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

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, taxme said:

 We are talking about an attack against freedom of speech being motioned here. 

No such thing.  These are lies that people are spreading to bring attention to an online publication.  I used to respect a certain type of conservative as being principled and taking the high road.  The types of conservatives who believe and spread these lies make me despondent for Canada.  They should be ashamed.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-call-it-islamophobia-or-anti-muslim-bigotry-mps-should-unanimously-condemn-it/article34055838/

The Globe puts a fine point on it:

Quote

There should be unanimous support for a motion condemning anti-Muslim prejudice. To smooth its passage, we agree with Mr. Cotler’s suggestion. So should the Liberals. If the Conservatives can’t enthusiastically back a clear statement, in plain English, opposing any and all discrimination against Muslim Canadians, then their party – and Canada – has much bigger things to worry about.

Those who are making political hay of this shouldn't be trusted.  There are issues of culture and race to be discussed, but this motion shouldn't be a discussion point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh boy...more targeted hate speech laws that undermine Charter Rights for political expediency....must be Canada....again.

Where are the laws protecting Christians, Jews, First Nations spirituality, pagans, etc ?

[betsy]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No such thing.  These are lies that people are spreading to bring attention to an online publication.  I used to respect a certain type of conservative as being principled and taking the high road.  The types of conservatives who believe and spread these lies make me despondent for Canada.  They should be ashamed.

 

Baloney.  That's the lies that progressives spread about conservatives who dare question this motion. 

So, an MP read hate mails to show Islamophobia.  How do we know they weren't fabricated hate-mails?

 

Furthermore, why is it a specific protection for Islam.  Why not create protection for all religion, if they're really set on doing something like this?

 

 

[cannuck]

ANYTHING that codifies or even recognizes religious nonsense has no business in Parliament.

Religion has proved to be a disaster for anyone or any place that let's it dictate their laws, life or customs, so let's just do what good government should do and separate church completely from state.  Who gives a flying purple frick what the hell someone says about another's "religion" - whatever the hell (word chosen carefully) that is supposed to be.

Look: we have 7 billion people living on a nice, little one billion room planet.   If the religious fruitcakes want to call each other names and kill each other, it is simply Darwin's observation of the weak cleaning out the mentally deficient if we are to have any chance of surviving as a species.

Edited February 17, 2017 by cannuck

[betsy]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Those who are making political hay of this shouldn't be trusted. 

 

Yeah.  Like that MP who put out this ridiculous motion.  And all pundits who lap it up.

 

Islamophobia indeed.  Before you know it, you're under blasphemy law! 

 

Quote

 

Blasphemy law is a law limiting the freedom of speech and expression relating to blasphemy, or irreverence toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, or beliefs.

In addition to prohibitions against blasphemy or blasphemous libel, blasphemy laws include laws which give redress to those who feel insulted on account of their religion. These laws, which may forbid the vilification of religion, “religious insult”, defamation of religion, denigration of religion, offending religious feelings, contempt of religion, or use other similar language, are blasphemy laws.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

 

There is no clear definition for this so-called Islamophobia!  Simply pointing to the Quran to show the teachings that motivate jihadist could  easily be deemed as, "Islamophobia."

Edited February 17, 2017 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, betsy said:

....There is no clear definition for this so-called Islamophobia!  Simply pointing to the Quran to show the teachings that motivate jihadist could  easily be deemed as, "Islamophobia."

 

Right, and Canada already has blasphemous libel laws on the books....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel#Canada

[Guest]

I believe this motion will not change the laws in any way. 

If they want to be heard to say that pulling someone's hijab off on the bus is wrong, then let them.  I already knew it was wrong.

Critism of any religion will remain my right.

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

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. 

Ezra Levant doesn't know the difference between a bill to pass a law and a motion for a study either?

I don't even watch newscasts anymore.  The first I heard of this was the OP, so I checked it out and found the usual fear-mongering.   

 

[DogOnPorch]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Ezra Levant doesn't know the difference between a bill to pass a law and a motion for a study either?

I don't even watch newscasts anymore.  The first I heard of this was the OP, so I checked it out and found the usual fear-mongering.   

 

So you're for the motion...and the study...and the possible (or probable) law that follows?

What is Islamophobia?

[bush_cheney2004]

53 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

...Critism of any religion will remain my right.

 

This.   It is fundamental, politics be damned.

[betsy]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I believe this motion will not change the laws in any way. 

If they want to be heard to say that pulling someone's hijab off on the bus is wrong, then let them.  I already knew it was wrong.

Critism of any religion will remain my right.

You don't give an inch.  It'll be the beginning, believe me.

 

 

 

Quote

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

...Critism of any religion will remain my right.

 

 

You make it easy for them to take away that right if you give an inch.

 

  ESPECIALLY when they didn't give a clear definition of Islamophobia.  You don't know what could fall under its meaning.  Any criticism of it could also be it!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

55 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Ezra Levant doesn't know the difference between a bill to pass a law and a motion for a study either?

