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

[PIK]

17 hours ago, dre said:

Multi cultural-ism is not some brand new thing. Its how this nation was created. Its as old as nation itself. Its as Canadian as any of your own cultural values, which no doubt are different than mine. 

Whats not Canadian here is you labeling a person as an enemy of the state for simply trying to bring up an issue she thinks is important. That's more a North Korean value, or Iranian, or Chinese, or Saudi.

There is no  homogeneous single Canadian culture or set of values, and there never has been. 

People came here to build a new country and get away from the old countries crap. And she brought this up to cause trouble for the conservative candidates, and that is the only reason. She proved that by not compromising on it.  It was a dirty move by a dirty government. They are the ones pushing hatred with that motion, by only sticking to Islam. Why do you think people in this country are getting sick and tired of immigrants and refuges being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them. The past events have proven that people have had enough of it.

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, PIK said:

They are the ones pushing hatred with that motion, by only sticking to Islam. Why do you think people in this country are getting sick and tired of immigrants and refuges being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them.

The motion is about working on a problem - period. The "being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them" is the attitude of the ultra right wing extremists pretending there is something there that is not. 

[PIK]

Just now, ?Impact said:

The motion is about working on a problem - period. The "being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them" is the attitude of the ultra right wing extremists pretending there is something there that is not. 

The motion has nothing to do with that at all. It is dirty pool by trudeau. This is dividing the country. But why are we not going after refugee makers?? There now seems to be no end in sight for refugees coming here, do we keep bring them in till we do have serious problems? PC and white guilt is killing this country. 

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The motion is about working on a problem - period. The "being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them" is the attitude of the ultra right wing extremists pretending there is something there that is not. 

 

Is the existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms a problem ?   Why does it take "right wing extremists" to protect existing rights ?

It is very obvious who is the "extremist" in this case.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Why does it take "right wing extremists" to protect existing rights ?

Existing rights are not at all being challenged, that is only fear mongering by the ultra right wing extremists. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Is the existing Charter of Rights and Freedoms a problem ?   Why does it take "right wing extremists" to protect existing rights ?

It is very obvious who is the "extremist" in this case.

Because if something seems reasonable and it shouldn't, one way of getting round it is to pretend it is something it isn't.  A motion to condemn Islamophobia without a decent definition of Islamophobia is dumb, but to say so makes some people uncomfortable. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Existing rights are not at all being challenged, that is only fear mongering by the ultra right wing extremists. 

 

Not true...the alt-left extremists are lining up to undermine existing Charter rights. 

In Canada, this is called....how do you say..."Charter politics".

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Existing rights are not at all being challenged, that is only fear mongering by the ultra right wing extremists. 

Ultra Mega right wing extremists, surely?

Edited March 9, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, PIK said:

People came here to build a new country and get away from the old countries crap. And she brought this up to cause trouble for the conservative candidates, and that is the only reason. She proved that by not compromising on it.

She? Or was it the PMO? Some of the tory candidates are saying this was actually brought forward by the PMO through her.

[taxme]

45 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The motion is about working on a problem - period. The "being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them" is the attitude of the ultra right wing extremists pretending there is something there that is not. 

The problem is that when these new immigrants come here some of them demand that we accept what they left behind. No way. When a new immigrant comes to Canada they must assimilate into how things are done in Canada. This bs multiculturalism is what is the problem. These new immigrants are being told that Canada is a multicultural country and that they need not assimilate. In a sense, yes, Canada is a multicultural country where many immigrants from many countries came to Canada to live here. But that should not mean that Canada has to accept all other religions, languages,traditions and cultures and to be on par with Canadian culture and how things are done in Canada. As the old saying goes "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". So, when in Canada do as Canadians do. Become Canadian, and not try to carry your past lives in what ever country you came from, and try to foist them on the host Canadians. Canada speaks English, and is a Christian nation, and learn to live with it. What you left behind is your problem, don't make it mine. If not, take the next plane out back to wherever you came from. Enough of people like this MP demanding that I accept their beliefs. You accept mine. Period. 

[taxme]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

She? Or was it the PMO? Some of the tory candidates are saying this was actually brought forward by the PMO through her.

No doubt, pro-third world PM was probably behind it. One would swear that this PM and his daddy were out to destroy our British Canada and Canadian heritage, traditions, and culture. It would appear as though those two have always been in favor of flooding Canada with the rest of the 3rd world to destroy our western culture, and ways of life. 

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

Canada speaks English, and is a Christian nation, and learn to live with it.

Sorry, not my Canada and I probably have far strong "old stock" claim to it than most.

[taxme]

50 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Existing rights are not at all being challenged, that is only fear mongering by the ultra right wing extremists. 

