House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion

[TheGreatA]

So whatever happened to "being with Charlie Hebdo"?

Anyone?

 

[BrianFantana]

@BrianFantana you know people have been arrested in Canada for criticizing Islam, right? Do your research before you talk down to people, fucking moron.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...rrest-man-for-alleged-social-media-posts.html

“Threatening or hate propaganda on social media, regardless of intention (humour), can be criminal,” said Capt. Guy Lapointe.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-kirkland-hate-speech-arrest-1.3961198

Oh, you mean his "criticisms" like this:

Before telling people to "do their research", make sure you understand what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[BrianFantana]

Lol.
He shat down your throat, and you have to resort to attacking belt colour.
Extra delicious, given the fact that I recently spied you (rightly) dismissing an attack on your low 'like' count.

Somehow belt colour matters, but likes don't.
Very consistent.

He definitely shat, because what he said is categorically untrue. I have neither the time nor will to engage every lunatic with a fantasy. The reference to his belt is a humorous jab, which you no doubt grasp, yet take this insipid tack nonetheless.

 

[BrianFantana]

First, can I ask your age, and can you answer truthfully? You seem young and overwhelmed. A lot of feigned confusion and outrage over simple concepts.

Asking if you were a Francophobe was facetious. The strategic function of "Islamophobe" is to prevent discussion of the root problems (immigration policy and radicalization) by depicting the entire conflict as confined to insane people who are just imagining its effects. Islamification and reactionary backlash are symptoms of the same root problem therefore we may as well abandon intelligent vocabulary entirely and marginalize responses to the reactionary violence as "Francophobia" just as we marginalize reactions to Islamification as "Islamophobia". I think you can understand now.

"Demographic collision" is a phrase coined by white supremacists? Is this some crude attempt at intimidation? It's two pertinent words that I used next to each other.

I understand it was facetious. That's why, in the very post you quoted, I noted you were drawing an analogy. Go back and read it. SLOWLY. You will see the words right there in front of you. And you quoted them. Yet somehow still missed it. And your analogy is, still, stupid as hell.

And yeah, "demographic collision" is a white supremacist thing. Google, breh.

And you can ask my age all you want. For all you deserve to know, my persona has existed on this forum for 11 long years, amassing along the way a pile of corpses taller than you and everyone you've ever met.

Sentences like this: "Islamification and reactionary backlash are symptoms of the same root problem..." are among the worst recorded, and in particular in response to the unique scenario at issue. "Islamification" has nothing, whatsoever, to do with some lunatic motherfucker shooting 29 people in a mosque, killing six. That is not a "reactionary backlash" in any reasonable circle. Those people did nothing to the shooter, had no contact with the shooter, but still represented to him a threat, which was completely fabricated.

Up your game because this shit is weak as hell.

 

[AviatorShades]

I understand it was facetious. That's why, in the very post you quoted, I noted you were drawing an analogy. Go back and read it. SLOWLY. You will see the words right there in front of you. And you quoted them. Yet somehow still missed it. And your analogy is, still, stupid as hell.

And yeah, "demographic collision" is a white supremacist thing. Google, breh.

And you can ask my age all you want. For all you deserve to know, my persona has existed on this forum for 11 long years, amassing along the way a pile of corpses taller than you and everyone you've ever met.

Sentences like this: "Islamification and reactionary backlash are symptoms of the same root problem..." are among the worst recorded, and in particular in response to the unique scenario at issue. "Islamification" has nothing, whatsoever, to do with some lunatic motherfucker shooting 29 people in a mosque, killing six. That is not a "reactionary backlash" in any reasonable circle. Those people did nothing to the shooter, had no contact with the shooter, but still represented to him a threat, which was completely fabricated.

Up your game because this shit is weak as hell.

So "Islamophobia" as you define it was NOT his motive? Then what were you using him as an example of? His attack was presumably his reaction to islamification. Identifying islamic terrorists and people who commit revenge attacks against mosques as random crazies rather than as direct symptoms/consequences of islamification is disgustingly irresponsible, and that's the agenda behind all of this "-phobia" wordplay.

