Canada anti-islamophobia motion M103

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It is an odd one to be sure to be part of this uncivilized club along with Germany and Denmark...

And Scotland, annoyingly. Nobody's been prosecuted under the blasphemy law here for over a century and a half but it's still on the books.

 

[Notanumber]

And Scotland, annoyingly. Nobody's been prosecuted under the blasphemy law here but it's still on the books.

It would occupy Nicola, getting it removed, while we get on with Brexit.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It would occupy Nicola, getting it removed, while we get on with Brexit.

Well it'd certainly be something to do after Holyrood has voted in favour of another independence referendum and before Westminster gets its act together enough to tell us what their Plan A is going to even look like. Unfortunately the SNP seem a bit cosy with the Catholic Church which makes me wonder if repealing it would be feasible while they're in power. Still, in an independent Scotland we could always vote in a party that wants to repeal the blasphemy law.

 

[Vinayaka]

[


Some of those cases left me speechless, really. I mean, I think I am proud to live in a country where journalists and writers are totally free to express their opinion on current events and historical matters , without being accused of "hate speech".
Unfortunately the Common law system makes the application of the law very arbitrary.

The one I'm most familiar with personally is the Keegstra case. He was no journalist but a high school teacher. For many years he denied the Jewish holocaust to his students. Since I was also an Alberta teacher, it was closer to home. I had colleagues who also went quite far from the curriculum, and it was hard to know when to call them on it.

 

[icehorse]

The one I'm most familiar with personally is the Keegstra case. He was no journalist but a high school teacher. For many years he denied the Jewish holocaust to his students. Since I was also an Alberta teacher, it was closer to home. I had colleagues who also went quite far from the curriculum, and it was hard to know when to call them on it.

Based only on what you said (i.e. I have no other knowledge of this case), I would say that we have to defend this guy, but that we need to offer a counterpoint to these (horrible), ideas.

 

[Vinayaka]

Based only on what you said (i.e. I have no other knowledge of this case), I would say that we have to defend this guy, but that we need to offer a counterpoint to these (horrible), ideas.

It was a long and lengthy case, went on for a few years. He had good lawyers, but they lost. Hate speech is always debatable, to put it mildly. Hate crimes, on the other hand, generally fall under some other more clear criminal code as well. The guy who walked into a mosque and shot 6 people dead certainly didn't have to be charged with any hate crimes. First degree murder was quite sufficient.

 

[icehorse]

It was a long and lengthy case, went on for a few years. He had good lawyers, but they lost. Hate speech is always debatable, to put it mildly. Hate crimes, on the other hand, generally fall under some other more clear criminal code as well. The guy who walked into a mosque and shot 6 people dead certainly didn't have to be charged with any hate crimes. First degree murder was quite sufficient.

These events that push on the boundaries of free speech can be really tricky. It's often the case that great precision is required to find good solutions.

So in this case, I would say that it's extremely likely that holocaust denial would also be hate speech, but I can imagine that it's possible to separate the two. Before anyone jumps out a window, I believe that holocaust denial is horrible in every way, but it might be possible to be a holocaust denier and sidestep hate speech laws.

 

[Vinayaka]

These events that push on the boundaries of free speech can be really tricky. It's often the case that great precision is required to find good solutions.

So in this case, I would say that it's extremely likely that holocaust denial would also be hate speech, but I can imagine that it's possible to separate the two. Before anyone jumps out a window, I believe that holocaust denial is horrible in every way, but it might be possible to be a holocaust denier and sidestep hate speech laws.

The fact that he was a teacher was a huge problem. As a kid in rural Alberta, a lot the stuff we talked about could be considered hate speech by somebody somewhere. But we didn't go about promoting it, whereas he had that opportunity.

 

[icehorse]

The fact that he was a teacher was a huge problem. As a kid in rural Alberta, a lot the stuff we talked about could be considered hate speech by somebody somewhere. But we didn't go about promoting it, whereas he had that opportunity.

Agreed. But also - perhaps - a HUGE opportunity. Because we really *ought* to be teaching our kids to think critically. So to offer classes that expose conflicting ideas is hugely important.

 

[Vinayaka]

Agreed. But also - perhaps - a HUGE opportunity. Because we really *ought* to be teaching our kids to think critically. So to offer classes that expose conflicting ideas is hugely important.

