M103 passed in Canada

Depp

http://globalnews.ca/news/3330776/anti-islamophobia-motion-m-103-approved/

Text of the Motion
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Full text of the motion taken from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions

Political and public discord and debate has been struck a massive blow in Canada today, saddening to see it come to this but one can only hope this will not become the new norm!

(apologies to mods if this has been mentioned already, couldn't spot it anywhere!)

Samuel T. Cogley

Depp wrote: »

(apologies to mods if this has been mentioned already, couldn't spot it anywhere!)

Funny that...

Depp

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Funny that...

is there another thread for it that I missed? or are you trying to be funny?

buried

Fooking hell, thought the thread title was another Malaysian plane incident at first

Samuel T. Cogley

Depp wrote: »

is there another thread for it that I missed? or are you trying to be funny?

As hard and successfully as you're trying to be edgy.

Zaph

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist? Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia? Or blatant sexism? Or abusing members of a different religion? Or is it only stifling free speech because it condemns Islamophobia?

Depp

Zaph wrote: »

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist? Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia? Or blatant sexism? Or abusing members of a different religion? Or is it only stifling free speech because it condemns Islamophobia?

So any criticism of islam as a theology, be it from from outside the faith or indeed from moderate muslims themselves who disagree with certain tenets of the faith as we're thankfully beginning to see more and more is openly racist and Islamophobic? Because thats what this bill stops...not just the racists. I'm all for trying to stop racism as I would hope anyone would be but no religion or theology should be off limits to criticism.

Wibbs

Zaph wrote: »

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist? Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia? Or blatant sexism?

I would. We either have free speech or we don't. We can't nor shouldn't cherry pick the subjects that are allowed to be free. A society that seeks to force such things underground is playing a potentially dangerous game. Better to shine a light on any subject as they come along.

Of course we in Ireland don't have free speech the way it is enshrined in the US constitution(a fact lost on too many Irish people who use the term), but if a society holds that as a concept, they must face the rough with the smooth. Indeed that's how so many previous societal failings have been questioned and reduced. Without the ability to state how and why [insert ism/politic/attitude here] is wrong openly, then that become more difficult. Try decrying homophobia, sexism, racism or whatever ism you're having yourself in a society that holds such ideas as somehow "sacred" and not free to question.

Plus, this Canadian law doesn't as far as I can see have much in the way of legal teeth. It just means the parliament is circumscribed from such speech as they see it. Which is an issue in of itself.

Dr Martin

So when is the law prohibiting Christianphobia being brought in?

I find it curious when 'liberals' want to crack down on free speech. Criticizing Islam is no more racist than criticizing Catholicism because (a) Islam is not a race and (b) there's plenty to criticize.

So if I point out Muhammad was pedo am I being hateful?

Arcade_Tryer

Islamophobia
ɪzˌlaməˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
noun: Islamophobia

1. dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

Islamophobia is possibly the most pernicious term of this generation. It directly aims to restrict criticism of Islam by automatically and inextricably linking criticism of Islam to criticism of Muslims. Intellectual dishonesty combined with fallacious arguments at its finest. Christopher Hitchens and others called this crap decades ago, and yet here we still are thanks to the true snowflake generation, the liberal apologists.

Zaph

Depp wrote: »

So any criticism of islam as a theology, be it from from outside the faith or indeed from moderate muslims themselves who disagree with certain tenets of the faith is openly racist and Islamophobic? Because thats what this bill stops...not just the racists. I'm all for trying to stop racism as I would hope anyone would be but no religion or theology should be off limits to criticism.

Really? Because that's not what it says in the link you provided above. What it actually says is that M103 is

a non-biding motion that calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”

To me that reads that any racism or religious discrimination, not just anything aimed at Islam, should be condemned by the government. Not that that's a bad thing, all racism and religious discrimination is wrong, but criticising a religion isn't the same as discriminating against it. It also says that the motion is non-binding, so the government could ignore it if they wanted to.

please helpThank YOU

Facebook Canada that will keep rumor spreaders quite we should bring this Law into Eire/Ireland.

