M103 passed in Canada

Widdershins wrote: »

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.

No-one has said it is.

And the definition said that if you dismiss the opinion of someone who'd Muslim, simply because they are Muslim, then that is Islamophobic. That's what it's got to do with Islamophobia. It's the fact that you'd be dismissing their opinion because they're Muslim. If they weren't Muslim, then it wouldn't be Islamophobic. If it was because they're Jewish it'd be antisemitic. You'd essentially be saying "You're argument doesn't count because you're Muslim".

And to be clear, if you dismiss the opinion because you've found it wanting, that's not dismissing it out of hand.

(Also, I'm not saying that you automatically dismiss anyone opinion because they're Muslim. It's just that this has turned into a hypothetical involving you. It could just as easily be "If I were to dismiss.....". )

Widdershins wrote: »

No, It says ''rejecting out of hand, criticisms made of the West, by Islam'' .Why should Islam specifically be criticising the West? As distinct from criticising the military campaigns?

Does it matter? Why would you automatically dismiss any criticism because it's made by Muslims? It may be that a particular criticism has no merit but it's still wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

Grayson wrote: »

Does it matter? Why would you automatically dismiss any criticism because it's made by Muslims? It may be that a particular criticism has no merit but it's still wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

Who's business is it if even a racist dismisses someone out of hand, you would be happy with a law about who you can and cant 'dismiss'? What does that even mean

the great communicator wrote: »

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.

I made no statement in regards to equivalence. Secondly I don't support such laws, but I do question the sudden concern now that there being expanded.

Grayson wrote: »

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

Oh I read through it.
Points 1 to 5 a borne out of a will to silence opinions that are unacceptable to some.
Point 6 is flawed IMHO.
Point 7,8 are perfectly fine definitions of anti-Muslim bigotry.

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

No, curtailing dissent and discussion, which is what this motion is talking about is in the same box as re-education camps and the like.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Oh I read through it.
Points 1 to 5 a borne out of a will to silence opinions that are unacceptable to some.
Point 6 is flawed IMHO.
Point 7,8 are perfectly fine definitions of anti-Muslim bigotry.
No, curtailing dissent and discussion, which is what this motion is talking about is in the same box as re-education camps and the like.

(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

You haven't actually said why anything is wrong with any of the. You've stated an opinion.
1-5 are about a will to silence others? At what point does it tell you to shut up?
6 is flawed? How.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I support free speech and I understand the reasons for restrictions to it on good grounds.
I don't buy into this all or nothing argument.

I agree. If it can be shown that there's a very high likelihood that it will lead to violence or that it has led to violence it should be illegal.

There's the old example of screaming "Fire" in a crowded theatre. If you do that and people get injured in the stampede out of there then you're legally responsible in most countries. Even if people don't get injured you can be charged with some type of reckless endangerment.

I once gave an example here of bad speech as "What if I told a crowd of angry people that you were a paedophile and gave them your address" and someone (I can't remember who) said they thought that shouldn't be illegal. Some people are like that and think there should be no limit at all on free speech. Personally I think that the limit should be when it causes harm.

Grayson wrote: »

Oops. Edited because I misread. I'm only just awake (I've had a chest infection for two months now and still barely sleep. I tend to nap a lot. That's not an excuse, I should have noticed. But it is the reason I messed up. Sorry everyone).

You're probably not getting the normal amount of oxygen to your brain with a chest infection that bad, so it's not that much of a mess up, considering Hope you feel better soon.

This post has been deleted.

Deleted User wrote: »

Before I left roughly 13 years ago, I hadn't travelled that much outside of Europe.. and I used to believe that free speech was the same everywhere in the western world (I was Definitely very naive about many things). Then I travelled extensively, and met Americans. [From age groups & social groups which normally didn't come to Ireland as tourists]

And I learned the difference between the Free Speech logic that I grew up with in Ireland (I'm 40 now) versus the Free Speech that Americans advocated. I listened to their radio stations, their talk shows etc, debated with them over whiskey and I was convinced that our version of Free Speech was far more rational and reasonable. I still do. A degree of common sense. Alas, in my visits home since then I've noticed the shift away from the traditional versions of Free Speech towards the more American idea.

