M103 passed in Canada

Depp

great video to watch if you're still confused as to why this motion is problematic. very well explained.

Widdershins

Depp wrote: »

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.

You're probably right. Personally I would prefer if it was a purely private matter because it would bring us closer to a secular world. Unfortunately it never stops at simply wearing clothing that expresses religious beliefs. Protections for private worship in conjunction with an absence of religious expression was what I was agreeing with as a concept. This law prohibiting criticism of Islam in particular is bringing us further and further from a secular world.

conorhal

Dr Martin wrote: »

I mean we're at the stage now where the Southern Law Poverty centre has put a Muslim who wants to reform Islam and bring it into the 21st century on their 'hate list'! Maybe I'll end up on that list one day.

Perhaps they should put Ataturk down as an historical 'Islamophobe'.

Well.. he did say this...




Some might say he had a fair point.
Of course he also managed to drag Turkey into the 20th century, while likes of Erdogan would prefer to drag back the to the 12th and, like that moron Trudeau, would happily prosecute you for speaking a basic truth, that Islam is regressive and destructive influence.

I wonder if it ever crosses Trudeau's mind that he shares more in common, when it comes to critiquing Islam, with a 'statesman' like Erdogan then he does with a statesman like Ataturk, or which comparison is the favorable one?

Is there anything to be said for a good blasphemy law, Imam?

Depp

Depp wrote: »

I think if you restrict how people express their faith publically its of no help whatsoever. If someone wants to genuinely and voluntarily express their faith be it by wearing either a hijab or a cross around their neck or ringlets down over their ears I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Restricting this is a short step away from banning the religions outright and I think thats as heinous as banning free speech.

Banning any religion outright is hardly likely considering that they're protected under most constitutions. Kinda hard for a government to get that type of bill passed.

I honestly don't see why some restrictions cannot be used. It's not as if most countries in the world (outside of Europe) don't have similar laws to restrict the practices of various religions.

No worries, though. I know most on boards won't agree with me on that point. I'm hardly likely to ever be in a position to influence policy

Beyondgone

Depp wrote: »

great video to watch if you're still confused as to why this motion is problematic. very well explained.

Also a terrific tool for insomniacs.:o I dozed off twice.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Also a terrific tool for insomniacs.:o I dozed off twice.

Well, that's probably why we're sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare, the short attention span of those that can't abide concise analysis and have nothing better to contribute to a debate then.. #boring...

For #islamaphobia: read

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . .

-George Orwell '1984', but it might as well be Justin Trudeau, 2017, but sadly, without the insight of satire.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Well, that's probably why we're sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare, the short attention span of those that can't abide concise analysis and have nothing better to contribute to a debate then.. #boring...

For #islamaphobia: read

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. . . .

-George Orwell '1984', but it might as well be Justin Trudeau, 2017, but sadly, without the insight of satire.

Close to 17 minutes of monotone. I'm giving me a pass on finding that one quite dull. There weren't even any explosions.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Close to 17 minutes of monotone. I'm giving me a pass on finding that one quite dull. There weren't even any explosions.

Well Jesus, wait a while, you'll get the London and Paris experience soon enough...

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Well Jesus, wait a while, you'll get the London and Paris experience soon enough...

Lived in both places. Loved them. Full of foreigners/Muslims..always got on great with them.
Was in Tescos there earlier, there were loads of "foreign" people doing their shopping. None of them attacked me and I had no desire to call any of them names... ergo, not hugely bothered by laws/rules Canada passes stopping ignoramuses being insulting to people they don't know.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Lived in both places. Loved them. Full of foreigners/Muslims..always got on great with them.
Was in Tescos there earlier, there were loads of "foreign" people doing their shopping. None of them attacked me and I had no desire to call any of them names... ergo, not hugely bothered by laws/rules Canada passes stopping ignoramuses being insulting to people they don't know.

Subjectivity is not objectivity, Irony isn't your strong suit either it seems..

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Subjectivity is not objectivity, Irony isn't your strong suit either it seems..

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...


nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...


nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

It's not an anti racism law.

