# Motion M-103 coming up (split fm Politics in 2017)



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2017)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m103-islamophobia-khalid-motion-1.3972194
anti-Islamophobia motion


I'm pretty pumped about this motion. From here we can criminalize Islamophobia [we can figure out the exact definition later, not important] and from there we can start implementing some blasphemy laws  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2017)

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?    We are one society, where all are supposed to be treated equally; no special entitlements to any segment of our society.  It is a divisive motion, in my eyes, and one that is totally unnecessary; a waste of our parliament's valuable time and effort when much more pressing matters may be at hand.  This Motion only fans the flames of those who fear the loss of their Rights and Freedoms to a special interest group.


----------



## Loachman (14 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This Motion only fans the flames of those who fear the loss of their Rights and Freedoms to a special interest group.



You mean the kind of people who belong in a Basket of Deplorables?

Why would Liberals care about how such people feel or what they think?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m103-islamophobia-khalid-motion-1.3972194
> anti-Islamophobia motion
> 
> 
> I'm pretty pumped about this motion. From here *we can criminalize Islamophobia* [we can figure out the exact definition later, not important] and from there we can start implementing some blasphemy laws  :nod:


Follow-up question:  did you read the motion itself?  If you did, did you read past the first 23 words?  Or are you just going by what social media headlines are saying?  Let's see the text, shall we?  Highlights mine ...


> That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (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, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, 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.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2017)

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?

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.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2017)

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?)
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination  (Does that include discrimination against Freemasons?) 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 (Always a good plan.  A commission) 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, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, 
               (ii) collect data
                    to contextualize hate crime reports and
                    to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, 

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)


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 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;
> ...


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.  

Governments _could_ 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.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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.)


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> (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.


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 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)


You _*DO*_ have me there -- but that's not what a lot of people are criticizing about the motion.  Which also brings us to this ...


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 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..



It is neither race or religion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is neither race or religion.



Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life 

Source:  My father is a free mason.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is neither race or religion.





			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life
> 
> Source:  My father is a free mason.


I've never thought of it as one, but this helps - thanks.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life
> 
> Source:  My father is a free mason.



Although to be fair, it is faith based, in that one must believe in a higher power.  (I come from a line of Masons and Eastern Star on my mother's side.)  And why I could not ask to become one, as I don't.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Feb 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Although to be fair, it is faith based, in that one must believe in a higher power.  (I come from a line of Masons and Eastern Star on my mother's side.)  And why I could not ask to become one, as I don't.



This is true; however, Freemasons don't care what your higher power is.  Allah, God, Buddha, etc... all are welcome.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is true; however, Freemasons don't care what your higher power is.  Allah, God, Buddha, etc... all are welcome.



Yes, as was explained to me by my Uncle and speaks well of them.  He was really itching for me to ask as our family connection would die with him otherwise, but I couldn't disrespect him or the Order by falsely pretending to believe.  I may not have many scruples but...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is neither race or religion.



Agreed that it is neither race nor religion - but it is opposed on religious grounds.  Kind of like abortion.  Or making cakes for gay weddings.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Feb 2017)

Of course it is opposed on religious grounds, Chris.

It is that acceptance by the Freemasons of all beliefs as equally valid that is anathema to organized religions. One of the few common grounds of every religion is that they each consider themselves to be the "sole true religion", with all the others being false religions praying to false gods. Anything that relativizes all religions to make them equal to one another is to be fought tooth and nail as every religion recognizes that to accept such premise means their own religion is no different than the ones they look at as "false". This relative or equivalent "moral" value of religion was the basis on which the Quebec religious study curriculum, who teaches about all the various religions as equal and from a cultural point of view, was fought against in the Courts by many of the religious orders some years ago. 

No such compunction is found from those of us who know there is no "higher power" or "Creator" and who put our faith (so to speak  ) in the rule of human law: We simply recognize the freedom of belief, i.e. you can go on believing whatever you want, so long as you don't try to impose those belief *or any practice you believe it imposes on you* on any one else.

Are we still talking politics in 2017 ???


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Of course it is opposed on religious grounds, Chris.
> 
> It is that acceptance by the Freemasons of all beliefs as equally valid that is anathema to organized religions. One of the few common grounds of every religion is that they each consider themselves to be the "sole true religion", with all the others being false religions praying to false gods. Anything that relativizes all religions to make them equal to one another is to be fought tooth and nail as every religion recognizes that to accept such premise means their own religion is no different than the ones they look at as "false". This relative or equivalent "moral" value of religion was the basis on which the Quebec religious study curriculum, who teaches about all the various religions as equal and from a cultural point of view, was fought against in the Courts by many of the religious orders some years ago.



Agreed entirely - Liberalism has always been anathema.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No such compunction is found from those of us who know there is no "higher power" or "Creator" and who put our faith (so to speak  ) in the rule of human law: We simply recognize the freedom of belief, i.e. you can go on believing whatever you want, so long as you don't try to impose those belief *or any practice you believe it imposes on you* on any one else.



Half roads there.  On the Higher Power issue I personally fall someplace between here and there.  On the imposition of belief I too believe that what goes on inside a person's skull is their own affair.  What their mouth and press utters is innocuous and to be permitted.  What their hands do is a matter of concern.

But not all beliefs concern Higher Powers, do they?  And they are imposed.  In the form of Human Law.   And why is your belief better than mine?    And why should Human Law be considered immutable?





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are we still talking politics in 2017 ???



Youbetcha!


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

Since this one might generate enough stand-alone commentary/discussion, and because it's timely (vote coming this week) I've split it from the Politics-General thread.

Back to your regularly-scheduled discussion ...

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Feb 2017)

I must admit that this motion provokes some unease:

1. Do we not already have sufficiently robust hate speech legislation?

2. Why single out Islam for protection if the goal is protecting all religions?

I hate to sound alarmist, but how short a distance is it from a motion to a private member's bill?


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I must admit that this motion provokes some unease:
> 
> 1. Do we not already have sufficiently robust hate speech legislation?
> 
> ...



1.  Yes.  but this is a motion.  Not actual legislation or law

2.  Because that is the flavour/boogeyman of the day and this motion is a feel good exercise that won't cost too much and will look like something is being done.

Not sure but we've seen how far private member's bills can get so I wouldn't worry too much yet.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> SNIP
> 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?
> 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.)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.You _*DO*_ have me there -- but that's not what a lot of people are criticizing about the motion.  Which also brings us to this ..._*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
> SNIP
> 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.



To put the word "islamophobia" into a government document leaves it open to broad interpretation, because that word can mean whatever "they" want it to mean.  I'd be curious if the member who put the motion forward would be as willing to denounce the constant stream of antisemitism that spews out of all those Mississauga mosques?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... I'd be curious if the member who put the motion forward would be as willing to denounce the constant stream of antisemitism that spews out of all those Mississauga mosques?


Given everything else the motion says, that's a good question right there.


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Not sure but we've seen how far private member's bills can get so I wouldn't worry too much yet.


If the government of the day wants them passed, they'll get passed -- if they don't, they don't.

I know which way _I'd_ bet on this one & this gov't  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Feb 2017)

So we can slap charges on the first mosque that recites the prayer calling for the destruction of the Jews


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So we can slap charges on the first mosque that recites the prayer calling for the destruction of the Jews


And, as others have said, there's laws in play now that would allow that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 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 appreciate that thank you. I in turn apologize if my response was acerbic or more personal than it ought to have been. I'm hardly unbiased or neutral when it comes to Islam and my OP about M103 was quite sarcastic.



> 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.





> *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's exactly it (Islamophobia being repeated in the text). It all comes down to the word Islamophobia and how the word is both ambiguous and perverted from it's root meaning.

What's Arachnophobia?  An extreme or irrational fear of spiders.  One would presume Islamophobia would be an extreme or irrational fear of Islam but we know it's used much more generally than that. Basically _any_ criticism of Islam is turned around into Islamophobia. Essentially the same way Nazi is used ad nauseum.

