Inflammatory remarks

Re: Harper accused of aiding terrorists, March 30

The extreme and ugly accusations that philosopher Charles Taylor heaped on Prime Minister Stephen Harper after Taylor’s recent speech to the Broadbent Institute are unacceptably hypocritical. Taylor’s indictment of the majority of Canadians (who are reported in the article to agree with Harper on the niqab issue, according to opinion polls), and those few bombastic federal politicians who sometimes (often) don’t mean what they’re saying, aren’t the problem here.

From my perspective, it’s the over-the-top condescending and judgmental opinions from someone in a position of high respect, who seems to confuse political ideologies with the best interests of our country.

It is highly unlikely that the Conservative government can overturn the clearly laid out decision of our courts on the matter of wearing a small veil while taking an oath. But the extreme passions, both pro and con, concerning the “requirements” of one’s clothing during the citizenship declaration ceremony need something very different from Taylor’s harmful name-calling.

As I read the Canadian Press summary of his after-speech comments, Taylor is relating the stigmatization of Muslims today by that majority of Canadians who agree with Harper as being, in his opinion, “sociologically very, very similar” to that faced by Jews in the 1940s.

What is Taylor thinking? Who’s fanning the flames of intolerance here? How can anyone not see that Taylor’s vilely worded attack upon Stephen Harper reading this veil-wearing question constitutes the real inflammatory contribution here, not the government’s position, which is in subtle opposition to the courts, to navigate down the middle of this emotioncharged issue? Taylor should think more about how much damage his remarks will cause, before saying such damning things in public. David Bouse, Ottawa