Islamophobia

[betsy]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

The topic is defining Islamaphobe, not discussing what would be added to existing laws.    Why should anyone respond to your demand to answer an off-topic question? 

The definition of Islamophobe is  already be encompassed in the hate crime and hate speech laws......UNLESS they think the current hate crime law is not enough.  That's why I'm asking, what do they want to add?

[betsy]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I think I would start looking for a generally accepted definition of anti-Semitism as a way to begin to define Islamaphobia.   There seems to be no confusion around that term, though I've no doubt different people will have slightly different interpretations.    Both Canada and Britain have attempted to officially define anti-Semitism.

Here is Britain's legal definition of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016:

Canada's Ottawa Protocol contains a much more detailed definition of anti-Semitism:

The Ottawa protocil is not a legal definition, but I think it would work well as a template for a definition of Islamaphobia, particularly since it includes the statement that Criticism isn't anti-Semitic.   And since Canadians have already accepted special consideration for Jews due to anti-Semitism, they would feel comfortable accepting something similar for Muslims due to Islamaphobia.

 

The problem is, Jews do not commit terrorism in the name of their religion.  On the other hand.....

Jihadists are Muslims.  Imams are promoting Jihad - the killings of Jews and non-Muslims.

 

So, you can't really say they need to have exactly the same protocol.  We have to be able to point to a religion, be free to criticize it, and hold it accountable if it's the cause of all these deaths!

Edited February 21, 2017 by betsy

[dialamah]

43 minutes ago, betsy said:

The definition of Islamophobe is  already be encompassed in the hate crime and hate speech laws......UNLESS they think the current hate crime law is not enough.  That's why I'm asking, what do they want to add?

 

Why did the government provide a special motion and definition for anti-Semitism with the Ottawa Protocol?  Isn't that already covered by hate speech laws?   Did they not think the hate-speech laws were enough?   

[dialamah]

40 minutes ago, betsy said:

The problem is, Jews do not commit terrorism in the name of their religion.  On the other hand....

The problem is, Muslims are being targetted for anti-Muslim hate crimes, exactly as Jews are targetted for anti-Semitic hate crimes.    Is there some reason that Muslims, who are the main victims of terror attacks, are not entitled to the same considerations that Jews receive in Canada?   Should innocent Muslims be beaten or killed because guilty Muslims commit crimes?  Is that your belief?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The problem is, Muslims are being targetted for anti-Muslim hate crimes, exactly as Jews are targetted for anti-Semitic hate crimes.    Is there some reason that Muslims, who are the main victims of terror attacks, are not entitled to the same considerations that Jews receive in Canada?   Should innocent Muslims be beaten or killed because guilty Muslims commit crimes?  Is that your belief?

No innocent should ever pay for the actions of others. Muslims are entitled to the same consideration under the law as Jews, or me. 

[betsy]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

The problem is, Muslims are being targetted for anti-Muslim hate crimes, exactly as Jews are targetted for anti-Semitic hate crimes.    Is there some reason that Muslims, who are the main victims of terror attacks, are not entitled to the same considerations that Jews receive in Canada?   Should innocent Muslims be beaten or killed because guilty Muslims commit crimes?  Is that your belief?

No one should be subjected to that.

Muslims, like all groups,  have protection under the hate crime law.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

No one should be subjected to that.

Muslims, like all groups,  have protection under the hate crime law.

 

 

You're not getting Islam.

It is important for Muslims to feel that the infidel know their status as second class citizens.

...fight them until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

https://quran.com/9/29

Thus: a special law aimed at protecting Muslims and sticking it to the Kufar.

This is important in Islam. Making the Kufar feel humbled/subdued.

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Where has anyone said that? 

Just about any criticism of Islam is seen by many as 'islamophobia' by a fairly sizeable contingent of Muslims and progressives.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Just about any criticism of Islam is seen by many as 'islamophobia' by a fairly sizeable contingent of Muslims and progressives.

 

Islam has been literally invading cultures since its creation in the 7th century AD. It's pretty good at this business of taking over.

[Argus]

Quote

The fear that M-103, or that a definition of Islamophobia is going to make criticizing Islam illegal is irrational because of all the 'ifs' it contains:  if the motion is passed and if the resultant study results in further action being taken and if that further action is a law and if that law contains wording to make criticizing Islam illegal and if the opposition parties didn't object and if the media didn't report on it, and if  the general public didn't object.   That's a lot of "ifs" to get through to make your scenario remotely possible.   

