[octothorp]

Thanks for this post! I think it's useful for seeing where we differ on things.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The motion condemns an expression of personal feelings in all of its forms. This is broad enough to cause some serious damage potentially. Islamophobia, antisemitism, and other discriminatory views are feelings. You may hate these anti-whatever views as they deserve (I do), but you should not be condemned for it by the government. In other word, the government doesn't need to legislate anti-hate, because it is just another form of hate.

It's important to look at what a condemnation by government is: it's not a suppression of rights. I may disagree with your views to the point of condemning them, but that doesn't mean I'm violating your rights. Parliament condemning islamophobia doesn't actually prevent anyone from saying anything islamophobic. Just like any individual in society, MPs and parliament as a whole have the right to state their opinion even if that opinion is to condemn someone else's. Ultimately, it's up to the courts to decide both on whether laws violate the constitution, as well as whether an individual's actions have violated laws. This motion does not create or change any laws.

That said, I do think there needs to be a point where free speech ends and becomes criminal (which is probably the strongest difference of opinion between you and I); I also think the current approach where it takes an extreme, egregious attack to cross the threshold and become criminal, is the correct approach. If someone hates Muslims and advocates for their death, that leads to incidents like the recent killings in Quebec. I believe that should be criminal. If an Imam issues a Fatwa calling for the death of a specific citizen or group of citizens, that should be equally criminal. If someone hates Muslims but engages in serious debate about the negatives of their religion and culture, I may disagree with them but I entirely respect their right to say that.

For example, in all modern dictatorial regimes (including USSR and China), without exception, freedom of speech was/is 100% constitutional, yet ANY critique of the ruling party resulted in severe repercussions - mass killings, imprisonments, camp labour and other forms of persecution based on the laws and interpretation of laws derived from government official condemnation of such critique through their leaders' speeches, plenum decisions and newspaper articles.

If I understand what you're saying here, you're saying that simply because our rights are enshrined in the constitution doesn't mean that a ruling party can violate citizens rights? (Is that a fair characterization? I'm not sure I've got it right.) That's true, but the suspension of rights usually starts with a government fostering fears of outsiders or minorities in order to create the justification. You and I are probably on the opposite sides of the political spectrum so I expect you to disagree on this, but in the US right now, I think we're seeing a pretty clear example of a government attempting to foment fear for the purposes of increasing executive power and attempting to minimize the courts as a restraint. I'd rather a government actively work to suppress those sorts of unjustified fears than risk fostering them and creating a climate for those sorts of overreaches.

Any employer that had to go through a Human Rights Appeal tribunal hearing would agree with the enormous breadth of their power of interpretation of evidence and a very onerous burden of proof that's placed on the complainant already.

Could be. That's a debate I don't have the knowledge to get into, but I do again question how this current motion relates to human rights tribunals.