Yves Engler, a Montreal-based writer and activist, exemplifies troubling tendencies toward moral inversion and selective memory in discussions of genocides. As he gains prominence — particularly through his bid for the federal NDP leadership — it is essential to scrutinize his approach to historical atrocities and understand what this reveals about his ethics.Engler promotes a revisionist, flimsy portrayal of the Gaza conflict, framing it in ways that minimize or obscure Hamas's well-documented atrocities. He emphasizes Palestinian suffering while dismissing Israel’s security concerns, creating a harmful moral inversion. His selective framing distorts the conflict’s complexities and risks delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist, undermining balanced, truthful discourse..MCTEAGUE: ’Net-Zero' Carney's going to build new pipelines? I'll believe it when I see it!.More troubling is Engler’s minimization of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. This atrocity, in which about 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus were systematically slaughtered over a few months, is one of the most thoroughly documented genocides in recent history. Yet Engler’s commentaries appear to rationalize or downplay this tragedy, exposing dangerous moral inconsistency. While he criticizes Israeli policies, he ignores or minimizes concerns about Rwanda — an evident example of ideological bias overriding genuine concern for human rights.During my nearly three months in Rwanda in 2007, working with the human rights non-governmental organization Never Again Rwanda, I witnessed memorial sites where bodies are carefully preserved in lime. Many consider this macabre, but it serves to counteract genocide denial and revisionism, much like Holocaust memorials. Holocaust denial often begins with doubting official numbers, revealing sinister motives. Why, then, does Engler focus on downplaying numbers? His counter-narrative employs extreme “whataboutism,” acknowledging many Hutus died but denying the scale and suggesting there was no systematic plan to exterminate Tutsis, which is unequivocally false..Engler’s motives seem rooted in anti-Western rhetoric prevalent among some Canadian academics and activists. He resents Western backing of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the Tutsi exile group that stopped the genocide and formed Rwanda’s government under Paul Kagame. Although Kagame’s regime has become increasingly authoritarian — something I observed firsthand during my work on a youth newspaper project — this does not justify dismissing the genocide’s reality or its extensive documentation. Engler’s criticism extends to Rwanda’s involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), though his commentary predates recent developments like the M23 insurgency. Of course, it is possible to condemn Rwandan incursions into DRC while acknowledging the genocide’s scale.Engler’s issues with Kagame and the RPF and their Western backing skew his thinking. For instance, he falsely claims the RPF shot down President Habyarimana’s plane — an event that triggered the genocide. However, two prominent investigations trace the missile to the nearby Kanombe military camp, with probable involvement of extremist military elements aiming to provoke violence. All the facts will probably never be known, but Engler is not justified in claiming RPF responsibility as somehow a fact. .PINDER: The challenges and policy conflicts of our prime minister.Engler also seeks to discredit Canadian General (ret.) Romeo Dallaire, who, despite limitations, advanced human rights in Rwanda far more than Engler ever will in his comfortable life. Dallaire’s efforts — including lobbying the UN for aid and protecting Tutsis from militias — are well documented and stand in stark contrast to Engler’s armchair criticisms.Extremist anti-Tutsi rhetoric — ranging from hate literature like the “Hutu Ten Commandments” to radio broadcasts inciting violence — played a crucial role in fueling the genocide, with death lists and targeted killings meticulously organized beforehand. These facts are thoroughly documented. Yet, Engler dismisses or minimizes this reality while elevating issues that suit his ideological narrative..This hypocrisy reveals a broader problem. The tendency to elevate some conflicts as genocides while downplaying or ignoring others based on ideological preferences. Engler’s distorted claims of genocide in Gaza starkly contrast his downplaying of Rwanda’s well-documented atrocities. Such selective outrage disrespects Rwandan victims and undermines human rights advocacy. It suggests some atrocities are more “acceptable” to critique, depending on political alignment or narrative bias, or worse, if the victims come from Africa or other neglected regions.With Engler running for the NDP leadership — the party purporting to embody progressive values and human rights — upholding standards of honesty and consistency becomes even more critical. Endorsing a candidate who promotes genocide revisionism, whether knowingly or not, risks damaging the party’s credibility and moral authority. The NDP must question whether supporting someone with such views aligns with its core principles.The muted media and societal response to Engler’s revisionist stance highlight a troubling tolerance for denial and distortion. While society rightly condemns Holocaust denial, allowing a major political figure to cast doubt on Rwanda’s genocide sends a disturbing message about the acceptability of revisionism in Canada.Joseph Quesnel is a policy analyst and commentator based in Nova Scotia.
