-1=e^ipi

Given how islamophobia was a term created by the Muslim Brotherhood, given how the islamic human rights commission defines islamophobia (hint: it defines Maajid Nawaz as an islamophobe), and given how the term by its construction confuses Muslims with Islam, I think that there are many justifiable reasons to oppose such a motion.

Leave NATO. Slash military expenditure to half a percent of GDP or less. It's a waste of money and all NATO does is mean we will be forced to defend that fascist Erdogan if he decides to shoot down Russian jets as Russia fights ISIS. NATO is nothing but a relic of the past that makes no sense in today's geopolitical climate. People need to get over the cold war; it ended decades ago.

You say that yet hate speech laws exist despite our wonderful charter. You are also ignoring the possibility of the justice system becoming compromised overtime due to political appointments.

To be fair, it's an explanation that fits a narrative that I think a large section of the media wants to push. So we should be concerned about the potential of confirmation bias to skew what the media presents (i.e. the media may only be presenting evidence that supports 1 narrative and ignoring evidence which may suggest an alternative narrative).

Too bad section 2 is restricted by section 1.

Bisonnette liked Le Pen and Trump of facebook, but he liked other groups. He liked Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, so maybe he was motived by radical atheism. He liked the pope so maybe he was motivated by radical Catholicism. He liked some feminist groups, so maybe he was motivated by radical feminism and acting against gender segregation in segregated mosques. He liked Doom, Call of Duty & Marilyn Manson; so maybe we need to go with the 90's narrative that was used after the Columbine shootings and say that the attacks were motivated by violent video games and rock music. He also liked Jack Layton and the NDP, so maybe the motivation was NDPism. The fact is we don't have sufficient information to make any reasonable conclusions about what the motive was. Unlike the attack by Breivik in Norway, Bisonnette didn't provide us with a detailed manifesto indicating his motive.

I outright hate mosquitos, poverty and murder. I guess I need to be put in prison. This infantile war on 'hate' is stupid and dangerous. We should be against specific ideas or actions, not emotions. Hate is a useful human emotion and it's not that you hate that is the issue. It is what you hate and how you act upon that hate that matters.

Maybe the crossed the line. But I have not seen any evidence that they have done so.

If they committed fraud, they should be fined for it.

Back it up? I guess we need to ban religion. Where's the stuff to back up the existence of god, the claim that Jesus turned water into wine, or the claim that Mohammed flew to heaven on a magic flying horse (with human face)? If a company claimed they had a magic device that turned water into wine, they would be fined for fraud.

For fictional or long-since-dead people, yes. Also, I'd argue that our defamation laws go a bit too far.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. We should have the right to criticize this character and make claims about this character if we wish. I'm sure we agree on that (not impact though).

Also, if Jesus were alive today, we could confirm if he could turn water into wine or not. And if he couldn't, then it would be much easier to stop a religion from forming around him. Unfortunately, we don't have that option. So sometimes it is helpful to use other tools, such as ridicule, to fight against the insanity of religion.

For the lulz and views. And to be my hero of course.

You will be my hero. Please do it and post it on youtube!

The part about offensive speech apparently.

If you think Charlie Hebdo is just about provoking a reaction, you horribly misunderstand it.

Apparently being offensive is abusing freedom. What kind of warped view of the world is this? The fact is, there are some theists offended by the mere existence of atheists. Does that mean that the only way to not abuse freedom is to kill myself? Same can be said about gay people, which groups like ISIS find offensive.

So apparently doing anything offensive is wrong. Some religious people find gay marriage offensive. I guess gay marriage is wrong. I'll let all my gay friends know. Thanks for this information.

Not a hero? Wrongs? He is a hero. When people like Stephane draw offensive things, they are indirectly protecting our freedom because they are helping to protect the freedom of speech of the most offensive forms of speech by performing the most offensive forms of speech. As for wrongs, there is nothing wrong about drawing cartoons, or challenging medieval religious superstitions. Given that religion is a terrible plague on society, I'd argue that what Stephane did was extremely moral and just.

There have been two recent Canadian MPs who have made comments regarding the so called 'charter of rights and freedoms' and Canadian values by Canadian MPs that have me a bit concerned. First was by Chong (who is a Christian Conservative). On twitter he has said, "This was an attack on real Canadian values enshrined in the Charter." He has also made similar comments in debates indicating that the Charter essentially defines Canadian values (although he has made additional comments indicating that supporting an entirely public health care system is a Canadian value). Second was by Omar Alghabra (Muslim Liberal), who tweeted: Both have a clear message. Canadian values = Charter. The implication is pretty clear. Those that do not agree with our charter are unCanadian. There are many problems with this, but the one I wanted to highlight in this thread is the preamble to the Charter: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God." So if the charter defines Canadian values, and the charter contains recognition of the supremacy (and implicitly existence) of God, then recognition of the supremacy of God is a Canadian value. And given that atheists do not recognize the supremacy of god, they do not agree with this Canadian value and are therefore unCanadian. So what message does that send (from Chong and Alghabra)? That atheists don't belong here? That atheists are unwelcome? Because it clearly sends the message that atheists are unCanadian. We already have so many violations of secularism in Canada, from God in our national anthem (cross in the French version), to God in the preamble, to Catholic School Systems like in Ontario, to the crucifix in the Quebec national assembly, to funding of mosques using infrastructure spending, to funding of religious Champlains. Yet now we are adding this kind of rhetoric from theist MPs from our two largest parties? In addition we have M103, which condemns islamophobia, a term which arguably includes the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre (where atheists like Stephane Charbonnier where killed for drawing cartoons), or the actions of Bill Maher (also an atheist). And also given that Alexandre Bissonette liked Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens on facebook, there is a good change that he is an atheist, and thus there is the potential for the LPC to push an anti-islamophobia motion that targets atheists in a form of a backlash against the actions of Bissonette. Thoughts?

In that case it condemns 'affirmative action' and 'employment equity' which are forms of systematic racism.

No. And also, they aren't being Anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic is the wrong term to use.

No, it is hatred of Semites, not Jews.