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

[blackbird]

The Heritage Minister completely ignored Terry Mileski's question on CBC's Power & Politics program to define Islamophobia and whether legitimate criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

[Newfoundlander]

On 2017-04-14 at 8:21 PM, scribblet said:

This is the second step in the process to stifle free speech and to enact blasphemy laws which seem to only include Islam.

Did the other committees that looked at religious discrimination over the last few years lead to laws that stifled free speech?

[kactus]

On 15/04/2017 at 5:37 PM, Argus said:

You appear to be confused. Islamophobia is a made-up word meant to describe those who express any disrespect, dislike, doubt or even lack of enthusiasm about Islam and its spread.

If, for example, one were to say that the Islamic world forsook scholarship in all areas of science, philosophy and technology in favor of scholarship in Islam alone about a thousand years ago, and has been awash in backwardness and ignorance ever since, then you could be called Islamophobic - even though the statement is indisputable. 

Which is exactly why I think it is a loosely defined term by those who use their dislike for religion to attack muslims.

By your own example if one decides to use the religion to say all muslims are backwards or brainwashed in my dictionary that would translates into phobia of all muslims. This is to generalise the context to have a go at each and every single muslim born regardless of their affinity with the religion, which we seem to be loosely defining as 'islamophobia'!

Edited April 17, 2017 by kactus

[Argus]

1 hour ago, kactus said:

Which is exactly why I think it is a loosely defined term by those who use their dislike for religion to attack muslims.

Once again, you appear to be confused about the purpose of the word. It is used to attack those who question Islam. It is not used to attack Muslims.

1 hour ago, kactus said:

By your own example if one decides to use the religion to say all muslims are backwards or brainwashed in my dictionary that would translates into phobia of all muslims. This is to generalise the context to have a go at each and every single muslim born regardless of their affinity with the religion, which we seem to be loosely defining as 'islamophobia'!

But my own example was of the 'Islamic world' not of individual Muslims. And everyone not an idiot realizes that there are always going to be wide variations from the mean in any large grouping.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Newfoundlander said:

Did the other committees that looked at religious discrimination over the last few years lead to laws that stifled free speech?

Did they report to a 'progressive' prime minister who had already made it quite clear he was intolerant of social views different than his?

[PIK]

This government is a cluster fuck and this too will be screwed up. I hope everyone is happy for getting rid of the evil harper. This country would be moving in the right direction if he was still PM.

[Bob Macadoo]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Did they report to a 'progressive' prime minister who had already made it quite clear he was intolerant of social views different than his?

.....you mean a PMO office that blocked/screened scientists from speaking on topics that were intolerant to that gov't?

[PIK]

2 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

.....you mean a PMO office that blocked/screened scientists from speaking on topics that were intolerant to that gov't?

The liberals should let them talk.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Bob Macadoo said:

.....you mean a PMO office that blocked/screened scientists from speaking on topics that were intolerant to that gov't?

I have not noticed this Trudeau government being any more open to internal disagreement or criticism than the Harper or Chretien governments.

As was noted the other day by someone I read. Both Harper and Trudeau promised a more open government in opposition, with beefed up parliamentary officers and freedom of information acts. Once in power, however, both of them lost their enthusiasm for openness.

Of course, Trudeau's behaviour even before he got into power demonstrated that he had no interest in listening to opposing views.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Argus

[GostHacked]

On 4/14/2017 at 7:35 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

People should be free to criticize any religion they choose.  What they need to study is hate-crimes against Muslims, which is on the rise in Canada.

Agreed

 

And the people that need to be blamed are the ones in government. Muslims can ask all they want, it will be the gov to give it to them. That's the real problem.

[Rue]

The whole exercise is insulting. It is crass ethnic pandering. There is absolutely no excuse for looking at discrimination but only as it pertains to Islamic comments. The very selective choice of subject matter makes it defective. All forms of intolerance not just intolerance to Muslims would if there was a mandate, be the true mandate. To single out only one form of intolerance is inherently discriminatory and makes a mockery of the very process before it even started.

Bottom line-its a feel good committee designed to pander to Muslim votes, no more no less. It will if anything cause resentment and backlash and incite the very thng it claims to be looking into.

Get back to me when the jack ass who decided he needed to pander to Muslims explains why they have only singled out one form of alleged intolerance. Also get back to me when that jack ass can define what Islamophobia means. This jack ass of a government can't even define what they are questioning. This alleged concrn about Muslims is pathetic pandering.

Does anyone think a committee of idiot politicians will do a damn thing other then giggle at the sound of it making farts?

I am tired of the methane  gas warfare this government uses on innocent civilians,

 

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Rue

[taxme]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

I have not noticed this Trudeau government being any more open to internal disagreement or criticism than the Harper or Chretien governments.

As was noted the other day by someone I read. Both Harper and Trudeau promised a more open government in opposition, with beefed up parliamentary officers and freedom of information acts. Once in power, however, both of them lost their enthusiasm for openness.

Of course, Trudeau's behaviour even before he got into power demonstrated that he had no interest in listening to opposing views.

