Ontario Passes Anti-Islamophobia Bill

[Autumnlicious]

Don't trust the Canadian Government to do the right thing when it comes to religion. We are so tolerant that we are fully prepared to tolerate intolerance.

First you have no cited a body of evidence to demonstrate their specific untrustworthiness as a general rule compared to other countries.

Second, those religious belief exemptions present throughout many Western countries laws long ago and often utilized by "Religious Freedom!!!" zealots (mainly on the Right) to suppress gays and other groups in the name of Jesus.

In other words, our coddling of religious sensitivities is more a rule than an exception.

So presenting it in a discussion over a current event is misleading at best in evaluating recent evidence for "Why we shouldn't trust Canada on this matter".

[MTL]

MTL

Muslim Derangement Syndrome.

Seriously the "they do this", tenor and persecution complex is grade AAA MDS.

I fully believe after reading his rant that he perceives the choice to be "Support this resolution of support for Muslim citizens and be forced to convert to Islam" or "Oppose this resolution and not have to be muslim".

Which makes no sense because a resolution of support in no way has a causal linkage to Sharia law.

Futhermore, the blather on "alienating" non-muslims by doing this (rather toothless) resolution that doesn't add new legislation illustrates a world view where any support (even kind words) is somehow giving aid and comfort to a competing group which is perceived as the enemy.

I've only seen such behavior from Stormfront. Of course, we know Islam isn't a race but a religion. However, mindless bigotry and persecution complexes, key components of racism, are present.

unless I missed something, I think this is directed at me.

If so, then, first of all, and just to clarify: am a she, not a he.

As to the rest,

There is an over-abundance of crap in Islam that many Muslims themselves find abhorrent, you don't have to look very hard, at all.

The Sharia reference was one of many, many, many, I could make.

....a world view where any support (even kind words) is somehow giving aid and comfort to a competing group which is perceived as the enemy.

I can personally give kind words, myself, to an individual muslim coworker or neighbor,
who expresses being shaken or disturbed by the attack in Québec;

but WHENEVER the term "Islamophobia" is used, it just seems to strengthen the "SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE" stamp that immediately gets applied to anyone who objects to it as being "racist", and that is the part I have objected to, from the beginning.

The fact that several here are already rushing to condemn my concern of the use of the word, as being bigotry,
just underlines my point.

Let me put it this way:
If I was a Muslim, myself, in Canada, today,
I'd like to think that my reaction to the Quebec mosque shooting,
and the subsequent "Anti-Islamophobia" motion in the Ontario Legislature,
would be thus:

First, I'd of course be Shocked, Horrified, and Afraid.

Then I think I'd feel a little thrill of the acknowledgement of my fear,
upon hearing of this motion in Queen's Park.

Then, after processing everything, I'd like to think that I, as a Muslim,
would feel a prick of unease over the use of the term "Islamophobia"
knowing it is inarticulate, unjust, and will do more to fan the fires,
than cool them.

And then I'd feel dread at the prospect of asking my fellow Muslims to
acknowledge that this term does damage.


There's a Canadian journalist, a Muslim, a Pakistani Immigrant, himself, by the name of Tarek Fatah,
once  a long-standing member of the NDP (New Democratic Party), who is very progressive in his views
and doesn't dodge any of the shots fired at Islam; he readily acknowledges the problems within his own religion,
and presently has a Fatwa on his head, as a result, and has received death threats, right here in Canada,
from members of the Muslim community.

I can't honestly say I agree with every point of view Fatah has offered,
but I agree with most of them,
but I respect and admire him for his unflinching willingness to criticize his own religion,
while still remaining faithful to Islam, himself,
and I admire his bravery to continue to call Islam's bluff,
pointing-out that things like Sharia are not in the Qu'ran
but are, rather, "man-made" rules that came, after the fact;
and traveling to India to condemn the practice of Triple Talaq,
at the peril of his life.

If all Muslims were as progressive as Tarek Fatah,
my guess is that the West would not have NEAR the problem with Islam that it does.

Once again, I say that I hated my own family's religion of Christianity,
long before I was even aware that there was such a thing in the world as Islam.

Of course, we know Islam isn't a race but a religion.
However, mindless bigotry and persecution complexes, key components of racism, are present.

There is an ENORMOUS issue of misogyny in Islam, as well as Homophobia,
that causes huge rifts between huge numbers of Muslims.

One portion of Islam is persecuting, torturing, disfiguring and murdering other portions,
and I object to being labeled as Islamophobic because I criticize Islam for it.


Yeah, that's mindless bigotry.


i will listen to my own common sense and logic.

You guys can pander all you please.


Such idiocy.

[brewer]

So, in Canada, billboards of Muhammad's image are OK as long as Ala commanded it? Cool!

Can we get one of him endorsing maple syrup?

[Crunchy]

Don't trust the Canadian Government to do the right thing when it comes to religion. We are so tolerant that we are fully prepared to tolerate intolerance.

First you have no cited a body of evidence to demonstrate their specific untrustworthiness as a general rule compared to other countries.

 My point here was not to demonstrate that Canada was worse than others. I made no such comparison.  In truth, I am proud of my country and I think we are actually ahead of the curve on many such issues but I still reserve the right to point out flaws such as our hate speech laws that pardon hate speech as long as god says it's ok. 
I cited the law as written that allows for hate speech as long as it comes from a holy book. Do you think that is a good idea? If not then you agree with me correct?

Second, those religious belief exemptions present throughout many Western countries laws long ago and often utilized by "Religious Freedom!!!" zealots (mainly on the Right) to suppress gays and other groups in the name of Jesus.

I don't think it's mainly on the right as you say. For example, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law that is being used to discriminate against the LGTB community. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and currently there is a trend by the left to tolerate intolerant beliefs which I find problematic.
This still speaks to my point that religion gets an unwarranted free pass.

In other words, our coddling of religious sensitivities is more a rule than an exception.
So presenting it in a discussion over a current event is misleading at best in evaluating recent evidence for "Why we shouldn't trust Canada on this matter".

I agree with you that it is more of a rule than an exception. However, if you think about it, this certifies my view as to why we shouldn't trust Canada on this matter given that you believe (correctly) that coddling religious sensitivities is more a rule than an exception. 

I'm thinking you may not have liked that I lay blame on liberal atheists, but I do hold them up to a higher standard than conservative theists in this matter. I know why conservative theists give religion a free pass, and I believe that liberal atheists give religion a free pass because they conflate race and religion.

[abaris]

I'm thinking you may not have liked that I lay blame on liberal atheists, but I do hold them up to a higher standard than conservative theists in this matter. I know why conservative theists give religion a free pass, and I believe that liberal atheists give religion a free pass because they conflate race and religion.

No, because the slogans come right out of Goebbels book. If you watched some of his speeches on jews, you would notice that it's partly a word for word rendition of what he said. Only changing the word jew to muslim.

If that kind of approach isn't clear, nothing is. Race is entirely secondary, since racism is only the son of bigotry, same as antisemitism. And bigotted this is. So one finds themselve in the peculiar situation of coming to the defense, since this isn't aimed at religion. It's aimed at people, a whole broad brushed group of them. And one can't have that, unless one wants a second helping of what happened in the 1940ies at some point in time.

People are already incited and ready to jump at every opportunity to share their suspicions and hatred. It only takes a little more pushing to turn that into violent action. In fact, obviously it doesn't, going what happened at that mosque a few weeks ago. It's already started, and not a single word from the likes of Trump. Different country, sure, but he's quick to invent international incidents to condemn them, such as the bullshit on Sweden. A real one doesn't rock his boat apparently. Not if it's directed against the right people and a white supremacist doing it - in his name.

[Regina]

I have a problem with wording.

"Islamophobia" is just a bullshit term. I'm a gay man, naturally I'm Islamophobic, the political aspect of this religion is an existential threat to my life and I'm damn justified in speaking out against that. If I can't have an honest conversation about the disapproval I have at people like me being executed in 10 countries, all of them countries which have Sharia Law applied in full, that's a serious issue.

I prefer the term "anti-Muslim bigotry". That's what sensationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment is. There has to be criticism of ideas, religion does not deserve respect especially when it threatens peoples' safety. But if we're going to call out bigotry againt people who are Muslim, then I'm all for it.

[abaris]

I prefer the term "anti-Muslim bigotry". That's what sensationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment is. There has to be criticism of ideas, religion does not deserve respect especially when it threatens peoples' safety. But if we're going to call out bigotry againt people who are Muslim, then I'm all for it.

Yea, but that's a distinction that's hardly made these days. Not at all, I would say.

[CapnAwesome]

Personally, as someone whose position is one of  Anti-Theism, it is troubling to me on multiple levels.