You asked where does the motion say it will not allow me to dislike Islam?  I think it's rather straight forward. Wikipedia's definition of Islamophobia is;
"fear, prejudice, *hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.*" 

So it's not a phobia in terms of irrational fear but according to the definitions we see of "Islamophobia" it ALSO includes "hatred or dislike" of Islam. 

Motion M-103 calls for the government to condemn Islamophobia which as I've pointed out includes dislike of Islam. The motion calls for the government to condemn me for thinking Islam is violent and abusive towards women.  I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to connect the dots and see how easily the government could begin to actively prosecute people like me for my Islamophobia.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... It all comes down to the word Islamophobia and how the word is both ambiguous and perverted from it's root meaning.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


Seen.  I hear you about definitions, and that WILL be a critical element of anything that may come out of this.  Some see the fear of Islam _as a religion as a whole_ as irrational (hence, a phobia) because of the small percentage of people claiming to be Muslims doing some very bad stuff.  That said, Wikipedia's is only one definition - it would be good to keep an eye on any definitions coming out the process, as well as seeing how much protection is offered to other religions.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... Motion M-103 calls for the government to condemn Islamophobia which as I've pointed out includes dislike of Islam. The motion calls for the government to condemn me for thinking Islam is violent and abusive towards women.  I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to connect the dots and see how easily the government could begin to actively prosecute people like me for my Islamophobia.


It's kinda hard for government to ding someone for what they _think_.  How they _express_ such thoughts is another question - and it would be worthwhile to keep track of how that would be handled, too.

I also have to agree, though, with others who say there's already hate speech/crime laws in place.  Is the issue that these provisions aren't working?  Any LEO input on that appreciated.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Feb 2017)

Just a quick add regarding your comment about Wikipedia was only one definition.  I checked a couple others before hand too.


> Merriam-Webster
> irrational fear of, *aversion to*, or *discrimination against Islam* or people who practice Islam
> 
> Oxford Dictionary.
> ...



There is a definite theme; if you dislike Islam you're an Islamophobe.

Agreed it's hard to ding someone for what they think but less hard to take someones criticism and twist it into hate speech.
Agree again about already existing hate speech laws but in reading the motion it's pointed out that it's felt Muslims are _especially_ vulnerable to hate speech and hate crimes (despite Jewish people largely being the most represented victims of hate crimes in Canada).


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Feb 2017)

Real M103 ;D:



> http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M103_Heavy_Tank.php



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Agreed it's hard to ding someone for what they think but less hard to take someones criticism and twist it into hate speech.


Worth keeping an eye out for, for sure.  Meanwhile, though, it only takes a few idiots to make outrageous statements (and you can find them all over social media from all sides) and claim freedom of speech before that excuse wears out, so one also has to be careful about how one "criticizes," too.


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Agree again about already existing hate speech laws but in reading the motion it's pointed out that it's felt Muslims are _especially_ vulnerable to hate speech and hate crimes (despite Jewish people largely being the most represented victims of hate crimes in Canada).


I don't read it that way, but we can agreed to disagree.  I agree with you about anti-Semitism, though.  We'll have to see how "Muslim" heavy the next steps are, as opposed to just looking for more ways to prevent any religion from being jerked around unreasonably or hatefully.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Feb 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Real M103 ;D:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



You know, when I first read the title, I was hoping that it might be about some new equipment coming down the pipe that is needed, instead of hot air to appease some.


----------



## Loachman (15 Feb 2017)

The immediate threat that this motion would bolster is that of the Human Rights Tribunals/Kangaroo Courts, which have been used to supress some very slight criticisms of Islam - Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant managed to fight back and achieve some legislative satisfaction. Those tribunals need to be eliminated.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

[quote author=milnews.ca] I don't read it that way, but we can agreed to disagree.  I agree with you about anti-Semitism, though.  
[/quote]
Happily no need to disagree with me here, that wasn't my view on things.  I was quoting the article and the MP who put forward the motion.  She feels Muslims are especially at risk. 

I almost think anyone wearing something  with Trump written on it is presently the most at risk for hate crimes


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Feb 2017)

I thought the Trump things constituted hat crime.  ;D


----------



## brihard (16 Feb 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The immediate threat that this motion would bolster is that of the Human Rights Tribunals/Kangaroo Courts, which have been used to supress some very slight criticisms of Islam - Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant managed to fight back and achieve some legislative satisfaction. Those tribunals need to be eliminated.



Ah yes, that one time where Levant accidentally WASN'T full of ****.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Happily no need to disagree with me here, that wasn't my view on things.  I was quoting the article and the MP who put forward the motion.  *She feels Muslims are especially at risk.*


Remember what I said about how one says things?  _*This*_ is how people get to say that Islamophobia is a problem ... 


> ...  During the debate, Khalid read some of the messages she has received over her motion. In places where the author used unparliamentary language, Khalid inserted the word "blank."
> 
> Warning: some language will be offensive to some readers.
> 
> ...


Agree or disagree with Islam, I'm thinking a lot of people wouldn't think these are the best critiques of the religion or the individual in question.  The many will continue to suffer because of the worst idiots ...  

Just like threats on social media may not be the best way to air dissent, no matter whether the winning team jersey is red or blue.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2017)

Cherry picking.  I wonder how many very respectful emails disagreeing with her stand did she receive?  How many times was anti Jew or anti infidel rhetoric used in the last sermon she attended at her mosque?  Again, that use of the "I" word needs to be scourged from her document.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

[quote author=milnews.ca]
Agree or disagree with Islam, I'm thinking a lot of people wouldn't think these are the best critiques of the religion or the individual in question.  The many will continue to suffer because of the worst idiots ...  

Just like threats on social media may not be the best way to air dissent, no matter whether the winning team jersey is 
[/quote]

I understand where you're coming from here but lets be honest, that kind of trash talk is prevalent across most social media on any number of topics.
I've had the same if not worse stuff said to me when I've tried to debate points or issues. I've mentioned before too that "vets" are among the most abusive I've found, as if talking about graphic violence somehow makes them bad ass.  In any case am I (are we) surprised by those comments? Don't think so.   Muslims can hardly claim to be the sole victim of online hatred like that. Hell if you want to see REALLY gruesome comments check out the comments when a female hunter posts a picture of an animal she shot and killed.


Also while I'm sure it's probably not the case, there's a number of growing examples of Muslims/Blacks/Jews/ traditional victims of hate crimes who are getting caught faking hate crimes against themselves. Or caught committing hate crimes against their own race/people. More so in the US but I believe there's been some cases here in Canada.
It's easy to picture some of those comments coming from Muslims themselves in order to vilify "Islamophobia".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2017)

Maybe we should just start hitting people with sticks and stones.

Many will start to remember that words cannot hurt you.........................unless you let them.

It's supposed to take a lot to rile up a Canadian, but politicians have done it in spades.

Extreme vitriol against politicians? Tough shit, they brought it on themselves. Many Canadians are at the boiling point because of them.

And who's to say where those comments come from? I can imagine a muslim male calling her a whore and to sit the fuck down and shut up. Or it could be all set up to elicit sympathy. There's ton's of reasons anyone would have, in their mind, to say something like that. Again, tough shit. If I had their pay and pension you could call me whatever you want. I don't care now, but the cash would be nice [

But when you all read it, in your minds eye, all you saw was illiterate, angry, white dudes. Don't deny it. [ And in my mind, that was the reason for her to say anything.  

Could be wrong. Who really knows? Just my thoughts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... words cannot hurt you.........................unless you let them ...


If that's _truly_ the case, then _this_ shouldn't be a problem, right?


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... How many times was anti Jew or anti infidel *rhetoric* used in the last sermon she attended at her mosque? ...


Just words, right?  


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... I wonder how many very respectful emails disagreeing with her stand did she receive? ...


I'm glad we agree that we shouldn't judge any group (in this case, opponents of M-103) by the worst idiots in that group.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ... But when you all read it, in your minds eye, all you saw was illiterate, angry, white dudes. Don't deny it. [ ...


I just saw "Idiots, Generic, C1A1, For the use of" myself.