And the corollary of ''enshrining politemess in its law'' is criminalising 'rudeness' which is decidely Orwellian. This is more a fascist than a 'polite' law.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ironic how? Canada, a Nation famed for politeness, enshrines politeness in its Law and makes a stab at defining "Hate speech" and outlawing it. This is regarded as "Orwellian" and "A bad thing" by some people on the Internet in Ireland. I'm sure Canada is paying close attention and m...


nope, sorry..I drifted off there again.. I'm obviously unqualified to set the Law in Canada. You appear to be confident you can do the job though. Ring Canada and let them know. Be sure to mention "I want to be able to call people and religions bad names". That'll get you through to "the people who matter" over there.

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

Widdershins

conorhal wrote: »

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

Considering a Scottish man was killed for blaspheming the Prophet last year, yes, I think it is The fact this is exclusively to protect Islam from criticism is extremely weird. Existing laws are grounded in basic principles of human decency and religious freedom, so it can't be said to be about that.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Is a blasphemy law a bad thing?

I applied to become a Law maker in Canada but..

Do you think you're better qualified than their Law-makers? They want to outlaw "Hate-speech". They drafted Legislation. That Legislation got voted into Law. I'm presuming their Legislators were democratically elected? Do you want to Blaspheme? Are you a racist? Do you hate Muslims? Does this Law impact your life?

It doesn't impact mine anyway. Never felt the urge to do/be any of the above. Legislate ahead.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

I applied to become a Law maker in Canada but..

Do you think you're better qualified than their Law-makers? They want to outlaw "Hate-speech". They drafted Legislation. That Legislation got voted into Law. I'm presuming their Legislators were democratically elected? Do you want to Blaspheme? Are you a racist? Do you hate Muslims? Does this Law impact your life?

It doesn't impact mine anyway. Never felt the urge to do/be any of the above. Legislate ahead.

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

conorhal

Widdershins wrote: »

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

Problem is this, who's gonna kill you for it?

Beyondgone

Widdershins wrote: »

Questioning the existence of the Prophet or Jesus Christ is blasphemy. *Many people would want to do so. Hatred doesn't come into it. Problem?

*Not least, science!

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

No, that is not the case, Im afraid. As it stood prior to this new law, while keeping it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, people were free to question. There is no discernible need for this additional law specifically dedicated to ''islamophobia''. Statistics don't even support any additional anti racsim laws, let alone a law especially for Islamophobia, a term that encompasses criticism of Islam, and Islamism. Anti semitism is more of an issue than Islamophobic racism, but this law does not address that. The whole thing is very spurious.

As for ''muslim people must be getting quite fed up with it'', there are muslim reformists questioning islam and why terrorism is escalating, there are muslim columnists beseeching people to look at what needs to be done, many muslims are taking a proactive role in trying to eliminate terrorism from their religion, not playing the victim with ''every time a muslim, coughs the media..'' which simply isn't true.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Ring Canada. Tell them. I'm sure they are all ears. Every time a Muslim person coughs, the media cry "ISIS!" I'm guessing Muslim people must be getting quite fed up of it. A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

I have no interest in being uncivil or insulting individuals, which is not on (unless they have earned it or insulted me), this act is not about that. It's about insulting Islam, that is a pretty troubling thing.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

I have no interest in being uncivil or insulting individuals, which is not on (unless they have earned it or insulted me), this act is not about that. It's about insulting Islam, that is a pretty troubling thing.

I'm neither Islam nor the Canadian Government, so I have no pull in this. But I tend to agree with them - people will seek to make capital out of insulting other peoples Religious views. It's the Boards equivalent of "Yor Ma". It tends to provoke an angry response. Governments will try to legislate against these sort of slurs. It is what it is.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'm neither Islam nor the Canadian Government, so I have no pull in this. But I tend to agree with them - people will seek to make capital out of insulting other peoples Religious views. It's the Boards equivalent of "Yor Ma". It tends to provoke an angry response. Governments will try to legislate against these sort of slurs. It is what it is.

People literally make capital out of insulting others for all sorts of reasons. Personally I abhor certain comedians who do so, for example. I don't expect nor want them to be criminalised. Were they to jump off a cliff it would be no great loss, but I don't wish the law to criminalise their humour. If they were criminalised, it would still not be anywhere near as disturbing as critics of religions being criminalised. Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a need for examination of Islamist fascism and zealotry at the moment. As distinct from simple Islamic belief and Muslims. And should any other religions produce similarly fanatical believers who seek to harm others, those will need to be examined closely, too. Laws preventing this for a misguided sense of politeness are unjust and immoral. Base acts of racism and religious persecution are already illegal. It's been covered by the law already.

