SUBMISSION: Canada Passes Anti-Islamophobia Bill

Canada = terror sponsor in our lifetime.

Its going to happen.

Meanwhile will the Cucknadians be passing laws to protect the Christians that will become victiums of Muslim hate?

 

This isn't law, its a private member introduced motion. Its nothing more than a re-affirmation of one of our core values as a nation. The mention of Islamophobia is directly related to the nonsense and hatred being spewed by certain white nationalists and christian fundamentalists and reminds us all of our obligation as Canadians to stand up for equality, tolerance, integration and unity in our own homes.

But as they say, haters gonna hate.

 

Thank God !!!

 

Let me ask you an honest question; do you think the Muslim caused carnage, rapes, murders and massacres occurring in Europe would not happen if they came to Canada or USA, or do you not care?

Keep this in mind, the only reason we have all this airport security is because of Muslims. Obviously, much of the world considers Islam a threat.

 

First off, this isn't a Law, it's a motion to research. It's basically a bunch of Liberals who want to feel good about themselves.

Second, we don't have the same free speech right that the US does. Hate-Speech is against the law and has been for a long time.

Third - I personally am not a fan of this, but as I don't think it'll actually go anywhere, it's all a bunch of whatever.

 

Leftists are intolerant of free speech.

Canada does not have freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

This is more correctly defined as intolerance.

 

No, I don't. We don't have a problem with economic migrants like Europe does with muslims and africans and America does with latinos. We have the luxury of our geography coupled with our immigration and refugee policies which are strict but not really politically contentious, unless its a question of recognition(credit) for foreign credentials.
The result is most of our non-euro adult immigrants are educated, have money or resident financial support and either have a job or have employable skills or are enrolled in school.

So no I have NO fear of waves of ferriners assaulting our wimin and choppin off heads. Most canadians view such attitudes as paranoid delusional.

 

Do you support Sharia Law (Islam) or do you support freedom and democracy?

It is not possible to support both.

 

I'd argue that "Islamophobia" doesn't exist. Phobia is an irrational fear of something. Islam and the fascists there in seek to destroy western culture. Further they have proven they are capable and willing.

Thus the fear is perfectly justified.

Poeple don't fear it because Islamic people like terrible music or worship God differently, poeple fear it because they have vastly different views on rape and murder.

So the fear is rational.

Canada is outlawing thought.

 

We should ban entry from all nations that beat women for being raped.

 

I suspect England, Paris, Canada, Norway and Much of The West is all going to wake up suddenly, like the US Electorate has:

COUNTERING POLITICAL ISLAMISM:

Insisting that radical Islamists have “nothing to do with Islam” has led US policy makers to commit numerous strategic errors since 9/11. One is to distinguish between a “tiny” group of extremists and an “overwhelming” majority of “moderate” Muslims. I prefer to differentiate among Medina Muslims, who embrace the militant political ideology adopted by Muhammad in Medina; Mecca Muslims, who prefer the religion originally promoted by Muhammad in Mecca; and reformers, who are open to some kind of Muslim Reformation.

These distinctions have their origins in history. The formative period of Islam can be divided roughly into two phases: the spiritual phase, associated with Mecca, and the political phase that followed Muhammad’s move to Medina.

By not fighting a war of ideas against political Islam (or “Islamism”) as an ideology and against those who spread that ideology, we have made a grave error.

If Islamism is the ideology, then dawa encompasses all the methods by which it is spread. The term “dawa” refers to activities carried out by Islamists to win adherents and enlist them in a campaign to impose sharia law on all societies. Dawa is not the Islamic equivalent of religious proselytizing, although it is often disguised as such by blending humanitarian activities with subversive political activities.

Dawa as practiced by Islamists employs a wide range of mechanisms to advance the goal of imposing Islamic law (sharia) on society. This includes proselytization, but extends beyond that. In Western countries, dawa aims both to convert non-Muslims to political Islam and to bring about more extreme views among existing Muslims. The ultimate goal of dawa is to destroy the political institutions of a free society and replace them with strict sharia. Islamists rely on both violent and nonviolent means to achieve their objectives.

Dawa is to the Islamists of today what the “long march through the institutions” was to twentieth-century Marxists. It is subversion from within, the use of religious freedom in order to undermine that very freedom. After Islamists gain power, dawa is to them what Gleichschaltung  (synchronization) of all aspects of German state, civil, and social institutions was to the National Socialists.

http://www.hoover.org/research/how-counter-political-islam

 

Actually it is, since freedom and democracy require the rule of secular law - you know that sticky thing called equal rights and there are COUNTLESS Islamic rulings that state a muslim living in a NON MUSLIM state must submit to that states rule of law. Since secular law is preminent at all times, there really isn't anything wrong with muslims by mutual consent to use sharia arbitration laws to settle civil disputes amongst themselves, is there? I believe all kinds of religious Christians and Jews do that all the time. So you can support a set of religious laws where civilly appropriate while also supporting the secular laws of a democratic and free society.

 

You call it Islamophobia, we call it free speech. There's nothing wrong with being critical of Islam, but if you do not wish to participate, then that's cool, too.

 

"Islamophobia" = being realistic

If you do not disagree with certain aspects of islam you have allowed yourself to be convinced of fallacies..

Nice going leafs, now your really forked..

 

Trump has helped to expose the realistic danger of islam to western culture whaa??
Say it isn't so..

 

Is it Trump who has "resurrected" Islamophobia or is the numerous terror attacks across the world in the name of Islam, is it the fact that they kill people for being gay, stone and beat women, and want to follow sharia law? Is it that many of them were raised to think that Americans should be killed in the name of Allah? But yes, you're right, it's probably Trump.

 

We should be going after ISIS, instead of targeting the whole Islamic religion. All religions are cults, and all have cons. Islam just seems to have some of the more uglier texts.

