So what do you do when you are supporting an untenable position with no rational arguments to support it, and are facing growing number of clear, well-outlined objections that you can’t find any sane answers to? Apparently, you draft a set of absurd and lopsided ground rules to silence dissenting opinions, and shape the discussion in a way that suits your “arguments”.
Actually, first you poison the well by demonizing the opposition, painting their arguments as emotive, antipathetic, and even hysterical
. I wonder when that became a logical way to start a constructive discussion
.
Once you’ve written off the other side of the constructive discussion
you want to have as hysterical, then you move on to the rules you insist they follow. You would think it would be incredibly ridiculous and shockingly hypocritical to draft a set of rules that a) unjustly biases the discussion toward your viewpoint, and b) you don’t even follow yourself. No one would possibly do that, right?
(1) The ideas expressed in the Charter, as well as arguments for and against them, must stand on their own. The provenance of the ideas — from Québec, from the French-speaking world, from the Québec government, from a sovereignist political party — is of at most secondary or tertiary importance, if not completely irrelevant. A hatred of Québec separatists is not an argument against the Charter, just as a love of them is not an argument for it.
Naturally, no one is actually opposed to the Charter because of where it came from, and no one… anywhere… has made a claim that this Charter is bad because it came from the separatist party. But when you’re trying to score cheap rhetorical points, why not throw up a few straw men, right?
(You know, ironically, I wrote an article about the Québec soccer turban ban a few months ago… but decided not to publish it because I was afraid of stirring up antipathy toward Québec itself. I only had an issue with the xenophobes, but I knew that someone would inevitably make it about Québec in general. Because I’ve always been a fan of Québec, I held back from publishing, so I wouldn’t sully the province’s reputation (the issue was settled by FIFA while I was weighing publishing, after which I figured there was no point). This may astonish supporters of the Charter, but the fact that I oppose it has nothing to do with some imagined antipathy toward Québec. I like the province.)
(2) Ascribing hidden intentions to the authors of ideas is always risky and often scurrilous. In particular, accusations of intolerance, xenophobia or racism (in increasing order of seriousness) must be solidly explained and well supported by evidence before they can even be considered. The targets of such alleged behaviour must be made explicit: Who or what is not being tolerated, and how is that intolerance unjustified? (We all know that some forms of intolerance are justified and even necessary.) Who are the strangers who are the targets of alleged xenophobia, and in what way are they targeted? What race is being discriminated against and in what way is that discrimination expressed? In particular, an unsubstantiated accusation of racism — a very serious charge — is unacceptable and immediately discredits the accuser, indicating that any discussion with them is probably a complete waste of time.
This rule is intended to prevent people from making the obvious connection between the many other blatantly xenophobic and racist statements and behaviours of the PQ, and this particular action, which apparently only coincidentally targets ethnic minorities – and only ethnic minorities. Hm.
By this kind of logic, you wouldn’t be allowed to call the Nuremberg Laws antisemitic. Because, you see, the Nuremberg Laws themselves were cleverly worded to avoid explicit antisemitism within the laws themselves. They were – the NSDAP claimed – about combating “hereditary illnesses”. Or they were painted as preserving Québec secular values German bloodlines, tradition and honour. Or they were claimed to be about “integrating” others into German society. (Jeez Louise, these sound so familiar – where have we heard similar things recently?) Oh, sure, the NSDAP may have been on record making repeated, unashamedly antisemitic statements and doing antisemitic things, and, sure, the Nuremberg Laws may specifically target certain ethnic minorities specifically – and only those ethnic minorities, and sure, all expressions of public support for those laws may have been described by the supporters themselves as antisemitic… but come on, how can you make that grand leap to the conclusion that the laws themselves are antisemitic?!?! Come on, be reasonable!!!
It’s not like political parties don’t frequently try to pass pretty obviously racially-motivated legislation like “anti-voter-fraud” laws that unequally burden certain ethnic groups while “fixing” problems that never really existed… then doggedly claiming the laws aren’t racist. It’s not even like we here in Canada have never seen these types of clearly racist laws “justified” with secular arguments, like the War Measures Act or the Gradual Civilization Act. But no, doesn’t matter that you can plainly see that the law unjustly targets only certain minorities with unnecessary restrictions – apparently you can’t call these laws racist unless you explicitly itemize specifically which First Nations tribes were targeted by the law, exactly how they were targeted by the law, what about them was being targeted, why they are being ethnically targeted, and why the discrimination is unjustified, and you have to back it all up with “solid explanations” and a ton of evidence, and show all your calculations, too.
