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".
Someday Aliens will visit our planet, sight see crumbled churches and Mosques and other religious sites, snap pictures with their families and then remark to each other.
"They really did build nice things for pagans for there is no god but Xenu and we are his instrument and he demands sacrifice". Then they'll visit the church of scientology ruins and cry.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Only for people actively promoting hatred against Muslims. And even for them, not really.
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.
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.
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?
I agree with almost everything you say. However, I think distinctions of actual hateful "islamophobia" and criticisms of the doctrine or islamic societies isn't so cut and dry in day-to-day life right now.
Would you consider Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher "islamophobic"? When Sam Harris calls Islam "the motherload of bad ideas" is that islamophobic? Do they hate muslims, or are they simply some of the harshest critics of the doctrine? Many argue that they in no way hateful or islamophobic because of these (harsh) criticisms, but lots of other people do actually call them "islamophobic", or that their criticism must be rooted in bigotry, disguised in criticism of ideas. They argue that the term islamophobia is deployed to shut down even criticism of the doctrine by lumping any criticism into the bucket of anti-religious bigotry or racism.
Now, I don't know if a non-binding motion like this, well intentioned I think, would have any impact on that. I doubt it. And while I think various conservatives are rather needlessly hysterical about it, I don't think it's as simple a discussion around the term islamophobia and how it is used, as some believe.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 02-16-2017 at 09:26 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Many argue that they in no way hateful or islamophobic because of these (harsh) criticisms, but lots of other people do actually call them "islamophobic", or that their criticism must be rooted in bigotry, disguised in criticism of ideas. They argue that the term islamophobia is deployed to shut down even criticism of the doctrine by lumping any criticism into the bucket of anti-religious bigotry or racism.
Yes, Islam is something of a special case in the West. People who don't hesitate to denounce Catholocism or the Catholic church as backwards, oppressive troglodytes, have a very different stance towards Islam (which in the way it's practiced by most Muslims in the world today is far more oppressive and conservative than Catholicism). The difference is that Islam is associated with non-white people. That's part of what inspires fear and ignorance among white bigots, but it's also what makes it taboo to criticize among white progressives.
We could have a much healthier and open dialogue about Islam if everyone stopped associating it with race and ethnicity.
__________________
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.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
What concerns me about the motion is this section:
develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making
If the purpose of the motion is to condemn systemic racism and Islamophobia, why leave it open to the potential of policy making? The motion condemning antisemitism in 2015, which is being used a benchmark for M-103, made no mention of a government approach or policy making, it was purely to condemn the rise of global antisemitism.
While I am not a fan of the undefined use of a key term in the motion (Islamophobia), the reference to future policy-making is of concern to me. Under the Charter, all people are entitled to equal rights, protection and benefits under the law. When we start to legislate special policy for individual groups to increase or change that general protection, we stray from that principle.
What concerns me about the motion is this section:
develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making
If the purpose of the motion is to condemn systemic racism and Islamophobia, why leave it open to the potential of policy making? The motion condemning antisemitism in 2015, which is being used a benchmark for M-103, made no mention of a government approach or policy making, it was purely to condemn the rise of global antisemitism.
While I am not a fan of the undefined use of a key term in the motion (Islamophobia), the reference to future policy-making is of concern to me. Under the Charter, all people are entitled to equal rights, protection and benefits under the law. When we start to legislate special policy for individual groups to increase or change that general protection, we stray from that principle.
They could introduce policy or a private member's bill even without the motion. A motion doesn't make those two things easier or help to create a law when it's voted on.
What concerns me about the motion is this section:
develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making
If the purpose of the motion is to condemn systemic racism and Islamophobia, why leave it open to the potential of policy making? The motion condemning antisemitism in 2015, which is being used a benchmark for M-103, made no mention of a government approach or policy making, it was purely to condemn the rise of global antisemitism.
While I am not a fan of the undefined use of a key term in the motion (Islamophobia), the reference to future policy-making is of concern to me. Under the Charter, all people are entitled to equal rights, protection and benefits under the law. When we start to legislate special policy for individual groups to increase or change that general protection, we stray from that principle.
