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

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

A drop in the bucket considering the numbers of dead for this whole conflict so far is estimated at over half a million. How much can be attributed to the Syrian government, US/NATO air strikes and ground battles, and Russian air strikes and ground battles?

And before some get their panties in a bunch, if the allegations of the deaths in the prison are true, I condemn it.

And the deaths of Palestiinians in the conflict with Israel are a drop in the bucket compared to what's happened in Syria, but you won't find SJWs organizing and marching and denouncing Syria and Russia, or calling for boycotts.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

We already have blasphemy laws in Canada...  they just aren't enforced because they would never stand a Constitutional challenge.

You sure about that? Our Orwellianly named Charter has section 1, which is a pretty big limit on freedom of speech. Furthermore, the courts are only as good as the judges in them, and if Trudeau slowly replaces judges with identitarian SJWs, then the court system won't protect us.

[-1=e^ipi]

Issues like this are why Canada and other countries need a classical liberal party, to be able to represent classical liberals (i.e. actual liberals) and defend liberal principles like freedom of speech against the authoritarian left. The LPC, despite it's name, is not a liberal party as it rejects the core fundamental principles of liberalism, be it freedom of speech, equality under the law, secularism and individualism.

 

Canada also needs to move towards legalizing all hate speech, in order to protect us and for society to have true freedom of speech, consistent with liberalism as advocated by Voltaire or Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

Edited February 8, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Rue]

Dialamah you want to push the topic?

Well PIK in fact was the one who used the generalization " give THEM an inch ". Uh yah that's a generalization about all Muslims.

True.

Someone could ask though for the exact same point you are making  why did you used Jewsin your example not Christians, or  Buddhists, or  Bahaiis,  or Hindus?

Accusing people of singling out religions is funny that way. The people who question others for doing it do I find and its probably because I am a Jew,  Jews in their response.

On this board any discussion about Muslims or Islam sooner or later turns to Jews. Why you think that is? Coincidence?

Seriously Why you think that is?  You had all kinds of religions to choose from. You didn't use Christianity the majority religion of Canada or the religion of PIK or Argus. Why?

See how that works?

I am no comfortable generalizing an entire people. Your initial point was right but even in your selection of Jews as your counter example, you engaged in the same thing whatever you claim the intention was.

People generalize. Sometimes for negative reasons, sometimes to make a valid point.

I myself do think there are Muslims claiming to be mainstream and representing mainstream Muslims that do not.

That is all I will say on the point of the Muslims singled out in this thread. I don't think they represent mainstream Muslims.

Me personally I think mainstream Muslims, the majority, and I am generalizing no different than PIK or Argus, don't want special treatment, just the same treatment as everyone else.

I do think a certain segment of Muslims get angry and say things expressing their anger that comes out in political expressions demanding certain rights of others they don't necessarily give to those others.

I think some Muslims expect people to tolerate them while reserving the right to be intolerant of others under the pretense of their religious and cultural rights.

I think it has to b e two way.

That said there is a reason people don't react to visible minority ultra orthodox Jews or Amish people or nuns the way they do say Muslims who are visibly wearing and loking different. The reason is the three groups I mentioned are not at this time associated with terrorism. If they were, I think you'd have the same expressions being thrown at them s I am not sure how much of that is deliberate bigotry and how much of that is people claiming they can't tell the difference between non violent and violent Muslims.

When there was Siekh violence in Toronto and British Columbia, and for that matter the India flight was bombed, hate expressions against Siekhs went up.

In my neighbourhood some idiots were yelling at Siekhs telling them to return to Afghanistan because they see one turban or head wrap they mistake it as another.

Some bigotry is deliberate and hateful and ignorant, some of it is based on people making negative assumptions because they blame an entire people for the bad behaviour of a minority. Its wrong of course. Its negative generalization and stereotyping. Its illogical. However its a fact and the people who often respond to it to challenge it do the same.

Its a vicious cycle. Myself I think stereotypes get torn down when people have a chance one on one to meet people of the entire group they are stereotyping negatively and have an opportunity to interact with them long eough to see, hey they ant so different they pee just like me.

Now I was watching one young woman today making a speech about how Muslims want rights. She was speaking collectively. Interestingly you really think anyone would have the negative reaction they have if they had no terrorism in their minds?

Let's face it, terrorism smeers all Muslims in on bad colour of death. It creates a huge pretense for stereotype.

Muslim terrorists want you and I to hate all Muslims and not distinguish good from bad. In so doing we necessarily alienate them and make hem easier to recruit.

The most effective tool against Muslim  terrorism is recruiting Muslim moderates. We have Muslim moderates in Canada/ There is no shortage of them.

So how do we get non Muslims to speak with them? That's the question maybe we should ask.

I come from Reform Judaism. We believe and believed the only way we would be able to effectively deal with anti-Semitism was not to hate or fear Christians which we had good reason to, but embrace them. See our biggest ally were and still are righteous gentiles-the ones that hid us in WW2-the ones that support Israel today and even volunteered to go to Israel and work on collective farms.

