Did you ever have a conversation like this?
Victim: “Your data is Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, and transphobic.”
Presenter: “Really? Show me exactly where this is the case. Which data points?”
Victim: “You are Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, and transphobic.”
Presenter: “Really? Please share with me exactly what I said or did that makes you think this?”
Victim: “I don’t engage with people like you. You’re not worth it.”
Presenter: “I’m confused. Are we having the same conversation?”
This is the conversation you’ll have when presenting data to someone who only thinks through the lens of identity politics.
Identity politics is abusing data analysis. Besides driving a sub-culture of assumed guilty with no chance to be proven innocent (aka I’m the victim and you’re the persecutor, just accept it) identity politics is purposely abusing the fundamental practices of good data analysis. Not only is their flavor of data analysis spreading data-driven propaganda, identity politics has become much more aggressive using their flavor to amend our policies and laws. Our policies, our laws are now being amended based on vagueness, fabrications, and false data.
Let’s talk about Canada. Under the leadership of the Liberal government, Canada introduced two things in the last six months: Bill C-16 and Motion 103. Bill C-16 is about amending Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Motion 103 is about conducting a study on Canada’s rampant Islamophobia problem.
Bill C-16 is about amending Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I feel all should be protected under the Charter, so I’m not opposed to the principle of the bill. I’m opposed to its language. Bill C-16 is incorporating the language:
“gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor”
This is going into Canada’s Charter, into Canadian Law. Here is what the Charter would be with that additional language.
“evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor”
The Charter is very fundamental, so how can it even be considered to use such vague language? What is covered under gender identity is vague. It doesn’t help that gender identity has little if any psychological evidence and medical data to support it. So Canada’s Charter is being amended without considering data. I don’t feel comfortable that a bill was passed with such a nebulous concept such as gender identity. And what about “expression”? That can mean pretty much anything; anything from fashion, to language, to practicing once fictitious rituals. Then there is this clause “any other similar factor”. So anything similar to something that is vague and not defined. What does that even mean? Some people today are identifying themselves as otherkin. Otherkin is a person or group of people that believe they are not human, but something else. Some examples of something else include aliens, dragons, vampires, and elves. What would you consider their expression? After all, dragons and vampires of lore were very violent.
Based on the choice of language, its vagueness, and the lack of data, Bill C-16 should never have passed.
Motion 103 is about conducting a study on Canada’s rampant Islamophobia problem. I didn’t know Canada even had one. Here is the language used in Motion 103. Though this motion is non-binding, just the fact of having this motion, its vagueness and its choice of language sets a strong precedent for further motions, bills, and laws that may be passed in Canada. Here is the motion:
“That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;”
So it’s the role of the government to influence its citizens to stop hating and being fearful? How would they do this? Also, is there really an increasing public climate of hate and fear here in Canada? Hate and fear were stated in the motion so data would not be collected to substantiate this claim.
“(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;”
What is Islamophobia? Is it the irrational fear of Islam? Is it the irrational fear of Muslims? Is it the irrational fear of a specific flavor of Islam? Not sure, because the term was purposely made up in the 1970s as a way to silence debates on Islam. Why not talk about all the groups that face discrimination and not mention Islamophobia? Apparently removing that word would mean the motion would be watered down. This was said on the record. My thoughts are that Islamophobia was added so that it would guilt people to voting in favor of the motion. Now then there is this term “systemic racism”. Where is the data to support this? It’s odd that the politician that proposed this motion, Iqra Khalid, who referred to herself as a proud brown Muslim was able to become a politician in a system that has “systemic racism” and was able to propose and get passed this motion within such a system. So the government is guilty, the government system is guilty, and people like Iqra Khalid are the victims. “Systemic racism” was stated in the motion so no data would be collected to prove one way or another that systemic racism actually exists in Canada.
“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,”
Why is Islamophobia being mentioned right here? Most likely so it will be the main priority of the study. And just how is the government going to get the data to do such a study? To do proper data analysis they need to prove that there is hate in Canada. They will need to define what Islamophobia is. They will need to prove systemic racism is a thing. They will need to get unbiased data that has not been altered or tampered with. That’s what they need to do for a proper data analysis. Is this all going to happen? No. There just isn’t enough time to do a proper data analysis.
“while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making”
What does holistic response mean? Does that mean an ideology response where there’s a victim and a persecutor? With identity politics being the norm, absolutely. And it’s odd that they mention “evidence-based” while this motion is riddled with vagueness and potential fabrications. I feel this motion devalues evidence-based approaches.
“(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities,”
Just who collects and tracks this data? What’s going to happen is those involved are going to find organizations that already have this data and already did these assessments. These organizations have very skewed data with a strong identity political slant. This means they have a tendency to inflate severity; aka changing facts such as “he looked at me wrong” to “he assaulted/raped me”.
“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.”
This is the most reasonable part of this motion. From quick checks on the data needed to substantiate the need for Bill C-16 and Motion 103, I don’t see any indication that credible data was used. And with Motion 103, the language and vagueness were purposely intended to promote shoddy data analysis and to architect a situation (using a wide scope and short timeline) to give no choice but to use data that is easy to collect; aka data that has been politically manipulated.
Canada is overrun by Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. This is not based on facts or evidence. This is not based on data. It’s based on people wanting to be the victim and blame their persecutor for everything that’s wrong in the world. This drives hard that too much of a good thing, even diversity and inclusion can be bad, really bad for everyone.