M-103 has passed

[Heretic]

 

 

 

Motion 103, also known as M-103, is a motion proposed during the 42nd Canadian Parliament by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP representing Mississauga—Erin Mills. The motion states that the members of the House of Commons call on the Government of Canada to condemn Islamophobia in Canada and "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination". It also calls on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes.

The motion passed by a vote of 201–91 on March 23, 2017.^[1]

 

 

So, I take that bold part to mean that Sharia Law can never exist in Canada neither then.

 

Some think it's against "free speech"...

 

Rex Murphy: M-103 has passed. And what today has changed for the better?

 

Rex Murphy | March 24, 2017 5:04 PM ET
More from Rex Murphy

David Akin/National PostThe anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 has attracted protesters to Parliament Hill.

 

The basic question to ask the supporters of the contentious anti-Islamophobic motion is has it any utility? Will it do anything? Will it change attitudes for the better? If there is a stock of genuine Islamophobia in Canada, will recording this motion decrease it, or move to decrease it?

That, I presume, was the priority consideration in the minds that brought it forth. Obviously, they must have thought it would, for otherwise there would be no point in issuing it, arguing for it, and stirring the quite considerable debate it already has.

For the motion itself, and the politics that attended it, have not been without contention. The questions raised on its wording were legitimate. Why the particular focus on Islam? Why not a motion, as some have suggested, speaking out against prejudice against all religions?

There is also concern that the motion will, in some manner, chill valid criticism of Islamist terror, or will not make allowance for legitimate criticism or analysis of Islam. Such criticism would now be forced to wear the degrading mantle of Islamophobia. Given this welter of mixed impressions and varied understandings of the very point of the motion, how effective can it be?

There is the key term itself, Islamophobia. As I have suggested in an earlier piece, this recent coinage, Islamophobia, is itself a contested term. The minister piloting the motion sees Islamophobia as “the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination.”

That’s not as clear as at first glance it might seem. If the fear is “irrational,” then the ambition to reduce it by means of a distant parliamentary motion is a curious if not a wild response. Irrational fears are by definition those not subject to reason. We eliminate those only by therapy or medicine. We do not argue them away. Hence, we have never had a motion deploring claustrophobia.

The cruel deeds, by a terrorist, at the British Parliament this week give sombre point to these concerns. Should we not have some moderate response of caution and concern after London? Is that irrational? There is nothing irrational in having a reasoned or limited fear towards a group publicly committed to terrorism, and self-declared perpetrators of it, in the name of Islam. Nor is there bigotry, Islamophobia, in seeing the declared connection with Islam in these kinds of terror acts. If there is an Islamic connection, and it is declared ,even insisted upon, by the actors themselves, it is surely not phobic both to see the connection, and heed the declaration.

Then too, there is the rhetorical or forensic deployment of the term. A person who criticizes Islam, or who reasonably makes a connection between current terrorism and certain groups within Islam will, in some circles, very quickly be labelled Islamophobic.

No one likes to be called a bigot, and thus people — under fear of such a charge, mute their speech, trim their thoughts and withhold honest criticism because of the weight of this word, Islamophobe, being placed on their shoulders. Plainly put, sometimes the charge of Islamophobia is merely a harsh and dishonest way of shutting down an argument, or expelling all discussion. Who argues with bigots?

Yet there is an even wider reason to question the motion’s value.

Time and again it was stressed that it was not a law, not a piece of legislation, but a mere motion. It therefore mandated precisely nothing. It had no penalties for people who choose to ignore it, brought into being no requirements in action. So, it must be presumed, its point was merely to place on parliamentary record the sentiment of the House of Commons on a sensitive manner.

And, to be blunt, what will that likely achieve? Will it perhaps launch one of Parliament’s dubious and protracted studies? Will it change the social or moral landscape of the country in any detectable way? Its proponents make such a case for its innocuousness, such a point of repeating it is not legislation, and how it will not alter existing laws or behaviours. So what will it do? What is it for?

We might add as well that the public have long lost the habit, if they ever enjoyed it, of looking on Parliament Hill as their moral lighthouse. I will go further. My guess is that the great swath of the Canadian public, the great large centre hailed by politicians of every stripe, is not really in need of guidance. They are not reflexively or otherwise “haters of Islam” and are appalled by the very notion. In fact the public might more readily send moral signals to Parliament than the reverse.

