Your reaction to them might hurt, but that isn’t my problem. Anything, including a ‘toothless’ motion, that aims to restrict speech should be vigorously fought.
This kind of feel-good, guilty conscious crap is how we ended up with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
It would be helpful to those that can still read and think if the government of the day could set out the difference between “radical islam” and “devoutly islamic”.
None of their so called expertise has prepared them to define such a difference. I don’t think there is any difference to this, the nuance isn’t worth the discovery.
They see it as a religion worth protecting, I see it as arsenic to the soul.
Will I be fined for this? Or imprisoned?
and debating amendments to tone it down a bit, in light of free speech…
How idiotic. How offensive.
They are, as usual, playing “Let’s make a deal!”
This time they are playing it with your right to speak your mind. Previously they played it with your right to defend yourself, and now you don’t have any right to defend yourself.
Pretty soon we are all going to be off the interwebz, because one wrong word will mean jail.
Even telling the truth about Islam is (not will be) considered hate speech. Committing cultural suicide.
Islam will seize on any government action as proof of its status. And most of its newly arrived drones will be incapable of telling the difference between a law and a motion, particularly after their imams scream about how allah has humbled the infidels.
“This kind of feel-good, guilty conscious crap is how we ended up with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.” BINGO!
Lance, well said, as are the comments above.
I know it is an old cliche, but this definitely the thin edge of the wedge. Does anyone think this will stop at a symbolic “motion”?
Meanwhile, Christianity, with all its human flaws and failures to actually carry out the desires and wishes of the Teacher, gave us liberal democracy, is now under assault everywhere by the very ones that would give Islam a protected status.
Islam has never faltered in its quest to subjugate all peoples and all other religions under its yoke.
The motion is an oxymoron.
If someone is not a Muslim they cannot be deemed islamaphobic as that requires there be an acceptance that Mohammed actually existed.
So just as an atheist can express their opinion and be protected, so to is everyone else to express doubts about a belief they do not adhere to. So basically the only ones that can be guilty of islamaphobia are those that adhere to the muslim faith.
As far as I’m concerned, if something I said is deemed blasphemous per some obscure orthodox rule cited by a group whose legal fictions contridict western values….come and get me a$$holes.
lance, well said indeed.
I’m embarrassed to confess that I breathed a sigh of relief when I learned that this is a toothless motion and not a law and that I thought The Rebel was hyper-ventillating over this.
WRONG, MND, WRONG.
Consider this a test, a probe. It should be energetically and forcefully resisted before it becomes a law, albeit probably an unenforceable one.
Although, even if unenforceable, the chill factor is the damage done.
Write to your MP’s to stop limiting your speech.
Let them know that Khalid’s speech is offensive to you.
Let them know that Canada can’t be made into Pakistan.
Perhaps Khaild should consider running for office and dictating in Pakistan.
Canada does not need little dictators.
The parliament should not ever be asked consider how to go about shutting people up.
One can understand that politicians would like nothing better than that. If the plebeians had no say, the politicians would have a free ride.
The conservative politician should not even try to amend the thing, should reject it immediately.
Of course there may not actually live a politician in Canada that would tell Khalid to just buzz off.
So, it is up to you to stop it.
Creeping subjugation is what it is. There are voices, muslim, out there that have warned about this, and the libtards still don’t get it
So, Lance, are you giving up your “social liberalism” yet????
Of the conservative leadership candidates, Andrew Scheer, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemiuex all have stated positions against M-103.
Regarding bill C-16 (amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination and amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression)
Andrew Scheer voted No
Brad Trost voted No
Pierre Lemieux is not a current MP, but he did state support for Jordan Peterson,and would like to “repeal Bill C-16 and empower Parliament to review all speech laws to ensure they properly balance freedom of speech and reasonable limits.”
Maxime Bernier, Steven Blaney, Deepak Obrhai, Michael Chong, Lisa Raitt all voted in favour.
Erin O’Toole and Kellie Leitch didn’t vote.
I think Mark Steyn’s take on the whole phobia thing was on point.
A phobia is fear and who would be frightened or afraid of homosexuals. Islamists on the other hand, if they are true to their holy book the Koran offer plenty of reasons to be afraid.
“…this definitely the thin edge of the wedge. …”
camel’s nose under the tent flap
Nevermind the camel, the street gang named “halal” is cleansing the streets of Toronto.
http://m.torontosun.com/2017/02/12/trail-of-regent-park-gang-killings
This motion, bill would turn separation of church and state on its head, effectively promoting one religion above all others, and according to the figures supplied Muslim portion of Canada is about 3% (higher with the new figures but still small).
It may be seen as an attempt to introduce a form of sharia through the back tent flap. But objective evidence would suggest Jewish buildings and property are far more likely to suffer desecration, and Catholic beliefs are more open for ridicule and contempt.
