M103 passed in Canada

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

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.

It's heavily focused on Islam.

Are you endorsing the Canadian definition of islamophobia?

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Depp wrote: »

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

That definition is unbelievable. It is almost completely a form of thought policing. Much of it is just what reformists ''see'' Islam (or aspects of) as being,at present. A simple exercise for those who can't grasp the problem with it, insert Catholicism instead of Islam...

It even includes rejecting anti western criticism as islamophobia. ''out of hand'', how ironic...

BlinkingLights

What annoys me about this kind of thing is that you need be able to separate criticism of an organisation or an ideology and criticism of an entire cultural group.

Religious groups, just like any other group, can do terrible things and have very dangerous ideologies that need to be criticised.

Look closer to home and you will find aspects of the Catholic Church went absolutely off the rails and caused huge damage with things like Magdalene Laundries, abuse cover ups and so on.

In the past we couldn't criticise the Church as it was beyond the pale to even discuss it in a negative light and look where that got us?!
Horrific problems known about but not discussed for fear of upsetting the religious and the powerful.

Nothing should be beyond criticism. it's a dangerous precedent to set and Ireland and Irish society should understand exactly why!

Depp

BlinkingLights wrote: »

What annoys me about this kind of thing is that you need be able to separate criticism of an organisation or an ideology and criticism of an entire cultural group.

Religious groups can do terrible things and have very dangerous ideologies that need to be criticised. Look closer to home and you will find aspects of the CatholicChurch went absolutely off the rails and caused give damage with things like Magdalene Laundries, abuse cover his and so on.

In the past we couldn't criticise the Church as it was beyond the pale to even discuss it in a negative light and look where that got us?!
Horrific problems known about but not discussed for fear of upsetting the religious and the powerful.

Nothing should be beyond criticism. it's a dangerous precedent to set and Ireland and Irish society should understand exactly why!

Think I mentioned it in another thread but can you imagine what Ireland would be like today if the catholic church had a word like catholophobia 20-30 years ago and could throw any criticisms of their teachings/actions into the one bracket then criminalize it?

Aka Ishur

Depp wrote: »

Is it not? didnt see the part where they mentioned christianity and buddhism...

also that definition isn't any better than the oxford one its actually far worse, to go by that definition and go forward with motion by introducing legislation we would literally be entering the area of thought crime, think about that for a minute, literally how you perceive something, without any action, and you are breaking the law.

But we haven't even got to the area of racism being a crime with this motion? It just asks the government to condemn all racists acts (if they want, coz its non binding) which they do.anyways in general, if its an act large enough to get government attention. There's no penalty for sh!tting on any one race or religion.

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

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

If I knew the answer I would have googled it "in a few seconds".
How is legislation against encouraging terrorism similar to this legislation?

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.

Yes that's a list of events, but it doesn't prove that it's a growing problem.

Depp

Aka Ishur wrote: »

But we haven't even got to the area of racism being a crime with this motion? It just asks the government to condemn all racists acts (if they want, coz its non binding) which they do.anyways in general, if its an act large enough to get government attention. There's no penalty for sh!tting on any one race or religion.

I support the anti-racism intentions of the motion fully, as would any reasonable human, my concern is that the motion specifically mentions Islamophobia and the vague and poor definition of that word. Under the current oxford definition a muslim reformist who says ''I don't think we should kill apostates actually!'' is an islamophobe and this motion seeks to eliminate that?

BlinkingLights

Depp wrote: »

Think I mentioned it in another thread but can you imagine what Ireland would be like today if the catholic church had a word like catholophobia 20-30 years ago and could throw any criticisms of their teachings/actions into the one bracket then criminalize it?

I suspect that was the intention of the authors of our Constitution.
It specifically mentions blasphemy and sedition but because the courts couldn't define blasphemy without establishing a state religion (banned by the Constitution) the clause was always impotent.

Then someone decided to provide a definition that was an intent to cause outrage amongst the followers of a religion. That's circumscribed by a defence where you're entitled to discuss in an academic, artistic, political or religious context which, in theory, covers most things but it's still just sheer luck (bad drafting) we didn't have an active and very Draconian blasphemy law all through the history of the state.

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote:

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

WTAF, do you agree with the above?
Because it's pure "thought police" nonsense.
I'd say the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a step away from re-education camps.

wes

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If I knew the answer I would have googled it "in a few seconds".

