I did indeed, including reading between the lines.
Tell me, what do you think the the government could do to
-quell public climate of hate and fear;
-condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic (catchphrase) racism and religious discrimination; and
-develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia?
What's some of the tools they have at their disposal or could bring about to stop the systemic, problematic, "not okay!" stuff going on?
First off, in re-reading my previous post, I have to suck back and apologize for sounding a bit harsh in asking "did you read it?" - it's a passionate debate on all sides.
I know about reading between the lines in government writing. I see "Islamophobia" there in the text - and that seems to be what some critics are getting hung up on.
do a lot of things, including things to deal with all kinds
of religious hatred - including setting up an Office of Religious Freedom
. Nothing in the motion says a new law's going
to come, or what it'll look like.
Bonus question, what's Islamophobia to you? I've read it's "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force".
So I potentially won't be allowed to dislike Islam? Or be critical of it lest I be promoting Islamophobia? Anxious to hear your response.
Where does it say this motion will not
allow you to dislike Islam? Or Judaism? Or Catholicism? Or Jehovah's Witnesses? I see "hate crimes" mentioned as being something to be looked at, but I don't see reference to thought
crimes. And we all know there's criticism, and there's "criticism", right?
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (Is that demonstrable? Is there an increasing climate of hate and fear?)
I'm sensing a fair bit of fear in this
discussion, so that's one element of evidence. Also, does there have to be more
of a problem before we deal with said problem, as opposed to just dealing with a problem? (And yes, I know all about priorizing energy when there's more than one problem to be solved.)
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination (Does that include discrimination against Freemasons?)
Good question -- is Freemasonry a race or religion? Some say "Freemasonry is not a religion"
, but I'd be happy to hear from Masons themselves about this.
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 (Always a good plan. A commission) ... and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Always find room for another regulation)
have me there -- but that's not what a lot of people are criticizing about the motion. Which also brings us to this ...
Just out of curiosity, why do we need Motion 103? We already have Laws dealing with "Hate Speech" in the media and other forms. Why do we have to have a "special" law to protect one specific group?That's
another good point. While I have about as much faith in government as many here, nothing I see in the motion inevitably
leads to a new law, especially one that protects only one
specific group. New laws, we don't need - especially when there's laws that are difficult to enforce in the first place.
Will the motion solve the problem of racism/discrimination? Doubt it. Is it necessary? Not necessarily, but not
for the reasons I'm seeing all over the interwebs.
I'm just not convinced that having a committee looking at what to do about racism/discrimination is going to, down the road, lead to the destruction of Canada as we know it, like some of the worst doomsdayers in the world appear to say - see attached.