Arguably Muslims in Canada are the most privileged of those anywhere. They are free of internecine strife and murder that plague their members in many of the Muslim theocracies. Obviously the promoter of this resolution is an MP, one of many in parliament a privilege not to be taken lightly.
If some form of bill is enacted, activist and lawyers will rush to target the people they wish to silence, for that is the goal. Mark Steyn and Macleans spent thousand defending themselves against a suit a few years back; with new legislation they might not be successful next time around.
Any legislation enacted as a result of a murderous tragedy is often poorly though out with unintended consequences; Canadians saw this with the 1989 Montreal massacre.
This motion and the inevitable following legislation should be opposed by all sober minded Canadians.
All of this talk is verboten
Heil Trudope!
“Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag,” Trump wrote on Twitter, “if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”
She is a good warrior for the Caliphate!
“Canadians saw this with the 1989 Montreal massacre.”
Where an Arab killed 14 women and the decision was made to restrict guns, not Arabs?
We must not accept any law, or motion which prevents us from speaking about an ideology masquerading as a religion.
As in europe the migrants are acting aggressively towards women and children and we are supposed to accept this?
It might please Mr Potato head and the rest of the virtue signalling traitors at the UN I am not accepting any of it.
We, the people, do not want or need migrants from countries that refuse to assimilate.
That is why Trump was elected and why the Media and hollyweird is going batshit crazy.
Iqra Khalid knows why she is one of the Spawn’s MPs. Why do so many Muslims immigrate to a country that celebrates it’s cultural nothingness in the form of multiculturalism? Why do Muslims choose to come to a country full of ignorant, smiling, and welcoming infidels? They come as Muslims for one of two reasons. To escape the Islamic dystopia of their origin to where they can avoid the consequences of conflict and Jihad while still submitting at some level to the responsible pathology; or, to come as overt or covert soldiers of Allah to practice Jihad somewhere on a continuum between low simmer and full kinetic (silent support to self-detonation). Both motivations include those who are sometimes referred to as moderate Muslims. Unless I am wrong, banning Muslim immigration, as illiberal as that sounds, is the only way to preserve liberty in the west.
Courtesy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Definition of phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation
We could start with the ‘inexplicable and illogical fear’ part. After 9/11 and all that has followed in the last sixteen years, the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, the Bombay/Mumbai attack, the Rotherham rapes, the Boston marathon bombing, the Bataclan massacre, etc., etc., etc!, I fail to see why a fear of Islam is inexplicable or illogical or irrational. The West is changing the Western standard of living to accommodate the threat of Islamic Terrorists (have you been through an airport recently) and the Liberals are calling this a ‘phobia’. This MP and her ilk should be shown the door, saner heads in the Liberal party (oxymoronic, what!)should have taken her in the back room and talked some sense into her. However that didn’t happen and this motion evidently will be tabled, a fine example of incremental creep. We are witnessing the effects of incremental creep in France, Sweden, Britain and the rest of Europe. When are we going to wake up because as much as the intelligentsia want us to ignore it the invasion is underway.
Radicals are easy to spot; devout muslims want them dead.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: radical
Walid Shoebat: radical
Can’t think of many radical muslims/apostates who are still alive.
The Liberals make the mistake of thinking that EVERYONE else is stupid except them.
And they wonder why there will be no electoral reform this year.
Iqra Khalid can deny this motion isn’t tantamount to censorship and blasphemy laws but people who aren’t emotional retards know better.
Motion M-103 is facile pandering to a single special interest group and blatant virtue signalling. Hate speech and blasphemy are already covered in the Criminal Code.
In Canada, blasphemous libel is an offence under the Criminal Code. Section 296
…
(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.
…
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda. “Hate propaganda” means “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.”
…
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty:
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Soooo? how many Canadians are aware of the Sick Thugz & the Halel Islamic murder Gangs? It appears the brutality of these Gangs are is being confined to Gaining Dominance over the Moderate Muslim Communities.
This has always been the First Stage of Islamic Terror Control. Start with a Tax on the Believers of Islam; Next tell the Taxed Believers they will not have to Pay Tax if they report other Muslim who are not Swearing Allegiance to “The Quran/Koran” to establish Sharia Law every where in the World.
Once the appropriate Mass of Terrified Muslims are reached then just as the Mafia; IRA; Chinese Tongs did the Islamic Terrroist Gangs use brutality to destroy or intiminidate the Small Business owners in the Islam “no-go-Cop” Zones similar to British Cities. The gathering of Protection taxes from the Business Owners funds the Terror Gangs and therefore increases the Prices to all People, including Muslims in the Area.
Next Step is to give Authority to real protecters of the Gangs and this is the Islamic So-called Religious Leaders. Most will be Muslim; But all the Religious Leaders will keep their Mouths Shut because of Fear.
Steadily Sharia Law and the Return of Women & Girls to complete Dominance in the Patriarchy of Islam. This includes Honour Killings and “head to toe” clothing.
