Tolerance? Yes. Accommodation? We’ll see

There’s a crucial difference between hearing out odious ideas and acting on them

By T. David Marshall

A decision by York University this month to accommodate a student who, for religious reasons, declared that he could not tolerate partaking in activities involving women, has once again raised the question of the proper limits of toleration and accommodation.

York University's administration, in its infinite "wisdom," decided it was better, or easier, to simply tolerate this student's misogynistic outlook, and make accommodations for him, rather than mount even the most perfunctory of defences for the values thereby put at risk — gender equality, academic freedom and individual dignity, just to name a few.

The administration's decision would have been to the detriment of that portion of the class possessing vaginas — and to those with penises and brains — had it not been for the demonstrated intestinal fortitude of the professor at the centre of this self-imposed mess. This professor, a male, refused to assent to that student's absurd request and then refused to assent to the still-more-absurd demand of the school to permit gender segregation. In doing so, he did what the school's administration should have done in the first place.

His moral courage, in the face of such pressure, is deserving of praise — and is, I fear, an increasingly rare and (therefore) precious thing.

I say "rare" because the disturbing fact is that this school's administration is not alone in its hapless and misguided accommodation of the patently absurd and barbaric. Britain, of late, has experienced its own spate of battles with "accommodation-gone-awry" and has fared only half well. In that country, an association called Universities UK (which represents nearly every university in the country) recently decided to go about the bizarre task of crafting guidelines for the segregation of classes to accommodate visiting Muslim professors (lest one of them be offended by the presence of a woman, or — gasp! — not attend). In these guidelines, the association counselled its members — 133 universities — that the segregation of women was "OK," so long as they weren't relegated to the very back of the classroom.

Such ghastly affronts to reason and sense raise, I think, the important questions of how far the elastic notion of toleration takes us and how far we should accommodate unreasonable ideas.

The toleration of ideas (even patently bad ones) is a good thing — as John Locke's famous 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration rightly points out. The forced conformity of one's mind to the prevailing notions of society concerning matters of right and wrong, good and bad, is both a practical impossibility and very undesirable thing. When it comes to the range of ideas to be possessed and expressed by its possessor and expositor, even the most odious idea is entitled to a fair hearing.

This disposition of liberality, however, has no analogue in the case of accommodation. In determining what to accommodate and what to reject, we are forced to appeal to, and exercise, our reason. Accommodation asks of us not simply that we lend an ear to, or entertain the thoughts of, another, but that we positively make room for (and perhaps even lend a hand to) the carrying of such ideas into effect. This exercise, unlike the other, demands that we reason out the evidence for and against the ideas in question, before deciding how — or indeed, whether — to act.

The necessity of undertaking the task of reasoning, however, appears to have entirely escaped York's administration. The only other possible conclusion is that they haven't the collective wherewithal to reason themselves out of a paper bag, because it's not just that gender segregation is so obviously a bad idea (as it has, at its core, the subjugation of women) but that gender equality is so obviously a good idea.

Reasons abound to support it: What genitalia one possesses is determined by the lottery of birth; differences in the treatment of individuals should be based on salient distinctions and not on the basis of that lottery; it promotes social stability, equality and industrial development; it decreases the likelihood of individual and group poverty and contributes to lower rates of infectious disease — and I could go on.

But without even an attempt at reasoning it out, York University very nearly let the lesser idea win. And that's a problem for us all.

If there is a silver lining to these events, however, it is that we have been reminded that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Tolerance? Yes. Accommodation? We'll see. But in that fight our weapon and our shield is — and forever will be — reason, and we relinquish that at our peril.

T. David Marshall is a lawyer practising in Hamilton.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4327466-tolerance-yes-accommodation-we-ll-see/

An Appetite for Democracy

For better or, yes, worse, Mayor Rob Ford is a product of — and subject to — the democracy we cherish

ByT. David Marshall

I've spoken with countless people over the past week or so excited about the recent Rob Ford revelations — crack smoking; allegations of gang connections; extortion allegations and the general debasement of basic civics at Toronto City Hall, just to name a few.

Again and again, people asked me the same question: "How could a guy like that get elected?"

