dialamah

Was this his speech regarding First Nations that he blamed European-Canadians for everything?

I agree that interfaith councils are a part of the solution, but they aren't likely to reach people like me, who are not religious. I don't know what the answer is either, but I am saddened that there is so much fear, hate and intolerance in the world.

I believe Muslim extremists are a threat to other Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers in approximately that order. Do I believe that Muslims hate Jews? Kind of, but I also think it's not that simple. My sister is in my house, the Muslim one from Egypt. So I asked her. Making clear that she cannot speak for all Muslims, she said that everyone she knows in Egypt differentiate between "Jews" and "Isreal" and it's policies toward Palestine. They all believe in a two-state solution, not elimination of Isreal. She also points out that in the Koran, it is perfectly acceptable for a Muslim man to marry a Jewish woman. (Though not the other way around, which we both roll our eyes at). I am quite concerned when I read about Imans preaching destruction of Jewish people, even if it is supposed to be allegorical. I don't know if it's mainstream; we only hear of that which is sensational or wrong, but not that which is normal. So maybe the vast majority of Imams don't preach that, and the two I've heard about are the only two in all of Canada. Or maybe not and it does concern me. Perhaps M103 will also shed light on that. Perhaps, if there is a 'law' passed, it will be that preaching destruction upon another religious group is illegal.

Nor is M103. I know, and something like that is what I think would be the most likely outcome of M103. Perhaps I will be wrong, certainly wouldn't be the first time. If so and the result was an attempt to pass some kind of law against criticism of Islam or imposing blasphemy laws, I would be among those objecting; perhaps even demonstrating, though I'm not really much of a demonstrator. But I appreciate our freedom of expression as much as anyone, even if I'm not concerned about M103. Yes, no doubt the Liberals could have done better in their proposal and saved a lot of distress for some people. But there were groups who objected to the Ottawa Protocol prior to it's adoption, precisely for the same reasons some people are objecting to M103 - that it would result in laws limiting discussion of Isreal's policies in regards to Palestinians. I don't know how widely this was discussed, though, since I wasn't involved on political discussion forums or even on FB at the time, but I am guessing it was a pretty minor consideration for most people. It does help when I think the person I am addressing has the ability and willingness to actually read what I'm writing instead of twisting it in some way. So thanks for that.

True, it is not. And I expect something similar as a result of M103. In my opinion, more laws aren't needed to fight hate-speech or "Islamophobia" or even religious intolerance - we already have enough laws to address it. Additionally, "laws" specifically protecting any religious group would be wrong, in my opinion. I don't and wouldn't support that. But I have no objection to the government looking for ways to address intolerance, religious or otherwise, and trying to find solutions that don't involve limiting people's freedoms. This was a motion to carry out a study, so it seems that is what is happening. Not sure that completing a study to propose a study of something is the best use of politician's or bureaucrat's time or taxpayer's money, though I don't put it past the ability of government to do exactly that.

Fair enough. Would an example be, perhaps, the head tax on the Chinese? Are non-Muslims majority in Canada? If not, how would the government successfully implement laws against the majority? At the time of these discriminatory laws, I think there was most likely wide public support for such laws - something that I daresay doesn't exist in Canada, if the furor over M103 is any indication. So, even if the result of this study was a recommendation to enact some type of blasphemy law, how would the government overcome the resulting uproar?

They can't do this, but they seem able to give a "definitive answer' on whether or not this motion is threat to Canadian freedoms? How does that work, exactly? "I don't know what this is yet, but it's gonna be bad!" From the research I did on the Ottawa Protocol the definition of antisemitism came through the committee that studied the issue prior to creating the document, which was then accepted by the Canadian government. Why wouldn't they follow the same procedure this time: propose that an issue be studied; as part of the study, further define the issue and it's terms; suggest solutions. It seems odd to me that anyone would expect the definition to precede the study. And if they have to decide what is Islamophobia as part of the proposal, why isn't there the same outcry to define (again) antisemitism, or religious intolerance toward Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc? The logic some people are employing here just makes no sense to me.

