Preserving Western Civilization is more Important than Tolerating a Niqab

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Oct 2015

Today, the Hamilton Spectator ran its sixth article on the "embarrassing" niqab debate because, I guess, the rubes aren't getting the message and continue to be uncomfortable with it.  The article was written by T. David Marshall under the headline, "Which fabric is more vital? - The fabric of society or the debate over the niqab."

Of course, the fabric of society is more important than the fabric of a niqab, but the contrast was made with debate, which is a component of the fabric of society.  The lack of true parallelism throws the comparison into chaos.  Between society and debate, it would be like asking whether the garment or the threads are more important, the form or the matter.  But that is not the point at issue in his failed comparison.

In the course of his argument, Marshall he admits that he is irreligious, calling religion 'incoherent drivel,' and quoting Bertrand Russell, 'something left over from the infancy of our collective intelligence.'  This means that he thinks Christianity is dangerous and Islam to be harmless.  The Spectator would not have published his article had he been opposed to the niqab, and so it proves. He argues that western civilization requires us to be indulgent of the niqab - the very sign of the civilization that would see western civilization destroyed.  Marshall misses the irony.  Totally.

His contempt for, and likely ignorance of, the enormous intellectual content of Christianity gives me an opening for a shot at Marshall's own incoherence.

By my count, the article written by Hamilton Lawyer T. David Marshall, headlined “Which fabric is more vital?” represents the sixth piece on the embarrassing niqab controversy that the Spectator has run.  The Spec just can’t shut up about it; it’s opponents are the ones who are supposed to shut up.

The play by Mr. Marshall on the word fabric is meant to contrast the fabric of a niqab and the fabric of western liberal civilization.  Somehow, the protection of western liberal civilization requires of us to tolerate a show of Islamic Supremacism in the course of swearing the oath of allegiance to Canada, with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are expressions of Christian and western values.  The incoherence of Mr. Marshall’s position is immediately obvious.  The niqab represents the most obnoxious and mysogynistic aspects of Islam.  Islam wants nothing to do with western values, tolerance, democracy or Christianity.  Islam means and expects submission.  While it is true that a healthy body might be able to tolerate a small amount of poison, too large a dose is fatal - and that is the problem in prospect in taking in too many people who are inveterately hostile to fundamental Canadian values, western values.

It is clear that Mr. Marshall is unfamiliar with Scholastic or Christian Philosophy.  To understand these requires a sharpness of mind and fineness of distinctions that are absent from Mr. Marshall’s article.

For example, he says that “I don’t get to tell you what you can and can’t express about yourself,” and “I don’t get to tell you what you can and can’t believe.”  In the latter example, of course he cannot.  My believing something is a private act of my mind, not his.  He can ‘tell’ all he wants, but he can never know the contents of private acts of my mind, and so his telling is quite ineffective.

In the first case, it may generally true of an individual (but consider parents and their children), but society can and does rightfully place lawful limits on self-expression.  In clothing, lawyers and judges are expected to wear certain clothing when in court; and priests wear certain vestments when saying Mass.  These are signs that something significant is going on.

In the case of swearing an oath of allegiance, the society to which allegiance is being sworn have a right to expect certain signs of significance occur in the course of the act.  A sign of sincerity may be one; and a clear understanding of what is at stake may be another.  The wearing of a niqab in the course of swearing an oath of allegiance to a liberal, western democracy fails to give me a warm and fuzzy feeling concerning an understanding of what is at stake or of sincerity in taking the oath, because the wearing of niqab in the course of the act is a sign of Islamic Supremacism over the oath.

The essential fallacies of Mr. Marshall’s article are: that what is true of a part is not necessarily true of the whole, and that too much of a good thing can itself be evil.
-30-

Spectator tackles Niqab Issue for an Embarrassing Third Time

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Oct 2015

Not content to stop digging after finding themselves in a hole, the Spectator released on Saturday, Oct 10, 2015, a third editorial on the matter of banning the niqab during citizenship ceremonies and throughout the public service, a matter they previously referred to as embarrassing to discuss.

