Canadians voice support for Muslims amid ‘hatred’ unleashed at Liberal MP


pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#451
Quote: Originally Posted by davesmomView Post

I think trying to legislate against ethnic insults and bigotry actually breeds resentment. Racism has appeared to increase in Canada and the U.S. over the last couple of decades and moreso since the establishment of Human Rights Commissions and Hate Laws.
People do not like to be dictated to about who they can like and what they can say about them.
We have adequate laws against assault, etc. and also for slander and libel. Those laws apply to all citizens regardless of race or religion. So we really don't need more laws that tend to pit 'groups' against each other and give special considerations to ethnic and religious groups.
Society has squelched Christianity but one of the basic tenets of Christianity is 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.

I should also mention that there's a lot of racism coming into Canada from other countries and a lot of it is against the white race.

More common sense , however that is the result of successive parliaments all enacting laws . We send them to Ottawa and they take that as a reason to create laws , pushed along by the all insatiable bureaucracy . Instead of ensuring enforcement of existing laws we continually get more and more . 25 or 30 years ago we were trying Ernst Zundel for denying Austwich , 15 years ago Sikh's and the kirpan and whatever they cover their heads with , now islaphobia . More laws , yikes I can't even ride my bike legally without a helmut . We don't need more laws we need people to control the growth and spending of the bureaucracy . Bureaucracy i/e government never fixes a problem they just grow off it .

Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

More common sense , however that is the result of successive parliaments all enacting laws . We send them to Ottawa and they take that as a reason to create laws , pushed along by the all insatiable bureaucracy . Instead of ensuring enforcement of existing laws we continually get more and more . 25 or 30 years ago we were trying Ernst Zundel for denying Austwich , 15 years ago Sikh's and the kirpan and whatever they cover their heads with , now islaphobia . More laws , yikes I can't even ride my bike legally without a helmut . We don't need more laws we need people to control the growth and spending of the bureaucracy . Bureaucracy i/e government never fixes a problem they just grow off it .

And we let them , and cheer all the while . Mentalfloss et-al should remember the opening lines of the original Star Wars , We just voted the end of democracy and are cheering .
 
mentalfloss
#452
Trump’s immigration ban will make America less safe
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#453
Liberals' anti-Islamophobia motion is a politically brilliant, sinister piece of work: Neil Macdonald - CBC News | Opinion

Quote:

Defining Islamophobia

At a guess, Khalid and her fellow activists in the Liberal and NDP caucuses would regard those Danish cartoons as Islamophobia, as well as the cartoons that provoked the mass murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine by Muslim fundamentalists in Paris.

In fact, Khalid would almost certainly characterize as Islamophobic any account that dared to describe the Charlie Hebdo murderers as Muslim fundamentalists.

In the Commons, she repeatedly refers to a petition, signed by thousands of Canadians, that demands recognition "that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia."

So: would any such recognition foreclose a discussion of the imam at a Toronto mosque who recently treated his congregation to remarks about "the filth of the Jews?" Would it be Islamophobic to ask whether a religious leader, sermonizing in a mosque, in any way represents Islam?

So morally certain are Khalid and her backers (certainly including the Prime Minister's Office) that they are refusing any changes or amendments to the wording of M-103, including the rather sensible suggestion that "Islamophobia" be at least defined, say, as discrimination against Muslims, which is already illegal.

That is worrying.

Would Khalid's notion of Islamophobia, for example, prohibit discussion of a question often posed by Israelis and conservatives: Why, if most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists appear to be Muslims?

Would Khalid want to suppress any depiction of the prophet Mohammed, which many Sunni Muslims deem offensive?

Would she seek to quell discussion of why Saudi Arabia, a Muslim theocracy and close ally of Canada, recently went much further than Donald Trump, deporting tens of thousands of Pakistanis on the grounds that some might be terrorists?

All those subjects are debatable.

But it is reasonable to ask whether targeting "Islamophobia," rather than discrimination against Muslims, would eventually forbid debate itself.

The political purpose of M-103, though, is plain: to sucker nativist chumps, none of whom intend to ever vote Liberal or NDP, into racist public tirades. In that, Khalid has succeeded admirably.

She herself has been the target of deeply racist attacks from angry voters. Comment sections of news websites have exploded with warnings of Sharia law and Islamofascism and the terrible threat of immigrants and the dilution of our "Judeo-Christian" culture (Vancouver is a majority-Asian city, but never mind).