Dr Martin

Anyone who supports this measure has no right to complain if they are accused of antisemitism for condemning Israel.

tigger123

The guy sounds like a f*ckin d*ck.

Depp

Text of the Motion
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Full text of the motion taken from http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions

Zaph wrote: »

Really? Because that's not what it says in the link you provided above. What it actually says is that M103 is



To me that reads that any racism or religious discrimination, not just anything aimed at Islam, should be condemned by the government. Not that that's a bad thing, all racism and religious discrimination is wrong, but criticising a religion isn't the same as discriminating against it. It also says that the motion is non-binding, so the government could ignore it if they wanted to.

Its the wording that is problematic to me, it is far too vague and by the textbook definition of ''islamaphobia'' criticism of the faith is ''discriminating'' against it. This is too murky a subject to be ruled on outright until all terms involved are cleared up and properly defined and while the motion may be non-binding this is a worrying first step down a slippery slope. While the bill was most likely written in good faith its badly and vaguely written. We're on the verge of censorship with this and its a dangerous way for a society to go.

JackTaylorFan

tigger123 wrote: »

The guy sounds like a f*ckin d*ck.

Was thinking exact same thing. Pretty much a Katie Hopkins wannabe.

Zaph

Dr Martin wrote: »

Anyone who supports this measure has no right to complain if they are accused of antisemitism for condemning Israel.

You can condemn the Israeli government for their actions but it doesn't necessarily make it anti-Semitic just because they all happen to be Jewish. Condemning the Irish government for something wouldn't automatically make you anti-Catholic.

milehip

Zaph wrote: »

You can condemn the Israeli government for their actions but it doesn't necessarily make it anti-Semitic just because they all happen to be Jewish. Condemning the Irish government for something wouldn't automatically make you anti-Catholic.

The Irish government is totally comprised of Catholics?

Depp

Zaph wrote: »

You can condemn the Israeli government for their actions but it doesn't necessarily make it anti-Semitic just because they all happen to be Jewish. Condemning the Irish government for something wouldn't automatically make you anti-Catholic.

Ireland is a secular state, Israel is not, you're drawing false equivalencies here

Depp

tigger123 wrote: »

The guy sounds like a f*ckin d*ck.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Was thinking exact same thing. Pretty much a Katie Hopkins wannabe.

Oh great, ad hominem attacks when someone says something you disagree with! care to argue any of the points made maybe?

Yourself isit

Dr Martin wrote: »

Anyone who supports this measure has no right to complain if they are accused of antisemitism for condemning Israel.

Canada also has that law right?

JackTaylorFan

Depp wrote: »

Oh great, ad hominem attacks when someone says something you disagree with! care to argue any of the points made maybe?

The guy sounds like a little ****-stirrer - fact.

Depp

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

The guy sounds like a little ****-stirrer - fact.

Dismissing someone based on ''what they sound like'' while ignoring their points and refusing to argue is ad-hominem - fact

osarusan

Depp wrote: »

Because thats what this bill stops...

Depp wrote: »

While the bill was most likely written in good faith ...

It's not a bill, it's a motion.

It's a non-binding resolution, not a law. It's not going to become a law.

Depp

osarusan wrote: »

It's not a bill, it's a motion.

It's a non-binding resolution, not a law. It's not going to become a law.

does that make it right that we have parliament in a modern western country discussing moves like this? apologies for getting the terminology wrong!

Grayson

Zaph wrote: »

You can condemn the Israeli government for their actions but it doesn't necessarily make it anti-Semitic just because they all happen to be Jewish. Condemning the Irish government for something wouldn't automatically make you anti-Catholic.

I agree with you but Israel is officially a jewish state. So there are times when people are actually being antisemitic in criticising it. Most of the time they're not though. It's actions do quite often lend to criticism.

Grayson

From the link the OP put up.