If you knew it already, there wouldn't be any need to look for it .

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How is legislation against encouraging terrorism similar to this legislation?

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes that's a list of events, but it doesn't prove that it's a growing problem.

Yeah, a couple of them do, as they are a direct result of the recent US election.

Depp

wes wrote: »

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

Speech that incites violence is not protected under freedom of speech, you're drawing a false equivalency here. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence to further political aims so laws that prevent those that would encourage terrorism from doing so have absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

Widdershins

wes wrote: »

If you knew it already, there wouldn't be any need to look for it .



The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.



Yeah, a couple of them do, as they are a direct result of the recent US election.

As you say these type of laws have been around a long time, did Canada not already have laws against violence, especially racial violence?

It's not that this law or motion or whatever affects a 'side' it's that it is attempting to predict and accuse people of sentiments and intents they do not harbour. All of the above definitions of islamophobia are deeply questionable. One of them makes questioning political islamism impossible, That is the most important one. As is the timing of this, it's very unwise...

wes

Depp wrote: »

Speech that incites violence is not protected under freedom of speech, you're drawing a false equivalency here. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence to further political aims so laws that prevent those that would encourage terrorism from doing so have absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

The intent of both laws is exactly the same. So why do you oppose one and support the other? That strikes me as hypocritical. BTW, read the link I provided, one of the people prosecuted under the British law, was a law student, who argued in a youtube video that attacks on coalition forces in Iraq were not terrorism, which is clearly debate as to what does and doesn't constitute terrorism.

So, both laws are similar in intent, and can be seen to stifle debate.

Depp

wes wrote: »

The intent of both laws is exactly the same. So why do you oppose one and support the other? That strikes me as hypocritical. BTW, read the link I provided, one of the people prosecuted under the British law, was a law student, who argued in a youtube video that attacks on coalition forces in Iraq were not terrorism, which is clearly debate as to what does and doesn't constitute terrorism.

So, both laws are similar in intent, and can be seen to stifle debate.

no, one is to protect someones right to discourse, the other stops someone from telling someone to enact violence. You're drawing a massive false equivalency here I suggest researching what free speech actually is, unless you're just being dishonest to pointscore then you're going to have to try harder. Anti-terrorism laws stop someone from encouraging people to commit acts of violence, encouraging violence is not protected under free speech.

wes

Widdershins wrote: »

As you say these type of laws have been around a long time, did Canada not already have laws against violence, especially racial violence?

Yes, and they are expanded it clearly with this law.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not that this law or motion or whatever affects a 'side' it's that it is attempting to predict and accuse people of sentiments and intents they do not harbour. All of the above definitions of islamophobia are deeply questionable. One of them makes questioning political islamism impossible, That is the most important one. As is the timing of this, it's very unwise...

Sorry, but its very clearly about who it effects. No one cared when such laws didn't effect them. They have been around for a long time, and are suddendly an issue.

Basically, once you decide to limit free speech, then it become acceptable for more limits. Who gets to decide what is encouraging terrorism? Is a discussion on what is and isn't terrorism as per the UK law, I spoke about earlier:

a law student who argued videos of attacks on western troops in Iraq and Afghanistan showed defence against an invading force, not terror,

So, we have a similar law in Canada, from last year, that didn't bother anyone, and now that the same country wants to use a similar law, against far right terror against Muslims, people suddenly care.

Sorry, but its astonishing how selective free speech defenders seems to be. Even defending laws that have the exact same intent, while arguing against a more recent one.

wes

Depp wrote: »

no, one is to protect someones right to discourse, the other stops someone from telling someone to enact violence. You're drawing a massive false equivalency here I suggest researching what free speech actually is, unless you're just being dishonest to pointscore then you're going to have to try harder. Anti-terrorism laws stop someone from encouraging people to commit acts of violence, encouraging violence is not protected under free speech.

The laws have the exact same intent, and that is to stop terrorism. Its the height of hypocrisy to oppose one and support the other.

Islamophobic speech has incited violence, and provided quite a few examples.

Depp

wes wrote: »

The laws have the exact same intent, and that is to stop terrorism. Its the height of hypocrisy to oppose one and support the other.

If you had read any of this thread you would see I do not oppose this motion in its entirety, I am 100% behind the anti-racism aim of it, as are 99% of posters in this thread, the problem is when it seeks to legislate to eliminate ''Islamophobia'' the term and its use are the bone of contention, under its current definition any criticism of the teachings of the faith, even from reformists muslims within the faith are defined as islamophobes and were this legislation to be enacted would be criminals. This is my problem with the legislation. I am not pro racism or any other nonsense you want to come up with.

Depp wrote: »

I'm in 100% agreement with this. If the ''dislike of or'' part of the definition were to be removed I would be in complete support of this motion and ostensibly it being written into law. People should 100% be free to practice any religion without fear of prejudice but said religion should in no way be excused from people criticizing or disliking it!

a post of mine from several pages ago where I said this already.

Widdershins

wes wrote: »

Yes, and they are expanded it clearly with this law.



Sorry, but its very clearly about who it effects. No one cared when such laws didn't effect them. They have been around for a long time, and are suddendly an issue.

Basically, once you decide to limit free speech, then it become acceptable for more limits. Who gets to decide what is encouraging terrorism? Is a discussion on what is and isn't terrorism as per the UK law, I spoke about earlier:



So, we have a similar law in Canada, from last year, that didn't bother anyone, and now that the same country wants to use a similar law, against far right terror against Muslims, people suddenly care.

Sorry, but its astonishing how selective free speech defenders seems to be. Even defending laws that have the exact same intent, while arguing against a more recent one.

It's the first time I'd heard of the other law and the example of the law student and no , I don't agree with it, or with the way it was implemented, at least.

What can be said for it is it seems, apart from that, a bit more solid than the one now being discussed, which is seemingly based on a very flawed set of definitions. And this quote about THAT other law applies equally to THIS new law! (Just with different 'characters' - sorry, it's the early hours!)

''Liberty, a British human rights group, presented the same arguments in 2006. It argued that an overly broad definition of “terrorism” might lead to passionate expression of a political view being interpreted as the reckless encouragement of a crime that could turn those calling for the overthrow of repressive regimes such as North Korea and Zimbabwe into terror advocates.''

Maybe both laws have very similar pitfalls. Islamophobic speech may have incited violence but I disagree with what much of they are describing Islamophobic speech.

wes

Depp wrote: »

If you had read any of this thread you would see I do not oppose this motion in its entirety, I am 100% behind the anti-racism aim of it, as are 99% of posters in this thread, the problem is when it seeks to legislate to eliminate ''Islamophobia'' the term and its use are the bone of contention, under its current definition any criticism of the teachings of the faith, even from reformists muslims within the faith are defined as islamophobes and were this legislation to be enacted would be criminals. This is my problem with the legislation. I am not pro racism or any other nonsense you want to come up with.

Never said that anyone was pro-racism......
My point is that existing laws aren't much better, when people can be arrested for arguing that attacks on foreign troops in Iraq isn't terrorism. This kind of thing has been around for a long time.

Depp

wes wrote: »

Never said that anyone was pro-racism......
My point is that existing laws aren't much better, when people can be arrested for arguing that attacks on foreign troops in Iraq isn't terrorism. This kind of thing has been around for a long time.

Pointing out one case is not an effective argument as to how these laws are similar, also important to note that the case you keep bringing up is nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out to be, also unusual you link to an article that merely mentions the case and leaves out all names and further details. Anti-terrorism laws are completely different from this law, this law deals with racism and has absolutely no mention of terrorism.

If they give us a better definition of ''Islamophobia'' that only covers actual bigots etc. and makes no mention of muslims and non muslims who wish to question elements of the faith, then I'm all for legislation like this.

the great communicator

wes wrote: »

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.

Even if we pretend there's an equivalence between those attacks and Islamic terror I don't know what your point is. Would you support a law that barred people from criticising the far right lest we offence the sensibilities of nazis and white supremacists.

nice_guy80

sure all religions are fiction anyway

whats the issue?

Depp

nice_guy80 wrote: »

sure all religions are fiction anyway

whats the issue?

If the motion were to become legislation here you would have just committed a crime by posting that.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

That definition is unbelievable. It is almost completely a form of thought policing. Much of it is just what reformists ''see'' Islam (or aspects of) as being,at present. A simple exercise for those who can't grasp the problem with it, insert Catholicism instead of Islam...

It even includes rejecting anti western criticism as islamophobia. ''out of hand'', how ironic...

I don't think you understand the phrase "out of hand". It means dismissing not based on it's merits but rather automatically dismissing it because of who's saying it or who it targets.
So if someone who's Muslim says something bad about the west like "Those drone killings are bad", it's wrong to dismiss it "out of hand".

What you actually just did was dismiss something out of hand without even processing the phrase.

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

WTAF, do you agree with the above?
Because it's pure "thought police" nonsense.
I'd say the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a step away from re-education camps.

I beleive that you too are dismissing "out of hand" without actually considering what it means.

Also, re education camps? That's just a tad hysterical even if it's hyperbole.

Depp

Grayson wrote: »

I beleive that you too are dismissing "out of hand" without actually considering what it means.

Also, re education camps? That's just a tad hysterical even if it's hyperbole.

no-one is dismissing the definition out of hand they are saying its badly written and not fit for purpose. Theres a big difference between dismissing something out of hand and analyzing it then pointing out problems with it

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think you understand the phrase "out of hand". It means dismissing not based on it's merits but rather automatically dismissing it because of who's saying it or who it targets.
So if someone who's Muslim says something bad about the west like "Those drone killings are bad", it's wrong to dismiss it "out of hand".

What you actually just did was dismiss something out of hand without even processing the phrase.

I'm perfectly aware, thanks. Whether I wish to dismiss a claim out of hand is not a matter for the law. The idea is laughable. Especially, and this was my point in calling it ironic, when it is part of a list of definitions that do exactly that.

Do you endorse those definitions of Islamophobia?

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware, thanks. Whether I wish to dismiss a claim out of hand is not a matter for the law. The idea is laughable. Especially, and this was my point in calling it ironic, when it is part of a list of definitions that do exactly that.

Do you endorse those definitions of Islamophobia?

It's not a law. Let's get that clear. It's been pointed out many, many times, it's not a law. It never has been a law. It wasn't proposed as a law. And it wasn't voted on as a law.

What I provided was a definition of islamaphobia. That definition said that one of the aspects of islamaphobia was dismissing out of hand any criticism of the west by muslims.
And dismissing anything out of hand, without consideration, is a bad thing. Unless you have an argument as to why it's ok not to weigh up both sides of an argument or to listen to any evidence.
I personally think it's stupid. Once again though, I have to emphasise this, no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity. People are still free to be stupid and think stupid things.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

It's not a law. Let's get that clear. It's been pointed out many, many times, it's not a law. It never has been a law. It wasn't proposed as a law. And it wasn't voted on as a law.

What I provided was a definition of islamaphobia. That definition said that one of the aspects of islamaphobia was dismissing out of hand any criticism of the west by muslims.
And dismissing anything out of hand, without consideration, is a bad thing. Unless you have an argument as to why it's ok not to weigh up both sides of an argument or to listen to any evidence.
I personally think it's stupid. Once again though, I have to emphasise this, no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity. People are still free to be stupid and think stupid things.

I don't care for the pedantry. The set of definitions is objectionable. I've no intention of dismissing out of hand, but that is not for anyone to classify as Islamophobia. Whether I feel like giving someone's ideas the time of day, or they, mine, has nothing to do with Islamophobia or any other type of phobia and is not within the remit of any government.

Widdershins

nice_guy80 wrote: »

sure all religions are fiction anyway

whats the issue?

According to this, you are islamophobic. ''Seeing Islam as...irrational..''

You can't insult Islam in that way, how dare you

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't care for the pedantry. The set of definitions is objectionable. I've no intention of dismissing out of hand, but that is not for anyone to classify as Islamophobia. Whether I feel like giving someone's ideas the time of day, or they, mine, has nothing to do with Islamophobia or any other type of phobia and is not within the remit of any government.

No-one has said it is.

And the definition said that if you dismiss the opinion of someone who'd Muslim, simply because they are Muslim, then that is Islamophobic. That's what it's got to do with Islamophobia. It's the fact that you'd be dismissing their opinion because they're Muslim. If they weren't Muslim, then it wouldn't be Islamophobic. If it was because they're Jewish it'd be antisemitic. You'd essentially be saying "You're argument doesn't count because you're Muslim".

And to be clear, if you dismiss the opinion because you've found it wanting, that's not dismissing it out of hand.

(Also, I'm not saying that you automatically dismiss anyone opinion because they're Muslim. It's just that this has turned into a hypothetical involving you. It could just as easily be "If I were to dismiss.....". )

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

No-one has said it is.

And the definition said that if you dismiss the opinion of someone who'd Muslim, simply because they are Muslim, then that is Islamophobic. That's what it's got to do with Islamophobia. It's the fact that you'd be dismissing their opinion because they're Muslim. If they weren't Muslim, then it wouldn't be Islamophobic. If it was because they're Jewish it'd be antisemitic. You'd essentially be saying "You're argument doesn't count because you're Muslim".

And to be clear, if you dismiss the opinion because you've found it wanting, that's not dismissing it out of hand.

(Also, I'm not saying that you automatically dismiss anyone opinion because they're Muslim. It's just that this has turned into a hypothetical involving you. It could just as easily be "If I were to dismiss.....". )

No, It says ''rejecting out of hand, criticisms made of the West, by Islam'' .Why should Islam specifically be criticising the West? As distinct from criticising the military campaigns? While it simultaneously says it is islamophobic to ''see Islam as sexist'' or ''irrational''. Nothing could be closer to dismissing criticism out hand than that. Most religions could be criticised for both of those things.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

No, It says ''rejecting out of hand, criticisms made of the West, by Islam'' .Why should Islam specifically be criticising the West? As distinct from criticising the military campaigns?

Does it matter? Why would you automatically dismiss any criticism because it's made by Muslims? It may be that a particular criticism has no merit but it's still wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

Does it matter? Why would you automatically dismiss any criticism because it's made by Muslims? It may be that a particular criticism has no merit but it's still wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

It doesn't refer to criticism dismissed because it comes from Muslims, though. It says criticisms of the West by islam (clearly by Muslims, yes, but that's only half the story!). At the same time it refers to seeing Islam as culturally incompatible.Perhaps people feel criticism of a host nation's culture makes cultural compatibility difficult?
Perhaps people don't wish to listen to complaints about their own country or culture, and that might make them dismissive. This would surely apply just as much to my sometimes rude French neighbour, who I tend not to listen to when she launches into one of her rants about how everything was so much better back home. It's not because she is French that I might seem dismissive of her. I might not be in the frame of mind to listen to it. Even if it seems to be a new rant I haven't heard from her before, and she might well have a point about, for example, the state of the HSE. There might be merit in her complaint.

While this set of definitions might not have teeth in terms of the law-yet- it is still objectionable. If it's endorsed in any way by Canada then it's an indication of the sentiment in government.

Of course I have no way to prove to a Muslim that the reason I don't want to listen to their criticism of some aspect of ''The West'' at that point in time, is not because they are Muslim.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

Does it matter? Why would you automatically dismiss any criticism because it's made by Muslims? It may be that a particular criticism has no merit but it's still wrong to dismiss it out of hand.

Who's business is it if even a racist dismisses someone out of hand, you would be happy with a law about who you can and cant 'dismiss'? What does that even mean

Widdershins

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Who's business is it if even a racist dismisses someone out of hand, you would be happy with a law about who you can and cant 'dismiss'? What does that even mean

seems like you are expected to give anti west criticism from ''Islam'' (what does THAT even mean? any muslim or clerics or what?) a fair hearing (or endure it whether you want to or not at the time) while any criticism you might make of Islam is categorised as Islamophobia. It's plainly stated in the deinition that criticisms commonly leveled at religions, will fall under this heading. It's really patently biased and unfair.

Okay. I'm now officially lost about what Islamophobia is. Now, I, originally thought it was going to be like any phobia. An irrational fear or distrust of Islam. Gotcha. That makes sense. Or racism/bigotry based solely around the idea that people are muslim. Ok. That makes sense too. but.... it seems to be more than the above..

So.. Let me ask some simple points. Is it Islamophobia if I:

Criticise Islam because of the behavior of some followers of the religion?

Criticise Islam because of the vagueness of the Koran and the ability for muslims to interpret it very freely? (like the Bible is used for justifications)

Comment on Islamic religious practices in a negative way?

Poke fun at the Prophet Mohammad?

Is there a difference between criticizing Muslims and criticising Islam?

If I attach blame or responsibility to one group of Muslims, am I automatically an Islamophobe?

And lastly, Is any criticism of Islam possible without being an Islamophobe?

................ And next:

What the hell is the difference between Islamophobia and Bigotry? (Since I thought being a bigot included religious intolerance).

And why has a new word been coined just for Islam? Is there now a Christianophobia, Jediophobia, OpusDeiophobia?

I'm just seeking to understand what is covered under Islamophobia... because after monitoring this thread I am completely confused.

wes

Depp wrote: »

Pointing out one case is not an effective argument as to how these laws are similar, also important to note that the case you keep bringing up is nowhere near as clear cut as you make it out to be, also unusual you link to an article that merely mentions the case and leaves out all names and further details. Anti-terrorism laws are completely different from this law, this law deals with racism and has absolutely no mention of terrorism.

If they give us a better definition of ''Islamophobia'' that only covers actual bigots etc. and makes no mention of muslims and non muslims who wish to question elements of the faith, then I'm all for legislation like this.

You can read about these laws. Been around for years in various western countries. They never seemed to bother anyone at the time, except Human rights orgs.

Simply put I don't really trust YouTube videos or Muslim brotherhood conspiracy theories either.

You can read cases of people being arrested​ for saying stuff on Twitter for years now. This law is no different or special. Basically people needed to speak up a decade ago, before such laws were normalized.

wes

the great communicator wrote: »

Even if we pretend there's an equivalence between those attacks and Islamic terror I don't know what your point is. Would you support a law that barred people from criticising the far right lest we offence the sensibilities of nazis and white supremacists.

I made no statement in regards to equivalence. Secondly I don't support such laws, but I do question the sudden concern now that there being expanded.

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

If you knew it already, there wouldn't be any need to look for it .

Yeah you heard me.

The legislation both want to stop what they see as speech that encourages violence. There pretty similar in intent, and both in reaction to acts of terror.

These kind of laws have been around for a long time, and people only seem to care now that one country is passing a law that may effect there side.

Basically, if people believe in free speech, then they should oppose both laws, if you only oppose the one, then the argument isn't one of free speech.

Encouraging terrorism is highly likely to encourage terrorism.
You can hardly say the same for criticising an ideology.
Look at this country we've have a decade now of sustained heavy criticism of the Catholic church and yet no terrorist attacks on Catholics.
The same can be said for many other ideologies.

I support free speech and I understand the reasons for restrictions to it on good grounds.
I don't buy into this all or nothing argument.
Inciting violence is a necessary restriction, restricting criticism of an ideology because some people believe it could lead to violence is a bridge too far.
The restriction is disproportionate to the so called benefit.

Yeah, a couple of them do, as they are a direct result of the recent US election.

Yes but you claimed that there was a growing problem of far-right violence in the west.
You're examples though mainly centre on one country and don't really show any trend.

jackofalltrades

Grayson wrote: »

I beleive that you too are dismissing "out of hand" without actually considering what it means.

Oh I read through it.
Points 1 to 5 a borne out of a will to silence opinions that are unacceptable to some.
Point 6 is flawed IMHO.
Point 7,8 are perfectly fine definitions of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Also, re education camps? That's just a tad hysterical even if it's hyperbole.

No, curtailing dissent and discussion, which is what this motion is talking about is in the same box as re-education camps and the like.

wes

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yeah you heard me.


Encouraging terrorism is highly likely to encourage terrorism.
You can hardly say the same for criticising an ideology.
Look at this country we've have a decade now of sustained heavy criticism of the Catholic church and yet no terrorist attacks on Catholics.
The same can be said for many other ideologies.

I support free speech and I understand the reasons for restrictions to it on good grounds.
I don't buy into this all or nothing argument.
Inciting violence is a necessary restriction, restricting criticism of an ideology because some people believe it could lead to violence is a bridge too far.
The restriction is disproportionate to the so called benefit.
Yes but you claimed that there was a growing problem of far-right violence in the west.
You're examples though mainly centre on one country and don't really show any trend.

You can look up the increase in hate crimes after Brexit for another example. Attacks on refugees across Europe etc.

Also, the definition of supporting terror can be very loose. Look at the arrest of Dieudonne in France under incitement to terror laws, don't get me wrong he says a lot racist ****, but he is not a terrorist.

Sure they have arrested drinks under these types of laws in France:
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/30/french-jailed-crackdown-speech-glorifies-terrorism

These laws are not all that different. Just that this one is explicitly about Islamaphobia and it's no different then other laws that have been missed elsewhere. If you support the other laws than I consider it hypocrisy to be against this one.

Also, you can easily see that rheotoric is used by nuts to attack anyone they consider to be Muslim. One of the biggest groups who are victims of Islamaphobia are Sikhs, who have suffered a number of attacks as racists are either to stupid to tell the difference or simply don't care.

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Oh I read through it.
Points 1 to 5 a borne out of a will to silence opinions that are unacceptable to some.
Point 6 is flawed IMHO.
Point 7,8 are perfectly fine definitions of anti-Muslim bigotry.
No, curtailing dissent and discussion, which is what this motion is talking about is in the same box as re-education camps and the like.

(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

You haven't actually said why anything is wrong with any of the. You've stated an opinion.
1-5 are about a will to silence others? At what point does it tell you to shut up?
6 is flawed? How.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

You haven't actually said why anything is wrong with any of the. You've stated an opinion.
1-5 are about a will to silence others? At what point does it tell you to shut up?
6 is flawed? How.

And how are the last two anti Muslim bigotry? You think hating Muslims is perfectly normal and a natural state? You think that it's unnatural to like Muslims?

I thought the poster said 7 and 8 are perfectly fine *definitions*, as in, they have no problem with those ones. I share the same view.

Grayson

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I support free speech and I understand the reasons for restrictions to it on good grounds.
I don't buy into this all or nothing argument.

I agree. If it can be shown that there's a very high likelihood that it will lead to violence or that it has led to violence it should be illegal.

There's the old example of screaming "Fire" in a crowded theatre. If you do that and people get injured in the stampede out of there then you're legally responsible in most countries. Even if people don't get injured you can be charged with some type of reckless endangerment.

I once gave an example here of bad speech as "What if I told a crowd of angry people that you were a paedophile and gave them your address" and someone (I can't remember who) said they thought that shouldn't be illegal. Some people are like that and think there should be no limit at all on free speech. Personally I think that the limit should be when it causes harm.

Grayson

Widdershins wrote: »

I thought the poster said 7 and 8 are perfectly fine *definitions*, as in, they have no problem with those ones. I share the same view.

Oops. Edited because I misread. I'm only just awake (I've had a chest infection for two months now and still barely sleep. I tend to nap a lot. That's not an excuse, I should have noticed. But it is the reason I messed up. Sorry everyone).

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

Oops. Edited because I misread. I'm only just awake (I've had a chest infection for two months now and still barely sleep. I tend to nap a lot. That's not an excuse, I should have noticed. But it is the reason I messed up. Sorry everyone).

You're probably not getting the normal amount of oxygen to your brain with a chest infection that bad, so it's not that much of a mess up, considering Hope you feel better soon.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

I once gave an example here of bad speech as "What if I told a crowd of angry people that you were a paedophile and gave them your address" and someone (I can't remember who) said they thought that shouldn't be illegal. Some people are like that and think there should be no limit at all on free speech.

Before I left roughly 13 years ago, I hadn't travelled that much outside of Europe.. and I used to believe that free speech was the same everywhere in the western world (I was Definitely very naive about many things). Then I travelled extensively, and met Americans. [From age groups & social groups which normally didn't come to Ireland as tourists]

And I learned the difference between the Free Speech logic that I grew up with in Ireland (I'm 40 now) versus the Free Speech that Americans advocated. I listened to their radio stations, their talk shows etc, debated with them over whiskey and I was convinced that our version of Free Speech was far more rational and reasonable. I still do. A degree of common sense. Alas, in my visits home since then I've noticed the shift away from the traditional versions of Free Speech towards the more American idea.

I honestly don't want Ireland or Europe to turn into America. Unrestrained free speech is just as dangerous as censorship. They have different implications for a society, but the dangers remain. Now, I've lived 7 years in China with massive amounts of censorship and a definite lack of Free Speech. I teach here at university levels, and I'm bound by that same censorship every time I open my mouth. I won't be able to stick it much longer, and will return to Europe soon... but If Europe was to accept the ideas of complete free speech (without accepting the consequences), then I won't be staying in Europe long either.

Personally I think that the limit should be when it causes harm.

By that stage, it will be too late. It's not simply the case of issuing a law. China can do that because it's a police state. A democratic system with a western set of laws, can't. Society needs time to debate, accept/refuse/modify, and then later, absorb changes.

In many ways, I do think this is a major problem in Europe. All these changes over the last decade or so, and there's been very little waiting for them to be either accepted or absorbed/merged into society. Instead, the laws just keep rolling out in one form or another trying to tackle issues with short-term solutions.

I'm sure many people will disagree with me but I do believe that human society needs rules, laws, and guidelines. I know I do. Just as there should be reasonable limitations on Free Speech, or other areas that have such high potential for manipulation and abuse.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.