First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Canada has passed motion that targets Islamophobia - is this anti-blasphemy law?
Humms 
12001 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/24/17
I don't give a shit.

I'll still bash them to this day. I don't need a Bullshit law to defend the very idea of dehumanizing people.

Let's try the same thing with our religion in Islamic territory hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Ya OK, sure.
1886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Shanghai China
Offline
Posted 3/24/17
Why I keep saying religion has to go at some point we need to focus on advanced technology and resource development and everyone should work on better ones self and ones skills like in star trek
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/24/17
Are people still pretending that this is some sort of exclusive law protecting Islam at the expense of everyone else? Is it really that hard to just read the damn thing you're bitching about? It's not a fucking law and even if it was it protects against discrimination as a whole. That's the fun thing about equality, people are all equally protected.
5365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17
Lol, Canada. Their PM is basically Tumblr. Dude is a fucking fruitcake.
mo-gan 
8165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Are people still pretending that this is some sort of exclusive law protecting Islam at the expense of everyone else? Is it really that hard to just read the damn thing you're bitching about? It's not a fucking law and even if it was it protects against discrimination as a whole. That's the fun thing about equality, people are all equally protected.


To what end?
I personally, don't want to be nannied by the state. If someone is a racist, a bigot, a sexist, an "Islamaphobe" or whatever, I don't want it to be hidden. I'd rather they sang it at the top of their lungs and showed the whole world their true colours. Would I agree with them? No. But I'd rather be able to look a wolf dead in the eye and see them for what they are than have those people harbour that resentment.
Should they be able to physically hurt anyone/call for the attacking of people? No, I don't believe so, but I believe that's another kettle of fish. Yes, I know it's not a law, but that's beside the point. I am also in large doubt as to whether it will protect all equally.
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17

D4nc3Style wrote:

Lol, Canada. Their PM is basically Tumblr. Dude is a fucking fruitcake.



*teleports behind you*
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/24/17

mo-gan wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Are people still pretending that this is some sort of exclusive law protecting Islam at the expense of everyone else? Is it really that hard to just read the damn thing you're bitching about? It's not a fucking law and even if it was it protects against discrimination as a whole. That's the fun thing about equality, people are all equally protected.


To what end?
I personally, don't want to be nannied by the state. If someone is a racist, a bigot, a sexist, an "Islamaphobe" or whatever, I don't want it to be hidden. I'd rather they sang it at the top of their lungs and showed the whole world their true colours. Would I agree with them? No. But I'd rather be able to look a wolf dead in the eye and see them for what they are than have those people harbour that resentment.
Should they be able to physically hurt anyone/call for the attacking of people? No, I don't believe so, but I believe that's another kettle of fish. Yes, I know it's not a law, but that's beside the point. I am also in large doubt as to whether it will protect all equally.


Again, I really think you should read the motion. There's nothing to suggest that it won't treat everyone equally.
8983 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 3/24/17 , edited 3/24/17

D4nc3Style wrote:

Lol, Canada. Their PM is basically Tumblr. Dude is a fucking fruitcake.


Someone reported this? lmao
mo-gan 
8165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Again, I really think you should read the motion. There's nothing to suggest that it won't treat everyone equally.


Suggested or otherwise, I am not confident that it will. That's my personal opinion based on the times, and given the current stance of Canadas politics I'm heavily critical that it will be an equal system and not pandering to certain people.
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/24/17

mo-gan wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Again, I really think you should read the motion. There's nothing to suggest that it won't treat everyone equally.


Suggested or otherwise, I am not confident that it will. That's my personal opinion based on the times, and given the current stance of Canadas politics I'm heavily critical that it will be an equal system and not pandering to certain people.


I certainly can't say I agree. Firstly if there's nothing in the motion that suggests prefferential treatment and it is enforced with preferrential treatment then the fault lies not with the motion but with those enforcing it. Secondly I really don't see anything in current events that suggests that such a thing would happen. I don't really see any bias at all in terms of the federal government.
mo-gan 
8165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

octorockandroll wrote:

I certainly can't say I agree. Firstly if there's nothing in the motion that suggests prefferential treatment and it is enforced with preferrential treatment then the fault lies not with the motion but with those enforcing it. Secondly I really don't see anything in current events that suggests that such a thing would happen. I don't really see any bias at all in terms of the federal government.


Let me make this very clear. I am not saying that I think there is anything in the motion that suggest preferential treatment. I'm not saying that in the slightest. I've not seen anything that leads me to that conclusion, and I'm not saying that I've been lead to any conclusion as a result of anything in the motion that suggest preferential treatment.
What I am saying, is that Canada, with its current left wing politics, leaves me with serious doubt that things will be dealt with equally. I am saying it is my belief, without any evidence to prove it and hence it is a belief, due to the way in which Canada looks on matters like Feminism, and other matters that I would rather not discuss in public as such topics can get heated (if you wish to PM me on those matters, by all means). That's my opinion, mutual or otherwise~
11796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/24/17

mo-gan wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

I certainly can't say I agree. Firstly if there's nothing in the motion that suggests prefferential treatment and it is enforced with preferrential treatment then the fault lies not with the motion but with those enforcing it. Secondly I really don't see anything in current events that suggests that such a thing would happen. I don't really see any bias at all in terms of the federal government.


Let me make this very clear. I am not saying that I think there is anything in the motion that suggest preferential treatment. I'm not saying that in the slightest. I've not seen anything that leads me to that conclusion, and I'm not saying that I've been lead to any conclusion as a result of anything in the motion that suggest preferential treatment.
What I am saying, is that Canada, with its current left wing politics, leaves me with serious doubt that things will be dealt with equally. I am saying it is my belief, without any evidence to prove it and hence it is a belief, due to the way in which Canada looks on matters like Feminism, and other matters that I would rather not discuss in public as such topics can get heated (if you wish to PM me on those matters, by all means). That's my opinion, mutual or otherwise~


Okay, well I guess once some time has passed and the effects of this motion (or lack thereof) have been felt we can look back and say how it turned out for certain.
5365 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

MonoDreams wrote:


D4nc3Style wrote:

Lol, Canada. Their PM is basically Tumblr. Dude is a fucking fruitcake.


Someone reported this? lmao


Someone actually reported my post? lol
15236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

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.


Again, its not a law. It cant get warped. It is by definition, non-penal and non-binding. There is nothing to warp. Its not a law.

PS: Its not a law.
Humms 
12001 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 3/24/17

MonoDreams wrote:


D4nc3Style wrote:

Lol, Canada. Their PM is basically Tumblr. Dude is a fucking fruitcake.


Someone reported this? lmao


Really? Because he speaks the truth
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.