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I understand where you're coming from here but lets be honest, that kind of trash talk is prevalent across most social media on any number of topics.


True, and I've even seen people around these parts being banned for language not even _that_ inflammatory.  That doesn't make it right or helpful.


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... It's easy to picture some of those comments coming from Muslims themselves in order to vilify "Islamophobia".


Still doesn't make them right or helpful.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2017)

[quote author=milnews.ca]Still doesn't make them right or helpful.
[/quote]
On the contrary if you're pushing an _Islamophobes everywhere!_ agenda then going on and making those kinds of comments will support your own argument and be very helpful. (not what you meant I know   )


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's _truly_ the case, then _this_ shouldn't be a problem, right?Just words, right?  I'm glad we agree that we shouldn't judge any group (in this case, opponents of M-103) by the worst idiots in that group.I just saw "Idiots, Generic, C1A1, For the use of" myself.True, and I've even seen people around these parts being banned for language not even _that_ inflammatory.  That doesn't make it right or helpful.Still doesn't make them right or helpful.




Absolutely. Anti semitism doesn't hurt me in the least, being non Semitic , but if we're going for a bad words shouldn't be allowed motion because feelings, then you better make sure the field is level. By putting the "I" word in there, twice, you give it the high ground.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2017)

Milnews,

I appreciate your response. I just don't agree.

Yes, I'm going to be a little OCD here. Words in themselves are not capable of causing physical injury. The interpretation of those words is unique to the individual. However, if enough people have enough similarities with those thoughts, they will gravitate to like and blend their collective thoughts into a common mission statement. If it results in the discovery of a cancer cure, great! If it results in total annihilation it doesn't change the thought that it is the fault of the interpreter. The interpreter, can decide to act or ignore, based on their emotional and mental condition or training. Anyone in earshot of someone talking makes a conscious decision to listen or not. They then decide whether it's something that interests them. Once they decide they are interested, it's up to them what they do with the situation, and what they heard. Individuals not a collection of spoken letters is what hurt people. I guess the test would be to take a profoundly deaf person, stand behind them and rhyme off hundreds of trigger words and phrases and see if the subject goes bonkers and tries to kill someone.

Semantics? Perhaps. I'm a believer that everyone has a free consciousness. It is you that determines your beliefs, actions and interaction with others. Not the words.

Hope that explains my viewpoint better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> On the contrary if you're pushing an _Islamophobes everywhere!_ agenda then going on and making those kinds of comments will support your own argument and be very helpful. (not what you meant I know   )


What proportion of those comments do you think were made by Muslims who just want to stoke the flames from their side?  I'll go with "more than zero", but I think going lots more than that can lead to this kind of approach.


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... you better make sure *the field is level* ...


Agreed.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ... I appreciate your response. I just don't agree ...


I sensed that  ;D  Seriously, it would be a pretty boring thread if we all agreed with one side or another.  I'm just hoping we can continue to share a bit of reasonably-debated content from all sides while keeping the idiocy - from all sides - to a minimum


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> What proportion of those comments do you think were made by Muslims who just want to stoke the flames from their side?



Probably not very many, with a chance of none. However there's still a chance some were. 

The story about all the comments reads to me like "see I'm right, look at all the Islamophobia".   My argument is that with the anonymity of the internet and the knowledge that minorities ARE getting caught doing fake hate crimes/fake hate speech against themselves [ check out hate crime hoax's int he US ], the story about all the negative comments shes getting isn't proof about anything. Other than people online are assholes.

Sure she's getting hateful comments. But she's not special and neither is Islam in that regard . If you, Milnews,  post a picture of a deer you shot (even stating you donated the meat to chairity)  and it's open source I bet you get comments from anti-hunters about going to your house and murdering your family. People on the internet are psychotic. 

The MP suggests that Muslims are especially at risk and pushing a subtle "Islamophobia is special" agenda. I disagree. Many of the definitions of Islamophobia still include "dislike", that's a little too inclusive for me.  I think the next step is treating Islamophobia as a hate crime meaning I might get thrown in front of one of those kangaroo court tribunals for saying I think Islam is barbaric.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Probably not very many, with a chance of none. However there's still a chance some were.
> 
> The story about all the comments reads to me like "see I'm right, look at all the Islamophobia".   My argument is that with the anonymity of the internet and the knowledge that minorities ARE getting caught doing fake hate crimes/fake hate speech against themselves [ check out hate crime hoax's int he US ], the story about all the negative comments shes getting isn't proof about anything. Other than people online are assholes.
> 
> ...



Fixed that for you ... or as K once said: "A person is smart, but people are stupid."


----------



## Journeyman (17 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I thought the Trump things constituted hat crime.  ;D


Only because of the typo;  obviously spell check wouldn't pick up that it should read, "Make America Grate"

/tangent


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2017)

More paving for the road to hell. This is a license for the fundamentalists Muslim to push their crap and suppress their critics. You can bet if you criticize Islam or draw the Prophet, you will be attacked, you can also bet safe money that there is no interest in going after Atheists who belittle Christianity and abuse their symbols. My wife and I will be firing off letters tonight.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2017)

I neither fear, nor 'dislike' Muslims.  I do have "CONCERNS" about the recent arrivals in the last decade or two of so many from Muslim countries which have less than stellar Human Rights and Social believes and practices.  I wonder if we can have Iqra Khalid give us her views on some of the concerns many Canadians have about:

1.  Female Genital Mutilation; 

2.  Child Brides;

3.  Stoning of women who are "accused" of having sex outside of marriage, having "sex" (?) due to being raped, and various other offences under Sharia Law;

4.  Throwing homosexuals to their death or stoning them to death;

5.  The use of Chia Boys and/or the rape of young boys; and

6.  What is her opinion on Sharia Law?

Seriously.  These are not fears, nor dislikes, but serious concerns that run counter to what our societal beliefs are.  To silence those concerns is a slap in the face of our Charter of Human Rights.  Women, the LBGTQ, and children are the real victims here, and we should have serious concerns.

As an aside, the practice in point # 4 makes one wonder why all in point # 5 have not been thrown off of the top of building.


----------



## mariomike (19 Feb 2017)

Feb 18, 2017 

Police investigate anti-Muslim rally outside Toronto mosque as possible hate crime
Too soon to tell if protest crosses 'fine line' between freedom of expression and criminal act, police say
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-investigate-anti-muslim-rally-hate-crime-1.3990044
Rally held amid debate on anti-Islamophobia motion


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Feb 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Feb 18, 2017
> 
> Police investigate anti-Muslim rally outside Toronto mosque as possible hate crime



Destroy anyone who displaced Canadians.
Kill them one by one,  spare no one. 
Purify the country from the filth of the  Muslims.  

Think that would be considered islamophobia or hate speech? 

I think so, at least hate speech...

Funny thing is there's a certain building in Toronto where this stuff was said last year,  albeit it was targeting a group which represents the highest number of hate crime victims in Canada. 

Any guess which building it was?  Here's a hint,  there was just a rally outside of it.


----------



## Jed (19 Feb 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Feb 18, 2017
> 
> Police investigate anti-Muslim rally outside Toronto mosque as possible hate crime
> Too soon to tell if protest crosses 'fine line' between freedom of expression and criminal act, police say
> ...



And simple human nature begins to kick in and all this 'shit' starts. If the followers of the faith keep up the 'poor me I'm a victim' approach and have it intensified by the Media and self serving politicians, this is bound to occur. It appears to me that 'Islam' abhors anything other than 'total submission'. It seems pretty hard for a large number of followers of the faith to get along with their neighbors. Maybe the faith needs a major reformation so most individuals can get along with others that don't submit to 'Allah'?

No one needs or wants this nonsense in our Country.

To be clear I would never support a protest on either side of this issue.  My preferable personal response would be 'look the other way, nothing to see here...'