Hi rue, thanks for weighing in. Hoping we can have a good conversation. True. Was antisemitism defined prior to the Ottawa Protocol? Or did people just kind of define it when they heard it? Maybe. But, are discussions of Isreal any different, even after the definition of antisemitism contained in the Ottawa Protocol? I consider your discussions in other threads, when you accuse others of antisemitism and they deny it. When you accuse them of antisemitism, are you really trying to shut down discussion, or only attempting to communicate to them how their comments sound? I didn't really agree with her comment here either, though I understood what she meant by it. No doubt I have also been guilty of objecting when I should have listened more, and I continue to try to watch that tendency. However, when the discussion constantly comes down to "a motion for a study is leading to removing freedom of speech/implementing Sharia law", it really just sounds like hysteria to me. And when I point that out, I'm attacked as 'trying to shut down speech' and my questions on exactly how it would come about are ignored. I do understand what 'phobia' means, and I agree not everything said against Islam is a result of Islamophobia. But in my opinion, much of what is posted here is, the 'motion leading to no free speech/sharia law' claim being the most obvious example. I can think of two reasons: 1. They have already specifically addressed antisemitism - which outstrips all other forms of religious descrimination - in the Ottawa Protocol. 2. Attacks on Muslims are rising; perhaps they wanted to get ahead of the curve, so to speak. But I don't know, for sure. I did think the suggestion by somebody in the opposition that the "including Islamaphobia" be dropped was a good one and I think the Liberals were stupid not to take it. And yet they did, with the Ottawa Protocol - which ignored Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and was entirely about Jews. Did you, or any of the criticizers of M103 object to that because it wasn't inclusive enough? I know you hate JT, so with all due respect, I don't feel there's any point in addressing your next few paragraphs. I can believe that. What I can't believe is that it will lead to any form of restriction on free speech or on implementation of Sharia law. The government has made statements and motions against all kinds of bullshit behavior by its citizens, and some citizens continue to do it because it's still legal. I agree with the sentiment, though I may not agree on who is or isn't a bigot.

Still waiting on a couple of answers here. First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years. Second, from Argus who claimed that "Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews", a cite to back that up as well as the answer to this question:

I believe that everyone in the world who is not a millionaire should get $1 Million. What do you think?

Good point, there are some beliefs that should not be accepted, but that should not include rejecting the 'person', in my opinion. Glad you agree with me about accepting people from different cultures or places, though.

So why is there so much variety in the natural world? Life is amazing, imo, whether it's a one-celled organism, a tree, a bat, or a human. The only characteristic shared by all living things is 'life' which seems to be essentially taking in and releasing energy, everything else seems to be optional whether it's the outside shell, the manner of locomotion, the type of energy it takes in and releases. To me, that much variety suggests accident and randomness, not design. But if there is a God and he created all this variety in nature, perhaps people are supposed to learn to accept and rejoice in variety, rather than reject others based on what they believe or where they are from, or what their skin color happens to be.

I'd only put sociopaths and pedophiles in jail; most others I'd rather put in treatment because I believe that would work better in the long run to make society safer than what we are doing now.

Tough on Crime, the conservative way! This young man called himself "Son of Hitler", and targeted non-white religious establishments. While he has made some progress in terms of improving his social skills, while in jail he also attacked a Muslim who was praying. I'm not really a fan of jails generally - they rarely serve the purpose of making society safer - and I would have rather seen this young man in a treatment facility. But he was heading down a very dark path and I think the judge recognized that and did what he felt was just.

Do you have some facts to back that up? As far as I have been able to determine, white nationalists are usually the culprits when it comes to Jews, Blacks and now, Muslims. In 2015, hate crimes against Jews declined over the previous year and increased against Muslims; that seems odd if Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews. Anyway, if the crimes against Jews and Muslims are similar in both type and number (178 to 159) should they also be dismissed as minor?

