Argus

Canadian Muslims demanding end to free speech

240 posts in this topic

40 minutes ago, Rue said:

What does it have to do with the thread?

Good question, perhaps you should ask taxme that introduced the topic.

 

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

Politicians can't force people to be open minded. They can only threaten people with negative consequences if they do specific things that are first defined.

Who said this is about forcing people to do something? This is about recognizing there is a problem and figuring out what, if anything, can be done to try and address it.

 

Quote

The motion did not differentiate between discourse challenging Muslim precepts from discourse that engages in inciting hatred against Muslims. a, I hateful of Muslims because I disagree with certain Islamic beliefs? That remains the question left vague in the motion.

...

Its why I argue on the one hand I get Muslims being afraid, but I don't like that particular wording in the motion.  

It is a motion to study the situation, it is not the solution. I don't know what specific wording you don't like in the motion, but you seem to be thinking it is a law or something.

 

Quote

We can't overcome hatred if we hide from our haters and refuse to meet them and talk to them and with them and stand up to them and not be afraid to listen to the hatred and talk that hatred down.

Agreed. I see this as one step towards that goal.

Edited by ?Impact
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rue said:

All of them in theory could be called upon but the reality is none of them will stop people from being bigots or hateful. That has to happen on an individual level. The notion someone can point a gun at you and presto you like blacks or Muslims or gays or whoever it is-is naïve. Its why among other reasons I found the wording in the motion full of gas, rhetorical feel good gas. Politicians can't force people to be open minded. They can only threaten people with negative consequences if they do specific things that are first defined.

 

Yes, I agree with this.  

 

6 minutes ago, Rue said:

but if we want people to be open minded we have to teach our kids when they are young and its a two way street.

I don't think this is entirely true.   I agree that it helps to raise kids to be accepting and tolerant, but it's also true that people can grow into something different than they way they were raised.  It seems unlikely that the parents of Alexandre Bissonnet raised him to hate Muslims enough to shoot them.     There's also Maajid Nawaz, whose gone from extremist to moderate.  People can change attitudes.  

 

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

don't want anyone hating anyone simply because they are Muslim but I sure as hell have the right to challenge Islamic precepts. Some of the most interesting discourse I have heard is between theologians of many religions criticizing and challenging religious precepts and what they mean. Some of the best interpretations of the Talmud I have heard have come from Christian scholars not just Jewish ones. Some of the most insightful religious analysis has come in Arabic poetry that could be applied to all 3 religions.

1

I think this kind of discourse can happen and should happen.   But discourse does not involve insulting an entire group of people or making up stories to make them appear more threatening than they are.   Thus, starting a conversation with "Canadian Muslims demand an end to Free Speech" because someone made a motion for a study is not an invitation to discuss rationally.  It's a call to arms, and feeds on the fears of people who are both ill-informed and unwilling to become better informed.

Personally, I agree that the motion - even if passed, and even if it does result in a study - is not really going to help any religious minority nor will it protect Muslims from Islamaphobic people.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Good question, perhaps you should ask taxme that introduced the topic.

 

Who said this is about forcing people to do something? This is about recognizing there is a problem and figuring out what, if anything, can be done to try and address it.

 

It is a motion to study the situation, it is not the solution. I don't know what specific wording you don't like in the motion, but you seem to be thinking it is a law or something.

 

Agreed. I see this as one step towards that goal.

In regards to your first comment. I apologize. I meant that for Taxme not you. My lack of clarification.

In regards to your second sentence I was talking rhetorically not specific to the motion. I actually maintained the motion is not a law and is just rhetoric in my personal opinion.

I don't like the fact it has not defined Islamophobia. I have explained why. By failing to differentiate between challenging Islamic precepts from acts of hatred towards Muslims it leaves the interpretation open to challenging the right to criticize Islamic precepts. I personally believe in a democracy you Impact should be able to challenge my Jewish religious beliefs. It won't make me automatically think you are hateful of Jews. If you said to me, Rue do you really think Moses caused the seas to part, I would say, well have a bagel. I would not get upset. If you asked, why do Jews own all the world's banks, yah maybe I would get ticked off You see what I  mean? I don't even have a problem wi th you saying NO one of any religion should have a state However if you hold that Muslims can have states, Christians can have states, but Jews can't I would point that out as discriminatory and therefore anti-Semitic but when I use it in that sense, I would not mean you necessarily hate Jews intentionally just that you hold us to an unfair standard that is unfair to us. It can get anti-Semitic to the point of severe degree if you go further and say deny the holocaust or when engaging in such discussion claim me and my fellow Jews control the media, etc. Its a fine line. I have been told many times on this forum I use the word anti-Semite too much in Israeli discussions but I don't initiate the references to Jews and I never understand why people can' see how some of their comments fail to differentiate between all Jews, some Jews, all Israelis, some Israelis, and when they generalize it leads to  hatred no different than if I do that with Muslims when discussing Muslim terrorists or Muslim states.

I may have failed unintentionally but I have tried my best to  practice the same standard with Muslims or Arabs as I want Jews to be referred to.

