When I first covered the case of Bahar Mustafa for Breitbart London – exactly one month ago – she didn’t surprise me at all. There are thousands of Bahar’s on British campuses and I meet them every day.
The response to her, however, was different; the public revolution and rejection of this laughable caricature of left-wing double standards has surprised me.
But what should be truly shocking to us all, but which the British public now passively accepts, is the reality that Bahar’s racist definition of racism and discriminatory tactics. Such thinking is not just common among student ‘radicals’. Rather the definition is broadly accepted on the liberal left, in many national institutions and even upheld in our legal system.
Here is an excerpt from the petition supporting Bahar:
“Groups who face particular oppressions meeting separately… is not new or unusual… Many political and social organisations, including trade unions like Unison, have internal structures and networks to attend to the interests of ethnic minority members.”
Those ideas stem from left-wing social theory, which is preoccupied with power and privilege. In post-Marxist critical theory, nothing is even worthy of study unless it address ‘inequality’ – universities frame this objective academia, not political propaganda.
According to this view, racial prejudice and even hatred is not enough to be racist – one must also have power and privilege. To be white is to be powerful and therefore to be racist is to be white.
A simplistic black and white moral view of the world is the result, and a fixation with an eternal battle between the perceived ‘oppressed’ and ‘oppressor.’ Racism is ‘structural,’ like some sort of cosmic force which makes us all either guilty or victims.
By this logic, a peaceful but ‘powerful’ Christian baker will be taken to court, berated, humiliated and is expected to bake a cake professing against deeply held private views. Yet anyone who countered with a request via an ‘oppressed’ Muslim Baker about baking an image of Mohammed would immediately be labeled racist and dismissed.
Such thinking is the source of much imbalance. It is also a profoundly patronizing way to regard ethnic minorities – as perpetual victims in constant need of protection from mainstream society. It ignores the way minorities can persecute other minorities.
More insidious and dangerous, though, it makes a fetish of victimhood by permanently linking it to virtue. By this view, Charlie Hebdo must be racist, for “punching up” and Islam must be exempt from satire and progress. All acts of terror or war from minority communities are excused as reasonable responses to something, however distant or unconnected.
To be perfectly honest with you, I don’t really care if one girl of Arab origin wants to joke about killing white men. “Hate speech” is a myth. Calling the police to censor a censorious fool is contradictory. Go ahead, I’m an adult, keep your bigoted jokes, I won’t cry about it.
What does offend me, though, is the double standards spouted by such imbeciles – who simultaneously deplore the smallest slight or offence, whilst pedaling an intolerance of their own.
The fact these contradictions are taken seriously is dangerous. This thinking has been internalized by a relativistic, morally confused British mainstream. It should be a source of outrage to us all, every day, not only in response to the curious case of Ms. Mustafa.