Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

M103 passed in Canada

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    Snake Plisken
    Registered Users Posts: 12,457 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


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


  • Options
    #34
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp




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


  • Options
    #35
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Meanwhile, on University & College in Toronto...

    progressive_muslims_rally.jpg.size.custom.crop.831x650.jpg

    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. :(


  • Options
    #36
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Meanwhile, on University & College in Toronto...

    progressive_muslims_rally.jpg.size.custom.crop.831x650.jpg

    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.


  • Options
    #38
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


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


  • Options
    #40
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #41
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭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'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Snake Plisken
    Registered Users Posts: 12,457 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


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


  • Options
    #46
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,129 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,129 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


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


  • Options
    #50
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #51
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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.

    They certainly can, but if they consistently showed up in length on every thread about a specific one of Christian or Jewish people and no other religions, or if they frequently assumed it was a Jewish or Catholic person responsible every time something bad happened only to vanish if it turned out not to be, they too would be discriminating against people based solely on their religion.


  • Options
    #53
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,083 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    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?
    It seems that goes out the window when it's the local Catholic Church and babies bones are found in septic tanks. Then it''s seemingly fine to criticise someone for adhering to that faith, fine to criticise the religious hierarchy, fine to criticise the dogma that led to it. Fine to criticise the religion itself. Odd how that works.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #54
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Dr Martin wrote: »
    The same people unquestionably supporting this will shout the loudest about our blasphemy laws.
    I don't remember posting about our blasphemy laws, but can you let me know if our blasphemy laws motions or laws, and are they in place for the sole purpose of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in 84% Catholic Ireland?


  • Options
    #55
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    Yes. Catholics need to be protected from the growing Christianpobia in this country.


  • Options
    #56
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Wibbs wrote: »
    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.
    I thought I already had - discriminatory prejudice against Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Like we saw in the Quebec thread a few weeks back.

    As you mention, we are low on the count of Buddhist, Hindus, etc... but at 1.1% of the population we're hardly teeming with Muslims, yet the obsession some have with it (which if Islam had never existed would likely just be replaced with an obsession with some different 'other) is a bit transparent with a fair few on here. As for criticising it on it's own merits, that is fine by me - I'm not in the slightest bit religious either way.


  • Options
    #57
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Dr Martin wrote: »
    Yes. Catholics need to be protected from the growing Christianpobia in this country.

    Oh. The penny just dropped. Best of luck in your journeys!


  • Options
    #58
    Snake Plisken
    Registered Users Posts: 12,457 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


    Billy86 wrote: »
    I don't remember posting about our blasphemy laws, but can you let me know if our blasphemy laws motions or laws, and are they in place for the sole purpose of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in 84% Catholic Ireland?

    Actually the main spokesman for the Clonskeagh Mosque Ali Salim threatened to use the laws if any Irish paper published a cartoon of the Prophet
    Muslim scholar could seek legal advice if Irish media republish Mohammed cartoon
    http://jrnl.ie/1870437


  • Options
    #59
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Grayson wrote: »
    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?

    The undefined nature of the word is my problem. Islam is a theology, not a race. Anyone who insults someone based on their faith whatever it may be but their faith may be is to be condmned, but anyone who has valid questions and concerns about said faith is perfectly entitled to do so. The problem with the term by its current definition, and the proposed ''whole government approach'' to eliminating it, is the term throws these two groups in the same bracket as if they were the same thing.


  • Options
    #60
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Snake Plisken wrote: »
    Actually the main spokesman for the Clonskeagh Mosque Ali Salim threatened to use the laws if any Irish paper published a cartoon of the Prophet
    Muslim scholar could seek legal advice if Irish media republish Mohammed cartoon
    http://jrnl.ie/1870437
    Besides the irony of you giving out about this after having just thanked a post saying people who don't like systemic discrimination against people based solely their religion would also be the ones giving out about blasphemy laws, that doesn't answer whether the blasphemy laws are laws or motions, and are they in place for the sole reason of preventing systemic discrimination against Catholics in a country that is 84% Catholic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Billy86 wrote: »
    I thought I already had - discriminatory prejudice against Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Like we saw in the Quebec thread a few weeks back.

    As you mention, we are low on the count of Buddhist, Hindus, etc... but at 1.1% of the population we're hardly teeming with Muslims, yet the obsession some have with it (which if Islam had never existed would likely just be replaced with an obsession with some different 'other) is a bit transparent with a fair few on here. As for criticising it on it's own merits, that is fine by me - I'm not in the slightest bit religious either way.

    We are in agreement on how it should be defined so, however, both our perceptions don't fall in line with the official defenition, which is what I find to be problematic.


Advertisement