That's nonsense. We already know the motion will pass. We already know the resulting study will call for further action. It is very likely that further action will be a tightening of the laws on free speech simply because there is nothing else that can likely be done to discourage people from 'Islamophobia' given that we already have hate speech laws and already have laws against assault and discrimination.

Not that I think such laws will do a blessed thing to discourage 'Islamophobia' of course. We have ample evidence of that by looking to Europe, where they have been a singular failure. And where the devotion of mainstream political parties to encouraging love of Islam and migrants has led to the explosive growth of extreme right wing parties all across the continent.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Argus

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

No one should be subjected to that.

Muslims, like all groups,  have protection under the hate crime law.

 

 

Indeed.  But Jews have also received additional consideration through the Ottawa protocol, which I've copied and linked to above.  Is there any reason why Muslims should have the same consideration?

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

That's nonsense. We already know the motion will pass. We already know the resulting study will call for further action. It is very likely that further action will be a tightening of the laws on free speech simply because there is nothing else that can likely be done to discourage people from 'Islamophobia' given that we already have hate speech laws and already have laws against assault and discrimination.Not that I think such laws will do a blessed thing to discourage 'Islamophobia' of course. We have ample evidence of that by looking to Europe, where they have been a singular failure.

 

I agree with you that the chances are that the motion will be passed.  

Quote

It is very likely that further action will be a tightening of the laws on free speech simply because there is nothing else that can likely be done to discourage people from 'Islamophobia' given that we already have hate speech laws and already have laws against assault and discrimination.

 

This is where you drift into fantasy.  The assumption that the only option is a tightening of the laws is disproven by the fact of the Ottawa Protocol, which addresses many of the same concerns mentioned in the Ottawa Protocol.   

Quote

And where the devotion of mainstream political parties to encouraging love of Islam and migrants has led to the explosive growth of extreme right wing parties all across the continent.

 

As far as I can tell, our government is encouraging non-discrimination and offering refuge to those who are fleeing war.   It's nice to think we've decided to take our lessons of yesteryear to heart and not repeat our racist and fear-driven actions of the past, such as when we interred Japanese just because they were Japanese.

That right-wingers object to them puts them closer to the intolerant Muslims they hate - the Muslims who say "You must be like us or you are unacceptable."

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Just about any criticism of Islam is seen by many as 'islamophobia' by a fairly sizeable contingent of Muslims and progressives.

Perhaps some of those people are wrong.   Perhaps some of the criticism isn't criticism, but actual bigotry.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Indeed.  But Jews have also received additional consideration through the Ottawa protocol, which I've copied and linked to above.  Is there any reason why Muslims should have the same consideration?

 

Sure there is.  Nobody should.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

As far as I can tell, our government is encouraging non-discrimination and offering refuge to those who are fleeing war.   It's nice to think we've decided to take our lessons of yesteryear to heart and not repeat our racist and fear-driven actions of the past, such as when we interred Japanese just because they were Japanese.

I prefer to take my lessons from what has happened to European countries which have been governed by a similar mentality to yours. A standard feature of all those countries now is armed soldiers in the streets, and the need to block off Christmas markets and other public gatherings to prevent Muslims from running trucks through the crowds.

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

That right-wingers object to them puts them closer to the intolerant Muslims they hate - the Muslims who say "You must be like us or you are unacceptable."

There is only one group that is as intolerant of others' beliefs as Muslims and that, of course, is progressives.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps some of those people are wrong.   Perhaps some of the criticism isn't criticism, but actual bigotry.  

Nope. The bigotry is mostly directed at Jews. When people express concern about Muslims and Islam it's based on valid concerns about how Muslims are behaving around the world. Only an idiot would look at the kinds of things happening in France and Germany and say "Boy, I like that! Let's bring more of those people here!"

The difference, of course, the very clear distinction, is that people who are anti-Semites hate Jews for what they are, while people who are suspicious and express anti Muslim views act out of concern for how Muslims behave.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Argus

[?Impact]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

The difference, of course, the very clear distinction, is that people who are anti-Semites hate Jews for what they are, while people who are suspicious and express anti Muslim views act out of concern for how Muslims behave.

