M103 passed in Canada

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 3:13am

Grayson wrote: »

Did you even read the link the OP put up? It's not to exclusively protect Islam. BTW, it's also not a law since you keep referring to it as one.

btw, here's a Canadian definition of islamaphobia.

It's heavily focused on Islam.

Are you endorsing the Canadian definition of islamophobia?

Depp · 26-03-2017 3:17am

Grayson wrote: »

Did you even read the link the OP put up? It's not to exclusively protect Islam. BTW, it's also not a law since you keep referring to it as one.

btw, here's a Canadian definition of islamaphobia.

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 3:18am

Grayson wrote: »

Did you even read the link the OP put up? It's not to exclusively protect Islam. BTW, it's also not a law since you keep referring to it as one.

btw, here's a Canadian definition of islamaphobia.

Depp wrote: »

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

That definition is unbelievable. It is almost completely a form of thought policing. Much of it is just what reformists ''see'' Islam (or aspects of) as being,at present. A simple exercise for those who can't grasp the problem with it, insert Catholicism instead of Islam...

It even includes rejecting anti western criticism as islamophobia. ''out of hand'', how ironic...

BlinkingLights · 26-03-2017 3:24am

What annoys me about this kind of thing is that you need be able to separate criticism of an organisation or an ideology and criticism of an entire cultural group.

Religious groups, just like any other group, can do terrible things and have very dangerous ideologies that need to be criticised.

Look closer to home and you will find aspects of the Catholic Church went absolutely off the rails and caused huge damage with things like Magdalene Laundries, abuse cover ups and so on.

In the past we couldn't criticise the Church as it was beyond the pale to even discuss it in a negative light and look where that got us?!
Horrific problems known about but not discussed for fear of upsetting the religious and the powerful.

Nothing should be beyond criticism. it's a dangerous precedent to set and Ireland and Irish society should understand exactly why!

Depp · 26-03-2017 3:29am

BlinkingLights wrote: »

What annoys me about this kind of thing is that you need be able to separate criticism of an organisation or an ideology and criticism of an entire cultural group.

Religious groups can do terrible things and have very dangerous ideologies that need to be criticised. Look closer to home and you will find aspects of the CatholicChurch went absolutely off the rails and caused give damage with things like Magdalene Laundries, abuse cover his and so on.

In the past we couldn't criticise the Church as it was beyond the pale to even discuss it in a negative light and look where that got us?!
Horrific problems known about but not discussed for fear of upsetting the religious and the powerful.

Nothing should be beyond criticism. it's a dangerous precedent to set and Ireland and Irish society should understand exactly why!

Think I mentioned it in another thread but can you imagine what Ireland would be like today if the catholic church had a word like catholophobia 20-30 years ago and could throw any criticisms of their teachings/actions into the one bracket then criminalize it?

Aka Ishur · 26-03-2017 3:30am

Depp wrote: »

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

But we haven't even got to the area of racism being a crime with this motion? It just asks the government to condemn all racists acts (if they want, coz its non binding) which they do.anyways in general, if its an act large enough to get government attention. There's no penalty for sh!tting on any one race or religion.

jackofalltrades · 26-03-2017 3:32am

wes wrote: »

You could google this in a few seconds:
Few convictions under U.K. terror law that served as model for Canada

If I knew the answer I would have googled it "in a few seconds".
How is legislation against encouraging terrorism similar to this legislation?

13 Times Apparent Trump Supporters Attacked, Harassed Or Plotted To Kill Muslims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for the murders of nine black church members

Gunman Kills 6 at a Sikh Temple Near Milwaukee

Sikh man shot in US, told to 'go back to your country'

Indian engineer killed, another injured in U.S. hate crime

White supremacist who traveled to New York to murder black men followed extremist racist online groups who support Trump

Thats the stuff I remember off the top of my head.

Yes that's a list of events, but it doesn't prove that it's a growing problem.

Depp · 26-03-2017 3:35am

Aka Ishur wrote: »

But we haven't even got to the area of racism being a crime with this motion? It just asks the government to condemn all racists acts (if they want, coz its non binding) which they do.anyways in general, if its an act large enough to get government attention. There's no penalty for sh!tting on any one race or religion.

I support the anti-racism intentions of the motion fully, as would any reasonable human, my concern is that the motion specifically mentions Islamophobia and the vague and poor definition of that word. Under the current oxford definition a muslim reformist who says ''I don't think we should kill apostates actually!'' is an islamophobe and this motion seeks to eliminate that?

BlinkingLights · 26-03-2017 3:38am

Depp wrote: »

Think I mentioned it in another thread but can you imagine what Ireland would be like today if the catholic church had a word like catholophobia 20-30 years ago and could throw any criticisms of their teachings/actions into the one bracket then criminalize it?

