What are your thoughts on Motion M103?

[CaptainYooh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
...
How? The proposed motion does not change any laws! How does this make it easier for someone to 'make me feel the pain'? ...

It paves the way.

Quote:
...the government should: ...(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, ...

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. 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.

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.

[RyZ]

I don't know how credible this website or author are but stuff like this scares me about the MP Iqra Khalid and her ties to some of the more unsavory elements of Islam and this bill M103 that she has tabled. I dont see how any good comes of this.

http://tsecnetwork.ca/2017/01/27/mem...ist-hypocrite/

[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.

[OMG!WTF!]

So how is this different than the anti bds motion parliament passed this time last year...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28863810/

It's the same thing yet no one is bugged by it. Add Islam to the headline and it's the end of the bloody world. Give ya'll's head a shakin.

I'm no fan of this motion because we've already done this exact same thing with less meaningless gobbledy####....

http://fmc-cmf.com/canadas-anti-isla...-to-the-world/

Why do we need another meaningless hooray story? They're using the same 70k signature petition too. Just painful to watch and listen to this MP fumble around for answers that were supposed to come easy.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by octothorp

T...
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? ...

There are quite a few points in your post I could and would be interested in debating if I didn't have to type it, but I think the above quote is the most important assumption I wanted to highlight. No, by itself the proposed motion does not change existing law. It only changes the tone, climate and language of future political debate in the short-term. In the long-term, if staying in power long enough, what ruling party says can make and does make a difference in creation, interpretation and application of laws; eventually.

Who gets to define and decide what islampphobia is? Is one's opposition to wearing a burka on a driver's license islamophobic? See, the language can very quickly get from that's insulting/offensive to that's illegal/punishable, if ruling parties attempt to legislate and regulate the language.

Originally Posted by octothorp

...You and I are probably on the opposite sides of the political spectrum ...

It's hard to be on the opposite side to my political views as they are right in the centre of our political spectrum. I equally despise extremes on both ends of it. I support either more pro-government or more against-government involvement in our lives on a case-by-case basis.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It's hard to be on the opposite side to my political views as they are right in the centre of our political spectrum. I equally despise extremes on both ends of it. I support either more pro-government or more against-government involvement in our lives on a case-by-case basis.

It's an odd phenomena that everyone believes their views represent the political centre.

I think it's fear that drives your belief that this Motion would create a slippery slope of any kind.

The Motion is about supporting a community of individuals that are under siege. Muslims were attacked in their place of worship for no reason other than they were Muslims.

Look what is happening in the US. Look no further than the terrified refugees fleeing the US.

I have a hard time understanding why a symbolic show of support and reassurance that this type of Hate will not be tolerated in Canada is too scary for some people to accept.

Don't make it about word games and what-ifs.

Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk

[Erick Estrada]

So this would be law that ensures people can't criticize people's belief in imaginary gods? Sounds like the human race is really making progress. Man if aliens have ever visited earth I'm sure they would have a big chuckle; "They have created some decent technologies and even travelled into space yet they still worship imaginary figures? They even kill each other over them? LOL".

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I can't seem to find the actual text of the motion.

However,

Islamophobia and critique/criticism of Islam are two different things.

Islamophobia is about hate speech. I can critique a religion, without hating on a person for believing it.

Given the current anti-Muslim climate, I see no real issue having a motion to reiterate Canadian values (assuming that multiculturalism and acceptance of others is still a Canadian value).

But all that is, of course, premised on the fact I haven't read the actual wording of M103.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So this would be law that ensures people can't criticize people's belief in imaginary gods? Sounds like the human race is really making progress. Man if aliens have ever visited earth I'm sure they would have a big chuckle; "They have created some decent technologies and even travelled into space yet they still worship imaginary figures? They even kill each other over them? LOL".

It's not a law. At least educate yourself on the issue.

Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk

[Winsor_Pilates]

This thread reminds me of how so many Canadians really aren't that far away from Trump supporters.
The bill is useless, but the "islam is coming" fear it's creating is far more concerning.

It really doesn't take much to scare some people into full fledged close our boarders before it's too late mode.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So this would be law that ensures people can't criticize people's belief in imaginary gods? Sounds like the human race is really making progress. Man if aliens have ever visited earth I'm sure they would have a big chuckle; "They have created some decent technologies and even travelled into space yet they still worship imaginary figures? They even kill each other over them? LOL".

Even if it were a law that's not what it would do. Aliens are cool though.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'm surprised how many people don't know the difference between a motion and a bill.

This motion is coming off the heals of the Quebec City shooting, so it's not difficult to understand why some Muslims want the Canadian government to make a symbolic stand against promoting hate toward their community. That hate spills over to violence very quickly.

No laws are set to be changed. It will just put Islamophobia into the vernacular of laws that already exist and hopefully define it in a meaningful way.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by RyZ

I don't know how credible this website or author are but stuff like this scares me about the MP Iqra Khalid and her ties to some of the more unsavory elements of Islam and this bill M103 that she has tabled. I dont see how any good comes of this.

http://tsecnetwork.ca/2017/01/27/mem...ist-hypocrite/

Sorry, I gotta call out this horrible article. It's about as tenuous as assuming a scout master is a nazi because Baden Powell once expressed admiration for Mein Kampf. The article seems to be entirely based around the idea that the national MSA was founded by adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seems to be at least half true. However, what the article fails to mention is that York's muslim student association is not affiliated with that national organization. (So any claim about this 'series of alumni' has zero bearing on Khalid unless any of them came from York. Which they didn't.) But even if it were affiliated, I think it would be ridiculous to assume a connection to extremist organizations for every student who became involved with what is likely the only student organization supporting their religion in their school.