I have read some incredibly hateful statements about Jews as a people in debate about Israel, sometimes intentional sometimes completely unintentional.

No I don't want discussion challenging Israeli state policies shut down. I just want the right to debate it when I find it hateful. I would hope most Muslims feel the same way-they just want to be assured they can defend themselves against hateful acts and know non Muslims will stand with them in that hour of need.

That said we don't really disagree on this issue. How could you or I not agree that being bigoted and hateful of Musims simply because they are Muslim is wrong? Hell we debate a lot of crap, not that. Not you and me. Hell I challenge a lot of what you say, but I can't remember you ever saying anything hateful about Jews or Muslims or Christians. If you had I would have challenged you and I would hope vice versa.

Impact I tell you this. When you live in a world where you can't tell a Muslim terrorist from an innocent Muslim like I did, its a scary thing because in a split second you might kill someone innocent by mistake. Trust me no one wants to live like that.  Its why police get second guessed so much. People think they hate, they are bigots, etc., but they get put in situations they can't tell innocent from evil and have a split second to decide.

Let's hope we don't in Canada get to the point where we can't tell the difference between Muslims as people, innocent people, who just want to be good citizens, from terrorists inspired by specific interpretations of Islam. Right now most Canadians don't know how to differentiate between Muslim extremists, Muslim terrorists, fundamentalist Muslims, progressive Muslims. They can't tell the difference. Some don't care to know the difference. I just hope in any motion the point is to encourage people to be open minded but to do that let's be careful in what we say. Its already a mine field of  misinterpretations.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rue said:

Agreed. 

But then she wouldn't have gotten the same kudos from her community.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It is a motion to study the situation, it is not the solution. I don't know what specific wording you don't like in the motion, but you seem to be thinking it is a law or something.

Given the nature of this government, and progressives in general, yes, I consider it likely.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

But then she wouldn't have gotten the same kudos from her community.

I wonder myself if she caused more Muslims in her community to cringe then support her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Given the nature of this government, and progressives in general, yes, I consider it likely.

True is big on words, very little on substance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Rue said:

True is big on words, very little on substance.

Yes, but this is something which won't cost him anything. It will tick off conservatives, who'd never vote for him anyway, and please the left, especially the progressives who might consider voting NDP. And it won't appear as a budget item in his already overcrowded, overloaded budget. This is a very politically expedient way to show how noble and inclusive he is, too. And remember, this is a guy who brooks no argument or disagreement on social matters to begin with. Witness him simply outright banning anyone from running for Liberal if they weren't pro choice. You can imagine what he thinks of people who openly question the wisdom of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

Edited by Argus
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yrs, but this is something which won't cost him anything. It will tick off conservatives, who'd never vote for him anyway, and please the let, especially the progressives who might consider voting NDP. And it won't appear as a budget item in his already overcrowded, overloaded budget. This is a very politically expedient way to show how noble and inclusive he is, too. And remember, this is a guy who brooks no argument or disagreement on social matters to begin with. Witness him simply outright banning anyone from running for Liberal if they weren't pro choice. You can imagine what he thinks of people who openly question the wisdom of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

I think it was deliberate pandering myself. He's running for the next election and already anticipates a sort of Trumpian-European  backlash to immigration in voters so he is starting early with the not so subtle pandering-I mean you don't get any more crass than posing with refuges, then appointing a Somali refugee as Immigration Minister and then fanning these feel good motions. Its clearly designed to signal certain audiences he's with them. Its actually quite divisive in tone.

It tokenizes minorities far worse than any bigot does. It turns minorities into trained monkeys manipulated on command to salivate when he throws out a cookie.

Its going to back fire on him. He forgets most Canadians are minorities and so his favouring only some will piss off the rest.

When you think of the number of immigrants now lined up watching him winl wink nudge nudge to certain minorities that they can jump the line, trust me, the other minorities are noticing. Its gonna blow up in his smug manipulating face. Hard working immigrants are gonna throw his buttox out of office not just Argus.

Edited by Rue
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rue said:

I think it was deliberate pandering myself. He's running for the next election and already anticipates a sort of Trumpian-European  backlash to immigration in voters so he is starting early with the no so subtle pandering-I mean you don't get any more crass than posing with refuges, then appointing a Somali refugee as Immigration Minister and then fanning

Yes, your connecting our new Somali immigration minister with the fact most of the border crossovers are Somali was interesting. I had noted that myself, but hadn't put that together with who our new immigration minister is. That news would have spread widely among the Somali communities in the US and UK, as well as back home. I think we can expect a lot more of them coming here.

Which is doubly unfortunate, because by almost any measure the Somali community as a whole is probably the most unsuccessful we've ever had.

I've previously mentioned Barbara MacDougal, Mulroney's former immigration minister who came up with the plan to triple immigration. It's no surprise to you, I'm sure, that she came from an immigrant heavy riding in Toronto. I thought at the time that immigration ministers should come from Alberta or Saskatchewan, or anywhere that their decisions as ministers wouldn't adversely affect their re-election chances.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rue -- if these hardworking but politically unnoticed immigrants are given a choice between Trudeau and a Trump-like candidate, will they still throw him out of office, do you suppose?   

