Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We totally need a "national substitute teacher recognition week."
Listen, this type of stuff is passed in good faith, I get it, but it's pretty useless. A symbolic bill that changes absolutely nothing but condemns acts that are already condemned by Western society at large is pretty pointless.
I don't think you do. This is not about hate crimes. The goal here is to further limit the ability of Canadians to freely criticise Islam and Muslim political agendas.
May the Muslims increase their tribe in Canada with their special protected status, that no other minority religious community enjoys in Canada.
As their population percentage rises, the LGBT, Women, and Minority freedom and rights will only increase in Canada.
When will people learn that you cannot legislate thought? Canada is banning "dislike"? That's like banning reacting. If someone dislikes a culture, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
When will people learn that you cannot legislate thought? Canada is banning "dislike"? That's like banning reacting. If someone dislikes a culture, there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
Canada didn't legislate anything, they passed a motion. They didn't ban it, they "condemned" it. Cripes ahmighty!
C'mon folks it's getting near bed time now. Can we at least forego the requirement for a third grade English refresher.
I don't think you do. This is not about hate crimes. The goal here is to further limit the ability of Canadians to freely criticise Islam and Muslim political agendas.
The motion is not enforceable, it's just symbolic. Again I don't know how Canadian law works but this particular thing they passed changes absolutely nothing. It just uselessly makes "official" something that most already condemn. The article I posted explains it's the hate crimes that are condemned while the vague emotionally driven one the OP shared only states that it's Islamophobia itself, which is misleading, hence my initial confusion. I'm inclined to believe my article because it's not an opinion piece, therefore was much more objective, and made much more sense. It explicitly stated this is about hate crimes rooted in Islamophobia.
What part of those members going on record as condemning “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”, but not enacting any new or altered legislation or law don't you understand.
I totally understand it, and I don't like it. Governments in free societies have no business condemning their citizens for feeling "dislike" toward certain political movements.
I don't think you do. This is not about hate crimes. The goal here is to further limit the ability of Canadians to freely criticise Islam and Muslim political agendas.
There is no way this "motion" limits anything other than those boobs in the house who might be overheard making a spurious comment regarding Islam or Muslims having to endure the pointed finger during order sessions to wit: "would the honourable member like to explain himself slandering a religion after hypocritically voting for a motion to condemn such behaviour?"
Do I think your point of it's intent to influence Canadians against criticising Islam is valid ...Yes I do, but how does such stuff get received by the general public where you're from?
I would opine this will get treated by the majority of Canadians the very same way some of the stuff coming out of Washington that has no factual basis or force of law does......totally ignored.
The number of Mosques in the U.S. has increased from just over 100 in 1970 to around 2700 with the oldest having been established in the very early 1900's
Canada has less than 1 million Muslims
We're displeased your Muslimification is rubbing off on us.
Just fun'n with ya FJ.
You have a tenth the population and a government literally bending over backwards to take more Muslims with no citizen opposition.
I totally understand it, and I don't like it. Governments in free societies have no business condemning their citizens for feeling "dislike" toward certain political movements.
On that we totally agree. They can condemn a behaviour all they like but if they enact some legislation providing some legal punitive measure for doing so the freak'n gloves will come off.
Hate speech is clearly defined as publicly advocating and calling for harm against an identifiable minority or individual. Its one thing for the public at large to judge you harshly if you're a racist bigot and make no attempt to curb your overt racism. It's quite another for legal force of law to be brought to bear against you because you call a jew a **** or a lesbian a dyck.
(see that; even these boards practice some reasonable censorship intervention where they feel the need. I did not type four asterisks. What I typed rhymed with dyck)
Those limitations should be imposed by your own self restraint and moral imperatives and no amount of government overbearance should be tolerated other than that minimally needed to punish those who would encourage the bringing of harm to others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