The Editorial did answer my previous question of the periods referred to in the past when Canada did evil deeds in respect of immigration.  The actions referred to were when Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants, and cut off the Canadian government's supply of food to Sitting Bull and the Sioux Indians, who high-tailed it to Canada to avoid the U.S. Cavalry.  The other examples were when William Lyon Mackenzie-King kept Jews out of Canada prior to WWII and the internment of Japanese Canadians.  Nothing after 1946.

As Pope St. Pius X observed, that when you pull unrelated principles out of thin air that are not part of an ordered system of principles, the folly inherent in those unrelated principles may not be obvious.  And this time the principle the Spectator pulled from somewhere was the principle of self-expression and religion which, by the way, are two different principles.

Nevertheless, the Spectator continued with the ad hominem attacks against those who disagreed with them, and insinuated that the Stephen Harper was employing "dog whistle" strategy to gain votes. 

This editorial is the third in which the Spectator has tried to justify a show of Islamic Supremacism in the course of taking the Canadian oath of citizenship.  The incongruity of the values expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Islamic Supremacism the Spectator seems consistently to miss.

The Spectator yet again relies upon ad hominem attacks, snobbery, and elitism as means of winning its point.  The argument this time - pulled, apparently, from the nether regions - is the principle of self-expression and freedom of religion.  The weakness here is that the full rights of the Charter are only enjoyed by those who are citizens.  Those who are not citizens do not get the full protection of the Charter, and so non-citizens have no right to assert Charter Rights they do not yet enjoy in order to get to enjoy them.

Never mind the rights of self-expression and religion are limited rights.  One cannot, for example, use profane language or express anger and a government service counter.  The “self-expression” contained in the wearing of the niqab is that the woman should not be looked upon by men who are not her close relatives.  How can a person displaying such self-expression work in a government office where in the course of her job she will be looked upon by men not her close relatives all lot, and may have to deal with members of the public?

Never mind the “religion” expressed in the wearing of the niqab is a form of Islam whose values run clean contrary to the principles of equality contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms!  The very document relied upon to claim citizenship in the country whose values she deplores!!

The Spectator suggests that Prime Minister Harper is employing a “dog whistle” strategy to gain the election.  Who, exactly, are the “dogs” that the Spectator says this strategy is aimed at?  Could it be the 83 % of the electorate – Canadians - who agree with Harper on this point?

The decision being reached by Canadians is that they are exhausted of expressions of Islamic Supremacism in this country.  They can see what is happening in the Middle East and do not want any of the ferment to come here.  We have a wonderful, peaceful country and it would be downright stupid to import trouble on the basis of some silly principle or other when we don’t need to bring it in or show sympathy towards it.

The big principle at issue here is not self-expression or freedom of religion, but whether we are so ideologically purblind that we will import trouble when we don’t have to.

-30-

Pope St. Pius X on Progressivism

Vincent J. Curtis

12 October 2015

Thanks to a recent posting on National Review Online, the following tidbit came to my attention:



“It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast,” Pope Pius X observed in 1907 in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Feeding the Lord’s flock).



What Pope St. Pius X said was made in comparison with Scholasticism, the philosophy founded primarily upon the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.  Scholasticism is highly ordered and systematic, without being a system.  He was criticizing Modernism, what today would be called Progressivism.

The technique of Progressivism in argument is to pull high-sounding principles out of the air, with a view to the conclusion desired.  Because the principle pulled out of the air is not related to any other principle or ordered set of principles, the folly or error it may contain is not obvious.  The cumulative effect is seen in the chop-logic of modern liberalism and progressivism of today.  The chop logic of Political Correctness follows naturally from a lack of systematic reason.

Other examples of the technique of pulling a doctrine or principle out of the air are found in the arguments advanced by President and Mrs Clinton, President Obama and his spokesmen, and unprincipled Democrats and liberals in general.  They will say anything to win the argument in the here and now and when confronted later with their self-contradiction shamelessly argue that that was then and this is now.  There are plenty of Canadian examples also.