 
DaSleeper
+1
#454
Quote: Originally Posted by pgsView Post

More common sense , however that is the result of successive parliaments all enacting laws . We send them to Ottawa and they take that as a reason to create laws , pushed along by the all insatiable bureaucracy . Instead of ensuring enforcement of existing laws we continually get more and more . 25 or 30 years ago we were trying Ernst Zundel for denying Austwich , 15 years ago Sikh's and the kirpan and whatever they cover their heads with , now islaphobia . More laws , yikes I can't even ride my bike legally without a helmut . We don't need more laws we need people to control the growth and spending of the bureaucracy . Bureaucracy i/e government never fixes a problem they just grow off it .


And we let them , and cheer all the while . Mentalfloss et-al should remember the opening lines of the original Star Wars , We just voted the end of democracy and are cheering .

See what the stupid troll posted right after you?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#455
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

See what the stupid troll posted right after you?

Yes he is safe and sound , there is no threat to our way of life and all is sun and roses . 35 billion dollar deficits mean nothing and Harper was evil for cutting incremental amounts .
 
mentalfloss
#456
It's more about Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot because they want to silence a word that they don't like.

Not very free speechist of them.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#457
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's more about Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot because they want to silence a word that they don't like.

Not very free speechist of them.

No it is more about Liberals desire to quench free speech. That being any speech they dissagree with.
 
mentalfloss
#458
There's no quelching of free speech.

That's just stupid.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#459
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

There's no quelching of free speech.

That's just stupid.

I think you are an islamaphobe , would I be correct ?
 
mentalfloss
#460
Nope
 
mentalfloss
#461
Anti-Islamophobia motion passes in Ontario Legislature
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#462
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Anti-Islamophobia motion passes in Ontario Legislature
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile

Idiots, appeasers and cowards at every turn.

1930s Great Britain all over again, except this time we have Nazis among us........otherwise known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The only remaining question is how seriously the brown shirt Liberal morons are going to try to constrict our basic right to free speech.

Will this guy's book be banned?

Quote:

Wood, an Arabic-speaking scholar of Islamic history, has spent years immersed in extended relationships with Islamic State (ISIL) jihadis in their “diaspora” — places like Egypt, Australia, America, England and Norway. In this instructive and often entertaining book exploring his experiences (an elaboration on his feature 2015 Atlantic magazine article, “What ISIS Really Wants”), Wood shares his impatience with the ostrich-like approach to contemporary jihadism exemplified in M-103.

He says stuff like this:

Quote:

Wood writes: “The reality is that the Islamic State (IS) is Islamic. Very Islamic.” The strain of Salafist Islam jihadists embrace derives “from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.” Salafis — all jihadis are Salafist, but not all Salafists are jihadis, who represent, it bears emphasizing, tens of thousands out of 1.4 billion Muslims — “read the Koran attentively, and on certain matters, they occupy ground at least as solid as that of their opponents.” It therefore won’t do, he says, to pretend jihadists are misrepresenting their religion.
Political or psychological explanations for jihadism are all sidebars, Wood maintains: “The notion that religious belief is a minor factor in the rise of the IS is belied by a crushing weight of evidence that religion matters deeply to the majority of those who have travelled to fight,” just as Catholicism mattered to the Crusaders, Protestantism to 16th century Reformation warriors and Buddhism to Burma’s brutally anti-Muslim 969 movement.

Barbara Kay: Understanding the jihadi mind (I hope this column isn’t Islamophobic) | National Post

Or how about the late Bernard Lewis, the west's most honoured expert on Islam, after a life time of study?

Quote:

I certainly think there is something in the clash of civilizations. What brought Islam and Christendom into conflict was not so much their differences as their resemblances. There are many religions in the world, but almost all of them are regional, local, ethnic, or whatever you choose to call it. Christianity and Islam are the only religions that claim universal truth. Christians and Muslims are the only people who claim they are the fortunate recipients of Gods final message to humanity, which it is their duty not to keep selfishly to themselveslike the Jews or the Hindus or the Buddhistsbut to bring to the rest of mankind, removing whatever obstacles there may be in the way. So, we have two religions with a similar self-perception, a similar historical background, living side by side, and conflict becomes inevitable.