Peace, out. eace:


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2017)

I agree.  Pushing this point is just pushing those with strong opposing views to become more actively present in the public.  It is having the affect of inciting, not quelling, a problem; a problem that is already covered by the Law and by the Charter of Human Rights--So it is actually NOT NECESSARY.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I agree.  Pushing this point is just pushing those with strong opposing views to become more actively present in the public.  It is having the affect of inciting, not quelling, a problem; a problem that is already covered by the Law and by the Charter of Human Rights--So it is actually NOT NECESSARY.



Do you think, maybe, that's what they want?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Do you think, maybe, that's what they want?



In fact, I would be inclined to believe it could just be that; a chess move to force the hand of others to make a move, for which they can turn around and in the MSM point and say "I told you so."  It still boils down to the Motion inciting, not quelling, the problem.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In fact, I would be inclined to believe it could just be that; a chess move to force the hand of others to make a move, for which they can turn around and in the MSM point and say "I told you so."  It still boils down to the Motion inciting, not quelling, the problem.



I would submit that the recent Mosque protest in Toronto might be a by product of the motion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2017)

OK, I'll bite ...


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Do you think, maybe, that's what *they* want?


Any speculation on who "they" might be?


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... *a chess move* to force the hand of others to *make a move*, for which they can turn around and in the MSM point and say "I told you so."  It still boils down to the Motion inciting, not quelling, the problem.


Any speculation on who the chess players may be?  And what "make a move" might entail?  And if such a move was, to speculate a bit myself, listed as verboten in the Criminal Code, "the Motion made this person do it" will be a defence or justification?  Or would it be "they's" fault?


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would submit that the recent Mosque protest in Toronto might be a by product of the motion.


I can't wait for defence counsel to use that.

I think the motion is redundant and political, but I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that if an idiot becomes more idiotic than usual, the _motion_ is to blame.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> OK, I'll bite ...Any speculation on who "they" might be?



Nope. Just wondered is all. Nothing nefarious, racist, anti-anything and no phobias. I was actually hoping to hear different views.  You can answer it, delete it or question my meanings further, but I'm done with it. Don't care anymore. It's already gone down the tubes.

Sometimes a question is just a question, so you can untwist your panties.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Any speculation on who the chess players may be?  And what "make a move" might entail?



My bets would be the people making the Motion and to win points in the MSM and say that they were "right all along".  Simple as that.  Politics in the 21st Century hasn't changed that much; only the mediums.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sometimes a question is just a question, so you can untwist your panties.


Like cigars, I guess.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My bets would be the people making the Motion and to win points in the MSM and say that they were "right all along".  Simple as that.  Politics in the 21st Century hasn't changed that much; only the mediums.


Just making sure who to blame if someone goes full idiot over this - it's the _politicians_' fault, not anyone being an idiot.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just making sure who to blame if someone goes full idiot over this - it's the _politicians_' fault, not anyone being an idiot.



 [

Just had a friend point out that this was the same tactic used to incite people over the Gun Registry and get the protesters out.  Unfortunately, there is always someone willing to protest and justify the Governments stance as a result.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just had a friend point out that this was the same tactic used to incite people over the Gun Registry and get the protesters out.


Silly me - if any of them went full idiot, it _certainly_ would have been the government's fault.  What was I thinking?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Milnews,
> 
> I appreciate your response. I just don't agree.
> 
> ...


Words can be exceedingly dangerous, the words "burnt a Koran", "Blasphemous", "Insulting the Prophet" can be an instant death sentence in many Islamic countries if directed at you, the mob will respond instinctively to them and attack the indicated target. It is the power to control the mob that gives the Imans and Nutbars power to cower average people.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Words can be exceedingly dangerous, the words "burnt a Koran", "Blasphemous", "Insulting the Prophet" can be an instant death sentence in many Islamic countries if directed at you, the mob will respond instinctively to them and attack the indicated target. It is the power to control the mob that gives the Imans and Nutbars power to cower average people.



That is people reacting to words. Words 'could be' and in your case, they are, a catalyst. The words themselves, are not dangerous. The ideas (education) attached to those words is the key to what action, is the result of what that word is interpreted as. If people are not educated, they have little choice, except to believe what they are told. When someone can't understand the world around them, from the time they were born, and are imprinted over that same time, by a single opinion and interpretation. It is the only thing they know. The words in Kabul (eg) have not changed, they are spoken the same way as they were in the '60s. Then, people were educated, knew there was a whole other world outside their village. They went to University, and became doctors, lawyers, had a government that was effective, people were happy and prosperous. Over the next 50 years, the meaning of those words changed, as schools were blown up, sharia was reintroduced. The words were the same, but now Afghanistan was no longer rich, fertile and educated. Sheep are easily led. Now, give them some semblance of security, keep wages consistent, even at $2 USD /day and your sheep will do whatever you tell them. They know nothing else. instinctively, you call it. Ignorance is the cause of strife, not the words. Those that use the words, to incite hatred, are educated puppeteers and use their education to change the words meaning to suit their purposes. You will have to try very hard if you wish to change my opinion on this. IF I'm wrong, please show me where. In my mind, words alone are harmless. Ignorance of their meaning (lack of education) is what causes people to put physical action, or not, into play upon processing that info based on what they have been told is the meaning. Call me blasphemous, scream it in my face or write it out on a banner and carry it around. You do that based on your interpretation and attack me for it. I hear the word and I could care less. I know what my interpretation is, garnered from many sources and formed as my own. Call me blasphemous or Batman, you'll get the same reaction and I won't try cut off your head.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2017)

And this motion is essentially just words.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2017)

Couple points.

1. Not trying to pull the poor white guy crying about reverse racism but I'm pretty confident in saying we all know there is a double standard (and perhaps now a triple standard, see point #2) when it comes to racism and what you can and can't say.

Considerable different reactions between white people making videos called "Dear Muslims" or "Dear Black People" than there would be/is when someone makes a movie, netflix series or racist MTV news clip called "Dear White People". 

2. Islam gets away with saying all kinds of hate speech. It feels like there is some "well....it's okay it's just their religion, they don't really mean it" BS excuse. Or it's just conveniently ignored.  In my earlier post I refereed to the building in which Mariomike posted a news article about the anti-M-103/Anti-Islam protest that was held outside of.

It's ironic because Rebel Media (I know I know) put out this article which featured some videos of the shit that was being said inside the same Mosque in 2016.
[ http://www.therebel.media/the_other_side_of_the_toronto_mosque_protest ]
Talk about destroying people, killing people one by one, purifying places from the filth of the Jews.

Can you imagine the shit sandwich someone would eat if they started preaching about purifying a church (school, building whatever) from the filth of the Muslims? Say goodbye to your job, our Prime Minister would probably race in and start giving people hugs.

So why can people preaching Islam get away with this kind of speech?  There's been other expose's about the insane shit that gets said inside mosques and Muslim schools, why no hate crime investigations? (that I'm aware of).

People preaching Islam are held to a double, special, standard where they can get away with hate speech. We don't need M103 to single out Muslims or special fact finding teams to figure out why ignorant people act ignorant. We need to apply hate speech/hate crimes punishments equally and fairly across all Canadians who do it.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Couple points.
> 
> 1. Not trying to pull the poor white guy crying about reverse racism but I'm pretty confident in saying we all know there is a double standard (and perhaps now a triple standard, see point #2) when it comes to racism and what you can and can't say.
> 
> ...



I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is likely that Muslims are the target of hate speech more often than any other religion (second only to the Jewish Faith).  As far as I know the law is being applied proportionally to the amount of hate speech and crime committed.  

This is a statscan summary of hate crimes from 2013 (I apologize as I haven't found anything more recent)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14191-eng.htm#a2

Chart 7 shows the breakdown by religion.

I'm fairly certain we've seen motions condemning things like anti semitism for example before in the house so I really don't see the difference here.  It's a feel good exercise that isn't binding.


----------



## GnyHwy (20 Feb 2017)

So if we are condemning Islamophobia, and the Toronto mayor and other politicians are stating that a protest outside a mosque is Islamophobic, what does that mean? That they are condemned (whatever than means)? http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/17/275215/

I watched the first debate and have read a fair bit on this. The opposition brings up plenty of good points, to which both the Liberals and NDP just ignore and blurt the same talking points over and over again, sucking up all the time in the debate, never addressing any of the opposition's concerns. Same old same old, Conservatives arguing with logic, and the Others arguing with feelings.