The point of this post is to call attention to the employment of some high-sounding principle or other to advance an argument when that principle is not related to a larger, ordered and systematic set of principles.  One needs caution and skepticism when hearing this technique employed.
-30-

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution

Vincent J. Curtis

12 Oct 2015

The piece below I have taken holus-bolus from another source.  I contains many of the opinions I have expressed concerning Sharia law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to Sharia and the U.S. Constitution.

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/25/sharia-law-and-the-u-s-constitution/

[Update I:  I have streamlined the following post to be easily readable to the average layman, but informative enough for a lawyer or law professor to learn a bit more on the similarities and differences between Sharia and U.S. Law]

Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution?

The simple answer is of course “no”.

But lets take a look at some aspects of Sharia Law and where it may or may not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.  (For disclosure I am not a lawyer nor a legal expert in Sharia or U.S. Law.)

First, what is Sharia?

Wikipedia states Sharia refers to the sacred law of Islam.  All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails.  Which will be difficult to discern what to apply when, but we’ll labor along for the sake of discussion.

In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes. Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War).

The recent incidents at the Arab International Festival have reinforced the poor image of Sharia inside the United States and its incompatibility with American culture and law.

The following is a truncated version with a couple of modifications (eliminating repetitious ibids and links) of multiple Wikipedia entries [with my comments]:

Legal and Court Proceedings:

Wikipedia states that Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law.

1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set binding precedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, cf. mecelle).

4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.

6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e. notaries.

7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.

8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

9. Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men [in most sources outside of Wikipedia Sharia states that a woman’s testimony only carries the weight of 1/4th of a man’s], and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence.

11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir dire proceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings. [that’s one way of putting it]

13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency (at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems), and can be an advantage in jurisdictions where the general court system is slow or corrupt, and where few litigants can afford lawyers. (end Wikipedia)

This is not a concise review of the difference nor similarities between U.S. Law and Sharia.  It is only meant to educate us on what Sharia law is in comparison to our legal system.

The Spectator and the Shamefulness of debating the wearing of the niqab

Vincent J. Curtis

6 Oct 2015

In a special editorial column of today's date, Spectator editor-in-chief Paul Berton spoke out again in favor of wearing of the niqab in the course of swearing the oath of citizenship to Canada.  It was a piece of trash so far as reasoning goes, though typical of editorials these days in the media.  My contempt for the piece, and well as its content, is obvious from the response below.

A few weeks ago the Spectator dismissed the likes of me as being “intolerant and wrong.”  Now polls are showing that 93 % of Quebeckers and 83 % of Canadians overall oppose the wearing of the niqab during the citizenship ceremony and taking of the oath of citizenship.  Undeterred, the Spectator changes tactics from ad hominem attacks to snobbery as a means of persuasion.

The Spectator might have tried reason but, apparently, it is out of practice.

The obvious fallacies in the special editorial begin with the statement “ceremonies designed for them, not us.”  The problem is that the ‘them’ are trying to become the ‘us’, and for even one day they cannot pretend to be like us.  An alarm about Islamic fundamentalism ought to be going off.

The second obvious fallacy lies in the statement, “This is inexcusable, but understandable.”  Well, which is it?  If it is understandable, then it is at least partly excused.  And if it is inexcusable, then it cannot be understandable.

The next is the statement whether the niqab is a matter of faith or of culture is irrelevant.  It is intensely relevant.  If it is merely culture, it has no basis for protection in the Charter, whereas if it is religious, then it may have some protection.

The next is the statement that hosts should take the first step towards accommodating their guests in the expectation that the guests will then become accommodating to the host.  They are not at a citizenship ceremony as “guests” but seeking to become a part of the host!  That they refuse to accommodate as a guest means that they will never accommodate the rest as a component of the host.  The question before the host is, does it want to absorb so refractory a member?  A large majority of the host is opposed, and we have every right to decide who should become Canadian and who should not!

After this pathetic attempt at reasoning to a logical conclusion, the Spectator finally resorts to snobbery, elitism, and ad hominem attacks upon those who disagree.  “…Canadians support the niqab ban, and putting politics ahead of integrity.”  “…earlier dark periods of Canadian history when prejudice, bigotry, and ignorance reared their ugly heads during debates about immigration, periods that embarrass us still, periods through which we wished politicians had guided us with more compassion, vision, and understanding.”  (I have no idea what periods of history are referred to in this tract of pure snobbery.)

