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-
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-
No comments:
Post a Comment