If you’re like me, you might have thought people on social media were using the word “racist” unwittingly to anyone who expressed concerns about the vetting process of 25,000 Syrian refugees.
Initially, I was correcting them: “It’s not racist to want a safe country,” “Religion is not a race,” and “The Merriam-Webster app is free.”
However, as we know, dictionaries aren’t for everyone. Some people would rather reference the liberal playbook. In it, they’re attempting to diminish the word "racist" in order to depict conservatives as all-white, backcountry imbeciles who despise everyone darker than the shade of tropical sand.
So I wasn’t surprised last week when Kathleen Wynne addressed the refugee issue by defaming her opponents:
“What we can't give in to, I think, is allowing security to mask racism. That's the danger and that somehow talking about security allows us to tap into that racist vein, when that isn't who we are."
She has it in reverse.
Wynne is using the word “racism” to mask genuine concerns about security. To use her own bumbling logic, if you’re afraid of importing a terrorist, you’re a racist. She’s just that petty to demonize all the good Canadians with rational apprehensions.
Really, her intent is to liken Islam with skin colour, so please bear with me, while I make the following obvious observations:
Not all Middle Easterners are Muslim—and many are being beheaded for this reason. Practicing a religion is a behaviour and a belief, while skin colour is a superficial, unchangeable physical feature. You’re free to disagree with the values and morality of any religion or idea, but you’re awful if you hate people because they have more melanin than you do. Furthermore, you can oppose people’s religion and ideology and still respect their human dignity.
In short, on the hatred hierarchy scale, racism is worse than religious bigotry. The liberals clearly agree; it’s precisely why they’re using the word “racist” unsparingly.
Maybe “Islamophobia” isn’t frightful enough and maybe “xenophobia” is too tepid. "Racism," however, is still found in dusty dictionaries, recounted in history books and is as powerful as ever. Calling a person a racist is still the lowest strike, aimed to hit you where it hurts.
All the insults I saw hurled online recently were unjust, but certainly there are genuine racists. But isn’t it amusing reading the insults coming from the left? The Huffington Post blogs thrive on essays warning not to “other” someone. There’s always a new rant attaching the word “shaming” to absolutely anything—including actions that are indeed shameful. (Have you heard of "sweat-shaming" yet?) These are likely the same people who are enthusiastically labeling you.
Way to go, Wynne, on diluting the significance of racism. You’ve pilfered a powerful word and used it as a sucker punch. And if the liberals keep it up—and they will—calling someone a racist will result in the same hurt feelings as being called a jerk. Then they’ll need a more explosive slur. Though, I have to ask, what might that word be?
JOIN TheRebel.media FREE for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.
Believe that Muslim face coverings have no place in Canada?
The Rebel Store has the t-shirt for you: “Separation of Mosque and State”
Trudeau's Liberals MUST halt plans to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees
until they can guarantee the safety of the Canadian people.
SIGN THE PETITION at RefugeePause.ca