Even when those crimes are directed against Jews?

Research some sites, perhaps starting with this one: Life After Hate Lied? He threatened to kill people.

1. I agree with you in that the study will find Islamophobia, and any other kind of religious intolerance it looks for. 2. I agree we already have hate laws against severe and overt or deadly religious intolerance, whether directed against Muslims or Jews. I don"t think more laws are necessary or would help. The study says something to the effect of finding ways of addressing religious intolerance. People fear this means laws against criticism, but if the Ottawa Protocol is any indication, that fear is unfounded. There are ways other than laws that could be used. Education directed toward those most disparaging of Muslims/Jews/etc. perhaps, or efforts from government to reassure the public that Sharia law is not next on the agenda. I personally don't think the motion will result in anything much. We regularly have motions and statements condemning antisemitism, Islamophobia, bullying, etc., and people continue to do all those things anyway. I suspect this entire uproar is simply the oppositon trying to scare people into voting conservative next time. 3. The Muslims attending the gay Mosque in Toronto would dispute that, as would several female Imams around the world and those working for reform inside Muslim Majority countries. I understand you doubt this, but I have no problem with "valid" critiscism. Unfortunately, what people are too often calling "valid criticism" too often involves statements based in fear and speculation. The whole idea that this motion is the first step to limiting free speech or imposing Sharia law is just one example. 4. Accepting for a moment that the fear you express is founded, how would that work? I imagine it something like this: study concludes and recommends working toward eliminating criticism of Islam. The government knows they'll have to go slowly, so they try to choose something minor - such as perhaps - "no images of Allah in government publications because government must be particularly sensitive to religious minorities." Now imagine the government trying to propose that in any way, shape or form. Do you think the opposition wouldn't object? Do you think the media would say nothing? Do you think Canadians would just shrug and say "OK"? Even if the government somehow managed to succeed, how long do you think it would be until the next government took power and reversed it? Four years or less? I have asked the question before, but nobody has provided the nitty gritty of exactly how any such law would get by opposition and media\public scrutiny, which would be key components of government getting controversial laws passed. Perhaps someone has a scenario that is convincing, instead of just offering speculation and supposition based on essentially nothing but fear, as far as I can tell.

This is merely someone's opinion. Facts provided by the police and news media tell us that Islamophobia is real and it has resulted in people dying.

The title and the original post say the discussion is about Islamaphobia in Canada. Neither raise the question of whether it exists; 19 wounded and 6 dead Muslims demonstrate that it does, never mind the fact that reported hate crimes against Muslims has risen over 250% in 4 years.

Wow. You need to lay off the meth, its making you delusional and paranoid.

What are you talking about? We had a neighbor who harassed his non-white neighbors, and made death threats. He was charged, and was given a restraining order, which meant he had to move. This really has nothing to do with you. Geez.

She's trying to use actual hate speech laws, not the motion. I don't agree with her that what is said on here rises to breaking the law, but laws against hate speech already exist, and that is what she is referring to and quoted farther up. Not the motion, which she did say was only a motion for study and had no effect on laws. I didn't see her say that, either, but not going back to double-check. In 2010, the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism was adopted in response to growing anti-Semitism around the world. It's not a law, but an action plan to address what many people on this forum agree is a problem. It defines what 'antisemitism is, and reads in part: So, some questions: Do you object to the Ottawa Protocol, which has been criticized for much of the same reasons Motion M103 has been criticized? Do you agree that making "mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations" about Jews is antisemitism, or should it be considered part of free speech? If growing antisemitism was considered a problem to be addressed, is there a reason why growing anti-Muslim sentiment shouldn't be addressed?

It worked for us, when the dickhead neighbor had to move because he broke hate speech laws.

Where? I only saw her ask exactly what restrictions M103 has placed on speech, or what Sharia we were now being subjected to as a result of M103.