Canada’s parliament has approved M-103, a non-biding motion that calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” by a margin of 201-91.

So this outrage is about a non binding resolution about religious discrimination and racism.

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

From the link the OP put up.



So this outrage is about a non binding resolution about religious discrimination and racism.

no the outrage is due to its wording it and use of the term Islamophobia in such a vague manner sets a dangerous precedent in terms of restriction of free speech. binding or non-binding this was still discussed and voted in favor of in the parliament of a modern country which is unacceptable. Free speech is the most basic of human rights and any modern government shouldn't even be discussing the censorship of any words or ideas.

Grayson

Depp wrote: »

no the outrage is due to its wording it and use of the term Islamophobia in such a vague manner sets a dangerous precedent in terms of restriction of free speech. binding or non-binding this was still discussed and voted in favor of in the parliament of a modern country which is unacceptable. Free speech is the most basic of human rights and any modern government shouldn't even be discussing the censorship of any words or ideas.

This isn't a law. It's a group of people saying that they believe Islamophobia is bad. And it's not a law. This doesn't affect anyone.

I have to agree though, it's a terrible sign for democracy when a duly elected government debates stuff.

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

This isn't a law. It's a group of people saying that they believe Islamophobia is bad. And it's not a law. This doesn't affect anyone.

I have to agree though, it's a terrible sign for democracy when a duly elected government debates stuff.

I am well aware it is not a law, however, its aim, taken directly from the text is calling the government to; ''(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada'' by the current definition of Islamophobia a muslim reformist, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be branded a criminal under a law against Islamophobia. Again, I am aware this is a motion not a law but it is designed to encourage the parliament to come up with one. and when the government of a modern country debates laws that could stifle free speech its most certainly bad for democracy.

Billy86

The Canadians I know are actually quite happy with it and/or don't care because racial tensions typically aren't much of an issue over there, which might come as a surprise to the alt-right Irish lad in the video.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

The Canadians I know are actually quite happy with it and/or don't care because racial tensions typically aren't much of an issue over there, which might come as a surprise to the alt-right Irish lad in the video.

Fair enough but from what I've seen theres been a massive negative reaction to this among canadians. Whether you want to label them alt-right or otherwise

Snake Plisken

Meanwhile at the Toronto Mosque
https://twitter.com/ten_gop/status/845063760557461504

Depp

Good watch if you're confused about the definitions of ''Islamophobia'' and some of us find the term so problematic.

Billy86

Meanwhile, on University & College in Toronto...



And on around the city (some posters might remember this incident from their posts and thanking of posts claiming it was a Muslim, though they seemed to unsubscribe wipe it from their memories when it turned out to be a white nationalist Christian).

Canada must be such a disappointment for the alt right.

Samuel T. Cogley

No nation has truly free speech. Even the US does not allow certain elements of hate speech. The goal posts have also moved since the invention of the internet and in particular social media. Defamation, the prevention of dissemination of certain types of pornography are all controlled in even the most liberal nations. Do I have to disagree we can and do and should cherry pick.

This isn't even a freedom of speech issue. It's a non-binding motion. There are competing rights here and a representative democracy has decided by a majority vote to carry it. If that caused up-roar in Canada - Great! - it'll be a different representative democracy making the laws.

This is about as much a threat to Free Speech as a **** is to getting someone pregnant.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

Meanwhile, on University & College in Toronto...



And on around the city (some posters might remember this incident from their posts and thanking of posts claiming it was a Muslim, though they seemed to unsubscribe wipe it from their memories when it turned out to be a white nationalist Christian).

Canada must be such a disappointment for the alt right.

are Ayaan Hirsa Ali and Majid Nawaz part of the alt right? Am I part of the alt right for disliking motions to bring about laws to silence them? is anyone critical of islam part of the alt right? Sorry for all the questions just its difficult to understand what point you are making or if you're just here to call everyone alt right.