Indeed, I had to ask myself that question — could it simply be that we've all been drinking the democratic Kool-Aid? Maybe democracy isn't all it's cracked (excuse the pun) up to be.

In western liberal democracies like Canada, we simply assume that democracy is the best form of government. But is it — and if so, why? We assume, for instance, that when set against a background of essentially fair preconditions ("a level playing field"), the aggregate choices of rational agents must always lead to the best possible outcome. In the marketplace, our choices, and the pressures these exert, regularly lead to the invention of better washing machines, tastier coffees and niftier cars, and there's little doubt that that's a good thing.

Upon reflection then, and given all of human history, it — democracy — is actually a rather remarkable feat we’ve pulled off. Even today the greater balance of the globe doesn’t have what we’ve got.

But sometimes the Big Macs of politics get elected and we find ourselves with, for example, Rob Ford as mayor, or George W. Bush as the leader of the free world. Disaster ensues.

What went wrong? If, like coronaries from unhealthy burgers, unrepentant and selfish politicians are not, on the whole, the best of all possible outcomes, then why do we persist in touting democracy as the best form of political organization? Could we be wrong?

In short, no, we're not wrong — or not exactly, anyway. But I think the outcome (good or bad) of the whole process is really beside the point, so perhaps I should explain.

Clearly, the democratic process isn't the greatest way of picking the best among us. Maybe a test would be better. George W. Bush would never have been elected if there had been a series of skill-testing questions to answer, and I think it's safe to say Rob Ford would have flunked such a test too. After all, neither one was a Philosopher King, and "virtue" is not a word we typically associate with their names. But, at the end of the day both of these men were the guys regular folks believed they could sit down and have a beer with — and that's exactly what the market delivered.

So what is it, then, that we prize so much about the democratic process? In two words: freedom and accountability.

Despite our collective lamentations about Rob Ford's criminal and base-behaviour, he was our (the royal "our" — not me!) choice. No czar or central committee of The Party picked Ford for us to falsely swoon over; no one ever proclaimed him a living god. For better or (obviously) worse, Ford rose through the ranks of municipal politics, held himself out for public display, and let the voters decide.

As for accountability — well, we've got that, too. For starters, Ford is subject to the law, just like the rest of the guys and gals who voted him in to office. Then there are councils, which are empowered by us to create rules and regulations, and in Toronto's case are using those powers now to curb Mayor Ford's. And, finally, there's always next year when the mayor's job will be back on the auction block — sold to whoever secures the most votes.

Upon reflection then, and given all of human history, it — democracy — is actually a rather remarkable feat we've pulled off. Even today the greater balance of the globe doesn't have what we've got. It's not open, for instance, to a Chinese person — any one of the one billion individuals who populate that country — to openly question his or her leader.

Nor is it possible for the small village boy, or girl, to reasonably dream of one-day leading his or her fellow Zimbabweans to a brighter future. Forget glass ceilings and wheelchair access — for the vast majority of our numbers on Earth, there isn't even a door.

So Jimmy Kimmel, John Stewart and Jay Leno are having their fun with Mayor Rob Ford — goodness knows we had ours when Bush was in power. These guys, and sometimes gals (remember Sarah Palin?), get elected and to me that's quite all right. Democracy might not be what it's cracked up to be, but it sure beats the alternative.

Next time though, let's just make sure we order the Quarter Pounder.

T. David Marshall is a lawyer practising in Hamilton. He is also a vegetarian. No animals were eaten during the writing of this article.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4232737-an-appetite-for-democracy/

Dr. Justice T. David MARSHALL

MARSHALL, Dr. Justice T. David

 

In memoriam Died November 20, 2009

Even at our greatest, one must, upon reflection, be humbled by the utter insignificance of our individual lives. At best, we merit a fleeting reference here, or a bookmark there. Each of us is but a drop in the veritable ocean that is mankind. We are born to die; to give birth; to let loose our grasp in favour of those to come. Our brief day begets a long night to come.

 

And still, individuals, like drops, count - the whole is nothing without its parts. Perhaps, then, and in the final analysis, this is the most any of us should dare to dream - to be remembered fondly, if at all, by those who shared with us our brief moments in the sun. To ask for more, surely, would be to ask for too much. 

