Anti-Islamophobia motion passes in Ontario Legislature
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
Canadians voice support for Muslims amid ‘hatred’ unleashed at Liberal MP
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
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?
He says stuff like this:
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?
Seven Questions: Bernard Lewis on the Two Biggest Myths About Islam | Foreign Policy
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
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.
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, Kyrgyzstan. In 2001, the family moved to Makhachkala, Dagestan, in the Russian Federation.[35][36][37] In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa.[38][39][40] Anzor Tsarnaev applied for asylum, citing fears of deadly persecution due to his ties to Chechnya.[41]
Tamerlan was left in the care of his uncle Ruslan in Kyrgyzstan,[22] and arrived in the U.S. around two years later.[42] In the U.S. the parents received asylum and then filed for their four children, who received "derivative asylum status".[43] They settled on Norfolk Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Tamerlan lived in Cambridge on Norfolk Street until his death.[44]
Last edited:
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??
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/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
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/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
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.
Working on the theory that is you repeat a lie often enough someone will believe it.
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.
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.
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.
Danish lawmakers have repealed a 334-year-old blasphemy law that forbids public insults of a religion, such as the burning of holy books.
Only a handful of blasphemy trials have taken place in the past 80 years, and several high-profile cases have been dropped, including one involving a caricature of the prophet Muhammad published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005.
Denmark was the only Scandinavian country with a blasphemy law, which called for up to four months in prison upon conviction, although most people were fined instead.
Politicians who wanted to repeal the law introduced in 1683 “do not believe that there should be special rules protecting religions against expressions”, the Danish parliament said.
But remarks and acts that threaten or demean certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs will still be punishable.
“Religion should not dictate what is allowed and what is forbidden to say publicly,” Bruno Jerup, an MP who proposed to repeal the law, was quoted as saying by Jyllands-Posten. “It gives religion a totally unfair priority in society.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law
Only a handful of blasphemy trials have taken place in the past 80 years, and several high-profile cases have been dropped, including one involving a caricature of the prophet Muhammad published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005.
Denmark was the only Scandinavian country with a blasphemy law, which called for up to four months in prison upon conviction, although most people were fined instead.
Politicians who wanted to repeal the law introduced in 1683 “do not believe that there should be special rules protecting religions against expressions”, the Danish parliament said.
But remarks and acts that threaten or demean certain groups of people because of their religious beliefs will still be punishable.
“Religion should not dictate what is allowed and what is forbidden to say publicly,” Bruno Jerup, an MP who proposed to repeal the law, was quoted as saying by Jyllands-Posten. “It gives religion a totally unfair priority in society.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/denmark-scraps-334-year-old-blasphemy-law