Give them an inch, and then they will try to take a foot. Liberalism is dangerous to any countries culture. They love trying to destroy a culture and then try and replace with a worse culture. Welcome to liberal la-la-land Canada.  

[taxme]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Sorry, not my Canada and I probably have far strong "old stock" claim to it than most.

Obviously, you are a liberal pro-third world mutlicuturalist, and I am not. I am a patriotic Canadian who will fight to keep Canada Canadian. And I also come from the old stock where we did not have all these problems in those days with this multiculutural nonsense. Immigrants that came here before the sixties were just happy to get here. They learned how to become Canadian unlike the immigrants of today who do not want to assimilate, and accept the old stocks values and ways. They want me to assimilate. Bull to that. 

[taxme]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

People came here to build a new country and get away from the old countries crap. And she brought this up to cause trouble for the conservative candidates, and that is the only reason. She proved that by not compromising on it.  It was a dirty move by a dirty government. They are the ones pushing hatred with that motion, by only sticking to Islam. Why do you think people in this country are getting sick and tired of immigrants and refuges being treated like some god and we the people must bend over for them. The past events have proven that people have had enough of it.

I agree 100%. Well said. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

 But why are we not going after refugee makers??

Like the US and Russia?

[dialamah]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Because if something seems reasonable and it shouldn't, one way of getting round it is to pretend it is something it isn't.  A motion to condemn Islamophobia without a decent definition of Islamophobia is dumb, but to say so makes some people uncomfortable. 

 

It was a motion to *study* the issue of religious discrimination and Islampahobia, not a motion to condemn anything.    I would expect that the study itself would define Islamaphobia, along with other forms of religious discrimination, and go from there.    

Btw, the motion to condemn Islamaphobia passed last November, without Islamaphobia being defined.   And look - everybody is still saying pretty much whatever the heck they want, and no police in sight to stop them.

It's dumb to continue to assert that this motion is an assault on freedom of speech, but some people are just gullible.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

It was a motion to *study* the issue of religious discrimination and Islampahobia, not a motion to condemn anything.    I would expect that the study itself would define Islamaphobia, along with other forms of religious discrimination, and go from there.    

Btw, the motion to condemn Islamaphobia passed last November, without Islamaphobia being defined.   And look - everybody is still saying pretty much whatever the heck they want, and no police in sight to stop them.

It's dumb to continue to assert that this motion is an assault on freedom of speech, but some people are just gullible.

Sure, and I don't count myself among the gullible,  but a motion to condemn Islamophobia without a decent definition of Islamophobia is still dumb.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, and I don't count myself among the gullible,  but a motion to condemn Islamophobia without a decent definition of Islamophobia is still dumb.

 

 

Have you never done a study in which the first step was to define the terms?   As in "When we say this word in this context, this is precisely what we mean"?   

Everybody has a general understanding of the word "Islamaphobia" do they not?   Mine might differ from yours in the details, but we'd probably both agree that Islamaphobia means essentially hate-speech against Muslims.   So in a study that involves religious discrimination, including Islamaphobia, the first step would be to define in specific detail what 'religious discrimination' is, and what 'Islamaphobia' is.   To define that much specificity when only proposing a study makes no sense.    

Given that you apparently do little or no research on your own - not even to click on a link - but decide your POV based on warring factions on an internet forum ... well, I'm not sure I'd agree with you on your assessment of 'not among the gullible'.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by dialamah

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

Have you never done a study in which the first step was to define the terms?   As in "When we say this word in this context, this is precisely what we mean"?   

Everybody has a general understanding of the word "Islamaphobia" do they not?   Mine might differ from yours in the details, but we'd probably both agree that Islamaphobia means essentially hate-speech against Muslims.   So in a study that involves religious discrimination, including Islamaphobia, the first step would be to define in specific detail what 'religious discrimination' is, and what 'Islamaphobia' is.   To define that much specificity when only proposing a study makes no sense.    

Given that you apparently do little or no research on your own - not even to click on a link - but decide your POV based on warring factions on an internet forum ... well, gullible just comes to mind.

 

I don't decide my POV based on warring factions on an internet forum.  I already have them.  I just hardly ever let warring factions on an internet forum change them.  That's because they are usually right, not because I'm stubborn.

If I said there was nothing wrong with Islamophobia, you might want to know what I meant.  It's the same as when people say there is.

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't decide my POV based on warring factions on an internet forum.  I already have them.  I just hardly ever let warring factions on an internet forum change them.  That's because they are usually right, not because I'm stubborn.

If I said there was nothing wrong with Islamophobia, you might want to know what I meant.  It's the same as when people say there is.

 

 

If I said "anti-Semitism" had to be defined before it could be condemned, would that be logical?    

