Canada/‘Islamophobia’ Law, AKA Islamic Blasphemy Law

[AACJ]

Freedom of speech in Canada and the UK has lost a lot of ground. I'm praying for a reversal!

The Islamicists are not having to put much effort into Islamacizing the west; many Westerners are eager to do it themselves!

This is what happens when the Church of God fails in its responsibility to be the "Salt of the Earth" and westerners make the decision to reject God's Word and their nations' Christian heritage.

War Against Free Speech: Canada Close To Passing ‘Islamophobia’ Law, Aka Islamic Blasphemy Law

 

[expos4ever]

Here is the actual text of the motion:

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.

Now, what - and please be specific - do you find objectionable?

 

[Mark_Ward]

So called 'free speech' in Canada and the UK is fast becoming a joke. The Islamicists are not having to put much effort into Islamacizing the west; many Westerners are eager to do it themselves!

This is what happens when westerners make the decision to reject God's Word and their nations' Christian heritage.

War Against Free Speech: Canada Close To Passing ‘Islamophobia’ Law, Aka Islamic Blasphemy Law

Here is the text of the motion

• 42nd Parliament, 1st Session
  M-103
  Systemic racism and religious discrimination Text of the Motion That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate an... 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

 

[expos4ever]

If this bill made it illegal to criticize the doctrines of Islam (or any other religion for that matter), I would see your point. But, I see nothing in the bill that is troubling (at least as I read it).

 

[SLB]

One of the major issues with this bill is that it singles out "Islamophobia" and it does not define what Islamophobia is. It does not offer protection for Jews, Christians, Hindus or any other religion. By not defining Islamophobia, speaking out against Islam, Mohammed, or Sharia law can become hate speech and punishable by law. It can mean that any open dialog in disagreement with the adoption of Sharia law becomes hate speech. In other words it's a muzzle on free speech.

What non-muslim people don't understand is that Islam is a very rigid religion, where women are worthless, non muslims are second class citizens and anything that hinders Islam in any way, is to be fought against. In a government inquiry on methods of curtailing radicalization, muslims could offer no concrete assistance because Islam, at it's core, fully upholds violent jihad. The only way to halt jihad is to halt Islam. Now, with this law, it will be nearly impossible to speak out against those religious principles in Islam that make it a threat to freedom everywhere.

In the discussion of this bill it was requested that word Islamophobia be removed and that was refused. Nor was any attempt made to define the word. So it means nor speaking against Islam, anything related to Islam, anything suggesting Islam, anything related to Islam or Sharia law, or any other thing you want it to mean.

So, no comparing Christianity to Islam. No preaching that Jesus is the Son of God and not just a prophet like Mohammed, because that's Islamophobic. It's a very slippery slope and a short step to accepting Sharia law in Canada. I used to love my country, but as far as I can see Trudeau is a traitor to his country and we are in for a really rough time of it.

 

[Cimorene]

Considering that a man described by friends as a Trump loving white nationalist recently committed terrorism against a mosque I think it's definitely a good move to try to take action against Islamophobia! As a Christian I totally support this!!!! I'm an American but this makes me really proud to live in Canada now.

 

[expos4ever]

One of the major issues with this bill is that it singles out "Islamophobia" and it does not define what Islamophobia is.

Fair enough, although I think it would be unlikely that a "reasonable" person would interpret "Islamophobia" as including criticisms of the content of Islamic doctrine (which I certainly believe should be legal), including things like cartoons. But you raise an important point.

It does not offer protection for Jews, Christians, Hindus or any other religion.

I disagree:

....condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination

...eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia,

It can mean that any open dialog in disagreement with the adoption of Sharia law becomes hate speech. In other words it's a muzzle on free speech.

If Islamophobia is not adequately defined, then yes, you are right.

Now, with this law, it will be nearly impossible to speak out against those religious principles in Islam that make it a threat to freedom everywhere.

I recognize your concern, but I think this is an open question.

 

[SLB]

Considering that a man described by friends as a Trump loving white nationalist recently committed terrorism against a mosque I think it's definitely a good move to try to take action against Islamophobia! As a Christian I totally support this!!!! I'm an American but this makes me really proud to live in Canada now.

I totally agree that terrorism against any place of worship is wrong. I agree that ripping the scarf off a muslim woman is wrong. We already have laws in place that address these issues. As Christians we love our neighbours regardless of their religion or culture. We strive as Paul said, in Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Islam doesn't promote peace, just take a look at muslim countries and see how peaceable they aren't. If you are born in a muslim family, according to Islam you are muslim. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. In a muslim country the penalty for speaking against, Islam, Mohammed or Sharia law, is death. Once this proposed law is in place, it will be Islamophobic to speak against Sharia law.

Christians as a rule, don't know much about Islam. If they did, they'd be more vocal in opposing this law.

 

[expos4ever]

Once this proposed law is in place, it will be Islamophobic to speak against Sharia law.

Why? How do you know that the admittedly vague concept "Islamophobia" includes expressions of disagreement with the content of Sharia law. I think most people would think that such criticisms would not count as "Islamohobia".

But I agree, it would be better if the term "Islamophobia" were clearly defined in the bill.

 

[SLB]

Why? How do you know that the admittedly vague concept "Islamophobia" includes expressions of disagreement with the content of Sharia law. I think most people would think that such criticisms would not count as "Islamohobia".

But I agree, it would be better if the term "Islamophobia" were clearly defined in the bill.

Do I know "Islamophobia" will include expressions of disagreement with the content of Sharia law? On the surface I couldn't say so absolutely. I do know that muslims who have converted to Christianity believe so. I do know that non-practicing muslims believe so and are quaking in their boots since the penalty for apostasy is death.

 

[expos4ever]

Do I know "Islamophobia" will include expressions of disagreement with the content of Sharia law? On the surface I couldn't say so absolutely. I do know that muslims who have converted to Christianity believe so. I do know that non-practicing muslims believe so and are quaking in their boots since the penalty for apostasy is death.

I agree that the term "Islamophobia" needs to be clarified - we should not forfeit the right to criticize sharia law (or any other religious belief associated with any religion), even by means of things like cartoons and other forms of "mockery".

However, I find your argument puzzling:

(1) why would the view of "Muslims who have converted to Christianity" be particularly relevant to determining what the term "Islamophobia" means? The issue is the meaning of a word, and that has no more to do with this particular group of people than any other. It appears you are arguing thus:

1. Muslims who convert to Christianity are subject to violent retribution if and when they criticize sharia law;
2. Therefore, the word "Islamophobia" includes expressions disagreement with sharia law.

This argument is, of course, not correct (although I may have misunderstood you).

Same point re your statement about "non-practicing Muslims". How these people are abused when they criticize sharia clearly has nothing to do with what the term "Islamophobia" is generally understood to mean.

 

[AACJ]

If this bill made it illegal to criticize the doctrines of Islam (or any other religion for that matter), I would see your point. But, I see nothing in the bill that is troubling (at least as I read it).

You are not being mindful of the fact that it is a maxim of human existence that it is easier to pass wrongful and unjust laws by making incremental steps toward establishing such law. Each seemingly benign step conditions the public to except a final, more extreme law. this motion is that first step, a rather, and more bold step in a series of steps that have already been taken.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the this resolution/motion leaves wide open The question of what actions or words could be construed as "Islamophobia."

In addition, the obvious purpose of this motion is to equate any opposition to the spread of Islam in the West as "hate."

Anyone with enough sense who has studied the human condition, history and the Bible should fear the Islamization of the West.

This motion also falsely equates any opposition to the spread of Islam in the West with so-called "Islamophobia." It is certainly completely rational and necessary to fear the spread of Islam in Western nations, and in any nation for that matter. But of course liberals love to attach the word "phobia" to whatever apposes their agenda.

 

[Cimorene]

I totally agree that terrorism against any place of worship is wrong. I agree that ripping the scarf off a muslim woman is wrong. We already have laws in place that address these issues.

If you totally agree that terrorism against any place of worship is wrong, you should look into what contributed to the mindset of the person committing it. In the case of the terrorist who attacked the mosque in Quebec, hateful online rhetoric against Muslims was 1 of the factors. The laws in place aren't addressing the issues adequately.

As Christians we love our neighbours regardless of their religion or culture. We strive as Paul said, in Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

It would be really awesome if more Christians actually showed that love for their neighbours regardless of religion or culture instead of just saying they have it. Alexandre Bissonnette, the mosque shooter, wrote pro-Christian, anti-Muslim stuff. His friends say he was a Trump loving white nationalist against immigration.

