Guilt by Word Association

It's taken awhile to double back to my planned post on the Cons' treatment of Imam Zijad Delic. But let's take a closer look at part of the story which seems to me to deserve a bit more attention.

Most of the understandable outrage has focused on the guilt by association involved in the Cons' condemning Delic for words spoken six years ago by a former CIC president. But let's take a closer look at the Cons' supposed rationale for decreeing that Delic is unworthy to be heard:

Jay Paxton, MacKay's communications director, said in a statement that "[Friday] morning, upon hearing Imam Delic may participate in these celebrations, Minister MacKay took the decision to cancel the Imam's role based on extremist views promulgated by the Canadian Islamic Congress.

What's worth highlighting is the use of the phrase "extremist views", which is far from an isolated occurrence. Instead, it's been used by the Cons to describe a wide range of other opinions.

On the seemingly benign end, that's included Jason Kenney condemning the Canadian Arab Federation's opposition to war in the Middle East (as well as some personal criticism of Kenney). And on the opposite end, there's Vic Toews' use of the exact same phrasing to describe the Toronto 18 while trying to draw links between that amateur terror plot and Al Qaeda.

In other words, based on the Cons' choice of wording, disagreement with Jason Kenney's funding policies is lumped in under exactly the same description as direct participation in 9/11. (That is, as long as the "extremism" originates in a Muslim or Arab group.)

And that justification is then used as part of an explicit effort to "systematically marginalize" what the Cons see to be extremist views in the context of broader restrictions on civil liberties. Toews' speech above uses that exact wording, but again it's far from the only example. And indeed the Cons have been at it again in recent weeks, with Toews calling for members of unstated communities to spy on each other while his cabinetmate Rob Nicholson demands increased power to detain innocent citizens.

So the same phrasing is being used to cover a broad range of opinion and activity with little in common other than the creation of a target group. And that deliberate bunching of unlike things together is then used as an excuse for a wide range of attacks on the freedom of Canadians.

All of which fits nicely into the Cons' theme of building up an artificial enemy, then trying to convert a the resulting public anger and fear into popular support for themselves. But for those of us paying attention, it's worth keeping a close eye on how the Cons are trying to shunt legitimate disagreement into the same category as violence based on carefully-cultivated prejudice - and asking whether we want the people making decisions about our safety to be unwilling to see the difference.