First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Canada has passed motion that targets Islamophobia - is this anti-blasphemy law?
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17
Canada has begun it's decent into madness by attacking free speech and free thought. Canada has passed a bill that specifically targets anything that can be considered "islamophobia" and vaguely states that something should be done to condemn it, which could be used in the courts to do just about anything.


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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m-103-islamophobia-motion-vote-1.4038016


Such a thing is absurd. Imagine if the Catholic church in Europe implemented anti-blasphemy laws preventing people from criticizing the way they did things. If you speak out you get punished and "re-educated" by men in power. If you try to reform and fix some of the common complaints with the church you get labeled a christophobe and a racist.

We should openly and freely criticize a religion if it has major problems with it. Doing so lead to the reformation in Europe and fixed many of the issues the Catholic religion had.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus: Europe is ahead of the curve, anyone critisizing Islam is arrested: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17
From what I can tell, this is not a law, but instead a (non binding) motion. It does not create new crimes, it really just says "hey, the government should look into hate speech a bit more."

Sounds to me like you aren't really understanding what is happening. I mean, what part of this do you disagree with?
27097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17
I think the term is all forms of systemic and religious discrimination, though what counts can be disturbing, or it can be just "nondiscrimination" laws, something I am not sure about in terms of an legally ethical perspective versus already established rights. Although I would be honest, I am not sure about how this would apply to school programs. I remember having all those "Say No To Drugs" programs, and honestly, it feels like propaganda. I think tolerance should be encouraged, just for the sake of maintaining a peaceful learning environment, but moral acceptance is another thing, which borders on the value of various ethics that I wonder if schools should be allowed to teach.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

sundin13 wrote:

From what I can tell, this is not a law, but instead a (non binding) motion. It does not create new crimes, it really just says "hey, the government should look into hate speech a bit more."

Sounds to me like you aren't really understanding what is happening. I mean, what part of this do you disagree with?


Want to explain exactly how you " 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" when it isn't specifically stated? Where are the limits or boundaries? Laws like this get warped very quickly or are designed to be warped.
runec 
39980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/29/17

octorockandroll wrote:[content deleted by mod


This is a direct asspull from /r/The_Donald. He's pumping that sludge over to us.

None of them over there understand the difference between a law and a non-binding motion either.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the term is all forms of systemic and religious discrimination, though what counts can be disturbing, or it can be just "nondiscrimination" laws, something I am not sure about in terms of an legally ethical perspective versus already established rights. Although I would be honest, I am not sure about how this would apply to school programs. I remember having all those "Say No To Drugs" programs, and honestly, it feels like propoganda. I think tolerance should be encouraged, just for the sake of learning, but moral acceptance is another thing, which borders on the value of various ethics that I wonder if schools should be allowed to teach.


What sticks out is the focus on one religion and how they rejected including other religions:

Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word "Islamophobia​" from the motion and change the wording to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.

If this was about religious tolerance this change would have been the best thing possible.

Also shoutout to the Sikhs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

From what I can tell, this is not a law, but instead a (non binding) motion. It does not create new crimes, it really just says "hey, the government should look into hate speech a bit more."

Sounds to me like you aren't really understanding what is happening. I mean, what part of this do you disagree with?


Want to explain exactly how you " 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" when it isn't specifically stated? Where are the limits or boundaries? Laws like this get warped very quickly or are designed to be warped.


It's almost like it isn't a law at all.

Oh right, because it isn't.




21571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17
Rujikin, when you make posts like this, I don't know if you are trolling me or if you are asking me to troll you. Have you actually read the quote you posted?

Also, the Daily Mail?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

runec wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
Do you just get off on trolling or are you just delusional? It's really something when what you say is directly contradicted by the quote you use. I haven't seen a level of incompetence that low since cracked.com


This is a direct asspull from /r/The_Donald. He's pumping that sludge over to us.

None of them over there understand the difference between a law and a non-binding motion either.


Thats a funny non-binding motion you have there. It seems to start a process and not just state an opinion.

Non-Binding Motion: Non-binding resolutions are usually specific simple or concurrent resolutions that are not passed on to the executive branch to be signed into law.[2] These resolutions differ from pure concurrent resolutions (that are used for various procedural requests such as adjourning sessions) in that they are designed to express formally and document opinions, not initiate a process.

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.
27097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/24/17

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the term is all forms of systemic and religious discrimination, though what counts can be disturbing, or it can be just "nondiscrimination" laws, something I am not sure about in terms of an legally ethical perspective versus already established rights. Although I would be honest, I am not sure about how this would apply to school programs. I remember having all those "Say No To Drugs" programs, and honestly, it feels like propoganda. I think tolerance should be encouraged, just for the sake of learning, but moral acceptance is another thing, which borders on the value of various ethics that I wonder if schools should be allowed to teach.


What sticks out is the focus on one religion and how they rejected including other religions:

Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word "Islamophobia​" from the motion and change the wording to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.

If this was about religious tolerance this change would have been the best thing possible.


What you just said seems to contradict your earlier worries and claims. I thought this was considering the possibility of it punishing dissenting opinion, which is not tolerance at all.

I am not for bigotry aimed at religions, but I think the freedom of verbal expression should cover a lot of things that can be said. Now if we are talking crimes, threats, and all that, yes, it would be nice idea to fight against those crimes in certain ways, though morally ninnynannying by the Government being propaganda pieces, particularly school. In any case, I am arguing against the teaching of moral acceptance but of workplace tolerance.

In any case, if it aimed to eliminate such hate crimes, then I do not have a problem with it, considering Islam might be considerably vulnerable, maybe not. I need the evidence. In any case, treating anyone special based on needs is reasonable enough, although it would be nice to consider other races, but I do not think it is urgent to make such a fuss over in that case.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I think the term is all forms of systemic and religious discrimination, though what counts can be disturbing, or it can be just "nondiscrimination" laws, something I am not sure about in terms of an legally ethical perspective versus already established rights. Although I would be honest, I am not sure about how this would apply to school programs. I remember having all those "Say No To Drugs" programs, and honestly, it feels like propoganda. I think tolerance should be encouraged, just for the sake of learning, but moral acceptance is another thing, which borders on the value of various ethics that I wonder if schools should be allowed to teach.


What sticks out is the focus on one religion and how they rejected including other religions:

Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word "Islamophobia​" from the motion and change the wording to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities.

If this was about religious tolerance this change would have been the best thing possible.


What you just said seems to contradict your earlier worries and claims. I thought this was considering the possibility of it punishing dissenting opinion, which is not tolerance at all.

I am not for bigotry aimed at religions, but I think the freedom of verbal expression should cover a lot of things that can be said. Now if we are talking crimes, threats, and all that, yes, it would be nice idea to fight against those crimes in certain ways, though morally ninnynannying by the Government being propaganda pieces, particularly school. In any case, I am arguing against the teaching of moral acceptance but of workplace tolerance.

In any case, if it aimed to eliminate such hate crimes, then I do not have a problem with it, considering Islam might be considerably vulnerable, maybe not. I need the evidence. In any case, treating anyone special based on needs is reasonable enough, although it would be nice to consider other races, but I do not think it is urgent to make such a fuss over in that case.


People should be free to argue their morals and the best will survive. Stopping discussion does nothing but stop the natural evolution of ideas. Imagine the renaissance without free thinking...

Races? When did we start talking about races? Are you perhaps referring to Canadians as a race?
923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

Rujikin wrote:
People should be free to argue their morals and the best will survive. Stopping discussion does nothing but stop the natural evolution of ideas. Imagine the renaissance without free thinking...

Races? When did we start talking about races? Are you perhaps referring to Canadians as a race?


Well, I tried this once in a forum and it didn't work so well since people didn't want to watch the video, but I'll try it again.

There is a nice hour and a half video that should help you understand that a non-binding motion like this does not consist of a limit on any freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjQ-W2-fKUs&t=2018s

Basically, you need to be coerced in order to have your freedom infringed upon. And unless a threat is credible, substantial, and immediate (as defined in the video), it does not comprise coercion. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the negative conception of liberty at the heart of American and British governmental tradition.
runec 
39980 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/28/17

Rujikin wrote:
Thats a funny non-binding motion you have there. It seems to start a process and not just state an opinion.


Just so I have your master plan right: You're trying to debate a topic you do not understand, about a country whose government you don't understand, with people from that country, using a semantic argument based on the Wikipedia definition you Googled?

-.-

27097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 3/23/17 , edited 3/29/17

Rujikin wrote:

People should be free to argue their morals and the best will survive. Stopping discussion does nothing but stop the natural evolution of ideas. Imagine the renaissance without free thinking...

Races? When did we start talking about races? Are you perhaps referring to Canadians as a race?


I meant religions, but same idea still applies. I was confused by your earlier quote "If this was about religious tolerance this change would have been the best thing possible". It is about religious tolerance I argue, but the reasoning does not make it the most morally efficacious choice, just the more naive.

In any case, I have to research the law.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.