Canada anti-islamophobia motion M103

[icehorse]

Can you back this up? Because every single source I've gone to since you wrote this has agreed that "Islamophobia" refers to (or at least includes) discrimination against Muslims because of their religion (just like anti-semitism). Discrimination against Muslims due to their faith is certainly very real and has been a problem in the US (where I live) since 9/11.

Yes, sadly much of the media has been duped into using this term and blurring the lines between discrimination and criticism. Islamists want this distinction blurred. They want blasphemy laws on a worldwide basis.

If we want to have a serious conversation, we need to keep discrimination separate from criticism don't you think?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, sadly much of the media has been duped into using this term and blurring the lines between discrimination and criticism. Islamists want this distinction blurred. They want blasphemy laws on a worldwide basis.

By "Islamist", you mean "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism," right? Because, it seems like you are blurring the line between Muslims and Islamists. Obviously, the vast majority of Muslims, especially in the west, are not Islamists. But, I agree that Islamists are bad news. I equate them with groups like the Westboro Baptist Church and White Nationalists.

If we want to have a serious conversation, we need to keep discrimination separate from criticism don't you think?

I still haven't seen any evidence that "Islamophobia" includes criticism of Islam as a system of faith. Can you provide any?

 

[icehorse]

By "Islamist", you mean "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism," right?

Islamists want Sharia to be the law of the land. Militancy is orthogonal.

So when you hear "Islamophobia" what behaviors do you think it's addressing?

 

[icehorse]

This just in, a thoughtful article addressing M103:

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

 

[leibowde84]

Islamists want Sharia to be the law of the land. Militancy is orthogonal.

The term "Islamist" only refers to those who is "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism." So, while it is safe to say that all Islamists want Sharia to be the law of the land, it cannot be said that all Muslims who want Sharia to be the law of THEIR SPECIFIC land are necessarily "Islamists". It is a specific term with a specific meaning.

So when you hear "Islamophobia" what behaviors do you think it's addressing?

Discrimination against people because they are Muslim.

An example of Islamophobia would be denying entry of all Muslims to a country based on the actions of Islamists or extremists. Or, saying that Muslims are inherently violent or dangerous because of their beliefs.

On the other hand, criticizing the beliefs of Islam, pointing out inconsistencies or drawing cartoons of Muhammad (a historical figure) would not be Islamophobia. Beliefs and traditions should always be fair game for criticism.

 

[leibowde84]

This just in, a thoughtful article addressing M103:

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

I agree that blasphemy laws are terrible things. But, the non-binding motion isn't a blasphemy law, no matter what people's reasoning for enacting it are. So, I think there are a lot of people blowing this out of proportion.

 

[icehorse]

The term "Islamist" only refers to those who is "an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism." So, while it is safe to say that all Islamists want Sharia to be the law of the land, it cannot be said that all Muslims who want Sharia to be the law of THEIR SPECIFIC land are necessarily "Islamists". It is a specific term with a specific meaning.

As I looked up several reference sources I saw that sometimes your definition is correct and sometimes mine is.

I would like to be able to label that fraction of the world's Muslims who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land. What label would you like me to use? (This is a sincere question.)

 

[icehorse]

I agree that blasphemy laws are terrible things. But, the non-binding motion isn't a blasphemy law, no matter what people's reasoning for enacting it are. So, I think there are a lot of people blowing this out of proportion.

For the last decade or so the OIC (organization of islamic cooperation, an organization including 57 nations, representing over a billion muslims), have persistently tried to introduce blasphemy laws into the U.N. They do this over and over again. They support and encourage the introduction of blasphemy laws all over the world. They are relentless.

So taking this one motion in isolation, it's no big deal. But it IS just one action in a steady stream of actions designed to stifle criticism of Islam, and it's supported from the very top of the Islamic world, the OIC.

So sadly, we must ALWAYS push back on such measures... well those of us who value free speech.

 

[Willamena]

Well much more recent pew polls indicate it's more like 1/3 to 1/2:

The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

(BTW, I think I've included this link dozens of times on RF. I wish apologists would read this study.)

I don't see the relevance, unless you are trying to say that all Islamists are inherently dangerous. Even so, that's only half of Islam worldwide, at best, and no justification for a movement of hatred against Muslims in Canada.

 

[leibowde84]

As I looked up several reference sources I saw that sometimes your definition is correct and sometimes mine is.

I would like to be able to label that fraction of the world's Muslims who believe that Sharia should be the law of the land. What label would you like me to use? (This is a sincere question.)

Muslims who believe that Sharia should be the law of their c

For the last decade or so the OIC (organization of islamic cooperation, an organization including 57 nations, representing over a billion muslims), have persistently tried to introduce blasphemy laws into the U.N. They do this over and over again. They support and encourage the introduction of blasphemy laws all over the world. They are relentless.

So taking this one motion in isolation, it's no big deal. But it IS just one action in a steady stream of actions designed to stifle criticism of Islam, and it's supported from the very top of the Islamic world, the OIC.

So sadly, we must ALWAYS push back on such measures... well those of us who value free speech.

I value free speech, but, again, this isn't a law. It's just a non binding motion. So, I don't have an issue with it.

 

[Willamena]

For the last decade or so the OIC (organization of islamic cooperation, an organization including 57 nations, representing over a billion muslims), have persistently tried to introduce blasphemy laws into the U.N. They do this over and over again. They support and encourage the introduction of blasphemy laws all over the world. They are relentless.