One of the better opposition points was that we are to protect the people practicing the religion, not the religion itself.

If they don't address the opposition's points, is that really a debate?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2017)

> In 2013, there were* 255* police-reported hate crime incidents that targeted* Black *populations.
> There were *181* hate-motivated crimes targeting the *Jewish religion* reported by police in 2013
> There were *186 p*olice-reported hate crime incidents in 2013 that were motivated by sexual orientation
> Police reported *65* crimes motivated by hatred against the *Muslim* religion in 2013
> ...



These numbers don't exactly paint the picture that Islam is especially at risk of being attacked.  People who were targeted for sexual orientation and being Jewish are pretty high on the list though.  I've noticed Islam seems to have some pretty negative (and violent) things to say about Jews and gays, would you agree?

Did you watch the videos from the link I posted Remus? If so, would you consider that hate speech? Or inciting violence?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2017)

We have laws against hate speech and hate crimes. They should be enforced...

I work with three Muslims - One is from Pakistan, one from Afghanistan and one from Morroco. I don't think they'd be in favour of M-103.

If I'm against the practice of female genital mutilation, honour killings, stoning people for minor infractions of some 8th century code of laws....am I Islamophobic or just normal? 
JT doesn't think any of the above are barbaric....he inferred it himself.  :facepalm:

Oh and for all these politicians that keep yapping "we are a nation of immigrants" that was probably true 100 years ago. I was born in Canada and consider myself a Canadian....period. I resent politicians of all stripes trying to make me feel guilty for stuff that happened a number of years ago.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2017)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> So if we are condemning Islamophobia, and the Toronto mayor and other politicians are stating that a protest outside a mosque is Islamophobic, what does that mean? That they are condemned (whatever than means)? http://www.cknw.com/2017/02/17/275215/
> 
> I watched the first debate and have read a fair bit on this. The opposition brings up plenty of good points, to which both the Liberals and NDP just ignore and blurt the same talking points over and over again, sucking up all the time in the debate, never addressing any of the opposition's concerns. Same old same old, Conservatives arguing with logic, and the Others arguing with feelings.
> 
> ...



Because it isn't about the debate.  I heard a really good point on talk radio this afternoon.  The motion is non binding.  Like many motions.  It's what parliament does when bad things happen but don't really do anything substantial.  But the CPC reaction is playing right I to the liberals' hands.  The party is split on its support, it makes them look insensitive and unsupportive of the Muslim community and they are getting unfairly accused of bigotry.  It also makes for a great distraction from the fiscal projections, helicopter trips and broken promises.

And they are falling for it.  No law or bill will come from this.  We already have legislation that covers this and the liberals know this.  The CPC should have just supported it let it pass and it would have all gone away.  Instead they got distracted by something shiny.


----------



## Remius (20 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> These numbers don't exactly paint the picture that Islam is especially at risk of being attacked.  People who were targeted for sexual orientation and being Jewish are pretty high on the list though.  I've noticed Islam seems to have some pretty negative (and violent) things to say about Jews and gays, would you agree?
> 
> Did you watch the videos from the link I posted Remus? If so, would you consider that hate speech? Or inciting violence?



Not disagreeing with those points. At all.  I even stated that the Jewish faith was the number one target.  And motions condemning anti semitism exist but no special bill or law came from them.  

Again on the the religion chart Muslims are the second highest targeted group and hate crimes against that group has tripled in the last three years.  

I am merely offering perspective to your argument that the law isn't applied equally in your point 1 about a double standard.  I suspect it is being applied proportionally.  If white people or Christians were being targeted equally by hate crime your point would be well taken but the fact is that they aren't. 

And it could be that very fact why people don't make such a big deal about it.  There is a guy on Facebook i know who is a rabid atheist who is borderline with his comments and posts about the Catholic Church.  But I doubt any Catholics on there will report him because most don't care.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2017)

Fair enough.  I don't differentiate when it comes to hate crimes because of race religion or sexual orientation.  Look at how many people still don't understand Muslim isn't a "race". 

Agree that Muslims are second if you want to single out religion only but even then Jewish are attacked 3x as much it seems,  so safe to say a distant second? 

Did you end up seeing those clips? Any opinion if that's hate speech or in the realm of inciting violence? 

I'm not sure if I agree or not about nothing becoming of this and it's all for show.  People in Sweden may have thought the same (it's nothing)  about the proposed anti-immigration speech laws etc.. a few years ago.  Sounds like it's a pretty big deal now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2017)

It would be interesting to know how many of those 65 attacks against Muslims might have been sunni vs shia.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> This is a statscan summary of hate crimes from 2013 (I apologize as I haven't found anything more recent)





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Again on the the religion chart Muslims are the second highest targeted group and hate crimes against that group has tripled in the last three years.


If your most recent info is 2013, where did "the last three years" bit come from?

[Curious, not argumentative]


----------



## Remius (21 Feb 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If your most recent info is 2013, where did "the last three years" bit come from?
> 
> [Curious, not argumentative]



My bad.  Sorry about that.  That's what I get for trying to multi task     

It should read doubled in that last three years.  And I read that after my other post. 

This news article points to the stats Canada numbers.   

http://globalnews.ca/news/2634032/hate-crimes-against-muslim-canadians-more-than-doubled-in-3-years/

And as the 2013 numbers showed, being Black or Jewish or Homosexual, are still the bigger targets for hate crimes but all of them saw a decline whereas hate crimes against Muslims have doubled. 

Compound that with number of hate crimes against arab/west Asian race group and the numbers might seem higher as well.  

As I mentioned, this is the flavour of the day in the world right now.  It's just a motion to make everyone feel good, trap the opposition and gain some points with the Liberal and NDP base.    Not a law, not a bill.


----------



## Remius (21 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Did you watch the videos from the link I posted Remus? If so, would you consider that hate speech? Or inciting violence?



I did, but maybe it's my ipad interface or what not but I couldn't see the translation or subtitles so I have no idea what was being said. 

Full disclosure though. I'm not a fan of REBEL media and although I do sometimes read what they say, I normally wait a few days before to see if what they say or post has any merit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> My bad.  Sorry about that.  That's what I get for trying to multi task
> 
> It should read doubled in that last three years.  And I read that after my other post.
> 
> ...



The fact that Muslims are currently at war with Buddists, Christians, Secularists, Marxists (PPK), Yazdi, Hindus, Coptics and a few other minor religions and each other might just play into the hate crimes issue.


----------



## Remius (21 Feb 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The fact that Muslims are currently at war with Buddists, Christians, Secularists, Marxists (PPK), Yazdi, Hindus, Coptics and a few other minor religions and each other might just play into the hate crimes issue.



Maybe, but I have yet to see anything that supports that.  In fact there is very little data that I could find that indicates who exactly is committing the hate crimes.  

A few interesting tidbits I can across. 

Most hate crimes are race based.  In second place is religious targeted hate crime.  Except in Quebec.  It seems that religious hate based crimes are more prevalent there than race based ones.

The vast majority of hate crimes are committed by young males against targets that are generally older.  Something like 81%.  But against muslims the rate of women commiting these crimes goes up to 35% and that female muslims have higher victim rates (the theory is that they are more visible die to hijabs and what not) 

Most hate based crime happens in large urban centers and overall is on the decline except for muslim victims that are increasing. 

Most religious hate crimes are non violent and involve either slurs, threats and vandalism.  

The sub group that gets the most violence proportionately are homosexuals and then mostly men. '

Anyways it would be interesting if anyone could find stats relative to who (other than age and gender) is actually commiting these crimes and in particular against which groups and by what motivation.


----------



## Lightguns (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I have yet to see anything that supports that.  In fact there is very little data that I could find that indicates who exactly is committing the hate crimes.
> 
> A few interesting tidbits I can across.
> 
> ...



