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

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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.

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]

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]

And this motion is essentially just words.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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 crap 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 crap 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 crap 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.

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

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]

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]

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 police-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
There were 61 police-reported hate crimes targeting East and Southeast Asian populations in 2013
There were 52 police-reported hate crimes targeting South Asian populations in 2013
There were 32 hate crime incidents targeting Aboriginal populations reported by police 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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Journeyman]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?