I suspect that was the intention of the authors of our Constitution.
It specifically mentions blasphemy and sedition but because the courts couldn't define blasphemy without establishing a state religion (banned by the Constitution) the clause was always impotent.

Then someone decided to provide a definition that was an intent to cause outrage amongst the followers of a religion. That's circumscribed by a defence where you're entitled to discuss in an academic, artistic, political or religious context which, in theory, covers most things but it's still just sheer luck (bad drafting) we didn't have an active and very Draconian blasphemy law all through the history of the state.

jackofalltrades · 26-03-2017 3:54am

Grayson wrote:

btw, here's a Canadian definition of islamaphobia.

(1) seeing Islam "as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change";
(2) seeing Islam "as separate and ‘other’" without "values in common with other cultures", being neither affected by them nor having any influence on them;
(3) seeing Islam as "inferior to the West", more specifically, "as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist";
(4) seeing Islam "as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a ‘clash of civilisations’";
(5) seeing Islam "as a political ideology used for political or military advantage";
(6) "reject[ing] out of hand" criticisms made of the West by Islam;
(7) using "hostility towards Islam... to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society";
(8) seeing anti-Muslim hostility "as natural or normal".
— Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Creed: Research and Consultation Report, p. 30

WTAF, do you agree with the above?
Because it's pure "thought police" nonsense.
I'd say the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a step away from re-education camps.

wes · 26-03-2017 4:11am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If I knew the answer I would have googled it "in a few seconds".

If you knew it already, there wouldn't be any need to look for it

.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How is legislation against encouraging terrorism similar to this legislation?

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes that's a list of events, but it doesn't prove that it's a growing problem.

Yeah, a couple of them do, as they are a direct result of the recent US election.

Depp · 26-03-2017 4:26am

wes wrote: »

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

Speech that incites violence is not protected under freedom of speech, you're drawing a false equivalency here. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence to further political aims so laws that prevent those that would encourage terrorism from doing so have absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 4:28am

wes wrote: »

If you knew it already, there wouldn't be any need to look for it .

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

Yeah, a couple of them do, as they are a direct result of the recent US election.

As you say these type of laws have been around a long time, did Canada not already have laws against violence, especially racial violence?

It's not that this law or motion or whatever affects a 'side' it's that it is attempting to predict and accuse people of sentiments and intents they do not harbour. All of the above definitions of islamophobia are deeply questionable. One of them makes questioning political islamism impossible, That is the most important one. As is the timing of this, it's very unwise...

wes · 26-03-2017 4:31am

Depp wrote: »

Speech that incites violence is not protected under freedom of speech, you're drawing a false equivalency here. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence to further political aims so laws that prevent those that would encourage terrorism from doing so have absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

The intent of both laws is exactly the same. So why do you oppose one and support the other? That strikes me as hypocritical. BTW, read the link I provided, one of the people prosecuted under the British law, was a law student, who argued in a youtube video that attacks on coalition forces in Iraq were not terrorism, which is clearly debate as to what does and doesn't constitute terrorism.

So, both laws are similar in intent, and can be seen to stifle debate.

Depp · 26-03-2017 4:38am

wes wrote: »

The intent of both laws is exactly the same. So why do you oppose one and support the other? That strikes me as hypocritical. BTW, read the link I provided, one of the people prosecuted under the British law, was a law student, who argued in a youtube video that attacks on coalition forces in Iraq were not terrorism, which is clearly debate as to what does and doesn't constitute terrorism.

So, both laws are similar in intent, and can be seen to stifle debate.

no, one is to protect someones right to discourse, the other stops someone from telling someone to enact violence. You're drawing a massive false equivalency here I suggest researching what free speech actually is, unless you're just being dishonest to pointscore then you're going to have to try harder. Anti-terrorism laws stop someone from encouraging people to commit acts of violence, encouraging violence is not protected under free speech.

wes · 26-03-2017 4:41am

Widdershins wrote: »

As you say these type of laws have been around a long time, did Canada not already have laws against violence, especially racial violence?

Yes, and they are expanded it clearly with this law.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not that this law or motion or whatever affects a 'side' it's that it is attempting to predict and accuse people of sentiments and intents they do not harbour. All of the above definitions of islamophobia are deeply questionable. One of them makes questioning political islamism impossible, That is the most important one. As is the timing of this, it's very unwise...

Sorry, but its very clearly about who it effects. No one cared when such laws didn't effect them. They have been around for a long time, and are suddendly an issue.

Basically, once you decide to limit free speech, then it become acceptable for more limits. Who gets to decide what is encouraging terrorism? Is a discussion on what is and isn't terrorism as per the UK law, I spoke about earlier:

a law student who argued videos of attacks on western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan showed defence against an invading force, not terror,

So, we have a similar law in Canada, from last year, that didn't bother anyone, and now that the same country wants to use a similar law, against far right terror against Muslims, people suddenly care.