Those righteous gentiles we met, we embraced we still do, and we form alliances and coalitions with and pray together and work together. It was not that hard. The very precepts of Christianity are the teachings of Jesus who took the Talmud and put it into everyday practice. It wasn't hard to find common ground. Our only difference was that Christians refer to Jesus as THE son of God, Jews would say all humans not just Jesus are a son of or daughter of God. Its not that big a difference when you sit and talk.

Many Christians like Jews today define the word Messiah as the potential in each individual to save the world through positive behaviour and injure the world through negative behaviour and believe when doing positive things, that positive energy that is spread is the spreading of "God".

That belief is in Hinduism, or the non religious philosophies of Buddhism Taoism and its found in all religions. Interesting how its a common theme and yet everyone acts as if its not.

Now with Islam it has that belief. Its just at its stage of development. mainstream Mullahs and Imams of the Sunni and Shiite faith tend to focus on les abstract concepts than positive and negative energy being spread by our very individual and group actions, called Teekam Olem in the Talmud and the golden rule by Christians.

Its there, its just not the central focus at this time. Its because like Christianity not too long ago and Judaism in ancient days, its now dominated by a form of war mentality that judges and invokes punishment and very rigid harsh pronouncements. Oh you bet fundamental religions all do that including Judaism and Christianity not just Islam.

Its just we don't see say a Reform Jewish or Protestant Christian movement in the Islam world at this time. Its moderates have not formed major movements yet. Its starting but progressive Muslim reformists are in a stage of development where they don't exacly feel safe. They get smeered by non Muslims as terrorists and by Muslim terrorists and fundamentalists as infidel. So what do people expect?

When they speak and try to be heard will the same people saying all Muslims are bad acknowledge them?

Maybe we should mention that in these discussions.

http://www.apmo786.org/?page_id=2535

http://www.mpvusa.org/

Irshad Manji is no terrorist. She is a progressive Muslim in Canada. I challenge anyone to call her a terrorist or anti Canada or anti democracy.

Is the Mayor of Calgary a terrorist? Naheed Nenshi could conceivably end up the Premier of Alberta or Prime Minister of Canada one day.

Is it so crazy to say by supporting Irshad Manji  a Muslim woman  who questions intolerance in Islam this is far more effective than just assuming all Muslims are bad?

I challenge that in these discussions. Giving credence and attention to malcontents as if they speak for all Muslims, I think just empowers them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GostHacked]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

And the deaths of Palestiinians in the conflict with Israel are a drop in the bucket compared to what's happened in Syria, but you won't find SJWs organizing and marching and denouncing Syria and Russia, or calling for boycotts.

Most SJWs are just plain idiots. The Israel question is really irrelevant for the topic of this thread. I am all for free speech, because it makes the idiots call themselves out when they post. However there are words that socially are unacceptable like 'nigger'. So there people now feel scared to say something that is offensive.  Now if you are saying it just to be offensive, then you are a dick, but if you are trying to make a valid point with using 'nigger' in proper context .. either way say what you want.

[Hard Working Old Guy 68]

5 hours ago, 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

This BS needs to stop. IN Canada, follow Canadian laws. If you want different laws find a country that suits you.

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 hour ago, Hard Working Old Guy 68 said:

This BS needs to stop. IN Canada, follow Canadian laws. If you want different laws find a country that suits you.

This.

Edited February 8, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[GostHacked]

1 minute ago, 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.

I agree!  However we have some here who don't subscribe to that notion, they just blanket them all with the same.

All Muslims are terrorists. Anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite. ect ....

 

[The_Squid]

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

You sure about that? Our Orwellianly named Charter has section 1, which is a pretty big limit on freedom of speech. Furthermore, the courts are only as good as the judges in them, and if Trudeau slowly replaces judges with identitarian SJWs, then the court system won't protect us.

Yes, I'm sure.

Paranoid ramblings by forum members doesn't mean the end of free speech in Canada.

[The_Squid]

1 hour ago, Hard Working Old Guy 68 said:

This BS needs to stop. IN Canada, follow Canadian laws. If you want different laws find a country that suits you.

Who isn't following Canadian laws with respect to the OP?

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

 

Dialamah you want to push the topic?

 

 

???

2 hours ago, Rue said:

Seriously Why you think that is?  You had all kinds of religions to choose from. You didn't use Christianity the majority religion of Canada or the religion of PIK or Argus. Why?

 

Because there is anti-Semitism in this country and because the original poster has mentioned before that anti-Semitism is a bigger problem than Islamophobia.  

As for the rest, usually I like reading your posts but for me, this one didn't make a whole lot of sense.   I've had a very bad afternoon, so perhaps that's why.

[-1=e^ipi]

42 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Yes, I'm sure.

Paranoid ramblings by forum members doesn't mean the end of free speech in Canada.

 

Canada never had free speech to begin with. Read section 1 of the charter.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

What if the bill read:  " “a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including anti-Semitism.”  Would you start a topic called "Jews Demanding End to Free Speech"?

I would, if it tried to limit legitimate criticism, or freedom of expression regarding religion, or God.

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.

