Jump to content

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


Argus

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, PIK said:

Actually their are muslims against it, but they got beat up by some dumb white supremacists, lets ban them also.

Thank gawd for someone or some group out there who are fighting for Caucasian rights.  :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

The problem is if Trudeau brings in a law, a judge can sentence anyone to a jail term and/or fine.  Unless you have a lot of money to appeal and challenge it, there is not much you can do except go to jail.  Also,  there is no telling which way an appeal court will rule these days and you can't count on the Supreme Court to stand up for freedom of speech.  When there is a law forbidding any speech against Islam and their side has lawyers arguing it is "Islamophobia" and against the law,  you might have a hard time proving you have the right to freedom of speech.  Doesn't matter that much what the Charter says if the law says something different and the judges give more weight to the law because of political correctness and powerful lobbies and lawyers on Trudeau's side.

Then we might as well dump the Charter of Rights because it would show that the Charter is just a worthless piece of paper with a bunch of useless words written on it that mean nothing. Imagine someone in Canada, of all places, going to the gulag for daring to question or challenge a religion. The problem then this creates is what or who is next to go to the gulag for daring to question or criticize anything that may appear to be political incorrect? The waters are always being tested by the elite liberal establishment to see as to how far they can go. 

It is like I have said before. The liberals and liberalism itself is a danger freedom of expression to a country who will allow such a law like this to ever make it fruition. I would personally go to the gulag rather than stay quiet and not be able to criticize a bloody religion. I can pretty much bet that Christianity would never get special treatment. It would be laughed at and thrown out of court.

I have been saying this for a long time that multiculturalism is the problem, not a solution to unity. But no one here appears to have a problem with multiculturalism except me. It seems to be loved by all. Amazing. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, taxme said:

Then we might as well dump the Charter of Rights because it would show that the Charter is just a worthless piece of paper with a bunch of useless words written on it that mean nothing. Imagine someone in Canada, of all places, going to the gulag for daring to question or challenge a religion. The problem then this creates is what or who is next to go to the gulag for daring to question or criticize anything that may appear to be political incorrect? The waters are always being tested by the elite liberal establishment to see as to how far they can go. 

It is like I have said before. The liberals and liberalism itself is a danger freedom of expression to a country who will allow such a law like this to ever make it fruition. I would personally go to the gulag rather than stay quiet and not be able to criticize a bloody religion. I can pretty much bet that Christianity would never get special treatment. It would be laughed at and thrown out of court.

I have been saying this for a long time that multiculturalism is the problem, not a solution to unity. But no one here appears to have a problem with multiculturalism except me. It seems to be loved by all. Amazing. 

Many of us have a problem with it ,but if you bring it up ,you're a racist. That is how they shut down debate on this and people better pull thier heads out of the asses ,before we lose this country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PIK said:

 That is how they shut down debate on this and people better pull thier heads out of the asses ,before we lose this country.

My take is different.  I would like to discuss culture but I can't find enough posters with good arguments.  In my experience they argue from emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PIK said:

Many of us have a problem with it ,but if you bring it up ,you're a racist. That is how they shut down debate on this and people better pull thier heads out of the asses ,before we lose this country.

Good, let them call me a racist. I will wear that word with pride. It will take a lot more than just that word to stop me from speaking out as you have no doubt already noticed from many of my politically incorrect topics that I have created here. It's going to be hard to get people to pull their heads out of their asses when their heads have been up there for so long as they have been for decades. A big task ahead. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, taxme said:

Then we might as well dump the Charter of Rights because it would show that the Charter is just a worthless piece of paper with a bunch of useless words written on it that mean nothing. Imagine someone in Canada, of all places, going to the gulag for daring to question or challenge a religion. The problem then this creates is what or who is next to go to the gulag for daring to question or criticize anything that may appear to be political incorrect? The waters are always being tested by the elite liberal establishment to see as to how far they can go. 

It is like I have said before. The liberals and liberalism itself is a danger freedom of expression to a country who will allow such a law like this to ever make it fruition. I would personally go to the gulag rather than stay quiet and not be able to criticize a bloody religion. I can pretty much bet that Christianity would never get special treatment. It would be laughed at and thrown out of court.

I have been saying this for a long time that multiculturalism is the problem, not a solution to unity. But no one here appears to have a problem with multiculturalism except me. It seems to be loved by all. Amazing. 

I agree.  Don't know why someone would give you a thumbs down.  I gave you a thumbs up to cancel it out.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

My take is different.  I would like to discuss culture but I can't find enough posters with good arguments.  In my experience they argue from emotion.

The discussion of culture is inherently not a scientific discussion. That means it fundamentally relies on emotions, anecdotes, poorly thought out "studies" and surveys, and speculation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

My take is different.  I would like to discuss culture but I can't find enough posters with good arguments.  In my experience they argue from emotion.

How do you discuss culture, and by necessity cultural preferences, with logic?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Principles are logical, in that they are objective and geometric.  

No cultural principles. 

Cultural principal A: Women are equal and must be treated equally.

Cultural principal B: Women must be subservient to men, and cannot be treated equally.

How do you negotiate between these two basic cultural principles without simply choosing the one you like - which will be based on your own cultural principle. I might choose the first, but my Egyptian neighbour would definitely choose the second.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Principles are logical, in that they are objective and geometric.  

