M103 passed in Canada

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 1:55am

Dr Martin wrote: »

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

Salman Rushdie's fatwa comes to mind... not just from your comment but somehow also from the topic of this thread.

suicide_circus · 25-03-2017 6:17am

I always like to blaspheme three times before breakfast.

Islamophobia is a word which attempts to blur the line between criticism of a set of ideas and criticism of a group of people. If a group of people identify so strongly with a set of ideas that any criticism of those ideas make they feel personally attacked then frankly that's too darn bad.

Call Me Jimmy · 25-03-2017 7:11am

suicide_circus wrote: »

I always like to blaspheme three times before breakfast.

Islamophobia is a word which attempts to blur the line between criticism of a set of ideas and criticism of a group of people. If a group of people identify so strongly with a set of ideas that any criticism of those ideas make they feel personally attacked then frankly that's too darn bad.

**** man thats bang on

25-03-2017 7:38am

AlekSmart wrote: »

The fail to appreciate that the most devout Catholic ever to emerge from Ireland,would not in any way compare to your average devout Muslim...Our ingrained folk memories of Sodalities (Male & Female),Confraternities,Black fast days,Novenas,Ecclasticial Courts,Exorcisms and whatever,stand no chance when compared to the strictures imposed upon Muslims.

I think it's because most of them have never been to a muslim country, instead seeing small numbers here or there.

My issue isn't really with the present day.. I'm more concerned with a decade or two decades from now when Europe/Ireland has far more muslims living here. Alas, it seems like everyone is looking at short-term issues rather than the long-term effects of such. I don't think they really realise that Islam is not going to be the relatively slight friction that Protestants/Catholics had. While there are many different perspectives/philosophies in Islam, there are a great number that find Western culture/lifestles abhorrant, but they'll still come to Europe for economic reasons.

I have nothing against Islam as a religion, and I have travelled though/lived in Islamic countries. As long as it, and other religions are practiced privately in the home or their place of worship, I really don't mind. However, I do draw a certain line with public displays of religion (All religions). That being dress, behavior, etc. Just as I wouldn't want devout christians to be whipping themselves in public or Hindi followers leaving dead bodies outside their temple.

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

AlekSmart · 25-03-2017 11:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's because most of them have never been to a muslim country, instead seeing small numbers here or there.

My issue isn't really with the present day.. I'm more concerned with a decade or two decades from now when Europe/Ireland has far more muslims living here. Alas, it seems like everyone is looking at short-term issues rather than the long-term effects of such. I don't think they really realise that Islam is not going to be the relatively slight friction that Protestants/Catholics had. While there are many different perspectives/philosophies in Islam, there are a great number that find Western culture/lifestles abhorrant, but they'll still come to Europe for economic reasons.

I have nothing against Islam as a religion, and I have travelled though/lived in Islamic countries. As long as it, and other religions are practiced privately in the home or their place of worship, I really don't mind. However, I do draw a certain line with public displays of religion (All religions). That being dress, behavior, etc. Just as I wouldn't want devout christians to be whipping themselves in public or Hindi followers leaving dead bodies outside their temple.

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

Pertinent and well crafted post.

However,for some,as yet unknown,reason any attempt by a European State to move towards such an egalatarian situation is immediately met with a wave of internal dissention,rather pointedly reserved for matters Muslim.

Even at a local level,our news media shy away from reportage that focuses on the rather glaringly apparent contradictions between the Requirements imposed upon a practicing Muslim and the norms we non-Muslims have long ago secured in our Western European surroundings.

This sense of complacent superiority,so evident in many of the pro-immigration supporters will,one day be their undoing.

As to phobias,and religious based phobias in particular,I would have no problem accepting that "Extreme or irrational fears of something" are a quite natural integral part of Human existance which play a role in the self-preservation of the species.

My own fear of Islam,if it be that,comes form observing the march of militant,radical,violent devotion to Islamic strictures by a significant number of it's devotees.

We appear to have quickly and easily forgotten the beheading videos of Ken Bigley and those others that followed..

