This seems to have gone under the radar. Worrying stuff, and I agree, 'a slippery slope towards limiting freedom of speech'.
Is criticising Islam considered "Islamophobia"?!
What if I condemn the treatment of women in Islamic nations by pointing out misogynistic passages in the Qu'ran, and drawing examples from their cultures... is that "Islamophobia"?!
It is odd that they rejected the idea to change "Islamophobia" to "all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities"....
This seems to have gone under the radar. Worrying stuff, and I agree, 'a slippery slope towards limiting freedom of speech'.
Is criticising Islam considered "Islamophobia"?!
Anti-semitism is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews so why not have something for Muslims.
One needs to differentiate between criticism and discrimination / hostility. Discrimination, hostility or racism do not belong under the banner of free speech. There is a big difference between that and questioning something.
Anti-semitism is hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews so why not have something for Muslims.
One needs to differentiate between criticism and discrimination / hostility. Discrimination, hostility or racism do not belong under the banner of free speech. There is a big difference between that and questioning something.
Jews as a people/race.
Islam isn't a race, it's a theology that is not free from criticism, yet criticism of Islam falls under "Islamophobia", when it shouldn't.
This seems to have gone under the radar. Worrying stuff, and I agree, 'a slippery slope towards limiting freedom of speech'.
Is criticising Islam considered "Islamophobia"?!
What if I condemn the treatment of women in Islamic nations by pointing out misogynistic passages in the Qu'ran, and drawing examples from their cultures... is that "Islamophobia"?!
Jihadi Justin.
I'm totally against that I think freedom of speech is crucial. This is an authoritarian move and I condemn it, although I'm liberal and a globalist.
You clearly don't know that the term "Islamophobia" encompasses both dislike of Islam AND Muslims:
Definition: Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.
So this M-103 law seems to prevent people from criticising said religion.
Islam, nor any other religion, is free from criticism.
I think you are reading too much into this. Firstly, it is a non-binding law. Secondly it is a law that condemns, "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination." That is not criticism or questioning. The two are quite different things. It is in-line with our own racial hatred laws and the Respect Agenda. It is not about limiting free speech and debate.
I think you are reading too much into this. Firstly, it is a non-binding law. Secondly it is a law that condemns, "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination." That is not criticism or questioning. The two are quite different things. It is in-line with our own racial hatred laws and the Respect Agenda. It is not about limiting free speech and debate.
The fact that no one can truly define what Islamophobia is shows that it is indeed a slippery slope.
The fact that no one can truly define what Islamophobia is shows that it is indeed a slippery slope.
How about, "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims"?
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Questioning Muslim motives, behaviour, ideas, ideology etc = ok Discriminating, violence against, language against someone simply because they are a Muslim = bad and not acceptable.
Why does it have to be so complicated. Debate is a good thing. Hatred against someone simply because of something they believe, how they look or what they do is not acceptable. Is it really so hard?
How about, "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims"?
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Questioning Muslim motives, behaviour, ideas, ideology etc = ok Discriminating, violence against, language against someone simply because they are a Muslim = bad and not acceptable.
Why does it have to be so complicated. Debate is a good thing. Hatred against someone simply because of something they believe, how they look or what they do is not acceptable. Is it really so hard?
The inclusion of "Islam" in the definition is what makes it so complicated.
I implore you to watch the "Islamophobia" segment of this video.
[video]https://youtu.be/wUJefiibHL4?t=249[/video]
" Hatred against someone simply because of something they believe, how they look or what they do is not acceptable."
I agree, but this is why including Islam in the definition is wrong.
This seems to have gone under the radar. Worrying stuff, and I agree, 'a slippery slope towards limiting freedom of speech'.
Is criticising Islam considered "Islamophobia"?!
What if I condemn the treatment of women in Islamic nations by pointing out misogynistic passages in the Qu'ran, and drawing examples from their cultures... is that "Islamophobia"?!
Jihadi Justin.
Since this is just a motion it isn't a ''slippery slope'' towards anything. That would be like saying that a motion passed to 'recognise the threat of climate change and to tackle our CO2 emissions' is actually going to make any positive change. It wouldn't.
If a law was passed which strictly prohibited an undefined ''Islamophobia'' then yes this would be a problem.
Until then you can criticise Islam and the actions of misogynistic Muslims until the cows go home. Even if you were an MP in Canada you could still do that.
Discriminating against Muslims based on prejudice and/or hatred of Muslims/Islam is probably not something you can do - and I expect it's been like this for a long time in Canada anyway, motion 103 or not.