One of the easiest ways to silence legitimate criticism without actually answering it is to call for ridiculous and unnecessary precision and documentation to points that are abundantly clear to any reasonable person. And why is it so important for someone who spots obviously racist behaviour to document so much detailed and specific evidence for it? Because being accused of supporting racist behaviour is a vry srs charge, which will really hurt their feelings. No, I’m kidding – but here is the real, honest-to-goodness, reason why someone who spots clearly racist stuff has to jump through so many hoops just to state the obvious… and I swear I’m not making this up: When you make an unsubstantiated accusation
of racism, the person making the accusation is immediately discredited
, and the one they’re accusing will believe that any discussion with them is probably a complete waste of time
. I swear on my mother’s grave that that’s what it literally says. Apparently, the irony that this is supposed to be a guide to facilitate reasonable discussion was lost somewhere. Yup, you make an accusation of racism without first presenting all the supporting documentation, and you’re immediately written off as not being an intelligent human being worth talking to. Apparently there’s not even any leeway for in this “guide for facilitating discussion” for, ya know, discussing whether the accusation is legit.
Of course, in the grand tradition of setting up moveable goalposts for the other guy to shoot at, there is no clear standard of just how much evidence is necessary before it’s finally okay to call a racist law racist. So how about it, folks? Tell us all exactly what would you would call “racism”, which ethnic groups you would consider unjust discrimination against to be racist, exactly how you would show that the racism is implicit in the law, why the racism would be in those laws, and what would make it unjustified, and you have to back it all up with “solid explanations” and a ton of evidence, and show all your calculations, too.
(Incidentally, the reason I’m being so impolitic in my analysis of these “ground rules” is that, well, you know, someone writing this article… may have made an accusation of racism in passing… without first providing the proper documentation. Guilty ♫. Which, of course, now makes me a “a complete waste of time”, so I can assume those parties won’t read this article and be offended. Shucks, right?)
Anywho, let me stress that this rule doesn’t just apply to accusations of racism. Nope. Apparently you’re offside if you ascribe any hidden intentions
to the Charter. Yup, apparently we now live in a world where “reasonable discussion” means assuming that either a) politicians don’t have any hidden intentions behind the laws they pass, or b) only the explicitly-stated intentions behind a bill are actually relevant to the discussion of whether that bill is a good idea. Yeah, sure, that’s totally reasonable.
I wonder if the people who came up with this rule would use the same standard when discussing some self-serving rule passed by the Catholic Church. I wonder if they would only look at the surface language of the rule and completely ignore the wider politics and likely hidden motives. Nah, never mind, I don’t really wonder – what they’d really do is pretty obvious, of course.
(3) Deliberate confusion of the distinct concepts of race and religion is unacceptable. Islam is a religion, not a race. The same can be said of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and all other religions. If you are of the opinion that a person or a group or a political party is guilty of religious discrimination or religious bigotry, beyond what can be considered legitimate criticism of religion, then make your argument for that. However, making accusations of racism in this context is both irrational and defamatory.
Deliberate confusion of the distinct concepts of race and religion is unacceptable
, but apparently, completely ignoring the intersection of ethnicity and religion is a-okay!
Nobody thinks “Islam is a race”, of course. And nobody’s ever made that claim. What people are doing is pointing out that this Charter has been very carefully customized to target religions that are popular with minority ethnic groups and only religions that are popular with minority ethnic groups. Despite the pretence being put on by supporters, the Charter does not target “religious symbols”, it targets… … … some religious symbols. That much is plainly obvious; it purports to ban religious symbols to make public spaces look more secular… oh, but only their religious symbols. Wearing a cross is just fine. Either we’re supposed to pretend not to notice this horrendously obvious hypocrisy, or it must not be a relevant issue – because, despite it, according to supporters, the Charter is still apparently just about promoting “secularism”.
