Part of an ongoing series interrogating cultural issues in light of Toronto’s unsurpassed multiculture –- and Canada’s role as one of the world’s most free and democratic societies.

Happens sometimes. We get lots of premises all right –- yet the conclusion wrong as can’t be. Not just sometimes. Happened to me plenty times. On March 8th, 2007, it happened to Haroon Siddiqui. Someday it’ll happen to you. If it hasn’t yet. So, no particular intention targeting Haroon Siddiqui. Would not have read his March 8th article -– Don’t give in to prevailing prejudices -– were the Toronto Star not available free up at York University. Would never even have heard of him. No big deal. Happens. Happening right now to reputed professionals at locations near you.

Better address his argument, though. Not because he got everyone so wrong when it came to banning hijab wearing from some Quebec soccer tournament. Water under the bridge gone way out to sea. That’s not why. Rather, because his argument is hazardous in and of itself. Hazardous as false bridges over heaving troubled waters.

Culturally troubled waters. Unlike most, Siddiqui gets that. Gets it just fine. That the trouble in the world today is not between materially conflicted nations and peoples seeking subjugating each other to any material advantage. He gets that the trouble is between cultures clashing over ideas, ideals, ideology and intangible principles. Cultural principles. Clashing to potentially universal terminal disadvantage.

Nor does Siddiqui deny or lament cultures clashing over mere intangibles -– over ideological opiates. He seems to appreciate that ideas are not mere reflections of the world in human minds. That ideas, ideals, ideology and intangible principles counterfactually shape the world, define us as peoples and -– when clashing in fundamental principles –- ever too often launch us at each others’ throats. Siddiqui gets how mere ideas bind community, root identity, trigger and inflame conflict regardless material commonality or difference. How paramount pivotal imagination and ideas are in foundation of society, of culture, of any and all significance whatsoever.

Siddiqui very much seems to appreciate all that. No surprise, then -– his urging we don’t give in to prevailing prejudices. His urgent headline to that effect. Why not? He gets the significance of cultural principles. He, far more than most, seems to appreciate our vital cultural principle of tolerance -– so amply expressed by Canadian democracy, Toronto multiculture and what Siddiqui refers to as “the honourable Canadian tradition” of “finding reasonable accommodation for a myriad of minority practices.” So why not? Uniquely appreciating as he does our principled tolerance defining the Canadian way –- why should he not stand guard for that?

Not that he just stands around guarding. Not when he writes,

The world looks up to Canada for its multicultural achievements. Here in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Commission, people routinely invoke Canada to counsel member-states to learn how to achieve integration the Canadian way.

That’s right. The world looks up to Canada. Our principled tolerance –- the Canadian way. Siddiqui’s not just standing guard. He’s declaring the world would do far worse than realizing and attaining for the Canadian way. Siddiqui’s suggesting bridges ought get built. Bridges aiding other societies over culturally troubled waters. Bridges getting the Canadian way across.

Everyone could –- and should –- pursue the Canadian way. Even among the world’s freest, most democratic and multicultured societies –- as in the European Union. Since Canada does it better. So Siddiqui, quoting Jan Niesen, confirms:

Canada does this much better… You have done very well in getting past issues of race, skin colour, ethnicity and religion -– something Europe is yet to fully come to terms with but simply must.

Canada does it much better. Makes nothing but sense –- Siddiqui looking to get the Canadian way across. Just one problem.

One fatal problem. Those particular bridges Siddiqui’s suggesting get built -– to get the Canadian way across? They’re all false. Each and every one of them. Apt only to collapsing underfoot. Soon as feet get stepping. Soon as some breeze blows in dispute. Pitch us headlong in the thickest heaving troubled waters. Because, much and uniquely as Siddiqui appreciates and guards the Canadian way -– he doesn’t get it. Doesn’t understand the meaning, significance, source and origin of that which defines it. Our principled tolerance.

Happens to everyone. To me, to you -– to reputed professionals everywhere. On March 8th it happened to the Star’s editorial page editor emeritus. Got it all wrong. Got the meaning of our principled tolerance all wrong. So -– what did Siddiqui profess the meaning of our tolerance? He didn’t. Said nothing whatever about it. But he must have got it all wrong. Must have. Since his claim concerning what it is we don’t tolerate was false in all particulars and every regard.

Siddiqui claimed we no longer tolerate Muslims since 9/11. Claimed we’ve become Islam-phobic. That we got so freaked, we can’t help ourselves from discriminating and interfering with Muslim religious freedom. According to Siddiqui, it’s “.. the panic that’s driving our democratic societies in this post-9/11 era.” That post-9/11 panic making us “..rationalize discrimination..” and making us “.. routinely invoke contrarian Muslim voices to lecture Muslims on how they should practise their religion.”

