APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van
der Breggen
The Carillon, May 25, 2017
Prime blunders
The Right
Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, may one day find his recent
"answers" in the House of Commons' question period listed in
university textbooks on reasoning—in the sections on fallacies.
Various
Conservatives and even NDP Thomas Mulcair asked the PM a simple question, and
they asked this question 18 times. Only to have the PM evade it
Here's the
question: How many times has the PM met with the ethics and
conflict-of-interest commissioner (to see if there is a conflict of interest in
the PM vacationing with a billionaire on the billionaire's island)?
The PM's
response—18 times—was, simply and basically, this: "I am very pleased to
work with the ethics and conflict-of-interest commissioner to answer any
questions she may have."
This isn't a
fallacy of logic in the sense that an argument—a mistaken argument—is being set
out by the PM, because the PM didn't set out an argument. Nevertheless, it is a
fallacious response: it is a dialogical
error, i.e., the mistake of not participating properly in a reasonable dialogue
by not answering the question at hand.
Such a mistake
could be innocent, because perhaps the question was not understood. But in the
PM's case the question was repeated not just once, not just twice, but 18
times. The PM's response was clearly deliberate. And evasive. He was knowingly avoiding
the question.
Perhaps the PM couldn't provide a specific answer concerning
number, for legal reasons. Why not say so?
But things get
worse.
Later, in
response to the seventh time he was asked the same question, the PM said this:
"Canadians expect clarity and they expect consistency, and when asked the
same question I will give the same answer. That's what Canadians expect. I will
work with and answer the questions the ethics commissioner/
conflict-of-interest commissioner may have."
Well, I am a
Canadian, and I expect that the PM should know that consistency in making a
mistake is not an intellectual virtue. Giving the same mistaken answer over and
over again doesn't make the answer right. No matter how consistent one is in
saying 2+2=5, the fact is that 2+2 doesn't equal 5.
In other words,
the PM mistakenly thinks that two wrongs make a right. Actually, in this case,
that 18 wrongs make a right.
But things get worse
yet.
Later, in the
PM's ninth response, the PM uses another evasion tactic: he attempts to change
the subject—a.k.a. red herring.
Here's the
question (again): How many times has the PM met the ethics commissioner?
The PM answers
as follows: "I'm happy to accept and work with the ethics commissioner on
answering any of the questions she may have. That's the kind of thing that is
important to Canadians. What's also important to Canadians is making
investments in the middle class, in growth for the economy, in putting forward
a budget that will put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and raise
taxes for the wealthiest one percent. These are the focuses that our government
has. The priorities of our government is serving the middle class and those
working hard to join it."
If this were a
court and I were a lawyer, I'd shout "Objection! Irrelevant!" And the
judge would instruct the jury to ignore the PM's attempt to bamboozle by
setting out a red herring. (The PM does this twice, in fact.)
In sum, the PM commits multiple serious mistakes that can be
placed in three categories: avoiding the question (x18), two wrongs make a
right (x1), and red herring (x2).
Mr. Prime
Minister, you say Canadians expect clarity. Yes, we do. We also expect truth.
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
Exhibit A:
Exhibit A:
No comments:
Post a Comment