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/brother-murdered-iraq-hostage-ken-7724488

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35626237

The relevance of these incidents is in the chanting and invocation of the Prophets name as justification for the deed itself...That aspect alone should be enough to ensure we treat any attempts to convince us that we need to be more open and accomodating to broader Islamic beliefs without first subjecting them to robust and thorough screening.

Unless,of course,we Western Europeans do actually see merit in the stoning of females and the public amputations so regularly performed across the Muslim world ?

Western Europe,and Ireland in particular has had it's fill of Religious based tomfoolery,and needs to openly question and challenge the motives of those who seek to facilitate the unquestioning re-introduction of a belief structure which seeks to impose it's dictats on ALL humanity.

jackofalltrades · 25-03-2017 1:07pm

So at a time when Western countries are increasingly under attack from Islamist violence.
Canada decides to pass a motion condemning criticism of the underlying ideology.
Well done Canada. :rolleyes:
There's a Tropic Thunder quote just for this kind of situation.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 1:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer that we didn't focus on Islam at all, but rather sought a society where all religion is protected in the home/holy place, and public displays were severely limited. We live in a very diverse world now, and there will be plenty of friction between cultures without encouraging Relgious reasons to join in.

I think this makes perfect sense. I think that would be the perfect balance, if it could be achieved. It would not go down well with people who insist that they must wear religious attire and have call to prayer etc in public, though.

25-03-2017 1:55pm

Widdershins wrote: »

I think this makes perfect sense. I think that would be the perfect balance, if it could be achieved. It would not go down well with people who insist that they must wear religious attire and have call to prayer etc in public, though.

TBH, I have no problem with the call to prayer. It sends a shiver down my spine to hear it, but it's also quite beautiful.

However, there is no requirement in Islam for prayer to be done in a public place where unbelievers are living. In a country with a majority population of muslims it makes sense, but in a country where the majority are of other faiths (or none), it makes no sense.

This insistance on being able to display a religious or cultural behavior in a country that does not have that religion/culture natively/naturally is unreasonable. If you ever go to Iran, Indonesia or Egypt.. while other religions are 'protected' (somewhat), there is no drive to allow public displays of other religions.. They're to be done behind walls away from the eyes of the native people (of whom the vast majority are muslim.)

This insistance by some Europeans to be more open, more free, more generous (than other nations) to other religious groups is impractial and unrealistic. It completely ignores the tensions that exist in the world... and does nothing to reduce those tensions. Rather it encourages the alienation of these groups in Europe and an increase of anger/hatred/distrust.

Jews were easy targets for Hatred because they dressed differently and behaved differently than the general population. It was easy for groups to point in their direction... Considering the tensions in the world regarding Islam, is it really a good idea to reinforce the perception of differences? Which is what allowing something like Niqab in our streets would do. Just as allowing a Satanist High priest to walk around in his regalia would also achieve.

At least the Mormons wear their magic underwear beneath their clothes...

Islam and any religion must be open for criticism or comment. Hate speech should definitely be reined in, but healthy debates concerning the religion itself, and its impact on society should be encouraged. Whether that be about Islam, Christianity, Jedism, etc.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 2:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I have no problem with the call to prayer. It sends a shiver down my spine to hear it, but it's also quite beautiful.

However, there is no requirement in Islam for prayer to be done in a public place where unbelievers are living. In a country with a majority population of muslims it makes sense, but in a country where the majority are of other faiths (or none), it makes no sense.

This insistance on being able to display a religious or cultural behavior in a country that does not have that religion/culture natively/naturally is unreasonable. If you ever go to Iran, Indonesia or Egypt.. while other religions are 'protected' (somewhat), there is no drive to allow public displays of other religions.. They're to be done behind walls away from the eyes of the native people (of whom the vast majority are muslim.)

This insistance by some Europeans to be more open, more free, more generous (than other nations) to other religious groups is impractial and unrealistic. It completely ignores the tensions that exist in the world... and does nothing to reduce those tensions. Rather it encourages the alienation of these groups in Europe and an increase of anger/hatred/distrust.