What unmitigated nonsense. In all particulars and every single regard.

We haven’t become Islam-phobic since 9/11. That myth becomes increasingly absurd each day it persists. In the relatively tolerant West –- nevermind in Canada –- we don’t go around mistaking or stereotyping all Muslims as the militant fundamentalists responsible for (not only) 9/11. We know far better. But since 9/12 through 9/whenever -– that’s different. We’ve seen the collective 9/12 dancing in the Middle-Eastern Muslim street. Seen it on T.V. Seen it on Al-Jazeera and CNN. The 9/12 collective rejoicing. We tried laughing it off –- like with those non-Muhammad cartoons. Tried laughing Islamic fundamentalism off as we would Christian fundamentalism.

There’s no laughing off Islamic fundamentalism. We get it. Still doesn’t mean we stereotype all Muslims as militant fundamentalists. Not since 9/11, not since 9/12, not since 9/whenever.

Sure we flinch from burqa –- even hijab –- at times. But not because we have become Islam-phobic. Just because some of the hatred we’ve heard expressed on the subject of feminine modesty is so nauseating. As reported in The Australian on October 26th, 2006: Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks. About when Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, senior Muslim cleric mufti of Australia –- not Iran –- declared:

If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

That damned, spoilt, impure, rotten meat. According to Sheik Hilali, of course the blame lies with the meat. With the uncovered female meat. “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.” Otherwise -– serves her right. Women are “weapons” of “Satan” used to control men.

So. Australia’s Sheik Hilali taught his followers that as uncovered meat is eaten by cats, so uncovered women are raped by Muslim men. And no doubt hatred such as his contributed to our flinching from hijab or burqa. But for hatred such as his, hijab or burqa might yet denote tolerance and good-will. But for hatred such as his we’d welcome hijab or burqa. As we welcome sari. As we welcome even the worst habits of nuns. Like we welcome Santa Claus –- and he dresses funnier than the Grim Reaper. But, other than in jesting, we don’t much welcome the Grim Reaper. Grim reaping costumes do not denote tolerance.

Sure we flinch from such hatred. But panic to the point of rationalizing discrimination and hysterical stereotyping? No way. No Canadian way. We haven’t become Islam-phobic. Not ever -– nevermind since 9/11. We can’t even begin believing anyone would follow Sheik Hilali’s thinking. Of course we don’t give in to prevailing prejudices. The prejudices prevailing with Sheik Hilali. We can’t conceive how anyone could be persuaded by such ravings. Therefore we do not conclude that as cats eat meat, so Muslim men rape –- or maim or murder –- whomsoever offends them. We do not conclude that all Muslims are militant fundamentalists or that any Muslims actually follow Sheik Hilali. As Canadians we know way better.

We are not phobic and we are not hysterical. Nevertheless, there are definitive limits to our principled tolerance. Precisely because our tolerance is principled. Case in point -– When rights collide with freedoms -– reported May 28th in the Toronto Star. Adi Abdul Humaid killed Aysar Abbas. Stabbed her in the neck 19 times with a steak knife. Subsequent to conviction for first-degree murder, he appealed –- on rather outlandish grounds. Argued his wife had been unfaithful. Not that he’d intended divorcing but mistakenly killed her, though. His appeal was more outlandish than that. Her adultery wasn’t grounds for divorce. Far as he was concerned, it was grounds for murder. Because he was a devout Muslim and had to protect his family’s honour.

Perhaps Mr. Humaid’s argument might have found merit elsewhere -– under Sharia law. Perhaps. No point even speculating if so. The extent to which Muslim wives constitute chattel under Islamic law. Whether first-degree murder can mean anything in relation to chattel. No point speculating, debating or even acknowledging Mr. Humaid’s argument. Because no speech purporting to justify crimes against human beings on grounds of their -– sufficiently or entirely -– lacking humanity qualifies as argument. Such speech qualifies as hate -– not argument. And, as hate, it was properly rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Of course it was rejected. The point, though, is what Superior Court Justice J.A. Doherty wrote about Mr. Humaid’s religious beliefs:

The alleged beliefs are premised on the notion that women are inferior to men and that violence against women is in some circumstances accepted, if not encouraged. These beliefs are antithetical to fundamental Canadian values…

Antithetical to the Canadian way. Antithetical to fundamental Canadian values. Values including –- but not limited to –- gender equality, reasonable accommodation, Canadian freedom and democracy or multiculture as in Toronto. And what defines the Canadian way? What distinguishes values which are fundamentally Canadian from those which are inconsistent – contradicting the Canadian way? Our principled tolerance, that’s what.