 

To be a good politician one must learn how to become a good liar. Promise them all they want just before the election, and if we win then it will be back to business as usual. All promises made will be thrown out the window. The contempt for we the people by politicians is deplorable. Politicians don't work for the people, it is the people who appear to work for the politician. The only way to put an end to politicians and their lies is to have Citizen Initiated Referendums and the right to recall like they have in Switzerland. A nightmare for politicians, and the special interest groups that pretty much control them, and we the people. I mean how are those phony politicians going to be able to push their programs and agendas on we the people if people ran the show? They cannot allow that. 

[taxme]

On 4/16/2017 at 7:38 PM, blackbird said:

The Heritage Minister completely ignored Terry Mileski's question on CBC's Power & Politics program to define Islamophobia and whether legitimate criticism of Islam is Islamophobia.

When was the last time a politician actually listened to what we the people wanted or demanded? They appear to be there to serve the interests of certain special interest groups or corporations and assist them in their efforts to push their programs and agendas. The liberals gave us same sex marriage, and are now wanting to push for the legalization of weed, and allowing the flooding of the country with illegal immigrants. All we get from them is more taxes, more government, and less freedom. Politicians have become the enemy of we the people. This needs to change. But how is the question? 

[taxme]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:08 AM, PIK said:

This government is a cluster fuck and this too will be screwed up. I hope everyone is happy for getting rid of the evil harper. This country would be moving in the right direction if he was still PM.

Apparently, the people didn't want the country to go in the right direction. With the history of the liberals, they have already proven that they should never be allowed to govern we the people. The liberals have shown way to much in the past their contempt for we the people. Why don't Canadians ever learn from history? It is quite obvious that most Canadians know absolutely nothing about the political game where they will always end up being the loser. Sad indeed. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

The whole exercise is insulting. It is crass ethnic pandering. There is absolutely no excuse for looking at discrimination but only as it pertains to Islamic comments. The very selective choice of subject matter makes it defective. All forms of intolerance not just intolerance to Muslims would if there was a mandate, be the true mandate. 

Let's think about the context here.  On the heels of a targeting of this group by a mass killer, it does make sense.  I would support a resolution for any group that was so targeted in a temporal context.

[taxme]

On 4/14/2017 at 4:35 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

People should be free to criticize any religion they choose.  What they need to study is hate-crimes against Muslims, which is on the rise in Canada.

What hate-crimes are suppose to be happening to muslims?  The only reason for the possible rise of muslim hatred being on the rise is because of their trying to force their religion on the rest of Canada. If some of those muslims are thinking and hoping that somehow they can get sharia law implemented in Canada, well maybe they should think twice about that. If they want to live under sharia law well their are lots of countries to emigrate too that have sharia as the law of the land. Why do most of these people that come from all the different countries from around the world with their different cultures, languages, traditions, heritages, and religions feel that their way of life and values and beliefs must be allowed to be practiced here also, and even be promoted and protected by law? What the hell is going on here where they believe that this should be so? All this religion nonsense going on, and Canadians having to cater to their religions is going way beyond what should have ever been allowed. They all should be told to keep their religions at home or at their place of worship. Personally, I am offended by all of these different religions coming to Canada. Canada is suppose to be a Christian country but one would have to wonder if that is so today? Religions of all kinds are running rampant in Canada these days. Ridiculous. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let's think about the context here.  On the heels of a targeting of this group by a mass killer, it does make sense.  I would support a resolution for any group that was so targeted in a temporal context.

The problem with that is that M-103 was introduced more than a month before the shooting at the mosque.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

The problem with that is that M-103 was introduced more than a month before the shooting at the mosque.

well that's an interesting fact!

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem with that is that M-103 was introduced more than a month before the shooting at the mosque.

Really ?  I didn't know that, ok.

[Argus]

And one of the reasons people are distrustful of the Muslim community is the sense they do not wish to assimilate, and do not wish to adopt our ways.

“I walked into the banquet hall with approximately 100 attendees who were gender segregated. I sat next to a woman who said she had been in Canada for 40 years. When I asked her if she felt any disconnect between enjoying 40 years of democracy, yet supporting the Hizb-ut-Tahrir who wanted to end it, she explained that democracy has done nothing good to people, so she and other believers follow Allah's rule.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/24/canada-home-to-islamic-radicals

 

[blackbird]

I noticed something very unusual on the CBC News channel the last couple of days.  Yesterday and today they broadcast a short ad promoting diversity/multiculturalism.  Today it was on about 4:47PM and was the Mayor of Calgary, Nenshi, talking about diversity.  I wondered who is running and paying for this ad.  Seems very strange.  Wonder if this part of the work of the committee directed to deal with Islamophobia.  Perhaps we will see educational ads to teach Canadians about diversity.

Edited April 19, 2017 by blackbird

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I noticed something very unusual on the CBC News channel the last couple of days.  Yesterday and today they broadcast a short ad promoting diversity/multiculturalism.  Today it was on about 4:47PM and was the Mayor of Calgary, Nenshi, talking about diversity.  I wondered who is running and paying for this ad.  Seems very strange.  Wonder if this part of the work of the committee directed to deal with Islamophobia.  Perhaps we will see educational ads to teach Canadians about diversity.

