Personally, I have no issues with the vast majority of Muslim people. However, I do have a major issue with their ideological death cult beliefs because a lot of them are downright terrifying. There is a difference between condemning an ideology versus condemning a group of people, in my opinion.
That's like me and Catholics.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
isn't this motion also covering other religions?
I don't like they way it's worded, but doesn't seem to be only about Islam.
and I agree that it's dumb as we already have laws that cover this stuff.
"eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia"
and no way in heck I'm going to click on a link to a website called catholicinsight. I'd rather click on an Eklund link.
Too funny.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I do like the part about reducing hate and racism, even though thats already covered by other laws. Religion, of all kinds, shouldn't be so protected though.
I don't like the singling out of Islamophobia for special treatment. If you read it literally, the "phobia" part is not covered for the other groups. So being afraid of Islam is bad, but you can be afraid of gays or the other groups, does that make homophobia ok? Is fear of blacks, jews and Italians ok?
I do like the part about reducing hate and racism, even though thats already covered by other laws. Religion, of all kinds, shouldn't be so protected though.
But there's tons of people out there who say I hate all religion. Are they committing a crime saying that? It sounds like that is the end game here.
I think someone who says things like that is just as ignorant as a racist, but simply being a racist or being a religious hater doesn't constitute any kind of crime IMO.
When you start defining what is and isn't free speech beyond the concept of hateful harm producing dialogue your really eroding one of the main platforms of a free society.
Free speech should literally only be limited by crossing that line into creating genuine physical harm.
It should be ok to say absolutely that Sharia Law is a repulsive form of law due to its treatment of woman.
However it's completely different if you say "Sharia Law is coming unless we kill all Muslims"
I really don't see a need for this motion, to me its just political grandstanding and score keeping.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Only for people actively promoting hatred against Muslims. And even for them, not really.
Quote:
No more free speech.
Amount of free speech doesn't change. Advocating hate has been a crime in Canada and will continue to be. This doesn't change any laws. At all.
Quote:
Criticism of Islam will be a crime.
No, it won't. Criticism and hate speech have and always will be two different things. Watch this: Sharia Law is discriminatory and has no place in Canadian society and goes not only against Canadian laws but Canadian values. Zionism is an awful justification of serious crimes against the Palestinian people. Catholicism has a serious problem with self-accountability. The United Church is really wishy-washy in its theological beliefs.
Guess what, nobody's coming to knock on my door and arrest me. Name a group and I'll criticize them without fear of reprisal.
Quote:
This is just the start.
No, it's really not. This is a motion. It is non-binding and symbolic. Not surprising that certain groups are using it as a rallying cry, but seriously, that Trumpian "I know not her motives, but other commentators are wondering, why Islam?" rhetoric has no place in Canadian political or cultural discourse. Of course you have to say that 'it's just the start' in order to create the argument that even though there's nothing of any real significance or impact in this motion, something terrifying and ominous and unspecified is coming!
This is a person who has experienced discrimination first-hand growing up as an immigrant in Canada, and just saw several of her religion gunned down out of hate. She's one of the few muslim politicians at the federal level, and so it's not unexpected or inappropriate that she would feel the need to take a stand on this, even if only symbolic in nature.
Get beyond the rhetoric, tell us what you actually fear would happen from this motion? Do you think it gives any agency in government any additional power? Do you think that new laws will be created as a result? In what way does this prevent criticism of Islam?
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
Good to see the usual bed wetters are ringing the alarm bells about the impending destruction of western civilization. This bill is rubbish, but the reactions from blatant cowards is hilarious.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
I highly recommend people follow Jordan Peterson, he is a U of T psychology and philosophy prof who uploads his lectures to YouTube. Incredibly knowledgeable. He posted a video regarding this bill:
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to endeavor For This Useful Post:
This is a very dangerous motion. Freedom of speech must be unconditional. If people say that someone stole from someone, for example, they could be sued for libel and damages; it's their responsibility to be careful about what they say. But legislating what's offensive or insulting is a proven road to hell. "History will teach us nothing", unfortunately, because Canada has already adopted arguably unconstitutional hate speech laws (Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code) and that was just a beginning. I believe this motion will have traction and, even if it doesn't pass as proposed at first, will likely come back and be approved in a more generalized (thus; even more dangerous) way.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
O...Watch this: Sharia Law is discriminatory and has no place in Canadian society and goes not only against Canadian laws but Canadian values. Zionism is an awful justification of serious crimes against the Palestinian people. Catholicism has a serious problem with self-accountability. The United Church is really wishy-washy in its theological beliefs.
Guess what, nobody's coming to knock on my door and arrest me. Name a group and I'll criticize them without fear of reprisal. ...
Oh, you so brave posting this on a hockey off-topic thread under a nickname. If you are in Saudi Arabia and say publicly that Sharia Law is discriminatory, you get beheaded. The proposed motion is dangerous because if someone DOES want you to feel the pain here in Canada, it would make it easier. Suing someone and making him/her going through the expenses of a legal process is expensive and can ruin a person. If you are a teacher criticizing religion, if you are a journalist criticizing religion, if you are anyone that speaks up your mind in public, really.
