-1=e^ipi

The etymology of the word indicates that it is a racial term, not a religious term.

It's not a religious term. It's been misused as a religious term for decades, but it is not a religious term. Non-jewish arabs are Semites, for example.

Anti-semitism is a racial term, not a religious term. The semitic people are a racial group, not a religious group. An equivalent of Islamophobia would be Jeudaismophobia or Christianophobia. I would also oppose such terms. Why does it make sense to support a motion, if it's wording is so vague as to allow for funding of religious institutions and therefore violate secularism?

Muslim Canadians like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah opposed M-103. But I guess they aren't the correct kind of Muslim Canadians.

1. The usage of the term Islamophobia. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the term and it's historical usage, but, for example, the Islamic Human Rights Commission (as does the Southern Poverty Law Center) considers Maajid Nawaz (liberal UK Muslim who is a member of the UK Lib-Dems and advocate of reforming Islam) an Islamophobe. I could go into far more detail if you want me to. 2. The failure to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Even if we were to completely ignore the entire history of the usage of the term Islamophobia and were to adopt some sort of definition such as 'discrimination against Muslims', it would make no sense to use the word Islamophobia instead of Muslimophobia to describe that. 3. The failure to make a distinction between Islam/Muslims and race. The way it's worded could be argued to suggest that Islamophobia is racism, even though Islam is not a race, nor are Muslims. It's almost like the LPC suffers from Ben Affleck syndrome. 4. Wording of 'while ensuring community-centered focus'. To me this suggests government funding of religious institutions such as mosques, which the current government has already done with some of its infrastructure funding. This is a violation of secularism. 5. They are going to form a 'committee' and make recommendations to the house on the issue of 'Islamophobia'. Given the history of where this is headed in the past, and the tendency of the LPC to form committees, stuff it with ideologues, and then get the conclusion they want while trying to trick the public that they are just following the recommendations of a neutral and objective committee, this is very likely going to lead to the committee suggesting restrictions on freedom of speech. The LPC has already moved against freedom of speech, including bill C-16 (potential to jail or fine people for using incorrect pronouns) and the LPC's attitude towards the Gregory Allen Eliot trial (the LPC, if you have been following people like Patty Hadju, have indicated that they are concerned by the ruling of the trial and are looking at ways to 'combat internet hate').

This whole motion is a slap in the face to Stephane Charbonnier and the other liberal atheists of Charlie Hebdo who were murdered in Paris. 2 days before Charbonnier was murdered he finished 'Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the True Enemies of Free Expression'.

Yet many posters here support the LPC's desire to ban 'Islamophobia'.

Canada never had free speech to begin with. Read section 1 of the charter.

Issues like this are why Canada and other countries need a classical liberal party, to be able to represent classical liberals (i.e. actual liberals) and defend liberal principles like freedom of speech against the authoritarian left. The LPC, despite it's name, is not a liberal party as it rejects the core fundamental principles of liberalism, be it freedom of speech, equality under the law, secularism and individualism. Canada also needs to move towards legalizing all hate speech, in order to protect us and for society to have true freedom of speech, consistent with liberalism as advocated by Voltaire or Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

You sure about that? Our Orwellianly named Charter has section 1, which is a pretty big limit on freedom of speech. Furthermore, the courts are only as good as the judges in them, and if Trudeau slowly replaces judges with identitarian SJWs, then the court system won't protect us.

Am I allowed to call Trudeau a lying piece of scum, or does that break forum rules? Because it's pretty obvious the guy is consistently a liar. And will lie in order to attain power. Only 10 billion dollar deficits - lied. 25000 Syrian refugees by end of 2015 - lied. No CO2 tax - lied. 2015 being the last election with FPTP - lied. Doesn't really matter what your positions on these issues are. You can't trust anything the LPC promises.

Given that Gerald Butts controls the PMO, I wouldn't count on it.

Does that change involve driving the country into energy poverty as we see in Ontario?

Oooh, another Phil Oreopolous study. I see they aren't even bothering to test for female name bias anymore. I wonder why this is... It's almost like previous studies found a female name bias that was larger and more statistically significant than the bias against foreign names.

1 m, not 1 ft.

2 C is not a tipping point.

Trudeau's policy appears to be that economic development in Northern communities should not be allowed because it is 'too remote'. Of course it will remain remote if economic development is not allowed to occur.

There was a time when Vancouver was a remote port of the British Empire, Winnipeg was a remote trading hub in the centre of Canada and Ottawa was a remote lumber city. I guess with this kind of attitude, Canada would have never been developed.

Why? Cause of a marketing ploy by some people in San Francisco to call it the 'Great Bear Rainforest'? Why is it okay to send tankers through the Great Orca Rainforest near Vancover but not through the Great Bear Rainforest of Kitimat? One problem with sending more tankers through Vancover is congestion. The city is already pretty congested with tanker traffic, allowing Keystone XL would make Vancouver less congested.

It just seems to best explain Trudeau's decisions regarding pipelines. He supported Keystone XL but never really gave a good reason why support it over say Northern Gateway or Energy East. He has also never been strong at advocating Keystone XL, especially with discussions with Obama. Sorry if I'm a bit cynical. If it makes you feel better, I'm also quite cynical of O'Leary's recent opposition to CO2 emission taxation, where as he supported it in the past.

Different types of taxes have different levels of efficiency. Some taxes are more efficient than others. Increasing the consumption tax would be more efficient than taxing CO2 emissions in terms of the cost to the economy per dollar of revenue collected.

Because he supported it in the past, so he's forced to continue supporting it, or admit he was lying about supporting it.

He supported it because he knew Obama would likely cancel it, so it would enable him to appear more moderate on pipelines without having to get a pipeline approved.

Good, so then you agree that indigenous people shouldn't be used as an excuse to exclude cops.