Sorry, but its astonishing how selective free speech defenders seems to be. Even defending laws that have the exact same intent, while arguing against a more recent one.

wes · 26-03-2017 4:43am

Depp wrote: »

no, one is to protect someones right to discourse, the other stops someone from telling someone to enact violence. You're drawing a massive false equivalency here I suggest researching what free speech actually is, unless you're just being dishonest to pointscore then you're going to have to try harder. Anti-terrorism laws stop someone from encouraging people to commit acts of violence, encouraging violence is not protected under free speech.

The laws have the exact same intent, and that is to stop terrorism. Its the height of hypocrisy to oppose one and support the other.

Islamophobic speech has incited violence, and provided quite a few examples.

Depp · 26-03-2017 4:51am

wes wrote: »

The laws have the exact same intent, and that is to stop terrorism. Its the height of hypocrisy to oppose one and support the other.

If you had read any of this thread you would see I do not oppose this motion in its entirety, I am 100% behind the anti-racism aim of it, as are 99% of posters in this thread, the problem is when it seeks to legislate to eliminate ''Islamophobia'' the term and its use are the bone of contention, under its current definition any criticism of the teachings of the faith, even from reformists muslims within the faith are defined as islamophobes and were this legislation to be enacted would be criminals. This is my problem with the legislation. I am not pro racism or any other nonsense you want to come up with.

Depp wrote: »

I'm in 100% agreement with this. If the ''dislike of or'' part of the definition were to be removed I would be in complete support of this motion and ostensibly it being written into law. People should 100% be free to practice any religion without fear of prejudice but said religion should in no way be excused from people criticizing or disliking it!

a post of mine from several pages ago where I said this already.

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 4:56am

wes wrote: »

Yes, and they are expanded it clearly with this law.

Sorry, but its very clearly about who it effects. No one cared when such laws didn't effect them. They have been around for a long time, and are suddendly an issue.

Basically, once you decide to limit free speech, then it become acceptable for more limits. Who gets to decide what is encouraging terrorism? Is a discussion on what is and isn't terrorism as per the UK law, I spoke about earlier:

So, we have a similar law in Canada, from last year, that didn't bother anyone, and now that the same country wants to use a similar law, against far right terror against Muslims, people suddenly care.

Sorry, but its astonishing how selective free speech defenders seems to be. Even defending laws that have the exact same intent, while arguing against a more recent one.

It's the first time I'd heard of the other law and the example of the law student and no , I don't agree with it, or with the way it was implemented, at least.

What can be said for it is it seems, apart from that, a bit more solid than the one now being discussed, which is seemingly based on a very flawed set of definitions. And this quote about THAT other law applies equally to THIS new law! (Just with different 'characters' - sorry, it's the early hours!)

''Liberty, a British human rights group, presented the same arguments in 2006. It argued that an overly broad definition of “terrorism” might lead to passionate expression of a political view being interpreted as the reckless encouragement of a crime that could turn those calling for the overthrow of repressive regimes such as North Korea and Zimbabwe into terror advocates.''

Maybe both laws have very similar pitfalls. Islamophobic speech may have incited violence but I disagree with what much of they are describing Islamophobic speech.

wes · 26-03-2017 4:56am

Depp wrote: »

If you had read any of this thread you would see I do not oppose this motion in its entirety, I am 100% behind the anti-racism aim of it, as are 99% of posters in this thread, the problem is when it seeks to legislate to eliminate ''Islamophobia'' the term and its use are the bone of contention, under its current definition any criticism of the teachings of the faith, even from reformists muslims within the faith are defined as islamophobes and were this legislation to be enacted would be criminals. This is my problem with the legislation. I am not pro racism or any other nonsense you want to come up with.

Never said that anyone was pro-racism......
My point is that existing laws aren't much better, when people can be arrested for arguing that attacks on foreign troops in Iraq isn't terrorism. This kind of thing has been around for a long time.

Depp · 26-03-2017 5:13am

wes wrote: »

Never said that anyone was pro-racism......
My point is that existing laws aren't much better, when people can be arrested for arguing that attacks on foreign troops in Iraq isn't terrorism. This kind of thing has been around for a long time.

Pointing out one case is not an effective argument as to how these laws are similar, also important to note that the case you keep bringing up is nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out to be, also unusual you link to an article that merely mentions the case and leaves out all names and further details. Anti-terrorism laws are completely different from this law, this law deals with racism and has absolutely no mention of terrorism.

If they give us a better definition of ''Islamophobia'' that only covers actual bigots etc. and makes no mention of muslims and non muslims who wish to question elements of the faith, then I'm all for legislation like this.

the great communicator · 26-03-2017 12:02pm

wes wrote: »

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can you give some examples?

