You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Moral Absolutism’ tag.
One of the most manipulative habits in contemporary politics is the oppressor/oppressed binary. It takes a complicated society, flattens it into a morality play, and assigns everyone a role before the argument even begins. You are not allowed to be a citizen, a skeptic, or simply a person trying to judge a claim on its merits. You must be either a resister of oppression or an accomplice to it. There is no middle ground. There is no neutrality. There is only confession or guilt.
This is the logic behind slogans like Ibram X. Kendi’s claim that the opposite of racist is not “not racist,” but “anti-racist.” It sounds brave and morally serious. In practice, it is a trap. It abolishes the possibility that a person can reject racism while also rejecting activist dogma, racial essentialism, or race-based policy. Once the slogan is accepted, disagreement itself becomes incriminating. Silence is violence. Skepticism is fragility. Restraint is complicity. The argument is rigged before it starts.
That is what makes the framework so effective. It does not persuade. It corners. It takes a difficult moral and empirical question and turns it into a loyalty test. Once that move is made, debate stops being a search for truth and becomes a public sorting ritual. On affirmative action, immigration, policing, school curricula, crime, history, or speech, the details matter less than whether you submit to the script. You are not judged by the quality of your reasoning. You are judged by whether you have signalled the right side.
The first way to break the trap is to demand definitional precision. Ask the simplest possible question: what, exactly, does “anti-racist” require of me here, now, in practice? What specific belief, action, or policy would prove that I am not complicit? Force the slogan to cash itself out. This matters because many activist terms draw their power from strategic vagueness. They sound morally elevated precisely because they are never pinned down. Once pinned down, they often expand into endless duties of confession, endorsement, and ideological retraining. When the standard can never be met, the point is no longer moral clarity. The point is obedience.
The second move is to name the false dichotomy. Calmly, but without apology. The binary assumes that every disparity is evidence of oppression and that every refusal to endorse the preferred remedy is therefore collaboration with injustice. But reality does not work that way. Human beings are not made of one motive. Institutions do not produce one kind of outcome. Policies have trade-offs. Causes are mixed. Incentives matter. Culture matters. History matters. Family structure matters. Behaviour matters. Human variation matters. A worldview that permits only one explanation is not morally deep. It is intellectually cheap.
“The point is no longer moral clarity. The point is obedience.”
Complexity starts to look like cowardice. Nuance starts to look like betrayal. Evidence that cuts against the preferred story is dismissed as harm. The framework protects itself the way bad frameworks always do: by treating every challenge as proof that the challenge was necessary.
The third move is the mirror test. If disagreement with your theory makes someone morally tainted, what exactly are you doing to dissenters? If refusal to use your language, endorse your policies, or accept your metaphysics makes a person an oppressor, then you have not abolished domination. You have redistributed it. You have built a new moral hierarchy with yourself at the top and everyone insufficiently converted beneath you. The names have changed. The structure has not.
This is why the binary feels so powerful. It flatters the speaker while shaming the listener. It offers moral clarity without the inconvenience of evidence. It turns political disagreement into a purity test and ordinary citizens into suspects. That is intoxicating, especially for people who enjoy the feeling of righteousness more than the discipline of thought.
Racism is real. Injustice is real. But so is the danger of any framework that treats disagreement as guilt and complexity as sin. Liberalism was built on the harder truth that citizens will differ, causes will be mixed, and power must be restrained even when exercised in the name of virtue. The oppressor/oppressed binary rejects that discipline. It wants a world of permanent accusation, permanent sorting, and permanent moral theatre.
Do not argue inside that trap. Do not accept the role of defendant in someone else’s catechism. Ask for definitions. Expose the binary. Turn the logic back on itself. The moment a moral framework abolishes the right to dissent, it has stopped being a tool of justice and become a costume for power.
“A celebration of diversity that silences certain voices… is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective.”
