Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, 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?  Shouldn't all religion be equal in our society?

 

...and freedom FROM religion. Very important.

[betsy]

9 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.

More likely, we'll be living in pockets - compartmentalized - having little wars of all sorts!  That is, if there's no religion/ideology that prevailed, and had become ruler to all.

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

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

To condemn a kind of violence which is in danger of spreading across the country maybe.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

If they propose a law that says any religion is exempt from criticism, we'd both object, I hope.

Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To condemn a kind of violence which is in danger of spreading across the country maybe.

...perhaps.

When one pays a witch-finder, witches are found.

[betsy]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To condemn a kind of violence which is in danger of spreading across the country maybe.

We already have that  existing law.   They're wasting taxpayers money over this!

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

When one pays a witch-finder, witches are found.

Well, let's compare the risks in front of us.  We have a political climate that is whipping up hatred and fear of Muslims, including a mass killing versus the risk of immigrants taking over and enacting Sharia law in Canada over decades.  It's kind of rich to call the former risk 'witch hunting' IMO.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

We already have that  existing law.   They're wasting taxpayers money over this!

You keep mixing up laws and motions.  I already explained to you that they are different.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You keep mixing up laws and motions.  I already explained to you that they are different.

I know they're not the same. 

You seem to not get:  if we already have the law, why do they have to introduce a motion that's already covered by an existing law?

 

WHAT FOR?  Why not talk more about the economy!  Our deficits!  Why are they wasting time, energy and taxpayers' money over this?

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, betsy said:

You seem to not get:  if we already have the law, why do they have to introduce a motion that's already covered by the law?

Because the motion will show people that attention is being paid to the special circumstances we are seeing now.  

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not really one who enjoys arguing "what if" scenarios into the ground.  Let's see if someone can produce some hard reasons to oppose a *motion* against violence.

[betsy]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Because the motion will show people that attention is being paid to the special circumstances we are seeing now.  

 

All talk....talk.....talk....

Action speaks better than words.  That's how you show people!  Start seriously implementing the hate crime laws!

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Action speaks better than words.  That's how you show people!  Start seriously implementing the hate crime laws!

Yes, that is one thing that can be better done. The other, much larger part, that you seem to totally ignore is this is not just about laws and law enforcement. Only military dictators rule with an iron fist.

[DogOnPorch]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, let's compare the risks in front of us.  We have a political climate that is whipping up hatred and fear of Muslims, including a mass killing versus the risk of immigrants taking over and enacting Sharia law in Canada over decades.  It's kind of rich to call the former risk 'witch hunting' IMO.

You mean the Muslim slaughter where there were two guys in masks shouting Allahu Ackbar according to witnesses? The RCMP arrest dudes giving First Aid to the victims all the time.

Yes...that sure changed in a hurry.

They found their witch.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

You can also submit directly to the committee, bypassing your MP.  You will have to wait until they actually table anything to do with it, but the motion was to send it to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I believe.

Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Canada

E-mail: [email protected]

Fax: 613-947-3089

Thank you.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm sorry but this is 100% incorrect.  If you look in the news, people are looking to bring in religious bans and loyalty tests targeting Muslims now.  We have politicians that are whipping up hate, and extremism without shame.

We just had Muslims slaughtered in this country, in the current political environment.  I see the need to act on real risks, not imagined ones.

That was an outlier.

Our current political climate is to acquiesce.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Yes, but with all due respect, what you think isn't going to influence events down the road.  Even in this setting, I can't get any kind of consensus on what Islamophobia is, or even if I am one. 

 

So what?   There's no consensus about anti-Semitism either; Rue is convinced some people are anti-Semitic on this board; at least some of those people are equally as convinced they are not.   Does that worry you?   Do you require someone here to define for you what "islamaphobia" is so you can make sure you don't run afoul of that definition?  

 

Quote

I have many legitimate criticisms of Islam, and I would not hold a placard that simply said "No to Islam", but I would support those who do.

 

Why wouldn't you also stand beside them to hold that placard?  

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Our current political climate is to acquiesce.

 

Prove it.

Also still waiting for you to highlight the wording in M103 that limits your free speech or that criminalizes criticism of Islam.   

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So what?   There's no consensus about anti-Semitism either; Rue is convinced some people are anti-Semitic on this board; at least some of those people are equally as convinced they are not.   Does that worry you?   Do you require someone here to define for you what "islamaphobia" is so you can make sure you don't run afoul of that definition?  

 

Why wouldn't you also stand beside them to hold that placard?  

Consensus about the meaning of a word matters if a government is going to pass a motion condemning it. 

I have absolutely no doubt I run afoul of the definition according to some.  That's not a concern, though.

The definition of freedom of speech seems to escape some people, regardless of the number of times it is explained.  I mentioned the placard I would hold, if and when I got up the will.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

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

Perhaps so they can figure out why a Canadian would go to a Mosque and shoot six people, so they could prevent that happening again.   Maybe they don't like hearing stories about women having their hijabs ripped off, or pig's heads being left at Mosques or "Muslims go home" graffiti.  Perhaps they think those sorts of things suggest an underlying problem and want to study it so they can address that problem.   Who knows?  Once they do the study, maybe they'll decide it's unwise to bring in more Muslim refugees and to cut back on immigration from Muslim countries because the good citizens of Canada are too scared to cope.   

 

 

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Consensus about the meaning of a word matters if a government is going to pass a motion condemning it. 

 

 

 

They've already done that.  In 2016.  

Quote

Canadians can't be blamed for missing the anti-Islamophobia motion that passed in parliament last week. If you Google it, you won't get a single hit in mainstream media: not in CBC, not in Postmedia, not in the Globe and Mail, nowhere.

 

And look - people can still go out on the streets and protest Muslims under the guise of "rallying for free speech".    Gosh, with all the governmental disapproval of Islamaphobia, why aren't these people in jail?   

 

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, betsy said:

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.

 

Maybe you should reread what I wrote.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

They've already done that.  In 2016.  

And look - people can still go out on the streets and protest Muslims under the guise of "rallying for free speech".    Gosh, with all the governmental disapproval of Islamaphobia, why aren't these people in jail?   

 

Then it already matters.

We've already heard how this is a motion, not a law, so that answers your question.  But that said, if the government condemns something, don't you want to know what it is?

Or is it your contention that it does not matter.  My definition can be the one they use?

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Then it already matters.

We've already heard how this is a motion, not a law, so that answers your question.  But that said, if the government condemns something, don't you want to know what it is?

Or is it your contention that it does not matter.  My definition can be the one they use?

 

 

Cripes, did you even look at the link????   The Canadian government condemned Islamaphobia in November of 2016 and no freedoms were affected!   

The government also passed a motion condemning anti-Semitism in 2015; Trudeau condemned anti-Semitism again in November of 2016.   And, even though nobody demanded a precise definition of anti-Semitism in either of these instances, it turns out that we all can still criticize the Jewish religion and Isreal if we want, we can call Jewish people names if that's our thing - as long as we do all our hating and criticism within the legal limits already in place.   A motion was passed; no laws were implemented.

My contention, at this point, is that you don't know what this motion is about and you don't understand the difference between a motion for a study and a bill that proposes legislation.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Cripes, did you even look at the link????   The Canadian government condemned Islamaphobia in November of 2016 and no freedoms were affected!   

The government also passed a motion condemning anti-Semitism in 2015; Trudeau condemned anti-Semitism again in November of 2016.   And, even though nobody demanded a precise definition of anti-Semitism in either of these instances, it turns out that we all can still criticize the Jewish religion and Isreal if we want, we can call Jewish people names if that's our thing - as long as we do all our hating and criticism within the legal limits already in place.   A motion was passed; no laws were implemented.

My contention, at this point, is that you don't know what this motion is about and you don't understand the difference between a motion for a study and a bill that proposes legislation.

 

I didn't look at the link.  That's not unusual, as I rarely do.  I just read the posts.

Given the earlier motion and the current motion then, there is nothing wrong with the protest in the OP?