You may want to re-read section 15 of the Charter. It expressly exempts ameliorative programs (intended to address the disadvantage faced by particular groups, including disadvantage based on gender, race, religion, etc) from claims of discrimination under the Charter. It explicitly contemplates "legislating special policy for individual groups).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I agree with almost everything you say. However, I think distinctions of actual hateful "islamophobia" and criticisms of the doctrine or islamic societies isn't so cut and dry in day-to-day life right now.
Would you consider Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher "islamophobic"? When Sam Harris calls Islam "the motherload of bad ideas" is that islamophobic? Do they hate muslims, or are they simply some of the harshest critics of the doctrine? Many argue that they in no way hateful or islamophobic because of these (harsh) criticisms, but lots of other people do actually call them "islamophobic", or that their criticism must be rooted in bigotry, disguised in criticism of ideas. They argue that the term islamophobia is deployed to shut down even criticism of the doctrine by lumping any criticism into the bucket of anti-religious bigotry or racism.
Now, I don't know if a non-binding motion like this, well intentioned I think, would have any impact on that. I doubt it. And while I think various conservatives are rather needlessly hysterical about it, I don't think it's as simple a discussion around the term islamophobia and how it is used, as some believe.
That's a valid point, and actually islamophobia is a really problematic term in general (as are a lot of cultural phobia labels) as they tend to make a mess out of the literal, phobia (fear) definition and a hate-based definition; it does become a catch-all for all manner of negative reactions, but it shouldn't. Criticism is not necessarily Islamophobia, and Islamophobia is not necessarily hate speech. Exactly how we define Islamophobia doesn't seem that important to me unless our definitions of criticism and our definitions of hate speech overlap. And I don't see that as even a remote threat; the laws in Canada expressly exclude legitimate (either true, good faith, or public interest) criticism from being hate speech.
We have a clear word for hate-speech and activity toward Jews in anti-semitism (which is itself problematic in how semitic and Jewish are not equivalent terms but at least it has a commonly-accepted definition). I don't think anyone would have a problem with parliament condemning anti-semitism, would they? It would certainly be handy if we had a similar word for hate-speech and action towards Muslims, but we don't so we need to make due with the language we have. A symbolic measure in which you can't even bring yourself to give a name to the problem fails to have much symbolism.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
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.
I'm always amazed how people can live with there heads buried in the sand.
This is London a week ago.
Muslims march demanding violent death of Jews and Christians, oh and read the sign!
Again, this isn't Palestine nor is it Iran, this is fkin London, England
Here's one from December, again in London
Rioting Muslims attack Christians protesters in UK screaming "get out of OUR country"
But of course the ultra left that makes up the majority here will find a way to spin it
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 02-17-2017 at 03:17 AM.
You are not contributing in a valuable way. You are a troll. Please go away.
I started the thread, now I'm a troll who shouldn't post in it? as usual the left side is strong but not so bright
Please, if you can explain anything in my posts that are wrong do it. what? I can't post anything that criticizes Islam even before M103 goes threw? what I post is real, please get with the program!
I guess we know what your vote is.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 02-17-2017 at 04:08 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
I started the thread, now I'm a troll who shouldn't post in it? as usual the left side is strong but not so bright
Please, if you can explain anything in my posts that are wrong do it. what? I can't post anything that criticizes Islam even before M103 goes threw? what I post is real, please get with the program!
I guess we know what your vote is.
I refer to the thread in its totality, not merely your most recent post.
The subject of the thread is a non-binding vanity motion in parliament from a back-bencher. You began it in order to disparage "leftists" out of the sense that your viewpoint is in the minority. It is a troll thread, purposed entirely to cause conflict and not to spur meaningful conversation.
There is the potential for a meaningful discussion here, but at no point have you made any attempt to initiate, nor continue it. As the thread has progressed, you have added nothing of substance, merely outraged statements which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you've done no reading or research into Motion M-103 beyond the initial article. (Also, it's worth pointing out your source of choice "Catholic Insight" not, for example the CBC.ca article which pre-dates the Catholic Insight by five days, or the National Post article of January 30th.)
Once something approaching a substantive discussion does actually - despite your best attempts - begin to occur, you return to the thread with, again, simplistic, moronic statements about "grade 5 math" designed to do nothing more than create conflict, and then a post containing no commentary whatsoever, merely mention of a barely tangentially related protest in London, the only connection being to Islam.