Jews were easy targets for Hatred because they dressed differently and behaved differently than the general population. It was easy for groups to point in their direction... Considering the tensions in the world regarding Islam, is it really a good idea to reinforce the perception of differences? Which is what allowing something like Niqab in our streets would do. Just as allowing a Satanist High priest to walk around in his regalia would also achieve.

At least the Mormons wear their magic underwear beneath their clothes...

Islam and any religion must be open for criticism or comment. Hate speech should definitely be reined in, but healthy debates concerning the religion itself, and its impact on society should be encouraged. Whether that be about Islam, Christianity, Jedism, etc.

Call t prayer: Neither do I have a problem with it, but if religion is to be separate to public life, it doesn't really work, does it? But I suppose this is a workable theory and need not be totalitarian!. And yes I agree, I think it's kind of hauntingly beautiful.

Depp · 25-03-2017 6:47pm

Widdershins wrote: »

Call t prayer: Neither do I have a problem with it, but if religion is to be separate to public life, it doesn't really work, does it? But I suppose this is a workable theory and need not be totalitarian!. And yes I agree, I think it's kind of hauntingly beautiful.

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.

Depp · 25-03-2017 6:55pm

great video to watch if you're still confused as to why this motion is problematic. very well explained.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 7:00pm

Depp wrote: »

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.

You're probably right. Personally I would prefer if it was a purely private matter because it would bring us closer to a secular world. Unfortunately it never stops at simply wearing clothing that expresses religious beliefs. Protections for private worship in conjunction with an absence of religious expression was what I was agreeing with as a concept. This law prohibiting criticism of Islam in particular is bringing us further and further from a secular world.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 7:03pm

Dr Martin wrote: »

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

Well.. he did say this...

quote-islam-this-absurd-theology-of-an-immoral-bedouin-is-a-rotting-corpse-which-poisons-our-mustafa-kemal-ataturk-72-65-66.jpg

quote-islam-this-absurd-theology-of-an-immoral-bedouin-is-a-rotting-corpse-which-poisons-our-mustafa-kemal-ataturk-72-65-66.jpg

Some might say he had a fair point.
Of course he also managed to drag Turkey into the 20th century, while likes of Erdogan would prefer to drag back the to the 12th and, like that moron Trudeau, would happily prosecute you for speaking a basic truth, that Islam is regressive and destructive influence.

I wonder if it ever crosses Trudeau's mind that he shares more in common, when it comes to critiquing Islam, with a 'statesman' like Erdogan then he does with a statesman like Ataturk, or which comparison is the favorable one?

Is there anything to be said for a good blasphemy law, Imam?

25-03-2017 9:39pm

Depp wrote: »

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.

Banning any religion outright is hardly likely considering that they're protected under most constitutions. Kinda hard for a government to get that type of bill passed.

I honestly don't see why some restrictions cannot be used. It's not as if most countries in the world (outside of Europe) don't have similar laws to restrict the practices of various religions.

No worries, though. I know most on boards won't agree with me on that point. I'm hardly likely to ever be in a position to influence policy

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 9:43pm

Depp wrote: »

great video to watch if you're still confused as to why this motion is problematic. very well explained.

Also a terrific tool for insomniacs.:o I dozed off twice.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 10:02pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Also a terrific tool for insomniacs.:o I dozed off twice.

Well, that's probably why we're sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare, the short attention span of those that can't abide concise analysis and have nothing better to contribute to a debate then.. #boring...

For #islamaphobia: read

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . .

-George Orwell '1984', but it might as well be Justin Trudeau, 2017, but sadly, without the insight of satire.

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 10:54pm

conorhal wrote: »

Well, that's probably why we're sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare, the short attention span of those that can't abide concise analysis and have nothing better to contribute to a debate then.. #boring...

For #islamaphobia: read

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . .

-George Orwell '1984', but it might as well be Justin Trudeau, 2017, but sadly, without the insight of satire.

