M-103 and the Future of blasphemy
Discussion
Lance Catamaran said:
They might not have signed up for his lectures but they love turning up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_Pv0A-xjE
Although declaring yourself a transsexual is very much the SJW flavour of the month, so it's no wonder he draws their ire by coming out with statements like there is a biological difference between men and women.
I know.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_Pv0A-xjE
Although declaring yourself a transsexual is very much the SJW flavour of the month, so it's no wonder he draws their ire by coming out with statements like there is a biological difference between men and women.
It's a wonder they haven't deported the man back to Alberta and the oil fields - making statements like that in public!
That McMasters episode was particularly shameful.
The damned security refused to do their job - simple as that.
It is odd that his critics (nearly) always claim that there are fascists present to listen to him, and then the (allegedly) transgender, hate speech objecting protesters are the ones that manage to get arrested for assaults and other violence.
It's almost as though the police recognise a fascist when they see one?
Patrick Bateman said:
The likes of Christopher Hitchens always summed up this best.
https://youtu.be/32KRwzJsy1o?t=190
'Islamophobia' is such a nonsense, poorly defined term. Some people would say you were 'Islamophobic' or 'racist' for harshly criticising and calling out Islam as a bad ideology, Ben Affleck for example-
https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=105
Cringe.
Excellent examples.https://youtu.be/32KRwzJsy1o?t=190
'Islamophobia' is such a nonsense, poorly defined term. Some people would say you were 'Islamophobic' or 'racist' for harshly criticising and calling out Islam as a bad ideology, Ben Affleck for example-
https://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60?t=105
Cringe.
As I see it;
The problem with the Afflecks of the world is their inability to see beyond the culture of their PC echo chambers.
The problem with so many critics of Islam and religion generally, especially in the US and Canada, is their inability to differentiate clearly, in the same way Affleck fails, between the people and the ideology.
The hate filled bigotry that one so often sees, below any Islam critical youtube clip, or facebook meme is sickening.
Very few are capable of publicly criticising the individual dangerous components of Islam (or other beliefs), without condemning the entire religion, calling for it's banning, or outright insulting every follower.
Don't we have a case of bigotry by limited expectations?
What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
RTB said:
Don't we have a case of bigotry by limited expectations?
What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
I would agree that this is true in the case of the majority of supporters of this motion, though not in the case of the proposer.What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
And it is not at all my experience of dialectical discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances.
Religion is nearly always an emotive subject for the believer, but I have heard nothing but rational, peaceful responses and counter arguments in my discussions and enquiries with individuals.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I would agree that this is true in the case of the majority of supporters of this motion, though not in the case of the proposer.
And it is not at all my experience of dialectical discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances.
Religion is nearly always an emotive subject for the believer, but I have heard nothing but rational, peaceful responses and counter arguments in my discussions and enquiries with individuals.
If we allow followers of Islam to believe their ideas are somehow special then it becomes harder, not easier, to have those rational peaceful discussions with followers of Islam. And it is not at all my experience of dialectical discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances.
Religion is nearly always an emotive subject for the believer, but I have heard nothing but rational, peaceful responses and counter arguments in my discussions and enquiries with individuals.
I'm all for people practising whatever beliefs they want in the privacy of their own heads, they can wage Jihad, providing it's an internal struggle with their own metaphysical complexities. What I'm not for is religion having a special place in the war of ideas, or being beyond criticism or denigration by order of the law, and I suspect those people with whom you have had rational discussions with would agree.
Edited by RTB on Wednesday 29th March 10:55
RTB said:
Don't we have a case of bigotry by limited expectations?
What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
Holding groups to different levels?What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
When has that happened:
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character."
RTB said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
I would agree that this is true in the case of the majority of supporters of this motion, though not in the case of the proposer.
And it is not at all my experience of dialectical discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances.
Religion is nearly always an emotive subject for the believer, but I have heard nothing but rational, peaceful responses and counter arguments in my discussions and enquiries with individuals.
If we allow followers of Islam to believe their ideas are somehow special then it becomes harder, not easier, to have those rational peaceful discussions with followers of Islam. And it is not at all my experience of dialectical discussions with Muslim friends and acquaintances.
