17-Sept-15
As observed previously, the Hamilton Spectator, under the leadership of Paul Berton, is notoriously sympathetic to Muslims. Apologetic, I would go so far as to say. Their latest kick is the case of Zunera Ishaq, 29, a Pakistani woman who immigrated to Canada in 2008, and who insists on wearing a niqab while swearing the oath of citizenship to become a Canadian. The government of Stephen Harper made it a rule that one has to take the oath with one's face exposed to the judge. Ishaq went to Federal court to have this rule overturned, succeeded, and now the government has to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the rule re-instated.
The Spectator, in an editorial of 17 Sept 15, dismisses any link between the wearing of a niqab in Canada and Islamic fundamentalism, and insinuates that to hold such a view is, not just wrong, but a sign of bigotry. "Muslim women have a right to cultural sensitivity as much as anyone else," is the irrelevant premise. "Telling them they can't wear the niqab during their citizenship proceedings is intolerant and wrong," is the fallacious conclusion. It is fallacious because it is an example of special pleading. It is also an ad hominem attack on people who are on the other side of the disagreement. "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" is how the Spectator answers those who disagree with them and Ishaq, and who uphold the position of the federal government.
My response is as follows:
Opposing the wearing of a niqab during the taking of an oath
of citizenship makes me, in the eyes of the Spectator, intolerant and
wrong. This is the style of arguing the Spectator needs to employ
in order to win their point: to its opponents it says “You are a bigot!”
I may be bigoted, but I am also analytical, and the argument
by which the editorial reaches the conclusion that I am a bigot falls into the
logical fallacy of special pleading. Special pleading is old hat for the
Spectator.
It is quite true that Zunera Ishaq has her peculiar cultural
outlook that includes the wearing of a niqab. But we in Canada have our
cultural peculiarities as well. A couple of those peculiarities are
the signs we require that indicate sincerity in the swearing of an oath, and
these include the raising of the right hand and showing of one’s face.
By all means, let Ishaq wear her niqab. But by the
same token, let Canadians practice their cultural peculiarities also.
As a citizen of Pakistan, Zunera Ishaq does not have a basic
human right to become a Canadian citizen. There are certain hoops she has
to pass through, one of which is the taking of the citizenship oath in
accordance with Canadian law. Presumably, she came to Canada because life
here is better than in Pakistan. So why is she fighting Canadian
practices so hard? If she wants to be a Canadian, then accept Canada as
it is, warts and all, at least until she becomes a citizen. Then she can
tell us why we are all wrong.
The Spectator touched on the wearing of a niqab as possibly
indicative of sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism. Believing this also is
a sign of bigotry. I would agree that the wearing of a niqab in Libya and
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, where Islamic fundamentalism flourishes, is
normal. Wearing a niqab in Canada is highly unusual, and the fights we
have seen in France and in Quebec over it indicate that a strong strain of Islamic
fundamentalism is at the root of the insistence in wearing it in western
countries.
Islam is all about dominance, and forcing a host country to
bend to Islam is what the game is about. Thus, it is not unreasonable for
a westerner to think that Islamic fundamentalism plays a role in the demand by
Ishaq to wear a face veil associated with the worst and most oppressive aspects
of Islam.
Yes, I am a bigot in the eyes of the Spectator. But
the Spectator can’t reason its way out of a paper bag.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment