Motions by Moslems for Moslems? Kind of like the attempts at the United Nations (of tyrants too) to ban blasphemy of their false prophet? "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe blacks are Kenites the descendants of Cain and the mark is upon them].” (Obama) "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [an Al Qaeda- like group]." (Clinton) "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of [those that believe the wooden horse is an offering to the goddess Athena]." (Clinton) Been there, seen that.
Here's more: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/canada-passes-blasphemy-bill-silence-critics-islam Canada Passes 'Blasphemy' Bill To Silence Critics Of Islam Tyler Durden's picture by Tyler Durden Mar 24, 2017 8:15 PM Despite polls showing that 71% of Canadians would not have voted for the measure, Canada's Parliament, with the strong backing of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, passed a motion this week 201 to 91 that critics say singles out Islam for special protection. Tabled by Muslim liberal MP Iqra Khalid, M-103 urges the federal government to “condemn Islamophobia” and to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” The term “Islamophobia” is nowhere defined in the motion. A petition on CitizenGo asking MPs to stop the “restrictive ‘anti-blasphemy’” motion has been signed by 79,500 people. “This motion will encourage legislation that would criminalize speech deemed ‘islamophobic’ and lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada,” the petition states. "If that happens, criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada,” it states, adding that this “kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.” As LifeSiteNews reports, while the motion does not change existing laws or create new ones, it empowers a committee to study the issue of “eliminating…Islamophobia” and the federal government to collect data on Islamic ‘hate crimes’ for further study. A Conservative alternative to the motion that condemned racism and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, and other religious groups — without including the word “Islamophobia” — was defeated by the Liberals in February. Liberals argued at that time that the Tories were simply trying to “water down” the very purpose of M-103, reported Huffington Post. A number of Conservatives running for the the party's leadership have been outspoken about the problems they see in M-103. Brad Trost said he could not support the motion because it “will only serve to strengthen extremist elements within the Muslim community itself that seek to preserve and promote their own form of hate and intolerance.” He added that any “serious plan to combat religious discrimination in Canada should include all faith groups, including Christians and Jews.” Pierre Lemieux said that Canadians should be wary of the language in the motion. “Do you have a valid concern about Islam? Do you disagree with Sharia Law? Uneasy about radical Islamic terrorism? The Liberals may very well classify you as Islamophobic,” he wrote in an email to supporters. Lemieux, who called on supporters to pressure MPs to force a recorded vote on M-103, called it a “great day for accountability and for freedom of speech in Canada” when almost two dozen MPs stood up on Tuesday to demand such accountability. Leadership contender Andrew Scheer also added his voice of opposition to the motion shortly before the vote, saying that it “could be interpreted as a step towards stifling free speech and legitimate criticism” of Islam. “M-103 is not inclusive. It singles out just one faith. I believe that all religions deserve the same level of respect and protection,” he wrote in an email to supporters. “I will be voting against it because I believe in Freedom of Speech,” he wrote. Finally, we leave it to Rebel Media's Faith Goldy to react to this attack on Canadians' most precious freedom-- the freedom of speech
Here's more: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/...ophobia-motion-but-its-unclear-what-it-means/ Canadian Parliament passes “anti-Islamophobia motion” but it’s unclear what it means POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON MARCH 24, 2017 BY JAZZ SHAW Share on Facebook Perhaps all that talk about a “Trump Effect in Canada” was a bit premature. Last night I was seeing a lot of buzz on social media about Canada implementing Sharia Law or doing something else equally extreme. As it turns out that’s not quite what happened, but it’s definitely worth looking into. The activity in the Canadian Parliament under discussion was the passage of motion M-103, which carries a benign sounding title which condemns, “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination.” Under the covers the motion isn’t nearly so broad and encompassing. It’s focused pretty much entirely on “combating Islamophobia” and makes no mention of other sorts of discrimination such as antisemitism. And as reported in the National Post last night, it was far from unanimous. The House of Commons voted Thursday afternoon to condemn “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” but the vote for the controversial M-103 was not unanimous. Liberals, New Democrats, and Green Party MP Elizabeth May were in favour; most Conservative and all Bloc Quebecois MPs were opposed. The vote was 201 for and 91 against… The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing a Mississauga, Ont. riding. In addition to the resolution condemning Islamophobia, it asks the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study the issue of “eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia;” and calls on the federal government collect data on hate crimes for further study. It’s worth noting that the vote took place just as public polling indicated that the measure only enjoys 29% approval, with 42% opposing and the rest unsure. But before we sound the alarm bells too loudly we should point out that this didn’t represent the passage of any new laws or regulations. This “motion” was pretty much the same as a resolution in Congress where a “sense” of the membership is expressed (frequently on a voice vote) saying that the members mourn the passing of some entertainment icon or “support” victims of Alzheimer’s or what have you. But there’s more to M-103 than just that and it’s causing concern. The measure also calls on (but does not legislatively mandate) the Canadian Heritage Committee to, “collect data on hate crimes for further study.” That’s a troubling phrase, but once again it doesn’t produce any concrete laws. Presumably there would need to be actual legislation drafted and enacted to actually do something with the data once it’s compiled. Still, the chilling nature of the language in this bill, particularly as it applies to free speech, has plenty of Canadians concerned. Back in January when M-103 was first under discussion, Anthony Furey at the Toronto Sun was sounding the alarm over what this could mean in the future and saying that the motion was “nothing but trouble.” Now motions aren’t the same as private member’s bills. They’re often just about nodding in agreement with some flaky sentiment. M-103 is different. It’s got teeth. It calls on the Heritage Committee to commence a study on eliminating Islamophobia. The study could then recommend laws to pursue this nebulous goal. If they do, there’s a good chance they’ll be dragnet laws that criminalize anyone who dares stand up to the many unsavoury parts of orthodox Islam. There’s certainly evidence of an increasing climate of hate in Canada … coming from within Islam. Supremacist groups like the Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir have a rising presence here. And yet this motion could handcuff us from standing up to them. So this isn’t the sudden onset of Sharia Law in the Great White North… at least not yet. But it’s troubling to be sure. Eliminating actual discrimination and violence against any minority (or really anyone, for that matter) is an admirable goal, but this certainly has the flavor of something which is intended to tamp down even the mildest criticism of Islam and violent extremism, to say nothing of outright terrorism. The liberals in charge of Canada’s government should tread carefully because, as the poll data shows, they are stirring up a big pool of resentment and opposition among their own citizens.
It does, its alive and unwell in this country. Trump ran off of it, I mean did you ever read the transcripts of his speeches?
Jihad Report Mar 11, 2017 - Mar 17, 2017 Attacks 40 Killed 290 Injured 395 Suicide Blasts 11 Countries 14 Jihad Report February, 2017 Attacks 166 Killed 1008 Injured 1345 Suicide Blasts 22 Countries 21
You are objectively wrong. There is nothing irrational about fearing a culture or religion that inherently wants to kill us.
But, maybe not some other states: Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have proposed a spate of bills, including ones to make blocking streets a felony in North Carolina, to allow businesses to sue people protesting them in Michigan, and to force Minnesota protesters pay the costs of policing. They can make their views known lawfully. If they attempt to push their views on the rest of us through violence and intimidation, they will pay for the harm they do to others and their property.
It's funny how so many people who scream about losing their freedom of speech have **** all to say for themselves anyway.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we have an entire wing of the Republican Party who want our country run by religion. As disgusting as the stuff that goes on in the Middle East is, you can't deny there isn't a sizable number of people here who feel the same way towards women and gay people. Which brings up another point, why do so many people demonize refugees for wanting out of what they acknowledge as corrupt and miserable countries? What exactly would you do?
Wait, are you comparing religion in America to Islam's killing of gays and beating of women? That's exactly what you just did there. You are delusional. And many refugees come here and still want to practice their way of life. No assimilation is one of the biggest problems. America just bends over and passes the vaseline.
I think a bigger safe haven for terrorists than Canada is Washington DC, inside the beltway. There they wear business suits with American flag lapel pins.
Any liberal /democrat city or nation: Dearborn, MI, London, Paris, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium....
This will be the third time in 3 days I've asked this question: Do you think Muslims won't act up like they do in Europe and across the world just because they're in the United States? There is not one good reason for them to come here, and any reasons you can come up with can be easily countered with better reasons for them to either stay where they are or go somewhere else.
We will lose it here, too, if we are not vigilant. When there are attempts at censorship, you need to drag it into the sunlight so it can burn. Censorship is much much much closer than you might realize.
Absolutely correct. The very classification by liberals of what they claim is hate speech is the first step towards fascism.
You miss the point. The travel bans will give people a sense of ease, they will be less on guard, and THAT is what ISIS wants. Given that ISIS operates a majority off social media, no travel ban would stop their radicalization of people who are already here, everyday citizens in our everyday world. And not every Muslim is always traveling in and out of the country. You'd need some type of cyber travel ban.
Then it becomes a question of whether those protesters can protected by the First Amendment or not. Funny how Constitutional protections work, isn't it? Civil disobedience, as long as it doesn't resort to violence, is fine. If protesters are blocking a roadway, use a detour to get to your destination. It would be a useless felony in North Carolina for such a petty crime,, if its even a crime. You guys so desperately want "law and order," you're willing to make ridiculous moves like the one in NC and trample on other citizens rights Do you realize how hypocritical your party is being right now, or are you blinded by how much power you have at the moment? Next, you're going to be pushing for bills to make vehicular homicide on protesters not punishable, so it can pass as "law and order."
I think you're missing the point of Islamic terrorism. It's done so people don't feel at ease. Preventing ISIS from coming entering the country in the first place seems like a very reasonable thing to do. It also keeps America from turning into an Islamic cesspool like Sweden or France. As for homegrown Islamic terrorism, we could do better at stopping it if we stop pretending that radicalization is not Islamic, and give more scrutiny to the likely suspects.
A better and more reasonable move would be to implement a technology-driven vetting process, instead of wasting time with these travel bans that will continue to get shot down. That would be an indicator Trump wants long-term progress, and not short-term like he seems to continuously go after. Another would be to kill the Islamophobia that has recently been given a breath of life in this country. It is one thing to be concerned about Islamic terrorism, it is another to fear Muslims altogether. By playing on peoples fears following events like San Bernardino or Paris, you're not raising awareness for Islamic terrorism, you're simply making people paranoid about Muslims in general. Another problem is it the people who practice Islam, or is it the people who are radicalized by Islam. Most of these refugees, let alone citizens, have no ties to ISIS, yet we treat them as suspected terrorists, detaining them for hours on end where if a vetting database process were in order, they could be let go in a matter of an hour to two hours at the max with vetting by fingerprints. And this line people are saying, "Well, its only until a vetting system is in place" is BS. If the situation were dire enough, a technology-driven vetting process would already be being implemented.