Discussing demography is perfectly allowed and does not make me a "white supremacist". Come back to this thread 5 years from now in your 20s and bear witness your own teenaged hysteria. It will affect you far more than anything I say.

 

[BrianFantana]

So "Islamophobia" asyou define it was NOT his motive? Then what were you using him as an example of? His attack was presumably his reaction to islamification. Not a good reaction on his part, but a symptom of a larger phenomenon.

Discussing demography is perfectly allowed and does not make me a "white supremacist". Come back to this thread 5 years from now in your 20s and witness the hysterical teenage trash you typed. It will affect you far more than anything I say.

Holy shit. Can you even fucking read?

"Islamification" has nothing, whatsoever, to do with some lunatic motherfucker shooting 29 people in a mosque, killing six. That is not a "reactionary backlash" in any reasonable circle. Those people did nothing to the shooter, had no contact with the shooter, but still represented to him a threat, which was completely fabricated.

So "Islamophobia" asyou define it was NOT his motive? Then what were you using him as an example of? His attack was presumably his reaction to islamification. Not a good reaction on his part, but a symptom of a larger phenomenon.

What the fuck am I even supposed to say? YES, ISLAMOPHOBIA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN HIS MOTIVE, BASED ON HIS ACTIONS, HIS STATEMENTS TO POLICE, AND THE INTERVIEW OF PEOPLE WHO KNEW THIS INSANE, MURDEROUS ASSHOLE. NO, "ISLAMIFICATION" HAD FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I'm glad you pointed out it was "not a good reaction", AS THOUGH THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SHOOTING 29 INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PRAYERS, KILLING SIX OF THEM, IS JUSTIFIED.

And you weren't "discussing demography". You insinuated, in no unclear terms, that the shooting of 29 people was the result of an "unnecessary demographic collision", which is completely fucking batshit insane. If a man shoots 29 people, who are completely innocent, and who are in their church praying, he is a fucking monster. It wasn't the result of "demographic collision". It was the result of a man pulling a trigger at least 29 times. Those people had families. They were children, parents, brothers and sisters. Your continued insistence on this point is absolutely disgusting and you would be fucking ashamed of it if you had even the slightest shred of dignity.

Go fuck yourself raw, you absolute shitbag.

 

[AviatorShades]

I feel like you get lost and I have to summarize things very concisely:

1. Islamification is the underlying problem/conflict. We know this because it is the stated objective of the terrorists and the stated fear of the reactionaries and because neither of their actions would have a venue without it.

2. Islamic terrorists and reactionaries are not random crazies or suffering from "phobias", they are a very standard, almost prerequisite feature of Islamification across the world.

3. The campaign to depict them as random crazies separate from any tangible problem in western government/media is a deliberate attempt to marginalize that problem because the discussing the solutions would harm their careers.

Which of these elements causes you confusion and triggers this hysteria about white supremacy, phobias, etc?

I've actually had to teach liberal white kids about geopolitics and demography in formal academic settings as a graduate student. I've seen them literally start shaking unable to cope with it. Your behavior doesn't surprise me but it's always hard to hone in on the exact "triggering" element.

 

[BrianFantana]

I feel like you get lost and I have to summarize things very concisely:

1. Islamification is the underlying problem/conflict.

2. Islamic terrorists and reactionaries are not random crazies or suffering from "phobias", they are a very standard feature of Islamification across the world.

3. The campaign to depict them as random crazies separate from any tangible problem in western government/media is a deliberate attempt to marginalize that problem because the discussing the solutions would harm their careers.

Which of these elements causes you confusion and triggers this hysteria about white supremacy, phobias, etc?

I've actually had to teach liberal white kids about geopolitics and demography in formal academic settings as a graduate student. I've seen them literally start shaking unable to cope with it. Your behavior doesn't surprise me but it's always hard to hone in on the exact "triggering" element.