Samuel T. Cogley

Depp wrote: »

Good watch if you're confused about the definitions of ''Islamophobia'' and some of us find the term so problematic.

It really isn't. As much as I admire the late CH, he is advocating his position to the exclusion of tolerance of other religions. It's telling that you think these things are the same they're not. Canada is not trying to ban criticism of Islam or any other religion.

Samuel T. Cogley

Any chance we could avoid quoting every fooking Youtube clip and needlessly large picture to write on line of 'witty' retort?

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

are Ayaan Hirsa Ali and Majid Nawaz part of the alt right? Am I part of the alt right for disliking motions to bring about laws to silence them? is anyone critical of islam part of the alt right? Sorry for all the questions just its difficult to understand what point you are making or if you're just here to call everyone alt right.

The motion doesn't say you can't criticise them, it says that it aims to reduce and eliminate systemic discrimination against them. There's quite a big difference between one and the other, which makes me wonder why you're conflating them?

Samuel T. Cogley

Billy86 wrote: »

The motion doesn't say you can't criticise them, it says that it aims to reduce and eliminate systemic discrimination against them. There's quite a big difference between one and the other, which makes me wonder why you're conflating them?

Hitchens :pac: The man ironically created his own 'religion'.

Depp

Billy86 wrote: »

The motion doesn't say you can't criticise them, it says that it aims to reduce and eliminate systemic discrimination against them. There's quite a big difference between one and the other, which makes me wonder why you're conflating them?

I am aware what the motion says. Maybe I'm off base but the line that gets me ''whole of government approach to eliminate islamophobia.'' if they want to clarify what islamophobia actually means crack on, I'm all for eliminating racism, but when the muslims and non-muslims expressing valid concerns about islam falls under the definition of ''islamophobia'' the government should have no hand act nor part in it. And for what its worth I am not an atheist, far from it.

Billy86

Depp wrote: »

I am aware what the motion says. Maybe I'm off base but the line that gets me ''whole of government approach to eliminate islamophobia.'' if they want to clarify what islamophobia actually means crack on, I'm all for eliminating racism, but when the muslims and non-muslims expressing valid concerns about islam falls under the definition of ''islamophobia'' the government should have no hand act nor part in it. And for what its worth I am not an atheist, far from it.

I've got nothing against criticising any religion - I'm not a fan of them myself and ultimately see them as fairy tales that were easier to sell before much of science that explains the origins of man and world around us as we know it today existed. That said, I don't have anything against someone solely for their religion - and to me that's what islamophobia basically is.

After Hours basically has some people who act as great examples of this, scouring for any negative news on Muslims to post on, but actively ignoring threads they're already subscribed to when it turns out to be someone else doing exactly what they were vilifying Muslims for. Discrimination, basically...

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.

Snake Plisken

Billy86 wrote: »

I've got nothing against criticising any religion - I'm not a fan of them myself and ultimately see them as fairy tales that were easier to sell before much of science that explains the origins of man and world around us as we know it today existed. That said, I don't have anything against someone solely for their religion - and to me that's what islamophobia basically is.

After Hours basically has some people who act as great examples of this, scouring for any negative news on Muslims to post on, but actively ignoring threads they're already subscribed to when it turns out to be someone else doing exactly what they were vilifying Muslims for. Discrimination, basically...

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.

Well there are plenty of threads on boards slagging off Catholics Jews and other religions on here so if it's good enough for one religion it's good enough for Islam.

Dr Martin

The same people unquestionably supporting this will shout the loudest about our blasphemy laws.

Samuel T. Cogley

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Well there are plenty of threads on boards slagging off Catholics Jews and other religions on here so if it's good enough for one religion it's good enough for Islam.

The issue is slagging of a religion purely because it's that religion. It's not Islamophobic to say Religion makes the world a worse place, it's not even Islamophobic to say at the moment Islam probably the biggest contributor to religion making the world a worse place.

It is Islamophobic to say immigrant rag heads are all terrorists I won't sit on the bus with one.

Surely this distinction doesn't need pointing out?