That’s what Haroon Siddiqui doesn’t get. The meaning of our principled tolerance. For if we apply Siddiqui’s reasoning to this case in point, we must conclude Justice Doherty panicked. That the Justice rationalized discriminating Mr. Humaid’s avowed devout religious beliefs, denying his religious freedom because of “.. the panic that’s driving our democratic societies in this post-9/11 era.”

Intolerant panic? Absurd. How could Justice Doherty not have rejected such beliefs as antithetical to the Canadian way? Not conceivable, tolerating such intolerant beliefs and actions. By the very meaning of our principled tolerance, there’s no tolerating such hatred-verging intolerance. Not without losing the Canadian way as if we’d never found it.

What does Siddiqui think the meaning of our tolerance is, anyway? What does he (mis)take our tolerance for? Weakness? Putting up with just anything? Submission to all with stronger religious beliefs –- regardless how hateful? No point speculating. Point is, he’s obviously wrong when it comes to tolerating Mr. Humaid. There’s no conceivable Canadian way to reasonably accommodate Mr. Humaid. Beliefs and actions that intolerant contradict the meaning of our principled tolerance intolerably – and absolutely are antithetical to the Canadian way.

Very doubtful Siddiqui would argue we ought to tolerate and accommodate Mr. Humaid. Fair enough. However much a case in point, that’s a special criminal case. Could Siddiqui be right in some more general sense, then? That we’re in some sort of panic to discriminate against how Muslims practice their religion? Is he right declaring we wouldn’t dare criticize Christians –- of whatever stripe –- or Jews as we criticize Muslims?

While we dare not cite, say, dissident Catholics or Jews to rationalize discrimination against practising Catholics and Jews, many people routinely invoke contrarian Muslim voices to lecture Muslims on how they should practice their religion.

Not right in the least. For not only aren’t we in any panic to discriminate. We are way past unconcerned with how anyone practices their religion. We take religious freedom as a right. We take lack of concern with religious practices as basic common sense. However. When religious practice grows so intolerant to verge active and aggressive hatred –- we do start getting concerned. Not because we care how religion should be practiced. Be difficult us caring any less about that. We care only how religion ought not to be practiced. That it never be practiced in active aggressive hatred. That it not threaten us with militant fundamentalism.

And it is utterly, ignorantly false that we take greater liberties lecturing Muslims how they should not practice their religion. Precisely the reverse is true. We hesitate to criticize militant fundamentalism in Islam as we would never hesitate with Christian militant fundamentalism. Of whatever stripe. Fact is, we don’t much wait on militant fundamentalism in order to criticize Christianity. We remember how militant fundamentalist Christianity turned on us. Back in our darker ages. And ever since we started following the chief materialist prophets of our enlightenment –- Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin –- we’ve pretty much criticized Christianity to death. Criticized Christianity so thoroughly we’ve killed god and destroyed the temporal power of the Christian church.

We’ve been –- more or less politely –- ridiculing Christian fundamentalism for hundreds of years. Laughed it out of governance. Out of schooling. Laughed it right out of competent society. Mostly we don’t bother even thinking about it any more. No longer relevant. But there’s no laughing off Islamic fundamentalism. We get that.

As with Rosie O’Donnell’s view –- “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam” –- Siddiqui couldn’t be more wrong. Radical Christianity used to be just as threatening. It no longer is. Nor has been for hundreds of years. Not after the Christian church got laughed into oblivion so profound it hardly dares peek noses into public affairs – nevermind threaten. Unlike O’Donnell, however, there’s plenty Siddiqui gets right. And the particular way he’s wrong supplies an essential clue to the meaning of our principled tolerance.

Siddiqui appreciates our principled tolerance entailing the Canadian way. But he does not get the meaning of our principled tolerance -– maintaining, falsely, that we are too critical of Islam and accepting of Christianity. Truth is, it’s particularly Christianity we’re grown so at ease criticizing. Particularly Christianity we’ve criticized near to death. What better question to ask, then, than how our criticism of the Christian church has entailed the meaning, significance, source and origin of our principled tolerance?

That’s the question. But before asking it, there’s something we should know no questions asked. We did not directly inherit our principled tolerance from the Christian church. As if Christian heritage entailed love and peace -– while that of other religions entails hate and war. Totally not. That much we ought to know no questions asked. Rosie O’Donnell knows that much.

Next segment: personal anecdotes on the hazards and rewards of confronting Christian fundamentalism.

