Free Speech or Hate Speech?

[betsy]

2 hours 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.

 

We have the right to express our opinion! 

The protesters were outside - not inside!  They have the right.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

We have the right to express our opinion! 

The protesters were outside - not inside!  They have the right.

Apparently blocking entrances is okay if you're at a Milo protest...etc.

[betsy]

54 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Shrugs.  Those people have every right to irrationally fear Islam and Muslims.  Heck, they can even imagine that a study about religious discrimination is going to end free speech and put us under Sharia law.  They can believe that, and I can mock them for it.   Free speech, yah?

 

 

Who's saying you can't mock them for it?   

 

We just want to keep having the same right that you do -

that when we mock Jihadists and the religion they believe in, that we won't get slammed for Islamophobia and get penalized for it!

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Apparently blocking entrances is okay if you're at a Milo protest...etc.

........also  blocking entrances to schools preventing  Betsy Devos from entering.

[?Impact]

12 minutes ago, betsy said:

John Tory labels the protesters Islamophobes! 

The reaction of a leader like Tory shows us where this motion is heading!  Wake up, folks!

Many of the protestors did appear like Islamophobes. What does that have to do with where the motion is heading? The motion is a call to wake up.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Many of the protestors did appear like Islamophobes. What does that have to do with where the motion is heading? The motion is a call to wake up.

 

Give the definition of Islamophobia!

If we follow Tory, his definition includes anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims. 

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

So people carrying signs saying "No to Islam" is not Islamophobic, because it is most certainly not irrational. 

Your point seems to be that they single out a religion instead of applying their dislike to all equally.  Given that, if there were a protest with signs saying no to Buddhism somewhere else at the same time, how would that change things?

You see what I mean about the problem with the word Islamophobia? 

Also given that, no catholics were involved in the terrorism on 9/11. The muslim terrorists proclaim their acts are done in the name of their god.

To be very concise, culture is the problem. Not a religion, not a country necessarily, and not the colour of someone's skin. If enlightened muslims worhip their god by minding their own business, the problem would be solved. But a cabal of fundamentalists have gotten hold of the media to spread their hateful message, conveyed through the vehicle of Islam and their most cynical, barbaric interpretation. Once we identify a problem in some particular culture, it's all to easy to lump in anyone who looks like that as part of it. Most people don't have time or inclination to investigate the subtleties of ISIS or Al Qaeda. They just say "Look, there's a Muslim. Get em!"

[?Impact]

Just now, betsy said:

Give the definition of Islamophobia! 

Scroll back about an hour, you will find that discussion.

[betsy]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Also given that, no catholics were involved in the terrorism on 9/11. The muslim terrorists proclaim their acts are done in the name of their god.

To be very concise, culture is the problem. Not a religion, not a country necessarily, and not the colour of someone's skin. If enlightened muslims worhip their god by minding their own business, the problem would be solved. But a cabal of fundamentalists have gotten hold of the media to spread their hateful message, conveyed through the vehicle of Islam and their most cynical, barbaric interpretation. Once we identify a problem in some particular culture, it's all to easy to lump in anyone who looks like that as part of it. Most people don't have time or inclination to investigate the subtleties of ISIS or Al Qaeda. They just say "Look, there's a Muslim. Get em!"

 

It's their Imams who's also causing the huge problems for Muslims!  When you've got Imams in mosques at prayer time - calling for jihad - you've got a religion problem.

 

Here, according to Canadian-Muslim Tareq Fatah:

 

Quote

 

Mullahs continue to pray to Allah to grant “Victory to Muslims over ‘Qawm al-Kafiroon’ (Non-Muslims)”

by Tarek Fatah • September 25, 2015

 

One of the reasons I avoid attending Friday congregations at mosques is a specific invocation uttered by mosque imams just prior to the formal Friday congregation prayer we Muslims refer to as the Juma’a. In the prayer, the clerics ask Allah to give “victory to Muslims over the ‘Qawm al-Kafirun,’ the Arabic phrase that lumps all non-Muslims, that is Jews, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs into one.

