It is currently September 23rd, 2017, 8:17 pm

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 6:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Does anyone still believe libtards don't hate free speech.
Quote:
Long before there was “fake news” and “alternative facts,” we had to grapple with “Islamophobia.”

The term first worked its way into popular culture more than a decade ago. It was originally used to denounce the harassment and inconveniences average Muslims unduly faced in the aftermath of 9/11.

But Islamophobia soon morphed into a catch-all phrase to silence anyone critical of the religion. This applied even if they were denouncing extremism like Shariah law or groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

It’s now become so bad that it’s even hurled at liberal Muslims in the West for speaking out against the ultra-orthodox values that caused them to flee their home countries in the first place. The term has been rendered meaningless and anyone serious about tackling genuine religious discrimination should toss it aside.

Yet now Canada’s MPs are poised to approve a motion that could very well set the government on the path to criminalizing so-called Islamophobia. This is nothing but trouble for anyone who takes issue with the unsavoury aspects of orthodox Islam. I’m looking at you, women’s marchers, gay rights activists and my fellow non-believers.

When the House of Commons returns next week, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s M-103, which has the unobjectionable title of “Systemic racism and religious discrimination,” will be somewhere on the order paper and up for a vote.

Scratch below the surface and it’s immediately clear this is hardly about religious discrimination in general. It singles out Islamophobia by name and nothing else. There’s no mention of, say, anti-Semitism at all.

Its first point is to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” What a vague and unsubstantiated sentence. This is lawmaking, folks, not social justice warrior blogging.

The motion then goes on to direct MPs to take note of a petition on the government’s website that was signed by tens of thousands of Canadians.

“Recently, an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam,” petition E-411 notes. “Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.”

It continues: “These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values of the teachings of all the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.”

Then — and here’s where the trouble really takes root — the petition says “we ... call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Hang on a second ... first they’re talking about terrorists but then they end with “extremist individuals.” Not the same thing. Not at all. You can be an extremist, a radical, a supremacist, without being a terrorist.

The ummah isn’t a binary world of a few terrorists on one side and then over a billion moderate liberals on the other. There’s a massive grey area that holds severely orthodox values completely at odds with the West. And we should all feel free to call them out for it.

But you can see how denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

Now motions aren’t the same as private member’s bills. They’re often just about nodding in agreement with some flaky sentiment. M-103 is different. It’s got teeth.

It calls on the Heritage Committee to commence a study on eliminating Islamophobia. The study could then recommend laws to pursue this nebulous goal. If they do, there’s a good chance they’ll be dragnet laws that criminalize anyone who dares stand up to the many unsavoury parts of orthodox Islam.

There’s certainly evidence of an increasing climate of hate in Canada ... coming from within Islam. Supremacist groups like the Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir have a rising presence here. And yet this motion could handcuff us from standing up to them.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/01/28/c ... ut-trouble

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 6:36 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
I hate to break it to you but we already have hate speech laws in Canada not to mention human rights codes.

What they are saying is they want to squash the negative campaigning people do against Islam but they won't be able to codify much beyond what we already have in place. They could start enforcing it more I suppose.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 7:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 8425
RW wrote:
I hate to break it to you but we already have hate speech laws in Canada not to mention human rights codes.

What they are saying is they want to squash the negative campaigning people do against Islam but they won't be able to codify much beyond what we already have in place. They could start enforcing it more I suppose.

Singling out "islamophobia" which this bill will do is taking it a step further. Denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

If we still value freedom of speech In Justine's Canada, we better hope this bill is not passed or at least watered down.

_________________
prairie redneck


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 7:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Herman wrote:
RW wrote:
I hate to break it to you but we already have hate speech laws in Canada not to mention human rights codes.

What they are saying is they want to squash the negative campaigning people do against Islam but they won't be able to codify much beyond what we already have in place. They could start enforcing it more I suppose.

Singling out "islamophobia" which this bill will do is taking it a step further. Denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

If we still value freedom of speech In Justine's Canada, we better hope this bill is not passed or at least watered down.

I think our hate speech laws are more than enough as is and I think under challenge, the SCC would have a hell of a time upholding a gag on dissension and fair comment.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 7:14 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 8425
RW wrote:
Herman wrote:
RW wrote:
I hate to break it to you but we already have hate speech laws in Canada not to mention human rights codes.

What they are saying is they want to squash the negative campaigning people do against Islam but they won't be able to codify much beyond what we already have in place. They could start enforcing it more I suppose.

Singling out "islamophobia" which this bill will do is taking it a step further. Denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

If we still value freedom of speech In Justine's Canada, we better hope this bill is not passed or at least watered down.

I think our hate speech laws are more than enough as is and I think under challenge, the SCC would have a hell of a time upholding a gag on dissension and fair comment.

If that bill passes as is, I am counting on a successful supreme court challenge.

_________________
prairie redneck


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 7:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Herman wrote:
RW wrote:
Herman wrote:
RW wrote:
I hate to break it to you but we already have hate speech laws in Canada not to mention human rights codes.