[Flash Walken]

Andrew Coyne:

Conservatism used to have some claim to being a coherent political philosophy. Of late it has become a series of dares. The most extreme voice will lay down the most extreme position, then challenge others to endorse it.

As often as not this has nothing to do with conservatism. It is rather a kind of moral exhibitionism, populist virtue-signalling, in which the object is to say and do the most intolerant or ill-considered thing that comes to mind — anything that might attract the condemnation of bien-pensants in the media and elsewhere, whose opposition becomes proof in itself of its merits.

The willingness to court such controversy in turn becomes the test of political purity. To demur, conversely, can only be a sign of cowardice, or worse, liberalism, a heresy that that would seem to have overcome much of the conservative movement, to judge by the ever-lengthening list of the excommunicated.

So we come to the latest of these blooding exercises, the “debate” over Motion 103, a private member’s motion introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid. In the fevered imaginings of its online discussants, #M103 is decried as a bill that would forbid any criticism of Islam, if not the first step towards imposing Sharia law. I only wish I were exaggerating.

This hysteria campaign has been whipped up by exactly the people you’d expect, and pandered to by people of whom you might have expected better, including several Conservative leadership candidates. Pierre Lemieux has denounced it as “an attack on free speech.” Maxime Bernier asks whether “it is a first step towards restricting our right to criticize Islam.” Lisa Raitt, Andrew Scheer, and Erin O’Toole have all come out against it, while Kellie Leitch, bless her heart, has set up a petition to “Stop Motion 103,” complete with a blue-eyed model with a gag over her mouth.

The only candidate to say he will vote in favour of the motion is Michael Chong. For this he has been excoriated as a sellout; it rather confirms him as a man of judgment and conscience. There is simply no reasonable construction of the motion that can support the claims made of it. It is not a bill, for starters: it is a simple motion, an expression of opinion, of no legal force or effect. It does not call for any ban or restriction on speech of any kind.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...n-islamophobia

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

This thread reminds me of how so many Canadians really aren't that far away from Trump supporters.
The bill is useless, but the "islam is coming" fear it's creating is far more concerning.

It really doesn't take much to scare some people into full fledged close our boarders before it's too late mode.

It's not just fear, simple grade 5 math says it's coming for sure. hopefully it(the religion) will have evolved by the time it does.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It's not just fear, simple grade 5 math says it's coming for sure. hopefully it(the religion) will have evolved by the time it does.

I don't know what school you went to, but in my grade five math class there wasn't a unit called "introduction to fractions and paranoid conspiracies".

Anyway, does anyone actually believe that here, in Canada, they could one day be arrested for criticizing a religion?

Or that one day we could all live under Sharia law in Canada?

And I don't mean some hypothetical internet discussion and slippery-slopiness, but would anyone honestly answer "YES" to this simple question:

Will Sharia law one day become the law in Canada? [YES] [NO]

I don't believe anyone really thinks this could happen. But if you do, please highlight [YES] if this is an honest concern of yours.

[Street Pharmacist]

Oh he thinks it will happen.

One third of the world is Christian which is the world's largest religion, who slightly out number Muslim. By 2050 Muslims are likely going to outnumber Christians.

With his grade 5 math we can now see that we will have to stone homosexuals in Canada soon.

Honestly, how does someone turn off so much basic logic to let fear dictate their life?

I mean, let's forget about where this population rise is expected to be. Let's also forget all of this is using religion identity that has very little to do with practice (a third of the world are not practicing Christians). Let's forget that trends like this are almost never accurate that far out. Let's forget that our laws aren't governed by the major religions here.


Nope. Sharia by 2050. Truly idiotic

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It's not just fear, simple grade 5 math says it's coming for sure. hopefully it(the religion) will have evolved by the time it does.

Simple grade 5 math told Canadians in the early part of the 20th century that we should be 140 per cent Catholic by now. Demographics change.

And Canadians are Are Out of Touch with Factual Realities of Global Issues and Features of Their Population to begin with. Some lowlights:

• Current Muslim population: Canadians immensely overestimate the current proportion of people living in Canada who are Muslim: Off by 14 points (Perception: 17%; Actual; 3.2%)
  
• Future Muslim population: By 2020, Canadians project that the proportion of the Muslim population in Canada will be 27% (Actual 2.8%). Off by 24 points.
  
• Homosexuality: When asked what percentage of people in Canada believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable, Canadians were off by 18 points (Perception: 33%; Actual: 15%)
  
• Abortion: When asked about abortion being morally unacceptable, Canadians estimated 39% of the population believed this, overestimating the degree to which Canadians actually have this point of view (Actual: 26%). Off by 13 points
  
  - Ipsos

Notice how it isn't just conservatives who let their fears override their intellect. Many on the left also dramatically overestimate how socially conservative Canada is. I blame a fixation on American politics.

[burn_this_city]

Shariah here ever is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. I love how the supposed patriots and right wing defenders of freedom are the first lemmings off the cliff of hysteria and hyperbole. Like I've said before in these threads, we will not be subjugated by any other ideology. We are the dominate cultural force in the world. The Islamic world is 70 years behind the west. Terrorism is a massively overblown risk to the average person here. Islamic terrorists have killed two Canadians in the last decade here on our soil. How many people have been killed by right wing ideologues? At least 6 by my count right now.

[OMG!WTF!]

Ah those were the days when they told you exactly how scared to be...

image hosting free