'Freedom and liberty' demonstration outnumbered by 'anti-fascist' demonstrators

[White_Unifier]

I just want to know what Flossie meant by White people. He seemed to juxtapose it to Muslims as if the two terms are mutually exclusive.

That might explain how he confuses religious and racial prejudice as if they were one and the same when in fact race and religion are separate things.

Nah.

So what did you mean about Whites? Racism against Whites is still racism.

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[White_Unifier]

Nice dodge.

So according to Flossie, Whites can't believe in the Qur'an?

 

[mentalfloss]

Those are white people.

 

[DaSleeper]

I just want to know what Flossie meant by White people. He seemed to juxtapose it to Muslims as if the two terms are mutually exclusive.

That might explain how he confuses religious and racial prejudice as if they were one and the same when in fact race and religion are separate things.



So what did you mean about Whites? Racism against Whites is still racism.

Now you're confusing the Trudeau fan boi!

 

[mentalfloss]

So according to Flossie, Whites can't believe in the Qur'an?

Don't be so offended that I didn't use the word 'some'.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Those are white people.

They gotta be Mormons.

 

[White_Unifier]

Those are white people.

And?

You implied above that opposition to the wording of the Motion stemmed from white racism against Muslims.

Though I don't profess Islam, I am White and do believe in the Qur'an as a book of God,and I oppose the wording of the Motion due to it being insufficiently religiously neutral.

How do you square that with your prejudiced that anyone who opposes the wording of the Motion must be racist?

Oh yeah, I also speak four languages and am in a racially, linguistically, nationally, and religiously exogamous marriage.

You figure it out.

They gotta be Mormons.

The proof is in the skin colour according to Flossie.

Don't be so offended that I didn't use the word 'some'.

So why did you specify Whites when some blacks probably oppose the wording of the Motion too? Why exempt them from any mention?

 

[mentalfloss]

You are inferring a quantifier that isn't there.

Just like how you provoke yourself over a legitimate term like islamophobia.

 

[White_Unifier]

You are inferring a quantifier that isn't there.

Just like how you provoke yourself over a legitimate term like islamophobia.

So why not replace 'Islamophobia' by 'discrimination on the basis of religion' which would mean the same thing but cover all religions equally.

Nentalfloss? Why did you mention Whites who oppose the notion but not blacks who oppose it?

Are you saying only Whites oppose the wording of the Motion?

 

[mentalfloss]

Because it doesn't need to be replaced.

 

[White_Unifier]

Because it doesn't need to be replaced.

You're dodging again. Why did you mention Whites as if only Whites oppose the Motion?

 

[mentalfloss]

That was your own impression.

 

[White_Unifier]

Does opposing the wording of the Motion prove one is White?

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[White_Unifier]

It will pass and the hullabaloo from white people will be forgotten or laughed at.

Either way, it's going to help Canadians understand today's social dynamics.

Why did you not say this instead?


"It will pass and the hullabaloo from its critics will be forgotten or laughed at.

Either way, it's going to help Canadians understand today's social dynamics."

Do you just oppose racially and religiously neutral wording in principle?

 

[mentalfloss]

Free speechists just love trying to control what others say.

Funny how that works, innit?


We Spoke With the MP Behind Motion M103 About Threats, Conspiracies, and Islamophobia

In reality, the motion asks the government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination" and asks for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to conduct a study for a "whole-of-government approach" for the problem of systematic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia.

In response to the motion, the Rebel, Canada's B-rate Breitbart, held an "Emergency Rally for Free Speech" which, unsurprisingly, was full of dumb, rambling incoherent statements, self-victimization and more racist dog whistles than David Duke's local dog park. Four federal Conservative leadership candidates decided that it would be a good use of their time to speak at this event.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...3-about-threats-conspiracies-and-islamophobia

 

[White_Unifier]

That's the whole point. The word 'Islamophobia' is redundant in that sentence. Don't we learn about redundancy in public-school English classes?

The state of public education today is such that redundancy is creeping even into our official documents.

Also, I don't deny that probably 90% of those who oppose this motion do so for all the wrong reasons. But we have to avoid the trap of non sequiturs. To say a law must be good because most of those who oppose it do so out of bigotry is completely nonsensical. You have to judge its merits or demerits on its own terms using your own mind not based on who else supports or opposes it.

I oppose the wording of the Motion and I equally oppose many of the popular arguments against it. To any rational mind, there is no contradiction in this statement.

To support this motion because Breitbart opposes it would be like labeling teetotalers and vegans Nazis because Hitler was a teetotaller and a vegetarian. Same logic.

It is possible for two people to agree with a statement but for two fundamentally different reasons.

The only part of M 103 that I oppose is the redundant use of the word 'Islamophobia.' Breitbart might oppose the Motion in its entirety. No comparison.

 

[petros]

It will pass and the hullabaloo from white people will be forgotten or laughed at.

Either way, it's going to help Canadians understand today's social dynamics.

White people? Do you have any clue how Hindus and Buddhists feel about Muzzies?

Take 10 minutes out out your useless life and learn about how and why The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was created in 1947

 

[Dixie Cup]

Fascists have no valid issues we fought a world war to get rid of what
we are becoming hell bent to support. Ultra conservatism is a fascist
concept and is worse if not just as bad as socialism in its present form.
Some think the Nazi Movement was left wing because is listed as
National Socialism. Well its right wing communism is the ultimate left
wing series of crazies.
Bannen is an extreme right winger and that can't be papered over.

But if you disallow the so-called "fascists' (if that's what they truly are - you're making assumptions here as are those who are marching), then they never see the light of day and that's even more dangerous. I would prefer to know who they are.


JMHO