Insert jew into all the anti islamic comments and you might get what this is aiming at. It's got nothing to do with religion but everything with broad brushing an entire group just for belonging to that group.

I think that should be obvious, given what happens for quite some time now.

It's pretty different actually. For example one can be born a Jew, or you can be a secular Jew or even an Atheist Jew. Hating Jews is rarely about hating the religion of Judaism. None of those things apply to being a Muslim. I hate the religion of Islam. Some people try to twist that around and make it seem like a racial thing, even though there are plenty of white Muslims in the world, just as stupid and indoctrinated as the rest of them. Islam is not a race, but there is such a clear attempt to mask criticism of it as though it were a racial issue. It's not. Islam is not a race. I feel like that needs to be repeated until everybody finally understands.

---

I prefer the term "anti-Muslim bigotry". That's what sensationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment is. There has to be criticism of ideas, religion does not deserve respect especially when it threatens peoples' safety. But if we're going to call out bigotry againt people who are Muslim, then I'm all for it.

Yea, but that's a distinction that's hardly made these days. Not at all, I would say.

If you haven't seen that as a distinction, then you willfully don't pay attention. Do you think people like Richard Dawkins, or Bill Maher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali critical of Islam because they are racists? Most of the criticism of it that I read is very clear on that distinction. Saying that the opposing side to your point of view is just a bunch of ignorant racists is the ultimate in lazy thinking and fear of actually confronting opposing viewpoints.

[abaris]

Do you think people like Richard Dawkins, or Bill Maher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali critical of Islam because they are racists?

Don't know about Dawkins, since I haven't followed his comments. Yes, in the case of the other two. Bill Maher has a record as well as Hirsi Ali. And even if they made a distinction, which they don't. It's not the message the popultion at large is getting.

[Crunchy]

I'm thinking you may not have liked that I lay blame on liberal atheists, but I do hold them up to a higher standard than conservative theists in this matter. I know why conservative theists give religion a free pass, and I believe that liberal atheists give religion a free pass because they conflate race and religion.

No, because the slogans come right out of Goebbels book. If you watched some of his speeches on jews, you would notice that it's partly a word for word rendition of what he said. Only changing the word jew to muslim.

If that kind of approach isn't clear, nothing is. Race is entirely secondary, since racism is only the son of bigotry, same as antisemitism. And bigotted this is. So one finds themselve in the peculiar situation of coming to the defense, since this isn't aimed at religion. It's aimed at people, a whole broad brushed group of them. And one can't have that, unless one wants a second helping of what happened in the 1940ies at some point in time.

People are already incited and ready to jump at every opportunity to share their suspicions and hatred. It only takes a little more pushing to turn that into violent action. In fact, obviously it doesn't, going what happened at that mosque a few weeks ago. It's already started, and not a single word from the likes of Trump. Different country, sure, but he's quick to invent international incidents to condemn them, such as the bullshit on Sweden. A real one doesn't rock his boat apparently. Not if it's directed against the right people and a white supremacist doing it - in his name.

You are correct that there are many racists out there, but I don't see how that is an excuse for engaging in race baiting. The two can and do occur at the same time.
When you said that “It's aimed at people, a whole broad brushed group of them.” you are not making a distinction between criticism of people and an ideology. You are leaving no room at all for criticism of the ideology and it is absolutely necessary for all ideologies to be subject to the critical process. You brought up concerns over Goebbels beliefs, but surely you must realise that the doctrines of Islam and Nazism share a great deal in common. In your analogy, Goebbels is representative of Islam and is therefore due for much criticism.

Having said that I think you have a very good point though. There is clearly a danger in identifying the intolerant and violent nature of islam and having that conflated with the humans who follow islam.  There is a tight rope that we have to walk between criticism of a clearly xenophobic and misogynistic ideology and the people who have been culturally indoctrinated into it over the centuries.
 
But we must walk the tightrope and make the distinctions anyway.  It is not helpful for politicians to lie and tell us that islam is a religion of peace. It is not helpful to label critics like Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher as racists and spread lies about them. If we are to engage in a battle of ideas, we have to be able to openly and honestly face them and not let the discussion be sidelined by race baiting. I share your concern about Muslims being targeted by racists and steps must be taken to protect them but I am also concerned about the people the world over who are targeted by Islamic ideology. It’s not an either/or situation.