Rue Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Ezra Levant speaks for himself not all Jews, not all Conservatives. He is a political editorialist. I agree with some of his comments and not others. The fact he is Jewish is irrelevant. The fact he calls himself conservative is irrelevant. The words, the contents of what he says are relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Altai said: But these people who speaks semitic origin languages are accepted as the same origin people too. Therefore this makes it a racial term. Languages are accepted as one of the most reliable indicators to identify racial roots. The main purpose to use the word "semitic" is to emphasize their racial roots. I disagree as I have tried to explain. Instead of the word "racial" we should use the term "place of origin" roots. Languages are the most reliable indicator to identify geographic roots not racial roots. Race means nothing. Its an obsolete word. Its time we throw the term race in the garbage where it belongs.It has no scientific meaning. I suppose if is used in a way to say positive things, fine but unfortunately race has always been a term used in a negative way and in a way that disrepects peoples' cultures, ethnicities, religions. Arab peoples are a collective of all genetic types. So are Jews. So are Turks for that matter. So are all of us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, betsy said: What exactly constitutes Islamophobia? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/threats-hate-islamophobia-khalid-1.3986563 Quote "'I'm not going to help them shoot you, I'm going to be there to film you on the ground crying. Yeah, I'll be there writing my story with a big fat smile on my face. Ha ha ha. The Member got shot by a Canadian patriot,'" she read, quoting from the video. And that, she said, was just tip of the iceberg. Here are some other messages she received and read in the House: "Kill her and be done with it. I agree she is here to kill us. She is sick and she needs to be deported." "We will burn down your mosques, draper head Muslim." "Why did Canadians let her in? Ship her back." "Why don't you get out of my country? You're a disgusting piece of trash and you are definitely not wanted here by the majority of actual Canadians." If someone is too ignorant to know what it means, maybe start with reading the above. (I put it big and red for you Betsy) Edited February 17, 2017 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/remove-islamophobia-from-motion-cotler/ar-AAn1vkZ Some politicians are also saying it needs to be better defined. Quote The Opposition Conservatives countered with their own motion, which makes no reference to Islamophobia. It calls on the House to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities." Quote A number of Conservatives say the word Islamophobia is ill-defined, and including it in the motion risks stifling freedom of expression by preventing criticism of specific elements of Islam or Muslim culture, such as the face-covering veil known as the niqab. Why would Khalid have a problem with the motion mentioning all types of racism/discrimination? Edited February 17, 2017 by Goddess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, Goddess said: Why would Khalid have a problem with the motion mentioning all types of racism/discrimination? The motion does mention all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination as I pointed out earlier today when I quoted the entire motion. The reason to single out Islamophobia is because it is topical today, why do so many try so hard to hide it? It is a big problem with our supposed progressive western society and needs to be addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Goddess said: Why would Khalid have a problem with the motion mentioning all types of racism/discrimination? Khalid doesn't have a problem with it; that wording was included in her motion, as has been pointed out several times in this thread. Edited February 17, 2017 by dialamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 Maybe some of you moderate conservatives could take a few moments to condemn the messages left for Khalid, calling her names and threatening her life. Because silence means you agree, right? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: The motion does mention all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. In that case it condemns 'affirmative action' and 'employment equity' which are forms of systematic racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Argus said: The purpose of the study is already stated, to find a government approach to combating Islamophobia (not further defined). What do government's usually do to combat something? They bring in new laws. Why is assuming they will seek to do that in this case a wild assumption? 3 Actually, Khalid has defined Islamaphobia during the debate on the motion, when she said the common definition of Islamophobia is "the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination," . Obviously, Kay's fear in her column that Khalid would define Islamaphobia according to the OIC's Cairo convention was wrong. Which I pointed out as a distinct possibility several days ago, but of course that was ignored because it didn't fit the agenda. Yes, it would make sense to *study* something before coming up with a law about that thing. So let's go with the assumption that they decide to propose a law that reads something like "Henceforth, Islamaphobia shall be defined as saying anything critical of Islam and punishment shall be according to Sharia law". And of course, that'll pass without any kind of objection or comment; the media won't cover it and Canadian voters won't get up in arms over it, eh? Never mind that an MP uses the word "Islamaphobia" in a motion for a study and people lose their sh*t and she gets hate mail and death threats; somehow you imagine that passing a law making criticism of Islam a crime is going to fly. I don't think new laws need passing to protect Muslims or Jews or any other religious group. But I do think it's important that the government and Canadian citizens stand up against the right-wing anti-Muslim rhetoric that results in MPs getting hate mail and death threats, or Muslims getting killed while praying. A columnist who makes incorrect assumptions and draws wild conclusions that feed people's irrational fears is part of the problem. People who take such columnists seriously and fail to use any logic or common sense are part of the problem. You want an example of Islamaphobia and how that irrational hatred of Muslims plays out? Try this news story. Quote A small group of protesters demonstrated outside of a mosque in downtown Toronto Friday afternoon calling for the banning of Islam while people prayed inside. [ ] Some of the signs posted on social media by the group that claimed responsibility showed hateful slogans such as “Say No To Islam,” “Ban Islam,” “Muslims Are Terrorists” and “Less Islam Brings Less Terror No Islam No Terror.” And if you don't