The Hazards of Belief

pauldla

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So he has started leaving religious books in the babies pram now .... for my wife to pick up - real mad stuff too .

This is what happens when you accept previous smaller "gifts" from these nutjobs.

I think a copy of The God Delusion will be coming his way soon - not to convert him of course, but to make him stop sending us ****e.

God Is Not Great might be better, I find Dawkins can be a little shrill at times...

kylith

pauldla wrote: »

God Is Not Great might be better, I find Dawkins can be a little shrill at times...

Or a nice DVD explaining evolution in simple terms.

Jan_de_Bakker

Canada passes m103 bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103 - effectively making it a crime to criticise Islam.
This is the end of free speech, when one group is put above criticism - tyranny isn't far behind.

Astounding times we live in , just imagine if a white supremacist had murdered 4 people in London and then a law was passed
to make it illegal to mock the alt. right.

Pherekydes

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Canada passes m103 bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103) - effectively making it a crime to criticise Islam.
This is the end of free speech, when one group is put above criticism - tyranny isn't far behind.

Astounding times we live in , just imagine if a white supremacist had murdered 4 people in London and then a law was passed
to make it illegal to mock the alt. right.

From the link (which has an extra ')' which could be removed):

Others have accused M-103 of going against free speech[10] and leading to "blasphemy laws".[4] This was argued by Brad Trost[11] and Charles McVety.[12]

Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose repudiated such claims and said: "To be clear, this is not a 'bill' nor a 'law'. It does not 'introduce Sharia law' as some people have suggested nor would it 'ban freedom of speech'." The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also said that M-103 does not restrict free speech in any way.

Peregrinus

For those who care about the truth:

Motion 103 does not "effectively make it a crime to criticise Islam". It doesn't even do that ineffectively; it doesn't create any crimes at all. it calls for further study of certain issues.

Nor does it "put one group above criticism"; it condemns " Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" and requests a Parliamentary committee to study how to promote "evidence-based policy-making" and the "collection of data" that will help develop a strategy to "better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

I can see why that would infuriate and terrify the alt-right; they last thing they want is the collection of data that will make enable evidence-based policy, and defending human rights is absolute anathema to them. But it's all radically different from what Jan says.

I don't know where Jan is getting his information from, but wherever it is he should stop using that source immediately; they are flat-out lying to him. I'm sure he won't like that.

Jan_de_Bakker

Thin end of the wedge ...

Jan_de_Bakker

Peregrinus wrote: »

For those who care about the truth:

Motion 103 does not "effectively make it a crime to criticise Islam". It doesn't even do that ineffectively; it doesn't create any crimes at all. it calls for further study of certain issues.

Nor does it "put one group above criticism"; it condemns " Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" and requests a Parliamentary committee to study how to promote "evidence-based policy-making" and the "collection of data" that will help develop a strategy to "better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

I can see why that would infuriate and terrify the alt-right; they last thing they want is the collection of data that will make enable evidence-based policy, and defending human rights is absolute anathema to them. But it's all radically different from what Jan says.

I don't know where Jan is getting his information from, but wherever it is he should stop using that source immediately; they are flat-out lying to him. I'm sure he won't like that.

From Gad Saad ... I trust him ..

https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/845046320339599361

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge ...

Yes. You start thinking that Donald Trump might have a point, and you end up believing any old sh!te that the alt-right spews out.

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

From Gad Saad ... I trust him ..

If Gad Saad, told you this, your trust in him is clearly misplaced.

Jan_de_Bakker

So wait now Gad Saad is the alt. right ?

I was using the alt. right as an extreme example in the opposite end of the spectrum ...

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So wait now Gad Saad is the alt. right ?

If what you said in post 8435 is what you got from Gad Saad, then Gad Saad is peddling falsehoods, and your trust in him is misplaced.

Is Gad Saad "the alt-right"? Well, not all of it, obviously. But if he's the source for what you said in post 8435, I'm pretty comfortable bracketing him in the alt-right. Who else would peddle that sh!te?

Jan_de_Bakker

So how do you feel about the Irish blasphemy law ?

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

So how do you feel about the Irish blasphemy law ?

I oppose it.

M-103 is not a blasphemy law and does not call for a blasphemy law, so I'm not sure that your question has much relevance to the present discussion.

Jan_de_Bakker

Peregrinus wrote: »

I oppose it.