I honestly don't want Ireland or Europe to turn into America. Unrestrained free speech is just as dangerous as censorship. They have different implications for a society, but the dangers remain. Now, I've lived 7 years in China with massive amounts of censorship and a definite lack of Free Speech. I teach here at university levels, and I'm bound by that same censorship every time I open my mouth. I won't be able to stick it much longer, and will return to Europe soon... but If Europe was to accept the ideas of complete free speech (without accepting the consequences), then I won't be staying in Europe long either.



By that stage, it will be too late. It's not simply the case of issuing a law. China can do that because it's a police state. A democratic system with a western set of laws, can't. Society needs time to debate, accept/refuse/modify, and then later, absorb changes.

In many ways, I do think this is a major problem in Europe. All these changes over the last decade or so, and there's been very little waiting for them to be either accepted or absorbed/merged into society. Instead, the laws just keep rolling out in one form or another trying to tackle issues with short-term solutions.

I'm sure many people will disagree with me but I do believe that human society needs rules, laws, and guidelines. I know I do. Just as there should be reasonable limitations on Free Speech, or other areas that have such high potential for manipulation and abuse.

What dangers do you have in mind when you fear complete/american free speech?

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?

Dear lord, I'm not even sure where to start with this garbage. I'll take it order.

So it's sad that people can't be openly racist?

Two problems with this:
1) You can't be racist against Islam because Islam is not a race.
2) In a society that is both healthy and free, bad ideas die precisely because the people pushing the ideas are allowed to speak. It is like sunlight to a vampire. Best example is the KKK in the United States. Throughout the 20th century, there were no great efforts to stop the KKK from marching wherever or saying whatever they wanted. So they pranced around the place with their stupid white hoods and defiling symbols of the religion they supposedly cherish (by burning the Christian cross) and they "somehow" went from millions of members in the 1920s to about 5000 today. I.E. people could clearly see from the Klansmen themselves what they were about and came to the logical conclusion.
For the same reason I am also of the view that hate preaching Imams should be allowed to preach and their speeches should be carried on the news the same way KKK rallies were covered in the US during that organisations decline - when Anjem Choudhury comes out with some drivel or when an Imam compares rape victims to "uncovered meat", or when some randomers organise a protest to say things like "Freedom go to hell" "Your 9/11 is on its way" or "Islam will dominate the world" make it front page news or include it in all nightly news broadcasts, and don't sugar coat it.

Multiculturalism would die in the same way that the KKK did, and both for the same reasons.

Would you be as up in arms about this is the motion was to stop people engaging in homophobia?

Do you want to "stop people engaging in homophobia?" If so, how? Do you realise that to put such a view into practice would require you to oppose Islam worldwide with ever fiber of your being? Because the Islamic texts are are clear - homosexuality is a grave sin against Allah and those guilty of it should be put to death, homophobia is commonplace among Islamic thought and a central feature of virtually all Islamic governments.

Or is it only Christian bakeries who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes that you have a problem with?

Or blatant sexism?

Do you want to jail Feminists who tweet #killallmen? Because that's pretty sexist ... Do you object to gender quotas? Sexist laws like the Swedish model on sex work? Sexist laws against paternity testing? Lop-sided family courts?

Or is "blatant sexism" OK when it's against men and promoted at the highest levels of society?

Or is it only stifling free speech because it condemns ...

Again, multiple problems with this:
A free society rejects censorship on principle. Censorship is usually used to silence opposition, e.g. like the Great Firewall of China. That's usually what it's about - "Don't question me/my ideology/my propaganda or you will pay the price" or "I don't want you to see or hear other points of view except mine". That kind of thing belongs in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Islamophobia?

A phobia is an irrational fear. For a long list of reasons, fear of certain strains of modern Islamic thought is perfectly rational, as is rejection of core principles.

Similarly, If you don't like Adolf Hitler, does that make you Naziphobic? Of course not, because a dislike for Nazis is perfectly rational.