Edited February 9, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Bonam]

7 minutes 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.

Actually, there are several. Free speech is under attack all around the world, from Islamists certainly but also from the progressive / left-wing / social justice movements. And there's not really anyone out there strongly defending free speech rights any more... for the most part, those who support it assume that it's benefits are self-evident and that it's a battle that has already been fought and won. Democracy is also receding all around the world, as are many classical liberal values, which are sacrificed for the supposed sake of security, economics, or harmony between diverse groups. 

 

[-1=e^ipi]

50 minutes 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.

Yet many posters here support the LPC's desire to ban 'Islamophobia'.

Edited February 9, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Actually, there are several. Free speech is under attack all around the world, from Islamists certainly but also from the progressive / left-wing / social justice movements. And there's not really anyone out there strongly defending free speech rights any more... for the most part, those who support it assume that it's benefits are self-evident and that it's a battle that has already been fought and won. Democracy is also receding all around the world, as are many classical liberal values, which are sacrificed for the supposed sake of security, economics, or harmony between diverse groups. 

 

 

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

Yet many posters here support the LPC's desire to ban 'Islamophobia'.

Yeah, I wasn't overly optimistic about being right, there.  There was atouch of sarcasm to it.

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

By the way, anti-Islamic rhetoric and crime has been growing in Canada over the past few years, culminating in the killing of six Muslims in Quebec.  Did you hear about that?  

There's lots of other groups that are singled out and hated in Canada too. Multiculturalism is not only a failure, but can become toxic when hatred for "otherness" becomes the norm. Then you have places like Toronto.

[Peter F]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

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.

Argus didn't say that, of course. His linked article said that.   All I can say is go ahead and fear what MP Iqra Khalid might be thinking.  Perhaps it would be intelligent to actually ask Iqra Khalid what he means.  Perhaps its more fun to not ask and fire up all the fear mongering  non-SJW's.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

There's lots of other groups that are singled out and hated in Canada too. Multiculturalism is not only a failure, but can become toxic when hatred for "otherness" becomes the norm. Then you have places like Toronto.

 

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.

[Altai]

I didnt look at the link in OP but I want to say my opinion about the issue. If a Muslim person is allowed to live in a country, does not matter which one, and if allowed to aplly her/his religion, this means other citizens with different backgrounds "HAVE TO" respect it. You dont have to like Islam or Muslims but you HAVE TO respect their right to live there IN PEACE. You dont have right to disturb Muslim population just because you dont like it. This is a crime. If you want to criticize Islam, you can do that without using any words would be considered "hate speech". 


For example someones should not be allowed to say or mean "Muslims are perverts" or "Muslims are evils" or "Islam is a sht", because if they were perverts or evils or sht, they would not be allowed to live there by state. So this should be considered as a crime by state and the ones who makes such hate speeches should be sentenced but many states ignoring it and allowing its Muslim citizens to be oppressed.


There are many topics with the same content in the forum and all the same posts in them. 

[PIK]

My problem is the charter of rights that allow minorities to push thier weight around and it is going to cause us a lot of grief in the future. White english people IMO get screwed in this country now. And if that means I am a bigot then so be it. I will never be afraid to stand up in this country and say what I want to. I also have a feeling the next one to replace trudeau will be the new immigration minister. He seems to be a alright dude, but when push comes to shove.................

[Rue]

Bottom line is "extremist Muslims" is a word now used for many things:

1-all Muslims

2-some Muslims

3-Muslims who wear coverings.

It all depends on who is using the phrase and in what context they use it. The more broad and general it is applied to Muslims the more inaccurate it probably gets.

In any generalization of an entire people, negative generalizations become problematic. None of us worry when the generalizations are positive.

The point is such discussions invariably come down to people making subjective generalizations of how they perceive others.

I urge people to avoid sweeping negative generalizations as to any point they make but at the same time we need to balance that with the crucial debate as to the values we believe may not be conducive to building a common Canadian vision.

Challenge the belief, not the person or persons.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Rue

[Goddess]

8 hours ago, Altai said:

If a Muslim person is allowed to live in a country, does not matter which one, and if allowed to aplly her/his religion, this means other citizens with different backgrounds "HAVE TO" respect it.

No.  In Canada, you are free to practice whatever beliefs your religion imposes on you, within the framework of our laws.  If you want to treat your wife like crap and force her to stay home, with a blanket over her head and force your daughters to wear covers everywhere they go, that is your choice.  But NO....I do not HAVE TO respect that.

8 hours ago, Altai said:

For example someones should not be allowed to say or mean "Muslims are perverts" or "Muslims are evils" or "Islam is a sht", because if they were perverts or evils or sht, they would not be allowed to live there by state. So this should be considered as a crime by state and the ones who makes such hate speeches should be sentenced but many states ignoring it and allowing its Muslim citizens to be oppressed.

This makes me very angry.  

Because you are the one who said that all Israeli children are future murderers and criminals.  

You insult and denigrate everything Canadian.  You only want respect and free speech for yourself, not for all.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, 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.

What makes you think it won't happen here? This is the way things have gone in Europe.