Seven Questions: Bernard Lewis on the Two Biggest Myths About Islam | Foreign Policy (external - login to view)

Read the article....it is exceptionally balanced.

Bernard Lewis is professor emeritus at Princeton University and the author of dozens of books, most recently Islam: The Religion and the People (external - login to view)
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#463
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's more about Conservatives shooting themselves in the foot because they want to silence a word that they don't like.

Not very free speechist of them.

Islamophobia is a term popularized by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

Fascists, cowards, and morons.....that pretty well describes the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now working to severely limit speaking times for the opposition in Committee.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#464
Quote: Originally Posted by twitchView Post

Load your guns dummy.

Met a dude at my school last week....church guy. Gave a box of school supplies....said his Dad supported refugees from Syria....donations exceeded what they needed...so he he wanted to give them to the school.

Hate them when they come in and they will be a problem....love them and show them love....and well....




That's right, people blow **** up because they "feel excluded" (insert rolled eyes here)



Yep. Found the moron.

And I do not hate anyone.

BTW, the guys that did the marathon bombing where given asylum in the USA because of persecution in Russia. Some "exclusion".

From Wikipedia.......

As children, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar lived in Tokmok (external - login to view), Kyrgyzstan. In 2001, the family moved to Makhachkala (external - login to view), Dagestan (external - login to view), in the Russian Federation.[35] (external - login to view)[36] (external - login to view)[37] (external - login to view) In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa (external - login to view).[38] (external - login to view)[39] (external - login to view)[40] (external - login to view) Anzor Tsarnaev applied for asylum (external - login to view), citing fears of deadly persecution due to his ties to Chechnya (external - login to view).[41] (external - login to view)
Tamerlan was left in the care of his uncle Ruslan in Kyrgyzstan,[22] (external - login to view) and arrived in the U.S. around two years later.[42] (external - login to view) In the U.S. the parents received asylum and then filed for their four children, who received "derivative asylum status".[43] (external - login to view) They settled on Norfolk Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts (external - login to view). Tamerlan lived in Cambridge on Norfolk Street until his death.[44] (external - login to view)
Last edited by Colpy; Mar 15th, 2017 at 10:33 AM..
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#465
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Islamophobia is a term popularized by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons.

Fascists, cowards, and morons.....that pretty well describes the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now working to severely limit speaking times for the opposition in Committee.

Wrong....Phobia is the irrational or abnormal fear of something. Now it seems to me it is those fearing all Muslims are Islamic terrorists are the cowards . They are giving every sick puppy with a grievance an excuse to take revenge on those perceived as the source of their problems. The Morons are those who believe all terrorists come from a specific group, race or religion that are responsible. Most school shootings, street shootings, attacks of all kinds happening now, that are blamed on terrorists, These are nothing but disgruntled, individuals using the irrational and abnormal fears felt by so many, as an excuse to take their own personal revenge on what they perceive as the source of their problems.

Hitler started by telling lies and continuing to do so until even the most intelligent people began to believe. Next came the attacking of one group of people (Jews) which extended finally to all those that did't meet the Arian criteria and finally the muzzling of the News media, Sounds familiar doesn't it??
 
mentalfloss
#466
I ain't afraid of no ghost.


Liberal MP Iqra Khalid addresses critics of anti-Islamophobia motion

The Liberal MP whose private member's motion condemning Islamophobia has divided the House of Commons used her final submission on Tuesday to address what she called "outrageous" arguments being made about her proposal.

During the final debate in the Commons, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid said her motion, M-103, does not give one religion or community special privileges, or restrict free speech.

"This motion is not legally binding. In fact, M-103 serves as a catalyst for Canadians to speak out against discrimination and be heard where they may not have been heard before," she said.

"Some other outrageous claims were made about M-103 and to that in simple and clear words, M-103 is not an attempt to create sharia law. I vow to be the first person to oppose any motion or law that negatively impacts our multicultural, secular society. I assure you, M-103 does not."

Most Conservatives appear set to vote against Ms. Khalid's motion, with only one leadership candidate, Michael Chong, saying he'll support it. The NDP will also support it, but MP Jenny Kwan criticized both the Liberals and Tories for "politicking" on the issue.

Ms. Khalid's motion calls on the government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination," to study the issue at the heritage committee, collect hate-crime data and report back to the House of Commons within eight months with recommendations.