[Peter Fruchter is a part-time faculty member in the Division of Humanities at York University. He writes about the nature of truth (and truths of nature). North America is his third continent. Toronto Culture and Multiculture is an ongoing series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8]

[Against fundamentalisms image by ma neeks and used via Creative Commons license.]

1. Can you write complete sentences please.

   Posted by  on  07/09  at  02:05 AM

2. Yes Brendan, I can. More to the point, I do. In my writing, the ratio of complete sentences to sentence fragments is ~ 9.3:1.

   Thus, your grammatical criticism insinuating I do not write complete sentences is revealed as either false or inane.

   May I help you with that? As an honest person, you must mean: “Can you write complete sentences ONLY please.”

   There—isn’t that better? Starting with an honest question—superficially, at least?

   Answer: yes, I probably can.

   Now let me ask you a couple questions. Like, why? And, like, why would you even ask me to? I mean, you seem even less punctilious about grammar than I am. Your question as written lacks all punctuation. It even lacks the question mark its grammar demands. So, why would you criticize anyone’s grammar—when your grammatic practice is so entirely lacking?

   More to the point (than to the punctuation)—are you unable to conceive any criticism less shallow than grammatical? I hope you can. And if you can, please try.

   Posted by  on  07/09  at  09:14 AM

3. Listen. You said it yourself. 9.3:1 is a terrible track record. If you handed that piece in to a high school english teacher, you would get it back covered in red markings. There is nothing shallow about complaining about grammar, especially when you like to throw in an incomplete sentence after every nine complete ones.

   Now I am fully aware that you can write complete sentences, so don’t take this as an attack on your intelligence. It’s just that personally speaking, I stop reading a piece when the first paragraph only contains 3 full sentences out of 13. Why? It’s because it becomes difficult to read. That is why we have grammar.

   So let me give you some constructive criticism. If you want people to actually listen to your ideas, you need to communicate it in a way that is effective. Sentence fragments might have their place in prose and poetry, but they are incredibly distracting in an essay format. If you can show me one great essayist (or even one good essayist) that uses sentence fragments at a ratio of 9.3:1 than I will be forver humble.

   Now I am sorry about being so direct in my first comment. It was the morning and I was groggy and typing with one hand while eating my breakfast with the other. But it shoud be said that your response was quite hostile, and I should remind you that the whole idea about having a ‘comment’ button on a blog means that the blogger is susceptible to somebody’s two cents, no matter how petty (or grammatical) it may be.

   Posted by  on  07/09  at  07:43 PM

4. Brendan wrote, “If you can show me one great essayist (or even one good essayist) that uses sentence fragments at a ratio of 9.3:1 than I will be forver humble.”

   Too forward, Brendan. We haven’t met. Not that I know of. Haven’t even been properly introduced. Nor likely shall we be. So.. what could it possibly signify if you humiliate yourself forever-more? And yet more to that point—why would you want to transform me into a great essayist (or even a good one)? Seriously—what is your concern with my choice of expressing?

   Is it that you blame my sentence fragmenting for ruining your breakfast? Better not. Not after publicly volunteering one-hand typing while groggily eating with the other.

   Giggling aside. I do and always shall take seriously anyone critically engaging with actual subject matter.

   Posted by  on  07/09  at  11:06 PM
6. George W bush so loved freedom and democracy that he sent members from the same communities he prevented voting at home to kill Iraqis in the name of it. The same communities that were disenfranchised forced off the voter roles , given faulty voting machines and harassed at the polls were expected to sacrifice their own lives and to kill others all for freedom and democracy. Of course not for oil or any other material or geopolitical gain only for democracy and freedom. And of course Afghanistan was foremost an issue of women’s rights. It was after a late night meeting with Catherine Mckinnon and Andrea Dworkin that G.W. knew action must be taken... Of course brutal misogyny and violence against women is always repugnant, but it is a stretch to argue that repulsive belief that “she was asking for it because of the way she dressed” originates in Islamic fundamentalism, that sentiment can still be heard in local bars or criminal courts for that matter. It’s perhaps easier to be deflected and distracted by exotic violence than acknowledge that in Canada up to 90% of sexual assaults are never reported to a large extent due to the misogyny that still pulses deep within the psyche of Canadian culture. It might be appealing to look at Islamic fundamentalism as a cause for violence against women but that hardly accounts to the close to 300 women murdered by spouses or partners in Canada. Nor does it does not account for the over-flowing women’s shelters or women who suffer abuse in silence. The misogyny of Islamic fundamentalism is certainly repellent but there is there is a steady stream of violence beneath the surface of Canadian tolerance.
   
   Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  07/10  at  12:04 AM

7. “to a high school english teacher”
   We are not, may I suggest, in high school.
   Even so, a competent English teacher can recognize the difference between a deliberate truncation for style or effect and a grammatical failure.
   The use of fragments is not, as some may imply,a gramatical mistake.
   Whether or not sentence fragments or elliptical constructions are “distracting” in a familiar essay format is merely a matter of personal taste.

   Posted by Bernita  on  07/10  at  07:25 AM

8. You’re right, Bernita.

   Of course you’re right. Not that Brendan’s all wrong. Fact is, any competent English teacher must recognize stylistic device. Fact was, my grade 13 English teacher initially didn’t. My first essay got handed back covered in red markings. Just like Brendan said. Outcome: subsequent my composing one grammatically impeccable essay lacking all stylistic device and then getting creative with real vengeance, my high school English teacher insisted I get awarded the English prize.

   But we’re not in high school here. Not my job helping distinguish style from grammar. Were it my job – well, I do get paid, in part, to help undergrad students craft on-topic theses. And in event Brendan were an undergrad student – maybe hoping to get into teacher’s college – I’d be glad to help him. But not here.

   In any forum where ideas are discussed or debated—such as here—Brendan’s criticism of personal style constitutes ad hominem. And if Brendan is an undergrad student then he knows what rude fallacy that is.

   So. Thank you, Brendan, for the ad hominem. Thank you, Bernita, for pointing out how sub-standard Brendan’s ad hominem is. As far as competent English teaching—not rudeness—goes. Now let’s get back on topic.

   Posted by  on  07/10  at  09:48 AM

9. Ok, I am curious. I don’t want this corespondence to be quite so hostile anymore, so I would like to turn it around a bit. I was wondering if you could defend your stylistic use of sentence fragments. What is it about them that you like? What kind of mood do you think you are painting? How does it help you convey your message? Why sentence fragments and not superlatives, run-ons, complete ommission of punctuation, or a dozen other stylistic devices?

   Posted by  on  07/10  at  04:08 PM

10. Welcome to grammartoronto.com (good idea – maybe RT should consider a name change).

    Posted by Editor  on  07/10  at  05:15 PM

11. No hostility, Brendan. I’m puzzled by your question, though—whether I could defend my writing style. I suppose I could. But why do you suggest my writing style requires defending?

    Posted by  on  07/10  at  05:23 PM

12. Thank you for commenting, Chris. Particularly since, of all the comments (including my responses) to date, yours is the single one on-topic.

    Must ask, though—are you looking to start a partisan debate? Because, if so, count me out. The issues raised have to do with fundamental Canadian values and, as such, go somewhat deeper than Tory/Liberal/NDP schisms.

    off-topic rant on/
    I more than fully agree with you re G.W. Bush. Since Bush (administration) has set back democracy worse than any Middle-Eastern militant fundamentalism ever possibly could.

    Inconceivably worse. All nations have the duty of self-defense. But trying to enforce democracy at gunpoint? When, at the absolute least, democracy means voting instead of enforcing at gunpoint? Only thing the Bush administration has successfully accomplished is show the world that might makes right and overpowering—superpowering—is where it’s at. And only a fundamentalist American president—sapping democracy from inside out the former bastion of democracy—could have set democracy as far back as Bush has.
    off-topic rant off/

    Now. Your objection that misogyny ”.. can still be heard in local bars or criminal courts for that matter.” Yeah? What of it? What’s the name of that straw-man you’re tilting at? What kind of red herring you fishing for?

    Who ever argues that misogyny—or school-yard bullying or hatred of every sort—never occurs in Canada? The argument here was that we are against hatred as a matter of definitive principle. That hatred is contrary to fundamental Canadian values. That in Canada religious freedom can not legitimate misogyny. Like the Judge said.

    Of course we aren’t perfect. What we are is fundamentally principled for tolerance and against hatred. And, of course, practice perfects. Practicing our principles perfects our principled practicing. Sure—never to the point of perfection. What of it? Isn’t perfecting to the point of however vast improvement worth it?

    We don’t need to be perfect to stand up for our fundamental values—for our cultural principle of tolerance. We only need to remain principled.