M-103 is not a blasphemy law and does not call for a blasphemy law, so I'm not sure that your question has much relevance to the present discussion.

hmmmmmm

I think we are playing with semantics and words here ...

silverharp

it is still worrying, if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing gay rights. people would lose their minds, but relax they are only looking into it wouldnt fly

Peregrinus

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

hmmmmmm

I think we are playing with semantics and words here ...

I don't.

The information you posted in post 8435 is flat-out false. If you have any intellectual integrity you should withdraw it. Parse that as semantically as you like; other boardies will have no difficulty in grasping my meaning.

Jan_de_Bakker

Khalid’s motion calls on the government to do three things:

Condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.

Whats the definition of Islamaphobia here ?
I for one think its quite reasonable to fear Islam giving the amount of terror
attacks attributed to it over the last decades ....at least to be concerned - not talking about a witch hunt.

Quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.
Hate ? - genuine concern maybe ??

Compel the Commons heritage committee to develop a government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.

More of the same nonsense ...

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

it is still worrying, if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing gay rights. people would lose their minds, but relax they are only looking into it wouldnt fly

Your comment might have some relevance if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing any rights at all. This motion explicitly seeks to reduce or eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't see how you can possibly think that's analogous to reducing gay rights.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your comment might have some relevance if Canada had just passed a motion to "look into" reducing any rights at all. This motion explicitly seeks to reduce or eliminate all forms of discrimination and to promote the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't see how you can possibly think that's analogous to reducing gay rights.

the obvious question is will it reduce free speech, that is a right that is seen as pivotal for the West. What if they "look into" that and decide that is a right that can be reduced

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

the obvious question is will it reduce free speech, that is a right that is seen as pivotal for the West. What if they "look into" that and decide that is a right that can be reduced

So we shouldn't investigate ways to combat racial and religious discrimination promote human rights, in case that might lead somebody to suggest some restriction on speech? Is that what you're saying here, or am I misunderstanding you?

Jan_de_Bakker

Again, thin end of the wedge, if the same happened and it was somehow connected with protecting Christianity (and im no defender of Christianity) I doubt people on here would be so "liberal" ..

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

So we shouldn't investigate ways to combat racial and religious discrimination promote human rights, in case that might lead somebody to suggest some restriction on speech? Is that what you're saying here, or am I misunderstanding you?

define what free speech is and say that will be protected then look at the other stuff. There are clearly people out there that want to limit free speech into areas that were assumed to be free so there might be an incentive by these people to "look into" curbing it

recedite

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Whats the definition of Islamaphobia here ?
I for one think its quite reasonable to fear Islam giving the amount of terror attacks attributed to it over the last decades ....at least to be concerned - not talking about a witch hunt.

Khalid is using her own definition;

On February 15, Iqra Khalid stated that the definition of Islamophobia is "the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination"

from Wiki
As opposed to a perfectly rational dislike of Islam, which could be termed "Islamomisia" (thanks to fundamentalist christianity for that)
Technically, Islamophobia really means a fear of Islam.

When you get lawmakers passing "motions" to suit their own definitions of words, things do tend to get confusing.

Jan_de_Bakker

Anyway .... we're all ****ed ...

And here was me hoping for a Rodenberry-esque future !! ha !

recedite

It was a common enough theme in Star Trek for an alien culture to try to seize control of the ship

oscarBravo

I guess we should be grateful that it's no longer our turn to be the people it's apparently perfectly rational to dislike.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess we should be grateful that it's no longer our turn to be the people it's apparently perfectly rational to dislike.

It boggles the mind how the alt-right could have radicalised any Irish people given their predecessors' hatred of the Irish.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess we should be grateful that it's no longer our turn to be the people it's apparently perfectly rational to dislike.

You misunderstand that cartoon, its not about disliking people, its about integrating them. That cartoon depicts a whole range of caricatures of mostly European nationalities, mostly armed and antagonistic towards each other, all going into a melting pot and being given US citizenship and equal rights. The rabid little Fenian guy is probably to the fore because the Fenians had managed to bring their gripe to the new world.

Its a pertinent political cartoon, and still valid today, except maybe the most troublesome little guy nowadays would be depicted with a bomb in his turban.

silverharp

Sargon not a fan of it , an attempt at a modern Blasphemy law?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEGdKeT4B0

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Its a pertinent political cartoon, and still valid today...

Wow.