How about rape?   Do we need a specific definition before we could agree it was wrong?    

What if an MP wanted to study the government's approach to the problem of child-sex tourism?   Would we need a specific definition of child-sex tourism in order to agree a study was a good idea or that child-sex tourism should be condemned?

Words have meanings, and to pretend that Islamaphobia doesn't already have generally understood meaning is disingenuous.   

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by dialamah

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, dialamah said:

If I said "anti-Semitism" had to be defined before it could be condemned, would that be logical?    

How about rape?   Do we need a specific definition before we could agree it was wrong?    

What if an MP wanted to study the government's approach to the problem of child-sex tourism?   Would we need a specific definition of child-sex tourism in order to agree a study was a good idea or that child-sex tourism should be condemned?

Words have meanings, and to pretend that Islamaphobia doesn't already have generally understood meaning is disingenuous.   

 

What about hitting?  Ted Williams and that guy with crowbar in Edmonton would like to know.

 

I understand Islamophobia to mean, amongst other things, commenting on, and calling by its proper name the barbaric and deplorable practices that are carried out by many in the name of that religion.  I would hate to be condemned.

Edit> I would also never set fire to a Mosque, or pull anyone's veil off on the subway.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

33 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Islamaphobia means essentially hate-speech against Muslims.

I would say any expressed hatred towards Muslims in general. I don't consider calling out specific acts by individuals as Islamophobic.

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I understand Islamophobia to mean, amongs other things, commenting on, and calling by its proper name the barbaric and deplorable practices that are carried out by many in the name of that religion.  I would hate to be condemned.

No, if you want to call out say Female Genital Mutilation and say it is carried out by many Muslims. It originates from Africa, and is also practiced in some parts of Asia and the Middle East. Many of the countries are Muslim majority, although this cultural practice predates Islam. There is no mention of it in the Quran, although Muhammad is said to have viewed it as noble but not required. Many senior Islamic scholars and councils have made statements that it has no basis in Islamic law. You are quite right to call it out, and those who practice it and use religion to justify it. I denounce Muhammad for supporting it (and for many other reasons, but that is a different issue). None of that is Islamophobic. 

[bush_cheney2004]

56 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

... I denounce Muhammad for supporting it (and for many other reasons, but that is a different issue). None of that is Islamophobic. 

 

Of course...it's not "Islamophobic" when certain alt-left people do it for their own agenda(s).  

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I understand Islamophobia to mean, amongst other things, commenting on, and calling by its proper name the barbaric and deplorable practices that are carried out by many in the name of that religion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, no, that's not what it means.  It's what certain groups want you to think it means.   

Phobia - an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.  (Google).   A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.  (Dictionary.com)  an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation  (Merriam Webster)

Islam - self explanatory, I'm assuming.

Islamaphobia - Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.  (Oxford Dictionary) Hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture  (Dictionary.com)  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam  (Merriam Webster)

"Women are treated like shit in Muslim countries, because of Sharia law!  If Muslims come to Canada, we'll have Sharia law and our women will have to wear bedsheets!" - Islamaphobic statement.  

"Islam is a patriarchal religion that does not support or encourage equality for women; it should be the goal of Muslim religious and political leaders to lead the way in implementing and supporting equality for women."   Critical of Islam, but not Islamaphobic

"Muslims practice FGM because Islam is a barbaric, misogynistic cult.  If we let them into Canada, they will want all women to undergo FGM.  How can you possibly accept that?" - Islamaphobic statement

"FGM is an abhorrent and dangerous cultural practice that is thought to have originated in Egypt, and predates both Islam and Christianity and is still in wide practice today in the Middle East and parts of Africa, by Muslims, Christians and other native religions, despite laws against it.  It is especially concerning that some immigrants to Western countries bring that practice with them and more needs to be done to protect women and girls" - Criticism of FGM, noting that it's not an "Islamic" practice, but a cultural one.   

"Muslims want to impose Sharia law all over the world!  We must protect ourselves!"  - Islamaphobic statement

"There are a variety of forms of Sharia law in Muslim-majority countries.   Some countries have both legal and criminal Sharia law systems; others only apply Sharia law for family/civil matters, while secular law is used for criminal matters.  Some countries only apply Sharia law to their Muslim citizens while non-Muslims are subject to secular law, and some have a completely secular system applicable to Muslims and non-Muslims alike." - Factual statement

Quite a few people assume that a statement which paints Islam and Muslims in the worst possible light must be correct and anyone who provides information or a viewpoint which suggests that maybe there's more to the story is dismissed as someone who's an Islam 'apologist' or won't have a 'rational' discussion about the perils of Islam.   When I see that pattern repeated by someone, then I would consider them an Islamaphobe.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by dialamah