Salman Rushdie is still being persecuted b Islamic leaders ofr blasphemy. We should not be condoning this sort of step in the West.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'm neither Islam nor the Canadian Government, so I have no pull in this. But I tend to agree with them - people will seek to make capital out of insulting other peoples Religious views. It's the Boards equivalent of "Yor Ma". It tends to provoke an angry response. Governments will try to legislate against these sort of slurs. It is what it is.

Fatalistic nonsense, it is what you make it. No religion is above reproach, to make one so for fear that it will provoke a violent response is to surrender civil society to irrationality. It's not the equivalent of "Yor Ma", (my Ma is lovely BTW, I'm sure yor's is too) it's the equivalent of 'Yor worldview', which is not beyond debate, critisism or challenge, what we are essentially doing right now. If it is you live in an Orwellian dystopia and we might as well deport Salman Rushdie to Iran if that is the case.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

Fatalistic nonsense, it is what you make it. No religion is above reproach, to make one so for fear that it will provoke a violent response is to surrender civil society to irrationality. It's not the equivalent of "Yor Ma", (my Ma is lovely BTW, I'm sure yor's is too) it's the equivalent of 'Yor worldview', which is not beyond debate, critisism or challenge, what we are essentially doing right now. If it is you live in an Orwellian dystopia.

Quick "Boards"/"Ireland" test for you Conor - say some bad stuff about the Prophet Mohammed. Make it really nasty. Go to Town on it. The floor is yours.


No? Not going there? Then why sweat some Canadian law? There's already some rules in place.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Quick "Boards"/"Ireland" test for you Conor - say some bad stuff about the Prophet Mohammed. Make it really nasty. Go to Town on it. The floor is yours.


No? Not going there? Then why sweat some Canadian law? There's already some rules in place.

I refer you to my previous post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103025958
It seems suitably insulting, given the quote. Should I be jailed for it?


The reason I sweat 'some Canadian (not actually) law is because where they go Europe is following.
Germany is on the cusp of the same thing. When you look at the eejits in our Dail I see the same nonsense from them. First they came for the Canadians... and all that.

http://www.thejournal.ie/dr-ali-selim-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-1870437-Jan2015/

Dr Ali Selim, of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, made the comments following the shooting dead of 12 people at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris today.

When asked by Niall Boylan on 4FM if he (Boylan) retweeted the cartoon would his life be in danger, Dr Selim – who condemned the shootings – said:

“Not your life would be in danger but definitely we will check the Irish law and if there is any legal channel against you, we will take it,” he said.

If we had Canada's laws he would be within his right.

Beyondgone

conorhal wrote: »

I refer you to my previous post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103025958
It seems suitably insulting, given the quote. Should I be jailed for it?


The reason I sweat 'some Canadian (not actually) law is because where they go Europe is following.
Germany is on the cusp of the same thing. When you look at the eejits in our Dail I see the same nonsense from them. First they came for the Canadians... and all that.

Do you want to insult Islam? Does insulting peoples religion come into your radar? I have zero desire to insult anyone. Ergo, not bothered by Canadas new Law. That is the bottom line. Trump supporters and rednecks may not agree. But that is their prerogative.

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

Do you want to insult Islam? Does insulting peoples religion come into your radar? I have zero desire to insult anyone. Ergo, not bothered by Canadas new Law. That is the bottom line. Trump supporters and rednecks may not agree. But that is their prerogative.

See my updated last post. BTW I am not a Trump supporter and my neck is not red (we live in Ireland FFS, nobody's neck sees that much sun)
It is however good to know that at least you don't pejoratively demonize groups of people you disagree with you in a simplistic and insulting manner.....

the great communicator

Beyondgone wrote: »

Do you want to insult Islam? Does insulting peoples religion come into your radar? I have zero desire to insult anyone. Ergo, not bothered by Canadas new Law. That is the bottom line. Trump supporters and rednecks may not agree. But that is their prerogative.