Naturally the Craven Politicians will have started their obsequiness to the new Dominant Urban Ledership. This is already evident with the Law the Feckless Liberal Party of Canada is PUSHING through Parliament which Sets the Next Stage of Islam Dominence, by making any Remark against Islam a HATE Speech Crime.
The Thought of such a Travesty against Free Speech makes some of the Liberal Members of Parliament uncomfortable AT THIS TIME so the pushing through of the HATE CRIME legislation is being watered down. For Now.
Do not be fooled; call your M.P. especially if the Member of Parliament for your electoral riding is a Liberal. LET THEM KNOW YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ONE RELIGION IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER RELIGIONS.
Liberals considering changes to controversial Islamophobia motion
…
A number of leadership candidates have drawn attention to the fact the anti-discrimination motion M103 singles out Islamophobia while also failing to define the nebulous term. While the motion originates from Khalid, sources have revealed the prime minister’s office has an interest in the wording of the motion.
…
For similar reasons O’Toole outlines, Maxime Bernier, Andrew Scheer and Kellie Leitch have all indicated they won’t be voting for it. Bernier, in a Facebook note, says he’ll vote against it unless the word Islamophobia is removed, to make it clear the motion doesn’t grant preferential status to one religion.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/13/liberals-considering-changes-to-controversial-islamophobia-motion?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=Liberals+considering+changes+to+controversial+Islamophobia+motion
I sent this message to my Lieberal MP:
Motion M-103 is facile pandering to a specific religious ideology as a special interest group. That sort of inequitable treatment and discrimination is unacceptable in Canada. Any Motions or Bills must treat all Canadians equally.
Hate speech and blasphemy are already adequately covered in the Criminal Code Section 296 and Sections 318, 319, and 320. Motion M-103 is unnecessary virtue signalling, and that’s not right.
Unless all references to any specific religious ideology are removed from the Motion, then I strongly urge you to represent the views of universally tolerant Canadians and vote against M-103 or at the very least abstain from voting.
“LET THEM KNOW YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ONE RELIGION IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER RELIGIONS.”
No. That would be a lie on my part because I happen to believe one religion is better than the other religions.
But that’s not the point. This is: in a democracy, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want.
And that is why this motion is an abomination.
Poly Ticks.
Funny how control of the language is the method of choice from our Kleptocracy.
Message to MP’s; “What gives a useless parasite the idea it can tell me what words to use?”
Fear of Islam is a rational reaction for any observer of history.
This Death Cult is quite honest about its self.
Why should I not take them at their own words?
Especially when these words are so well supported by their actions?
Or do our Effete Elites now support Slavery, Women as a permanent underclass, “Silence I kill you” as rational discourse?
I did not write their book,nor did I orchestrate their choices, the Muslims who flee to Canada need to make a choice.
If they so love the ideology that destroyed their homelands, why are they here?
Certainly not as immigrants.
If they fled the ideology and do not wish to see it here,act accordingly.
Canada may be a nebulous concept, to some, but civilization is what our ancestors gifted us, this civil organization allows us the wealth and leisure we take for granted.
Civilization has costs,civil society requires agreed modes of behaviour.
Personal restraint and responsibility.
If the citizens feel they bear only the costs and reap none of the rewards,civil society breaks up.
Canada where the productive are taxed beyond reason and the parasites rewarded beyond all sense.
Civil society is rapidly fraying around the edges.
Why should I be civil to fools and bandits?
In my opinion, the Sons of the Desert Pedophile have a religious myth, based on a” how to manual” for bandits.
A collection of rationalizations for behaviour I find odious and dedicated to destroying productive human cooperation.
Why should I want any member of this group in my space?
What contribution do they provide?
We do not need to import fools and bandits,our own home grown versions have already bankrupted this country.
Good summary, well stated.
If the comments on many blogs and forums [where people are free to state their opinion] are correct, then more than half of Canadians do not want more Muslime immigrants.
The other factor is for the first time in the history of the Edelman Canada survey, the majority of Canadians are dissatisfied with everything: government, media and business. Good 7min interview at ‘On The Money’.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/877382723625
Theodore Dalrymple said it best, back in 2006:
“We do not, most of us, respect Islam any more than we respect people who speak in tongues. What we respect is the right of Muslims to practise their religion in perfect peace, in so far as it does not conflict with our laws. We also hope that we can find common ground with them in many other aspects of human existence: in business, in the professions, in literature and so forth. Tolerance is not a matter of respecting what is tolerated – if it were, tolerance would hardly be necessary. Tolerance is the willing, conscious suppression of distaste or disdain for other people’s ideas, habits and tastes for the sake of a wider social peace.”
“Muslims should be told quite clearly that our citizens have the legal right to criticize, lampoon, ridicule and mock Mohammed to their heart’s content, in any way that they wish: that Islam and Muslims have no special claim to protection from the rough and tumble of post-Enlightenment intellectual, political and social life. If they cannot live in a society in which this is the case, they should go somewhere else; they are, after all, spoilt for choice, at least in theory.”