Patrick Brown doesn't fall for the Islamophobia trap

[Boges]

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reevely-patrick-brown-sidesteps-ontario-liberals-islamophobia-trap

Quote

 

Ottawa-Vanier Liberal Nathalie Des Rosiers let her fellow legislators know back in December she’d be using her eventual slot as a backbencher to bring it. She and Ottawa Centre MPP Yasir Naqvi, who’s in charge of the government’s legislative agenda as the Liberals’ house leader, shuffled the schedule around to hurry it up so it pops up on Thursday.

Two things happened between December and now. First, six Muslim men were massacred after prayers in a Quebec City mosque on Jan. 29, which is the publicly given reason for condemning Islamophobia sooner rather than later.

Second, a bunch of federal Conservatives who should know better lost their minds over a similar federal effort by Mississauga MP Iqra Khalid, turning an essentially toothless statement that attacking Muslims is bad into the latest attempt to make every Canadian put on a burka while Sharia law creeps o’er the land. Not just Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander, either, but Andrew Scheer, the former Speaker, who must know that motions aren’t bills and don’t make laws. They express opinions and, at most, guide internal legislative business.

 

Kathleen Wynne is going to look for wedge issues to try and tar the Ontario PCs with before next year's election. Patrick Brown did well not to fall for it. Sure racism is bad, I'll vote for that, nice try Kathy.  

This may hurt his base. But really, if all these social conservatives are going to bail on the Ontario PCs because they're not towing the line on social issues then they'll be cutting off their nose to spite their face. 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

I think the term is 'spite' but OK.

I think that Wynne should be ashamed for manipulation of the current climate of fear for political gain.

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that Wynne should be ashamed for manipulation of the current climate of fear for political gain.

I'm not sure I follow from the linked article how Wynne fits into this situation. There is a [planned] motion from a back bencher, and it looks like Brown will support it and we can presume Wynne as well. I don't follow your [conspiracy] theory.

[Boges]

34 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I'm not sure I follow from the linked article how Wynne fits into this situation. There is a [planned] motion from a back bencher, and it looks like Brown will support it and we can presume Wynne as well. I don't follow your [conspiracy] theory.

The motion doesn't mean anything, much like the Federal motion doesn't. I think they were just hoping to be able to tar the PCs are Islamophobes. 

And no, I don't believe the Government didn't "encourage" this member to make the motion. 

Wynne is far behind in the polls, they'll need to lob wedge issue grenades like this to try an narrow the gap. 

[-1=e^ipi]

Given how islamophobia was a term created by the Muslim Brotherhood, given how the islamic human rights commission defines islamophobia (hint: it defines Maajid Nawaz as an islamophobe), and given how the term by its construction confuses Muslims with Islam, I think that there are many justifiable reasons to oppose such a motion.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

The motion doesn't mean anything, much like the Federal motion doesn't. I think they were just hoping to be able to tar the PCs are Islamophobes.

Wow, this conspiracy theory does go deep. Brown gets out ahead of a motion in order to derail the hidden agenda behind the motion to be brought by a back bencher as a covert attempt by the government to tar and feather the opposition. It will be interesting to see if the motion changes before it is tabled on Thursday when this particular back bencher gets the kick at the can, and even more interesting if Brown gets a heads up and is able to circumvent the hidden agenda behind the modified motion. This is far better than a spy thriller.

[Boges]

36 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Given how islamophobia was a term created by the Muslim Brotherhood, given how the islamic human rights commission defines islamophobia (hint: it defines Maajid Nawaz as an islamophobe), and given how the term by its construction confuses Muslims with Islam, I think that there are many justifiable reasons to oppose such a motion.

Yes but then you fall into the trap that Liberal Politicians are setting out. Say you oppose racism and move on. Which is what Brown did. 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Boges said:

Yes but then you fall into the trap that Liberal Politicians are setting out. Say you oppose racism and move on. Which is what Brown did. 

The take away from this is that deep in their hearts Conservatives realize Islamophopbia is racism.

It figures the stupidest people on the planet would trap themselves inside a trap.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The take away from this is that deep in their hearts Conservatives realize Islamophopbia is racism.

It figures the stupidest people on the planet would trap themselves inside a trap.

Actually it's the other way around. Deep in their hearts, leftists know that there is a great deal wrong with Islam. It's just too damn late for them to acknowledge it, so they have to pretend they are not outraged by things that, if anyone else were doing them, would make their heads explode.

[eyeball]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Actually it's the other way around. Deep in their hearts, leftists know that there is a great deal wrong with Islam. It's just too damn late for them to acknowledge it, so they have to pretend they are not outraged by things that, if anyone else were doing them, would make their heads explode.

