Yet more problematic stuff

[JimC]

Might as well post the relevant petition in full:

Whereas:

• Islam is a religion of over 1.5 billion people worldwide. Since its founding more than 1400 years ago, Muslims have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the positive development of human civilization. This encompasses all areas of human endeavors including the arts, culture, science, medicine, literature, and much more;
• Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and
• These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.

We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

The full text of the motion passed on October 26, 2016:

By unanimous consent, it was resolved, — That the House join the more than 69 742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

I have of course said in many posts that the vast majority of muslims should not be tarred with the same brush as their violent jihadist co-religioners. However, to me, the petition glosses over the fact that the jihadists claim, with realistic support from the writings of their religion, to be an authentic version of Islam. The nature of Islam, and its writings, makes it highly prone to become a justification for both combining politics with religion, and using violence to achieve that. That most muslims do not go down that path is a tribute both to ordinary human goodness in most people, plus the cognitive dissonance which allows the cherry picking so common in delusional belief systems of all stripes.

Christianity in the past has been just as nasty and violent, and has plenty of vile writings from the Old Testament to use as back-up. However, with minor modern exceptions, it has had its teeth pulled over the centuries, and is largely without both the power within the world of politics that Islam wields in many countries, and the members prone to violence to achieve fundamentalist goals...

[Cunt]

Thanks for showing him, Lemmy, but it won't help. He'll just move on to another focus on me, rather than facts.

The law against islamophobia is no problem at all to those who accept the true meaning of Islam. (hint - it doesn't mean 'religion of peace')

[Brian Peacock]

What law are you talking about exactly?

[Cunt]

What law are you talking about exactly?

Poor guy...still losing track of the conversation...

Maybe I should give you a break for awhile...let you read over everything a few more times...

[Seabass]

I would suggest that Islamicism is also a form of violent right-wing extremism.

I would agree wholeheartedly - theocratic - conservative politically and socially to the point of highly authoritarian -- tinges of racism, sexism, anti-gay - etc -- all aspects of the "far right wing extremism." The reason why it's not characterized as such is the infusion of, into the mainstream thought/zeitgeist, the nonsensical notion that Muslims are an oppressed minority, so they gain the sympathy of "the left" (under Progressive Stack/intersectionalist theory) and the left could not countenance support for that which is "right wing." Ergo, Muslim extremism is not right wing extremism - it's an oppressed group lashing out at the white oppressors.

Or maybe it's because conservative, right-wing Christians (aka Republicans) and conservative, right-wing Muslims are too stupid to see how similar they are to each other.

[Brian Peacock]

What law are you talking about exactly?

Poor guy...still losing track of the conversation...

Maybe I should give you a break for awhile...let you read over everything a few more times...

Yeah, whatevers....

I think the broader point here is that certain right-wingnuts feel put upon by the motion the Canadian Parliament endorsed, that it's unfair and unjust to make saying hateful things to or about Muslims even slightly more socially unacceptable than it was before.

[Cunt]

If Islam meant submission, you would not get into any trouble with your statements.

Just a coincidence. It doesn't mean you have submitted, of course.

[Brian Peacock]

English isn't your first language is it?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Thanks for showing him, Lemmy, but it won't help. He'll just move on to another focus on me, rather than facts.

The law against islamophobia is no problem at all to those who accept the true meaning of Islam. (hint - it doesn't mean 'religion of peace')

Neither the 2016 motion supporting petition e-411 nor M-103 can reasonably be described as a 'law against Islamophobia.' People who've uncritically swallowed RWNJ propaganda might disagree, but then we'd have to dispense with 'reasonably.' I think that's why Brian Peacock was asking you to state which law you're talking about. I'd say, 'but you knew that' if I hadn't come to realize that I shouldn't assume such things.

[Cunt]

Maybe if you look at it the other way...

Kindly set out your clear and robust criticisms of Islam, and we'll have your adversary describe whether or not it is unlawful.

If you choose not to, we can take it as your acceptance that such criticism is diminished by the presence of these laws.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Maybe if you look at it the other way...

Kindly set out your clear and robust criticisms of Islam, and we'll have your adversary describe whether or not it is unlawful.

If you choose not to, we can take it as your acceptance that such criticism is diminished by the presence of these laws.

Yeah, like I'm all eager to jump through your shit-encrusted hoops. Which laws are you talking about?

[Cunt]

Sarcasm and feigned ignorance.

Classy as fuck.

[Hermit]

Maybe if you look at it the other way...

Kindly set out your clear and robust criticisms of Islam, and we'll have your adversary describe whether or not it is unlawful.

If you choose not to, we can take it as your acceptance that such criticism is diminished by the presence of these laws.

You mentioned "The law against islamophobia". Brian Peacock was asking you to state which law you're talking about. This is a rather disingenuous way of refusing to do so, but I'll play with this summary:

Islam has all the features of a theocracy. It is totalitarian, intolerant, unjust, uncivilised, brutal and cruel.

Now cite the law against islamophobia my summary breaks.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Sarcasm and feigned ignorance.

Classy as fuck.

You've failed to cite any actual laws against Islamophobia. You've failed to demonstrate why any reasonable person would consider either the 2016 motion or M-103 to be laws against Islamophobia. You've attempted to shift the burden of proof. You have a consistent record here of glib intellectual dishonesty. You reap the contempt that you sow.

[Cunt]

Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to explore this.

I could try, Hermit, but if I may offer my honest opinion, I think I make a poor adversary.

And that is my point. Your adversary will be enforcing the rules, not someone who thinks like you.

The Canadian laws would be violated if you promoted hate against Islam, not for hating it yourself (if I understand correctly)

As I said, I'm probably not a very effective adversary, having a mind so close to yours on this. It's beside the point anyway, because I am sure you can see how such statements, made publicly and with a few complaints, could land you in hot water.