In the eyes of mad journos and cynical politicians anyone in a minority is, by that fact, oppressed. Mad journos signal their virtue by praising minorities and alert politicians court the minority sheit’s vote.
As a result, our society has become more oppressed and sexist and racist than it was 20 years ago. By this dwelling on things which separate one from another boundaries were built. Now, under our very eyes chunks of society are corralling and segregating themselves in ways a majority could never impose.
As Melanie Philips, the token conservative in the climate-changy, savey-panda, Trumpy-hatey, killy-baby, killy-oldy London Times, puts it, “In one sanctimonious leap, “safe spaces” are morphing into prejudice in reverse.
Sheffield University is to introduce flats where only gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students will be allowed to live. The university says these will provide a “safe space” after concerns from the students themselves of “bullying and harassment” in mainstream accommodation.
In Somerset next month, Woman Fest is set to become Britain’s first “all-women radical participation festival”. Attractions will include a “womyn rising tent” for “healing and learning” and a “sacred womb” tent for the contemplation of modern feminism. What won’t be contemplated is the presence of men.
In America, there are women-only screenings of the film Wonder Woman. Some US universities have opened gay-only or “ethnically themed” dorms where the majority must be black or from other ethnic minorities.
In Paris last year, an “intersectional black feminist gathering” at the Nyansapo festival attempted to ban white people. “Intersectionality”, in case you didn’t know, is the junction of different categories of cultural victim. The aim of the Paris gathering was to create “safe spaces” in which to discuss black feminism, anti-racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of “systemic oppression”.
Such “oppressed” groups claim that they are discriminated against by being treated as somehow separate from mainstream society. So in response they are discriminating against and separating from mainstream society.
They way they are treated, they say, justifies their treating others in an identical fashion. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. Their behaviour negates instead their claim to be unjustly treated. Rather than helping promote a tolerant, inclusive society, they are creating ghettos and social division. Banning people because they are white, male or have other distinguishing characteristics is to legitimise social exclusion on grounds of identity.
For “safe space”, therefore, read “segregated space” and “discrimination”. Try imagining men-only summer festivals or film screenings, or flats restricted to heterosexual or white students. Of course these would never be permitted. The “intersectionalists”, however, deny they could ever be guilty of prejudice. That’s because they subscribe to the Marxist notion that prejudice only goes with power. So it’s simply impossible for “powerless” groups such as sexual minorities, black people or women to be bigots.
This is unsafely spaced-out nonsense. Everyone is capable of prejudice. To deny that is to exempt self-styled “victim” groups from moral agency. That in turn is to deny them their common humanity — and that’s the true definition of hateful bigotry.
Once you start dividing people into categories, prejudice and discrimination can obviously work in reverse. It’s the actual division of people which is potentially hateful. That realisation is behind the startling decision by France’s President Macron, approved by French MPs, to abolish the category of race altogether from the French constitution. Instead of saying that France will ensure “the equality of all citizens before the law without distinction of origin, race or religion”, it will now say “without distinction of origin, sex or religion”.
This change is based on the perception that there is only one race: the human race. All distinctions based on distinctive races are therefore bogus and themselves innately hateful, even if they ostensibly counter racial prejudice.
The thinking behind this change was expounded in Le Monde by Mario Stasi, chairman of the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism. He said race had been included in the French constitution by postwar politicians in revulsion at the ideology of the Nazis. In so doing, however, they had unwittingly promoted the cause against which they were seeking to fight. That’s because the very idea of separating races is itself a Nazi concept. It is arbitrary and scientifically meaningless. It is merely a device to promote hatred and worse.
It follows inescapably that, as a result of this change, the French are not only abolishing race but also racism. So there can be no more racial diversity targets and all the rest of the racial equality apparatus. This does not mean that the notion of prejudice will be abolished. Prejudice will be defined instead on the basis of “origins”, a neutral and surely more accurate term.
The implications of the change will be devastating for the industry of racial grievance. This can only be a good thing. The proper notion of equality, the concept which underpins western civilisation, derives from the Hebrew Bible which lays down that all people are equal because all are made in the image of God.
That means equal respect for everyone on the grounds of our common humanity. It is therefore an absolute and unconditional equality. It does not mean, however, identical treatment regardless of circumstance or behaviour: the basic condition of “victim culture”.
In our godless age, religious precepts have largely been replaced in the public sphere by ideologies such as feminism or anti-racism. These are man-made absolutes. They are therefore conditional upon which group exercises power over others to obtain privileged treatment and a free pass for bad behaviour.
That’s why “victim culture” is not about the victims of power but itself embodies an abuse of power. And that’s why, from LGBT flats to sacred wombs, we now have prejudice and discrimination in reverse.