I'm sure many teachers did just that, at that time. He didn't, obviously, but I think he most likely would have kept his teaching license of he did. But narrow mind is narrow mind, hate is hate.

I know one of my hidden agendas was always to have students read between the lines. I didn't teach at the high school level though, so opportunities were less, just given the age level of kids I taught. Certainly the history of Canada near the beginning was ridiculously distorted about the European invasion and attempted genocide.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It's simply baked into the scripture and the ideology. All that's necessary is for children to be indoctrinated (call it culture if you're an apologist), and this pernicious undermining will continue.

I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your point, as it is a valid one, but I'm not worried about Muslims. I'm worried about Christians. And if Secular values can make strides in defeating religious dogma/legislation, it will be much easier to deal with Islam should Muslims ever become a politically significant enough demograph here.
Right now it's really not Muslims using this idea of Islamophobia to silence people in the West, it's Mainstream Liberals. Those on the Left who are not like that need to become very vocal and clear that criticizing such things like the treatment of women in many Islam nations isn't just an issue of culture, it's the fact that women are held legally responsible for the actions of men. I see no reason to treat those who practice those ways poorly, but I also see no reason to respect it. Personally, I find niqabs depressing. It's a tragedy to see someone that horribly dehumanized and defeminized.

I too find how citizens from other lands seem to know so much a bout countries other than their own.

Sadly, it seems many non-American citizens are far more informed about American than what many American citizens are.

 

[icehorse]

@Shadow Wolf

Nicely put.

 

[Yerda]

Can't wait for the rest of the Islamist defense squad to arrive!

Since you seem to have an opinion maybe you could explain what the problem is? I read the wiki page and I'm not sure why this motion should be a worry.

 

[idav]

Where the heck is this big bad Islamophobia that we need to be so concerned about? You may be able to find a few incidents here and there but as a significant phenomena in the US and Canada, it doesn't exist.

I think the media is hyperactive in creating and using these terms. From what I see 99% of North Americans don't mistreat anyone because of race, ethnicity or religion. I wish to coin the term Islamophobia-phobia.

In the US a lot places go as far as to make those things hatred toward minority as not good and gets people stiffer penalties, we basically have a "discrimination will not be tolerated" attitude but oddly enough sometimes law has to specify, because they are such detailists, no discrimination based on religion, race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Reminds me a little of this proposal, "no descrimintion, yes, we mean Islam too" lol.

 

[idav]

I infer from this that you hold that Islam is no more dangerous than other "religions"?

Why, did they target their own mosques, who are the dangerous "religions" targeting mosques?

 

[psychoslice]

Have you actually read the Bible? What ISIS has been doing looks a lot like in the OT when god was giving orders for war. And, for me personally, my greatest dangers--especially to my rights and liberties--are not Muslims but Conservative Christians who want my rights and liberties to come beneath religious beliefs and hatred and discrimination.

Any links?

YmirGF seems to have a much more rational, reasonable, and probable explanation than conspiracies of some dark/mysterious forces working to undermine secularism in the West. Sure, some would like that, but those threats are coming from within, not from foreign lands. Conservative Republicans/Christians can strip America of secularism long before Muslims can.

Yes I have read the bible and the Quran, both are ugly, and because of the evil verses people who are fundamentalist and dogmatic may act on these ugly words, which is happening with many Muslims.

 

[icehorse]

Why, did they target their own mosques, who are the dangerous "religions" targeting mosques?

With all due respect, this answer doesn't seem at all related to the question? Can you clarify?

 

[idav]

With all due respect, this answer doesn't seem at all related to the question? Can you clarify?

Do you think it would be an atheist blowing up a Muslim church?

If you must know, a couple of the more strictest religions always score the complete opposite of my beliefs, on those belief tests. I think plenty of things can be dangerous but I believe in valuing the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of belief.

 

[icehorse]

[QUOTE="idav, post: 5124489, member: 30513"I ]think plenty of things can be dangerous but I believe in valuing the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of belief.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. M103 is an attempt to begin to stifle free speech.

 

[idav]

I totally agree. M103 is an attempt to begin to stifle free speech.

Religious discrimination would be the culprit stifling free speech. Using free speech to step on someone elses freedoms is counter productive.