What we mean when we talk about “divisive politics”
With the rise of Trumpism and the growing prominence of the alt-right in the US and Canada, a lot of commentary has focused on calling them out for their “divisive” politics.
Many media outlets and politicians have criticized Trump’s Muslim Ban, for example, by referring to it as “divisive.” And in the same way, Kelly Leitch’s campaign for leadership of the Conservative party is frequently condemned for its “divisive politics.” It is the same way that we talked about Harper’s proposal for a “niqab ban” during the last election.
However, this is entirely the wrong way to talk about the issue. The problem is that by framing these policies and rhetoric in terms of divisiveness, we adopt the idea that division is something that is undesirable for politics. And yet, division is essential to progressive politics; if you are trying to address income inequality or patriarchal systems, you are going to have to challenge institutional and material power. You can not hope to attain consensus or complete inclusion, because the redistribution of power means that someone else is losing part of their power.
Once “division” becomes something to avoid, it is easy for conservatives to turn this against social justice goals. One of the major arguments that the right wing uses to condemn campus boycotts of Israel, for example, is the idea that those campaigns are “divisive,” whereas conservatives want to unite the campus. But, as with the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, the lack of consensus is not an acceptable reason to abandon solidarity and campaigns for human rights. Quite the opposite.
Rather than condemning “divisive politics,” we should recognize that the term is often being used as a euphemism for something else. In the case of Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban and Kellie Leitch’s “Canadian values” test, we use the word “division” as a euphemism for racism. We need to be more direct and call their arguments out precisely for that reason — not because they are divisive, but because they are racist.
This necessity to avoid euphemisms like “division” is even more important when we look at the growing prominence of alt-right organizations like Ezra Levant’s The Rebel media, which wants to be seen as a legitimate journalistic outlet yet every day peddles hate speech, racist and homophobic epithets, and whose “journalists” act as provocateurs, trying to incite hate towards Muslims and refugees.
There are two important and recent examples that point specifically to the Rebel’s efforts to inflame Islamophobia.
Ottawa. In December 2016, there was a tragedy in the Ottawa Somali community, involving double homicide. The Rebel immediately flew “reporter” Faith Goldy to the scene to harass the local Mosque, in an attempt to prove that the violence was related to Islam. They created a sensational domain name to host this coverage, called “ottawamurders.ca,” where Goldy stated that “given Canada’s disturbing history of honour-based violence … I knew I had to travel to Ottawa to ask the questions you know the mainstream media won’t.”
As if this was not harmful enough, Ezra Levant simultaneously released a blog post raising skepticism about Somali immigrants and refugees, which is about as close to hate speech against the Somali community as you can get:
But here’s the bigger issue:
Why is Canada taking so many thousands of Somali migrants in the first place?
Somalia is a 99 per cent Muslim country, so Muslims aren’t persecuted there. (Muslims aren’t persecuted anywhere in the world, in fact — except by fellow Muslims.)
Imagine looking at such a squalid country — war, crime, piracy, terrorism, illiteracy, violence against women, valuing the Koran ahead of our laws, and clannish customs over Canadian ones — and thinking, hey, let’s bring that to Canada?!
Perhaps the brother will be acquitted. Perhaps he really was just “mentally ill,” or whatever excuse the media cooks up. But the powers that be have made up their mind: there’s nothing Muslim to see here.
Not us. We’ve dispatched Faith Goldy to Ottawa to actually ask questions. Including to go to the mosque, as an uncovered female reporter, to talk to the imam.
If you want to see all of her videos, VISIT OttawaMurders.com.
Quebec City. More recently, after an attack on a Mosque in Quebec City, the Rebel immediately put Faith Goldy on a plane to investigate, and focused their attention on one of the suspects at the time who was reportedly of Moroccan descent. Even after it turned out he was actually a witness, the Rebel continued, and continues to this day, to peddle a conspiracy theory that implies that the attacker must have been Muslim and that the media has covered it up.
Spreading doubt about Islamophobia. This crusade to prove the “Muslim” character of these events is taking place simultaneously as they deny that discrimination against Muslims is a problem.
On January 29, 2017, the very day of the attack against Muslims in Quebec City, and days after the implementation of Trump’s Muslim Ban, the Rebel put out a video calling Islamophobia a “fake problem” and “bogus.” This was followed by a campaign to oppose an upcoming motion in the House of Commons put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that would seek to condemn Islamophobia and other forms of religious discrimination and try to reduce it (M103). The Rebel’s petition against this motion warns of Sharia Law, and that “if this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.”
This far-right opposition to MP Khalid’s motion has been adopted by several leadership candidates for the Conservative Party. The day before the attack in Quebec City, Kellie Leitch took up the language of the Rebel and condemned the anti-Islamophobia motion on social media, saying that no religion should have “special privileges.” As of February 12, 2017, Leitch has been joined by Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer (who are usually known for being more centrist on social issues).
These are not innocent remarks, and they are not merely “divisive.” To refer to them in those terms is to present them as merely unpopular or crude, and it suggests that they are legitimate grounds for debate. But this is not a matter of tone, nor simply of people feeling excluded, but of the direct targeting of specific marginalized groups, and of the incitement of fear and hatred against them.
The alt-right is emboldened by Trump, and their influence is growing. The solution can not be platitudes about inclusivity, but to condemn them as the racists and fascists that they are, to delegitimize them, to prevent them from having platforms for organizing. Recently in Toronto an event featuring Ezra Levant was shut down by anti-fascist organizers. That may seem like a “divisive” approach, but it is the one we must take going forward.