“This debate is not worthy of our time, and it is shameful.”  If so, then the Spectator should be the one to shut up.

We are assured that “they are there to pick up a certificate, not a passport.”  Well, the passport office is just down the hall, and who knows to what purposes a newly obtained passport of a person who is Islamic before they are Canadian will be put.

Even at this second attempt, the Spectator is still unable to reason its way out of a paper bag.
-30-

Terry Cooke offers to Socially Engineer Hamilton

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Oct 2015

In the Hamilton Spectator today, former Chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth Region and now head of the Hamilton Foundation, Terry Cooke published an article outlining a plan of his, headlined, "Poverty by postal code taking a terrible toll."  Cooke wants to solve the problem of the inner city by moving the inner city to the suburbs.

Cooke was known in his day as a "Red Tory", i.e. a conservative with left-wing solutions to left-wing problems.  The David Premi and Paul Shaker referred to in the piece are others who favor strong social engineering.  I find social engineering to be repugnant and arrogant beyond description.

Below is my response.


Terry Cooke’s recommendations can be summarized briefly: the raising of taxes and the use of government power to coerce taxpayers in pursuit of an unpersuasive and improbable policy goal that, when reached, will solve the problem he perceives exists.

Perhaps Cooke should consult with David Premi concerning that goal, since Cooke’s recommendations would tend to expand the size of the city rather than contract it.  A case of sucking and blowing by those who know best.

Behind Cooke lies a body called the Social Planning and Research Council.  A moment’s reflection will cause one to realize how odious the concept of social planning is.  Some pencil-neck decides what is best for me and my neighbors, not us.  Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking are entitled to be intellectually arrogant.  I have yet to meet a social planner with the intelligence and education to be entitled to be intellectually arrogant.
-30-

Twenty-Five Ways to tell if you’re a liberal

By Vincent J. Curtis                              updated 25 August 98

One of my most popular articles appeared in the Hamilton Spectator in September, 1998.  Given the recent controversy in the Canadian election concerning the legalization of marijuana, I thought it appropriate to post this old article, since it is still timely.  Stephen Harper, the Conservative, argued against legalization on the grounds that we have spent two generations trying to stamp out smoking of cigarettes, and what marijuana does is far worse.  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says that Harper doesn't know what he is talking about. 

1.         You know you are a liberal when you think that smoking cigarettes should be banned, but smoking marijuana should be legalized.

2.         You know you are a liberal when you believe in internationalism, but oppose free trade and the MAI.

3.         You know you are a liberal when you believe that Ronald Reagan was a mentally challenged old fool, and are glad that the cold war is over.

4.         You know you are a liberal when you use words like “mentally challenged” instead of “stupid”.

5.         You know you are a liberal when you think that feminism is a good thing, and Bill Clinton is your hero.

6.         You know you are a liberal when you use the words “uncaring” and “insensitive” a lot and not in a pejorative sense.

7.         You know you are a liberal when you don’t think school children should be expected to know the meaning of words like “pejorative.”

8.         You know you are a liberal when you think that being logical doesn’t matter because you didn’t take logic in school, being logical is elitist, and, besides, Aristotle is a dead white guy.

9.         You know you are a liberal when you believe in full employment so long as it doesn’t harm the environment.

10.        You know you are a liberal when you think that right wingers are evil, racist, sexist, wrongheaded dinosaurs, and they are so insensitive to your feelings.

11.        You know you are a liberal when you think that more gun control will get guns off the street, just like the laws against drugs have taken drugs off the street.

12.        You know you are a liberal when you think that other people should be taking public transit.

13.        You know you are a liberal when you think that marriage is old fashioned unless the couple is gay.

14.        You know you are a liberal when you blame the genocide in Rwanda on the western world and not on the Hutus.

15.        You know you are a liberal when you think that corporate profits are obscene and you invest your money in ethical mutual funds.