What they are saying is they want to squash the negative campaigning people do against Islam but they won't be able to codify much beyond what we already have in place. They could start enforcing it more I suppose.

Singling out "islamophobia" which this bill will do is taking it a step further. Denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

If we still value freedom of speech In Justine's Canada, we better hope this bill is not passed or at least watered down.

I think our hate speech laws are more than enough as is and I think under challenge, the SCC would have a hell of a time upholding a gag on dissension and fair comment.

If that bill passes as is, I am counting on a successful supreme court challenge.

Having read many SCC cases on freedom of speech, I have no doubt a law declaring challenge or criticism of Islam wouldn't make it past the SCC.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 10:16 pm 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
You may have a tough time of it with this Quebec thing. Unless it gets debunked as not being a hate crime, the Canadian left. if they're anything like the American left, are going to milk this for all it's worth.

Looks they've already started-- Canada's federal Liberal legislator Greg Fergus tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of demonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15E04S

Boy, if that isn't a setup to take away Canadian free speech rights, I don't know what is. Sorry to say, but it looks like your headed into a shitstorm.


Top
Unread postPosted: January 29th, 2017, 10:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 8425
Yeah Right wrote:
You may have a tough time of it with this Quebec thing. Unless it gets debunked as not being a hate crime, the canadian left are going to milk it for all it worth.

Looks they've already started-- Canada's federal Liberal legislator Greg Fergus tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of demonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15E04S

Boy if that isn't a setup to take away Canadian free speech rights, I don't know what is. Looks like a shitstorm is headed your way.

He didn't call the attack at a Christmas market in Berlin last month a terrorist attack on Christians.

_________________
prairie redneck


Top
Unread postPosted: January 30th, 2017, 8:34 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Herman wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
You may have a tough time of it with this Quebec thing. Unless it gets debunked as not being a hate crime, the canadian left are going to milk it for all it worth.

Looks they've already started-- Canada's federal Liberal legislator Greg Fergus tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of demonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15E04S

Boy if that isn't a setup to take away Canadian free speech rights, I don't know what is. Looks like a shitstorm is headed your way.

He didn't call the attack at a Christmas market in Berlin last month a terrorist attack on Christians.


Good point and someone should throw that back at him. I hope they do.

But IMO this is once again the liberals showing us who they are. In their world Muslims are victims and Chrstians are victimizers of others. And everything that happens gets massively distorted through that lens.


Top
Unread postPosted: January 30th, 2017, 8:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Yeah Right wrote:
You may have a tough time of it with this Quebec thing. Unless it gets debunked as not being a hate crime, the Canadian left. if they're anything like the American left, are going to milk this for all it's worth.

Looks they've already started-- Canada's federal Liberal legislator Greg Fergus tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of demonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15E04S

Boy, if that isn't a setup to take away Canadian free speech rights, I don't know what is. Sorry to say, but it looks like your headed into a shitstorm.

Oh don't you worry your fool head about us. We'll be fine.

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: January 30th, 2017, 8:52 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
RW wrote:
Yeah Right wrote:
You may have a tough time of it with this Quebec thing. Unless it gets debunked as not being a hate crime, the Canadian left. if they're anything like the American left, are going to milk this for all it's worth.

Looks they've already started-- Canada's federal Liberal legislator Greg Fergus tweeted: "This is an act of terrorism -- the result of years of demonizing Muslims. Words matter and hateful speeches have consequences!"
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15E04S

Boy, if that isn't a setup to take away Canadian free speech rights, I don't know what is. Sorry to say, but it looks like your headed into a shitstorm.

Oh don't you worry your fool head about us. We'll be fine.


I wouldn't have to worry about it if the left weren't constantly attacking free speech (world wide) to try and give themselves political advantage. Maybe they just need to knock it the fuck off.


Top
Unread postPosted: January 30th, 2017, 8:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 6589
Shen Li wrote:
Does anyone still believe libtards don't hate free speech.
Quote:
Long before there was “fake news” and “alternative facts,” we had to grapple with “Islamophobia.”

The term first worked its way into popular culture more than a decade ago. It was originally used to denounce the harassment and inconveniences average Muslims unduly faced in the aftermath of 9/11.

But Islamophobia soon morphed into a catch-all phrase to silence anyone critical of the religion. This applied even if they were denouncing extremism like Shariah law or groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

It’s now become so bad that it’s even hurled at liberal Muslims in the West for speaking out against the ultra-orthodox values that caused them to flee their home countries in the first place. The term has been rendered meaningless and anyone serious about tackling genuine religious discrimination should toss it aside.

Yet now Canada’s MPs are poised to approve a motion that could very well set the government on the path to criminalizing so-called Islamophobia. This is nothing but trouble for anyone who takes issue with the unsavoury aspects of orthodox Islam. I’m looking at you, women’s marchers, gay rights activists and my fellow non-believers.

When the House of Commons returns next week, Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s M-103, which has the unobjectionable title of “Systemic racism and religious discrimination,” will be somewhere on the order paper and up for a vote.

Scratch below the surface and it’s immediately clear this is hardly about religious discrimination in general. It singles out Islamophobia by name and nothing else. There’s no mention of, say, anti-Semitism at all.

Its first point is to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.” What a vague and unsubstantiated sentence. This is lawmaking, folks, not social justice warrior blogging.

The motion then goes on to direct MPs to take note of a petition on the government’s website that was signed by tens of thousands of Canadians.

“Recently, an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam,” petition E-411 notes. “Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada.”

It continues: “These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values of the teachings of all the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.”

Then — and here’s where the trouble really takes root — the petition says “we ... call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Hang on a second ... first they’re talking about terrorists but then they end with “extremist individuals.” Not the same thing. Not at all. You can be an extremist, a radical, a supremacist, without being a terrorist.

The ummah isn’t a binary world of a few terrorists on one side and then over a billion moderate liberals on the other. There’s a massive grey area that holds severely orthodox values completely at odds with the West. And we should all feel free to call them out for it.

But you can see how denouncing a radical imam for his Shariah advocacy could end up being considered, in the eyes of this motion, an Islamophobic act that’s a part of this alleged uptick in public fear. This is an attempt to silence rational critics of political Islam.

Now motions aren’t the same as private member’s bills. They’re often just about nodding in agreement with some flaky sentiment. M-103 is different. It’s got teeth.

It calls on the Heritage Committee to commence a study on eliminating Islamophobia. The study could then recommend laws to pursue this nebulous goal. If they do, there’s a good chance they’ll be dragnet laws that criminalize anyone who dares stand up to the many unsavoury parts of orthodox Islam.

There’s certainly evidence of an increasing climate of hate in Canada ... coming from within Islam. Supremacist groups like the Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir have a rising presence here. And yet this motion could handcuff us from standing up to them.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/01/28/c ... ut-trouble

I disagree with this proposed private member's bill.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
Unread postPosted: January 30th, 2017, 9:36 am 

Joined: October 19th, 2012, 4:26 pm
Posts: 1573
We live in very tense, nervous times these days, where everyone is afraid to say anything for either being branded a racist or a terrorist.


Top
Unread postPosted: January 31st, 2017, 9:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Image

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 1st, 2017, 4:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Image

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 2nd, 2017, 10:08 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Speech Police: Canada hiring 55 people to monitor ‘hate speech’
Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/02/01/ ... pRcuUDG.99

Image


Top
Unread postPosted: February 2nd, 2017, 10:28 am 

Joined: September 11th, 2016, 8:33 am
Posts: 1046
Here comes progman to kill free speech

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/comment ... anada.html

very revealing paragraph--
Quote:
Many believe the views promoted by such groups could never lead to racist or bigoted governments here, but they forget our persistent history of anti-native racism, our past anti-Asian and anti-Semitic immigration policies, and our current politicians, such as Kellie Leitch, who are already experimenting with mimicking the worst of Donald Trump’s hate-mongering.


And there you go, if people like this editorialist get their way--
Things like liking trump will be hate speech soon enough
Saying you'd like a ban refugees from some muslim countriues, will soon be hate speech

This is what evil masquarading as good looks like.


Top
Unread postPosted: February 2nd, 2017, 10:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: January 27th, 2014, 12:36 pm
Posts: 22297
Shen Li wrote:
Image

Can we say no or is that racist?

_________________
"Self-deception has repeatedly served as a bedrock of cruelty."
Beware of Gaslighters!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 10th, 2017, 5:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 17370
Image

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
Unread postPosted: February 17th, 2017, 8:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 6:31 pm
Posts: 4301
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Michael Chong

Conservative Party leadership candidate

Statement on Motion 103


This week, the House of Commons will debate Motion 103, which condemns Islamophobia and instructs the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study discrimination against Canadian Muslims, as well as other religious and racial groups.

I will be voting in favour of Motion 103.

In light of the mass shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City last month, where six Muslims were killed and 19 injured while they prayed in their mosque, it is appropriate and important that Canadian Parliamentarians study the issue of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic prejudice and discrimination.

Some have suggested Motion 103 singles out Canadian Muslims for special treatment. This is not true. The House of Commons has long had a tradition of passing motions denouncing discrimination and hatred against particular groups, especially religious minorities. For example, in recent years the House of Commons has adopted similar motions regarding Jews (February 22, 2016), Yazidis (October 25, 2016) and Egyptian Coptic Christians (October 17, 2011).

Others have said Motion 103 it will set us on a path toward sharia law. This is also not true. Motion 103 does not set us down the path of sharia law in any way, shape or form. I do not support sharia law and I would never vote in favour of anything that set us down that path.

Still others have suggested that the motion could restrict free speech in Canada. These arguments are based on the premise that, in denouncing Islamophobia, the motion also denounces criticism of radical Islamic terrorists and denounces criticism of Islam.

That is not what the motion says. In denouncing Islamophobia, the motion is simply denouncing discrimination and prejudice against Muslims and people of the Islamic faith. Nothing more or less. Motion 103 will not prevent anyone from criticizing Islam or radical Islamic terrorists.

https://www.facebook.com/michaelchongCPC/posts/576516522546277


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On | Load: 8.62 ]