Close to 17 minutes of monotone. I'm giving me a pass on finding that one quite dull. There weren't even any explosions.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 11:01pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Close to 17 minutes of monotone. I'm giving me a pass on finding that one quite dull. There weren't even any explosions.

Well Jesus, wait a while, you'll get the London and Paris experience soon enough...

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 11:08pm

conorhal wrote: »

Well Jesus, wait a while, you'll get the London and Paris experience soon enough...

Lived in both places. Loved them. Full of foreigners/Muslims..always got on great with them.
Was in Tescos there earlier, there were loads of "foreign" people doing their shopping. None of them attacked me and I had no desire to call any of them names... ergo, not hugely bothered by laws/rules Canada passes stopping ignoramuses being insulting to people they don't know.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 11:10pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Lived in both places. Loved them. Full of foreigners/Muslims..always got on great with them.
Was in Tescos there earlier, there were loads of "foreign" people doing their shopping. None of them attacked me and I had no desire to call any of them names... ergo, not hugely bothered by laws/rules Canada passes stopping ignoramuses being insulting to people they don't know.

Subjectivity is not objectivity, Irony isn't your strong suit either it seems..

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 11:19pm

conorhal wrote: »

Subjectivity is not objectivity, Irony isn't your strong suit either it seems..

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...

nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 11:22pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...

nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

It's not an anti racism law.

And the corollary of ''enshrining politemess in its law'' is criminalising 'rudeness' which is decidely Orwellian. This is more a fascist than a 'polite' law.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 11:23pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...

nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 11:27pm

conorhal wrote: »

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

Considering a Scottish man was killed for blaspheming the Prophet last year, yes, I think it is

The fact this is exclusively to protect Islam from criticism is extremely weird. Existing laws are grounded in basic principles of human decency and religious freedom, so it can't be said to be about that.

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 11:27pm

conorhal wrote: »

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

I applied to become a Law maker in Canada but..

Do you think you're better qualified than their Law-makers? They want to outlaw "Hate-speech". They drafted Legislation. That Legislation got voted into Law. I'm presuming their Legislators were democratically elected? Do you want to Blaspheme? Are you a racist? Do you hate Muslims? Does this Law impact your life?

It doesn't impact mine anyway. Never felt the urge to do/be any of the above. Legislate ahead.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 11:29pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

I applied to become a Law maker in Canada but..

Do you think you're better qualified than their Law-makers? They want to outlaw "Hate-speech". They drafted Legislation. That Legislation got voted into Law. I'm presuming their Legislators were democratically elected? Do you want to Blaspheme? Are you a racist? Do you hate Muslims? Does this Law impact your life?

It doesn't impact mine anyway. Never felt the urge to do/be any of the above. Legislate ahead.

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

conorhal · 25-03-2017 11:36pm

Widdershins wrote: »

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

Problem is this, who's gonna kill you for it?

Beyondgone · 25-03-2017 11:38pm

Widdershins wrote: »

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

Widdershins · 25-03-2017 11:44pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

No, that is not the case, Im afraid. As it stood prior to this new law, while keeping it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, people were free to question. There is no discernible need for this additional law specifically dedicated to ''islamophobia''. Statistics don't even support any additional anti racsim laws, let alone a law especially for Islamophobia, a term that encompasses criticism of Islam, and Islamism. Anti semitism is more of an issue than Islamophobic racism, but this law does not address that. The whole thing is very spurious.

As for ''muslim people must be getting quite fed up with it'', there are muslim reformists questioning islam and why terrorism is escalating, there are muslim columnists beseeching people to look at what needs to be done, many muslims are taking a proactive role in trying to eliminate terrorism from their religion, not playing the victim with ''every time a muslim, coughs the media..'' which simply isn't true.

conorhal · 25-03-2017 11:45pm

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

I have no interest in being uncivil or insulting individuals, which is not on (unless they have earned it or insulted me), this act is not about that. It's about insulting Islam, that is a pretty troubling thing.

M103 passed in Canada

Comments