Pseudo Liberalism – it’s the illusion that personal prejudices are “liberal values” and using it to persecute genuine liberals who promote justice, equality and freedom – ultimately aligning oneself with the conservative fringe that trample on human rights.

While the far right conservatives are open about their irrational contemptuous attitudes, the pseudo liberals covertly use their bias or naivety to justify their irrational contempt in the name of equality and freedom – where every pseudo liberal tout victimhood when their bigotry is rejected. The chauvinism in this new brigade is equivalent to the narcissism of the Western right wing nutbars who still believe slavery was beneficial to Africans, Indians and Indigenous Americans.

It seems that while society has begun to adopt a liberal democracy as a more suitable policy for governance – this simple act of humanism is being hijacked by the maniacal far left who believe in the foolishness that tradition, culture and religion always equate ‘sugar, spice and everything nice’. This disconnection with reality stems from the ignorance bred by privilege. The leftists constantly accuse the right of being too privileged to understand struggle [which is true in most cases] – and yet, here they are, the morally superior leftists, parading societal abuse from the Eastern civilizations as something to be “respected”.

I’ve exhausted this question many times: Why should people of colour not experience a better standard of human rights as people in the West [in comparison to the East]?

There's no eloquent way of describing violence, hate and injustice – but people are arguing that that is a "flaw" as it does not meet the standard of political correctness – a claim which is as irrational as the apology they grant for those atrocities. There are multiple points that must be elaborated on in order to fully convey the f***wittery of the doublespeak paraded by pseudo liberals that is butchering the foundations of justice and equality in the 21st century – sorry, there wasn’t a more articulate way of conveying the scale of stupidity.  

Take polygamy for example – it’s banned in North and South America, Australia, Europe and most of Asia. The only place where polygamy is not criminalized is in the Middle East and most African nations –where polygamy is a religious and cultural right. According to the UN, women’s rights are severely impaired by polygamous marriages therefore it must be outlawed worldwide. So what does this have to do with pseudo liberalism?    

The way many angle their indignation and tolerance is selective and nothing has been more selective than the rights given to women and girls, regardless of their race, religion and nationality.

In Quebec, (Canada) there was a controversy regarding a judge who refused to handle a case because the party, Rania El-Alloul, was wearing a hijab. Justice Marengo claimed that just as a person cannot wear a hat and sunglasses in a court proceeding, a headscarf is no exception as it violates the general rule of court which everyone must abide by – so El-Alloul was given an option to either remove the scarf to continue the hearing or postpone it if she refuses.  Canadian politics was consumed by rage in support for El-Alloul who believed that her religious rights were violated.

According to Islamic scriptures women and girls are responsible for guarding themselves from abuse – which asserts blame on them if they are sexually assaulted in any way. And El-Alloul felt that sentiment trumped getting her car back to provide for her family. So what does any of this have to do with pseudo liberalism, you still wonder?

The UN believes polygamy infringes on the dignity of women and girls and yet religious attire that shames female bodies and their sexuality while invoking horrific violence on them remains legal in public? The argument isn’t to deny the opportunity to wear a hijab [personally, I believe the judge should have handled the case and moved on] – legally, they are free to abide by the most degrading restrictions in the name of religion if they choose – but in public spaces, such decisions deliver precarious complications in a society trying to abolish sexism and gender-based violence.

Where is the evidence that a woman or girl who is caged beneath the weight of modesty ever prevented sexual violence and harassment being committed upon her?

While human rights advocates fight rape-culture, misogyny and sexism – it does no justice to reinforce the values of modesty in the name of religion. Once again, people should be free to practice their religion in their own property – but once they step on public property, it becomes a singular society where everybody contributes one way or the other. One of the most urgent problems is violence against women and girls (VAWG), which is solely advanced by the hysteria in the spectrum of female modesty.

We are all accountable for our own actions, therefore, a culture of rape, misogyny and sexism will never cease for as long as the modesty-mania of the female body is romanticized and celebrated – and solutions must start somewhere to end this madness – too many centuries have gone by in submission and silence that ended in shades of black, blue and red behind closed doors.

While U.S.A. imprisons women and girls for having miscarriages – Islamic nations imprisons them for being raped – and I know people like Glenn Greenwald have trouble differentiating them as both are great human right abuses – only difference is if U.S.A. was just like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. it would have over half a million women and girls in jail each year for failing to provide evidence they were raped after being empowered to file complaints to the authority. Theocratic sentiments are the worst offender in the abuse against women and girls.

In the U.K., politicians went as far as granting Sharia Courts – that which enforce misogynistic abuse directly derived from religious scriptures, which claim women are [literally] properties of men and the husband has the right to beat his wife. In Sharia, men also receive “inherent” custody of children – so, I wonder, how many Muslim women in the U.K. lost trials over this? As long as governments grant religion judicial power, it will continue to fortify the fanatical sentiments of worshippers, which can be verified by U.K.’s infamous record of Jihadi export to the Islamic State.

While much of the Eastern civilizations still argue whether women and girls are humans with equal rights and freedoms – we have pseudo liberals in the West, like CJ Werleman [and his sycophants], who want to normalize sexual violence committed against women and girls of the Islamic world. In Werleman’s article, which headlines as “ISIS’s sexual barbarity is not the exception, but the rule in war”, undermines the plight of both Muslim and non-Muslim women and girls under ISIS rule.