The Montreal Pride Parade’s decision to exclude Jewish organizations like Ga’ava and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) reveals the brittle nature of contemporary inclusion. Organizers explained that the festival’s board had “made the decision to deny participation in the Pride Parade to organizations spreading hateful discourse”—widely interpreted as targeting groups perceived to hold Zionist views amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (National Post). Yet this rationale exposes a contradiction: a celebration of diversity that silences certain voices based on political affiliation is not inclusive—it is ideologically selective. True inclusion doesn’t retreat under pressure or disqualify those with unpopular views; it endures in the face of discomfort. By barring these organizations, Montreal Pride signals that its version of inclusion functions not as a principle, but as a privilege granted only to those aligned with a narrow ideological consensus.
Considering the Organizers’ Perspective
It’s worth acknowledging why the organizers might have made this decision. They could argue that pro-Israel groups might provoke protests or distress among participants, given the polarized nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, without specific, credible threats, this rationale appears more like a preemptive strike against ideological discomfort than a genuine safety measure. Pride has weathered controversy before—its history is one of defiance in the face of societal pushback. To retreat now suggests a prioritization of ideological purity over inclusivity.
Safety as a Pretext for Exclusion
Invoking “physical and mental safety” may appear commendable, but applying it to justify excluding Ga’ava—a Montreal-based LGBTQ+ Jewish organization—and CIJA appears unfounded in concrete threats. Ga’ava’s president characterized the exclusion as “based on flimsy, politically motivated reasons decided behind closed doors under pressure from groups that hate Jews, deny Israel’s existence, and whose members celebrated the atrocities of October 7, 2023” (i24NEWS). Who gets to determine what’s safe? In this case, the organizers prioritized avoiding discomfort among critics of Zionist expression over the dignity of those excluded. This risks prioritizing ideological comfort over genuine safety concerns.
According to CIJA’s director of strategic communications, Julien Corona, the decision represents “a dark day for the LGBTQ+ movement here in Quebec but also in all of Canada” (National Post).
The Perils of Moral Absolutism
Montreal Pride’s actions illustrate how moral certainty, when unchecked, can corrupt even the most noble ideals. By conflating the participation of Jewish organizations with “hateful discourse,” organizers implicitly deemed dissenting political views as unacceptable, suggesting their perspective is immune from challenge (i24NEWS). But in reducing disagreement to danger, they betray their own professed values of inclusion and pluralism. What remains is not a broad tent of solidarity, but a gated enclave of ideological approval.
This episode fits into a broader pattern: similar exclusions have occurred in other Pride contexts—Toronto, Chicago, Washington DC—involving Jewish symbols or groups linked to Israel/Palestine debates (Wikipedia). By excluding Ga’ava and CIJA, Montreal Pride reinforces a troubling trend: replacing complexity of identity with a simplistic tribal test.
Moreover, this isn’t the first time a social movement has been fractured by ideological litmus tests. The feminist movement, for example, has seen bitter divisions over issues like sex work and transgender rights, with some factions excluding others based on perceived ideological impurity. Similarly, the civil rights movement grappled with tensions between integrationist and separatist ideologies. In each case, moral certainty led to splintering rather than solidarity. Montreal Pride risks a similar fate if it continues down this path.
A Forward-Looking Conclusion
If Pride movements hope to sustain moral legitimacy and relevance, they must resist equating disagreement with harm. Exclusion based on political affiliation not only wounds the excluded but weakens the movement itself. Pride must recommit to its radical roots—embracing all marginalized voices, even those that spark debate—or risk losing its soul. The true test of inclusion isn’t welcoming those who agree with us; it’s extending that welcome to those who challenge us. Only then can Pride fulfill its promise as a beacon of diversity and defiance.
Works Cited
- Amador, Marisela. “Montreal Pride excludes Jewish LGBTQ+ group, citing ‘hateful discourse’.” CTV News, July 31, 2025. Link
- Corona, Julien. Quoted in “‘A dark day for the LGBTQ movement’: Montreal Pride Parade organizers bar Jewish groups from march.” National Post, August 1, 2025. Link
- “Montreal’s Pride Parade bans 2 Jewish groups.” i24NEWS, July 31, 2025. Link
- “Pride parade.” Wikipedia. Link
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…