Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[betsy]

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Exactly!  He said they were Islamophobic, not that they couldn't do or say whatever the heck they wanted within the confines of the law.   Why do you suppose calling them Islampahobic meant they weren't allowed to do or say what they did?  

So you agree....with Islamophobia, we wouldn't be allowed to criticize.

  Criticisms would fall under Islamophobia. Those who'll criticize will be called Islamophobes.  Thanks for that. That's my point.

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

It will work.

I don't see how.  The worst fears that people have would require constitutional change, and infusion of agents into the highest levels of Canadian society.  If the nightmare scenario of the xenophobe's worst paranoid dreams were true, then Europe's laws and society would change decades before ours.  

I have more in common with an immigrant that I work with than many other people in the ROC.  No, I'm not afraid.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course, and what of it ?  You have to convince people if you want to make change.  Fear might do it, but you will also divide people as we've seen.

The point in discussion is the convincing.  Whereas I would not hold a placard that said "No to Islam", being much more comfortable with a placard which said "No to much of Islam", there are those in this thread that see such as Islamophobic, and the motion seeks to condemn Islamophobia.  So what does that mean?  Those placards are okay now, but wait for it?

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

So....with Islamophobia, we aren't allowed to criticize.  Criticisms would fall under Islamophobia. 

Thanks for that. 

 

The Quran says that Infidels are not only not allowed to question Allah, they are forbidden to cause mischief with Muslims.

Part of the Fasad concept I posted about...which is no doubt viewed as causing mischief as I am a Kufar.

They got this thing down...lol.

Edited February 20, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't see how.  The worst fears that people have would require constitutional change, and infusion of agents into the highest levels of Canadian society.  If the nightmare scenario of the xenophobe's worst paranoid dreams were true, then Europe's laws and society would change decades before ours.  

I have more in common with an immigrant that I work with than many other people in the ROC.  No, I'm not afraid.

 

Xenophon had good reason to fear the Persians.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't see how.  The worst fears that people have would require constitutional change, and infusion of agents into the highest levels of Canadian society.  If the nightmare scenario of the xenophobe's worst paranoid dreams were true, then Europe's laws and society would change decades before ours.  

I have more in common with an immigrant that I work with than many other people in the ROC.  No, I'm not afraid.

I think European society has changed, and has been doing so for decades.

I'm not afraid either.  The word is used to make light of concerns, which in this case involve a potential limit on freedom of speech.  If I remember the OP topic correctly.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

... there are those in this thread that see such as Islamophobic, and the motion seeks to condemn Islamophobia.  So what does that mean?  Those placards are okay now, but wait for it?

Regardless, we will not have anybody propose a law that allows criticism of any religion except Islam.  If that happens, believe me I will join the uproar.

[Michael Hardner]

 

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think European society has changed, and has been doing so for decades.

Is that what we're concerned about ?  Or is about restriction of freedom of speech ?  

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Regardless, we will not have anybody propose a law that allows criticism of any religion except Islam.  If that happens, believe me I will join the uproar.

When that happens, chances are.....it's already done!

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Is that what we're concerned about ?  Or is about restriction of freedom of speech ?  

No, that was just a response to your comment. No thread drifter I...

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Is that what we're concerned about ?  Or is about restriction of freedom of speech ?  

 

Tell me Michael, Why do we need a new motion when we already have laws in Canada that addresses hate crimes and hate speech?

 

Check my post for specifics:

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

When that happens, chances are.....it's already done!

When the law is proposed it's already done ?  That's not how it works

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, betsy said:

 

Tell me Michael, Why do we need a new motion when we already have laws in Canada that addresses hate crimes and hate speech?

You answer the question yourself: motion vs laws.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Tell me Michael, Why do we need a new motion when we already have laws in Canada that addresses hate crimes and hate speech?

The motion is not to create a law.

[DogOnPorch]

What does Canada look like in one hundred years? Don't care 'cause we're dead? Our children live in the country we build today.

The planet doesn't need yet another Sharia compliant state.

Which is the end game here in Canada.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

What does Canada look like in one hundred years? 

Multicultural, prosperous, inclusive.  Religions of all kinds will be much on the wane in Canada in 100 years also.  We will get there by following the same principles which have served the west for decades and centuries and not falling into the trap of xenophobia.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

The planet doesn't need yet another Sharia compliant state.

Which is the end game here in Canada.

So what is your end game. Are you saying No to Islam at a mosque, or are you saying No to Islam at immigration? What about Muslims already in the country, should they be deported? Should they be sterilized? 

[betsy]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

When the law is proposed it's already done ?  That's not how it works

It's done, as in a majority situation.   They'll find the right time to get it passed.  If we happen to have a majority Liberal government - it'll surely pass (with the NDP on board of course).  And if we happen to have a weak Minority Conservative - Libs and NDP will get it passed.

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

So what is your end game. Are you saying No to Islam at a mosque, or are you saying No to Islam at immigration? What about Muslims already in the country, should they be deported? Should they be sterilized? 

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's done, as in a majority situation.  They'll find the right time to get it passed.

The very fact it EXISTS is proof of its intent...as you mention.

[betsy]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You answer the question yourself: motion vs laws.

Why do we need to have this motion?  What for?

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Multicultural, prosperous, inclusive.  Religions of all kinds will be much on the wane in Canada in 100 years also.  We will get there by following the same principles which have served the west for decades and centuries and not falling into the trap of xenophobia.

What's the closest Reserve to you? Don't answer...lol.

Reserve...cool word.

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So what is your end game. Are you saying No to Islam at a mosque, or are you saying No to Islam at immigration? What about Muslims already in the country, should they be deported? Should they be sterilized? 

 

No to Islam - as in, No to that motion! 

We already have an existing law that covers all - why a special privilege for a particular religion?  Shouldn't all religion be equal in our society?

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's done, as in a majority situation.   

As I said - if they propose a law that says one religion isn't allowed to be criticized while others can, I will object to that.  As would the courts of course.

[?Impact]

Just now, betsy said:

No to Islam - as in, No to that motion!  We already have an existing law that covers all - why a special privilege for a particular religion?

Again, the motion is not a law nor a motion to create a law.