Nenshi can't be mayor of Calgary. It would mean the place isn't a hot bed of Islamophobia, and we can't have that. 

It must be an illusion. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by bcsapper

[PIK]

diversity now mean , whitey move over.

[Argus]

So what is Islamophobia? Whatever the hard left says it is, which generally means anything which offends the hard left, or Muslims.

April 21 marks the opening, at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, of the sixth annual academic conference on Islamophobia. If past conclaves are a guide, the conference will be marked by a morass of impenetrable academic jargon and an unremitting flow of anti-Western rhetoric.

Here, if one cares to observe, one may see the academic pistons of the blasphemy-law promotional industry pumping vigorously away at its task, to ensure that expression of hostility to the religion of Islam achieves cultural parity on campuses as a shaming thought crime, morally equivalent to expressed hostility to women, blacks, gays and aboriginals.

What ends in law often begins in academia. And the Berkeley conferences are ground zero in North America for hardline theories around Islamophobia.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-how-academics-portray-islam-a-victim-of-oppression-even-as-they-defend-violent-islamists

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎04‎-‎18 at 2:26 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Let's think about the context here.  On the heels of a targeting of this group by a mass killer, it does make sense.  I would support a resolution for any group that was so targeted in a temporal context.

 

 Are you saying until someone dies the politicians should remain silent?  That makes sense to you?. What someone must die before intolerance gets a special mention in Parliament? Will I have to wait until a Jew is killed by a Muslim before Trudeau or that MP will speak out against the Imams in Canadian mosques calling out to their followers to kill Jews?

Politicians who only react once there is death because of that very timing pander.They use the death as an opportunity for feel good pandering to the people of the group who feel singled out for hatred. That's what Trudeau and that MP did. No I don't buy into your line of reasoning  that since people died it merits singling out Islamophobia. Intolerance is intolerance. You don't have to wait until death to point out intolerance of any kind is wrong.

Tell me if death is your criteria Michael Harder to pontificate about intolerance why does our  government not single out Muslim terrorism? How many deaths have come about from Muslim terrorism? Or are you one of those who say there is no co-relation between Islam and terrorism and the  moment someone points out terrrorism done in the name of Islam, that makes it Islamophobic? Why has Trudeau refused to call out Muslim extremism? What stops this man from doing so other than Muslim votes?

This current government won't acknowledge a link between Islam and terrorism or acknowledge extremist Muslims in Canada. Trudeau uses as his Middle East advisor Omar Alleghbra an out and out anti semite who condones terrorism and defends it. He will have an MP sit up in Parliament unable to define Islamophobia and demand the government investigate what she can't even define it and just,where was she when Imams called for the violent death of Jews in the Mosques? Where was she? How could she be so obviously silent? Where is her credibility or Trudeau's? How does Trudeau get his Middle East advise from a man who openly supports Hamas. JHezbollah and Al Quaeda? . Where is Trudeau now as thousands are breaking the law and illegally coming to Canada from the US and he doesn't dare say a word because he fears that will be construed as anti Muslim and he has told the world Canada will welcome all the Muslims Trump will not. He is on record as saying that.

You can not tell me by leaving the accusation of islamophobia undefined and wide open if I use the words Muslim terrorist that won't be called Islamophobia. Can I  point out in the very Mosques this MP claims are under attack contain  violent extremists or does that make me Islamophobic?

You want me to defend Muslims against hatred, I will. For sure. But if they engage in hatred of course I will challenge them.Just as Muslims and Christians have stood by Jews in Canada when we were targeted for hatred I will do the same for them. You want me however  to only single out hatred of  Muslims I will not. No Muslim has asked me to do that by the way or suggested hatred against them requires more of a priority then other forms of hatred. Not the Muslims I know. How dare ay idiot politician play priority politics with hatred-all hatred is equally a priority. What a farse. Where were you Michael when the Liberals ran a leadership campaign saying don't vote for Bob Rae because his wife was a Jew. I  can tell you where I was.

My point Michael is because I am not far off from you on this issue although I am ticked off at Trudeau, is that I believe people who discriminate against all Muslims simply because they are Muslim are as intolerable as if they do it about Jews, Christians or anyone else and no form of intolerance is more important than any other and yes the government should speak out against. Intolerance in ANY form.

I argue that Trudeau selects the hatred he speaks out against and for that-it makes him in my mind a panderer.

As for Taxme's comments, I distance myself from them. I agree with the MP speaking out against Islamophobia and all other  forms of intolerance but I believe she purposely singled out Islamophobia for special consideration  and that is where I believe she went wrong.

 I would have also taken her more seriously if she could define the hatred she claims. Leaving it open ended makes a mockery of it-it allows her to make it up as she goes along. That's not credible. Islamophobia is engaging in negative stereotyping of all  Muslims with a specific agenda to incite hatred against them. She could have simply said that. She didn't because she feels pointing out when terrorists are Muslim is Islamophobic.

No it is not. Its not unless the person making the link uses it as a pretense to hate ALL Muslims. I do not hate all Muslims because of Muslim extremists any more then I hate all blacks or whites or Christians or anyone else in the same group as someone who commits an act of crime or terror.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Rue