Canadian House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006053]You got any actual reasoning behind that statement or is it just ye olde slippery slope ?[/QUOTE] Well considering it deliberately refuses to define Islamophobia, and the government also deliberately refused to generalize the law it definitely puts Islam on a pedestal. Since it calls for a study to be conducted to make recommendations on how to reduce this nebulous, undefined "Islamophobia," I can't think of anything else that study could conclude, other than banning "Islamophobic" speech and actions in order to reduce "Islamophobia," which would amount to a blasphemy law. Now while that should violate Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if passed, my concern is that a judge will use Section 1 to ignore that fact, or that the government may use Section 33 to support the law, but frankly for them to do that would be absolute political suicide.

Why should it be illegal to publicly hate Muslims?

Congrats on reading the article none of you. It's non-binding, it isn't a law. Really its just a feel good motion "we said this, it'd be nice to do" thing.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006060]Charge them with assault and battery then.[/QUOTE] If you think hate crimes are somehow not big enough of an issue to warrant their own categorization in the legal system then you're either deluded or sheltered. Practical problems call for practical solutions. Specific problems call for specific solutions. If racially, or ideologically, or religiously motivated crimes exist on a large enough scale to become its own independent problem and thus become categorized, don't you think it's the logical thing to do to build your laws to actually be able to respond to this specific category of crime ?

[QUOTE=Aman;52006090]Congrats on reading the article none of you. It's non-binding, it isn't a law. Really its just a feel good motion "we said this, it'd be nice to do" thing.[/QUOTE] this was the first step in passing a law, though (also the thread title might have misled people, it should be changed as it is not law yet technically)

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006083]Why should it be illegal to publicly hate Muslims?[/QUOTE] Same reason it should be illegal to publicly "hate" any local cluster of people. It festers and leads to social unrest which leads to violence which leads to more crime. If you can't get that there's really nothing else to be discussed.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006090]Congrats on reading the article non of you. It's non-binding, it isn't a law. Really its just a feel good "we said this" thing.[/QUOTE] This is what is said about every "motion" like this that gets passed in Canada though. It's just like the Jordan Peterson case with the gender pronouns. It's not true. These things eventually have real consequences when you disobey them.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006090]Congrats on reading the article non of you. It's non-binding, it isn't a law. Really its just a feel good motion "we said this, it'd be nice to do" thing.[/QUOTE] It shows what the governments intentions are and that's still a big issue with me.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006083]Why should it be illegal to publicly hate Muslims?[/QUOTE] By your same logic (which I assume is grounded in a free thought kinda idea), why should it be illegal to enter a country for being a Muslim?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006083]Why should it be illegal to publicly hate Muslims?[/QUOTE] why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group, what good does that bring to the world? you could say "but where do we draw the line". publicly hating religious groups is a good starting point.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006114]why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group, what good does that bring to the world? you could say "but where do we draw the line". publicly hating religious groups is a good starting point.[/QUOTE] Speech doesn't "have to bring good" that isn't the point...

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006100]Same reason it should be illegal to publicly "hate" any local cluster of people. It festers and leads to social unrest which leads to violence which leads to more crime. If you can't get that there's really nothing else to be discussed.[/QUOTE] That's the price you pay to live in a free society where the citizens are law abiding. There is a difference between festering hate for a particular group and advocating violence towards that group. The latter of which could be defined as hate speech while the former shouldn't. If you're generalizing hate speech and applying it to all group by your logic going around saying "I hate liberals/conservatives" or "I hate this political group" is classified as hate speech because you're advocating hatred towards that group.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52006100]Same reason it should be illegal to publicly "hate" any local cluster of people. It festers and leads to social unrest which leads to violence which leads to more crime. If you can't get that there's really nothing else to be discussed.[/QUOTE] Yeah no. I don't get it. As long as I'm not [I]directly[/I] inciting violence (i.e. Rallying a mob into a violent frenzy or literally telling people to kill someone) then there is nothing wrong with public hate. Vague notions of what might happen because of it are no excuse for speech laws. [URL="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Bruce_Willis_Die_Hard_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707234113"]This[/URL] shouldn't be illegal, and I'm glad it's not in my country.