Take the following to heart, you fucking garbage excuse for a human being:

1. "Islamification" is NOT the "problem/conflict" that caused a man to shoot 29 people, killing six of them, while they were praying in their church;
2. You cannot justify this sort of behaviour as "a very standard feature of Islamification across the world", as it (a) JUSTIFIES MURDER [are you even capable of understanding that?] and (b) dehumanizes the victims of a heinous murder spree; and
3. You see six people murdered, and 23 attempted murdered, and say that the "problem" is Islamification? They were in their church. They were praying. They're not casualties of war. They were innocent victims of a grotesque tragedy. In fucking Quebec, a province that has for years attempted to pass legislation to push Muslim people from public service. The problem was not those people. The problem was a concerted propaganda campaign against Islam whose torch bearers are willful bullshit artists like you. You remain a fucking trash ass person with fucking trash ass opinions who doesn't even deserve the time I'm devoting to this.

What causes me confusion is seeing seemingly rational people defend the completely indefensible. People who claim to be former grad students telling me they were teaching "liberal white kids" this fucking bullshit. No wonder they would be shaking. If you had attempted to pull this shit in any of my seminars, I probably would have contacted the proctor to have you removed as adjunct professor, if I didn't just get up and punch you in the face instead.

I'm trying to think of a school in the SF area so devoid of merit it could justify employing a moron like you. I'm drawing a blank.

 

[AviatorShades]

I feel like I am talking to a very young child who freaks out and cries from the slightest insensitivity.

I will simplify even more.

Do you think the bad man who killed people was upset about things other bad men had done?

Lets start from there. I won't bamboozle you with additional content.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Oh, you mean his "criticisms" like this:

Before telling people to "do their research", make sure you understand what the fuck you're talking about.

If the same criteria for 'hate speech' was applied across the board then the Koran would be banned and the reciting of it made illegal.

 

[Lucifer Alpha]

Laying the groundwork for Sharia law.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

This is actually a very good motion -- as it will give the conservatives ammo to attack the liberals in future elections. As people have mentioned, this is not a law but a recommendation to do further inquires, so we can still currently rip on islam (as long as we dont incite violence) AND it will continue to bring Canadians further to the right on the issue -- thus, further give credence to paint the liberals as islam loving, western hating, putzes.

Two key points to take away that show this ultimately, in the long run, will favour conservatives:

"Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word "Islamophobia" from the motion and change the wording to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities."

We can use that as a tool to further painting the liberals as anti canadian/ pro islamic supremacy, by demonstrably showing that the liberals willfully tried to gear this motion to represent the needs of islamists and not the country as a whole. Rejecting conservative attempts are inclusiveness.

And (from the article)

"A survey published Thursday by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that 42 per cent of Canadians would vote against the motion, while just 29 per cent would vote in favour of it. About two-thirds of Conservative voters were against M-103, while opinion was more divided among Liberals and New Democrats.

The poll suggests that Canadians have doubts the motion will accomplish anything. A majority of respondents said that the motion would have no real impact. Another 31 per cent felt it was a threat to freedom of speech, while 12 per cent believed it would help "reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination."

This continues to show the liberal government going against national interest in order to push their islamic agenda -- thus, further alienating an ever growing voter base. As this continues, the conservatives will be able to unite under the banner of rejecting forced bending of the knee, financial support and loss of freedom of speech to appease the islamic block of the canadian residency. Again, this will be used relentlessly by the right to lambast the liberals come election time; especially if we add in the increased resentment canadians are feeling towards the refugee program and a general increasing of favoritism towards right wing identity politics in the west.

This is actually a glorious pass by the HoC in terms of future benefits towards the conservatives and their voters. Liberals are ignoring national feelings while pushing to add protections to a group that is already the most hated out of any minority in the west.

Thanks liberals, we'll be sure to use this political weapon you gifted us to full extent.

