Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 17 minutes ago, ?Impact said: If you were going to church on Sunday with your kids, and there was a large crowd blocking the entrance with signs that said "No to Christianity" and others that talked about pedophilia, etc. and they had megaphones and were shouting insults, would you be all sunshine and lollipops? Not if they blocked the entrance. Quote
betsy Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, dialamah said: From the articles: Overall the messages of support for the mosque and condemnation of the way in which the protesters behaved outnumbered the protesters who showed up. Quote Toronto police say they have received multiple complaints about the demonstration, some from those who were present at the mosque and others from those who weren't, Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook told CBC Toronto. How many is "multiple" complaints? Those are not "most people." How many protesters were there? About 15 or 20? So they were outnumbered by those who opposed them....that still doesn't show what you're trying to say. It's not "most people" in Canada. Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy Quote
dialamah Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, betsy said: Those are not "most people." How many protesters were there? About 15 or 20? So they were outnumbered by those who opposed them....that still doesn't show what you're trying to say. It's not "most people" in Canada. Since I was initially talking about what I thought was the most effective way to combat the messages of hate the protesters were giving - that people who felt differently show up with the opposite messages - I think I don't have to prove that it's "most" people in Canada. It only needs to be exactly what it was on Saturday: more lovers, less haters at any individual event. So far, that's been the case whether it's protesters screaming "ban Islam", or painting hateful grafitti on a Mosque or shooting six Muslims. But, I do believe that most people in Canada would have disagreed wth the way in which those protesters expressed their opinion, even if they also have doubts about M-103, immigration, and Muslims. But hey, you are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. Find a cite/source/study that specifically says "the majority of Canadians (as in more than 50%) hate Muslims". Edited February 20, 2017 by dialamah 1 1 Quote
betsy Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, dialamah said: Since I was initially talking about what I thought was the most effective way to combat the messages of hate the protesters were giving - that people who felt differently show up with the opposite messages - I think I don't have to prove that it's "most" people in Canada. It only needs to be exactly what it was on Saturday: more lovers, less haters at any individual event. So far, that's been the case whether it's protesters screaming "ban Islam", or painting painting hateful grafitti on a Mosque or shooting six Muslims. But, I do believe that most people in Canada would have disagreed wth the way in which those protesters expressed their opinion, even if they also have doubts about M-103, immigration, and Muslims. But hey, you are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. Find a cite/source/study that specifically says "the majority of Canadians (as in more than 50%) hate Muslims". I don't know why these messages are called "Islamophobia," that even Tory tweeted about it. The protest was prompted by the motion. What do you expect? Some of the protesters are fighting for free speech. There's reasons to be concerned - just look at Tory! He labelled the protest "Islamophobia!" Quote 'Islam is hate' A protester carrying a sign with a list of women's names — victims of alleged honour killings — told CBC Toronto she was protesting Islam because when Muslim immigrants come to Canada "they don't want to follow the law of the country." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anti-muslim-protest-masjid-toronto-1.3988906 Is that message, Islamophobic? It's a criticism! Get real, Tory! See what slippery slope this motion is? You can't criticize! It's already starting.....and it's only a motion, not even law yet! Had it been law, they'll all be charged with Islamophobia. Why are they even being investigated for hate crimes, I don't know on what ground. For saying what exactly? Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy 1 Quote
?Impact Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, betsy said: Some of the protesters are fighting for free speech. With the most common sign being Say No to Islam, this did scream of Islamophobia and not about free speech. If they wanted to debate free speech, then show up in Ottawa or their local MPs office and complain about M-103 (which has nothing to do with free speech, but that appears to be what some think). Quote
betsy Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: With the most common sign being Say No to Islam, this did scream of Islamophobia and not about free speech. If they wanted to debate free speech, then show up in Ottawa or their local MPs office and complain about M-103 (which has nothing to do with free speech, but that appears to be what some think). You're supporting my assertion. Freedom of Speech is being chipped here. Now you're saying we cannot say, "Say No To Islam?" Say No To Islam, is not a hate speech. It may've been rooted in some kind of fear - like what we've been seeing happening all over the world, and as shown in a video by Bnai Brith - of an imam in Montreal calling for the death of Jews - but whether you like to accept it or not, Islam is unavoidably linked with Jihadists! "Say no to Islam," is a reactionary phrase! It's a protest sign, for crying out loud. We've see so many protest signs that are even more serious than that. That phrase could mean so many things. It could mean saying no to the motion! If the Liberals think that bringing out the motion is timely, riding on the back of the mosque massacre - well, it could backfire! We know that not all Muslims are terrorists - but the reality of Jihadists can't be ignored. We're all affected by terrorism, whether directly or indirectly - and it's hurting the Muslim communities. That's reality. It's the consequences of events. Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ?Impact said: With the most common sign being Say No to Islam, this did scream of Islamophobia and not about free speech. If they wanted to debate free speech, then show up in Ottawa or their local MPs office and complain about M-103 (which has nothing to do with free speech, but that appears to be what some think). 12 minutes ago, betsy said: You're supporting my assertion. Freedom of Speech is being chipped here. Now you're saying we cannot say, "Say No To Islam?" Say No To Islam, is not a hate speech. It may've been rooted in some kind of fear - like what we've been seeing happening all over the world, and as shown in a video by Bnai Brith - of an imam in Montreal calling for the death of Jews - but whether you like to accept it or not, Islam is unavoidably linked with Jihadists! We know that not all Muslims are terrorists - but the reality of Jihadists can't be ignored. We're all affected by terrorism, whether directly or indirectly - and it's hurting the Muslim communities. That's reality. Agreed, vehemently. What on earth is wrong with saying no to Islam? Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 The trouble with allowing Islamic jurisprudence dictate what should be allowed in Canada in terms of Free Speech is the concept of Fasad. Fasad is the spreading of mischief. In Dar-al-Harb...like Canada...it is technically an act of war against Muslims. In Dar-al-Islam, it is an offense punishable by death in some cases. What's mischief in Islam? Anything that goes against Islam in any way. Disbelief in Islam, for example, is fasad. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Agreed, vehemently. What on earth is wrong with saying no to Islam? See above. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
?Impact Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, betsy said: Now you're saying we cannot say, "Say No To Islam?" Where did I say that? In fact I stated earlier today that I don't consider that hate speech. What I said is if you are protesting M-103, then go to the appropriate place and give the appropriate message. Quote
betsy Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Where did I say that? In fact I stated earlier today that I don't consider that hate speech. What I said is if you are protesting M-103, then go to the appropriate place and give the appropriate message. Here's what you said above: Quote With the most common sign being Say No to Islam, this did scream of Islamophobia and not about free speech. Even if all signs say "Say No To Islam"....it's still free speech. Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ?Impact said: With the most common sign being Say No to Islam, this did scream of Islamophobia and not about free speech. If they wanted to debate free speech, then show up in Ottawa or their local MPs office and complain about M-103 (which has nothing to do with free speech, but that appears to be what some think). 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Where did I say that? In fact I stated earlier today that I don't consider that hate speech. What I said is if you are protesting M-103, then go to the appropriate place and give the appropriate message. You did ask the question in the first quote there. That seemed to give the impression you thought saying no to Islam went beyond freedom of speech. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be required to go anywhere they don't want to to exercise, or debate, freedom of speech. A placard, a sharpie, and the nearest street corner will do. Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
drummindiver Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: That's beside the point. Here's the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada#The_Criminal_Code_of_Canada "Say No to Islam" is not calling for genocide. Quote
dialamah Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, bcsapper said: There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be required to go anywhere they don't want to to exercise, or debate, freedom of speech. Sure but when one picks the wrong place and the wrong people and the wrong message then they aren't protesting "free speech" are they? If the protesters were concerned about free speech, why didn't they go to the legislature or their MP and sport signs saying "No to M-103" or "We hate speech limitations" or "Save our free speech". If their intent was to raise awareness of what they consider the risks of M-103, they failed miserably and any half-baked idiot ought to have been able to figure that out before they arrived at the Mosque to 'protest for free speech'. Claiming to be rallying for free speech by harassing and screaming at Muslims who are praying looks a lot like hate and fear of Muslims. Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, dialamah said: Sure but when one picks the wrong place and the wrong people and the wrong message then they aren't protesting "free speech" are they? If the protesters were concerned about free speech, why didn't they go to the legislature or their MP and sport signs saying "No to M-103" or "We hate speech limitations" or "Save our free speech". If their intent was to raise awareness of what they consider the risks of M-103, they failed miserably and any half-baked idiot ought to have been able to figure that out before they arrived at the Mosque to 'protest for free speech'. Claiming to be rallying for free speech by harassing and screaming at Muslims who are praying looks a lot like hate and fear of Muslims. How can you say "sure", which implies agreement, and then disagree? To reiterate, There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be required to go anywhere they don't want to to exercise, or debate, freedom of speech. One can do that from anywhere, at anytime, using any method. So long as it is legal, of course. Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 2 minutes ago, dialamah said: Claiming to be rallying for free speech by harassing and screaming at Muslims who are praying looks a lot like hate and fear of Muslims. It's fasad. In a society under Sharia, these people would all be punished for their insolence. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