We know damn well what's wrong with a good part of it - the west's interference that right-wing conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

The real failure of so many progressives is they've been way too nice when pointing that out.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We know damn well what's wrong with a good part of it - the west's interference that right-wing conservatives refuse to acknowledge.

The real failure of so many progressives is they've been way too nice when pointing that out.

Right, that whole blasphemy, adultery thing was one of the Bush boys fault.  If only they hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd all be drawing Muhammad

Edited February 23, 2017 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Right, that whole blasphemy, adultery thing was one of the Bush boys fault.  If only they hadn't invaded Iraq, we'd all be drawing Muhammad

No, if only we hadn't overthrown democracy in 1953.  I'd probably be watching departing starships from the comfort of my condo on the Mare Imbrium.

Edited February 23, 2017 by eyeball

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, if only we hadn't overthrown democracy in 1953.  I'd probably be watching departing starships from the comfort of my condo on the Mare Imbrium.

Could you go open a window...?

[eyeball]

After terra-forming.

[H10]

Liberals are foolish to let Wynne run again, she is so terrible, so corrupt, she doesn't even have the decency to step down.

[dialamah]

18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Actually it's the other way around. Deep in their hearts, leftists know that there is a great deal wrong with Islam. It's just too damn late for them to acknowledge it, so they have to pretend they are not outraged by things that, if anyone else were doing them, would make their heads explode.

Conservatives only object to horrific behavior if its Muslims doing it and they assume if one Muslim does something horrific, they must all do it.   If it's a white all-Canadian person who does something horrific, well its an aberration and not that big a problem.

Liberals condemn horrific behavior regardless of who does it, and they fail to blame a whole bunch of other people for what they haven't done and would never do.  

Holding guilty individuals accountable while simultaneously not blaming innocent individuals isn't that hard to do, even when there are both guilty and innocent people within the same group.  

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Conservatives only object to horrific behavior if its Muslims doing it and they assume if one Muslim does something horrific, they must all do it.   If it's a white all-Canadian person who does something horrific, well its an aberration and not that big a problem.

Liberals condemn horrific behavior regardless of who does it, and they fail to blame a whole bunch of other people for what they haven't done and would never do.  

Holding guilty individuals accountable while simultaneously not blaming innocent individuals isn't that hard to do, even when there are both guilty and innocent people within the same group.  

 

 

 

Islam isn't a race or a skin colour as you claim. It is a proselytizing religion and theocratic political system. Even white all-Canadians (like our PM) can join.

The word translates to the English "submission".

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Conservatives only object to horrific behavior if its Muslims doing it and they assume if one Muslim does something horrific, they must all do it.   If it's a white all-Canadian person who does something horrific, well its an aberration and not that big a problem.

Liberals condemn horrific behavior regardless of who does it, and they fail to blame a whole bunch of other people for what they haven't done and would never do.  

Holding guilty individuals accountable while simultaneously not blaming innocent individuals isn't that hard to do, even when there are both guilty and innocent people within the same group.  

 

 

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said, which means we have different opinions.

[hot enough]

On 2/23/2017 at 3:02 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

The word translates to the English "submission".

I think that it is important for us all to provide fair and balanced positions on these issues. 

 

In Arabic, the word “Islam” means submission or surrender – however, it was derived from the root word “salam”. From this root word, you can also derive the words peace and safety. Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of enslavement to Allah, but others find it more helpful to define the word “Islam” as surrender.

http://muslimvoices.org/word-islam-meaning/

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I think that it is important for us all to provide fair and balanced positions on these issues. 

 

In Arabic, the word “Islam” means submission or surrender – however, it was derived from the root word “salam”. From this root word, you can also derive the words peace and safety. Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of enslavement to Allah, but others find it more helpful to define the word “Islam” as surrender.

http://muslimvoices.org/word-islam-meaning/

 

Peace and safety for Islam.

Surrender and submission for the Kufar.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Peace and safety for Islam.

Surrender and submission for the Kufar.

Yours is merely an opinion, based on what, I have no idea. Could you provide a source that supports your notion?

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Yours is merely an opinion, based on what, I have no idea. Could you provide a source that supports your notion?

Islam = Submission

Kufars are the Unbeliever and are not subject to peace or safety under Islam...unless offered the Jizya and they pay the Mafia protection money to the Umma.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Islam = Submission

Kufars are the Unbeliever and are not subject to peace or safety under Islam...unless offered the Jizya and they pay the Mafia protection money to the Umma.

There's no source. 

Are we to believe that you are an expert on the Arabic language?

[Michael Hardner]

Folks - a lot of personal comments and insults on this thread.  A lot of posts were hidden.  Please don't make personal comments.