Canada anti-islamophobia motion M103

[MD]

Size and Projected Growth of Major Religious Groups

We're talking about projections of Christianity vs Islam in Europe in 2050, not the world. You need to read your sources better, lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

My guess is it wont because the Liberals will face a massive loss due to their support of Islamist ideals. Bernier will change things, and stop this bs. As much as I dislike the Conservatives, I do hope they win.

Canadians are not Europeans, we will not sit back and take whatever comes our way no matter how much leftists try to shove this **** down our throats.

Time will tell I suppose.

 

[idav]

We're talking about projections of Christianity vs Islam in Europe in 2050, not the world. You need to read your sources better, lol.

I quoted the part about Europe, says it will be 10% of Europe..

 

[UpperLimits]

It's not a "bill of law", it's a non-binding motion requesting these studies to be done. That's it. So, what's the difference? ...

I did not say it already was a bill of law. What you've said is pretty much exactly what I've already just stated.

"for such a motion to be put forward for consideration as"

So, what's the difference? Different words. That's about it. And the context of those words is probably important, too.

 

[UpperLimits]

Like that's not his job... And no, that's not a conflict of interest.

It is if he uses taxpayers money for party business. Hope he gets his receipts filed, and funds appropriated correctly. I know a few people who would be more than happy to file FOI requests on such information.

What are you talking about, "recall legislation"? If you mean a recall election, well, a by-election is to put someone into a position of government, not remove them. As for removing them, are you not aware that we can force a general election just with a vote of non-confidence? Like the one that happened with Stephen Harper.

Oh yes, in 2011. That debacle. But, as you know, the people obviously liked the budget, and not the Liberal / NDP tactics as they re-elected Harper to a majority position. But seriously?? You DON'T know what recall legislation is???

 

[UpperLimits]

I quoted the part about Europe, says it will be 10% of Europe..

And you don't think that's enough to make a political difference?

Historians remind us that only about 10% of Germans were members of the Nazi party.... And we all know how that went.

I should probably add that I don't intend to infer anything in that last statement other than this simple observation: Nobody is disturbed by the presence of one bee, but even the bravest man will run in fear when being chased by a swarm.

 

[Shad]

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

The motion contained a request for study which was accepted when it was passed. This is what was tabled.

I suppose it makes little difference though.

Besides being a motion which places it at a lower priority compared to bills there is little.

 

[psychoslice]

Time will tell I suppose.

Who cares about time, lets do something now >

 

[Willamena]

But seriously?? You DON'T know what recall legislation is???

No, I don't. I tried a search for it and got only recall elections.

Edit: Okay, I found a hit of a news article about Ontario. It sounds highly abusable, and a bit immature.

 

[Vinayaka]

Who cares about time, lets do something now >

You're in Australia, right?

 

[leibowde84]

The reason I brought this up in the first place was specifically the addition of the controversial, often dishonest term "Islamophobia". Discrimination is a worthy concern, "Islamophobia" - IMO - is a dishonest tool of the apologist. It attempts to block legitimate criticism by conflating actual discrimination with legitimate criticism.

So, if "islamophobia" only referred to discrimination against Muslims on the basis of their religious beliefs/background, would you be OK with the term?

 

[icehorse]

So, if "islamophobia" only referred to discrimination against Muslims on the basis of their religious beliefs/background, would you be OK with the term?

That would be progress. But I think it's still a fundamentally dishonest term. A "phobia" implies an unwarranted fear. Islam is problematic enough that I think it's difficult to claim that a person who distrusts Islam has a "phobia".

Why not just say "discrimination against Muslims" ?

 

[leibowde84]

That would be progress. But I think it's still a fundamentally dishonest term. A "phobia" implies an unwarranted fear. Islam is problematic enough that I think it's difficult to claim that a person who distrusts Islam has a "phobia".

Why not just say "discrimination against Muslims" ?

Islamophobia refers to discrimination (or fear) of Muslims based on their religious beliefs/background. It isn't a fear of Islam. The discrimination refers to people, not the religion itself.

 

[Vinayaka]

That would be progress. But I think it's still a fundamentally dishonest term. A "phobia" implies an unwarranted fear. Islam is problematic enough that I think it's difficult to claim that a person who distrusts Islam has a "phobia".

My favorite phobia was fistophobia from Midnight Run.

 

[icehorse]

Islamophobia refers to discrimination (or fear) of Muslims based on their religious beliefs/background. It isn't a fear of Islam. The discrimination refers to people, not the religion itself.

Some people use the word that way. Sadly, some people use the word to stifle criticism. And that's the problem - conflation. And the conflation is deliberate.

 

[leibowde84]

Some people use the word that way. Sadly, some people use the word to stifle criticism. And that's the problem - conflation. And the conflation is deliberate.

Don't you think it's unfair to discount the term "Islamophobia" simply because some bad actors use it incorrectly? Anti-semitism, for example, is, without a doubt, a real problem. Some people throughout history have tried to conflate the term to include criticism of Jewish traditions, but that doesn't mean that the actual problem doesn't exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect you know that sometimes it's a massive challenge to "prove" ideas. But among public critics of Islam my claim is common.

I am. However you have provided nothing more than speculation to support this claim.

 

[icehorse]

Don't you think it's unfair to discount the term "Islamophobia" simply because some bad actors use it incorrectly?

No I don't. It's a fundamentally dishonest term. It's a bit of propaganda we should do away with.

 

[icehorse]

I am. However you have provided nothing more than speculation to support this claim.

Which claim specifically have I done nothing more than speculate on?

 

[UpperLimits]

No, I don't. I tried a search for it and got only recall elections.

Edit: Okay, I found a hit of a news article about Ontario. It sounds highly abusable, and a bit immature.

It's hardly abusable and IMHO, I think it's a very sound idea. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me explain...

The concept of "recall legislation" was originally introduced by the late Reform MP, Preston Manning. Basically, it's a full stop pressure valve that is placed into the hands of the people. It essentially puts a collar onto the elected official, that the people can "shake" if the official goes too far off track. This ensures that the official represents the view of their riding, and doesn't get too far out of hand with either personal views, hardline party policies, or worse, rogue ideas that were never mandated.

The way things are right now, once an official is elected they can pretty much do whatever they want for the balance of their term. Most have integrity and will, to varying degrees, attempt to fulfill within practical limits the promises made during their campaigns. Not all things promised will be delivered, but most will attempt to represent their constituents. And that's the way it is supposed to work.

Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. There are some officials that you have to wonder why they even have a phone. Because it's certainly not so their constituents can contact them. If it turns out that a person has little integrity and is only in office to serve themselves, then this is the type of person that recall legislation is intended to target.

The way it was proposed is simple. If a certain amount of people (say, 25% of a riding) sign a petition, then a plebiscite is held. If the plebiscite is successful, then the misbehaving politician is legally removed from office and a by-election called for their replacement.

Other proposals bypass the idea of the plebiscite and just require a higher number of signatures - 40% or 50/51%. The idea is that it is not going to be easy to remove an elected official, but that if that person is genuinely not representing the view of the people, they CAN BE removed. There is at least a mechanism for doing so.