Canada's M-103

[pErvinalia]

There is only one reason to pass M103, and that is as a precursor to grease the wheels for legislation

I can think of another reason - a political gesture. So your "thesis" is debunked.

[Forty Two]

....except that the motion contemplates further action, in that it recognizes a "need to quell." The motion quells nothing, so the quelling comes later. Also, the motion directs that the government study how the government can address the Islamophobia and other anti-religious thoughs, conduct investigations, gather data and make recommendations -- that's all with a view toward coming up with legislation -- by its own terms.

It's not a gesture.

[Hermit]

....except that the motion contemplates further action, in that it recognizes a "need to quell." The motion quells nothing...

Yes it does, and blatant quote mining won't cover it up. The words "need to quell" are immediately followed by "the increasing public climate of hate and fear". You have deliberately omitted them in order to advance your thesis that the motion's purpose is to curtail freedom of expression. Yes, people unfortunately have a tendency in that direction, but nothing in the motion suggests that this is indeed its purpose. Not even the recommendation for "a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws". Or are you perhaps opposed to laws that would more effectively quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear that arise from racism and religious discrimination?

[JimC]

Surely there has to be a way for governments to maintain the right of people to robustly criticise any religion or ideology, while being able to stamp out discriminatory actions against individuals based on their faith or lack of it...

[Brian Peacock]

One would hope so Jim. I don't take the term islamophibia that seriously, because the people usually making the charge generally don't deserve to be taken seriously. I'm not frightened by a religion, just the people who think killing in the name of a religion is a good thing.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

I'm not frightened by a religion, just the people who think killing in the name of a religion is a good thing.

Agreed, but I would add, if somewhat less vehemently than 42, that I find all religions to be deluded, deleterious and unnecessary, and that Islam is a more unpleasant religion than most, and that I should have the right to say so...

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. A death-cult with core beliefs that oblige acolytes to martyr themselves in an ongoing project to forcefully convert all humans, and to kill the infidels who resist, is, as you say, most unpleasant. That the vast majority of Muslims don't undertake that obligation is something to be thankful for as well as something to support and encourage.

[JimC]

True.

[pErvinalia]

....except that the motion contemplates further action, in that it recognizes a "need to quell." The motion quells nothing, so the quelling comes later. Also, the motion directs that the government study how the government can address the Islamophobia and other anti-religious thoughs, conduct investigations, gather data and make recommendations -- that's all with a view toward coming up with legislation -- by its own terms.

It's not a gesture.

None of that refutes that it could be nothing more than an empty political gesture. I'm sure there are some who want to take it further. Whether that happens will be a political assessment.

[JimC]

Well, it's probably an empty gesture, particularly if someone has counted the numbers, and knows that, if introduced as legislation, it wouldn't get up (in which case it was a cynically calculated gesture).

But if the right political stars aligned, and it did turn into legislation, then it would no longer be an empty gesture; it would be potentially a bit of a worry...

[Forty Two]

....except that the motion contemplates further action, in that it recognizes a "need to quell." The motion quells nothing...

Yes it does, and blatant quote mining won't cover it up. The words "need to quell" are immediately followed by "the increasing public climate of hate and fear". You have deliberately omitted them in order to advance your thesis that the motion's purpose is to curtail freedom of expression.

I've quoted the entire motion before, or most of it. I only referred to the "need to quell" as a shorthand reference to that sentence. Moreover, quelling a "climate of hate and fear" is a curtailment of freedom of expression. The climate is a result of people's expressions.

Yes, people unfortunately have a tendency in that direction, but nothing in the motion suggests that this is indeed its purpose.

It's obvious that's it's purpose - the idea that it's meant to stop "Islamophobia" shows it's intent is to stop freedom of expression. They want to control people's opinions about Islam.

Not even the recommendation for "a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws". Or are you perhaps opposed to laws that would more effectively quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear that arise from racism and religious discrimination?

Oh, yes....absolutely. It is exactly the attempt of the government to control the opinions of the people that I would oppose. The climate of hate and fear is a reference to a general negative or contemptuous view of a religion by the people. If the law was going to be directed at people employing others without regard for religion, or places of public accommodation serving folks of all religions or no religion - fine - that's one thing because that is a regulation of commercial transactions, not expression or speech However, to suggest that the government is going to "quell" what people hate or fear necessitates a quelling of free speech and expression. It means they are going to stop people saying bad things about Islam, or maybe other religions too. Fuck that. Islam sucks asshole, and I claim the right to say it. I hate the fuck out of it. Hate it. it's shit. I loathe it. I have significant contempt for it. I find it laughable and a mockery of religion, more of a cult, actually.

If that's not enough hate to quell, I don't know what is, and that scumbag parliamentarian who proposed this awful tool of oppression wants to stop far more benign expressions than I just made. Take that to the bank. She wants to make sure that comments about Islam in public are positive, or gagged.