As a survivor of sexual violence, what nauseated me the most about this “article”, is that Werleman dedicated his time to convince people that the abhorrent sexual crimes ISIS commit should not be given special attention. I’m amused that a man actually took his sweet time comparing sexual violence and suggested it’s actually not as bad as or worse than other cases of sexual violence around the world just to undermine the totality of the sexual violence in the Middle East out of spite for the West.

He claimed “Sexual terrorism is neither unique to ISIS nor self-proclaimed Islamic terror groups in general. Sexual terrorism is what war-induced social chaos looks like, and no single ethnicity, religion, race or cultural identity has a mortgage on sexual violence carried out in times of conflict.” – which is true [to an extent]. Sexual violence isn’t exclusive to any race, culture, religion, and country – but ISIS stands out where Sharia is concerned.

When a group of post bronze-age barbarians living in the 21st century decide to enforce all the VAWG time has slowly overcome, do critics and human rights activists not reserve the right to condemn it for what it is? ISIS is committed to Islamic law – so combine that with Sharia’s penchant for endorsing violence against women and girls – does it justify the notion of exclusivity? Yes. Yes it does.      

The Islamic State also explicitly promote rape and slavery of the captives – they have a pamphlet on how to maintain their savagery against the female captives – it’s legal to rape and enslave, which makes the sexual terrorism an acceptable method to implement Islam in their standard of rights.

Someone should remind Werleman that sexual violence in the West is illegal and modern non-theocratic laws have not promoted or condoned sexual and physical violence and confinement on women and girls of any society.

Werleman then concluded, “I don’t doubt the veracity of al-Raqqawi’s claims about ISIS’s sexual violence. The terror group’s heinous propensity for unimaginable violence is well-documented. But the US and its allies often use their enemy’s violence as a tool to conceal their own. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a well-known pro-Israeli “propaganda machine” based in Washington, DC. The group released its translation of an alleged “ISIS Sex Slave Pamphlet” at the same time the US Senate’s torture report was released to the US public. Coincidence? You decide.”—so in essence, he manipulates the readers by claiming he doesn’t refute the claims which he cited in length throughout the article of Islamic State’s sexual barbarism on women and children—but insinuates the pamphlet on maintaining their sexual barbarism is dubious. So you decide whether Werleman is being an apologist bigot for what he himself acknowledges as sexual terrorism.

In every country dominated by Sharia, women and girls’ rights continue to further deteriorate. Recently, it was reported Malaysia has long declared FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) a requirement for all Muslim women and girls – and before you shout that it has nothing to do with Islam and try to absolve Islam’s part in the horror by calling it an “African problem”, you should know it was the Fatwa Committee of Malaysia’s National Council of Islamic Affairs that made the order. FGM is also well endorsed by the hadith – so self-proclaimed religious scholars like Reza Aslan who deny it’s a Muslim problem are making a mockery of themselves.

The East struggles with unprecedented levels of gender-apartheid as described above, while the West has [pseudo] feminists shaking their fingers over political correctness – and it all started with the Oscars.

Everyone decided to exceed each other’s racism by throwing Patricia Arquette’s speech [promoting wage equality for women] in the air. People were offended that Arquette had stated "And it's time for all the women in America and all the men that love women, and all the gay people, and all the people of color that we've all fought for to fight for us now." How dare a white woman go on stage and ask people to treat the wage inequality that affects half of the world’s population to be treated as seriously as the fight for the rights of people of colour and the LGBT?

What’s hilarious is the exhausting levels of hypocrisy that this outrage had prompted, like this headline, “Dear Patricia Arquette: Blacks and Gays Owe White Women Nothing”. Apparently, when a white woman states equal wage opportunities for “women”, it equates “for white woman” but when she states “people of colour”, it’s exclusive to “Blacks”? So I suppose those non-black women and girls of colour are excluded in this grave injustice the author is spewing about? It seems this outrage is fronted by both illiteracy and racial contempt.

I wonder how many black people outraged over Oprah Winfrey’s western privilege that compelled her 2012 comment about Indians “still” eating with their hands instead of cutlery invented by white people? No complaining of racism was chanted by black feminists then. She made an arrogant comment that literally insulted every single person who don’t use cutlery – including a great number of Africans. But Oprah’s “western privilege” will not be outraged over, because she’s a “woman of colour”. I suppose the supporters of “intersectional feminism” were too drunk on their own privilege as well to denounce Winfrey.

Alas, the same feminists who ignored Winfrey’s foolish statement were more than happy to destroy a sincere speech that highlighted the lack of support for wage equality. Nowhere in her speech did Arquette claim she was fighting for “white women” – but people were excited to race-bait anyway – and this phantom victimhood is exactly how pseudo liberalism spreads its wings.

My advice to feminists is to leave their racial, religious and cultural pride at the door if they want to contribute to the cause of human rights activism because tribal bigotry has no place in the structure of rights and freedom otherwise it wouldn’t be about equality – it would be more about a segregated demand for human rights that reinforce hate and discrimination.

Eliminating blame from religions, cultures, traditions and racial prides passes abuse in a more palatable language to appease political correctness while condemning genuine victims and that is precisely why liberalism has been thrown in the blender and turned into pseudo liberalism. The modern social conflict is a new war between liberals and pseudo liberals. Only time will tell what more tragedy pseudo liberalism will ignite as it resurrects discriminatory accommodations in the name of tolerance.