The motion was clearly a mistake; anything that results in anger and division such as this one did, is a failure. M103 does not fall under 'starting a conversation', it falls under 'shifting 'some' of the neutrals against the sheer racism of this motion". These types of ill written or ill promoted divisive motion have a tendency to swing people around, and in this case the swing seems to be based on anger, not questions, which is what a good motion would have resulted with, and calling all the people who did not like this motion racist, is also a huge mistake. Makes people wonder who the h#ll is making decisions in Ottawa. I stand against this motion, I would have stood by a discussion about racism, not govern by politicians!! but by some independent body doing a documentary on racism in Canada. M103 is a "self serving, angry" motion aimed at Canadians' right and freedom.
Canadians voice support for Muslims amid ‘hatred’ unleashed at Liberal MP
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Anti-Islamophobia rally draws hundreds to Winnipeg City Hall | CTV News Winnipeg
“The community is supportive. We’re drawing a line in the sand and saying, any alt-right groups, any white supremacists, any neo-Nazis that want to show up in Winnipeg, this is what they have to deal with, ‘cause ‘Peg City don’t play.”
“The community is supportive. We’re drawing a line in the sand and saying, any alt-right groups, any white supremacists, any neo-Nazis that want to show up in Winnipeg, this is what they have to deal with, ‘cause ‘Peg City don’t play.”
The danger I see here is that people like me who oppose something for legitimate reasons will just be thrown in with Nazis. Once the distinction disappears, suddenly Nazism doesn't seem so bad anymore with so many moderates being labeled Nazis.
I already speak four languages and am in a religiously, nationally, linguistically, and racially exogamous marriage. What more need I do to not be a Nazi? Demand singling out a single religion in a motion? If supporting religiously neutral wording in a motion makes me a Nazi, then White Pride World-Wide!
I already speak four languages and am in a religiously, nationally, linguistically, and racially exogamous marriage. What more need I do to not be a Nazi? Demand singling out a single religion in a motion? If supporting religiously neutral wording in a motion makes me a Nazi, then White Pride World-Wide!
Last edited:
Yea, you espouse a fallacy that most free speechists (and generally, libertarians) suffer from.
That unwarranted fear of some slippery slope that leads us to 1984.
It's the dumbest argument in a long, long time.
That unwarranted fear of some slippery slope that leads us to 1984.
It's the dumbest argument in a long, long time.
What? I actually agree with all of the motion except the singling out of Islamophobia because it's redundant.
The only slippery slope that I see is that it continues to legitimize Christian statutory holidays and the separate school system and other such singling out.
In short, I oppose the singling out of Islamophobia in the same vein as I oppose singling out English and French in our language laws, the separate school system in our education laws, and Christian statutory holidays in our holiday legislation.
What you seem to fail to understand is that two people can agree on a policy yet disagree fundamentally on the reason for their agreement. Breitbart and I might agree on some points on the matter of this policy, but for two totally different reasons. They probably oppose the entire policy since it would prevent them from spewing bigotry. I oppose only the singling out of Islamophobia but agree with it otherwise with equal emphasis on all religions.
I oppose what we might call unrestricted free speech to the point of promoting unjust discrimination against anyone. So try again.
Yea, you espouse a fallacy that most free speechists (and generally, libertarians) suffer from.
That unwarranted fear of some slippery slope that leads us to 1984.
It's the dumbest argument in a long, long time.
That unwarranted fear of some slippery slope that leads us to 1984.
It's the dumbest argument in a long, long time.
Can you explain? Are you saying that my support for the rest of M-103 stems from a libertarian fallacy?
The second post was actually a joke.
If you are concerned about a redundancy, you need to be convincing about what the consequences of the redundancy would be.
If you are concerned about a redundancy, you need to be convincing about what the consequences of the redundancy would be.
don't look madge ...you are arguing with them
the left, soros funded, are the nazis
The consequence is that it legitimizes discriminatory language laws, the separate school system, and Christian statutory holidays. We can then say, look, if a motion can single out Islamophobia, then why can't the Constitution single out the English and the French in its language policies or Catholics and Protestants in its education policies, and why can't the government single out Christmas and Easter among its statutory holidays?
Contrary to popular opinion, our laws and constitution are riddled with special rights for special groups already. This is just another in a long line of such policies.
To the minds of some, it could. Two or three Ontario elections ago, the Ontario Liberals swept to a majority by defending the separate school system. The NDP stood silent while the PC's proposed funding all religious schools equally and the Greens not at all. The PCs and Greens were decimated and the Liberals swept to power. From that standpoint, it does make political sense to single out a religion in a motion since that is what voters do seem to want unfortunately.
From that standpoint, if the only way to get Parliament to vote in favour of a motion that is otherwise well written is to single out Islamophobia, then I could support it seeing that Islamophobia is merely an unnecessary redundancy that does not change its legal application to discrimination against other religions too.
In the worst case scenario, a future government could always just strike out the redundant wording without it affecting its legal application in any way.
However, the symbolism of desperately needing to single out one religion does not sit well symbolically.
I'm not buying it.
Again, Anti-semitism is an important term that we still use today.
Same with Islamophobia.
Again, Anti-semitism is an important term that we still use today.
Same with Islamophobia.
Using it in unofficial contexts or outside of the law is fine. But legislation should be neutrally worded. That should be obvious to everyone.
How is it dumb? I think you and others on the far left amply demonstrate that you lack any commitment to freedom of speech wherever you disagree with that speech. There is no question this motion WILL lead to such a study, given the 'progressive' nature of the government in power. The question, then, is whether the resulting 'study' calls on the government to expand on hate crime laws in order to prevent 'hurtful' and offensive words being used against ethnic, racial or religious minorities.
Given Trudeau's own 'progressive' nature, and his already demonstrated intolerance towards disagreement on social issues I don't find it at all unlikely he would bring in such a law, perhaps mirroring some of the laws in place in Europe.
Where they've worked sooooo well.
Really? So if I'm looking up at a 40 meter tsunami wave about to crash down on my head and I'm frightened, my fear is only because I'm ignorant?
If someone sticks a gun in my face and demands my money, my fear is from ignorance?
You don't think there might be legitimate reasons to fear things? Ever?
When all is said and done does anyone think there is any law that can eliminate Islamophobia or any other 'phobia' or bigotry?
There are laws against many things but people still do those things and people will still dislike any race or religion or any other group that they so choose to dislike.
Laws can make actions against those we don't like punishable but they can't change people's feelings.
There are laws against many things but people still do those things and people will still dislike any race or religion or any other group that they so choose to dislike.
Laws can make actions against those we don't like punishable but they can't change people's feelings.
If you look at the way Europe tried to legislate an end to offensive language, quite severely limiting freedom of speech and expression and criminalizing even single-person racial or ethnic insults - and the total failure there, you should be able to see the futility of government trying to mandate respect.
Mentalflop believes in the U.N. and is a globalist....he will not rest until we are just like Europe....
He thinks of himself as one of the elites...
Those who don't learn from someone else's mistakes are bound to make the same!
Not all religions or ethnicity are the same or have the same values we have...
I would tend to follow my neighbor's rules if I'm invited to his house and I expect the same in return ........
I would not paint the inside of my house to suit his taste
He thinks of himself as one of the elites...
Those who don't learn from someone else's mistakes are bound to make the same!
Not all religions or ethnicity are the same or have the same values we have...
I would tend to follow my neighbor's rules if I'm invited to his house and I expect the same in return ........
I would not paint the inside of my house to suit his taste