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

[Argus]

16 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I can't imagine there is a poster on here who would support any kind of restriction on the freedom to criticise or mock any religion.

Seriously? I can imagine half a dozen here who would cheerfully support such a thing.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Who is doing all this 'hating' of 'lots of other groups'?  Maybe those people just ought to get over themselves and stop hating others just because they look different or weren't born in Canada for the last three generations.  I

What if you don't like people because of their behavior and beliefs, as opposed to what they look like?

I mean, nobody hates people because of their beliefs more than progressives do, so why should everyone else have to stop?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Argus

[Peter F]

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

I mean, nobody hates people because of their beliefs more than progressives do, so why should everyone else have to stop?

Would you call that a Canadian value? 

[Boges]

If you wonder who the people on the left who secretly are chummy with Fundamentalist Islam are, look at anyone who supports this ridiculous Bill. 

[DogOnPorch]

Part of stealth Jihad is to portray Islam and Muslims as misunderstood victims. This while shooting-up gay nightclubs and such.

Thus, Muslims demand is just part of the solution as they see it: Infidels MUST learn their place...less than Muslims. Once that's understood and the Infidel pays a tax to the Muslims (Omar's Law), they can feel themselves properly subdued by their Islamic masters. Then peace will reign.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Seriously? I can imagine half a dozen here who would cheerfully support such a thing.

No, not seriously.  It was kind of a troll.  I'm not very good at such things.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No, not seriously.  It was kind of a troll.  I'm not very good at such things.

Evidently not true...

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

If you wonder who the people on the left who secretly are chummy with Fundamentalist Islam are, look at anyone who supports this ridiculous Bill. 

I though motions were different than bills?  Am I wrong?

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

Has there been any evidence that this motion for a study includes creating a law forbidding criticism of Islam?   I haven't seen any, but if anyone has a credible site, please share.  

[OftenWrong]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

Who is doing all this 'hating' of 'lots of other groups'?  Maybe those people just ought to get over themselves and stop hating others just because they look different or weren't born in Canada for the last three generations.  It is a choice to hate, yanno.

What I seen last time I went to TO was that it's not one group hating all the other ones, its a shared dislike of any culture other than your own. Seems that hate knows no borders.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What I seen last time I went to TO was that it's not one group hating all the other ones, its a shared dislike of any culture other than your own. Seems that hate knows no borders.

 

Yeah, this is true.   Fear of the "other" exists in almost all of us to some degree I guess.  

[betsy]

Soon.......it'll also be illegal to criticise the government in any way.  Governophobia!

 

That's how you descend to Communism.

Edited February 10, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎09 at 5:48 PM, dialamah said:

I though motions were different than bills?  Am I wrong?

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

Has there been any evidence that this motion for a study includes creating a law forbidding criticism of Islam?   I haven't seen any, but if anyone has a credible site, please share.  

A  motion like this one is just rhetoric. It has no legal effect what-so-ever.

The wording proposed by the Member of Parliament from Erin Mills in Mississauga is a young Muslim woman who was concerned about Islamophobia.

She wanted to make a feel good  statement.

The bottom line is  "feel good statement" through motions are rhetoric. They have zero legal meaning.

Criminal Law in the Criminal Code of Canada already has hate sections that could be invoked and are more generic in reference..

Provincial human rights commissions already invoke such rhetorical references in their decisions.

In the grand scheme of things its just more rhetoric.

 

 

 

[Argus]

31 minutes ago, Rue said:

A  motion like this one is just rhetoric. It has no legal effect what-so-ever.

The motion asks for a study to determine a 'whole government' approach to combating Islamophobia. Given the current climate and who is in power it is inconceivable such a motion will not be acted upon. Thus there will be a study to determine what the government ought to do about combating Islamophobia. Again, given an interventionist government led by a progressive who has demonstrated little respect for different opinions on social matters it's logical to conclude that the study will call for government laws to ban 'offensive or insulting speech' esp including Islamophobia, similar to those in place in certain European countries, and that Trudeau will want to act on such a 'recommendation'.