drummindiver Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: If you were going to church on Sunday with your kids, and there was a large crowd blocking the entrance with signs that said "No to Christianity" and others that talked about pedophilia, etc. and they had megaphones and were shouting insults, would you be all sunshine and lollipops? Again we don't have an investigation so we don't know the specifics. The police won't investigate until your Minister launches a formal complaint, most likely costing your church thousands in legal expenses. And is this what happened? I highly doubt it. If it had happened this way we would be inundated with video and Iqra Khalid would be screaming even louder I told you so. Her hyperbole is so over the top...'"over a million muslims victimize'd daily'.....we only have a million muslims in Canada... 1 Quote
dialamah Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Posted February 20, 2017 31 minutes ago, betsy said: I don't know why these messages are called "Islamophobia," that even Tory tweeted about it. What? He's not allowed to express himself because he used the word "islamaphobia"? If people can carry signs that say "No to Islam", "Ban Islam", "Muslims are terrorists", then why can't someone say "Those people are Islamaphobic"? Does the right to name-call people you disagree with only apply to the right? Quote
dialamah Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, drummindiver said: And is this what happened? I highly doubt it. Witnesses said that's what they saw - Muslims trying to get into the Mosque and being blocked by the protesters. Quote
?Impact Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 15 minutes ago, bcsapper said: You did ask the question in the first quote there. That seemed to give the impression you thought saying no to Islam went beyond freedom of speech. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be required to go anywhere they don't want to to exercise, or debate, freedom of speech. A placard, a sharpie, and the nearest street corner will do. I'm not sure I follow, but sorry for the confusion. Let me try to be clear. 1. I have no problem with people saying No to Islam, they are exercising their right to free speech but it does qualify as Islamophobia 2. If you want to protest against bill M-103, then your placard should be about M-103 and not about Islam 3. Yes, you can protest anywhere in public 4. If you are carrying a sign that says No to Islam in front of a mosque, than any reasonable person would understand that you are an Islamophobe and not a free speech advocate. These protestors went out of their way to be at the mosque and not at their MPs office, the Liberal party office, the office of the MP in Mississauga that introduced the legislation, Ottawa, or any other place that signified they were about free speech and M-103 Quote
drummindiver Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, dialamah said: Witnesses said that's what they saw - Muslims trying to get into the Mosque and being blocked by the protesters. And I say bullsh$t. If that happened we'd have seen the video. 1 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 A small group it would seem. And frankly, protests are not how this battle will be fought. Everybody hates protesters except other protesters. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 1 minute ago, drummindiver said: And I say bullsh$t. If that happened we'd have seen the video. Yes...just a noisy bunch. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted February 20, 2017 Author Report Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, drummindiver said: And I say bullsh$t. If that happened we'd have seen the video. And I'm sure you'd have then claimed it was doctored or fake or something. So be it. Quote
Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 Just now, ?Impact said: I'm not sure I follow, but sorry for the confusion. Let me try to be clear. 1. I have no problem with people saying No to Islam, they are exercising their right to free speech but it does qualify as Islamophobia Islamophobia is a term open to interpretation, and not against the law. I hope, anyway. 2. If you want to protest against bill M-103, then your placard should be about M-103 and not about Islam No it shouldn't. Yours would be, no doubt, but it's not a requirement. 3. Yes, you can protest anywhere in public Agreed 4. If you are carrying a sign that says No to Islam in front of a mosque, than any reasonable person would understand that you are an Islamophobe and not a free speech advocate. These protestors went out of their way to be at the mosque and not at their MPs office, the Liberal party office, the office of the MP in Mississauga that introduced the legislation, Ottawa, or any other place that signified they were about free speech and M-103 One can be both an Islamophobe and a free speech advocate. How would they be mutually exclusive? Like I said, Islamophobia is open to interpretation. Quote
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.