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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

M103 passed in Canada

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    Depp wrote: »
    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.
    The Oxford definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

    I have nothing against someone with a 'dislike of Islam' but I would agree with 'dislike of Muslims' and prejudice against their Islam or Muslims as unacceptable (same goes for pretty much any religion) - assuming we are using the definition of prejudice as 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.' (both from Oxford).

    Not liking the actual institution of Islam (or any religion) is fine by me though.


  • Options
    #63
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    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.

    White Anglo Canadians tend to be uber politically correct and won't speak their mind is what I've found (maybe its different outside the GTA though), its actually refreshing getting a non white persons opinion on stuff here because they tend to be way more open.
    Mind you I sort of feel a lot of it is all lip service and about having a nicer image than the USA, Trudeau gets no sh-t for approving the same pipelines as Trump got major stick for, they deport people all the time and it doesn't cause a big stink, talk a lot about the environment but one of the worst countries in the world for pollution and out of modern countries for environmental protection, as well as that they elected Harper who was pretty hard right on a lot of stuff for a decade and replaced him with a candidate who's a prime example of having the right surname (but hey if the rich handsome white guy does yoga and calls himself a feminist he gets a pass)


  • Options
    #64
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Wibbs wrote: »
    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.

    It's criticising an organisation for what it did. You can criticise a catholic for allowing that stuff to happen. It's not saying that all Catholics are bad because of the actions of some.

    Think of it like criticising a charity that swindled people. It's different to criticising charity workers of all type.


  • Options
    #65
    the great communicator
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭the great communicator




    M103 is a blight, it is the implementation of Islamic blasphemy law and nothing less.


  • Options
    #66
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    But you liberals are always saying Ireland is not Catholic majority anymore and people just have their kids baptized for craic, mammy puts them down as Catholic on the census form etc

    So yes, I welcome any laws to prevent the worrying trend of Christianpohbia in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Billy86 wrote: »
    The Oxford definition is "Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

    I have nothing against someone with a 'dislike of Islam' but I would agree with 'dislike of Muslims' and prejudice against their Islam or Muslims as unacceptable (same goes for pretty much any religion) - assuming we are using the definition of prejudice as 'preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.' (both from Oxford).

    Not liking the actual institution of Islam (or any religion) is fine by me though.

    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!


  • Options
    #68
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #69
    the great communicator
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭the great communicator


    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?

    Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.


  • Options
    #70
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Grayson wrote: »
    How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.

    I concisely explained the problem with the term in my last reply to you, what about said post do you need clarified?


  • Options
    #71
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Just updated the op to include a further video by the creator of the first that includes a few clarifications and corrections.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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!

    I do get you, though I don't necessarily think that would be a concern from experience over there. Canadians tend to be very open, accepting and willing to let people do their own thing so long as they're not harming others hence their reputation for politeness (bit of a running joke the Yanks have about them), but contrary to what that might lead people to think they do generally call bullsh*t when needed in my experience and I wouldn't reckon 'you cannot criticise at all' would not be the intention. The irony is they're kind of what the US likes to think of itself as being (but often isn't) in that sense without making constant noise about it, whatever circumstances led to it they generally have great race/religious relations.

    Quebec generally is meant to be a good bit different, never got the chance to go over apart from a day in Gatineaux (over the bridge from Ottawa... kind of like if you crossed O'Connell Bridge in Dublin and found yourself in a different, all Irish speaking separatist city :pac: bit of a dump but in a weird/nice way),


  • Options
    #73
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    the great communicator wrote: »
    Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.

    However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

    Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

    That's ok.

    Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

    Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

    It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

    Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



    That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.


  • Options
    #74
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    Grayson wrote: »
    However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

    Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

    That's ok.

    Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

    Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

    It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

    Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



    That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.


    Bla, Bla , Bla. Christians done it 500 years ago so everything is ok folks.


  • Options
    #75
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Grayson wrote: »
    How is it that it's against racism and people are ok with that. It's against religious discrimination and people are ok with that. You mention Islamophobia and people are suddenly saying that it's unfair and banning freedom of speech.

    There was tons of threads on feedback back in the day and it took forever for even the slightest reduction on the constant catholic bashing (and I've a feeling thats simply because it was boring and repetitive), a good recent example recently is of how long the Should Christianity be Banned thread lasted, funny how your never fighting against that phobia.

    Basically the answer that was always given to defend Catholic bashing stuff is that its different to judge people for their beliefs rather than for an unchangeable characteristic like race/skin colour/sex etc should also apply to Islam


  • Options
    #76
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Grayson wrote: »
    However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

    Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

    That's ok.

    Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

    Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

    This is very true except for no-one is saying this, pointing out flaws in islam and saying certain tenets of it are wrong is not the same thing as saying islam in its entirety is wrong and it is not the same as saying all muslims are wrong.


  • Options
    #77
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    You can call me an idiot for believing in Christ, say all Catholics are deluded morons. That's fine with me. Free speech trumps your feelings.


  • Options
    #78
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    There was tons of threads on feedback back in the day and it took forever for even the slightest reduction on the constant catholic bashing (and I've a feeling thats simply because it was boring and repetitive), a good recent example recently is of how long the Should Christianity be Banned thread lasted, funny how your never fighting against that phobia.

    Basically the answer that was always given to defend Catholic bashing stuff is that its different to judge people for their beliefs rather than for an unchangeable characteristic like race/skin colour/sex etc should also apply to Islam

    I expect an apology when you go to that thread and see that I said banning Catholicism was stupid.


  • Options
    #79
    the great communicator
    Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭the great communicator


    Grayson wrote: »
    However it is wrong to say that Muslims are bad or that Islam as a whole is bad.