Grayson

Depp wrote: »

I am well aware it is not a law, however, its aim, taken directly from the text is calling the government to; ''(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada'' by the current definition of Islamophobia a muslim reformist, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be branded a criminal under a law against Islamophobia. Again, I am aware this is a motion not a law but it is designed to encourage the parliament to come up with one. and when the government of a modern country debates laws that could stifle free speech its most certainly bad for democracy.

So it's the word Islamophobic you have a problem with. Not racism? You're not worried about someone right to insult different races. You're just worried about someone right to insult muslims?

Grayson

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The issue is slagging of a religion purely because it's that religion. It's not Islamophobic to say Religion makes the world a worse place, it's not even Islamophobic to say at the moment Islam probably the biggest contributor to religion making the world a worse place.

It is Islamophobic to say immigrant rag heads are all terrorists I won't sit on the bus with one.

Surely this distinction doesn't need pointing out?

It would be if all evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion. However that would be an argument with one person pointing out something bad done in the name of islam and someone pointing out something bad done by another religion.

Then 1000 pages later it's be a discussion about cyclists and drivers


I'd consider islamaphobia to be criticising someone because they're muslim. Criticising a Muslim because of what they're doing is fine.

The thing is that people often use blanket statements when talking about muslims. It's a huge religion with a massive amount of variety. Any blanket statement is going to be wrong.

Dr Martin

Islamophobic to criticize someones because they're muslim? Why?

Wibbs

Billy86 wrote: »

The motion doesn't say you can't criticise them, it says that it aims to reduce and eliminate systemic discrimination against them. There's quite a big difference between one and the other, which makes me wonder why you're conflating them?

OK then B, define Islamaphobia. If there's such a big difference it should be easy? If someone says they feel Islam as an ideology, politic and philosophy is incompatible with modern western society and should be open to critique and corralled from politics, is that "Islamaphobia"?

As Snake Plisken noted other faiths are fair game hereabouts. Hinduism not much because it's not part of our daily culture and it's a little too exotic for western tastes. Buddhism usually gets a free ride because many agnostic types turn to it for the perceived lack of magical thinking, which it's actually chock full of, and it's exotic enough, but not too exotic in general terms so it passes muster who think themselves above dreamcatchers and crystals. Christianity is fair game, Judaism to a lesser degree, again because outside of "Israel, what do we think of them" politics, it's remote(). Our own personal Irish piñata of collective guilt that we love to bash is Catholicism and indeed clerics, past and current and adherents, past and current of same are regularly in the firing line. Do I think that over the top at times? I do*, but overall I am OK with the fact that people can lash out, can criticise, can strive to never let that kind of odious daft thinking nonsense rear its ugly head again.






*years back I read a book called Chickenhawk, an autobiography of a Huey pilot in Vietnam. One tale told of a supply chopper that went down on a flight and was never seen again. Because of all the military pilfering that tends to go on in war, to balance the books every quartermaster in Vietnam claimed to have supplies on said craft. As the author noted; no wonder it crashed, the fúcker weighed 300 tons. Catholic Ireland to me is that cultural helicopter for us. Weighed down by every sin of the past we could muster. It crashed and burned and we let our collective sins go down with it. Books balanced.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

It would be if all evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion. However that would be an argument with one person pointing out something bad done in the name of islam and someone pointing out something bad done by another religion.

Then 1000 pages later it's be a discussion about cyclists and drivers


I'd consider islamaphobia to be criticising someone because they're muslim. Criticising a Muslim because of what they're doing is fine.

The thing is that people often use blanket statements when talking about muslims. It's a huge religion with a massive amount of variety. Any blanket statement is going to be wrong.

You can't criticize someone for the adherance to belief system is what you're saying? It mightn't be polite depending on the circumstances and it might be bad social etiquette but what you're saying has massive implications no? Because then you are necessarily saying you cant criticize someone based on their beliefs. What can you criticise someone for then? Purely action?