Canadian Muslims demanding end to free speech / Canada's Anti-Islamophobia Committee will begin meetings next month

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

What's the end game, here? Why is Islamophobia singled-out in M103??

Today there is certainly a large problem with hate, including hate crimes, committed against Muslims. That is why it is singled out, just like antisemitism has been singled out many, many, many, many, many times in the past. Why today do we have everyone focused on 'Islamophobia', yet we didn't hear a peep from them in the past. What is their end game? 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Today there is certainly a large problem with hate, including hate crimes, committed against Muslims. That is why it is singled out, just like antisemitism has been singled out many, many, many, many, many times in the past. Why today do we have everyone focused on 'Islamophobia', yet we didn't hear a peep from them in the past. What is their end game? 

 

What's the end game, again?

[?Impact]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

What's the end game, again?

Yes, what is your end game? What is Ezra Levant's end game? 

[-1=e^ipi]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What specifically in this motion are you referring to? Not your perceived ideas, or total crap spread by the likes of Ezra Levant, but what exactly in the motion do you have a problem with?

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').

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Yes, what is your end game? What is Ezra Levant's end game? 

 

I'm FOR the separation of Church and State.

So what's the end game with this motion? Further separation? Don't think so.

...and spare me the ancient dusty libel laws of the previous centuries.

[-1=e^ipi]

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

[DogOnPorch]

Tarek was the dude who clued me into the whole Halal Certification racket. Our unofficial tax to Islam.

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

1. The usage of the term Islamophobia...

2. The failure to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims...

3. The failure to make a distinction between Islam/Muslims and race...

Do not all the above apply equally to antisemitism? Why have we for decades had numerous similar efforts, including the Ottawa Protocol, directed at antisemitism and now suddenly the world has come to a halt because it is Muslims and not Jews that are at the centre of the hatred?

3 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

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.

There are many ways to interpret the above, don't make an assumption and then condemn something based on that assumption. 

3 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

5. They are going to form a 'committee'

I read they are referring it to a standing committee.

[-1=e^ipi]

9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Do not all the above apply equally to antisemitism?

 

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.

 

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

There are many ways to interpret the above, don't make an assumption and then condemn something based on that assumption.

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?

 

[?Impact]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

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.

antisemitism is not a racial term, it is a religious term. Trying to parse the language of a term that has been in use for decades to express hatred towards Jewish people does not support your argument.  In fact semitic people are neither racial nor religious, it is a term about lingual origins. It is similar to the terms germanic (what we are conversing in right now), and romance (where the other official language of Canada belongs to)

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

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?

It is a motion, not a proposal for spending money. 

[Goddess]

I don't quite understand the "islamophobia" thing, either.

What does that mean?

If someone rips the headdress off a Muslim woman walking down the street, that's assault.  We already have laws against that.

If someone refuses to hire someone or fires someone for being Muslim, we have laws against that, as well.  And legal recourses for the person discriminated against.

If someone like Bissonette shoots up a mosque, is that not dealt with by the authorities?

What exactly are they after with this?

If I have a discussion on my facebook about child marriages in Islam and say anything negative about it, is that Islamophobia?  This is what worries me, because some, here on this site, feel anything negative about Islam is "Islamophobia" and racism.  

Who decides what's offensive?  Muslims?  Because everything seems to offend them.

[?Impact]

Just now, Goddess said:

I don't quite understand the "islamophobia" thing, either.

Do you understand antisemitism? 

[Goddess]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Do you understand antisemitism? 

If you read the rest of my post, I explain what I don't understand.

Yes, I understand antisemitism. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Goddess said:

If you read the rest of my post, I explain what I don't understand.

Yes, I understand antisemitism. 

 

Few do...it's a term created in the 19th century by Wilhelm Marr to make Jew hatred sound like something less threatening. To make it acceptable for a wider audience.

I should point-out, Jews hadn't committed acts of terrorism planet wide to earn a fearsome reputation re: bombs, etc.

 

[Goddess]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Few do...it's a term created in the 19th century by Wilhelm Marr to make Jew hatred sound like something less threatening. To make it acceptable for a wider audience.

I should point-out, Jews hadn't committed acts of terrorism planet wide to earn a fearsome reputation re: bombs, etc.