I don't see how.  Principles are a basis for beliefs and the actions that follow.  If you believe in the supremacy of a supernatural being for whose existence no evidence has ever been found, it's difficult to see how you based that on logic.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I agree.  Don't know why someone would give you a thumbs down.  I gave you a thumbs up to cancel it out.

Thank you. I guess it belongs to someone who does not believe in freedom of expression. They call them communists. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Thought I read this was coming up in Parliament today for second reading, but heard nothing about it on the news.

That is because it is a total non-issue. It's just another nothing pumped up by those with the same mentality of Trump/Bannon etc. 

 

Quote

“Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, Smears all Canadians with Islamophobia Lie to Create a Sharia State,” tweeted notorious American Islamophobe Pamela Geller, in reference to M103, a motion debated in Parliament this week.

Unfortunately, such views are not restricted to the lunatic fringe. Several Conservative leadership hopefuls have bought into the “moral panic,” only confirming the importance of the motion. Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux even spoke at a Rebel Media event, which according to organizers, was to oppose “Islamic blasphemy laws” in Canada. Speakers warned that the government planned to silence critics of Islam.

Haters have always relied on conflation, misinformation, and obfuscation of the facts to fearmonger. The less bolder ones resort to dog whistle politics. Either way, the pack hears the message.

Let’s deconstruct the rhetoric.

First, it’s not a bill. It’s a non-binding motion asking the government to study “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination.” There is no new law or changes to laws. Quebec passed a similar motion in 2015. There is still no Caliph or “Sharia” laws on the books.

Second, M103 is not giving preference to a community, but rather is tackling a pressing issue by responding to a petition on Islamophobia presented last year after hate against Muslims more than doubled in a two-year period. As noted by the Globe, “Motions like this usually receive little attention; this one has taken over Parliament.” Such opposition within weeks of the slaughter of six Muslims praying is not only insensitive, but highly irresponsible.

Third, to claim it is the lead chariot in the procession of Islamization is ludicrous. Islamophobes love the “Sharia,” because its mere mention effectively shuts down any critical thought or reasonable discussion. In fact, the moment the word is used, with all the negative associations, Islamophobes win without even having advanced a single coherent argument.

The deep-seated bias fixates people on their worst fears and lead many normally critical people to suspend reason and resort to feelings and beliefs. An innocuous and symbolic motion to assuage a community under siege becomes an Islamist Trojan Horse.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/02/20/factors-to-consider-about-sharia-law-and-m103.html

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

That is because it is a total non-issue. It's just another nothing pumped up by those with the same mentality of Trump/Bannon etc. 

 

 

A quote from a left wing newspaper columnist working for the Star.  Others would beg to differ.  If it an innocuous motion, why even bother with it?  Why don't they define what Islamophobia means? They were offered a chance to replace the word Islamophobia with a motion which explicitly refers hate crimes against all religions but refused to change it.  Does it refer to hate crimes such as vandalizing a mosque or insulting muslims on the street?  I think we already have hate crime laws to deal with that?  Or does it have a more sinister purpose, such as to restrict freedom to criticize Islam further down the road?  Everyone knows and agrees it is not a law;  No need to keep reminding us,  we are not that dumb,  but it is a referral to the Heritage Committee who will be required to come back with some recommendations.  What will they come back with?  We will have to wait and see if M103 is a benign motion as many supporters of it claim or if the government has more in mind.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

When you can't even get such simple facts correct, I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with your contention that the Trump/Bannon crowd is not that dumb.

What's Trump got to do with it?  I thought we were talking about a motion in the Canadian Parliament.   Your link does say the article you quoted is commentary from the Star.  So what fact did I get wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

There's something about being a left wing ideologue which makes you crazy whenever you hear someone you disagree with is being allowed to speak. Just because a little group gets together to protest against this motion, these rabid left wingers have to show up to scream abuse at them. It happens all the time now. You should see some of the videos of them trying to crash a pro life meeting and march in Ottawa that are on Youtube. I mean, I'm not pro life, but if they want to hold a candlelight vigil and march well, power to them. I can't imagine the mentality that says "We can't allow them to speak their opinions when we disagree! We must stop them!"

Talk about unCanadian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

 

Talk about unCanadian.

Irony is Commies, so-called Anti-fascists (who ARE fascists) and Muslims working together to destroy traditional freedom(s) in Canada.

As soon as their mission is accomplished, they can go back to attacking each other...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

"The commies are coming, no wait the Mooslims are coming, wait, I just got more news from the rebel, the commies and the Mooslims have joined forces - we is done, the apokolypse is upon us!"

 

You're free to support Islam, Communists and Fascists. I won't stop you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-03-21 at 11:11 PM, blackbird said:

A quote from a left wing newspaper columnist working for the Star.  Others would beg to differ.  If it an innocuous motion, why even bother with it?  Why don't they define what Islamophobia means? They were offered a chance to replace the word Islamophobia with a motion which explicitly refers hate crimes against all religions but refused to change it.  Does it refer to hate crimes such as vandalizing a mosque or insulting muslims on the street?  I think we already have hate crime laws to deal with that?  Or does it have a more sinister purpose, such as to restrict freedom to criticize Islam further down the road?  Everyone knows and agrees it is not a law;  No need to keep reminding us,  we are not that dumb,  but it is a referral to the Heritage Committee who will be required to come back with some recommendations.  What will they come back with?  We will have to wait and see if M103 is a benign motion as many supporters of it claim or if the government has more in mind.

It is just political posturing, nothing more. It's pointless micro-aggressions like this that widen the divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...