The motion will be voted upon on Thursday. With the Liberal government's support, it is expected to pass.

Ms. Khalid's motion was originally supposed to be debated on April 5, but she traded her slot with another Liberal MP to move it up in the calendar. The second hour of debate fell on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Conservative MP David Sweet said Tuesday that M-103 could have been made better by including all faith communities rather than singling out one group, and it could have clarified the definition of Islamophobia and affirmed the right to freedom of speech.

"Instead of pursuing these changes, in an effort to have a meaningful, inclusive and non-partisan study on the matters of racism and religious discrimination, a debate that should unify us, the Liberals have decided there are more political points to win by ramming this motion through regardless of legitimate concerns I've articulated," he told the Commons.

Last fall, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's motion condemning "all forms of Islamophobia" passed unanimously in the House, although it wasn't a recorded vote and it's unclear how many MPs were in the chamber.

"I can't believe that people are still trying to find reasons to vote against motion M-103, which is simply an expression of what Parliament already said in the fall," Mr. Mulcair said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, two small but combative groups clashed over the motion on Parliament Hill, with police officers standing in between protesters as they screamed insults and profanities at one another.

A group of about 30 people opposing M-103 held signs that said "No sharia for Canada" and "Free speech," while a smaller crowd holding a banner from the Revolutionary Communist Party chanted in support of Muslims and refugees.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile
 
DaSleeper
+1
#467
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I ain't afraid of no ghost.


Liberal MP Iqra Khalid addresses critics of anti-Islamophobia motion

The Liberal MP whose private member's motion condemning Islamophobia has divided the House of Commons used her final submission on Tuesday to address what she called "outrageous" arguments being made about her proposal.

During the final debate in the Commons, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid said her motion, M-103, does not give one religion or community special privileges, or restrict free speech.

"This motion is not legally binding. In fact, M-103 serves as a catalyst for Canadians to speak out against discrimination and be heard where they may not have been heard before," she said.

"Some other outrageous claims were made about M-103 and to that in simple and clear words, M-103 is not an attempt to create sharia law. I vow to be the first person to oppose any motion or law that negatively impacts our multicultural, secular society. I assure you, M-103 does not."

Most Conservatives appear set to vote against Ms. Khalid's motion, with only one leadership candidate, Michael Chong, saying he'll support it. The NDP will also support it, but MP Jenny Kwan criticized both the Liberals and Tories for "politicking" on the issue.

Ms. Khalid's motion calls on the government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination," to study the issue at the heritage committee, collect hate-crime data and report back to the House of Commons within eight months with recommendations.

The motion will be voted upon on Thursday. With the Liberal government's support, it is expected to pass.

Ms. Khalid's motion was originally supposed to be debated on April 5, but she traded her slot with another Liberal MP to move it up in the calendar. The second hour of debate fell on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Conservative MP David Sweet said Tuesday that M-103 could have been made better by including all faith communities rather than singling out one group, and it could have clarified the definition of Islamophobia and affirmed the right to freedom of speech.

"Instead of pursuing these changes, in an effort to have a meaningful, inclusive and non-partisan study on the matters of racism and religious discrimination, a debate that should unify us, the Liberals have decided there are more political points to win by ramming this motion through regardless of legitimate concerns I've articulated," he told the Commons.

Last fall, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's motion condemning "all forms of Islamophobia" passed unanimously in the House, although it wasn't a recorded vote and it's unclear how many MPs were in the chamber.

"I can't believe that people are still trying to find reasons to vote against motion M-103, which is simply an expression of what Parliament already said in the fall," Mr. Mulcair said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, two small but combative groups clashed over the motion on Parliament Hill, with police officers standing in between protesters as they screamed insults and profanities at one another.

A group of about 30 people opposing M-103 held signs that said "No sharia for Canada" and "Free speech," while a smaller crowd holding a banner from the Revolutionary Communist Party chanted in support of Muslims and refugees.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile

You like to copy and paste yourself? in different threads
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I ain't afraid of no ghost.


Liberal MP Iqra Khalid addresses critics of anti-Islamophobia motion

The Liberal MP whose private member's motion condemning Islamophobia has divided the House of Commons used her final submission on Tuesday to address what she called "outrageous" arguments being made about her proposal.