You seem to dislike JT immensely, so it's hard for me  to take what you say in terms of his political maneuverings too seriously.   You might mistake me for a Trudeau fan, but while I liked his policies as stated during his campaign it's also true he's irritated me on a personal level. And now he's disappointed me a couple of times so my vote for him next election is on shaky ground.   His actions around this motion, refugees and immigrants don't actually outweigh his lack of commitment to promises he's already made, at least for me.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This assumption that all minorities immediately vote for the politician that  panders to them is b.s.

Trump is far different than Trudeau. He has said some irresponsible hateful things. Its a bad comparison. However I think Hilary Clinton was an elitist phony and far from the Liberal she posed as. She was a rich privileged girl. She was never a person of the people.

You bet I dislike Trudeau-I think his using Syrian refugees as photo props and his tossing the Somali lawyer out as Immigration Minister are as racist as it gets. I get politics goes into the choices such as gender and race with cabinet Ministers -I get that. I just think his use of this man as Immigration Minister was an abuse of a good man, placing him in an Uncle Tom like situation. It was wrong. Dead wrong. That to me is crass tokenism the worst kind of racism. He exploits that man's skin colour and refugee status so if they do something restrictive they can hold that man up under the bus as their Uncle Tom to take the blame. That's as disgusting as it gets. On the other hand I do not think he does what he does to be hateful or mean spirited-I think he himself is a naïve idiot. I think its the crass cynical machine behind him that comes up with these things. In Trump's case you can see the hate originates with him.

I can not stand people who smile and drip sugar coated words to slum people then retreat to their privileged lifestyles and trust fund sheltered lives to shower and wash the germs off when the press has done. The detached reality of what Trudeau says and lives to me screams out. I know many like him. They drip two faced platitudes. Watching McCallum an elitist banker pose with refugees made me want to puke.

The last genuine grass roots politician we had was Rene Levesque. He actually lived what he was-a chain smoking journalist, politician. No pretentions. Bill Davis in Ontario was also pretty down to earth. We don't have to many like that. David Crombie the Mayor of Toronto was another one like that. There ain't too many of them. I forget the guy who died in Alberta who was the federal Tory cabinet Minister then switched to Alberta politics. Everyone said he was a modest grass roots guy. They said that about Ray Natyshn (spelled wrong) the former Energy Minister-Gov. General, Tommy Douglas too.. I like Harry Truman for that reason. I actually like Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles for that reason. They were born in this bubble of monarchy they imposes a lifestyle but they and Princess Anne do not live decadently.Princess Ann still works 12 hour days.

Modest genuine people no matter what their politics show their true qualities. Trudeau is a variation of Trump. One is in your face the other closeted.

 

Edited by Rue
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Argus said:

Witness him simply outright banning anyone from running for Liberal if they weren't pro choice.

Actually the ban was against anti-abortion candidates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-02-17 at 8:57 PM, betsy said:

They're not going to waste time and taxpayers money doing these studies and motion for nothing!

Canadians ought to be vigilant about these things.

Very accurate in my opinion. Let's take a page from the evolution of official bilingualism which started with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Bilingualism_and_Biculturalism

Then came the first Official Languages Act (1969).

Then came the 1973 Parliamentary Resolution on Official Languages in the Public Service to expand the provisions of the existing Official Languages Act.

In June 1973, Parliament passed the Parliamentary Resolution on Official Languages in the Public Service (hereafter, the “1973 Resolution”), which reiterated the principles of the 1969 Official Languages Act and confirmed the right of public servants to work in the official language of their choice, subject to certain conditions. The intent of the resolution, which provided for the language designation of public service positions, was to increase the use of the French language at all levels of the public service through an intensified recruitment effort, the provision of French-language training programs and the development of projects designed to enhance bilingualism in the National Capital Region. The idea was to ensure the equitable participation of members of the Anglophone and Francophone communities, while at the same time giving due regard to the merit principle.(1) In short, the public service was to be a functionally bilingual institution that could serve members of the public in the language of their choice.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0256-e.htm#A-The1973

Next came the revised Official Languages Act (1988) enshrining the Parliamentary Resolution of 1973,

The Liberals were in government for all initiatives except for the revised Act of 1988 when Mulroney was PM.

Governments are masters at getting their way in an incremental manner that, most times, flies right over the heads of the electorate. And even so, majority governments can do as they please and the peons can go to hell.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Very accurate in my opinion. Let's take a page from the evolution of official bilingualism which started with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Bilingualism_and_Biculturalism

Then came the first Official Languages Act (1969).

Then came the 1973 Parliamentary Resolution on Official Languages in the Public Service to expand the provisions of the existing Official Languages Act.

 

 

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0256-e.htm#A-The1973

Next came the revised Official Languages Act (1988) enshrining the Parliamentary Resolution of 1973,

The Liberals were in government for all initiatives except for the revised Act of 1988 when Mulroney was PM.

Governments are masters at getting their way in an incremental manner that, most times, flies right over the heads of the electorate. And even so, majority governments can do as they please and the peons can go to hell.

 

Once it's there......It's just a matter of time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now