Jump to content

Islamophobia in Canada


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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.   

Very good points all fair but the protocol is not a law nor is it binding for that matter-its just an educational reference tool when encountering anti Semitism. There is no formal process implemented.

Also I have to agree with you if you argue a study should happen first. I just wish they would have done that study and defined the word and then placed it in a non partisan protocol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Rue said:

This country has a history of laws both federal and provincial  that prevented free speech and singled out and discriminated against specific minorities. It happened because of the moral values of that day that made their way into the laws no different than trying to single out hatred of Muslims in M103. In fact in the exact same manner.

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?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

Very good points all fair but the protocol is not a law nor is it binding for that matter-its just an educational reference tool when encountering anti Semitism. There is no formal process implemented.

 

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.

Quote

Also I have to agree with you if you argue a study should happen first. I just wish they would have done that study and defined the word and then placed it in a non partisan protocol.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited and tried to answer your questions. I will tell you one sad answer I have no remedy for yet. I don't know how to discuss anti Semitism or anti Islam yet without it breaking own into a nasty hateful argument. Surely we have to have our governments encouraging inter faith tolerance. in a non partisan manner.  More participation from inter faith councils is my best answer not mp's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

I edited and tried to answer your questions. I will tell you one sad answer I have no remedy for yet. I don't know how to discuss anti Semitism or anti Islam yet without it breaking own into a nasty hateful argument. Surely we have to have our governments encouraging inter faith tolerance. in a non partisan manner.  More participation from inter faith councils is my best answer not mp's.

 

What does the Quran SAY about interfaith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rue said:

Actually you should bring that up. It is a protocol that Canada agreed to sign in regards to dealing with anti Semitism but with due respect its not a law.

Nor is M103.   

16 minutes ago, Rue said:

Had there been a protocol like that one drafted for Islam I would be the first to sign it.

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.

20 minutes ago, Rue said:

I was entered back into in 2010 and at the time  it is true it had no reaction from civil rights people or as you see now with M103 precisely because it was not introduced by a Jewish member of Parliament and posed in a way to single out Jewish hatred as more important than others

Yes, no doubt the Liberals could have done better in their proposal and saved a lot of distress for some people. 

24 minutes ago, Rue said:

I was entered back into in 2010 and at the time  it is true it had no reaction from civil rights people or as you see now with M103 precisely because it was not introduced by a Jewish member of Parliament and posed in a way to single out Jewish hatred as more important than others.

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.

28 minutes ago, Rue said:

Thank you as always for your courteous reponse.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Rue said:

Dialamah do you deny Muslim extremists are the biggest threat to Jews. If so what is your proof they are not?

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

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.

 

 

Those darn Israelis shouldn't have started the war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

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.

 

Thank you for the no bs answer. Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/09/2017 at 9:02 PM, bcsapper said:

I'm still wondering if it worked.   Not overly interested in the other bits.

In law, it doesn't matter.

In reality, it's quite unlikely to work on me. :lol::D

However, it does work on disaffected people who want to blame their pain on an identifiable source, who want to feel part of a 'clan', who want to act out their pain in violence and vandalism.

That's the Trump appeal. He's the global signal for racial hatred now. The disaffected are feeling pretty potent these days, being on the side of the President of the United States of America!

Just like Hitler's Nazi youth felt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

Are non-Muslims majority in Canada?   If not, how would the government successfully implement laws against the majority? 

It would be framed as a moral issue.

If you don't support Islam's "special status" and exclusive blasphemy laws, then you are an Islamophobe, or a racist, or a communist, or a facsist, or a .......whatever.

Most people don't like being called those names, as their views really aren't that extreme and don't really fall into those parameters.

So they will go along with something their gut tells them is a wrong idea....to avoid those extreme labels, which when thrown around as they are right now, essentially stop moderate Muslims, ex-Muslims and Muslim supporters from expressing themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/09/2017 at 8:19 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

No discussing Islam in the thread about Islam.

That would be FITNAH.

:lol:

The thread is not about Islam.

It's about Islamophobia in Canada.