    Posted by  on  07/10  at  07:57 PM
14. I have no wish for a partisan debate either, nor was I assuming you were a fan of Bush. I did mention Bush for a number of reasons. The first being to distinguish between the statement of values and their expression, one might claim to value freedom and democracy whilst demonstrating an opposite instincts or actions. Often the biggest boosters for freedom and democracy are it’s worst practitioners. Bush is also an example of fundamentalist theocratic Christian will in action, he believes (or would have us believe) he is on a mission from god(perhaps Mobile is his higher power) and in doing so he also readily justifies extreme violence in the name of a deity. I also mention Bush to underline how colonial and imperial ventures are foremost in aiding Islamic fundamentalism both directly and indirectly. Colonial forces have been/are quite willing to support fundamentalist when they do their bidding., the presence of occupying forces is the best recruiting tool. The desperate and hopeless are always fodder for those offering define deliverance. The threat of Islamic fundamentalism is not something that is separate from colonial meddling, imperial powers have frequently supported fundamentalist rather than democrats. So why the focus on Islamic fundamentalist misogyny repulsive as it is? Such a tactic can have differing outcomes, one of which Siddiqui speaks, focusing on Islamic misogyny fosters a belief amongst Canadians that the other(Muslim) is misogynist whilst we are not. Such a belief fosters a sense of superiority and contempt. The point I was making is that there is a strong current of misogyny that runs through western cultures, this misogyny is just as damaging and reprehensible as any threat from the outside. If the subject is violence against women than the focus should be in challenging all strains of misogyny. Focusing on the misogyny of an alleged external culture can also lead to a minimizing of the threat that exists domestically. Again it lead to smugness and superiority and indifference which can allow political actions and legislation that threaten the safety and security of women in this country, be it closing of shelters, crisis centres or silencing of advocates. .It is also worth noting that misogyny is as much of a culture product, belief assumption as tolerance even if it is not held up as worth valuing it still operates and it still has impact on the lives of people. It might be added that misogyny is something that is tolerated and also promoted within this culture.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  07/11  at  12:50 PM

15. Chris? You wrote, “It might be added that misogyny is something that is tolerated and also promoted within this culture.” Which means you’ve got the wrong room.

    See, there was this Judge ruling that misogynistic beliefs and practices are antithetical to fundamental Canadian values. And then there was me arguing that all hatred—misogyny included—is contrary to our fundamental cultural principle. Tolerance.

    And then you declared there’s misogyny in Canada. Totally missing the point. And now you declare that – as a culture – we tolerate and promote misogyny.

    The good news is you’re not missing the point any more. What it is that, as a matter of cultural principle, we most fundamentally promote.

    But there’s bad news. Your declaring that we fundamentally promote hatred—rather than tolerance—doesn’t qualify for debating. You need to justify the proposition that our culture is founded in principles of hatred. Otherwise, you’ve not managed arguing with me—only contradicting my conclusion.

    Like in the old Monty Python skit. You’ve got the wrong room, my friend. This is the reasoning room. If you’re looking for the contradicting room, that’s down the hall to your left.

    Actually, why don’t I go down the hall with you. Ok. We’re in the contradicting room now. No more reasoning. Let’s start.

    Me: Canadian culture is founded in the principle of tolerance.

    You: Canadian culture is not founded in tolerance. We promote hatred.

    Me: No way we promote hatred. Tolerance is our most fundamental principle.

    You: We promote hatred every bit as much.

    Me: As Canadians we don’t promote hatred.

    You: Hatred is just as much a product of our culture.

    Me: We don’t promote it. So no way it’s just as much a product of our culture.

    You: Of course we promote it. Since it’s just as much a product of our culture.

    Me: We’d better talk about the meaning, significance, source and origin of our tolerance. Then you’ll understand why we don’t promote hatred.

    You: We do promote hatred. And we’re in the contradiction room now. I don’t got to understand nothing.

    Me: Contradicting is useless.

    You: No it’s not.

    Me: long gone.

    Posted by  on  07/11  at  10:51 PM

16. Peter, I tolerated your condescension when it was me making the admittedly rather fickle and rude remarks about your sentence fragments. But poor Chris. What did he do? He managed to get through your hundred-odd sentence fragments and was still able to deliver his two-cents on the subject matter. And then you respond with such a pugnacious, condescending and down-right insulting mockery of the guy. The last “me-You section” sounds like something pulled out from the closet of CFRB, the closet labelled “jerky retorts to shut people up”. That is hardly promoting the criticial debate that you so desired .
    Sorry but in my opinion, all stylistic devices aside, you are an embarassment to the Reading Toronto website.