 

Do not Muslims in Canada already have the same protections under the law as the rest of us?

What exactly are they entitled to that they are not already getting?

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

If I have a discussion on my facebook about child marriages in Islam and say anything negative about it, is that Islamophobia?  This is what worries me, because some, here on this site, feel anything negative about Islam is "Islamophobia" and racism. 

Who has said anything about that? Canada has very clear laws about child marriage, and anyone who violates them is committing a crime regardless of their religion. If you are a Canadian citizen and travel abroad and commit some crimes like sexual assault against children then you can be convicted in Canada. 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Goddess said:

Do not Muslims in Canada already have the same protections under the law as the rest of us?

What exactly are they entitled to that they are not already getting?

 

Yes they do. I agree with your above post. Canada also already has Draconian HRCs that are pretty-much witch hunts for "Islamophobes" already.

Thus it seems both of us are left wondering what the end game is...

 

[betsy]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

What specifically in this motion are you referring to? Not your perceived ideas, or total crap spread by the likes of Ezra Levant, but what exactly in the motion do you have a problem with? For those of you who haven't even bothered to read the motion, only listen to the hate mongers here it is:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

What exactly constitutes Islamophobia?

Edited February 17, 2017 by betsy

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Thus it seems both of us are left wondering what the end game is...

This is a study, your implications of an end game are equal to mine about the end game of vile haters like Ezra Levant. Tell me what is his end game, does he want to create mass genocide? 

[Goddess]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Who has said anything about that? Canada has very clear laws about child marriage, and anyone who violates them is committing a crime regardless of their religion. If you are a Canadian citizen and travel abroad and commit some crimes like sexual assault against children then you can be convicted in Canada. 

 

I think you are either not reading my post in it's entirety and understanding it or being deliberately argumentative.  I will go with the former.  

I used the facebook convo illustration to ask if that would be considered Islamophobia.  I'm wondering what exactly that covers and why our current laws are not a protection to Muslims but enough for other minority groups that experience discrimination?

[?Impact]

Just now, betsy said:

What exactly constitutes Islamophobia?

What exactly constitutes antisemitism?

[?Impact]

Just now, Goddess said:

I think you are either not reading my post in it's entirety and understanding it or being deliberately argumentative.  I will go with the former.  

I used the facebook convo illustration to ask if that would be considered Islamophobia.  I'm wondering what exactly that covers and why our current laws are not a protection to Muslims but enough for other minority groups that experience discrimination?

Who said anything about laws? What is your end game?

[DogOnPorch]

To add: I think general Canadian incredulity is a bone that won't allow Canadians to question a lot of already existing BS.

They couldn't possibly be going for a Blasphemy Law...oooops, there, it's passed, already.

Too late...oh, well.

[Rue]

Impact stated and asked and I quote:

"Today there is certainly a large problem with hate, including hate crimes, committed against Muslims. That is why it is singled out, just like antisemitism has been singled out many, many, many, many, many times in the past. Why today do we have everyone focused on 'Islamophobia', yet we didn't hear a peep from them in the past. What is their end game?"

I would ask impact if h e can state the motions made by Jewish Canadians or any Canadian in parliament that singled out the word or term "anti-Semitism" for special treatment. There was recently a denunciation of the BDS movement as being anti-Semitic. What are the other instances he describes as "many, many, many, many, many, (5 many"s) times.

Why is Impact singling out "anti-Semitism" as if it has been treated the way they are asking Islamophobia in this motion? Why does the comparison reduce this to a pissing competition between Muslims and Jews. Why is it whenever there is a discussion on Muslims. anti-Semitism is brought up? Is it possible to discuss this issue without suggesting or inferring we treat Jews the way Muslims now want to be treated?

I ask Impact to finish his statement. Prove the examples of how Jews are treated in the way Muslims want to be treated.

Now since Impact wants to drag we Jews into this discussion as if we are some privileged class getting things Muslims now want, there was an interesting article by Michelle Mandel in the Sun today. She mentioned that:

1- on Feb.6 a McGill University member of the student council who broadcast on his twitter to his fellow students to "punch a Zionist today". The student union did nothing. He was not charged with a hate crime;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             2-in Montreal in 2014 a local Mosque issued a video where a volunteer Imaam concluded his sermon in Arabi  askingAllah to,  "destroy the accursed Jews" and " to kill them one by one" and "make their children orphans and their women widows". The Islamic Centre Al-Andalus (which interestingly supports this Islamophobia motion)  justified these hate comments saying they only meant hatred towards Israeli soldiers during the Gaza war;                                                                                                                                     3-according to Toronto police statistics,  Jews continue to be the group most often targeted by hate crimes and yet only make up 3.8% of the population of Canada, while the gay (LGBTQ) community is no.2, then no.3 is Muslims.

So what would Impact suggest we get in a pissing contest as to whose hatred is worse or better and make the ridiculous claim that Jews are treated better when it comes to being discriminated against which is his inference?

Enough with the drag Jews and anti-Semitism into the argument every time there's a discussion in Islamophobia/

Here is the salient point. We have existing laws to contain hate. We have no shortage of human rights commissions to deal with religious discrimination. We have school boards, the media, numerous non profit organizations discussing and educating about hatred.

Standing up in Parliament and condemning what happened in the Mosque-of course.

Going the next step and suggesting in a motion that Islamophobia must be singled out and removed as the motion is worded opens up questions which Impact has avoided and that is-why was Islamophobia not defined in the motion, what does it mean to get rid of it. and why is it treated differently than other religious discfrimination in the motiuon which in so doing, is discriminatory and makes a mockery out of the motion?

Impact has not addressed that and here we go again dragging us Jews in as if our being targeted for anti-Semitism makes us special and treated much better than Muslims when it happens. What a crock.

Any hatred or discrimination not just anti-Semitism or Islamophobia is o be condemned.

If it targets a specific people speak up about it but phrase it in away where at least you can comprehend that ALL religious discrimination is equally as undesireable.

Also get a slap in the head and understand, political rhetoric feel good phrases change nothing.

Who determines what and when Islamophobia is just that? Well here's a hint Impact because we Jews do it, we take the time to be specific not general when reacting to it. We give specific examples of how and why a comment negatively stereotypes all Jews.

Our organizations that speak out against it, the B'Nai B'Rith, Hillel, Canadian Jewish Congress, are very specific in what we criticize and why. They don't make sweeping generalizations and they do not phrase anti-Semitism as worse or better than other forms of discrimination.

What's the end game you ask? How about you ask the person who passed the motion. Her end game is to pander to Muslims because she is Muslim and she sensed their fear. Its what politicians do, they pander. They say feel good things to show their constituents they care.

Whether that is crass exploitation or genuine I will not say.

I will tell you this. My end game is to let you know Impact, that as a Jew I do not need politicians to stand up and tell me people hate Jews. Thanks. I was pleased to see all 3 political parties condemned the BDS movement as odious hate mongers however the fact is every day as a Jew I am keenly aware how pissing on Jews is as easy as using the word Zionist instead of Jew. Then presto magic, all the drivel is politically legitimate.

What I also know is some of the Muslims who want attention brought to hatred against Muslims are hateful sob's engaging in the very thing they condemn.

Excuse me but if you follow Islam to the extent that you believe non Muslims are not equal to you because they are not Muslim, or that women or gays are inferior, and other certain values that collide with our basic democratic values, I will criticize that. I don't need a politician to tell me that is hateful thank you.

Critical analysis of religions, all religions is a necessary exercise in studying them

There are Muslims who believe that ANY critical discussion of Islam constitutes Islamophobia.

That said, people who hate Muslims simply because they are Muslim should be condemned like any bigot.

I know the difference between a comment that slurs all Muslims and one that challenges specific Muslim views. Others intend to negatively smeer all Muslims, and some do it out of ignorance not realizing how hurtful or ignorant their comments are.

The question is do you want politicians sitting around discussing what Islamophobia is because if you do that could go on for centuries and it will and end up bogged down just like the electoral reform issue with nothing to show for the discussion.

Condemning hatred must be specific and precise. The wider the rhetoric, the wider the reference, the more methane gas is emitted.

 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Do you understand antisemitism? 

I want to reply, teacher. 

Anti means being against something or opposing something. Anti-semitism means being against semitic people. So its racism because someones cant be against a race, this makes no sense. Big part of ME people are semitic people and Arabs are the nation which is most being exposed to antisemitism in the World.