What qualifies as an insult? It is possible to make some very scathing but accurate criticisms of Islamic doctrine.

Beyondgone

the great communicator wrote: »

What qualifies as an insult? It is possible to make some very scathing but accurate criticisms of Islamic doctrine.

You'd need to take that up with them. I'm neither Muslim nor Canadian. Bosh your criticisms thought the correct channels.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

Do you want to insult Islam? Does insulting peoples religion come into your radar? I have zero desire to insult anyone. Ergo, not bothered by Canadas new Law. That is the bottom line. Trump supporters and rednecks may not agree. But that is their prerogative.

Why should it bother you if someone insults Islam? Richard Dawkins has built a new career on insulting Christianity, as have many writers and even philosophers. What harm are they doing, exactly? Why should blasphemy bother anyone? Can god or Allah not deal with the blasphemers? It is not for the law to deal with insults to a religous belief system, unless the believers are being harmed at the same time. The law should remain secular.

I am quite well able to cope with my beliefs being insulted. I would not wish to deal with someone who was rude about it, in future, but it doesn't upset me, and why should it? The idea of a law against it is both ludicrous and sinister at best. People have died, not only routinely in the East but recently in Europe, for insulting Islam.

Beyondgone

Widdershins wrote: »

Why should it bother you if someone insults Islam? Richard Dawkins has built a new career on insulting Christianity, as have many writers and even philosophers. What harm are they doing, exactly? Why should blasphemy bother anyone? Can god or Allah not deal with the blasphemers? It is not for the law to deal with insults to a religous belief system, unless the believers are being harmed at the same time. The law should remain secular.

I am quite well able to cope with my beliefs being insulted. I would not wish to deal with someone who was rude about it, in future, but it doesn't upset me, and why should it? The idea of a law against it is both ludicrous and sinister at best. People have died, not only routinely in the East but recently in Europe, for insulting Islam.

I'll pose you the same question. Here's your chance. Insult the Prophet Mohammed. Fire ahead. Give it your best shot.

No?
Then why sweat Legislation enshrining your own boundaries?

wes

Legislation is in reaction to the Quebec mosque attack. A lot of the right have supported similar legislation in the past that was aimed at Islamic extremism, so we just have the typical hypocrisy of the right, who are ok with this kind of thing when it suits them.

Personally, would find it funny if people started accusing those who oppose this law and other like it of being apologists for terrorism. Would serve a lot of people right, considering the growing far right terror problem in the West, and those who wish to ignore it.

My personal opinion is that knee jerk reactions to terrorism, like this, tends to be a bad idea, and similar legislation in the past, in other countries, just ended up with the police investigating morons on twitter.

I won't deny a certain amount of schadenfreude however.

Widdershins

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'll pose you the same question. Here's your chance. Insult the Prophet Mohammed. Fire ahead. Give it your best shot.

No?
Then why sweat Legislation enshrining your own boundaries?

Pardon? Could you explain why you're asking me to insult mohammed, piss be upon him, as one of my favourite apostates says ?

I've explained three or four times why ''sweat'' legislation that applies to criticism of Islam or ''insulting'' the prophet. We should not have blasphemy laws, it is inappropriate and detrimental.

the great communicator

Beyondgone wrote: »

You'd need to take that up with them. I'm neither Muslim nor Canadian. Bosh your criticisms thought the correct channels.

So you think what constitutes an insult should be subjectively determined by the individual and you also seem to think that M103 is outside the scope of what should be discussed by people on an Irish forum. Would you allow us to speak freely about anything?

Beyondgone

the great communicator wrote: »

So you think what constitutes an insult should be subjectively determined by the individual and you also seem to think that M103 is outside the scope of what should be discussed by people on an Irish forum. Would you allow us to speak freely about anything?

Far be it from me.

Depp

Beyondgone wrote: »

Far be it from me.

this whole line of argument is as ignorant if not more than some guy coming on saying ban all muslims. all you've done is stick to the party line that this is a law against racism then when someone explains how it isnt you just come back with the ring canada and ask them retort? are you just trolling or are you trying to make a serious argument?

Widdershins

wes wrote: »

Legislation is in reaction to the Quebec mosque attack. A lot of the right have supported similar legislation in the past that was aimed at Islamic extremism, so we just have the typical hypocrisy of the right, who are ok with this kind of thing when it suits them.

Personally, would find it funny if people started accusing those who oppose this law and other like it of being apologists for terrorism. Would serve a lot of people right, considering the growing far right terror problem in the West, and those who wish to ignore it.

My personal opinion is that knee jerk reactions to terrorism, like this, tends to be a bad idea, and similar legislation in the past, in other countries, just ended up with the police investigating morons on twitter.

I won't deny a certain amount of schadenfreude however.

Do you mean it would be funny if people started accusing opponents of this law of being apologists for islamist terror or far right extremism type terror? I'd have thought it more likely that proponents of the law might be accused of apologism, not only of terror but of the sort of persecution rushdie experienced, and at the very least they are obstructing discussion.

I wouldn't be enjoying the shadenfreude, things are too troubled.

wes

Widdershins wrote: »

Do you mean it would be funny if people started accusing opponents of this law of being apologists for islamist terror or far right extremism type terror? I'd have thought it more likely that proponents of the law might be accused of apologism, not only of terror but of the sort of persecution rushdie experienced, and at the very least they are obstructing discussion.

I wouldn't be enjoying the shadenfreude, things are too troubled.

People who are against the law, seeing as its in reaction an act of terror in Quebec, and honestly it would serve some people right considering the various accusation coming out of some quarters over the years. Similar knee jerk laws have been ignored for years, in the West, as it was targeting Islamic extremism, which went unremarked upon by a lot of people.

So yes, I will enjoy some schadenfreude, as people only care about this stuff, when it might effect them.

Look personally, having the police investigate idiots on twitter, is stupid, but that has been happening for years at this point in a lot of Western countries. Some people only seem to to care, now that it might effect them.

Beyondgone

Depp wrote: »

this whole line of argument is as ignorant if not more than some guy coming on saying ban all muslims. all you've done is stick to the party line that this is a law against racism then when someone explains how it isnt you just come back with the ring canada and ask them retort? are you just trolling or are you trying to make a serious argument?

Hang on here pal. You're saying you approve of people mocking other peoples religion and I am the one in the wrong? Am I getting this straight? You think Canada doesn't have the right to set their own laws and racism is ok and ought to be ignored? What world do you live in ffs?

Depp

Beyondgone wrote: »

A few Laws to stifle that nonsense may not go astray. If you keep it civil, not resorting to rudeness or insults, you are quite free to question the existence of Allah/God. It's when people cross the line into abuse and racist diatribe that things get muddied.

If you had actually managed to put yourself through the arduous task of watching that 17 minute video you would know that were this motion to become law, you categorically would not be free to question the existence of allah or any aspect of islam for that fact. God would still be free reign though funny that!...criticizing a set of ideas is not abuse or racist nomatter how much you wish it was. Its exactly this type of regressive bs that has moderate muslims who want to change the faith and bring it out of the stone age scared to speak up.

Depp

Beyondgone wrote: »

Hang on here pal. You're saying you approve of people mocking other peoples religion and I am the one in the wrong? Am I getting this straight? You think Canada doesn't have the right to set their own laws and racism is ok and ought to be ignored? What world do you live in ffs?

No-one wants open reign to mock someones religion try pay attention to the conversation. This motion seeks to eliminate ''Islamophobia'', under the current official definition, questions and criticisms of certain tenets and teachings of islam, be that from outside the religion or within, Fall under the bracket of ''Islamophobia.'' Thusly, discourse from non-muslims and even reformist muslims would be illegal. Do you think this is right? Are reformist muslims racist islamophobes in your opinion?

also the fact its in canada is unimportant really, if you read my op you would see my concerns were this sets a worrying precedent for other modern countries, not canadians right to be racist as you seem to think

Beyondgone

Depp wrote: »

If you had actually managed to put yourself through the arduous task of watching that 17 minute video you would know that were this motion to become law, you categorically would not be free to question the existence of allah or any aspect of islam for that fact. God would still be free reign though funny that!...criticizing a set of ideas is not abuse or racist nomatter how much you wish it was. Its exactly this type of regressive bs that has moderate muslims who want to change the faith and bring it out of the stone age scared to speak up.