(Apparently, wearing “Islamic earrings” or “Jewish rings” is allowed, which is really meaningful because… that’s a thing they do, right? Seriously… am I the only one who sees how warped, ignorant, and disrespectful that graphic makes the PQ worldview look? Because even though they’re taking away the freedom of people to wear religiously-mandated accessories, they’re trying to pretend balance by pointing out that people can still wear religiously-branded bling. It’s as if the PQ believes that the only reason people wear these religiously-mandated accessories is just to show off their allegiance – not because they, you know, actually have any deep-seated beliefs or traditions about them, and just feel more comfortable wearing them. (And no, I’m not impressed that they included a big, flowery cross for more faux “balance”. How do people not see the difference? There are no religious requirements in Christianity to wear crosses period, yet turbans, hijabs, and kippahs are required wear for most believers. Clearly there’s a difference in the burden this law causes between those groups, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.))
Anywho, so apparently pointing out that these bans specifically and unequally target minority ethnic groups means you think Islam is a “race”. Pointing out that despite a stated purpose of wanting to remove secular symbols from public spaces, it actually allows them… but only for religions popular among the majority ethnic group… means you think Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism are “races”. Yet I am apparently the one unable to distinguish between religion and race. Ba-dum-tsssh!
(4) Criticism of the proposed Charter must be based on what the Charter actually says, not on some arbitrary extrapolation of what it says. Condemnations of the prohibition on wearing of religious symbols can be summarily dismissed unless they are accompanied by acknowledgement that this prohibition applies only to public service employees while on duty, not while they are off duty and not to anyone else (such as clients).
And finally the hypocrisy and self-serving nature of these “ground rules” reaches a crescendo with this, the money shot.
You know what would be hilarious right now? If I could point to an article written by the writers of this rule that completely blows it off. I mean an article that a) makes a number of false statements about what the Charter says (that were known to be false at the time of writing, of course, had someone bothered to do the research), b) fails to make a number of very relevant points about what the Charter actually says (that undermine the article’s thesis), and c) contains an entire bottom third which “arbitrarily extrapolates” stuff that the Charter doesn’t say at all. But, nah, such an article couldn’t exist, could it?
Yeah, of all the absurdities in these “ground rules”, that last sentence has to be la pièce de résistance. Not only is it yet another rule for “facilitating reasonable discussion” which states flat out “we won’t discuss this unless you agree with our position” – hur hur – it actually contradicts the sentence immediately preceding it!
No, really? Yes, really! You see, in the attempt to set up another straw man about people not getting that it applies just to public servants (and then, just on the job – seriously, who didn’t know that?), they say that the prohibition of wearing religious symbols… applies only to public service employees while on duty
. The only problem with that is that every part of it is wrong – it has no relation to what the Charter actually says
at all! Not only are people still allowed to wear religious symbols (there’s even a handy chart showing which!), it is not true that all public service employees can’t wear the “naughty” ones.
You see, the Charter allows exemptions to certain employees, who would be allowed to wear religious symbols as they please! Reasonable exemptions? Ha! Good one! Ha ha, no, don’t be silly! The only ones exempted from the ban are the people in powerful positions – the ones in charge of institutions, and elected officials. You know, the ones who actually have the power to determine the nature of government, religious or not – they can still wear their religious garb. The ones who have no choice are people at the bottom of the chain. You know, the ones who don’t actually have the power to make government more or less secular, whether they wear a hijab or not – they are the ones who being stripped of their right to live according to their religious belief for no good reason. Gee, that’s not back-assward at all! (Actually, it’s worse than that. Because now, under pressure from threatened mass walkouts by highly trained and experienced persons – surgeons, judges, etc. – the PQ is floating an amendment that would exempt those people, too… while still forcing people in easily replaceable jobs to comply. I really don’t know what more evidence of the bullying nature of this Charter one could possibly ask for.)
If it wasn’t already evident from the tone of this article, I find these “ground rules” to be ridiculous. Not only are they unjustifiable on their face, they are clearly fashioned specifically to privilege one side of the debate with no rational justification for doing so (oh, but do I have to provide explicit documentation showing that or else I will be branded a waste of time?), and – let’s face it – even the people who wrote them aren’t following them. There are many ways to have a reasonable discussion, but you want to know some ways not to? How about a) starting off by writing off your opponents as crazy before the discussing even starts, b) creating absurd straw men out of their points, c) telling them that they have to accept your conclusions before the discussion even starts, and d) telling them that they’re just going to be written of as a “waste of time” if they make a claim you don’t like and won’t even bother to ask about.
This is already quite long enough, so I won’t bother to answer the questions already asked, nor ask any of my own. I will save those for a follow-up.