What about reported hate crimes that turn out to be hoaxes?  I was able to find, online, in the US that a number of vandalisms committed against mosques or temples that were solved to show a member of the religion targeted committed the crime.  Any stats of hoaxes?  It seems to me that without stats no government can go around targeting efforts or pointing fingers, not that it is stopping our glorious leaders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I did, but maybe it's my ipad interface or what not but I couldn't see the translation or subtitles so I have no idea what was being said.


They spoke about destroying anyone who displaced Muslims, killing everyone and sparing no none and purifying the mosque from the filth of the jews.  I'm curious why the government didn't call them out for hate speech or intolerance.  If you have time you should check out hidden cameras inside Mosques in the UK and rest of Europe, pretty wild stuff.



> Full disclosure though. I'm not a fan of REBEL media and although I do sometimes read what they say, I normally wait a few days before to see if what they say or post has any merit.


I'm not really a fan either.
I find they aren't afraid to ask uncomfortable questions or combat SJWs, Virtue signalling and other PC stuff but at the same time lots of their stuff seems to very intentionally try and ramp up the right-wing. It's impossible to bring up counter points or arguments with their followers on SM without being attacked.


Big question I have is would Lauren Southern (of the rebel) be allowed to pray with fellow men in a Mosque in Canada? She had her gender legally changed so she's male now. Muslims in Canada have to respect our laws about gender right?


----------



## Jed (21 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> They spoke about destroying anyone who displaced Muslims, killing everyone and sparing no none and purifying the mosque from the filth of the jews.  I'm curious why the government didn't call them out for hate speech or intolerance.  If you have time you should check out hidden cameras inside Mosques in the UK and rest of Europe, pretty wild stuff.
> I'm not really a fan either.
> I find they aren't afraid to ask uncomfortable questions or combat SJWs, Virtue signalling and other PC stuff but at the same time lots of their stuff seems to very intentionally try and ramp up the right-wing. It's impossible to bring up counter points or arguments with their followers on SM without being attacked.
> 
> ...



You must be kidding, right?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I have yet to see anything that supports that.  In fact there is very little data that I could find that indicates who exactly is committing the hate crimes.
> 
> A few interesting tidbits I can across.
> 
> ...



There are a lot of cultures that have a lot of grudges with Muslims and often for good reasons, Islam has been pushing the fundamentalist Sunni and Shia view heavily in the last 30 years or so, so it would be more surprising that there was no backlash.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2017)

Jed,  not at all.  Lauren is legally male. 

Bit of a weak attempt by me to inject some levity but also a serious question: would "he" be allowed to pray at a mosque and would the government enforce our rules about gender identity and all that.


----------



## GnyHwy (21 Feb 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> And they are falling for it.  No law or bill will come from this.  We already have legislation that covers this and the liberals know this.  The CPC should have just supported it let it pass and it would have all gone away.  Instead they got distracted by something shiny.



How do you enforce condemnation? With our existing laws I presume. You are correct that the Libs are playing politics, as long as they don't try to continue to silence their opposition, it shouldn't completely blow up in their face. If they play these games much longer, I predict they will lose miserably next election.

Good article http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Ffull-comment%2Fbarbara-kay-actually-one-neednt-be-a-hysterical-bigot-to-have-concerns-with-m-103&pubdate=2017-02-21


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2017)

[quote author=GnyHwy] 
Good article http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Ffull-comment%2Fbarbara-kay-actually-one-neednt-be-a-hysterical-bigot-to-have-concerns-with-m-103&pubdate=2017-02-21
[/quote]



> at least two sermons distributed on Youtube, imam Sayyid al-Ghitaoui of Montreal’s Al-Andalus Islamic Centre called for Allah to “destroy the accursed Jews,” to “kill them one by one” and to “make their children orphans and their women widows.



No hate crime - hate speech  investigation. 
Why is it Muslim imans can seemingly get away with talking about killing Jews all the time?


----------



## Jed (21 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No hate crime - hate speech  investigation.
> Why is it Muslims imans can seemingly get away with talking about killing Jews all the time?



Hey, they are just quoting their Religious texts, I suppose a Christian could do the same by quoting some Old Testament passages.   :sarcasm:


----------



## GnyHwy (21 Feb 2017)

Another good article. Even though the Conservative's more rational motion was shot down, it seems the Government doesn't have the stronghold they assumed.

Perhaps more rational heads will prevail after all.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-vote-down-conservative-anti-racism-motion/article34101879/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&click=sf_globefb&service=mobile


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2017)

Of course they shot it down.  It did not include the word "Islamophobia".  It was a tempered, generic motion and as such did not fall within the scope of their "anti-Islamophobia" campaign to give special attention to a small segment of our society.  I would equate it to a spoiled child not getting their way.


----------



## Lightguns (22 Feb 2017)

"at least two sermons distributed on Youtube, imam Sayyid al-Ghitaoui of Montreal’s Al-Andalus Islamic Centre called for Allah to “destroy the accursed Jews,” to “kill them one by one” and to “make their children orphans and their women widows."

Bit of fallacy there, orphans grow up and breed, especially if all the women are widows.  That prayer would not solve their Jewish problem, they want to re-think it.  Allah pretty busy these days with all the martyrs and all.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Feb 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course they shot it down.  It did not include the word "Islamophobia".  It was a tempered, generic motion and as such did not fall within the scope of their "anti-Islamophobia" campaign to give special attention to a small segment of our society.  I would equate it to a spoiled child not getting their way.



And that surprises you, George? Isn't this motion a private member one coming from the party who gave us "I am dying. Be good to me by changing the words of the National Anthem - just because I've always wanted to do so."


----------



## YZT580 (22 Feb 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> "  Allah pretty busy these days with all the martyrs and all.


  \Must be coming close to running out of virgins.  Seriously though this entire issue is occupying all too much precious time.  Regardless of which side one is on; and for the record I disagree with the motion entirely, it has only served to alienate. 

Legislation creates friction which causes protests which lead to people being hurt.  As the old song said "legislation can't bring integration" and what was true of the south is definitely applicable to all forms of racism. All that the antics in OW have accomplished is to make it more difficult for people to get along because they have been forced to take sides.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Feb 2017)

Most governments wait until the later part of their mandate before ramping up the bread and circuses. This one certainly seems to have the circuses part sorted out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

Awkward 

http://m.torontosun.com/2017/02/22/police-probe-imans-sermons

oronto Police have launched an investigation into whether alleged hate speech was preached by two speakers at the Masjid Toronto mosque in 2016.

“With a complaint filed, there is now an investigation,” Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash confirmed Wednesday.

In addition to the police investigation, the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) has also opened its own internal investigation.

Police are also investigating hate crime complaints against people protesting in front of the downtown mosque Friday.

But media allegations suggesting people could be spewing hate speech while protesting such things as Sharia Law, ISIS and beheadings, prompted former Israeli intelligence colonel Jonathan Halevi to dig up shocking translated sermons from two imams during 2016’s Ramadan observance.

The sermons included things such as the need to “purify” the Dome of Rock mosque in Jerusalem of the “filth of the Jews” and slaying non-believers, infidels and polytheists.

“The double standard and hypocrisy was appalling,” said Halevi, who alleges the hate was happening inside the mosque — not outside.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2017)

Looks like I spoke too soon.  Good on the police for investigating the 2016 incident. 

Does Canada actually have a blasphemy law or anything of the sort? Caught this semi-related story


http://www.therebel.media/is_this_a_preview_of_m103_man_who_burned_quran_charged_with_blasphemy_in_denmark


> A 42-year-old man in Denmark is being charged with blasphemy after filming himself burning the Quran. He will be the first person to be charged under Denmark's blasphemy law in 46 years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2017)

In Canada, it has to be in written form, Jarnhamar. It is section 296 of the criminal Code:

*Blasphemous Libel 

s.296 (1) [offence] Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) [Question of fact] It is a question of fact wether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

(3) [Saving] No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.* 

First of all, I'll thank god, or the gods, if any, that it is limited to published blasphemy, and not verbal ones. Otherwise, just about every French Canadian would be behind bars by now.  ;D

On a more serious note, stats I have seen, that go back about 30 years, show no prosecution under that section of the code. I very much doubt that there has been a prosecution at least as far back as the adoption of he Charter and so, the validity of this section under the Charter has not been tested yet. I much rather like to think it is just one of those section that has become irrelevant but has not yet been expunged from the code.


