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

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

I didn't say it's the law right now.  Read, and understand.  T said:

The motion is to study a problem, how does that go on to become law? You are making wild accessions based on the rantings of Ezra Levant and his cabal.

[betsy]

Just now, The_Squid said:

Read what? 

 

You'll just have to do your homework and review what I'd posted.

 Bye for now until you've got something worth responding to.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What do you mean protected? Should I cheer when someone calls you a name because I am protecting your freedom of expression? 

 

No...you are protecting their freedom of expression.   Only when the most disagreeable expression is protected does the right have any meaning.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[The_Squid]

Just now, betsy said:

 

You'll just have to do your homework and review what I'd posted.

 Bye for now until you've got something worth responding to.

You're completely confused.   There is no law.

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada already has a "bullshyte" law against blasphemy. 

Isn't it better that Canada has a single criminal code, unlike the US which changes from state to state? I suggest you visit Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or Wyoming.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

The motion is to study a problem, how does that go on to become law? You are making wild accessions based on the rantings of Ezra Levant and his cabal.

It's a foot in the door.  It could happen.  They're not going to waste time and taxpayers money doing these studies and motion for nothing!

Canadians ought to be vigilant about these things.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Isn't it better that Canada has a single criminal code, unlike the US which changes from state to state? I suggest you visit Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or Wyoming.

 

Off topic....the point is that Canada already has a silly ass blasphemy law.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No...you are protecting their freedom of expression.   Only when the most disagreeable expression is protected does the right have any meaning.

I have to agree with something someone says to protect their freedom of expression? That is ludicrous. 

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

It's a foot in the door.  It could happen.  They're not going to waste time and taxpayers money doing these studies and motion for nothing!

Canadians ought to be vigilant about these things.

Then participate in the standing committee, listen in on parlvu or read the minutes and submit your comments. You are going down the same wrong trail as Argus, thinking that the only thing government does is create laws.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I have to agree with something someone says to protect their freedom of expression? That is ludicrous. 

 

If you don't agree and defend their freedom of expression, then you do not agree with the right at all. 

This is basic stuff.... Evelyn Beatrice Hall...Voltaire...etc.

I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

Edited February 18, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

If you don't agree and defend their freedom of expression, then you do not agree with the right at all. 

Where did I say I don't defend freedom of expression? They can say whatever they want, and I will denounce them for saying it if I disagree with it.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Where did I say I don't defend freedom of expression? They can say whatever they want, and I will denounce them for saying it if I disagree with it.

 

Good...then there will be no more silly talk about laws against name calling.   All is well....nothing special about Islam or Muslims.

Edited February 18, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Good...then there will be no more silly talk about laws against name calling.   All is well....

You had better talk to the ones who are making that silly talk, like Ezra Levant.

[Altai]

Now I will drop a stone in the well and None will be able to take it back out of the well. 

My question is;

Why being against Semitic people is called "anti" while being against Islam is called "phobia" ?

 Round 1, fight !!!

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Altai said:

Now I will drop a stone in the well and None will be able to take it back out of the well. 

My question is;

Why being against Semitic people is called "anti" while being against Islam is called "phobia" ?

 Round 1, fight !!!

 

It's a good question.  Make a new topic of it.....

[Omni]

16 hours ago, betsy said:

What exactly constitutes Islamophobia?

Quite simple: fear and hatred of Muslims.

[betsy]

33 minutes ago, Omni said:

Quite simple: fear and hatred of Muslims.

 

That's my point.  The definition that's in the mind of people, is too broad.

 

Define "fear" and "hatred."  What is this so-called "fear" and "hatred" that would be considered Islamophobia?

 

If I criticize Islam in any way - would that be hatred? 

If I point to the Quran's verses that I say motivate jihadists - would that be considered "fear" and "hatred?" 

If I say Islam is a big problem in today's world - is that "hatred?"

If we identify an Islamist terrorist as an Islamist - is that "fear" and "hatred?"

 

If I say Islamist terrorists are Muslims - is that a statement of  "hatred" for Muslims?

Edited February 18, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

That's my point.  The definition that's in the mind of people, is too broad.

 

Define "fear" and "hatred."  What is this so-called "fear" and "hatred" that would be considered Islamophobia?

Broad it is, it ranges from anti Islamic word painted on the outside of mosques to six people shot dead inside a mosque.

[betsy]

15 minutes ago, Omni said:

Broad it is, it ranges from anti Islamic word painted on the outside of mosques to six people shot dead inside a mosque.

 

There have been racist  graffitti written against other groups! 

 

Answer the questions!

Define "fear" and "hatred."  What is this so-called "fear" and "hatred" that would be considered Islamophobia?

If I criticize Islam in any way - would that be hatred? 

If I point to the Quran's verses that I say motivate jihadists - would that be considered "fear" and "hatred?" 

If I say Islam is a big problem in today's world - is that "hatred?"

If we identify an Islamist terrorist as an Islamist - is that "fear" and "hatred?"

 

If I say Islamist terrorists are Muslims - is that a statement of  "hatred" for Muslims?

Edited February 18, 2017 by betsy

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, Altai said:

Why being against Semitic people is called "anti" while being against Islam is called "phobia" ?

You are right, there is no consistency in language. That however does not make one right and the other wrong. As betsy suggested, make a new topic and we can discuss what is the best term to use and how to best define it. The most important factor not to forget is how to introduce it into the lexicon and get it broadly accepted. For now however Islamophobia is the generally understood word to mean the expression of hatred toward Muslims.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

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," .

And what is the 'rational' fear of Muslims which would be allowed? What is the rational concern about Islam we would be permitted to discuss from a critical point of view? The so-called definition you post above is no definition at all since what is or is not 'rational' is entirely subjective. I would wager that people on this web site would probably state everything I've ever posted is irrational hate of Muslims, and thus should be illegal.

 

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

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.

Was someone supposed to pay attention to your strawman? Sorry, it was ignored as it deserved to be. There are laws in place in Europe which forbid most any critical discussion of Islam or the behaviour of Muslims and none of them mention the Cairo convention or Sharia law either.

In any event, it is clear that the Liberal party is already beginning to put in place the justification for a law which bars unflattering discussion of Islam by blaming such discussion for the attack on the Quebec city mosque.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-mp-says-quebec-mosque-shooting-was-direct-result-of-tory-pq-policies

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If I criticize Islam in any way - would that be hatred? 

Nope.  I criticize Islam because of its patriarchal basis and the way in which it allows for the subjugation of women and minority groups such as gays, among other things.   I criticize Christianity for the same things.

 

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If I point to the Quran's verses that I say motivate jihadists - would that be considered "fear" and "hatred?"

 

I would only consider that fear and hatred if you also denied, ignored or dismissed the Quran's verses that motivated peace and tolerance, and/or you declared that the billions of Muslims who followed those peaceful teachings were less important and noteworthy than those who followed the jihadist teachings.   

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If I say Islam is a big problem in today's world - is that "hatred?"

I would say yes because the problem in the world today is terrorism, not Islam.   Prior to Islamic terrorism, Islam itself was not a problem, even if we in the West decried the way in which some Muslim-majority countries treat their citizens.   It's a statement that generalizes all Muslims as a 'problem', regardless of their personal beliefs and behavior.    

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If we identify an Islamist terrorist as an Islamist - is that "fear" and "hatred?"

Not as a statement of fact, nope.   As support for "proving" that Islam is a problem or that Muslims are yearning to take over the world or are inherently violent, yes.  

 

1 hour ago, betsy said:

If I say Islamist terrorists are Muslims - is that a statement of  "hatred" for Muslims?

It's a statement with which many law-abiding and peaceful Muslims would disagree, but otherwise nope - unless it was used as support for painting all Muslims as incipient terrorists and should be subject to 'special' treatment based on that.

If a person says all of the above, and then says "So Muslims should not be allowed into our country" or "Muslims should have to register so we know who they are" or "We need extreme vetting to protect ourselves" - that's Islamaphobia.   Tearing off someone's hijab, or verbally assaulting someone on the street and calling them dirty, nasty, ignorant, savage, sand-monkey, terrorist etc. because someone thinks they are Muslim is Islamaphobia.   Calling Muslims dirty, nasty, ignorant, savage and barbaric etc. online is Islamaphobic.   Defacing Mosques with graffiti is Islamaphobia - and criminal.    Killing Muslims at prayer is Islamophobia - and criminal.    

 

To be clear, those are my personal opinion of what constitutes "Islamaphobia"; not trying to speak for anyone else.

Edited February 18, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

There are laws in place in Europe which forbid most any critical discussion of Islam or the behaviour of Muslims and none of them mention the Cairo convention or Sharia law either.

 

Cite.

 

[Argus]

Would the progressives who are so adamant that this motion is righteous, and only islamaphobes oppose it care to suggest why Muslims like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah known for being highly critical of Muslim extremism also oppose it?

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

Would the progressives who are so adamant that this motion is righteous, and only islamaphobes oppose it care to suggest why Muslims like Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah known for being highly critical of Muslim extremism also oppose it?

 

 

I did try to find out what they said, exactly, so I could explain it to you but Raheel's statements only seemed to be available on TheRebel and I would have to sign up for it - so I passed.  

Tarek Fatah was a little easier to find, although I didn't find her comments persuasive.   She seemed to also assume, without evidence, that this motion would criminalize criticism of Islam and was unfair to other religions.   I fail to see that because as noted before, the motion does specifically include *all religions*.   

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by dialamah