think that's hateful and unacceptable, if you imagine this is some kind of 'valid criticism' of Islam, then you are part of the problem too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: Maybe some of you moderate conservatives could take a few moments to condemn the messages left for Khalid, calling her names and threatening her life. Because silence means you agree, right? Still not very convincing....Canadians calling Trump names and threatening his life are perfectly acceptable as exhibited by protesters in Canada. What's so special about Khalid ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Still not very convincing....Canadians calling Trump names and threatening his life are perfectly acceptable as exhibited by protesters in Canada. Sorry but death threat are not perfectly acceptable, regardless to who they are directed. Nobody is making the claim that they are acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, The_Squid said: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/threats-hate-islamophobia-khalid-1.3986563 If someone is too ignorant to know what it means, maybe start with reading the above. (I put it big and red for you Betsy) A lot of people receive hate mails, and death threats. There are a lot of sick people out there. Especially when you go online - you don't know who you're dealing with. One of the messages she quoted says: "Why did Canadians let her in? Ship her back." Was that written by a Canadian? Doesn't sound like it. Anyway....that's not an answer. No one defined Islamophobia in this motion. That's the point. (I put it big and red for you, so you'll know what's the issue). Edited February 18, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Sorry but death threat are not perfectly acceptable, regardless to who they are directed. Nobody is making the claim that they are acceptable. Exactly. I don't like Trump and believe he's bad for America, but I don't wish death on him. Didn't wish death on Harper, either, even though I disagreed with his policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: Sorry but death threat are not perfectly acceptable, regardless to who they are directed. Nobody is making the claim that they are acceptable. Not buying that either....such hate was tolerated and encouraged for a politician in another country, but Khalid wants special protections because of her religion ? Doesn't wash...unworkable....freedom of expression includes calling people names....nothing special about Khalid. Existing Canadian code is already on the books for threats against persons. Why does Khalid need another one ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: Exactly. I don't like Trump and believe he's bad for America, but I don't wish death on him. Didn't wish death on Harper, either, even though I disagreed with his policies. Good...this is progress...we can agree then that merely calling Khalid "names" is perfectly acceptable and protected expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Good...this is progress...we can agree then that merely calling Khalid "names" is perfectly acceptable and protected expression. You confuse acceptable with non-criminal. If you want to call her some demeaning name then I don't expect you to be thrown in jail, but it is not acceptable. You should be denounced. If you threaten her life however, then you should be locked up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) When you gain the attention of people for any reason - especially when it involves a highly charged issue - it's likely you'll gain the attention of some whackos. Salman Rushdie not only got hate mails, and death threats. He also got the fatwa For what? For writing a book! Quote The Satanic Verses controversy, also known as the Rushdie Affair, was the heated and frequently violent reaction of Muslims to the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, which was first published in the United Kingdom in 1988. Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief and in 1989 the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. The issue was said to have divided "Muslim from Westerners along the fault line of culture,"[4][5] and to have pitted a core Western value of freedom of expression—that no one "should be killed, or face a serious threat of being killed, for what they say or write"[6]—against the view of many Muslims—that no one should be free to "insult and malign Muslims" by disparaging the "honour of the Prophet" Muhammad.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy Without any clear definition for "Islamophobia" - Charlie Hebdo would've probably ended up facing Islamophobia charges for drawing those cartoons, had he been a Canadian and this motion had gone on to become law! And most likely people would have told Salman Rushdie, "serves you right, you Islamophobe!" There goes free speech. Edited February 18, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: You confuse acceptable with non-criminal. If you want to call her some demeaning name then I don't expect you to be thrown in jail, but it is not acceptable. You should be denounced. If you threaten her life however, then you should be locked up. No....you don't understand that it is unacceptable expression that must be protected the most. Calling Khalid names is accepteble...she is not special. Otherwise calling Trump names is also unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, betsy said: Charlie Hebdo would've probably ended up facing Islamophobia charges for drawing those cartoons, had he been a Canadian and this motion had gone on to become law! Stop it with the bullshyte. There is no law, nor a proposed law, about Islamophobia charges. Stop listening to Ezra Levant. Edited February 18, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Canada already has a "bullshyte" law against blasphemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 15 minutes ago, betsy said: Charlie Hebdo would've probably ended up facing Islamophobia charges for drawing those cartoons, had he been a Canadian and this motion had gone on to become law! Exactly what law are you referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Stop it with the bullshyte. There is no law, nor a proposed law, about Islamophobia charges. Stop listening to jack*sses like Ezra Levant. I didn't say it's the law right now. Read, and understand. T said: Quote .... had he been a Canadian and this motion had gone on to become law! Edited February 18, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No....you don't understand that it is unacceptable expression that must be protected the most. What do you mean protected? Should I cheer when someone calls you a name because I am protecting your freedom of expression? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Just now, The_Squid said: Exactly what law are you referring to? Read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 18, 2017 Report Share Posted February 18, 2017 Just now, betsy said: Read. Read what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.