You could google this in a few seconds:
Few convictions under U.K. terror law that served as model for Canada

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There's a growing far-right terror problem in "the West"????

13 Times Apparent Trump Supporters Attacked, Harassed Or Plotted To Kill Muslims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for the murders of nine black church members

Gunman Kills 6 at a Sikh Temple Near Milwaukee

Sikh man shot in US, told to 'go back to your country'

Indian engineer killed, another injured in U.S. hate crime

White supremacist who traveled to New York to murder black men followed extremist racist online groups who support Trump

Thats the stuff I remember off the top of my head.

Even if we pretend there's an equivalence between those attacks and Islamic terror I don't know what your point is. Would you support a law that barred people from criticising the far right lest we offence the sensibilities of nazis and white supremacists.

nice_guy80 · 26-03-2017 12:07pm

sure all religions are fiction anyway

whats the issue?

Depp · 26-03-2017 12:10pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

sure all religions are fiction anyway

whats the issue?

If the motion were to become legislation here you would have just committed a crime by posting that.

Grayson · 26-03-2017 12:12pm

Widdershins wrote: »

That definition is unbelievable. It is almost completely a form of thought policing. Much of it is just what reformists ''see'' Islam (or aspects of) as being,at present. A simple exercise for those who can't grasp the problem with it, insert Catholicism instead of Islam...

It even includes rejecting anti western criticism as islamophobia. ''out of hand'', how ironic...

I don't think you understand the phrase "out of hand". It means dismissing not based on it's merits but rather automatically dismissing it because of who's saying it or who it targets.
So if someone who's Muslim says something bad about the west like "Those drone killings are bad", it's wrong to dismiss it "out of hand".

What you actually just did was dismiss something out of hand without even processing the phrase.

Grayson · 26-03-2017 12:16pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

WTAF, do you agree with the above?
Because it's pure "thought police" nonsense.
I'd say the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a step away from re-education camps.

I beleive that you too are dismissing "out of hand" without actually considering what it means.

Also, re education camps? That's just a tad hysterical even if it's hyperbole.

Depp · 26-03-2017 12:19pm

Grayson wrote: »

I beleive that you too are dismissing "out of hand" without actually considering what it means.

Also, re education camps? That's just a tad hysterical even if it's hyperbole.

no-one is dismissing the definition out of hand they are saying its badly written and not fit for purpose. Theres a big difference between dismissing something out of hand and analyzing it then pointing out problems with it

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 1:29pm

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think you understand the phrase "out of hand". It means dismissing not based on it's merits but rather automatically dismissing it because of who's saying it or who it targets.
So if someone who's Muslim says something bad about the west like "Those drone killings are bad", it's wrong to dismiss it "out of hand".

What you actually just did was dismiss something out of hand without even processing the phrase.

I'm perfectly aware, thanks. Whether I wish to dismiss a claim out of hand is not a matter for the law. The idea is laughable. Especially, and this was my point in calling it ironic, when it is part of a list of definitions that do exactly that.

Do you endorse those definitions of Islamophobia?

Grayson · 26-03-2017 1:37pm

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware, thanks. Whether I wish to dismiss a claim out of hand is not a matter for the law. The idea is laughable. Especially, and this was my point in calling it ironic, when it is part of a list of definitions that do exactly that.

Do you endorse those definitions of Islamophobia?

It's not a law. Let's get that clear. It's been pointed out many, many times, it's not a law. It never has been a law. It wasn't proposed as a law. And it wasn't voted on as a law.

What I provided was a definition of islamaphobia. That definition said that one of the aspects of islamaphobia was dismissing out of hand any criticism of the west by muslims.
And dismissing anything out of hand, without consideration, is a bad thing. Unless you have an argument as to why it's ok not to weigh up both sides of an argument or to listen to any evidence.
I personally think it's stupid. Once again though, I have to emphasise this, no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity. People are still free to be stupid and think stupid things.

Widdershins · 26-03-2017 1:47pm

Grayson wrote: »

It's not a law. Let's get that clear. It's been pointed out many, many times, it's not a law. It never has been a law. It wasn't proposed as a law. And it wasn't voted on as a law.

What I provided was a definition of islamaphobia. That definition said that one of the aspects of islamaphobia was dismissing out of hand any criticism of the west by muslims.
And dismissing anything out of hand, without consideration, is a bad thing. Unless you have an argument as to why it's ok not to weigh up both sides of an argument or to listen to any evidence.
I personally think it's stupid. Once again though, I have to emphasise this, no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity. People are still free to be stupid and think stupid things.

I don't care for the pedantry. The set of definitions is objectionable. I've no intention of dismissing out of hand, but that is not for anyone to classify as Islamophobia. Whether I feel like giving someone's ideas the time of day, or they, mine, has nothing to do with Islamophobia or any other type of phobia and is not within the remit of any government.

M103 passed in Canada

Comments