The remaining segment, that element that we may agree are in the obnoxious camp of genuine prejudice, will be oblivious to the point of contempt at any prodding from “those politicians” to change their minds or views. Can a mere motion really carry any weight with the very set it is designed to address? I really do not think so. A buzz of stupid chatter is all they will hear if they listen at all.

Finally, it is interesting that by raising this matter to parliamentary attention, the motion itself provoked more of a storm than it settled. There were contentions in the House. There were the usual accusations of playing politics with a sensitive issue. There was sharp division on why Islam was centred in the debate and not all prejudice towards all religion. Was that helpful? To return to my original question, was the debate and division in Parliament itself likely to reduce in any measurable way the Islamaphobia its was designed to reduce?

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-m-103-has-passed-and-what-today-has-changed-for-the-better

 

[ThaManbeast]

Freedom of speech isn't important I guess...

[Chicken.]

22 minutes ago, ThaManbeast said:

Freedom of speech isn't important I guess...

Pretty much... how dare you criticize a religion that promotes the suppression of women !

 

edit: spread this petition

[Chris]

I really hate this Politically Correct Society, I just want to go back to being a kid when Eminem, Kid Rock & Limp Bizkit were cool - The WWF Said and did whatever they wanted, and people weren't so afraid of everything.

[Down by the River]

Pretty terrible to create a law without first clearly establishing what constitutes a violation of said law...

[73 Percent]

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

I really hate this Politically Correct Society, I just want to go back to being a kid when Eminem, Kid Rock & Limp Bizkit were cool - The WWF Said and did whatever they wanted, and people weren't so afraid of everything.

Kid Rock was never cool

[Chris]

2 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

Kid Rock was never cool

Oh please, he was too, for like, 6 months, lol.

[Ryan Strome]

I was wondering when someone would post this. But ya this is absolutely ridiculous. JT and his cronies against free speech. 

 

Thank God it's only a motion, let's hope the government doesn't go further with this.

 

Ndp and Liberals supported it, most all Conservatives opposed it. The bloc opposed it as well.

[Ryan Strome]

13 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Pretty terrible to create a law without first clearly establishing what constitutes a violation of said law...

I don't agree with m103 at all but it's not a law.

[darkpoet]

35 minutes ago, Heretic said:

 

 

 

Motion 103, also known as M-103, is a motion proposed during the 42nd Canadian Parliament by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP

 

That's all you need to know right there.

[ toilet flushes ] 

[Derp...]

It's an interesting bill. Is it unprecedented? Has there ever been a bill like this before? I would assume that people who are islamophobic are not solely against one belief, but that's another stereotype in a way. I hope it's not an avenue that the government takes on a lot of issues. I understand this one in particular is a big one in North America, but it sets a pretty strict precedent. For instance in America if the more activist Trump supporters were being discriminated against and that discrimination spilled over to the average lower class caucasian population they could make a similar claim... Obviously our bill has nothing to do with class, but the example is just for a particular group that has a percentage of dangerous people that identify with a belief, even if it actually not the same thing.

Anywho it's not our job to judge people. Let them do their thing as long as it not unquestionably endangering people and treat them the way you want to be treated. 

[RRypien37]

George Soros approves. 

 

Control through chaos. Since he has JT in his back pocket, this is only the start. 

 

[RRypien37]

43 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Pretty much... how dare you criticize a religion that promotes the suppression of women !

 

edit: spread this petition

But wait, its a religion of peace! But if you don't agree and join, you are to be killed. 

[Fateless]

This bill is so overblown.

It changes nothing, its not a law, but rather something we should "aspire towards". 

For those that think it helps Sharia law, you haven''t read the motion as it aims to eliminate all forms of religious discrimination and hate, which means that Sharia law which attacks and hates other religions can never live up to the bill's intent. 

For those that think that its oppresses free speech, it doesn't. Hate speech has never been covered by freedom of speech and has always been illegal under the Constitution, as well as many regional human rights bodies. You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner. You're not allowed to call your Muslim neighbor a woman-hating ISIS supporter. That has always been illegal, and will remain illegal. I too hate the "political correctness" movement, but this is completely irrelevant to that since it changes nothing.

This motion is nothing but smoke-blowing and people pretending that this is the end of Canada as we know it, should quite frankly go back to school and get a real education.