I don't even watch newscasts anymore.  The first I heard of this was the OP, so I checked it out and found the usual fear-mongering.   

 

 

Why do they waste time introducing a bill to be studied?

Because.....it's a foot in the door!

 

We Canadians have to be vigilant in protecting our rights! 

Edited February 17, 2017 by betsy

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.  

 

My 'hyperbolic' title is based on the Post article. I dare you to suggest otherwise.

Now, could I have selected a more mundane title like 'Parliamentary motion may presage laws against free speech about Islam'? Sure, but I don't think that would have changed the attitude of those who traditionally battle over issues like this, or how they behave in the discussion, and I think we both know which title is more likely to get people to look inside. I don't believe anything I've written on this topic has been less than 'sober'.

Also, I thought discussing issues like this was considered thread drift. Even replying to a moderator in a topic who say something about a topic has gotten people suspended in prior times.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I believe this motion will not change the laws in any way. 

If they want to be heard to say that pulling someone's hijab off on the bus is wrong, then let them.  I already knew it was wrong.

Critism of any religion will remain my right.

Until the study is in and it suggest the best way to defend against "Islamophobia" is to impose laws which criminalize comments which are insulting or offensive to Muslims...

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-call-it-islamophobia-or-anti-muslim-bigotry-mps-should-unanimously-condemn-it/article34055838/

The Globe puts a fine point on it:

Those who are making political hay of this shouldn't be trusted.  There are issues of culture and race to be discussed, but this motion shouldn't be a discussion point.

You know who can't be trusted on issues of culture and race? The incestuously close political/academic/media elites and their determination to impose the same groupthink they all espouse on the rest of the country.

Witness that virtually every national columnist and newspaper has issued repeated condemnations of Kellie Lietch for daring to suggest we interview potential immigrants on whether their values are compatible with ours. Even though 70% of Canadians told a Torstar poll they were in favour. Hell, 80% of Conservative supporters who were polled liked it but that hasn't stopped nearly every Tory candidate from denouncing her, too.

It just shows what a vast gulf there is between the elites and ordinary Canadians.

[?Impact]

"The Ottawa Protocol complements what Canada is already doing to combat hatred and discrimination, including anti-Semitism. We are a member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research. Here at home, we have launched programs to promote integration and social cohesion of Canadians from all backgrounds." - Jason Kenney

"Signing the Ottawa Protocol signals our continued commitment to leading a coordinated global effort to fight anti-Semitism. Just as Canada is moving ahead to develop and build a National Holocaust Monument in the National Capital Region, we also plan to take our commitment to parliamentarians around the world and suggest that they join us in signing the Protocol." - John Baird

I don't remember all the vile hatred, stirred up by the likes of hater in chief Ezra Levant, back in 2010 about the Ottawa Protocol. Did Kenney and Baird receive tens of thousands of pieces of hate mail, including death threats, like Iqra Khalid has received recently?

[dialamah]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

My 'hyperbolic' title is based on the Post article. I dare you to suggest otherwise.

Yes, the author of that article was equally hyperbolic.  She made ridiculous assumptions, misstated the purpose and scope of the study and came to wild conclusions.  Some Conservatives have followed along because what she said reinforced their already bigoted fear.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, the author of that article was equally hyperbolic.  She made ridiculous assumptions, misstated the purpose and scope of the study and came to wild conclusions.  Some Conservatives have followed along because what she said reinforced their already bigoted fear.

 

Is Barbara Kay an Islamophobe?

[-1=e^ipi]

This whole motion is a slap in the face to Stephane Charbonnier and the other liberal atheists of Charlie Hebdo who were murdered in Paris.

 

2 days before Charbonnier was murdered he finished 'Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the True Enemies of Free Expression'.

[Omni]

22 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes, the author of that article was equally hyperbolic.  She made ridiculous assumptions, misstated the purpose and scope of the study and came to wild conclusions.  Some Conservatives have followed along because what she said reinforced their already bigoted fear.

Yes and the model you point to seems quite well supported here.

[DogOnPorch]

 

Well, is Barbra Kay an Islamophobe or not?

[?Impact]

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

This whole motion is a slap in the face to Stephane Charbonnier and the other liberal atheists of Charlie Hebdo who were murdered in Paris.

What specifically in this motion are you referring to? Not your perceived ideas, or total crap spread by the likes of Ezra Levant, but what exactly in the motion do you have a problem with? For those of you who haven't even bothered to read the motion, only listen to the hate mongers here it is:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Edited February 17, 2017 by ?Impact

[DogOnPorch]

Quote

...including Islamophobia...

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

And since nobody is willing to call Barbara Kay an Islamophobe or even define what it means these days (lol)...this makes such a term that much more...let's say confusing.

What's the end game, here? Why is Islamophobia singled-out in M103??