    (I also think you owe Chris an apology)

    Posted by  on  07/13  at  12:01 PM
18. 'Brendan' - a.k.a. regularchickens@hotmail.com, things are far more polarized than you seem to realize. I take commentary from Chris fairly seriously. He and I both post and comment under genuine names. We have been properly introduced. We have something of a comment-exchanging relationship dating back some months. We got to know each other some. Where each other is coming from. In the context of our relating, Chris and I have both taken certain liberties. The sort of liberties that would totally not be appropriate between you and I. You see, 'Brendan', I'd love to banter with you as I do with Chris. For you and I to develop some kind of genuine relationship. It pains me that we can't. But there it is. We can't. And it isn’t just your posting anonymously, 'Brendan' a.k.a. regularchickens@hotmail.com, precluding our genuine relating. Sure, that makes me doubt you. Your posting under alias makes me doubt you're for real. But that’s not all of it. You just might conceivably be an honest pseudonymous entity. Thing is, by your regular_chickens email address, you insinuate speaking for all the regular chickens @hotmail. But how am I to know that there aren't any non-'Brendan' regular chickens at @hotmail? How am I to know there aren't countless many? To the contrary. There must be plenty non-'Brendan' regular chickens @hotmail. No doubt some even bigger chickens. So there you have it, 'Brendan' a.k.a. regularchickens@hotmail.com. Until I hear from some other regular chickens @hotmail, it would be premature to conclude where among regular chickens you stand in the pecking order. What is your rank among chickens? Have you even received legitimate pecking orders? It'd be different if all the regular_chickens @hotmail were pecking my grammar all at once. Now, that would have to be taken seriously.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  07/13  at  02:59 PM
20. Well Peter, I think Python’s Parrot sketch might be more your style considering your penchant for diatribe. As for contradiction, the tolerance/hate dichotomy is of your construction. To me it is possible for their to be contradictory cultural values, beliefs, norms and practices co-existing within a cultural landscape. A distinction also needs to be made between cultural values and their behavioural expression. It is also inaccurate to make statements concerning “we Canadians” as though we exist as a unitary homogeneous group. On the contrary Canadian consist of different groups, different voices and differing narratives, dominant and subordinate.(Isn't that supposed to be the nature of multiculturalim?) It is telling that you pay attention to only one narrative. It would be interesting to attempt to locate this concept of tolerance historically, politically, socially and interpersonally perhaps you have done this previously, I have only read your last three posts on the topic. Trying to locate intolerance within the context of Canadian cultural history is far from difficult, the country that was built on colonial appropriation and imperial plunder. Perhaps First Nations people were far too tolerant towards the Europeans but this was hardly reciprocated. Both the legacy and the practice of this intolerance are very much alive and can be witnessed still in the treatment of First Nations by people by both government and citizens. In the same manner not difficult to locate cultural belief systems that promote assumptions of male dominance that continue despite co-existing beliefs in equality. Which brings us to what is inherently problematic about the concept of tolerance. Tolerance implies from the beginning a power imbalance a relationship between the dominant and the subordinate. For their to be one group that is tolerant there must also be the tolerated. To be tolerant is also something that is quite distinct from forming connection, empathy and encouraging equity and inclusion. With tolerance the power is unequally distributed. There is also the implicit threat that tolerance can be rescinded, if the tolerated are seen to challenge the boundaries of power and privilege. This can not only be witnessed in Canada but can be seen in Europe in changing opinions towards asylum seekers and refugees. In Canada it is not uncommon to see reference to campaigns of “zero tolerance” and it is not coincidental that this campaigns are for the most part in reference to the black community. Be it school safety or criminal justice system it is most often those of African descent that are profiled and persecuted. A single criminal act especially if the victim is white quickly leads to calls of “send them back where they came from.” Immigrants are also welcome until they complain. Before it is suggested I am not saying Canada is all bad. There are strong instincts and desires for freedom and democracy as there are those who work for equity and inclusion. My point all along is that one must make a distinction between those who encourage equity, inclusion and enhanced freedom and democracy from those who would seek to subvert such ideals or promote their opposites. If one is unable to locate, identify and acknowlege these competing cultural beliefs and practices than little progress will be made. I would also not the irony that for someone who writes so much about tolerance you certainly exhibit extreme difficulty demonstrating it.
    
    Posted by  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by  on  07/13  at  03:31 PM

21. Chris, you wrote, “It would be interesting to attempt to locate this concept of tolerance historically, politically, socially and interpersonally perhaps you have done this previously, I have only read your last three posts on the topic.”

    Nope, haven’t done it yet. That’s what I hope to do. What this series is building up to. I mean to answer the question of the meaning, significance, source and origin of our (cultural principle of) tolerance.

    And I know you’re not saying “Canada is all bad.” Which is why I think it so silly you citing particular instances of Canadian intolerance. Because our principled tolerance doesn’t mean we are always tolerant. It only means that we get more tolerant over time. That so long as we remain tolerant in principle, practicing our tolerance perfects our tolerant practices.

    If you’d like to formulate a counter argument, please do. It would entail, for instance, your justifying how we were less tolerant yesterday than the day before—and less tolerant today than yesterday. Justify a position like that and you’ll have a decent counter argument to (not only) my claiming that Canadians are fundamentally tolerant as a matter of principle.