 

Them Mullahs are pretty smart. When confronted by Hindus, they say Hindus are not Kaffirs, hence the prayer is not directed at Hindus. If Jews challenge this prayer as hateful, the Islamic clerics change their tune and claim, the prayer is against idol worshippers and those who commit ‘Shirk’, i.e., Christians. And round and round they go lying to cover up their hateful agenda.

 

Here is the actual Arabic used in his sermon and the English translation of the specific call for ‘Muslim victory over Non-Muslims’ and a prayer for those conducting Jihad, that is ‘Mujahideen

http://tarekfatah.com/mosque-imams-around-the-world-continue-to-pray-to-allah-to-grant-victory-to-muslims-over-non-muslims/

 

Victory over "them?"

Imams promoting the idea of US against THEM!  Promoting JIhad?  Who's being deliberately divisive?  Divisive, is an understatement!

 

And the Liberals/progressives/NDP  are going to tell us we can't express ourselves?  Wake up, people!

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Who's saying you can't mock them for it?   

 

We just want to keep having the same right that you do - that when we mock Jihadists and the religion they believe in, that we won't get slammed for Islamophobia and get penalized for it!

 

Or what if we say 'unkind things'? Like....what about two guys in masks yelling Allahu Akbar as reported by witnesses? Is that now hate speech, too?

That whole thing smells of something not quite right...not only a cover-up by the Government...but the roots of a law (right...study...as put forth in a motion..blah blah) designed to prevent ANY criticism of Islam.

Irrational...

 

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

A phobia is by definition irrational. People carrying around signs saying No to Islam is irrational. If their signs said No to Religion then it would rational. Does this same group have a similar rally planned for a Catholic church with signs that say No to Christ?

Maybe if a Christian back bencher put forth a motion making it illegal to criticize Christianity they would.

But see. we're allowed to criticize and poke fun at other religions....as has been pointed out ad nauseum.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Nope.  I'm saying that if someone claims to be holding a rally for some reason, but then choose a location, object, group, person or slogans that have nothing to do with their claimed reason for the rally, then few people are going to believe the rally is for the reason they claimed.   They are going to believe that the choice of location, object, group, person and slogans define what the rally is about.

This group said they were holding a rally in support of free speech.   They held that rally at a Mosque, held signs that said nasty things about Muslims, shouted slogans that said nasty things about Muslims, blocked the entry to the Mosque; ergo, the rally was an anti-Muslim rally and not a free speech rally.

But people are certainly free to claim one thing, and do another.

In protest of a muslim trying to make it illegal to criticize Islam. See, it is about free speech.

[?Impact]

 

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Maybe if a Christian back bencher put forth a motion making it illegal to criticize Christianity they would.

Nobody, repeat nobody, has put forth a motion making it illegal to criticize Islam. Stop it with the alternative facts, because they are just lies.

[DogOnPorch]

That's the end game: no speaking ill of the Prophet.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

As is your right, of course.  However, since Motion M-103 has absolutely no bearing on free speech, other than in the minds of people who have an irrational fear of Islam, then the rally participants can accurately be referred to as Islamaphobes.   

M103 is nothing but an attack on free speech.

I don't know how to say it nicely that many Canadians  don't want the same restrictions about criticizing any religion as many muslim countries have. That is why there is the outcry about the speech restricting m103

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

M103 is nothing but an attack on free speech.

I don't know how to say it nicely that many Canadians  don't want the same restrictions about criticizing any religion as many muslim countries have. That is why there is the outcry about the speech restricting m103

 

It will progress into a witch hunt, in my opinion, unless checked. And witches will be found. Have to be found. The HRCs await.

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

And were back to Islamophobes.  The question as to whether there is anything wrong with that being still open for discussion.

Nothing wrong with being an islamaphobe if it's an opinion.

I'm a Christianaphobe as well. All religions are nuts imo.

Edited February 20, 2017 by drummindiver

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

M103 is nothing but an attack on free speech.

This is hyperbole.  If there were anyone who could criticize cultural matters objectively without resorting to hyperbole I would read them regularly.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Nothing wrong with being an islamaphobe if you it's an opinion.

I'm a Christianaphobe as well. All religions are nuts imo.

 

Nuts but not equal. Christianity gave us things like Mozart's Requiem and Handel's Messiah as well as Zombie Jesus.

[betsy]

13 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Nobody, repeat nobody, has put forth a motion making it illegal to criticize Islam. Stop it with the alternative facts, because they are just lies.

The motion is the foot in the door.  It is the start.

Edited February 20, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

The motion is the foot at the door.  It is the start.

 

Egg-zactly.

Islam ALWAYS portrays itself as a victim.

Canadians naturally want to help victims.

 

[drummindiver]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Nobody, repeat nobody, has put forth a motion making it illegal to criticize Islam. Stop it with the alternative facts, because they are just lies.

You are wrong. Repeat wrong.

M-103
Systemic racism and religious discriminationText of the MotionThat, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is hyperbole.  If there were anyone who could criticize cultural matters objectively without resorting to hyperbole I would read them regularly.

Hyperbole is exaggeration.  Do you think the motion to condemn "Islamophobia" is reasonable with out a reasonable definition of the word?

Or did one form part of the motion?  I haven't read every word on the motion so it might be in there somewhere.

Edited February 20, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's the numbers that get me.  One can always find a Bobby Sands type in a group, willing to die for what they believe in, but Muslims seem to be lining up for the opportunity.  There must be some serious brainwashing going on out there.

 

I hear ya!  I really do - it seems as if the only thing we hear about are "Muslim terrorists blow up another market"  right?   And I really do get the fear and anxiety some people fear when there seems this constant barrage on the news.  If I let myself, I could buy into it.  

But then I think about what people do to each other every single day of the year.   Americans, Canadians, Britains, Black people, White people, Brown people.   Just because there is no shared ideology between these different murderous people does not mean it's 'better' or 'less scary'.  If I'm facing someone intent on killing me, it hardly matters to me in that moment if they're doing it because "Islam" or because they want my shoes.   If I'm going to worry about who might rape or kill me next week, I should worry about my partner first, followed by friends, followed by Canadians that I don't know well or don't know at all.  A terrorist is the least likely person to be killing me.   A Muslim is the least likely person to rape me.

The thing is though, I'm familiar with my partner, with my friends and generally familiar with acquaintances and strangers so I don't worry about them - even though they pose a much larger threat to my life than does any terrorist.   Familiarity with a threat makes one feel safe.  Because people are unfamiliar with Muslims and know next to nothing about Islam except what anti-Islam sites tell them, they see all the media attention given to terror attacks or the Muslim who engages in illegal behavior, and they imagine this scary "thing" out there in the world.

This is why I consider this fear of terrorists in Canada and the US irrational.   

If the news featured stories, every single day, on men who had killed their wives all over the world, repeated the stories, analyzed the reasons, laid wreaths and lowered flags for all those dead women, what do you think would happen?   Even if the featured daily news stories about what men who kill other men, daily, with all the attention and focus given to terror attacks, what do you think would be the result?   For all of us in Western countries, it's the men of our own country and culture who are the most dangerous to us.    So why aren't we afraid of men?  That would seem like a much more rational fear than fear of terrorists.

But we're irrational - we fear the least likely event the most.   Thus the fear that is expressed toward Muslims in Canada is based on irrationality. 

If we lived in the Middle East, then fearing terrorists would at least be more rational. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Hyperbole is exageration.  Do you think the motion to condemn "Islamophobia" is reasonable with out a reasonable definition of the word?

I don't think 'Islamophobia' includes legitimate criticism of Islam.