[HerrDrFunk]

I'm sure Sharia law is just around the corner now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HerrDrFunk]

2 minutes ago, Fateless said:

This bill is so overblown.

It changes nothing, its not a law, but rather something we should "aspire towards". 

For those that think it helps Sharia law, you haven''t read the motion as it aims to eliminate all forms of religious discrimination and hate, which means that Sharia law which attacks and hates other religions can never live up to the bill's intent. 

For those that think that its oppresses free speech, it doesn't. Hate speech has never been covered by freedom of speech and has always been illegal under the Constitution, as well as many regional human rights bodies. You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner. You're not allowed to call your Muslim neighbor a woman-hating ISIS supporter. That has always been illegal, and will remain illegal. I too hate the "political correctness" movement, but this is completely irrelevant to that since it changes nothing.

This motion is nothing but smoke-blowing and people pretending that this is the end of Canada as we know it, should quite frankly go back to school and get a real education.

Thank you for summing it up way more articulately than I had any motivation to.

[BI3KSALLENT]

8 minutes ago, Fateless said:

This bill is so overblown.

It changes nothing, its not a law, but rather something we should "aspire towards". 

For those that think it helps Sharia law, you haven''t read the motion as it aims to eliminate all forms of religious discrimination and hate, which means that Sharia law which attacks and hates other religions can never live up to the bill's intent. 

For those that think that its oppresses free speech, it doesn't. Hate speech has never been covered by freedom of speech and has always been illegal under the Constitution, as well as many regional human rights bodies. You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner. You're not allowed to call your Muslim neighbor a woman-hating ISIS supporter. That has always been illegal, and will remain illegal. I too hate the "political correctness" movement, but this is completely irrelevant to that since it changes nothing.

This motion is nothing but smoke-blowing and people pretending that this is the end of Canada as we know it, should quite frankly go back to school and get a real education.

Couldn't have said it any better. Hate speech has never been, nor will be covered by free speech, and Canada should be aspire to be a country where we don't hate each other based on what we believe. 

[Ryan Strome]

25 minutes ago, Derp... said:

It's an interesting bill. Is it unprecedented? Has there ever been a bill like this before? I would assume that people who are islamophobic are not solely against one belief, but that's another stereotype in a way. I hope it's not an avenue that the government takes on a lot of issues. I understand this one in particular is a big one in North America, but it sets a pretty strict precedent. For instance in America if the more activist Trump supporters were being discriminated against and that discrimination spilled over to the average lower class caucasian population they could make a similar claim... Obviously our bill has nothing to do with class, but the example is just for a particular group that has a percentage of dangerous people that identify with a belief, even if it actually not the same thing.

Anywho it's not our job to judge people. Let them do their thing as long as it not unquestionably endangering people and treat them the way you want to be treated. 

All religions should be treated the same. You and I should have the right to critisise all religions equally.

[Chicken.]

Just now, BI3KSALLENT said:

Couldn't have said it any better. Hate speech has never been, nor will be covered by free speech, and Canada should be aspire to be a country where we don't hate each other based on what we believe. 

I think people are frustrated with this new politicized 'islamophobia' term being included without any real definition. One should be allowed to dislike/disagree a religion's views

 

Google:

"Is·lam·o·pho·bi·a

izˌläməˈfōbēə,iˌsläməˈfōbēə/

noun

noun: Islamophobia

1. dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"

    

[Ryan Strome]

16 minutes ago, Fateless said:

This bill is so overblown.

It changes nothing, its not a law, but rather something we should "aspire towards". 

For those that think it helps Sharia law, you haven''t read the motion as it aims to eliminate all forms of religious discrimination and hate, which means that Sharia law which attacks and hates other religions can never live up to the bill's intent. 

For those that think that its oppresses free speech, it doesn't. Hate speech has never been covered by freedom of speech and has always been illegal under the Constitution, as well as many regional human rights bodies. You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner. You're not allowed to call your Muslim neighbor a woman-hating ISIS supporter. That has always been illegal, and will remain illegal. I too hate the "political correctness" movement, but this is completely irrelevant to that since it changes nothing.

This motion is nothing but smoke-blowing and people pretending that this is the end of Canada as we know it, should quite frankly go back to school and get a real education.

Actually criticizing a religion is not hate speech so your post is pretty inaccurate.