Statements you said in your post are incredibly irritating and offensive to some people. But you should not be sued for them JUST because they are. That's the main reason for not having this legislation passed in any form.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
This is a very dangerous motion. Freedom of speech must be unconditional. If people say that someone stole from someone, for example, they could be sued for libel and damages; it's their responsibility to be careful about what they say. But legislating what's offensive or insulting is a proven road to hell. "History will teach us nothing", unfortunately, because Canada has already adopted arguably unconstitutional hate speech laws (Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Criminal Code) and that was just a beginning. I believe this motion will have traction and, even if it doesn't pass as proposed at first, will likely come back and be approved in a more generalized (thus; even more dangerous) way.
How does this Motion do any of the above?
The issue is in the criminal code provisions not in a non binding symbolic motion.
Would this motion make it easier to drag people in front of human rights tribunals though. Just asking
No, it is a non binding motion in the house asking the government to produce a report with recommendations. If the government choose to actually create that report it would then go to a committee to evaluate if actual new legislation is warranted. The the committee would draft legislation and if it passes committee it would get to the House of Commons for a vote.
Harper limiting the scope of the HRCs eliminated this concern and fixed the worst impingement on free speech by not allowing the quasi judicial body to rule on it.
Oh, you so brave posting this on a hockey off-topic thread under a nickname. If you are in Saudi Arabia and say publicly that Sharia Law is discriminatory, you get beheaded.
Sure, and I wouldn't say that in Saudi Arabia. But I was under the impression we were talking about Canadian law here.
Quote:
The proposed motion is dangerous because if someone DOES want you to feel the pain here in Canada, it would make it easier.
How? The proposed motion does not change any laws! How does this make it easier for someone to 'make me feel the pain'?
Quote:
Suing someone and making him/her going through the expenses of a legal process is expensive and can ruin a person. If you are a teacher criticizing religion, if you are a journalist criticizing religion, if you are anyone that speaks up your mind in public, really.
I'm not aware of a mechanism in Canada that allows anyone to be sued over criticism of Islam or any other religion, nor can I see how this motion would create such a situation.
But assuming you were talking about the criminal code here, show me a case in Canadian legal history where a teacher criticizing religion, journalist criticizing religion, or anyone speaking up their mind on religion would suddenly be open to legal action as a result of this motion, or where an existing case where the person was found innocent before they would now be found guilty?
Quote:
Statements you said in your post are incredibly irritating and offensive to some people. But you should not be sued for them JUST because they are. That's the main reason for not having this legislation passed in any form.
Yup, agree 100% with the first part of that. And, umm, I can't be sued over them. Let's take the Peterson example above; and let's say he pushed it further and actually did, as part of his argument, state that this IS a picture of Mohammad. Is he allowed under Canadian law to say that? Yes. Are Muslims allowed to criticize him, even be angry with him? Yes. Does the criminal code protect him from prosecution for saying such things or publishing a picture of the prophet Mohammad? Yes, absolutely; he made his argument in a good faith, it's of the public interest, and he's not anywhere close to doing anything that constitutes hate speech. Look, we know this from the Western Standard. People can be angry over pictures of the prophet Mohammad. They can even file human-rights complaints; which, as in the case of Western Standard, were dismissed without proceeding to a panel hearing, because that doesn't come close to the standard that we already have in regarding hate speech in this country (and again, which this motion would not change).
Speaking specifically to Motion 103: I don't think it's a great motion. I think it's wording is vague, and amounts to 'we should recognize that Islamophobia is a problem, we should reassure Muslims that we recognize this in light of the recent attacks, and we should find ways to help communities get along with one another better. Personally, what I like in it is that it reiterates "enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," (which of course includes freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. The wording could have been made to focus on religious freedom, but it didn't).
I appreciate the fact that it encourages a 'a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making'. Which is a bit of a word salad, but makes it pretty clear that the spirit of this is not about criminalizing one thing or changing the authority of laws and prosecution, but rather to find community-level policies that are going to reduce hate. It's especially innocuous given that it specifically addresses the standing committee on Canadian Heritage, which is in a position to help direct a dialogue of tolerance and understanding between religious groups and cultures, but would not be where you would go if you wanted to change laws or make it easier for one group to sue the other.
Personally, this is what I want from our Muslim community: to have a dialogue about how we can function better as tolerant communities within the enshrined rights and freedoms that we are allowed.
So, I welcome you to, using the actual language of Motion 103, tell me what you see as making it easier for someone to be sued over something that should be protected as freedom of speech. Or if you want to walk back from the lawsuit part of it and point out something else that you find problematic, I welcome discussion on that front too.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Last edited by CaptainYooh; 02-15-2017 at 02:13 PM.