    But if you persist merely repeating allegations of particular intolerance—that’s no argument. Fact is, that doesn’t even qualify as contradiction. Since nobody’s claiming all Canadians are always tolerant. Not that I know of, anyhow.

    This last point? I’ve repeated it pretty much every exchange we’ve had. Which brings up what you wrote in your last couple lines. About me seeming so intolerant to you.

    I don’t think you’re being honest about that. You’ve been the most reliably persistent commentator to my articles. You’ve been impatient at times. I’ve been impatient at times. But, overall, we’ve kept reasoning even when we haven’t been entirely reasonable.

    I’ve kept responding to you even when despairing that you’ll understand some pretty basic points. Like what I mean by “principle”. Or by “culture” (granted “culture” isn’t so ‘basic’). Yet I’ve kept responding to you. Not because I’m paid to do any of this. I’m not. Just because I seek not only to explicate ‘tolerance’—but also to practice it.

    So. Not only do you not appreciate my explicating ‘tolerance’—you don’t even appreciate my practicing it. But then—honestly—what are you doing here? How and why have you become my most reliably persistent commentator?

    This here column’s all about the meaning, significance, source and origin of tolerance. Me seeking to explicate and practice it. If you don’t appreciate any of that, what are you doing spending so much time commenting on it?

    Seriously. If this is such a waste for you—then why? Is it because you can’t tolerate anyone claiming the Canadian way is informed by principled tolerance? If so—and I’m not saying it is so—then you are completely wasting both our time. The contradicting room is down the hall to your left. This here is the reasoning room

    Posted by  on  07/13  at  05:36 PM

22. ummmmmmm…I’m not sure but is it common practice to post somebody’s e-mail address on the internet purely out of spite? In fact ‘Peter’, a.k.a. my name really is ‘Brendan’ and my e-mail address is in fact ‘regularchickens@hotmail.com’ (although please don’t try to analyse it, it was a reference that I thought was clever in high school)

    Your last comment to me was a confirmation that you really are a true and genuine asshole. I am e-mailing your editor to make a formal complaint.

    Posted by  on  07/13  at  09:38 PM

23. ‘Brendan’ wrote, “Peter, I tolerated your condescension when it was me making the admittedly rather fickle and rude remarks…”

    Well, ‘Brendan’, I don’t mind condescending your fickle rudeness. It’s been tolerably amusing. However. Pretending you’re not posting under alias, pretending not knowing you’re the one posting the absurd associated email address (hold cursor over any ‘Brendan’ link) and pretending not to have intentionally and repeatedly been posting off-topic—that’s kind’a pathetic. Too transparent and far too low on the troll-o-meter. Sorry—but not worth condescending to any longer.

    The troll feeder is now closed.

    Posted by  on  07/13  at  11:42 PM

24. How tedious. Another troll. Following the standard pattern of troll behaviour:

    1. Respond to posted essays with comment utterly unrelated to content of post [the grammar ‘r’ us complaint is a clear giveaway]
    2. Repeatedly interrupt ‘on topic’ discussions in order to reassert off-topic commentary [the troll’s version of “look at me!”]
    3. Up the ante with ad hominems and increasing profanity, escalating to threats.
    4. [often in conjunction with point 3] issue shrill assertions of victimhood.
    5. Rinse and repeat.

    Yawn. Time to go back to your bridge, Brendan.

    Posted by Amy Lavender Harris  on  07/13  at  11:48 PM

25. Well, to insert a note of levity into what’s apparently a pitched battle. I used to be a regular reader of Reading Toronto, and the sentence-fragment style articles—which, like Brendan, I find very difficult to wade through—were one of the noise elements that pushed Reading Toronto’s signal-to-noise ratio just a bit beyond my cognitive range.

    For what it’s worth, like Brendan I thought there might be something interesting there, if I were able to get through it—I usually get the first little bit before I give up—and, like Brendan, I’m posting in good faith. You can go and label Brendan a troll all you like (and, for that matter, me), but from my read through the comments, the harsh tone has a lot to do with the very hostile and defensive reaction with which his good-faith remarks were met.

    So, by all means, feel free to delete this, to insult me, to condescend, ridicule, etc. Also feel free to ignore the message since you are unhappy with the messenger’s decision to remain anonymous. But this is certainly another reader—ex-reader, mind you, so I probably count less—who agrees that writing essays in complete sentence might be one way to make them more readable.

    Posted by  on  07/24  at  07:40 PM

26. Thanks for the note of levity, Disparishun. It was quite funny.

    Posted by  on  07/24  at  10:18 PM

<< Back to main