[QUOTE=Aman;52006119]Speech doesn't "have to bring good" that isn't the point...[/QUOTE] so why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006126]Yeah no. I don't get it. As long as I'm not [I]directly[/I] inciting violence (i.e. Rallying a mob into a violent frenzy or literally telling people to kill someone) then there is nothing wrong with public hate. Vague notions of what might happen because of it are no excuse for speech laws. [URL="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Bruce_Willis_Die_Hard_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707234113"]This[/URL] shouldn't be illegal, and I'm glad it's not in my country.[/QUOTE] THAT should be illegal. It's totally fucked up to even think something like that is okay. I wouldn't want to go out and see public hate directed against me but according to you that's okay as long as it's not directly inciting violence. Abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006132]so why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group?[/QUOTE] Because they have to a right to be a bigot? At least I think so. You can't criminalize stupidity, and punishing someone for being dumb just entrenches them further in their belief anyway. [editline]24th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=rndgenerator;52006134]THAT should be illegal. It's totally fucked up to even think something like that is okay. I wouldn't want to go out and see public hate directed against me but according to you that's okay as long as it's not directly inciting violence. Abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated.[/QUOTE] Ban letters on a sign, oh no.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006126] [URL="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Bruce_Willis_Die_Hard_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707234113"]This[/URL] shouldn't be illegal, and I'm glad it's not in my country.[/QUOTE] Why tho do you enjoy reading racial slurs in the context of hate?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;52006126]Yeah no. I don't get it. As long as I'm not [I]directly[/I] inciting violence (i.e. Rallying a mob into a violent frenzy or literally telling people to kill someone) then there is nothing wrong with public hate. Vague notions of what might happen because of it are no excuse for speech laws. [URL="http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/53/Bruce_Willis_Die_Hard_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130707234113"]This[/URL] shouldn't be illegal, and I'm glad it's not in my country.[/QUOTE] 'Sticks and stones' hasn't been relevant since it became apparent that things can be mentally harmful as well as physically harmful.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006139]'Sticks and stones' hasn't been relevant since it became apparent that things can be mentally harmful as well as physically harmful.[/QUOTE] Speech is physically harmful now? Mentally harmful is totally subjective. Actually, your post mentally harmed me.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006114]why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group, what good does that bring to the world? you could say "but where do we draw the line". publicly hating religious groups is a good starting point.[/QUOTE] You're basically saying "why should society tolerate assholes hurting peoples feelings".

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006138]Why tho do you enjoy reading racial slurs in the context of hate?[/QUOTE] Do I have to enjoy something for it to be legal?

[QUOTE=Aman;52006144]Speech is physically harmful now? Mentally harmful is totally subjective. Actually, your post mentally harmed me.[/QUOTE] where did I say speech was physically harmful? and what? you wanna go tell that to someone with a mental illness?

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006139]'Sticks and stones' hasn't been relevant since it became apparent that things can be mentally harmful as well as physically harmful.[/QUOTE] Your views are mentally harmful to me. Stop posting immediately. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Rude and unnecessary, was given last chance" - icemaz))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Aman;52006135]Because they have to a right to be a bigot? At least I think so. You can't criminalize stupidity, and punishing someone for being dumb just entrenches them further in their belief anyway.[/QUOTE] spreading a message of hate towards a specific group of people isnt being dumb, its being hateful. i dont think we should tolerate that.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006151]where did I say speech was physically harmful? and how the fuck is mental harm subjective? you wanna go tell that to someone with a mental illness?[/QUOTE] People contract mental illnesses by someone being mean to them or saying hateful things to them? huh? I'm not really sure where you're trying to go with this.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52006139]'Sticks and stones' hasn't been relevant since it became apparent that things can be mentally harmful as well as physically harmful.[/QUOTE] but that doesn't mean that dissenting and critical speech should be strangled

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006154]spreading a message of hate towards a specific group of people isnt being dumb, its being hateful. i dont think we should tolerate that.[/QUOTE] You can be hateful towards any group of individuals, it doesn't affect anyone so why should it be illegal? If someone is holding a sign up that says "I hate niggers" and a black person gets offended they can take that person to civil court to settle the matter. I'd love to see a judge award damages for 'pain and suffering' because someone else held different opinions on something and someone took offense.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006154]spreading a message of hate towards a specific group of people isnt being dumb, its being hateful. i dont think we should tolerate that.[/QUOTE] It is being dumb, cause obviously as you already think and I do too it's uneducated. And no it shouldn't be tolerated, but it [I]shouldn't [/I]be legislated.

If you think there is no bridge between advocating violence and the escalation of violence then holy fuck what kind of world do you live in. It doesn't even have to be specifically people being convinced that they should attack a specific group of people and doing so. It can be people from that group feeling more and more threatened leading to erratic, irrational actions and violence and more crime. It works both ways. Here's a practical situation in which the advocating of violence as well as the systemic alienation of a minority lead to crime. The FN (France's leading far right wing party, which openly promotes xenophobia) organizes the same demonstration every year at the same location, pushing a "pro-french" rally and following the whole "France to the French" slogan. This is notably done on a day that used to celebrate Joan of Arc, something many people really didn't like because it took a national figure and degenerated it into a symbol of raving xenophobia. In 1995, the protesters who were doing the usual "France to the French, get everyone out" routine, started to harass a Moroccan bystander and pushed him into the Seine river, where he drowned. [I]It's almost like allowing people to say the same hateful shit over and over again leads to them actually harboring stronger and stronger resentment leading to harassment leading to violence, crime and death.[/I]

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;52006132]so why should we as a society tolerate somebody's hate towards a religious group?[/QUOTE] 1) You'll help legitimize their hatred by criminalizing it 2) Slippery slope leading to broader regulations of speech 3) Ironic as it sounds, it goes against classical liberal philosophy