So taking this one motion in isolation, it's no big deal. But it IS just one action in a steady stream of actions designed to stifle criticism of Islam, and it's supported from the very top of the Islamic world, the OIC.

So sadly, we must ALWAYS push back on such measures... well those of us who value free speech.

Can you explain how motion M-103 might turn into a blasphemy law?

 

[icehorse]

Can you explain how motion M-103 might turn into a blasphemy law?

it conflates discrimination with criticism. It allows criticism to be labeled "islamophobia"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know if it mentioned that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all Muslims are Islamists?

I'll give you maybe a 1/3 globally, but 1/2? Even 1/3 is a very "high ended" estimate, and you're asking if half are like that?

Well much more recent pew polls indicate it's more like 1/3 to 1/2:

Do you have any idea how many Christians want Biblical law as the law of the land? It is a problem, but that is looking specifically at Muslim areas. The numbers granted are abit high in the West, but it is an issue that needs perspective because such divisions will only weaken the cause of Secular Humanism, and that is an Islamophobic focus on Islam and Muslims while ignoring their Christian brethren who are trying to do what is essentially the same thing. Focusing on Muslims is highly offensive, because out of all them I've met (most of them being from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or another Muslim-majority nation), only one had any sort of negative reaction to the realities of how we do things here. The rest where pleasant people with a few of them being extraordinarily polite.
However, the Quran, much like the Bible, is an entirely different story. And ultimately they are both so self-contradicting that a benevolent pacifist who takes care of the poor and gives everything they have to them and also as well a brutal totalitarian dictator would both find justification for their actions in either book.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still haven't seen any evidence that "Islamophobia" includes criticism of Islam as a system of faith. Can you provide any?

I don't think anyone would use the word criticism, but people like Ben Affleck most definitely cannot tell the difference.

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It

I can only assume that is a terrible article as the motion is not a binding law. It basically did nothing more than acknowledge Islamophobia as a real thing in society, an unfortunate phenomena on par with other forms of bigotry, such as racism and anti-Semetism.

 

[psychoslice]

What wasn't "nice" about it? Can you be more specific?

Yes I can show you the evil verses, but again, have you actually read these books ?.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I still haven't seen any evidence that "Islamophobia" includes criticism of Islam as a system of faith. Can you provide any?

Here's a list to start with:

1. The fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center have declared Maajid Nawaz (a practising Muslim) & Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an ex-Muslim) Islamophobes because they call for the faith to be reformed and cleansed of its violent, intolerant elements;
2. the fact that Trinity College in Dublin cancelled Maryam Namazie's scheduled talk (or, rather, forced her to cancel it after trying to unilaterally tweak the environment to one which would ensure she would not be able to speak as freely or as frankly as she could otherwise) for fear of offending Muslim students;
3. the fact that the think tank Demos grouped genuine criticism of Islam with racist & xenophobic comments under a report on Islamophobia on Twitter.

 

[icehorse]

I'll give you maybe a 1/3 globally, but 1/2? Even 1/3 is a very "high ended" estimate, and you're asking if half are like that?

In post #100 I gave a link to a poll. It's easy to do the math.

Do you have any idea how many Christians want Biblical law as the law of the land?

If your idea is that it would be most effective to attack all theocratic thought at once, I'd say that that strategy is worth exploring.

I can only assume that is a terrible article as the motion is not a binding law. It basically did nothing more than acknowledge Islamophobia as a real thing in society, an unfortunate phenomena on par with other forms of bigotry, such as racism and anti-Semetism.

Wow, it feels like we're talking about two different articles, odd?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In post #100 I gave a link to a poll. It's easy to do the math.

I did the math, but the poll you linked to is only in Muslim-majority countries. You also did not mention that those poll the majority felt Sharia should only apply to Muslims.

If your idea is that it would be most effective to attack all theocratic thought at once, I'd say that that strategy is worth exploring.

My idea is that it is utter foolishness to single one out who poses very little threat while not raising the same alarm over those who are actually are, actively and currently, working to politically undermine Secular values here and now. In regards to Christians and Muslims pushing for Theocratic values in secular lands they shouldn't be viewed as any different, or either one better or worse than the other. However, especially in America, people want to harp on about Muslims and Sharia, but in reality it is Conservative Christians who are working here to undermine Secularism. And while it's true that many Muslims are radically violent and kill people whereas Conservative Christians generally don't, it must not be ignored that a good number of Conservative Christians will fight for the "religious right" to bully a LBGT student, something that is known for leading to suicide. So, they aren't directly killing, but they are indirectly kill by the policies they support and promote.

 

[icehorse]

I did the math, but the poll you linked to is only in Muslim-majority countries. You also did not mention that those poll the majority felt Sharia should only apply to Muslims.

It's one more small step (e.g. google "where Muslims live"), to see that the lion's share of them live in MM countries.

As for the threat from secular-undermining Christians, I'm in agreement with you. So we can push back at them collectively when possible and individually when possible. M103 was Islam-specific, hence this thread.

But make no mistake, it's equally outrageous that some Christian GOP politician said the other day that rape and incest are god's will... ARGH!!

 

[UpperLimits]

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.

The case was of particular concern because unlike a newspaper, whereas if you don't like the commentary you simply move onto the next article, the students were essentially a captive audience.