 

But let's not pretend that all the negatives about Islam is ISIS. The stoning, killing gays, Sharia law, etc. is Islam in general, not just ISIS.

 

I believe the rhetoric over Islam, especially on the right, is what is fueling panic and chaos. In fact, I bet these travel bans are just what ISIS wants. Board our home up, feel all comfortable, then bam. This whole issue over Americans and Islam really makes my case for why America should be a agnostic country, not a Christian one, though you'll find filth in Christianity as well. As I say, "Hold the bible and the quran up, and guess which one is more fake. Surprisingly, it would be hard to pick the right answer."

 

I am agnostic. You can't compare Islam and Christians. You are trying to find others to blame for Islamaphobia. Try blaming Islam.

 

I am too, but the Islamophobia in this country needs to be extinguished over the people who practice Islam in this country.

 

And...... what about the ones outside of this country who are trying to get in? And why do you think the ones inside of this country are safe?

 

The ones outside the country who are trying to get in don't necessarily want to be here, its because they are leaving their war-torn countries in fear of being killed.
If I were a gambler, I would bet that the issue of homegrown terror, over terror from overseas, is a bigger problem thus why the travel bans would not be effective, and also why attempting to use military power against ISIS would be a moot effort. For every Omar Mateen out there, there are probably a million peaceful Muslims who wouldn't think of doing harm. We are focusing on that 1% of Muslim population.

 

Here's more:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...s_58d55077e4b03692bea55dc1?2ol546zg4g59afw29&

WORLDPOST 03/24/2017 03:02 pm ET
Canada Passes Anti-Islamophobia Motion In Spite Of Trolls
The non-binding motion calls on Parliament to address racism and religious discrimination.
By Antonia Blumberg
230
The Canadian Parliament passed a motion on Thursday to publicly denounce Islamophobia and develop strategies to end religious discrimination.

In a vote split 201-91 in favor of the non-binding motion, the Parliament agreed to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The motion, dubbed M-103, also tasks the Parliament with establishing a committee to investigate policies that could be aimed at “reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia in Canada.”

Iqra Khalid, a Liberal member of Parliament who is Muslim, introduced the motion in December as a response to rising anti-Muslim sentiment. It took on renewed significance in January after a mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City left six worshippers dead.


The motion didn’t propose outlawing anything, as several conservative websites claimed in the weeks and months after Khalid introduced the bill. A number of of far-right outlets called the motion a “war against free speech” and a “modern day blasphemy law.”

The Daily Wire, founded by former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, called the motion a “draconian” measure that would consider “any and all” instances of Islamophobia as hate crimes. Jihad Watch, LifeSiteNews and The Rebel ran stories claiming the motion would be a “first step” toward imposing Islamic law, or Sharia.


NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
A group of Canadians gathered to protest against M-103 in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on March 19, 2017.
The motion set off a number of protests and counter-protests across the country as members of Parliament debated it ahead of the vote. A survey published Thursday by polling non-profit Angus Reid Institute found that 42 percent of Canadians said they would vote against the motion. Just 29 percent said they would vote in favor.

Khalid, who represents Mississauga-Erin Mills in the House of Commons, rejected the idea that her motion would hinder free speech. Though it names Islamophobia, the MP said, the motion’s aims are broad. “All forms of racism are interconnected, they are not separate,” Khalid told The Huffington Post in February. “People who are targeted by Islamophobia include Sikhs, Arabs, and Black Canadians and many other minority groups.”


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...s_58d55077e4b03692bea55dc1?2ol546zg4g59afw29&

WORLDPOST 03/24/2017 03:02 pm ET
Canada Passes Anti-Islamophobia Motion In Spite Of Trolls
The non-binding motion calls on Parliament to address racism and religious discrimination.
By Antonia Blumberg
230
The Canadian Parliament passed a motion on Thursday to publicly denounce Islamophobia and develop strategies to end religious discrimination.

In a vote split 201-91 in favor of the non-binding motion, the Parliament agreed to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” The motion, dubbed M-103, also tasks the Parliament with establishing a committee to investigate policies that could be aimed at “reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia in Canada.”

Iqra Khalid, a Liberal member of Parliament who is Muslim, introduced the motion in December as a response to rising anti-Muslim sentiment. It took on renewed significance in January after a mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City left six worshippers dead.


The motion didn’t propose outlawing anything, as several conservative websites claimed in the weeks and months after Khalid introduced the bill. A number of of far-right outlets called the motion a “war against free speech” and a “modern day blasphemy law.”

The Daily Wire, founded by former Breitbart editor-at-large Ben Shapiro, called the motion a “draconian” measure that would consider “any and all” instances of Islamophobia as hate crimes. Jihad Watch, LifeSiteNews and The Rebel ran stories claiming the motion would be a “first step” toward imposing Islamic law, or Sharia.


NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
A group of Canadians gathered to protest against M-103 in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on March 19, 2017.
The motion set off a number of protests and counter-protests across the country as members of Parliament debated it ahead of the vote. A survey published Thursday by polling non-profit Angus Reid Institute found that 42 percent of Canadians said they would vote against the motion. Just 29 percent said they would vote in favor.

Khalid, who represents Mississauga-Erin Mills in the House of Commons, rejected the idea that her motion would hinder free speech. Though it names Islamophobia, the MP said, the motion’s aims are broad. “All forms of racism are interconnected, they are not separate,” Khalid told The Huffington Post in February. “People who are targeted by Islamophobia include Sikhs, Arabs, and Black Canadians and many other minority groups.”

 

The Muslims begin their conquests by entering weak liberal enclaves and using some of their Sharia Laws. Real Sharia Law does not tolerate any other law but what is stated in the Koran.