The vast majority of Muslims in Canada are indistinguishable from the rest of our society. No it is outright bigotry in both cases, it is about what they are. Many Muslims are fleeing the atrocities in other countries, and here you are saying they are committing them. There have been attacks against both Jews and Muslims in this country, against their homes, against their religious and cultural institutions, and worst of all against individuals. That needs to stop, and the bigots that incite it need to be called out for what they are.

[DogOnPorch]

35 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The vast majority of Muslims in Canada are indistinguishable from the rest of our society. No it is outright bigotry in both cases, it is about what they are. Many Muslims are fleeing the atrocities in other countries, and here you are saying they are committing them. There have been attacks against both Jews and Muslims in this country, against their homes, against their religious and cultural institutions, and worst of all against individuals. That needs to stop, and the bigots that incite it need to be called out for what they are.

 

If there was just SOMEWAY to silence these monsters.

[?Impact]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

If there was just SOMEWAY to silence these monsters.

Maybe that is the way you like to deal with it, but I prefer to call them out.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Maybe that is the way you like to deal with it, but I prefer to call them out.

 

Perhaps a motion for a study that can then be made into law.

Team Islam's choice.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

The vast majority of Muslims in Canada are indistinguishable from the rest of our society.

That simply is not true. But in any event, it's not about what they look like. It's about what's inside their heads, not outside them.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It's about what's inside their heads, not outside them.

Agreed and that is what I was referring to. They for the most part are concerned about raising a family and improving their lot in life. They just like most of the rest of us respect others and live by the rules of society.

 

[seraphim]

It is interesting on how this is being debated in here, you know that changes to free speech are coming in relation to Islamophobia, yet this only reflects 3 % of what the Canadian population wants. There are not factual statistics that have been produced proving that Islamic hate crimes are on the rise when the tabling of this bill happened (2016). Then in 2017 there were the tragic mosque shootings killing six, extremely tragic, however, it sounded like it was executed by a mental case. Now there have been several mass shootings over the decades killing hundreds in Canada, tragic, but it happens.

Now today, Islamophobia motion M-103 has landed Canada on the Jihad list as the world believes we are infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is how it all rolled out:

2016 Samer Majzoub from Quebec initiated an official Government of Canada petition to the House of Commons. The sponsor of the petition Liberal Member of Parliament Frank Baylis, t was then tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid . The petition called upon the government to condemn all forms of Islamophobia. Samer Majzoub self-identifies as being part of multiple Islamist (extremist) organization in Quebec, including the (in)famous Al-Rawdaw Mosque[1] and the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). MAC itself states that they follow the teachings of Hassan Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood. ­­ If there was any doubt, a senior member of MAC, Dr. El-Tantawi Attia, made it clear when he stated: “Here we follow the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Now here I read a pack of closet debaters who think that the Islamophobia bill is potentially fine... when in fact, it is not, the real game is to bring in Sharia LAW. So I strongly suggest that you think about protecting the Charter. If it is not about Sharia Law being inserted into our Laws, then the Muslims will sign up to change the Charter, if it was about Sharia Laws being implemented then I guess they have been caught.

There is a petition circulating today called- 

e-909 (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)

[seraphim]

When does one draw the line with the definition? Is it after one, two or three terrorist attacks and videos uploaded online?  Is it after several sermons being delivered by an Imam citing "destruction of the jews" and "kill the infidels"?

Is it after the second, third or fourth wife? Is it after the first, second or third beating of a wife because she is property and not an individual?

Is it after several Imams issue death warrants on Moderate Muslims that are speaking out to warn the normal people in the world that there are as many as 300,000 million extremists in the world?

When does the definition of "Islamaphobe" kick in?

 

Sign so that Sharia Law or separate Sharia family courts will never have a place in the Canadian Justice System.:

 Petition: e-909 (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by seraphim

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, seraphim said:

you know that changes to free speech are coming in relation to Islamophobia

False premise. Yes if you are a loyal adherent to the mass brainwashing of people like Ezra Levant than you swallow that swill but the reasoned masses do not.

I notice that your Islamophobic petition is not about protecting the single rule of law in Canada, but about attacking Islam.