Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

M-103 has passed


Heretic

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

No if it goes past a motion he will repeal it.

 

Ya you said O'clown and I said Bernier. Bernier has been leading for weeks now. Although leadership conventions can give surprises..

I think Kevin will do it. Mostly because I think it will be funny. The CPC won't really have a shot to govern in 2019 anyway. I don't mind Bernier tho to be honest. I wonder if he still has the hot girlfriend? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

You need to look a little deeper my friend.  

 

Advocates of free speech and Palestinian rights are preparing to fight a change to hate speech laws that they say will silence critics of Israel.

The change is buried in Bill C-13, the government’s proposed cyberbullying law.

The bill would expand the definition of groups that can be the subject of hate propaganda under the Criminal Code. The code now lists people distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Bill C-13 adds age, sex and mental or physical disability. But, most contentiously, it also adds national origin.

Some legal experts say this is likely a mere housecleaning amendment to bring the Criminal Code in line with the wording of other statutes.

 

This bill was tabled immediately following Harpers address to the Knesset in 2014.  Which is exactly why  so many people keyed in to it after Harper addressed anti semitism and the new face of semetic hatred and "anti zionism"  as the bill was already tabled prior to this visit and speech but then amended to include the "country of origin" people rightfully jumped on it.

 

These changes also infringe on freedom of speech in a way this motion doesn't as this IS in fact law but...nobody seems to understand the difference.  So while Bill C-13 seems to be a very good law (and in actuality it is) when people sit and whinge about this simple motion, they need to understand which is the more egregious when speaking of a loss of freedoms of speech.

I honestly can't find what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

I think Kevin will do it. Mostly because I think it will be funny. The CPC won't really have a shot to govern in 2019 anyway. I don't mind Bernier tho to be honest. I wonder if he still has the hot girlfriend? 

I think they broke up. Just an fyi Conservatives are ahead in nation wide polls and they don't have a leader so I disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

I think Kevin will do it. Mostly because I think it will be funny. The CPC won't really have a shot to govern in 2019 anyway. I don't mind Bernier tho to be honest. I wonder if he still has the hot girlfriend? 

I don't see anyone supporting him on a second ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

I honestly can't find what you're saying.

Okay

 

IN 2014 Harper tabled a simple bill that would bring our statutes up to date and speed with modern times in the "cyber-bullying" or Bill C-13.  After a speech to Israel he came back and amended that bill to include a few things most notably during his railing against the NDP and the BDS (all within the same timeline) making it illegal to speak out, discriminate or devalue someone based on their country of origin which ONLY exists right now in France under the Lellouche laws; laws which saw major protests due to their ability to silence someones right to question a person based on country of origin and which are causing all sorts of grief now with the migrant issues in France.

 

By making it illegal to criticize someone based on country of origin it effectively would make anti semitism or any criticism of Israel illegal as the Knesset has declared Israel IS judaism and Judaism IS Israel.

 

People focused very keenly on that.  Sadly, while a good law those sneaky things make it very distasteful.  Also making this motion and any motion regarding transgender rights completely useless and thus far meaning some of the more hard fought and contentious motions passed by the Libs or the Government since this regarding specific rights of people...completely worthless and redundant and a waste of time and money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

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

Where in my post did I say that people were not allowed to criticize a religion? I literally said:

"You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner."

I never said you can't criticize a religion. Have at it. You're not allowed to attack someone based on their religion, or incite hatred against someone based on their religion. THAT is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fateless said:

Where in my post did I say that people were not allowed to criticize a religion? I literally said:

"You're allowed to disagree with Islam. You're allowed to voice that opinion in a friendly, educated, and debate-like manner."

I never said you can't criticize a religion. Have at it. You're not allowed to attack someone based on their religion, or incite hatred against someone based on their religion. THAT is illegal.

It directly states Islam or islamophobia. It doesn't single out other religions.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chicken. said:

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"
     

I should've been more clear. I agree you should be allowed to criticize any religion in a manner that is productive, two-way, and with the intention of making progress. However, saying this like "Muslims are not welcome", or "&^@# Islam", which I see often should be neither allowed, or seen as free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Again criticizing a religion is NOT hate speech.

Depends how you criticize if you want to actually make progress you can't just go around yelling "Muslims aren't allowed" or things of that nature. No ones saying you cannot debate in a manner where your intention is to actually reform Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BI3KSALLENT said:

Depends how you criticize if you want to actually make progress you can't just go around yelling "Muslims aren't allowed" or things of that nature. No ones saying you cannot debate in a manner where your intention is to actually reform Islam.

I don't disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It directly states Islam or islamophobia. It doesn't single out other religions.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103

It directly deals with Islam because that is the hot button topic that has given rise to the motion in the first place. But your own link acknowledges that its Islam and "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination". That would include any religion, equally. Trying to read into the bill that it favors Islam over other religions is not only biased, its flat out wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...