Canadians, what are your thoughts on M-103?

[dissolved]

People need to understand that Pakistan is now considered the most unsafe country in the world by some analysts. One of the damning points is blasphemy laws which Muslim Pakistanis regularly abuse to steal property from minority religions. Even when false claims are made, the minority religious person (even minority Muslim sects) will usually lose their life through follow-up vigilante rule. And what I've mentioned before, beware of "piety-based" or "honor-based" systems of living.

After all of that, the MP who put forward this motion is of Pakistani heritage and obviously a Muslim.

Of course this motion and anything like it should initiate a red flag immediately to anyone's subconscious.

 

[dissolved]

Another good video on opposition to M103 "Freedom of speech is not fringe, Mr Trudeau" - Kellie Leitch

 

[dontsnitch]

Another good video on opposition to M103 "Freedom of speech is not fringe, Mr Trudeau" - Kellie Leitch

I'm seriously considering voting for her.

 

[dissolved]

I'm seriously considering voting for her.

She sounds like a good option, better than Trudeau, that's for sure.

 

[dontsnitch]

She sounds like a good option, better than Trudeau, that's for sure.

She has said some things that I consider a bit radical, but at this point, Liberals in Canada are getting out of hand and perhaps they can no longer hear the voice of reason.

 

[dissolved]

She has said some things that I consider a bit radical, but at this point, Liberals in Canada are getting out of hand and perhaps they can no longer hear the voice of reason.

What did she say? One thing I bit my tongue on, is she looks kind of feminist and even lesbian, but some girls just look that way. She's also got a bit of a strange lisp - which shouldn't matter at all, except for the fickle.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Another good video on opposition to M103 "Freedom of speech is not fringe, Mr Trudeau" - Kellie Leitch

For those that don't get it:

Part of Justin Trudeau's platform when running for Prime Minister was that he would amend the voting system from our current first past the post to a closer form of representative government: https://www.liberal.ca/petitions/electoral-reform/

As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting – are fully and fairly studied and considered.

This will be carried out by a special all-party parliamentary committee, which will bring recommendations to Parliament on the way forward, to allow for action before the succeeding federal election. Within 18 months of forming government, we will bring forward legislation to enact electoral reform.

Since being elected, Trudeau has changed his tune. He now claims, quite hilariously, that the problem with proportional representation is that it gives fringe voices power. He has now abandoned his election promise to reform the electoral system: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-cites-leitch-electoral-reform/article33978880/

The following day in Yellowknife, Trudeau didn’t mention Leitch by name, but he did double down on the notion that an electoral system like proportional representation would give too much parliamentary power to fringe elements.

“If we were to make a change or risk a change that would augment individual voices, that would augment extremist voices and activist voices ... I think we’d be entering an era of instability and uncertainty,” Trudeau said.

“We’d be putting at risk the very thing that makes us luckier than anyone else on the planet: the fact that we look at our differences as something to draw on and discover and build on, as opposed to emphasize and highlight.”

Ironically, nobody really gave a shit about electoral reform to begin with. But his hypocrisy on this issue is ridiculous. He ran on a campaign of wanting minority voices to be heard, and then decided to change his tune when he realized he didn't like the voices he was hearing.

 

[dontsnitch]

What did she say? One thing I bit my tongue on, is she looks kind of feminist and even lesbian, but some girls just look that way. She's also got a bit of a strange lisp - which shouldn't matter at all, except for the fickle.

I honestly can't remember, but it was something about immigration. If I recall, it was something she apologized for.

 

[IHATECONSERVATIVES]

PEOPLE WHO VOTE CONSERVATIVE ARE DUMB AS FUCK.

 

[SpawnOfNyarlathotep]

I have to agree with Milo here:
"Deport them. Deport all the Muslims."

 

[sangreporsangre]

So the left-wing media has been adamant about stressing how this is just a motion, not a bill. Some articles will even have "non-binding" in the headlines lmao. Anyway the key point that they try to stress in every article or opinion piece is that there is absolutely no chance that the Liberal party will try to take any action to limit free expression, and anyone who is concerned that they might is a racist, an Islamophobe and most likely a transphobe as well. For myself, I've had a hard time swallowing that ever since I saw Trudeau's remarks about the motion. I included them in the OP but I will put it here again:

Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is "particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination."

"You're not allowed to call 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech," Trudeau said.

"That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that."

Seems to me pretty straightforward what he's saying there. I keep coming back to this, the PM and leader of the party who has a majority in Parliament and is pushing for this motion clearly saying that their end goal is to restrict speech and I've been disappointed to see that the media has completely glossed over those comments, until just now. And here's the crazy part: this was put out by HuffPo Canada! I can't believe that they actually published this. They just went up a notch in my book.....that puts them at notch one.