 

[sangreporsangre]

This is actually a very good motion -- as it will give the conservatives ammo to attack the liberals in future elections. As people have mentioned, this is not a law but a recommendation to do further inquires, so we can still currently rip on islam (as long as we dont incite violence) AND it will continue to bring Canadians further to the right on the issue -- thus, further give credence to paint the liberals as islam loving, western hating, putzes.

Two key points to take away that show this ultimately, in the long run, will favour conservatives:

"Liberals rejected an attempt by Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson to remove the word "Islamophobia" from the motion and change the wording to "condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities."

We can use that as a tool to further painting the liberals as anti canadian/ pro islamic supremacy, by demonstrably showing that the liberals willfully tried to gear this motion to represent the needs of islamists and not the country as a whole. Rejecting conservative attempts are inclusiveness.

And (from the article)

"A survey published Thursday by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that 42 per cent of Canadians would vote against the motion, while just 29 per cent would vote in favour of it. About two-thirds of Conservative voters were against M-103, while opinion was more divided among Liberals and New Democrats.

The poll suggests that Canadians have doubts the motion will accomplish anything. A majority of respondents said that the motion would have no real impact. Another 31 per cent felt it was a threat to freedom of speech, while 12 per cent believed it would help "reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and discrimination."

This continues to show the liberal government going against national interest in order to push their islamic agenda -- thus, further alienating an ever growing voter base. As this continues, the conservatives will be able to unite under the banner of rejecting forced bending of the knee, financial support and loss of freedom of speech to appease the islamic block of the canadian residency. Again, this will be used relentlessly by the right to lambast the liberals come election time; especially if we add in the increased resentment canadians are feeling towards the refugee program and a general increasing of favoritism towards right wing identity politics in the west.

This is actually a glorious pass by the HoC in terms of future benefits towards the conservatives and their voters. Liberals are ignoring national feelings while pushing to add protections to a group that is already the most hated out of any minority in the west.

Thanks liberals, we'll be sure to use this political weapon you gifted us to full extent.

It's actually pretty hilarious because Trudeau was obviously looking to use this as a weapon against the Conservatives. I guess the idea was that Canadians have been so conditioned to bow down to Islam that by opposing this motion the Conservatives would be killing any chance they might have in the next election. Turns out that backfired.

 

[weed]

Lol @BrianFantana that is the most aggressively awful post:like ratio I've ever seen and makes total sense seeing the stream of awful posts you've made ITT which no one else agrees with enough to like.

the 'like' system has been around only for a little over a year.

 

[Islam Imamate]

4 links of 3 crimes in a year and a half period warrants special attention because they were against an identifiable group of people. Got it. But thats not considered special status given to one particular ideology. Got it. You want me to go to sleep because you're grasping at straws. Got it.

Did you really expect him to link you to every instance of such crimes?

 

[Metusalemi]

2017. Not understanding what a 2006 join date means.

What does it mean?

That we are TUF noobs?

 

[Islam Imamate]

They literally made thought crime then

They made the action of thinking a "wrong" thought illegal

Orwellian nigntmare

I think it's a "you can't ban thoughts and ideas, or you turn into an Orwellian nightmare society" game

Its a non-binding motion, doesn't change the law.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What does it mean?

That we are TUF noobs?

The like system was only introduced a year and a half ago so someone who joined well before that and posts sparingly would not get many likes while someone who joined afterwards and posts more often would get many more.

 

[Boost6]

This whole thing is based of Muslim lies and them crying wolf to get their pro Islamist laws on the books.

This non binding is merely the beginning, just wait. Cunuck gov people are more then stupid enough and ignorant of the violence rapist ideology that islam is to eventually pass actual laws defending that disgusting pedophile ideology.

remember

 

[RhinoRush]

the 'like' system has been around only for a little over a year.

And yet you see guys here from 2008 with high like to post ratios. Stop with that tired excuse.