Image: An Euler diagram illustrating the association fallacy. Although A is within B and is also within C, not all of B is within C.
As Tina Bounds writes in today's Edmonton Journal below, this tactic of forcing legislation down Canadians throats by comparing anyone who opposes it as being "with the child pornographers" is actually a well worn tactic employed by the extremist and polarizing Harper government.
How important do you suppose the association fallacy that "income trusts cause tax leakage" and "nation of coupon clippers" was in absolving Harper from his broken election promise of "never taxing income trusts"?
Unfortunately our supposed vanguards of democracy, the Canadian media, lapped this nonsense up like honey, the losers that they are and the association fallacy that it was.
Backlash over Internet bill well-deserved
BY TINA BOUNDS, EDMONTON JOURNAL FEBRUARY 20, 2012 1:09 AM
Re: "Tories willing to look at changes to law," The Journal, Feb. 16.
It's good that Bill C-30 is getting criticized by both the public and opposition parties. Despite attempts by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to persuade Canadians otherwise, this is bad legislation that should not be passed.
This new bill supposes that every single person who uses the Internet in Canada is a possible child pornographer, and that it's worth completely eroding the online privacy of 35 million people to catch the 219 Canadians convicted of child pornography charges in 2007, for instance.
While child pornography is a serious crime, with deep repercussions for the children unfortunate enough to be involved, it is an emotional diversion and was attached by the government late in the drafting process in hopes of silencing opposition. If the Conservative government were serious about protecting children from sexual predators, they would direct more financial support toward agencies aimed at ending sexual exploitation. Giving the government the power to track which silly kitten videos you watch on YouTube won't do a thing to protect kids in need.
Toews's comment that Canadians "can either stand with us or with the child pornographers" is nearly a textbook example of an association fallacy. That's an easy game to play. In George Orwell's 1984, the evil privacy-outlawing Big Brother had a bushy moustache, just like Toews's.
Tina Bounds, Edmonton
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
Monday, February 20, 2012
Posted by Brent Fullard at 11:01 AM