Islam doesn't promote peace, just take a look at muslim countries and see how peaceable they aren't. If you are born in a muslim family, according to Islam you are muslim. The penalty for leaving Islam is death. In a muslim country the penalty for speaking against, Islam, Mohammed or Sharia law, is death. Once this proposed law is in place, it will be Islamophobic to speak against Sharia law.

You need to read through again what the law actually entails bc it's not what you're saying it is.

Christians as a rule, don't know much about Islam. If they did, they'd be more vocal in opposing this law.

I agree with you that a lot of Christians are ignorant about Islam. I think more Christians who understood the law would be supporting it.

 

[expos4ever]

You are not being mindful of the fact that it is a maxim of human existence that it is easier to pass wrongful and unjust laws by making incremental steps toward establishing such law. Each seemingly benign step conditions the public to except a final, more extreme law. this motion is that first step, a rather, and more bold step in a series of steps that have already been taken.

I think this argument is clearly invalid. Using your line of reasoning we would not have a law banning the yelling of "fire" in a movie theater because it could be an incremental step to banning free speech.

Clearly, there needs to be a law banning the yelling of "fire" in a movie theater (when there is no fire, of course).

And there are other examples: it is illegal to walk around naked in public. According to your line of reasoning, this is an "incremental" step toward making it illegal to be naked in the bedroom at home.

 

[expos4ever]

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the this resolution/motion leaves wide open The question of what actions or words could be construed as "Islamophobia."

You could not have been reading my posts carefully - I have repeatedly agreed that the term "Islamophobia" needs to better defined.

In addition, the obvious purpose of this motion is to equate any opposition the spread of Islam in the West as "hate."

No - that is a wild leap of speculation. The proposed law needs to be taken as it is written - you have no basis for such speculation.

Anyone with enough sense who has studied the human condition, history and the Bible should hate Islam, in its totality, and fear the Islamization of the West.

That may or may not be the case. But it is irrelevant to the matter at issue - if the term "Islamophobia" is properly restricted to exclude criticism of Islamic doctrine (and perhaps one or two other things), then the law seems like a good one to me.

This motion also falsely equates any opposition to the spread of Islam in the West with so-called "Islamophobia."

No. You are going way beyond the text of the law! I guarantee you will not be able to make a case to support this statement.

But of course liberals love to attach the word "phobia" to whatever apposes their agenda.

Poisoning the well.

 

[ken777]

The definition of words is very important when it comes to judicial interpretation. Here in Australia we have a law which makes it illegal "to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" when "the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

Some Aboriginal leaders have condemned the words as being so broad they prevent open discussion of alcoholism & domestic violence in indigenous communities. People have been prosecuted for trivial comments which have been dismissed by the courts after a lengthy process.

This law made me very cautious about engaging in a Facebook discussion on whether Australia's national day is racist because it celebrates the beginning of white settlement here.

In the Canadian situation, the motion contains words (such as 'hate crime', 'discrimination', 'Islamophobia') that if enacted could allow vexatious charges to be laid ... even if dismissed, the process is often the punishment.

I wonder what such a law would make of "pi-- christ" the so-called art work which depicts a crucifix submerged in a glass of urine. And how would a magazine like Charlie Hebdo be treated?

Any curbs on free speech must be very carefully considered. Offending someone is not sufficient, it must be limited to harassment, vilification, or incitement to violence.
Even these words are open to interpretation as 2 evangelical pastors were taken to court here for vilifying Islam - they were actually converts from Islam and were highlighting passages from the Koran in a public forum.

 

[expos4ever]

By the way, this not a proposed law, it is merely a statement of a position with the implication that actions may be taken.

 

[AACJ]

Here in Australia we have a law which makes it illegal "to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" when "the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin".

That's too bad. The law can be changed. Pray for it. Work for it.

I guess the US is the last true bastion of free speech. Is there any other western countries with real freedom of speech?

 

[FireDragon76]

If this bill made it illegal to criticize the doctrines of Islam (or any other religion for that matter), I would see your point. But, I see nothing in the bill that is troubling (at least as I read it).

Me neither, it's about responding to a real case of terrorism/hate against a religious minority, because of the mosque attack in Montreal recently.

 

[ken777]

Me neither, it's about responding to a real case of terrorism/hate against a religious minority, because of the mosque attack in Montreal recently.

Would you have a problem with the interpretation of "hate crime" to include "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people" as we have here in Australia?