    Example: ISIS and muslims who believe in a violent fundamentalist version of their religion are bad.

    That's ok.

    Example: Islam is bad because some muslims are evil.

    Not ok. In the second example you're extending it to all followers of that religion.

    It's similar to saying "The catholic church in Ireland was complicit in the abuse of women and children" compared to "Because the catholic church was complicit in the abuse of minors catholicism is bad".

    Or "Christians in Uganda are extremely homophobic, therefore all Christians are bad".



    That not to say that there are times a blanket statement isn't ok. For example Scientology is a very close tight knit group who's followers a rigidly hold the same belief system whereas with catholics or muslims there's a huge variety. It's far easier to make a blanket statement about Scientology rather than the other two.

    It's not wrong to say Islam as a whole is bad. Islam is a set of ideas. I'm sure there are many here who believe capitalism is a terrible idea that breeds nothing but unfairness and hardship yet bear no ill will to each and every one of us typing here on our branded laptops.

    I have no animosity towards individual muslims and they are both under the law and in my opinion free to practice their faith and should and will continue to do so freely.

    But the Quran, the story of Muhammad and the way of life in Muslim majority areas today are all open to and worthy of criticism in spades. We must discuss bad ideas in order to defeat and disprove them.


  • Options
    #80
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    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'.


  • Options
    #81
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    Muslims follow the word of a pedo and warlord. Should it be illegal to say that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,126 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Dr Martin wrote: »
    You can call me an idiot for believing in Christ, say all Catholics are deluded morons. That's fine with me. Free speech trumps your feelings.

    I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.


  • Options
    #83
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    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'.

    They've 3 or 4 reformist muslims on it now but thankfully that list has very little relevancy in actuality. Think the official term is ''anti islam extremist watch list''. Its so preposterous that its actually funny in a way.


  • Options
    #84
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    oh christ, came across this guys videos when looking for some advice on a mac.....he has some very very strange views. Especially when it comes to women. The particular video I saw was him explaining the he doesn't go to clubs and basically his conclusion was the type of women that goes to club gets dressed up to attract men to get free drinks only to reject the man later. I know thats a bit off topic just find it hard to take anything he says seriously.


  • Options
    #85
    Crann na Beatha
    Registered Users Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭Crann na Beatha


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #86
    Depp
    Registered Users Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Depp


    Grayson wrote: »
    I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.

    again, outside small groups of extremists, no-one is saying this. No one is trying to make moral judgements against all muslims based off the fact they are muslim. Ayaan Hirsa Ali and Maajid Nawaz arent calling out the flaws in their own faith because they want to spread hate against all muslims.


  • Options
    #87
    Dr Martin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25 ✭Dr Martin


    Grayson wrote: »
    I've said many times I think religions are stupid. However I think it's wrong to make a moral judgement about a person or group of people based on their religion. Being a Muslim or christian doesn't indicate if someone is good or bad.

    And I don't care if you say Christians are bad cos they hang gays in Africa. You should be allowed say it.


  • Options
    #88
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    the great communicator wrote: »
    Islam is a set of ideas not a race. Decrying it or pointing out it's flaws is no different to disputing the ideas of fascism, marxism or capitalism.

    You will not get any points for pointing that out.

    A great many people round these parts,fall back upon the long established experiences of their Catholic upbringing,and fully expect a fundamental Muslim to be like the fundamental Catholic of their youth.

    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.

    The difference between our respective religious outlooks and practices is largely down to the availability of vastly improved Education,which brought with it Questioning,with initially,a reluctance,then a downright refusal to,any longer accept,Religious dictats based upon unwavering loyalty to a Leadership which had long exceeded it's remit.

    You will search long & hard before finding an Islamic society,which is prepared to accept any liberalization of it's religious based education.

    Education is power...these Men fully embrace that principle,and are not about to surrender their last (and only) weapon of mass control.


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Options
    #89
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Grayson wrote: »
    I expect an apology when you go to that thread and see that I said banning Catholicism was stupid.

    No appology will be forthcoming because went back and searched and what you actually said was
    "I'm surprised how many people voted yes. I'm all in flavor of a separation of church and state but banning a religion is a bit far"

    and then a decent few posts talking about historic church issues etc (including ironically complaining about censorship)

    If you were actually balanced in your views you'd be calling out the Anti-Catholicism and calling for the thread to be closed in feedback here


  • Options
    #90
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    sdanseo wrote: »
    Very fine line in some debate between criticising a person because of their religion, and criticising that religion itself.

    Preventing wanton discrimination is honourable. Preventing discord about subjects which deserve to be discussed is censorship. There are those who are muslim who use it as justification for murder or even genocide and that has to be condemned and in that context doing so could be in danger of being branded islamophobic. Is the lesser of the two evils really to let extremism perpetuate unchecked?

    And a very fine line (I would say non-existent) between protecting someone from criticisim based on their adherence to a religion and criticising someone else for their adherence to any obviously abhorrent belief system (white-supremecy). These lines matter when you get anywhere near law or legislation. It's easy to imagine people as racists who are just looking for any excuse to hate brown people, what's harder is considering that there may be reasonable questions raised about protecting belief systems (and necessarily the people who adhere to them) from criticism. I can say anyone who is a flat-earther is an idiot but not of anyone who is muslim is an idiot. I don't think anyone who is a muslim is an idiot, but I should be able to say it if I want to (which I don't).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    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?

    Do they not have laws against racist behaviour already? If so, why this new one for Islamophobia, specifically?


Advertisement