dialamah

You use stats and cites to mislead. For example claiming that increased wearing of hijab among younger women "proves" younger Muslims are more loyal and committed to Islam and their "home" country while ignoring and dismissing the fact that the majority of Muslims (and all immigrants) consider themselves Canadian first and Muslim (or whatever) second. Do you think alt-right nutbars don't use the same information the same way as you?

Your comments on Muslims and immigrants put you right in line with alt-right zealots so I guess we're just two sides of the same coin.

If a female wakes up with little or no memory of what transpired, and the guy claims she consented, how do we know? Men have been known to drug women before assaulting them; a rapist is not likely to say "yeah I drugged her but then she consented". Its true that some women will falsely accuse men, but men will also take advantage of women. Instead of telling women they must be careful of how they behave and how they dress, how about we teach men not to rape? At the very least, if women must be warned not to drink for fear of getting raped, perhaps men ought to be warned not to drink for fear of being falsely accused of rape.

Freedom of speech would only be compromised if there was a law that further limited our freedom of speech. A law against Islamaphobia would only compromise Freedom of Speech if it it defined Islamapobia as including legitimate criticism, or any criticism. I understand this is what some people are afraid of. If an anti-Islamaphobia law only included acts of violence against Muslims, or statements that encouraged violence against Muslims, then it would not. I see no reason why more laws would be needed though. Perhaps something like the Ottawa Protocol, which defines anti-semitism, will be the result so that Islamaphobia is defined and people can stop panicking that they can't call Muslims backward or misogynistic etc.

You are only relatively good, not godly good. Big fail. No virgins and no harps for you.

That eternal struggle between the spirit and the flesh.

And you'd excuse your attackers no doubt.

They don't though. They just add Muslims to all the other people they hate .. Jews, feminists and liberals.

I bet most Conservatives don't share this same ignorant and mean-spirited view of their fellow Canadians. I've recently discovered that many Conservatives are able to discuss differences without resorting to sweeping insults, which is a nice change from what I see here.

But the massive organized anti-Muslim efforts by so many on the right and extreme right should be allowed to continue without comment or condemnation?

A proclamation condemning Anti-Semitism, along with defining what it is, passed in 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2010/11/for-the-record-the-full-text-of-the-ottawa-protocol.html

Science has already explained that similarities in moral codes across cultures is because survival of the group is more likely when certain practices are followed to limit conflict within the group and to protect it from outside aggression. Attributing these practices to whatever God is in fashion with that just provides an 'authority' to help keep people afraid and compliant.

Yeah, A-Holes of all genders unfortunately.

Would you say the same about the Ottawa Protocol, the various motions condmning anti-Semitism passed over the years, and the motion condemning Islamaphobia that passed late last year?

You can argue anything. Can you show an example where an HRC has made a decision based on a motion, or even better, a motion for a study?

Men have been using drunkeness as a defense to rape for a very ling time; no reason why that shouldn't continue. From the article:

Just because you disagree with the legal decisions made against people who share your hatred of Muslims doesn't mean they're wrong.

I agree, these Imams should be charged with hate speech at the very least. Hyperbole. Like me claiming that Conservatives all have a victim mentality because some whinge incessantly about how their free speech is being shut down when Liberals disagree with them or even call them names. Free speech is only shut down when the gov puts you in jail for criticizing them. People disagreeing with you and calling you names has nothing to do with free speech.

Then why are motions condemning ant-Semitism and an entire document dedicated to defining the rights of Jews needed? Some Muslims have succeeded in proving unfair treatment and some haven't. That is how its supposed to work, yeah?

So Muslims deserve it if they're attacked and we should not try to protect them?

Are HRCs in the habit of using motions instead of the Charter or actual laws when they make decisions?

What is the Ottawa Protocol?

Whatever freedom of speech we have has not changed in the least as a result of M103 so that's a very poor example.

I understand that it doesn't matter what religion we're talking about, if religion is 'in charge', women and minorities are second class citizens and draconian laws and punishments are meted out for people who don't toe the line. It happens in Islam now, it happened in the past with Christianity and is still happening in closed Christian groups within Western societies and in third world Christian countries. I don't want a Christian government any more than I want an Islamic government. I want a secular government that doesn't consider itself bound by centuries old contradictory stories and looks to science to understand the universe and our place in it, and not some mythical being.

We need government that isn't directed by religious belief. You don't have to have an abortion and you don't have to take part in assisted suicide; that is your right. But you don't have the right to impose your religious beliefs on me through my government. That is no different than a Muslim believing that Sharia law should be the law of the land and imposed on non-Muslims.