During the final debate in the Commons, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid said her motion, M-103, does not give one religion or community special privileges, or restrict free speech.

"This motion is not legally binding. In fact, M-103 serves as a catalyst for Canadians to speak out against discrimination and be heard where they may not have been heard before," she said.

"Some other outrageous claims were made about M-103 and to that in simple and clear words, M-103 is not an attempt to create sharia law. I vow to be the first person to oppose any motion or law that negatively impacts our multicultural, secular society. I assure you, M-103 does not."

Most Conservatives appear set to vote against Ms. Khalid's motion, with only one leadership candidate, Michael Chong, saying he'll support it. The NDP will also support it, but MP Jenny Kwan criticized both the Liberals and Tories for "politicking" on the issue.

Ms. Khalid's motion calls on the government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination," to study the issue at the heritage committee, collect hate-crime data and report back to the House of Commons within eight months with recommendations.

The motion will be voted upon on Thursday. With the Liberal government's support, it is expected to pass.

Ms. Khalid's motion was originally supposed to be debated on April 5, but she traded her slot with another Liberal MP to move it up in the calendar. The second hour of debate fell on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Conservative MP David Sweet said Tuesday that M-103 could have been made better by including all faith communities rather than singling out one group, and it could have clarified the definition of Islamophobia and affirmed the right to freedom of speech.

"Instead of pursuing these changes, in an effort to have a meaningful, inclusive and non-partisan study on the matters of racism and religious discrimination, a debate that should unify us, the Liberals have decided there are more political points to win by ramming this motion through regardless of legitimate concerns I've articulated," he told the Commons.

Last fall, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's motion condemning "all forms of Islamophobia" passed unanimously in the House, although it wasn't a recorded vote and it's unclear how many MPs were in the chamber.

"I can't believe that people are still trying to find reasons to vote against motion M-103, which is simply an expression of what Parliament already said in the fall," Mr. Mulcair said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, two small but combative groups clashed over the motion on Parliament Hill, with police officers standing in between protesters as they screamed insults and profanities at one another.

A group of about 30 people opposing M-103 held signs that said "No sharia for Canada" and "Free speech," while a smaller crowd holding a banner from the Revolutionary Communist Party chanted in support of Muslims and refugees.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/new...service=mobile

 
Remington1
#468
Debate on this crazy motion is happening today, as much as the Liberals tried to cover this one up, the public is watching this one closely. NO matter how it is spin, it is an infringement on our Freedom. Why would something like this be put forth? eventual criminalizing of Islamophobia? Seems extreme, but the motion makes no sense in a country like Canada. Our rights are already entrenched in the Charter, who specifically speaks to freedoms. Let's see if the opposition can argue this one, maybe Kellie Leitch, she seems like the type of politician that might take offence to someone questioning our Charter, because the Feminist does not seem to get it.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#469
Here comes Sharia Canada!
 
petros
#470
The Neo-Ottoman Empire
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#471
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

You like to copy and paste yourself? in different threads

Working on the theory that is you repeat a lie often enough someone will believe it.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#472
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Working on the theory that is you repeat a lie often enough someone will believe it.

In the case of liberals you only need to say it once!
 
mentalfloss
#473
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Here comes Sharia Canada!

 
Remington1
#474
A colleague just asked me is I would report suspicious activity if this Islamaphobia Motion is passed? Well for me, I unfortunately would have to guess if the people looked like they might be belong to Islam, since the motion specifically targets this group. If they did, then no, I would not. There is always a possibility that my suspicions would turn out to be false, then what??? I'm branded, plus have to deal with the cops!! because they would have the right to get me in trouble right?? So, no thank you.
 
White_Unifier
#475
M-103 is not about censorship nor any particular interpretation of Shari'a. It's poorly worded which causes symbolic problems for me due to its being not neutrally worded, but that's purely symbolic.

In practical terms though, Islamophobia is just a redundant word in a text that would still cover all religions equally otherwise.

Poorly worded motion, yes, but a good motion otherwise.
 
mentalfloss
#476


House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion - Politics - CBC News
 
mentalfloss
#477
Grad Student Union Hosts Anti-Islamophobia Teach-In | News | The Harvard Crimson (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

270
Can muslims be good canadians?
by ironsides | Feb 15th, 2017
163
no new posts