But after last week, I'm not going to waste any more breath reassuring concerned Canadians. I'm done repeating (accurately) that a motion cannot change the law and that this particular motion doesn't even mention free speech. I'm standing down because, according to the Prime Minister and another Liberal MP, I'm wrong and M-103 really is about limiting speech.

Questioned at a town hall in Yellowknife, Justin Trudeau defended motion M-103 by saying that "You're not allowed to call 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech. That endangers our community."

Then, on Friday, Liberal MP Ken Hardie, who had earlier said he was "inclined not to support" the motion, was asked on Twitter why he had changed his mind. He replied that he is now convinced that "We need a way to deal appropriately with broadcasters who appeared to have incited hatred in the Quebec City attack."



What odd responses, if M-103 is simply a motion condemning Islamophobia and not part of a wider plan to restrict speech.

In the 1990 case of R. v. Keegstra, then-Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote that limiting the guarantee of free expression to speech that is consistent with mainstream values would "strike at the very essence of the value of the freedom." This is because, "f the guarantee of free expression is to be meaningful, it must protect expression which challenges even the very basic conceptions about our society."

Ken Hardie's desire to "deal with" radio broadcasters and the Prime Minister's inapt and inept reference to "shouting fire" suggest that they would welcome further limits on the right to free speech, beyond existing laws against hate speech and incitement. They also make it almost impossible for those who have tried to soothe fevered speculation about the endgame of M-103 to continue doing so.

I tried, but I'm done.

If the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus believe that M-103 has something to do with policing speech, then they have only themselves to blame if their opponents take them at their word.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/howard-anglin/m-103-islamophobia-trudeau_b_14882836.html

 

[sangreporsangre]

So just to update on this a bit, over the last week or so there were quite a few demonstrations against M-103 all across the country - Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, etc. For every group protesting there is a group counter-protesting, and it black masks and hammer-and-sickle flags don't seem out of place in these counter-protest, so-called anti-fascist groups. Seriously, that's what a lot of media outlets are referring to these people as, anti-fascists. Check this out:

The caption they ran under this pic is:

Anti-fascists, left, clash with opposing protesters during a demonstration regarding motion M-103 in Montreal, Saturday, March 4, 2017

I'm not making this shit up. The guys in full face masks ganging up on a guy and boot-fucking him over his political beliefs are the anti-fascists.......

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/20...ith-battling-rallies-over-islamophobia-motion

That was from Montreal btw. Here's another angle:

But there were similar events all across the country. Regarding the one in Toronto last Sunday, Tarek Fatah wrote this piece in the Sun:

On Sunday, a blatant exhibition of “useful idiots” was on display at Toronto City Hall.

This time, they came not to serve Trotsky’s Fourth International, the Sandinistas or the Viet Cong.

This time they came to serve the cause of Islamofascism.

White youths in bandanas and facemasks roughed up Canadians, including their Muslim Canadian allies, who were protesting Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s “Islamophobia” motion, M-103.

Among the bullied victims of the supposed anti-racist activists, who included communists and Arab Islamists, were Muslim Canadians who were pushed and kicked, their placards seized and torn, with close-up pictures of them taken by a counter protester.

“We fear our pictures were being taken to be passed on to the Pakistani Consulate in Toronto,” said Imtiaz Baloch, a small business owner who escaped Islamic tyranny three decades ago.

Said another protester named Ahmad: “I escaped Pakistan because of the jihadist threat there to liberal values. I never thought that the (jihadi) mindset I escaped, would chase me to Canada.”

Most media did not report on this bizarre nexus of communists working hand-in-hand with Arab Islamists and white anarchists.

Zaffar Jawaid, from Pakistan-occupied Balochistan said: “I have lived in peace in Canada for the last 20 years. All that changed for me on March 4, 2017 in Toronto when I decided to join the peaceful protest at the Toronto’s City Hall against Motion-103, to stop (it) from becoming a law in Canada.”

Jawaid says he had a placard that read “my fears are not irrational” when “suddenly I felt a shove on my back and was pulled back by a police officer.

“You can’t go in there” the officer said. “But that’s where I belong,” I replied.

Another Baloch protester against M-103 told me in an email: “My worst fears had come true. I was reliving the fearful days of the military-jihadist campaigns on the streets of Pakistan, and this time in Toronto.”

An Iranian who escaped the Islamist Ayatollah regime told Rebel Media:

“I am a political refugee from Iran. I’ve been to prison and I have lived under Islamic law and I know how it starts and I know how it ends. For some reason, it always starts with some unity between the left and Islamists and it scares me. I came here to be free. I chose Canada to live in a free country and I am beginning to feel scared.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/07/useful-idiots-line-up-to-support-m-103

This isn't going away. I say that anyone who is concerned about the rising Islamist influence over our government needs to stay vigilant.