Were I to point out that almost all pedophiles are men, and then conjecture that you are likely a man, and from that make the conclusion that you are probably a pederast, (at least, according to grade 5 math) I imagine you would either take umbrage or accuse me of making outrageous statements in order to get a rise out of you or the board. Obviously, it's exactly the same idiocy you decided to engage in in this thread.
There are multiple, ongoing threads in which legitimate criticism of Islam and other religions, as well as excellent apologetics can be found such as the ongoing thread discussing political, philosophical, and social theories. There is also an ongoing thread for the discussion of Canadian federal politics. While I would rightly call you a troll were you to post the kind of crap you've posted in this thread in either of those, at least you'd be somewhere near the mark.
I make no specific commentary regarding "anything in [your] posts that are [sic.] wrong." What I object to is the manner in which you have chosen to undertake an attempt at discussion. It is ineffective and, I believe, deliberately so.
You are a troll.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Yes, Islam is something of a special case in the West. People who don't hesitate to denounce Catholocism or the Catholic church as backwards, oppressive troglodytes, have a very different stance towards Islam (which in the way it's practiced by most Muslims in the world today is far more oppressive and conservative than Catholicism). The difference is that Islam is associated with non-white people. That's part of what inspires fear and ignorance among white bigots, but it's also what makes it taboo to criticize among white progressives.
We could have a much healthier and open dialogue about Islam if everyone stopped associating it with race and ethnicity.
I agree with most of your post, but don't think the reason is an association with non-white people.
I think it's more of a defence mechanism because the anit-islam rhetoric is so broad and hateful, it makes a lot of decent people feel the need to stand up for each other.
I think if Christians were being banned from entering the US, being shot in churches, and our political leaders were being elected largely based on promises to deal with christians, you'd see a similar defence.
But you're right about appropriate dialogue on Islam.
Combatting backwards religious practices and defending innocent people who follow a religion, don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I'm always amazed how people can live with there heads buried in the sand.
This is London a week ago.
Muslims march demanding violent death of Jews and Christians, oh and read the sign!
Again, this isn't Palestine nor is it Iran, this is fkin London, England
Here's one from December, again in London
Rioting Muslims attack Christians protesters in UK screaming "get out of OUR country"
But of course the ultra left that makes up the majority here will find a way to spin it
Interesting videos.
Care to explain to the crowd what you're doing frequenting a website that's hosting a video (your second one) only uploaded by white nationalist and neo-nazi youtube members?
It's somewhat ridiculous that you think the majority of posters here is ultra-left, but I suppose if you're sharing white nationalist propaganda then the rest speaks for itself.
Care to explain to the crowd what you're doing frequenting a website that's hosting a video (your second one) only uploaded by white nationalist and neo-nazi youtube members?
It's somewhat ridiculous that you think the majority of posters here is ultra-left, but I suppose if you're sharing white nationalist propaganda then the rest speaks for itself.
I'd like to know if he thinks tragedies like the shooting at the mosque in Quebec are somehow "different" or more acceptable than these incidents. Attacking people based on religion is not ok no matter which religion the attacker believes in.
Right-leaning centrists (particularly the decentralization types) are really getting on board the AntiFa hate-train since they made Milo cry and punched a nazi. Literally anyone who is left of centre is now complicit in AntiFa riots and supports radical Marxism.
Care to explain to the crowd what you're doing frequenting a website that's hosting a video (your second one) only uploaded by white nationalist and neo-nazi youtube members?
I didn't have to visit a "nazi" website, the second video just came up after the first on youtube. Had I waited there likely would have been more.
I would like to know why you assume the messenger is a racist instead of attacking the content of these "interesting" video's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
I'd like to know if he thinks tragedies like the shooting at the mosque in Quebec are somehow "different" or more acceptable than these incidents. Attacking people based on religion is not ok no matter which religion the attacker believes in.
What an ignorant thing to say any murder of the innocent is a sicking act.
Who's attacking people? this is the problem with Islam, instead of standing up to the idiots like the hateful crowds in London it gets swept under a rug, where is the peaceful side of the religion holding signs denouncing these idiots?
any murder of the innocent is a sicking act.