I watched it all. I was joking. You speak up - the floor is yours. Fire ahead. I have no desire to take it. On any level.

Depp

Beyondgone wrote: »

I watched it all. I was joking. You speak up - the floor is yours. Fire ahead. I have no desire to take it. On any level.

So you dont wish to silence me but you support a bill that would were it to be introduced here? As I've stated before were the definition narrowed to only include actual racists I'd be in full support of legislation like this. But when the definition includes someone who says ''you know what lads, maybe its wrong that islam says someone who leaves the faith should die!'' and paints them as a racist and criminalizes them, it is wrong.

Widdershins

I could understand a positive gut reaction to this law, where someone thinks ''great, protections against racist attacks'' but I don't understand why anyone would be in favour of it, knowing the true implications of it.

Beyondgone

Depp wrote: »

So you dont wish to silence me but you support a bill that would were it to be introduced here? As I've stated before were the definition narrowed to only include actual racists I'd be in full support of legislation like this. But when the definition includes someone who says ''you know what lads, maybe its wrong that islam says someone who leaves the faith should die!'' and paints them as a racist and criminalizes them, it is wrong.

I don't hugely support the bill. I support Canada's elected representatives right to legislate according to the majorities wishes. Which is what they have done. Like it or not.

Depp

Beyondgone wrote: »

I don't hugely support the bill. I support Canada's elected representatives right to legislate according to the majorities wishes. Which is what they have done. Like it or not.

Its not exactly the ''majorities wishes'' when the majority of canadians polled said they would vote against it though? But to be fair I do respect canadas right to introduce motions and legistlation but that doesnt mean I can't voice my disagreements with it

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

A lot of the right have supported similar legislation in the past that was aimed at Islamic extremism...

Can you give some examples?

Personally, would find it funny if people started accusing those who oppose this law and other like it of being apologists for terrorism. Would serve a lot of people right, considering the growing far right terror problem in the West, and those who wish to ignore it.

There's a growing far-right terror problem in "the West"????

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

Considering a Scottish man was killed for blaspheming the Prophet last year, yes, I think it is The fact this is exclusively to protect Islam from criticism is extremely weird. Existing laws are grounded in basic principles of human decency and religious freedom, so it can't be said to be about that.

Did you even read the link the OP put up? It's not to exclusively protect Islam. BTW, it's also not a law since you keep referring to it as one.

btw, here's a Canadian definition of islamaphobia.

(1) seeing Islam "as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change";
(2) seeing Islam "as separate and ‘other’" without "values in common with other cultures", being neither affected by them nor having any influence on them;
(3) seeing Islam as "inferior to the West", more specifically, "as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist";
(4) seeing Islam "as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a ‘clash of civilisations’";
(5) seeing Islam "as a political ideology used for political or military advantage";
(6) "reject[ing] out of hand" criticisms made of the West by Islam;
(7) using "hostility towards Islam... to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society";
(8) seeing anti-Muslim hostility "as natural or normal".
— Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Creed: Research and Consultation Report, p. 30

wes

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can you give some examples?

You could google this in a few seconds:
Few convictions under U.K. terror law that served as model for Canada

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There's a growing far-right terror problem in "the West"????

13 Times Apparent Trump Supporters Attacked, Harassed Or Plotted To Kill Muslims


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting

Dylann Roof sentenced to death for the murders of nine black church members


Gunman Kills 6 at a Sikh Temple Near Milwaukee


Sikh man shot in US, told to 'go back to your country'


Indian engineer killed, another injured in U.S. hate crime

White supremacist who traveled to New York to murder black men followed extremist racist online groups who support Trump


Thats the stuff I remember off the top of my head.

BlinkingLights

I think we need to be very careful about putting anything beyond critique or discussion.

You can deal with protecting people from discrimination and persecution but you need to preserve the ability to critique and criticize any organisation or belief system.

As ludicrous as Ireland's blasphemy law is, it at least provides protection for political, artistic, academic and religious​ speech.

What Canada is introducing (if it's being interpreted as described above) would be more or less like a blasphemy law by another name, rather than one to protect a minority.

You can also have the opposite effect by creating a situation where normal discussion becomes taboo and you effectively feed far right conspiracy theorists.