----------



## Remius (23 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Looks like I spoke too soon.  Good on the police for investigating the 2016 incident.
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Agreed.  they should be prosecuted like anyone else caught spewing that kind of garbage.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In Canada, it has to be in written form, Jarnhamar. It is section 296 of the criminal Code:
> 
> *Blasphemous Libel
> 
> ...



Thank you for digging that up for me.  I kind of assumed we had something like that on the books (like the random weird laws still on the books- Taxi drivers can’t wear a T-Shirt in Halifax).

The story I posted makes me wonder if something like that could happen in our own future. Maybe it's time we take blasphemy laws out of the books.


----------



## Loachman (23 Feb 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> \Must be coming close to running out of virgins.



Nope.

There are still many thousands of mid-thirties male computer-game-playing Star Wars fans living in their parents' basements and ripe for the plucking.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Feb 2017)

also a timely piece to show how muddy the waters are

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/22/heres-why-i-fear-islam-prime-minister#.WK7Juy_UVR4.facebook


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Feb 2017)

Meanwhile, yesterday, in the Ontario Legislature ...


> ... Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers***: I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario should reaffirm that diversity has always played an important part in Ontario’s culture and heritage; recognize the significant contributions Muslims have made, and continue to make, to Ontario’s cultural and social fabric and prosperity; stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance; rebuke the notable growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments; denounce hate attacks, threats of violence and hate crimes against people of the Muslim faith; condemn all forms of Islamophobia and reaffirm its support for government’s efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services, and increase anti-racism education and awareness, including Islamophobia, in all parts of the province.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


*** - Liberal MPP, Ottawa-Vanier
**** - Ontario Conservative Leader


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, yesterday, in the Ontario Legislature ...*** - Liberal MPP, Ottawa-Vanier
> **** - Ontario Conservative Leader



Will we see a motion against Anti-Semitism and BDS Movement next?  How about that hate against WASPs being espoused by the BLM Movement?  Why do we have such waste of Government time on trivial matters that are already covered in the Criminal Code, and no real legislation being made to help the citizens of the Province?  I would say that with any pay increase that they vote themselves, we are not getting our money's worth from our current elected officials.   [


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2017)

After the Liberal's voted down the Conservative members motion that was along similar lines, but all inclusive, with no mention of any particular "interest group"; does anyone wonder why we are seeing the divisive protests across the country?


----------



## George Wallace (7 Mar 2017)

Anyone else see George Orwell's "Animal Farm" coming to a nation near you?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> OPINION:Liberals' anti-Islamophobia motion is a politically brilliant, sinister piece of work: Neil Macdonald
> *M-103 has injected a note of hysteria into the Tory leadership race, exactly as the Liberals no doubt intended*
> By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Mar 07, 2017 5:00 AM ET - Last Updated: Mar 07, 2017 9:05 AM ET
> 
> ...




More on LINK.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anyone else see George Orwell's "Animal Farm" coming to a nation near you?
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...



An opinion piece and not a very good one IMO.

My default position with CBC has become, "It's a liebral lie until it's independently corroborated elsewhere. They have no trust left".

I even seldom read past the byline. Soon as I see it's from Pravda Canada, I quit reading and move on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> An opinion piece and not a very good one IMO.
> ...



I agree with recceguy, but for different reasons.

_I don't think_ the Liberals set out to ambush the Conservatives, _I believe_ the original motion, a back-bencher's private member's bill, was, harmlessly, intended as a "feel good" expression of Liberal "good-will" towards Muslims.

Maybe I'm reading too much into  what happened but, _it seems to me_ that too many Conservatives said too much, and when e.g. Erin O'Toole, who is a known moderate, asked for, and the motion's originator agreed to consider, a revision that would solve the _emphasis in Islam_ issue, that the Liberal political tacticians got into the act and saw that it could, indeed, by a nice wedge issue.

But, _I suspect_ the Conservatives built the "trap," themselves, and then too many of them walked into it and only then did the Liberals see that "trap" and spring it on them.

This is, _in my opinion_, very much a CPC self inflicted wound ... and some CPC leadership candidates were driven towards making it by a fringe of the party that will, mindlessly, do much more harm than good to the Party.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2017)

It's only an issue for the Conservatives if they choose to make it one. Keeping silent could let the front runners appear the more palatable choice to the real rank and file. Maintaning the line "we detest hate and prejudice in all its forms" without getting dragged into the islamiphobia quagmire is the best response.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Mar 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's only an issue for the Conservatives if they choose to make it one ... Maintaning the line "we detest hate and prejudice in all its forms" without getting dragged into the islamiphobia quagmire is the best response.


Had their chance ...


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... This is, _in my opinion_, very much a CPC self inflicted wound ... and some CPC leadership candidates were driven towards making it by a fringe of the party that will, mindlessly, do much more harm than good to the Party.


 :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...very much a CPC self inflicted wound ... and some CPC leadership candidates were driven towards making it by a fringe of the party that will, mindlessly, do much more harm than good to the Party.


Sadly, I concur.  Catering to the left- & right-extremes of either Party only harms and alienates the sane centrist middle, where the majority of Canadians dwell. 

As noted elsewhere, the CPC has two potential leadership candidates who could appeal to a significant percentage of the voters; neither are running.  This leaves those who are too insignificant/unknown to muster a majority, or those who are trolling to the batshyte crazy.
      :not-again:


----------



## Lightguns (8 Mar 2017)

There were very good reasons to oppose M103 and centrists in the party explained those reasons in the house clearly and articulately.  The press ignored those centrists and went straight to twitter to find the angry old men and quote them while framing the Leitch crowd in the centre of their reports.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sadly, I concur.  Catering to the left- & right-extremes of either Party only harms and alienates the sane centrist middle, where the majority of Canadians dwell.
> 
> As noted elsewhere, the CPC has two potential leadership candidates who could appeal to a significant percentage of the voters; neither are running.  This leaves those who are too insignificant/unknown to muster a majority, or those who are trolling to the batshyte crazy.
> :not-again:



Kathleen win tried it with the provincial PCs who thankfully didn't fall for it.  They voted with it, and it went away.  The CPC should have done the same.  this will make great election fodder the next time around.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2017)

I'm not that sure. I know lots of folks who self identify on the left side of the spectrum who are opposed to the singular nature of the motion. Besides, this was meant to appeal to a demographic who would probably never vote Liberal anyhow.


----------



## Flavus101 (8 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Kathleen win tried it with the provincial PCs who thankfully didn't fall for it.  They voted with it, and it went away.  The CPC should have done the same.  this will make great election fodder the next time around.



Is that what we should do? Simply set aside our values because it is going to cause a bit of a stink with a large number (not majority, but a large number) of people?

This is how ridiculous policies get in place, there are too many "yes men" that just nod and agree because they are too nervous to upset anyone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Kathleen win tried it with the provincial PCs who thankfully didn't fall for it.  They voted with it, and it went away.  The CPC should have done the same.  this will make great election fodder the next time around.



Don't kid yourself. Lots of people in the party are not impressed with Brown's ideas.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Is that what we should do? Simply set aside our values because it is going to cause a bit of a stink with a large number (not majority, but a large number) of people?
> 
> This is how ridiculous policies get in place, there are too many "yes men" that just nod and agree because they are too nervous to upset anyone.



Yep.  Sometimes you have to compromise.  wynn needs a boogeyman right now. Brown needs middle of the road voters on his side.  If he went the route the federal cons did, he'd be playing into that.  He didn't play her game.  This was a non binding motion that will never become law so who cares.  Why take the bait over what are essentially just words.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Yep.  Sometimes you have to compromise.  wynn needs a boogeyman right now. Brown needs middle of the road voters on his side.  If he went the route the federal cons did, he'd be playing into that.  He didn't play her game.  This was a non binding motion that will never become law so who cares.  Why take the bait over what are essentially just words.