[?Impact]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

The motion asks for a study to determine a 'whole government' approach to combating Islamophobia. Given the current climate and who is in power it is inconceivable such a motion will not be acted upon. Thus there will be a study to determine what the government ought to do about combating Islamophobia. Again, given an interventionist government led by a progressive who has demonstrated little respect for different opinions on social matters it's logical to conclude that the study will call for government laws to ban 'offensive or insulting speech' esp including Islamophobia, similar to those in place in certain European countries, and that Trudeau will want to act on such a 'recommendation'.

So you think that Trudeau will do something therefore he should not even study the situation. Ignorance is your preferred state of being?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So you think that Trudeau will do something therefore he should not even study the situation. Ignorance is your preferred state of being?

I don't think this involves studying. I don't think this is going to reveal anything new. I think this is about justifying.

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

The motion asks for a study to determine a 'whole government' approach to combating Islamophobia

The motion asks for a study to determine a 'whole government' approach to reducing or eliminating a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamaphobia.   

Half-point for getting this fact half-right.   

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Given the current climate and who is in power it is inconceivable such a motion will not be acted upon.

Assumption.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Thus there will be a study to determine what the government ought to do about combating Islamophobia.

 

 

Since the motion for the study includes more than just Islamaphobia, you lose points for getting your facts wrong.

 

4 hours ago, Argus said:

given an interventionist government led by a progressive who has demonstrated little respect for different opinions on social matters

 

 

 

Anti-Liberal bias.   

4 hours ago, Argus said:

it's logical to conclude that the study will call for government laws to ban 'offensive or insulting speech' esp including Islamophobia

 

 

Huge leap; no logic.

You misstate the facts and make assumptions based on your anti-Liberal, anti-Muslim bias.   I don't know how you could even take yourself seriously.

By the way the people here are afraid of a *motion for a study* haven't answered my questions:

Quote

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

 

 

1

I would consider name-calling and threats Islamaphobia.   If you call it 'valid criticism' I'd think you are part of the problem.  

Edited February 11, 2017 by dialamah

[drummindiver]

 

On 08/02/2017 at 6:03 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Good luck on there being an enforceable law banning people from criticizing certain aspects of Islam.  It won't happen because too many people do it.  If people call for genocide or say all Muslims are filth well that's different and deplorable.

There's a difference between calling for genocide (hate speech) and disliking someone (freedom of speech)

I called my MP Bryan May and asked him how he was voting. He supports it. I told him he's lost my support.

I also wrote Maxime Berniers office. He will not support it. 

[Boges]

On 9 February, 2017 at 5:48 PM, dialamah said:

I though motions were different than bills?  Am I wrong?

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

Has there been any evidence that this motion for a study includes creating a law forbidding criticism of Islam?   I haven't seen any, but if anyone has a credible site, please share.  

Wouldn't that be classified as harassment? 

This motion seems like a waste of time TBH. Just another way to justify MPs existence by studying things where any recommendations won't be followed up on. Any law would have to include the parameter that criticizing a religion's doctrine or dogma should be allowed. Because if not, Athiests would be rounded up and thrown in jail or charged. 

[DogOnPorch]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:48 PM, dialamah said:

I though motions were different than bills?  Am I wrong?

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

Has there been any evidence that this motion for a study includes creating a law forbidding criticism of Islam?   I haven't seen any, but if anyone has a credible site, please share.  

 

Islam is a religion and a political system. It is not a race or a skin colour.

[dialamah]

43 minutes ago, Boges said:

Wouldn't that be classified as harassment? 

I agree that there are already laws on the books that would (hopefully) address such behavior.    It's also true that it can be difficult to stop such behavior since one has to report several similar incidents against an individual or have witnesses.   The couple I spoke of in my example also verbally and physically attacked my partner in a grocery store.   He reported it to the police, who went and talked to the couple involved and they claimed that it never happened.   

 

43 minutes ago, Boges said:

This motion seems like a waste of time TBH. Just another way to justify MPs existence by studying things where any recommendations won't be followed up on. 

 

I might be inclined to agree with you, since the government is already aware of anti-Semitism, and should be aware of the rise of anti-Islamic rhetoric and crime in Canada - I think these two groups are the most threatened in Canada right now.   Doesn't really need a study.   

 

53 minutes ago, Boges said:

Any law would have to include the parameter that criticizing a religion's doctrine or dogma should be allowed. Because if not, Athiests would be rounded up and thrown in jail or charged. 

 

 

It seems a huge leap to assume a law will be passed forbidding criticism of Islam because a politician proposed a study regarding systemic racism and religious discrimination.   I think that when people read the word "Islamaphobia" and know the proposer is Muslim and so start making all kinds of unwarranted conclusions about the motivations of the presenter it actually supports the reason for the study.    

It's interesting that MP Frank Bayliss tabled a petition condemning the discrimination faced by Muslim individuals, on the same day that Iqra Khalid tabled her motion.   Later, he and Iqra hosted a reception to celebrate the contributions of Canadian Muslims which was attended by plenty of MPs.   Apparently, attaching a non-Muslim name to activities designed to combat anti-Islamic attitudes is not at all noteworthy.   Why is that?

http://www.theasianconnectionsnewspaper.com/liberals-mps-tackling-islamophobia-and-racism/

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Should 'anti-Muslism rhetoric' be made illegal?

Could you point-out an anti-Islamic crime for us to look at?

 

[Rue]

Argus I agree the wording of the motion is problematic in that it does not define Islamophobia and seems to put it on a higher level of priority than other forms of discrimination.

I also personally believe its redundant as the Charter of Rights, Criminal Code and human rights laws of each province already provide remedy for the issue.

I do respectfully disagree on one point. Motions are an exercise in politicians farting. Its gas. Its hot air. Its rhetoric. Its feel good babble. What our legal system has shown us at all three level of governments is that when someone proposes a study, its a meaningless phrase.

Studies are what? Its an excuse for some patronage appointment or perhaps some senators to draft a white paper and make themselves feel important.

Its piffle. The only reason this motion has gotten any attention is because of the word "Islamophobia" being singled out and given some kind of special status.

Clearly that is as a result of the Mosque incident and a politician seeking to exploit the issue. The politician is Muslim so can say she is concerned as a Muslim representing many Muslims in her riding that the latest attack on the Mosque makes them all frightened.

She will express her subjective views and those of other Muslims.

I say you should not take the bait and assume its a conspiracy to prevent free speech. The best way to handle politicians pandering to ethnic votes whether they do so honestly or not, is to make the language as neutral as possible when referring to the kind of discrimination. I believe the MP has already agreed to do that.

I myself feel its a pandering exercise by a Muslim who feels compelled as a politician to say something. I don't think her intention is evil, intended to snuff out free speech or even deliberately exploit the issue.

Personally I find the wording ironically discriminatory but I think it was unintentional.

Hope that clarifies it. I do concede there are quite a few journalists who have reacted feeling it could trigger unintended consequences.

I myself don't react to motions. To me I expect politicians to make loud noises. They are full of legumes.

On a more serious note, I think the Parliament already addressed the issue which is to stand up, denounce the act, condemn it, and then move on. Our country has good laws in place to deal with hate crimes including religious discrimination.

There is an incident in Quebec where the police were jumpy and arrested someone for making a sacrcastic statement on a blog questioning how Islamophobia would be wiped out. The blogger asked in sarcasm whether this meant wiping out all Muslims. That comment was taken seriously and the individual was arrested, held over night and told to get medical care. The individual claims his freedom of speech was violated and he was being sarcastic and simply was trying to show how impractical it is to say you can wipe out any hatred. We are at the point now where people want to censor words.

I get your concerns. Political propriety has become so damn prevalent, it does curtail free speech because there is such a fine line between what is hateful and what is not.

Someone ask I suppose Michael H the moderator on this forum how slippery that line has been for him. Its not easy to know when words go over the line to become so hateful as to constitute a crime and no longer just an opinion of freedom of speech.

We live in a democracy. That vital right of freedom of speech and when to step in and say its gone too far its now a hate crime, is a tough one.

So I do not underestimate the concern. I don't like government having too much power. I get it.

I don' like censorship. Me personally I think educating the next and younger generations to see more than one side of an argument and to understand how words can unintentionally hurt is far more effective in the long term than motions by politicians.

Hatred is ignorance. Ignorance is learned. Ignorance is taught. So can tolerance be learned and taught. Using motions or laws to change peoples' behaviour, doesn't work. It forces constraints on them with consequences for breaking laws, but that deterrence or prevention of displays of hatred doesn't change the hater from hating.

It simply sends it underground.

Sometimes I think and I know its stupid and naïve,  the best way to deal with hatred is in the gym in the boxing ring. Man if we could just take all the idiots and have them learn to box. When you are in th e ring, your realize people bleed, sweat, smell the same.

Anyone I boxed with whether they were Irish, Brazilian, French Canadian, Muslim, Jewish, when we were done we were always o.k. with each other. It was like playing hockey or football. It was the equalizer. Its why in the old days a lot of minorities joined the cadets or armed forces or by scouts. We had institutions and sports that were equalizers and put us on a common ground. We lack such things today.

Give me a weekend with kids from any culture. Let me take them out in the woods survival camping and dependent on one another to eat and get shelter. That's how you deal with ignorance. Nothing like the need for food and shelter to smarten people up. Give people a common cause. Of course we can't do that. In today's environment organizations that promote common causes have become frowned upon.

Ask any soldier to explain what I am talking about. The military is no panacea for ignorance, but soldiers who go through certain things together and had to survive, their skin colour, religion  well it doesn't mean much when they have to keep each other alive and do.

I have seen that when these guys return and how they talk about each other. That I get. You go through a common cause to survive things like religion or race become meaningless.

Its too bad we have to get people killed to realize that.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Rue

[taxme]

On 2/8/2017 at 8:58 AM, Argus said:

If it says anything bad about Islam

M-103 asks for a study to determine “a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Though singled out for special consideration, it is noteworthy that the motion does not define Islamophobia.

What I fear is that MP Iqra Khalid, who tabled M-103, may understand Islamophobia to mean what its original promoters, the 56 Muslim-majority bloc of the United Nations known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), say it means. The OIC wants to see the Cairo Declaration on Human rights become the template for Islamophobia policies everywhere. The Cairo Declaration asserts the superiority of Islam and defines freedom of speech according to Shariah law, which considers any criticism of Muhammad blasphemy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-how-long-until-my-honest-criticism-of-islamism-constitutes-a-speech-crime-in-canada

So, why don't we just abolish free speech altogether and be done with it. We have in Canada a thing called the Charter of Rights which states that all people are suppose to be equal, no exceptions, and yet our politicians are debating in parliament as to whether there should a law that forbids any criticism of Islam. Who is behind this and why, and what is their purpose? 

[taxme]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:48 PM, dialamah said:

I though motions were different than bills?  Am I wrong?

Is it ok if Canadians call Muslims f'ckn filthy terrorists when they see them in the grocery store?  Or should we object to that kind of behavior?   How about if a White Canadian couple follow a Muslim family in their car, screaming names at them and threatening to shoot them?   Is that valid criticism that shouldn't be hindered in any way?  

Has there been any evidence that this motion for a study includes creating a law forbidding criticism of Islam?   I haven't seen any, but if anyone has a credible site, please share.  

Ezra Levant of The Rebel spoke about it. I did not hear the main scream media mention this motion in any news casts which is what they should have done. We are talking about an attack against freedom of speech being motioned here. 

[Michael Hardner]

Argus, with your hyperbolic thread title I am very disappointed.

You are supposed to be the standard bearer of sober discussion on sensitive issues around race, religion and culture.  But when you overstate and overreach with these sensationalist titles you're making it easy for your detractors.

Discussions like these are needed in this country, but those who bring it up seem to refuse to do so in an honest and reasonable way.