Historical CNR Caboose.
Far be it from me to say the two are the same . . . but:
Tuesday’s news highlighted:
1) President Assad’s defiant
speech to the Syrian people and the world, and
2) the Canadian government’s
statements regarding the mass of people registered to intervene at the opening
of hearings on the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Bruderheim, Alberta to
Kitimat, BC.
Not the same, of course, but both news items bear one
eerie similarity. In both cases, the entities in power applied the ad hominem argument to their opponents,
a tactic that has been historically typical of tyrannies but hardly becomes the
leadership of a democracy.
It’s
always a temptation in a debate—especially when truth is not firmly on your
side—to bolster your chances by denigrating the opposition. President Assad and
the Harper government both fell prey to this temptation yesterday and labelled
their oppositions as:
a) being a uniform pack of
agitators, and
b) supported by foreign
interests.
The first assertion is an attempt to make the opposition
appear to be an ignorant and/or malevolent mob, the latter an appeal to the
nationalist sentiment in the population.
Neither addresses the merits
or demerits of the argument.
Perhaps both Harper and Assad can be
forgiven; the temptation to label and homogenize our opponents is deeply
embedded in all of us. We practice it in our education systems, in our
churches, in our municipal and provincial politics (especially at election
time), even in our families. It is, after all, far simpler than the hard work
of open, honest negotiation and reasoned debate. It raises its ugly head in
families, for instance, when an exasperated father tells his son, “You’re nothing
but a little thief,” when the son borrows a tool without asking and leaves it
out in the rain. It shows itself in churches when people are grouped and
labelled on the basis of differing interpretations of the faith. It’s implicit
in party politics and the labels that attach to proponents of one viewpoint or
the other.
“An
ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the
person"), short for argumentum
ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing
out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally
described as a logical fallacy.” (Wikipedia)
The government of Canada is convinced that the economic
benefit to the country of being able to ship volumes of oil-sands oil to the
Orient outweighs the danger of accidents and the compromising of the natural
world that accompanies any project of this magnitude. The Aboriginal nations
along its route see the pipeline as yet another infringement on their
territories and their traditional way of life, besides being environmentally
very risky.
These are major considerations. They need to be weighed
soberly and respectfully.
Our government’s ad
hominem intrusion into the atmosphere of the hearings before they even get
started is inconsistent with the ideals of democracy.
Assad’s, on the other hand, is simply an affront to all
that is reasoned, noble and generous in the human spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment