Motion M-103 coming up (split fm Politics in 2017)

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m103-islamophobia-khalid-motion-1.3972194
anti-Islamophobia motion


I'm pretty pumped about this motion. From here we can criminalize Islamophobia [we can figure out the exact definition later, not important] and from there we can start implementing some blasphemy laws  :nod:

 

[George Wallace]

Just out of curiosity, why do we need Motion 103?  We already have Laws dealing with "Hate Speech" in the media and other forms.  Why do we have to have a "special" law to protect one specific group?    We are one society, where all are supposed to be treated equally; no special entitlements to any segment of our society.  It is a divisive motion, in my eyes, and one that is totally unnecessary; a waste of our parliament's valuable time and effort when much more pressing matters may be at hand.  This Motion only fans the flames of those who fear the loss of their Rights and Freedoms to a special interest group.

 

[Loachman]

This Motion only fans the flames of those who fear the loss of their Rights and Freedoms to a special interest group.

You mean the kind of people who belong in a Basket of Deplorables?

Why would Liberals care about how such people feel or what they think?

 

[The Bread Guy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/m103-islamophobia-khalid-motion-1.3972194
anti-Islamophobia motion


I'm pretty pumped about this motion. From here we can criminalize Islamophobia [we can figure out the exact definition later, not important] and from there we can start implementing some blasphemy laws  :nod:

Follow-up question:  did you read the motion itself?  If you did, did you read past the first 23 words?  Or are you just going by what social media headlines are saying?  Let's see the text, shall we?  Highlights mine ...

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I did indeed, including reading between the lines.

Tell me, what do you think the the government could do to
-quell public climate of hate and fear;
-condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic (catchphrase) racism and religious discrimination; and
-develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia?

What's some of the tools they have at their disposal or could bring about to stop the systemic, problematic, "not okay!" stuff going on?

Bonus question, what's Islamophobia to you?
I've read it's
"dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force".

So I potentially won't be allowed to dislike Islam? Or be critical of it lest I be promoting Islamophobia?  Anxious to hear your response.

 

[Kirkhill]

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (Is that demonstrable? Is there an increasing climate of hate and fear?)
(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination  (Does that include discrimination against Freemasons?) 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 (Always a good plan.  A commission) 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.  (Always find room for another regulation)

 

[The Bread Guy]

I did indeed, including reading between the lines.

Tell me, what do you think the the government could do to
-quell public climate of hate and fear;
-condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic (catchphrase) racism and religious discrimination; and
-develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia?

What's some of the tools they have at their disposal or could bring about to stop the systemic, problematic, "not okay!" stuff going on?

First off, in re-reading my previous post, I have to suck back and apologize for sounding a bit harsh in asking "did you read it?" - it's a passionate debate on all sides.

I know about reading between the lines in government writing.  I see "Islamophobia" there in the text - and that seems to be what some critics are getting hung up on. 

Governments could do a lot of things, including things to deal with all kinds of religious hatred - including setting up an Office of Religious Freedom.  Nothing in the motion says a new law's going to come, or what it'll look like.

Bonus question, what's Islamophobia to you?  I've read it's "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force".

So I potentially won't be allowed to dislike Islam? Or be critical of it lest I be promoting Islamophobia?  Anxious to hear your response.

Where does it say this motion will not allow you to dislike Islam?  Or Judaism?  Or Catholicism?  Or Jehovah's Witnesses?  I see "hate crimes" mentioned as being something to be looked at, but I don't see reference to thought crimes.  And we all know there's criticism, and there's "criticism", right?

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
(a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (Is that demonstrable? Is there an increasing climate of hate and fear?)

I'm sensing a fair bit of fear in this discussion, so that's one element of evidence.  Also, does there have to be more of a problem before we deal with said problem, as opposed to just dealing with a problem? (And yes, I know all about priorizing energy when there's more than one problem to be solved.)

(b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination  (Does that include discrimination against Freemasons?)

Good question -- is Freemasonry a race or religion?  Some say "Freemasonry is not a religion", but I'd be happy to hear from Masons themselves about this.

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 (Always a good plan.  A commission) ... 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.  (Always find room for another regulation)

You DO have me there -- but that's not what a lot of people are criticizing about the motion.  Which also brings us to this ...

Just out of curiosity, why do we need Motion 103?  We already have Laws dealing with "Hate Speech" in the media and other forms.  Why do we have to have a "special" law to protect one specific group?

That's another good point.  While I have about as much faith in government as many here, nothing I see in the motion inevitably leads to a new law, especially one that protects only one specific group.  New laws, we don't need - especially when there's laws that are difficult to enforce in the first place. 

Will the motion solve the problem of racism/discrimination?  Doubt it.  Is it necessary?  Not necessarily, but not for the reasons I'm seeing all over the interwebs.

I'm just not convinced that having a committee looking at what to do about racism/discrimination is going to, down the road, lead to the destruction of Canada as we know it, like some of the worst doomsdayers in the world appear to say - see attached.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good question -- is Freemasonry a race or religion?  Some say "Freemasonry is not a religion", but I'd be happy to hear from Masons themselves about this.. 

It is neither race or religion.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It is neither race or religion.

Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life

Source:  My father is a free mason.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It is neither race or religion.

Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life

Source:  My father is a free mason.

I've never thought of it as one, but this helps - thanks.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yep, a huge misconception by some is that freemasonry is a religion.  It's a way of living ones life

Source:  My father is a free mason.

Although to be fair, it is faith based, in that one must believe in a higher power.  (I come from a line of Masons and Eastern Star on my mother's side.)  And why I could not ask to become one, as I don't.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Although to be fair, it is faith based, in that one must believe in a higher power.  (I come from a line of Masons and Eastern Star on my mother's side.)  And why I could not ask to become one, as I don't.

This is true; however, Freemasons don't care what your higher power is.  Allah, God, Buddha, etc... all are welcome.

 

[jollyjacktar]

This is true; however, Freemasons don't care what your higher power is.  Allah, God, Buddha, etc... all are welcome.

Yes, as was explained to me by my Uncle and speaks well of them.  He was really itching for me to ask as our family connection would die with him otherwise, but I couldn't disrespect him or the Order by falsely pretending to believe.  I may not have many scruples but...

 

[Kirkhill]

It is neither race or religion.

Agreed that it is neither race nor religion - but it is opposed on religious grounds.  Kind of like abortion.  Or making cakes for gay weddings.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Of course it is opposed on religious grounds, Chris.

It is that acceptance by the Freemasons of all beliefs as equally valid that is anathema to organized religions. One of the few common grounds of every religion is that they each consider themselves to be the "sole true religion", with all the others being false religions praying to false gods. Anything that relativizes all religions to make them equal to one another is to be fought tooth and nail as every religion recognizes that to accept such premise means their own religion is no different than the ones they look at as "false". This relative or equivalent "moral" value of religion was the basis on which the Quebec religious study curriculum, who teaches about all the various religions as equal and from a cultural point of view, was fought against in the Courts by many of the religious orders some years ago.

No such compunction is found from those of us who know there is no "higher power" or "Creator" and who put our faith (so to speak  ) in the rule of human law: We simply recognize the freedom of belief, i.e. you can go on believing whatever you want, so long as you don't try to impose those belief or any practice you believe it imposes on you on any one else.

Are we still talking politics in 2017 ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Of course it is opposed on religious grounds, Chris.

It is that acceptance by the Freemasons of all beliefs as equally valid that is anathema to organized religions. One of the few common grounds of every religion is that they each consider themselves to be the "sole true religion", with all the others being false religions praying to false gods. Anything that relativizes all religions to make them equal to one another is to be fought tooth and nail as every religion recognizes that to accept such premise means their own religion is no different than the ones they look at as "false". This relative or equivalent "moral" value of religion was the basis on which the Quebec religious study curriculum, who teaches about all the various religions as equal and from a cultural point of view, was fought against in the Courts by many of the religious orders some years ago.

Agreed entirely - Liberalism has always been anathema.

No such compunction is found from those of us who know there is no "higher power" or "Creator" and who put our faith (so to speak  ) in the rule of human law: We simply recognize the freedom of belief, i.e. you can go on believing whatever you want, so long as you don't try to impose those belief or any practice you believe it imposes on you on any one else.

Half roads there.  On the Higher Power issue I personally fall someplace between here and there.  On the imposition of belief I too believe that what goes on inside a person's skull is their own affair.  What their mouth and press utters is innocuous and to be permitted.  What their hands do is a matter of concern.

But not all beliefs concern Higher Powers, do they?  And they are imposed.  In the form of Human Law.  And why is your belief better than mine?    And why should Human Law be considered immutable?

Are we still talking politics in 2017 ???

Youbetcha!

 

[The Bread Guy]

Since this one might generate enough stand-alone commentary/discussion, and because it's timely (vote coming this week) I've split it from the Politics-General thread.

Back to your regularly-scheduled discussion ...

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[ModlrMike]

I must admit that this motion provokes some unease:

1. Do we not already have sufficiently robust hate speech legislation?

2. Why single out Islam for protection if the goal is protecting all religions?

I hate to sound alarmist, but how short a distance is it from a motion to a private member's bill?

 

[Remius]

I must admit that this motion provokes some unease:

1. Do we not already have sufficiently robust hate speech legislation?

2. Why single out Islam for protection if the goal is protecting all religions?

I hate to sound alarmist, but how short a distance is it from a motion to a private member's bill?

1.  Yes.  but this is a motion.  Not actual legislation or law

2.  Because that is the flavour/boogeyman of the day and this motion is a feel good exercise that won't cost too much and will look like something is being done.

Not sure but we've seen how far private member's bills can get so I wouldn't worry too much yet.

 

[Kat Stevens]

SNIP
Where does it say this motion will not allow you to dislike Islam?  Or Judaism?  Or Catholicism?  Or Jehovah's Witnesses?  I see "hate crimes" mentioned as being something to be looked at, but I don't see reference to thought crimes.  And we all know there's criticism, and there's "criticism", right?
I'm sensing a fair bit of fear in this discussion, so that's one element of evidence.  Also, does there have to be more of a problem before we deal with said problem, as opposed to just dealing with a problem? (And yes, I know all about priorizing energy when there's more than one problem to be solved.)Good question -- is Freemasonry a race or religion?  Some say "Freemasonry is not a religion", but I'd be happy to hear from Masons themselves about this.You DO have me there -- but that's not what a lot of people are criticizing about the motion.  Which also brings us to this ...That's another good point.  While I have about as much faith in government as many here, nothing I see in the motion inevitably leads to a new law, especially one that protects only
    SNIP
I'm just not convinced that having a committee looking at what to do about racism/discrimination is going to, down the road, lead to the destruction of Canada as we know it, like some of the worst doomsdayers in the world appear to say - see attached.

To put the word "islamophobia" into a government document leaves it open to broad interpretation, because that word can mean whatever "they" want it to mean.  I'd be curious if the member who put the motion forward would be as willing to denounce the constant stream of antisemitism that spews out of all those Mississauga mosques?