16.        You know you are a liberal when you think there is something sinister about a tax cut.

17.        You know you are a liberal when you think that Mike Harris’s policies are immoral, and you don’t believe in God.

18.        You know you are a liberal when you oppose nuclear power, coal-burning power, and hydro dam construction, and think that everybody should be driving electric cars.

19.        You know you are a liberal when you admire the bushmen of the Amazon jungle for their pristine life style, and would give them government assistance because they live below the poverty line.

20.        You know you are a liberal if you think that trickle down economics is an evil mockery of the poor, and would tax the rich so that there is nothing left to trickle down.

21.        You know you are a liberal when you get all the news you need from CBC Radio and the Toronto Star.

22.        You know you are a liberal when you measure the success of social and environmental laws by the number of bureaucrats on the payroll.

23.        You know you are a liberal when you are worried about nuclear winter, global warming and the coming ice age.

24.        You know you are a liberal when you expect your conservative opponent to listen you out and you constantly interrupt him.

25.  You know you are a liberal if you have the urge to contact the Spectator to demand that my writing privileges be curtailed.

             The upshot of this piece is that liberals are inconsistent, hypocritical, and don’t think things through, just like everybody else.  What distinguishes the liberal is the moral certainty with which he clings to his beliefs.  Those who disagree with the liberal must therefore not only be wrong, but immoral also. It is hard to come to a meeting of minds when moral condemnation clouds the discussion. As Winston Churchill once said, “Those who aren’t liberal at 20 don’t have a heart; those who aren’t conservative at 40 haven’t got a head.”   

-XXX-

    

Pro Science means Pro Life, Mr. Mulcair

Vincent J. Curtis

1 Oct 15

While campaigning in northern Canada, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair launched another hectoring session against Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  This time it was about climate change, and the canard that Harper is creating a climate of fear, if you will, within the scientific community.  "We will remove the muzzle from Canadian scientists.  We will end the climate of fear in the public service," he was quoted as saying by the Canadian Press.  "I never thought that, as an elected official, I would ever one day have to say that I actually believed in science."  He called for the creation of an office of Parliamentary science officer in order to allow for 'evidence based decision making.'

Of course, all this commentary is so much fatuous nonsense.  But in making certain statements, one can lay a trap for oneself and then fall into it.

My comments are below.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair demonstrated that, as an elected official, he is yet another Arts major who thinks he knows science better than real scientists do.  In the course of his remarks in which he pledged to create a new office of Parliamentary Science Officer, he said that he never thought he would have to say that he “believed in science.”

Science is not up for belief.  In the first place, science is an organized body of knowledge.  One does not believe in knowledge, one knows knowledge.  One believes what one does not know, or understand, or cannot prove.  If one possesses knowledge, you know the truth and there is no “believing” to it.  There is a considerable emotional gap between believing and knowing.

Secondly, his criticisms of Stephen Harper concerning science stem from the politicization of scientific inquiry, and particularly the politicization of inquiry into global warming.  Harper is evidently opposed to the politicization of scientific inquiry, while Mulcair doesn’t mind it at all because the political winds concerning global warming he happens to like.  There is much political commitment in the cause of global warming, and for years funding was granted to scientists who favored the global warming theory.

But what is Mulcair going to do, or say, when science begins to say things he does not like?  For example, the science of biology says that a new life is created at the moment of conception.  Since Mr. Mulcair is committed to believing this, will he admit that a life is extinguished by an abortion? Will he go so far as to say that aborting a fetus kills a human being?  What decision will he make on the basis of this evidence?

Is Mulcair going to selectively fund scientists who can be sure to say things he happens to like?  Scientists can be manipulated too, What science appears to say to the public at large can also be manipulated.  The funding is the means by which scientists can be made to appear to say what the funding authority wants to have said.

Canadian journalist Mark Steyn has published a new book of nothing but criticisms of the hockey stick graph that were said by climate scientists not named Michael Mann.  But you don’t hear much about it in media committed to the belief in global warming.

There is nothing to do but oppose the politicization of science, and let the facts fall where they may.

-30-