 

[Bald1]

The hammer and sickle supporting the star and crescent. Legit pisses me off.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I think the reaction against it is wildly overblown.

First of all, it's a motion, not a bill. No laws are changed by it.

Second of all, the notion of "combating Islamaphobia" doesn't have to be limited to "taking away free speech". People are jumping to conclusions that they could only mean criminalizing speaking out against Islam, when that's never once been said by anyone. Combating Islamaphobia can mean things like public awareness campaigns about who Muslims are and what Islam is about.

People are inserting their own meaning as to what they think this motion even is. Dumb asses like the Rebel are calling this step one to instituting Sharia Law. As a former lawyer Ezra Levant should be fucking ashamed at how piss poor his understanding of Canadian constitutional law is to even remotely consider that ever being a real possibility here.

The fact that this MP is receiving death threats pretty much proves Islamaphobia is in fact a problem here. I'm not against taking measures to address that problem, and on its face nothing in this motion suggests that anyone's rights are being infringed.

I think Levant's criticism is well considered here. Islamophobia is so broadly defined and so pettily ascribed that it can be construed as Islamophobia to simply criticize Islam. And giving a religion a special status could certainly be construed as step one in the government establishing a religion of state.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So just to update on this a bit, over the last week or so there were quite a few demonstrations against M-103 all across the country - Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, etc. For every group protesting there is a group counter-protesting, and it black masks and hammer-and-sickle flags don't seem out of place in these counter-protest, so-called anti-fascist groups. Seriously, that's what a lot of media outlets are referring to these people as, anti-fascists. Check this out:

The caption they ran under this pic is:



I'm not making this shit up. The guys in full face masks ganging up on a guy and boot-fucking him over his political beliefs are the anti-fascists.......

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/20...ith-battling-rallies-over-islamophobia-motion

That was from Montreal btw. Here's another angle:

But there were similar events all across the country. Regarding the one in Toronto last Sunday, Tarek Fatah wrote this piece in the Sun:



http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/07/useful-idiots-line-up-to-support-m-103

This isn't going away. I say that anyone who is concerned about the rising Islamist influence over our government needs to stay vigilant.

The inability of those on the left to properly distinguish fascism from peaceful protests is as disconcerting to me as the inability of those on the left to be able to properly distinguish between a man and a woman.

 

[HomerThompson]

Canada appears to shitting the bed lately when it comes to free speech. They need to get it together.

 

[sangreporsangre]

So today is the big day when M-103 will get rammed through. The Liberals have a majority so there's no reason to think that it won't pass. From there it will be kicked over to the Heritage Committee to dream up some ways to combat "Islamophobia", which still hasn't been defined. Seeing as how the Heritage Committee is mostly comprised of Liberals we can be pretty certain that their suggestions have already been thought up in some Islamic think tank. The problem for them though, is that they're realizing now that they kicked a hornet's nest with this bullshit. A lot of people saw caught the play for what it was - an attempt to start the process of instituting some form of blasphemy law. The Liberals were obviously hoping that this would hurt the Conservatives, that they would oppose it and then become the "literally Hitlers" of Canada. But that's kind of backfired on them: a lot of people who normally wouldn't vote Con are paying attention to the leadership race, because the Conservatives represent to them the only party that will attempt to preserve freedom of speech and Canadian values. In other words, a similar dynamic to how Trump got in. Note that this motion was originally scheduled for a second reading in April, but the liberals pushed it up here because they're hoping that it gets buried under all the news of the budget. Think about that for a second.

That makes me think that they'll try to sneak in the Heritage Committee recommendations for a time when they think we won't be paying attention as well. It's no secret that this has pissed off a lot of people. Polling data shows that most Canadians are against this, but I don't know how reliable those are.

The House of Commons will almost certainly vote Thursday afternoon in favour of condemning “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, the phrase at the heart of the controversial motion M-103.

But a new poll released Thursday morning suggests that if the vote on M-103 was up to most Canadians, the anti-Islamophobia motion would fail.

Pollster Angus Reid Institute asked 1,511 Canadians, “If you were a a Member of Parliament, how would you vote on this motion (M-103)” and found that 42 per cent would vote against it; 29 per cent would vote in favour and 29 per cent were not sure or would have abstained.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ians-would-vote-down-anti-islamophobia-motion

So M-103 is gonna go through today, and the Liberals and their media sources are gonna be a lot more quiet about "anti-Islamophobia" measures going forward. That means it's up to us, Canadians of all backgrounds who are against the rising Islamist influence in our country, to stay on top of this.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

PEOPLE WHO VOTE CONSERVATIVE ARE DUMB AS FUCK.

Well, you've changed my mind.

 

[KidBaize]

This motion is appalling. I'm glad to see so many Canadians oppose it and hopefully the backlash is enough to preempt any further infringement on our right to criticize ideologies we disagree with.

 

[fdswer]