IE, the irrational hatred of Muslims that some people try to incite and promote by attempting to justify such hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Dog you asked me about Koran passages? Me a Muslim scholar. Uh no But  I have read the Koran so I do know there are numerous passages in the Koran and the problem is the Koran is a mess, it doesn't flow in a chronological order. You have many of the final comments of Muhammed which contradict his earlier comments not at the end or after the ones he contradicts, but many times before them defying an easy way to find out what means what.

Also Arabic is a fluid language. Its like water, It flows in meaning and its easily taken out of its actual context or flow because one word can mean so many different things.

Also there is no uniform code of reference to call upon to assist when reading it or commentaries like you have from Christian or Jewish scholars explaining the Bible words.

This means you can easily have Muslim extremist terrorists focus on the passages they like and ignoring the rest.

Also yes it is absolutely true, the Koran talks of Islam being superior to the other religions, spends I think its 60% of its content on defining what to do with non believers, and is full of comments that define non believers in very intolerant ways. an dyes, at this time probably a majority of Muslims are not at a level to see more than one fundamentalist version of what the Koran says and take it literally as to non believers which would no promote inter faith tolerance if that is your point.

That said there remain some archaic and violent references in the Bible quoted by haters as well.

There are some peaceful passages like this:

 

 

Honor each other: "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." Chapter 49, Verse 13

I

 

 

 

 

Good and evil: "Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein, and whoever recommends and helps an evil cause shares in its burden." Chapter 4, Verse 85

 

 

Reaction to evil: "Repel (evil) with what is better. Then will he, between whom and thee was hatred, become as it were thy friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint." Chapter 41, Verse 34 and 35

 

 

Do good: "Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good." Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

 

 

Reward for righteousness: "Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily, to them will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions."  Chapter 16, Verse 97

 

 

Acts of compassion: "And what will explain to you what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a (slave) from bondage; or the giving of food in a day of famine to an orphan relative, or to a needy in distress. Then will he be of those who believe, enjoin fortitude and encourage kindness and compassion." Chapter 90, Verses 12-17

 

Hell I know the above passages well. I used to throw them at Muslim extremists quoting the Koran during inter-faith peace talks or by those looking to write off the entire Muslim religion.

 

Anyways Dog I know my  brand of Labourite kibbutznik beliefs makes you gag  so lol take some alka seltzer man.

 YahI am an Abba Eban- Rabin-Levni  supporter and outed myself long ago. 

I have this to say about the inter faith dialogue. It happens when you least expect it. It works because the best thing we can do to prevent war and extremism is to demonstrate in our actions who we are. The other day was a story of an Israeli nurse breast feeding a Palestinian boy whose mother was in a serious car accident. The nurse  put out a call and thousands of Israeli women volunteered to come breast feed him and yah some said no way the baby could end up a terrorist. The over-whelming majority of Israeli mothers however offered themselves. That to me is more powerful then any sob terrorist or extremist trying to teach Muslims hatred. I saw IDF soldiers do little things. Maybe it looks so small in the grand scheme of things, but I think every act of kindness and compassion no matter how small is revolutionary and getting people together breaks the barriers down and I don't trust governments to do tit.

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jacee said:

The thread is not about Islam.

It's about Islamophobia in Canada.

IE, the irrational hatred of Muslims that some people try to incite and promote by attempting to justify such hatred.

 

Your Quran does indeed promote hatred...and incites it, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your Quran does indeed promote hatred...and incites it, as well.

It would be fun if M103 resulted in the banning of the Quran.  After all, there are no bigger Islamophobes than Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your Quran does indeed promote hatred...and incites it, as well.

I'd like to see your face off between the Qur'an and the old testament ... in an appropriate forum. 

The Qur'an isn't in question in this thread.

People may practice their religion as they choose in Canada.

Or not practice any religion, as I choose.

Nobody cares about your quibbles with each other's archaic texts. 

B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They do seem to kill more Muslims than anyone else.  

Oh I see.

Equating extremists - arguably not Muslims in practices - with mainstream Muslims. 

Mhm.

Who are you trolling for?

Are you on the public payroll?

Inquiring minds want to know. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...