Don't make any bets you can't cover on that one. Never say never.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't make any bets you can't cover on that one. Never say never.



Yup.


----------



## Loachman (8 Mar 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Brown needs middle of the road voters on his side.



Nope.

Mike Harris did not win elections by trying to out-liberal Liberals. He won them by promising to govern as a Conservative, and keeping those promises.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> Mike Harris did not win elections by trying to out-liberal Liberals. He won them by promising to govern as a Conservative, and keeping those promises.



Sure, but falling into needless traps don't help.  Social conservatism caters to a small segment and turns off a far larger segment.  I would consider myself a conservative voter but not when the focus is on divisive social conservatism.  If you want me to vote liberal, make Kellie Leitch the leader.  Brown didn't fall for it and I'm ok with that.


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't make any bets you can't cover on that one. Never say never.



If they wanted a law they could have done that instead.  They didn't.  They still score points for doing nothing of real substance. I won't freak out like some are until they actually bring in real legislation to that effect.


----------



## Loachman (8 Mar 2017)

All wedges have very thin leading edges. Be wary of those. The thicker part follows later.

There is no social conservative aspect to this. Pushing for an inclusive motion denouncing all baseless hatred is vastly superior. I would not support a purely-Jewish, purely-Christian, purely-Hindu etcetera motion either, no matter what oppression those faith groups may, now or in the future. True Conservatives believe in equality. Liberals cater to divisive identity politics.

I don't care if Muslim women wear niqabs or burkas in public, as long as it is their choice to do so (and we can never be sure whether it is or is not), but I vehemently disagree with *anybody* wearing a mask when swearing an oath/making a solemn affirmation, giving testimony in court, or having identity (driver's licence, passport etcetera) photographs taken. Several Muslim countries have policies that outlaw facial coverings, and millions of Muslim women walk about in public with open faces. I have no problem with hijabs, either in general or in uniform, and I have seen at least one female Muslim CF Officer in a black hijab.

I will not be voting for Kellie Leitch as Conservative leader either.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2017)

Questions arise from immigrants who fled Islamic tyranny.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> OPINION:'Useful idiots' line up to support M-103
> Tarek Fatah
> Tuesday, March 07, 2017, 7:48 PM
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2017)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> OPINION:  Editorial:  Canadians like values and dislike M103
> Postmedia Network
> First posted: Monday, March 13, 2017 08:53 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, March 13, 2017 08:59 PM EDT
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## mariomike (23 Mar 2017)

Mar 23, 2017 

Motion condemning Islamophobia easily passes in commons
http://www.680news.com/2017/03/23/motion-condemning-islamophobia-easily-passes-commons/


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Mar 2017)

And now they're going to waste time and money on a committee thing to study the matter.   :


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Mar 2017)

With recommendations, compensation, blame casting and population re-education programs already pre-determined.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2017)

George Orwell's "Animal Farm" is becoming a reality.   :'(


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2017)

Funny how what philosophy sees as a cautionary tale, another sees as an instuction manual


----------



## George Wallace (21 May 2017)

Was there cause to worry?  Is there still cause to worry?  I wonder.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Citizenship in multicultural age
> By Geoffrey Johnston
> Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:38:22 EDT PM
> 
> ...



More on LINK


----------



## BurnDoctor (27 Aug 2017)

I find the whole thing sad and ironic because I think if any of us were to pen the Koran in the modern era, maybe with the important identifiers changed, we could well be charged with authoring hate speech given what some sections say about non-believers (Jews in particular), homosexuals, women, etc.

And yes, I'll preemptively acknowledge that other religious texts are not without their intolerant flaws.

Point is, we should be able to have an intelligent, critical discussion about this without being in breach of the law.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Lucky thing then, that M-103 wasn't a law.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Lucky thing then, that M-103 wasn't a law.



You're right we need to wait until B-103 gets slid past for it to actually be illegal.  Only question is will it be something that's brought up for election vote purposes or afterwards.


----------



## Loachman (28 Aug 2017)

That would be "C-103" (or whichever number is next, sequentially). "C" denotes a Commons bill, and "S" a Senate one.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're right we need to wait until B-103 gets slid past for it to actually be illegal.  Only question is will it be something that's brought up for election vote purposes or afterwards.



You expect me to believe that the government that is finally removing Canada's blasphemy laws is going to make new ones?


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That would be "C-103" (or whichever number is next, sequentially). "C" denotes a Commons bill, and "S" a Senate one.



Right, thanks! I was just guessing B=Bill.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You expect me to believe that the government that is finally removing Canada's blasphemy laws is going to make new ones?



Absolutely. Only it's not a blasphemy law (speaking ill of God or sacred things) but an anti-Islamophobia law. 

Using someones wrong pro-noun is criminal in Canada, an anti-Islamophobia law is hardly a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Using someones wrong pro-noun is criminal in Canada



No it's not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No it's not.



It's not criminalized yet?  

Either way it soon will be and it's still not a stretch to see anti-islamophobia (which is apparently even just "disliking" Islam) put into a bill and law.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's not criminalized yet?



You can't discriminate based on gender identity.  That's a totally different thing, I would think.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You can't discriminate based on gender identity.  That's a totally different thing, I would think.



https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/


> This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.



It shows you the flavor Canadian laws are taking.

And soon criticizing, ridiculing and maybe even disliking (as per the common definition) Islam will be illegal.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

I'm okay with a court being able to find against hate propaganda.  Hate speech hasn't been legal in Canada for a very long time.  Hate speech against Islam is already illegal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm okay with a court being able to find against hate propaganda.  Hate speech hasn't been legal in Canada for a very long time.  Hate speech against Islam is already illegal.



And when this motion turns into a bill Islamophobia will be illegal meaning criticizing, ridiculing or probably even disliking Islam will be illegal too.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> And when this motion turns into a bill Islamophobia will be illegal meaning criticizing, ridiculing or probably even disliking Islam will be illegal too.



If such a bill comes forward, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If such a bill comes forward, I'll eat my hat.


Yeap. You will.


----------



## Loachman (28 Aug 2017)

Can we pick the hat?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You're right we need to wait until BC-103 *gets slid past* for it to actually be illegal ...


I'm thinking there'd be too much process for any bill to be passed to be considered "slid past".


			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If such a bill comes forward, I'll eat my hat.


I don't think it's likely, either, but careful what you wish for ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

[quote author=milnews.ca]
I'm thinking there'd be too much process for any bill to be passed to be considered "slid past"
[/quote]

I'm not sure. I can see all the _OMG NAZIs_ hysteria in the US effecting stuff up here including Anti-Islamophobia narrative.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure. I can see all the _OMG NAZIs_ hysteria in the US effecting stuff up here including Anti-Islamophobia narrative.


Still, I'm more optimistic that if a _law_ has to be passed, there's all sorts of ways for the opposition to get involved.

Still, wait & see ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still, I'm more optimistic that if a _law_ has to be passed, there's all sorts of ways for the opposition to get involved.
> 
> Still, wait & see ...



Exactly, that's the genius of the thing. Like in the US, opposition = Nazi white supremacist.  When M-103 picks up again there is going to be a _if you oppose this you're a racist/bigot/supremacist_ angle. But yes, really the only option is to wait and see.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You can't discriminate based on gender identity.  That's a totally different thing, I would think.



LOL, now that's funny, they do all they time........ just the pendulum has swung to the other side.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2017)

There's nothing to 'pick up again' with M-103. It isn't and wasn't a law. It's already passed. It literally just calls for a small study. It doesn't create or extend new offenses. Anything that people feared would happen due to its passing would have already happened if those fears had any substance... but they didn't. The M-103 thing is something most people seem to have poorly understood, since apparently some think it's still an 'in progress' thing or a going concern.


----------

