False Logic and the Freedom Convoy

8  Types of Logical Fallacies affecting the current split in Canada regarding the “Freedom Convoy.”

• —An ad Hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. In relation to the current split precipitated by the Freedom Convoy, both sides are guilty: the protestors heaping disdain on politicians and the opposite side characterizing protestors as ignoramuses. The end of ad hominem false logic is that it obscures the vital issues at hand while unfairly demeaning the opponent.
• — Straw Man fallacies reduce the disagreement to an attackable size. Presently the debate about a national approach to a pandemic is a monumental issue that’s been reduced to attackable size. On the protest side, the straw man being attacked is the over-simplified “Freedom” shibboleth. The other side in the controversy has made the cost and inconvenience of the occupation it’s straw man, one that can be (supposedly) eliminated in police action.
• — Appeal to Ignorance is simply explained by a statement like, “I didn’t see Joe at the demonstration, so he obviously wasn’t there.” Individual protestors can say there was no violence in the group of occupiers because they were there and didn’t see any. On the other side, it’s too easy for counter-arguers to say the police committed no violent acts against protestors because they watched all available videos and saw none.
• — Slippery Slope fallacies are predictions that what is happening now will continue to its worst possible outcome. Protestors have been saying that the freedom to cross international borders without vaccine protocols will get worse and worse until all of us have lost our basic freedoms. The counter-arguers warn that unless this occupation is successfully disbursed and the perpetrators punished, this kind of illegal occupation will become routine every time there’s a dispute.
• — Hasty Generalizations are often inserted into arguments as evidence for a set of facts. In simple terms, it’s like saying that smoking doesn’t really harm health because Grandpa smoked all his life and lived to be 100. Basing an argument on a few instances is a logical fallacy used by both sides, who select isolated incidents and publicize them as validating their opinions. There are 7 billion People on the planet; incidents of even the most bizarre anecdotes can easily be found.
• — Red Herring logical fallacies attempt to divert debate from the real issues. In the current division over pandemic protocols, the assertion that it’s about individual freedom can be considered a red herring since Canadian law makes all kinds of individual actions mandatory in the interest of public safety. On the counter-argument side, anything from the inconvenience borne by residents of Ottawa or the support from foreign sources might be red herrings drawing us away from the real question of governance during pandemic times.
• — Appeal to Hypocrisy along with ad hominem fallacies both fall into the category of attacking persons instead of issues. In the case of the former, the strategy is to scuttle an opponent’s argument by asserting that he/she/they don’t practice what they preach. Protestors rail against the Canadian government for bypassing the freedom clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while preaching its defense of freedom. The counter-arguers make much of the “you can’t win freedom by stealing it from others” argument. Hypocrisy, in both cases, with valid reason, possibly, but failing in logic.
• — Argumentum ad populum fallacies point to the number of people who endorse an opinion as proof for the validity of that opinion. In this case, the Freedom Convoy has pointed to its numbers and its widespread support as evidence of the rightness of their cause. The counter-arguers have pointed to polls suggesting that 70% of Canadians approve of the dismissal of unvaccinated employees. Correct statistics can be hard to gather; in any group, the 19 who agree on a plan may be shown in retrospect to have been wrong while the one dissenter was right.

I’ve listed only seven logical fallacies. Some texts and websites list more than 40. What is most disappointing to me in this age of social media and the leaking of divisive, confrontational communication from south of the border, is that it’s becoming almost impossible to separate the false from the factual information. People without the ability to detect when a statement is fallacious or logical are put in a real bind, one in which charlatans have free rein on our loyalties and emotions.