Religion is nearly always an emotive subject for the believer, but I have heard nothing but rational, peaceful responses and counter arguments in my discussions and enquiries with individuals.
I'm all for people practising whatever beliefs they want in the privacy of their own heads, they can wage Jihad, providing it's an internal struggle with their own metaphysical complexities. What I'm not for is religion having a special place in the war of ideas, or being beyond criticism or denigration by order of the law, and I suspect those people with whom you have had rational discussions with would agree.
My point being that the Muslims that I know are perfectly capable of intellectually defending themselves and their personal faith, as well as anyone might be, thus disproving for me their need for any special defence of their ideas.
Motions and attempts at passing laws that give any protection from speaking negatively about a faith (or pretty much anything else you can think of), are to abhorred and fought against up to and with our dying breath if necessary.
To give precedence or special attention to any individual faith will prove to be culturally and politically divisive in a way only a committed Marxist could desire.
MrBrightSi said:
RTB said:
Don't we have a case of bigotry by limited expectations?
What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
Holding groups to different levels?What a great many left leaning commentators are suggesting is that Muslims are somehow unable to show tolerance to other views or enter into a discussion about their ideology because they are Muslim.
By not holding them to the same levels of civilised discourse that should be the minimum standard in any multi-religious secular democracy we are essentially showing a bigoted mindset that they are somehow incapable of having those discussions.
When has that happened:
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character."
I have read plenty of nasty stuff on this forum and much of it by yourself, it's up to the forum in question to moderate. If someone complained to a hotline about stuff you have said you'd be straight on here moaning about the 'lefties' stomping on freedom of speech.
MrBrightSi you can happily come on here and spout your bile about black people, native Americans and Muslims, so why is freedom of expression OK for you?
I am extremely far away from saying that the report was upheld correctly, but its a bit hypocritical to use this as an example.
To add it was overturned and actually this story was, as the alt right would say if it was against them "a non story".
And now Australia.
It seems that some must be feeling 'left behind' by Canada, poor little things.
Australian MP Wants to Make It Illegal to Cause Religious Offence to Muslims
It seems that some must be feeling 'left behind' by Canada, poor little things.
Australian MP Wants to Make It Illegal to Cause Religious Offence to Muslims
Article said:
...the Australian government is mounting a push to rewrite the legislation so that words must “harass or intimidate” before they become a matter for the courts.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the legislation in question – Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – has “lost its credibility” and needs to change.
However, Aly proposes doing the opposite – keeping the lower standard for the law, and adding “religion” to the current list of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.
Thankfully for Australians, their current Prime Minister doesn't appear to be the weak, virtue signalling, history ignorant fool that occupies the corresponding position in Canada.Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the legislation in question – Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – has “lost its credibility” and needs to change.
However, Aly proposes doing the opposite – keeping the lower standard for the law, and adding “religion” to the current list of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.
It seems there are a few Canadian Muslims holding the, not so surprising view, that they moved to Canada to avoid the sort of people promoting M-103, and by definition fully support free and open speech.
Tarek Fatah - Muslims Against M103
There is an interesting documentary, originally made for PBS, that they (PBS) ultimately refused to show.
Click the menu link on the page above or Islam vs. Islamists (53 min.)
Tarek Fatah - Muslims Against M103
There is an interesting documentary, originally made for PBS, that they (PBS) ultimately refused to show.
Click the menu link on the page above or Islam vs. Islamists (53 min.)
This video, while being delivered by a chap I will describe as a bit 'ranty' himself, does make some very good specific points about Motion M-103 and the refusal of both the proposer and the Canadian prime minister to alter the wording.
Trudeau makes some quite chilling statements.
Likely NSFW (verbally), and probably best to start off with the volume lowered slightly.
Justin Trudeau’s Unhinged Islamophobia Rant
Trudeau makes some quite chilling statements.
Likely NSFW (verbally), and probably best to start off with the volume lowered slightly.
Justin Trudeau’s Unhinged Islamophobia Rant
MrBrightSi said:
Thanks for posting this vid and the Tarek Fatah vid Goaty
I just hope a few of the Canucks see it and maybe pass it around.So - yes this is a gratuitous thread bump, as it's now daytime in The Great White North.
ETA
But early enough that most of them are probably still sober.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff