1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Canada’s M103 from a Woman’s Perspective

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 November 2017 18:08
 

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16165
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 November 2017 19:05
 
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 November 2017 19:08
 
burt - 12 November 2017 07:05 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

Oh, sorry, should I have said “non binding motion”? Would that make it all better?

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16165
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
12 November 2017 21:07
 
icehorse - 12 November 2017 07:08 PM
burt - 12 November 2017 07:05 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

Oh, sorry, should I have said “non binding motion”? Would that make it all better?

If you’ve studied Canadian law on this matter you will see that there has already been anti-hate speech legislation relating to holocaust denial and anti-semitic hate speech. I take it that you fear a slippery slope ending in sharia law. NOT.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 November 2017 21:33
 
burt - 12 November 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 07:08 PM
burt - 12 November 2017 07:05 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

Oh, sorry, should I have said “non binding motion”? Would that make it all better?

If you’ve studied Canadian law on this matter you will see that there has already been anti-hate speech legislation relating to holocaust denial and anti-semitic hate speech. I take it that you fear a slippery slope ending in sharia law. NOT.

Nope. I fear the introduction of blasphemy laws that protect any ideology from criticism. And I fear such “motions” restricting free speech. And I’m also concerned by your post that somehow conflates criticism with hate speech. And I disagree with anti-hate speech legislation.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  938
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
13 November 2017 08:56
 

Full text of the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

From: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid(88849)/Motions?documentId=8661986

 

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16165
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
13 November 2017 09:06
 
icehorse - 12 November 2017 09:33 PM
burt - 12 November 2017 09:07 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 07:08 PM
burt - 12 November 2017 07:05 PM
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

Check your facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

Oh, sorry, should I have said “non binding motion”? Would that make it all better?

If you’ve studied Canadian law on this matter you will see that there has already been anti-hate speech legislation relating to holocaust denial and anti-semitic hate speech. I take it that you fear a slippery slope ending in sharia law. NOT.

Nope. I fear the introduction of blasphemy laws that protect any ideology from criticism. And I fear such “motions” restricting free speech. And I’m also concerned by your post that somehow conflates criticism with hate speech. And I disagree with anti-hate speech legislation.

I also don’t like the idea of hate-speech legislation, but I don’t think it will devolve into anti-blasphemy, or protection against criticism. Canadians are polite but not stupid.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3529
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 November 2017 09:30
 
icehorse - 12 November 2017 06:08 PM

M103 is Canada’s proposed law (or maybe it’s already passed?), banning criticism of Islam.

A woman who grew up as a muslim girl in Iran and made it to the west, explains why this is SUCH a terrible law:

M103 - why it sucks

You seem overly preoccupied and concerned with Canadian legislation.  Perhaps this serves as a distraction from the more serious problems currently being experienced in your own country.  You have posted numerous threads on this issue, with misleading/biased links, and having not researched or provided balanced information.  (There is no proposed law that bans criticism of Islam.)

Although Canadians value our free speech, most of us also support laws that prevent neo-Nazis or the like from marching down our streets shouting racist slogans, and that protect the vulnerable in our society from hatred and fear.  These rights must be weighed and balanced, according to OUR values and priorities.

(Perhaps your energies would be better directed towards issues like gun legislation.)

[ Edited: 13 November 2017 10:17 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 November 2017 12:36
 

burt said:

I also don’t like the idea of hate-speech legislation, but I don’t think it will devolve into anti-blasphemy, or protection against criticism. Canadians are polite but not stupid.

And map, thanks for posting the text.

First off, Islamophobia is a fundamentally dishonest term. It is designed as a tool to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Not Muslims, Islam.

Second, I don’t think Canadians are fools, but religious extremists (which wag the dog and exist in all denominations), are relentless and pernicious. Hitchens is more eloquent than I am but we should remember Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Danish cartoons, and european leaders’ various forays into stifling criticism of religion. I think you gravely underestimate the resolve of your religious extremist fellows in this regard. They mean business and they want to stifle your speech.

Jan - We disagree on many points, and I welcome our debates and discussions. While I’m sure your advice to me is well intended, I think you must be fooling yourself a bit -perhaps I’m wrong:

Free speech is - by far - our most important human right. It is the master human right, by which all other human rights can be defended and improved upon. I believe that much of Europe has allowed religious extremism and “multi-culturalism” to seriously erode free speech. I see Canada heading in Europe’s unfortunate direction. As I see it, those of us “in the west” are the world’s best hope, and we cannot allow our values and freedoms to be undermined.

So I have to disagree with you. Gun control is a very serious problem, but it’s nothing compared to erosions on free speech.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3529
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 November 2017 14:55
 
icehorse - 13 November 2017 12:36 PM

First off, Islamophobia is a fundamentally dishonest term. It is designed as a tool to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Not Muslims, Islam.

Second, I don’t think Canadians are fools, but religious extremists (which wag the dog and exist in all denominations), are relentless and pernicious. Hitchens is more eloquent than I am but we should remember Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Danish cartoons, and european leaders’ various forays into stifling criticism of religion. I think you gravely underestimate the resolve of your religious extremist fellows in this regard. They mean business and they want to stifle your speech.

Jan - We disagree on many points, and I welcome our debates and discussions. While I’m sure your advice to me is well intended, I think you must be fooling yourself a bit -perhaps I’m wrong:

Free speech is - by far - our most important human right. It is the master human right, by which all other human rights can be defended and improved upon. I believe that much of Europe has allowed religious extremism and “multi-culturalism” to seriously erode free speech. I see Canada heading in Europe’s unfortunate direction. As I see it, those of us “in the west” are the world’s best hope, and we cannot allow our values and freedoms to be undermined.
...

I agree that the term ‘Islamophobia’ is an unfortunate term to denote ‘anti-Muslim’ prejudice.  However, I don’t think it was some conspiracy by Muslims or “designed as a tool to stifle criticism of Islam” (your words).  It is a term that’s been used by many and has taken on a common usage; it has come to mean ‘anti-Muslim’ to most people.  The term ‘antisemitic’ has been widely used in the west to denote ‘anti-Jewish”, although it could be considered inaccurate as it does not usually refer to all Semitic peoples.

I share many people’s concerns about the possible effect of some Islam values on our society.  Of course, we must be vigilant to ensure separation of church-and-state.  However, I believe that most Muslims who immigrate to the West are decent people who have come here to share a peaceful and free life.  They should have the chance to do so without prejudice and discrimination.

Although I highly value the rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada, including that of free speech, the biggest threat I see to any society is fear of the ‘other’, intolerance, hatred and violence.  I am not fooling myself.  One has only to look at history to see how bad it can get when hatred is let loose with no constraints.

Canada and the U.S. have much in common, culturally and otherwise, but we also have political differences.  And you must forgive me if I am thankful for these differences, especially at this time in history.  In my view, there is too much black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking in the U.S. – not enough balance or middle ground.  Not enough seeing or understanding of the other’s point of view.  I actually think you could learn from us, rather than the other way around.  Just sayin’.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 November 2017 20:33
 
Jan_CAN - 13 November 2017 02:55 PM
icehorse - 13 November 2017 12:36 PM

First off, Islamophobia is a fundamentally dishonest term. It is designed as a tool to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Not Muslims, Islam.

Second, I don’t think Canadians are fools, but religious extremists (which wag the dog and exist in all denominations), are relentless and pernicious. Hitchens is more eloquent than I am but we should remember Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Danish cartoons, and european leaders’ various forays into stifling criticism of religion. I think you gravely underestimate the resolve of your religious extremist fellows in this regard. They mean business and they want to stifle your speech.

Jan - We disagree on many points, and I welcome our debates and discussions. While I’m sure your advice to me is well intended, I think you must be fooling yourself a bit -perhaps I’m wrong:

Free speech is - by far - our most important human right. It is the master human right, by which all other human rights can be defended and improved upon. I believe that much of Europe has allowed religious extremism and “multi-culturalism” to seriously erode free speech. I see Canada heading in Europe’s unfortunate direction. As I see it, those of us “in the west” are the world’s best hope, and we cannot allow our values and freedoms to be undermined.
...

I agree that the term ‘Islamophobia’ is an unfortunate term to denote ‘anti-Muslim’ prejudice.  However, I don’t think it was some conspiracy by Muslims or “designed as a tool to stifle criticism of Islam” (your words).  It is a term that’s been used by many and has taken on a common usage; it has come to mean ‘anti-Muslim’ to most people.  The term ‘antisemitic’ has been widely used in the west to denote ‘anti-Jewish”, although it could be considered inaccurate as it does not usually refer to all Semitic peoples.

I share many people’s concerns about the possible effect of some Islam values on our society.  Of course, we must be vigilant to ensure separation of church-and-state.  However, I believe that most Muslims who immigrate to the West are decent people who have come here to share a peaceful and free life.  They should have the chance to do so without prejudice and discrimination.

Although I highly value the rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada, including that of free speech, the biggest threat I see to any society is fear of the ‘other’, intolerance, hatred and violence.  I am not fooling myself.  One has only to look at history to see how bad it can get when hatred is let loose with no constraints.

Canada and the U.S. have much in common, culturally and otherwise, but we also have political differences.  And you must forgive me if I am thankful for these differences, especially at this time in history.  In my view, there is too much black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking in the U.S. – not enough balance or middle ground.  Not enough seeing or understanding of the other’s point of view.  I actually think you could learn from us, rather than the other way around.  Just sayin’.

Jan - There is much about Canada that I think is better than the US. If you look back over my various criticisms of Canada, I think they are either all or mostly concerning erosions to free speech. And to me, free speech should be one of the most black and white concepts we have. It’s a mistake for European countries to make holocaust denial a crime. It’s a mistake to even hint about any sort of religious blasphemy law. It’s a mistake to shout down Neo-Nazis. And so on…

On a related topic, Jordan Peterson said something like: “It’s a mistake to suppress hate speech. You won’t eliminate, you’ll merely drive it underground. Far better to know where it’s coming from so that you can address it head on.” (I say it’s a related topic because a lot of criticism of religion is dishonestly labeled as “hate speech”.)

And BTW, I’m pretty sure that many of the early uses of “Islamophobia” were to stifle criticism. I understand how the term has evolved, but it’s still a dishonest term. And remember Islam is not a race.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3529
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 November 2017 21:14
 
icehorse - 13 November 2017 08:33 PM

Jan - There is much about Canada that I think is better than the US. If you look back over my various criticisms of Canada, I think they are either all or mostly concerning erosions to free speech. And to me, free speech should be one of the most black and white concepts we have. It’s a mistake for European countries to make holocaust denial a crime. It’s a mistake to even hint about any sort of religious blasphemy law. It’s a mistake to shout down Neo-Nazis. And so on…

On a related topic, Jordan Peterson said something like: “It’s a mistake to suppress hate speech. You won’t eliminate, you’ll merely drive it underground. Far better to know where it’s coming from so that you can address it head on.” (I say it’s a related topic because a lot of criticism of religion is dishonestly labeled as “hate speech”.)

And BTW, I’m pretty sure that many of the early uses of “Islamophobia” were to stifle criticism. I understand how the term has evolved, but it’s still a dishonest term. And remember Islam is not a race.

We do agree that there should be no hint of any kind of religious blasphemy laws.  That is not what is happening here.  And of course Islam is not a race.  A religion can and often should be criticized, but a people should not be discriminated against.  Simple enough concept – harder to achieve it seems.

As you said earlier, “we disagree on many points”.  It is NOT a mistake for Germany to shut down holocaust denial.  It is NOT a mistake to shout down neo-Nazis – it is imperative to do so.  It is NOT a mistake to suppress hate – it is a must.  The neo-Nazis and other white supremists should be driven down into the dark corners and holes they crawled out of.  That’s where they belong.  They do less harm there.  Hate can spread like wild fire if not controlled.  Sometimes it is necessary for a society to say ‘no’, loud and clear.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 November 2017 21:21
 

Jan said:

As you said earlier, “we disagree on many points”.  It is NOT a mistake for Germany to shut down holocaust denial.  It is NOT a mistake to shout down neo-Nazis – it is imperative to do so.  It is NOT a mistake to suppress hate – it is a must.  The neo-Nazis and other white supremists should be driven down into the dark corners and holes they crawled out of.  That’s where they belong.  They do less harm there.  Hate can spread like wild fire if not controlled.  Sometimes it is necessary for a society to say ‘no’, loud and clear.

Well I think your opinion is a short-sighted and dangerous one, and I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you do want to drill down into this topic in more detail, let me know, and I’d be happy to do so. I’ll give you just one reason for now: You simply cannot effectively “suppress hate”. Human beings don’t work that way. You need to expose hate to sunshine and confront it head on.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3529
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 November 2017 22:05
 
icehorse - 13 November 2017 09:21 PM

Jan said:

As you said earlier, “we disagree on many points”.  It is NOT a mistake for Germany to shut down holocaust denial.  It is NOT a mistake to shout down neo-Nazis – it is imperative to do so.  It is NOT a mistake to suppress hate – it is a must.  The neo-Nazis and other white supremists should be driven down into the dark corners and holes they crawled out of.  That’s where they belong.  They do less harm there.  Hate can spread like wild fire if not controlled.  Sometimes it is necessary for a society to say ‘no’, loud and clear.

Well I think your opinion is a short-sighted and dangerous one, and I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you do want to drill down into this topic in more detail, let me know, and I’d be happy to do so. I’ll give you just one reason for now: You simply cannot effectively “suppress hate”. Human beings don’t work that way. You need to expose hate to sunshine and confront it head on.

No, instead the hate spreads (sadly, sometimes how human beings work) and power is gained.
And you get Trump as the front man; not so easy to confront and deal with head on.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8190
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 November 2017 22:06
 
Jan_CAN - 13 November 2017 10:05 PM
icehorse - 13 November 2017 09:21 PM

Jan said:

As you said earlier, “we disagree on many points”.  It is NOT a mistake for Germany to shut down holocaust denial.  It is NOT a mistake to shout down neo-Nazis – it is imperative to do so.  It is NOT a mistake to suppress hate – it is a must.  The neo-Nazis and other white supremists should be driven down into the dark corners and holes they crawled out of.  That’s where they belong.  They do less harm there.  Hate can spread like wild fire if not controlled.  Sometimes it is necessary for a society to say ‘no’, loud and clear.

Well I think your opinion is a short-sighted and dangerous one, and I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you do want to drill down into this topic in more detail, let me know, and I’d be happy to do so. I’ll give you just one reason for now: You simply cannot effectively “suppress hate”. Human beings don’t work that way. You need to expose hate to sunshine and confront it head on.

No, instead the hate spreads (sadly, sometimes how human beings work) and power is gained.
And you get Trump as the front man; not so easy to confront and deal with head on.

Suppressing speech is never a good idea. Who do you propose should judge what speech is allowed and what speech is not?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3529
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
13 November 2017 22:27
 
icehorse - 13 November 2017 10:06 PM
Jan_CAN - 13 November 2017 10:05 PM
icehorse - 13 November 2017 09:21 PM

Jan said:

As you said earlier, “we disagree on many points”.  It is NOT a mistake for Germany to shut down holocaust denial.  It is NOT a mistake to shout down neo-Nazis – it is imperative to do so.  It is NOT a mistake to suppress hate – it is a must.  The neo-Nazis and other white supremists should be driven down into the dark corners and holes they crawled out of.  That’s where they belong.  They do less harm there.  Hate can spread like wild fire if not controlled.  Sometimes it is necessary for a society to say ‘no’, loud and clear.

Well I think your opinion is a short-sighted and dangerous one, and I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you do want to drill down into this topic in more detail, let me know, and I’d be happy to do so. I’ll give you just one reason for now: You simply cannot effectively “suppress hate”. Human beings don’t work that way. You need to expose hate to sunshine and confront it head on.

No, instead the hate spreads (sadly, sometimes how human beings work) and power is gained.
And you get Trump as the front man; not so easy to confront and deal with head on.

Suppressing speech is never a good idea. Who do you propose should judge what speech is allowed and what speech is not?

Each individual society, through carefully designed laws, that addresses speech that crosses the line, that which promotes hatred against a specific group, that incites violence and threatens the peace, that instills fear and affects the rights of everyone to live in peace.

(I know we’re never going to agree about this issue.)

 
 
 1 2 3 >