkas. It’s part of their identity, their religion and their culture.”

Cute rationalization…but one Vancouver Pride Society apparently didn’t buy in 2011, when “the exact same act” was allowed to be part of the parade. But hey, sometimes independent thinking takes a backseat to keeping pace with the evolving wisdom of the leftist hive mind.

According to the Vancouver Sun, recent events in Canada have also made criticizing Islam a more volatile subject:

This January, a gunman opened fire on Muslims praying at a Quebec City mosque, killing six men and wounding 19 others. In July, the same mosque received a defaced Qur’an and a note suggesting that they use a hog farm as their cemetery.

The responses have been varied.

Quebec’s Bill 62 would ban the provision of government services to anyone wearing a niqab or a burka. Ostensibly, it’s being done in the name of secularism over religion, although that rings a bit hollow when a crucifix hangs in its National Assembly.

Federally, the Liberal government has gone in the opposite direction. In 2015, it ended Ottawa’s four-year court battle to force women to unveil when taking the oath of citizenship.

Perhaps. But while hate crimes may be the excuse, it’s not hard to see this as an outgrowth of the Left’s longer tradition of neglecting their own avowed support for gays whenever the subject intersects with Islam…like, for instance, the Islamist who shot up Florida’s Pulse nightclub last year, killing and wounding dozens of gay Americans, which didn’t get liberals to budge in the slightest from their certainty that Islam is a religion of peace, that there’s no need to limit or scrutinize immigration from the Middle East, or that gay Americans don’t need greater freedom to carry guns to defend themselves.

That’s what “gay rights” means to liberals in a nutshell: forcing people to bake you cakes under penalty of law, but your out of luck if an imam decides a wall should be dropped on you. The Left has spoken. Will gay liberals listen?

PLS LIKE AND SHARE

H/T thefederalistpapers

5 comments

Leave a Reply