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-
No comments:
Post a Comment