 

T. David Marshall is loved and fondly remembered by Jill Marshall, his children Jillian, Julie,

Albert, Thomas, David Jr., by their families and his friends.

 

T. David Marshall, Jr. 2013

 

http://www.lifenews.ca/announcement/4228182-marshall-dr-justice-t-david

Fact: Religion is not Reasonable - Promoting Unreason (faith) has its Consequences

Science is not a "thing," a doctrine or a set of beliefs — it is a mode of thinking and method of inquiry. There is no Book. Once this concept is grasped, the errors in reasoning committed by the writer of the May 3 letter to the editor entitled Muddying the Waters ought to become obvious. But, because an understanding of these errors will, invariably, continue to elude some, I fear it necessary to bring more to bear upon the subject.

There is an unsettling fact I think most religiously inclined readers will be loath to accept: Religion is not reasonable.

I mean this in the most analytical sense, of course, in that religious belief is not based upon reason, but upon authority. The claims to "Truth" by Jesus or Mohammad rest entirely upon the basis of their assertions to have been (in the case of Jesus) the son of God, or (in the case of Mohammad) to have communed with God through an intermediary: These are not reasons — these are simply further claims.

This is precisely why such doctrines are called "faiths." It takes an active willingness to suspend one's otherwise critical faculties in order to believe — on the basis of no evidence — that the claims proffered by such men are true. This is, incidentally, the very definition of irrational behaviour.                       

 

Science, however, is unlike religion. The only basis for its claims is that they are reasonable — that is, reason-based. Our belief in the accuracy of the statement "the Earth goes round the sun" is not premised upon who utters the statement, but upon what reasons we are given for believing it to be so.

There is, in this sense (and contrary to the assertions of the writer), no falsity to the dichotomy proffered by Scott Thompson in his April 30 column on the Comment page entitled Terror in the Name of God. Reason, and the application of reason to the discovery of truths about our world (a process we commonly call "science" or "scientific"), really is on one side of the equation, while superstition and unreason really are on the other.

The question posed by Thompson as to whether those who support and promote an unreasonable view of the world ought to be, in some way, held accountable for the actions of followers who take religious texts seriously, is a pressing one.

Apologists for religion, such as the writer, want everyone to believe that it's simply the work of a few extremists — a few bad apples — who bring a measure of disrepute to religion.

But this, surely, is a faulty, ahistoric and myopic view that betrays a certain naiveté about the true nature and effect of religion (as systems of irrational beliefs) upon the minds of otherwise morally decent people.

Religious observance — which is simply another way of saying "a dogmatic and unreflective fidelity to the dictates of an authority that demands obedience" — really is linked to the 9/11 attacks, the Boston bombings, the denial of condoms to AIDS-ravaged sub-Saharan African communities, the genital mutilation of girls (and boys), and to the deaths and enslavement of millions in a way that a mode of thinking or method of inquiry can never be.

I grant without reservation, of course, that for the majority of followers, faith has not entirely dulled their moral faculties. Despite, for example, the Koran's (and the Bible's) ringing endorsement of such inhuman practices as slavery, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia and murder, most religiously inclined folks have found a way to navigate around these less-noble parts of their faith in order to act decently toward others. But this feat has always been achieved in spite of religion, not because of it.

In this respect then, it should come as no surprise that those who are attracted to unreasonable claims in the first place will include highly unreasonable people who are utterly incapable of reasoning their way out of their faith's commandments to, for example, murder infidels, subjugate women or kill homosexuals.

And so, contrary to the writer's assertion that all faiths should get a free pass, I would suggest that any system of unreasonable claims — whose leaders actively recruit and retain people who are themselves apt to believe such things — ought to share some of the blame when things go, as it were, entirely by the Book.

Thankfully, for reason and science, there is no such Book — and so far as I know, no downside to being "extremely" reasonable.

T. David Marshall is a lawyer and former lecturer in ethics and lives in Cayuga.

Available at: http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2555864-fact-faith-is-not-reasonable/
See also http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2257233-didn-t-galileo-show-us-truth-is-not-found-in-authority-and-obedience-/
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TDavidMarshall