Canada anti-islamophobia motion M103

Notanumber said:

Not even a crime in any civilised country.

Click to expand...

Number Six: I have a choice?
Number Two: Of course. You can do as you want.
Number Six: As long as it's what you want.
Number Two: As long as it is what the majority wants. We're democratic. In some ways.

Instead of implementing what are virtually anti-blasphemy laws, perhaps it would be more productive to implement statutes that legislate against religiously-motivated violence/crime.

icehorse said:

Global conspiracy?

Click to expand...

You've managed to weave in the OIC and the UN and blasphemy laws and Muslim 5th columnists into a narrative surrounding a Canadian MP making a suggestion to parliament that a group of non-Muslims should look at all forms of hate crime and discrimination and make non-binding recommendations based on the evidence uncovered.

Augustus said:

You've managed to weave in the OIC and the UN and blasphemy laws and Muslim 5th columnists into a narrative surrounding a Canadian MP making a suggestion to parliament that a group of non-Muslims should look at all forms of hate crime and discrimination and make non-binding recommendations based on the evidence uncovered.

Click to expand...

This is all out in the open, the 5th column is an idea you introduced. And again, your innocent MP wasn't satisfied to create a general statement. He had to tack on a special mention for islamophobia. why?

icehorse said:

This is all out in the open, the 5th column is an idea you introduced. And again, your innocent MP wasn't satisfied to create a general statement. He had to tack on a special mention for islamophobia. why?

Click to expand...

They have no connection to this issue though and you used them as examples as to why this motion (that has zero legislative effect) might turn into a blasphemy law.

I've no idea about her motivations, why does it even matter? It's just one person's opinion. It has no authority. She decides nothing. And the talking shop that she suggested talk about it appears to be 0% Muslim.

Perhaps she thought it an important issue at the moment and wanted to highlight it though. Maybe she wanted to raise concerns from Muslim constituents, maybe it was based on her own background. Maybe its based on the fact that anytime a Muslim does something many people start seeing conspiracies and ulterior motives that involve destroying Western civillisation and fuel a narrative that leads to people like them getting shot up in mosques.

If one particular issue is more prominent in the social narrative it is not uncommon to highlight it (see anti-Semitism, black lives matter, etc). Some forms of discrimination are just more prevalent at certain times, and despite my dislike of the term, islamophobia is what this discrimination gets called.

An educated, 'Westernised", non-hijab wearing female Muslim politician suggests some non Muslims talk about an issue and the sky is falling down again. Perhaps she has a point.

I've suggested to you before that you would have a much better perspective if you treated Islam as multiple religions rather than one. Then it would be easier to stop making phantom connections that apply to every single Muslim worldwide: "Oh a Muslim done something, she obviously wants to oppress us".

This tilting at windmills isn't going to solve any problems.

idav said:

Some of those extremists claiming to be Islam haven't read the Quran or they wouldn't be fighting against most everyone, even people who profess belief in Allah.

Click to expand...

However, they will have been indoctrinated.

icehorse said:

Global conspiracy?

Click to expand...

Notanumber said:

However, they will have been indoctrinated.

Click to expand...

They are all indoctrinated.

Notanumber said:

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing, they certainly are evil.

Alison Wonderland said:

Instead of implementing what are virtually anti-blasphemy laws, perhaps it would be more productive to implement statutes that legislate against religiously-motivated violence/crime.

Click to expand...

I think those are already in place in Canadian law.

A Greased Scotsman said:

I think those are already in place in Canadian law.

Click to expand...

And enshrined in our Constitution, yes.

UpperLimits said:

On the contrary, it relates directly to what you said.

I understand you're using a technicality of language to put forth the idea that Canadians are OK with this because it was a Canadian who put forth the idea. Generally however - We're NOT "OK" with it!!. This motion is being put forth by a small minority. But since it was cooked up by the Liberals and the Liberal party has a majority in the Parliament, we're stuck with having it crammed down our throats regardless of how the general populace feels about it.

But what do the people of Canada know anyways? We're all just a bunch of low IQ, white, bigoted, zenophobes, who need to be instructed on how to live our lives by a pot smoking drama school teacher who's never ran a business in his life - let alone a country - and if actually left to fend for himself would barely have the qualifications to flip burgers at McDonalds! Get with the program - Canadians DON'T want this.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way. Generally, though, we are okay with it. M-103 is not an idea "cooked up Liberals," it's a recognition of the climate of fear evident in the world today--everywhere you look on media and social media--that is a growing problem, and an expression of the basic human rights supported by Conservative governments, and that are Canadian law. In fact, I'm seeing it right here in your rhetoric, in the resistance to Canadian values and denigration of the Canadian image in support of the idea that the Prime Minister is somehow stupid. Trust me, Canadians have no problem with M-103, especially as IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

Shadow Wolf said:

You haven't even shown it was a Muslim who pushed for this.

Click to expand...

Iqra Khalid put forward the motion who is a Muslim. Also the motion was setup after this petition Petition e-411 - E-petitions which was started by a Muslim. This does not mean it is some conspiracy. Both seems like a logical reactions to events. Besides Samer Majzoub is a Muslim activist thus being an advocate, again, makes sense.

Augustus said:

It was a private member's motion, literally an individual putting his thoughts on the record in a way that has zero legislative consequences. None. Nothing. Not even a study unless the government later chooses to hold one (in a technically unconnected process).

Click to expand...

A study is already tabled for the Heritage Council. Although at this time it is overburdened with a number of other topics so I expect delays.

psychoslice said:

I said Christian don't stone their children anymore, yes there are many Muslims who don't practice their teachings, but there are so many of them, that to say only the minority is like talking about millions of them, the whole point it they are not mixing very well with civilized countries, they should be taught how we live and if they agree with our ways, then they can come, its simple.

Click to expand...

I agree. I guess where we part ways is that I see practically all Muslims who are trying to come to our country, especially refugees, are coming to enjoy our way of life. Opportunities, freedom, safety, respect, etc.

idav said:

Some of those extremists claiming to be Islam haven't read the Quran or they wouldn't be fighting against most everyone, even people who profess belief in Allah.

Click to expand...

I agree. Many aren't even able to read. They are brainwashed because of this, as they just take the word of others on what is actually professed in the Quran.

psychoslice said:

You have as I have made your mind up, so there is no use in continuing this discussion, the proof is all around you and you refuse to see it, I hope for the good of the world that you are right.

Click to expand...

Me too. Let's just give individual Muslims the benefit of the doubt until they show us I am wrong.

icehorse said:

How about if we consider their societies when we assess the faith? Or will you tell me that no assessments can ever made be made because "many factors" ?

Click to expand...

What societies? How would you judge those societies? By what their leaders dictate? Because, I for one wouldn't want to be judged by what our President says and does.

UpperLimits said:

Agreed. But as Icehorse has pointed out, these things essentially take place as "death by a thousand cuts." By the time it actually does come to a vote on the matter, the country would have been so indoctrinated as to simply accept it as the next logical step.

Click to expand...

So, due to the slippery slope argument, we shouldn't allow studies on racial/religious prejudice, as this non-binding motion asks for?

Shad said:

A study is already tabled for the Heritage Council. Although at this time it is overburdened with a number of other topics so I expect delays.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I might have misinterpreted that bit. I thought the government would have to choose to have a study.

I suppose it makes little difference though.