Andrew Coyne wrote something so untrue in the Post today that I cannot believe he expects us to believe it. I cannot believe he believes it. So why did he write such patently contrafactual assertions?
I believe he is engaging in the noble lie. It does not become him.
In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic. –Wikipedia
This is what Coyne wrote:
Likewise, there is a serious critique to be made of the government’s approach to this issue, and to Canada’s Muslim population generally. It would be fair to accuse it, if not of scapegoating and marginalizing Muslims itself, then of acting with reckless disregard for that possibility — not because many of the terrorists we face today do not profess the Islamic faith, but because it has been too willing to allow others to make a more general association between the two, terrorism and Islam, or at best too slow to reject such thinking.
The government “has been too willing to allow others to make a more general association between the two, terrorism and Islam, or at best too slow to reject such thinking.”
This sentence is so wrong in many ways. First, it is not terrorism; it is jihad. It is a sacrament of Islam, like baptism, eucharist, marriage and last rites are with most Christians.
Second, there is a direct association between Islamic belief professed by jihadists and the jihad they carry out.
Third, what business is it of any liberal-democratic government to prevent in any way the conclusions of its citizens that there is a rational, causal, demonstrable connection between the profession of Islamic faith by many who call themselves orthodox Muslims and acts described as terrorist?
What is a liberal like Coyne doing, by implicitly calling for the government to suppress discussion of what everyone is concluding from the evidence of their own eyes? How could the government reject such thinking when everyone not motivated by Islam, willful blindness, or political correctness, sees the link, and thinks this way?
Why should we not be angry? Why should we not be fearful? Why should we not link the eliminationist anti-Semitism of jihadists, and of Islamic preachers calling for same, to the Holocaust?
Here is where I think Coyne and John Ivison, in his column on the same page, step over the brink into fatuity.
Basically what both are saying is that the duty of tone control comes before the duty to tell the truth, indeed, that tone and context control ought to prevail over the truth. I hope these guys read the same paper they write in.
I have seen the damage done to Quebec by the ugly threats that agitation against the suppression of English language rights “disturbs the social peace”. And I am watching two men who ought to know better say that the “social peace” has been disturbed by the Prime Minister.
No, gentlemen, the social peace has been disturbed by Muslims flaunting our rules and expecting to have their actions approved of, and by Muslims murdering us, and expecting to conquer us and subdue us to a revolting ideology.
The day before, again in the jury’s absence, he’d painted a picture of what he’d sincerely like Canada to look like — no alcohol, “no pig meat,” no music, no theatre, no churches, no synagogues and no “hypocritical” mosques, and, of course, women locked in their homes except for emergencies and if they go out on those rare occasions they must be fully covered.
I wish Coyne would read his own paper. We do, and have drawn our conclusions. Prime Minister Harper is following, not leading, public opinion, French and English, in this country. And we are fed up with people trying to deflect us from stating publicly the necessary conclusions we have reached.