Support NeoGAF

[matthewwhatever]

Was just about to post that Macleans piece. If people like Ezra Levant or Charles McVety are allowed to become prominent figures within the CPC, that should disqualify that party from even pretending to want to form government. They're sideshow charlatans who represent the absolute worst aspects of modern conservatism.

I don't know, maybe they'd try to pay the NDP or promote Quebec independence. I know a few years ago I used to see RT billboards in Montreal. There were two kinds: one questioning global warming, the other asking if extra-terrestrial beings exist.

Seriously!? Are you sure it wasn't the Raelians?

 

[grumble]

the next target for the KGB Chaos machine is France's up coming Presidential election this spring.

Marine Le Pen is so in the take full of rubles.

Wikileaks already started a smear campaign geared towards Emmanuel Macron.

She'll probably win. It's messed up, but she'll probably win.

 

[Pancake Mix]

She'll probably win. It's messed up, but she'll probably win.

Nah, it's two rounds. She'd have to win against the entire moderate vote.

 

[Ether_Snake]

journalists in Quebec prize journalistic freedom really highly. They don't like Putin at all.
From his homophobia, wife beating being legal, jailing opponents, poisonning spies and curruption

so don't expect FAKE NEWS to gain any traction in that province

It does have traction, it's just a harder nut to crack to become useful. At the federal level you have either the CPC or LPC, so nothing to gain there. But instead they can target whoever is currently in power, and that can be fairly effective: they will promote policies that disfavor the current government. So right now their trolls promote conservative-leaning policies. When the CPC is in power they do the opposite.

I mean jeez, they put the fucking Republicans in power in the US, they don't need a pro-Russia party, people should understand that by now.

Was just about to post that Macleans piece. If people like Ezra Levant or Charles McVety are allowed to become prominent figures within the CPC, that should disqualify that party from even pretending to want to form government. They're sideshow charlatans who represent the absolute worst aspects of modern conservatism.



Seriously!? Are you sure it wasn't the Raelians?

Yes, saw it every day going to work.

One was "Is global warming a hoax?" with a photo of a polar bear, the other I forget what it said, but something like "Are we alone in the universe?" with a picture of a grey alien. R T . com in both corners.

 

[Infinite Stars]

journalists in Quebec prize journalistic freedom really highly. They don't like Putin at all.
From his homophobia, wife beating being legal, jailing opponents, poisonning spies and curruption

so don't expect FAKE NEWS to gain any traction in that province

Journalists don't, but you know that the rags who would spread Neo-seperatist would barely call themselves Journalists. You don't think The Rebel's readership wouldn't kill for Quebec to leave the Confederacy, effectively giving the Conservative belt more sway?

The fact is, the Rebel has more sway then I think most people here recognize. All it takes is for one of the bad CPC Candidates to get a populist idea on somehow dividing the country.

Ugh, actually that's a scary thought. Just for the reason that it would reduce stability, Putin's Russia would probably try to help Quebec separatism. One thing that prevents it is that the "Clarity" Act apparently requires a super-majority rather than an actual simple majority, so it would never happen.

Forget forming a government, the Bloc could never do that, obviously they're only in one province. They don't need that to become a problem, just the rise of their provincial equivalent.

Yeah, I realize that it won't be the block, but the amount of "Why should us hard working Albertans support those privileged East Coasters" I saw growing up during the oil boom in Alberta was insane. There's a sentiment of resentment that could be exploited by the Conservatives.

 

[CazTGG]

Andrew Coyne: Hysteria from Conservatives over harmless motion on Islamophobia



The Tories approach a point of no return

This week's debate over ‘Islamophobia' highlights the need for the Tories to root out the fringe forces rapidly dumbing down their party

I doubt they'll do so. If they kept Leitch and Alexander after everything they've said and done during the 2015 election (not to mention the lack of apology for helping normalize Islamophobia in Canada with their Islamophobic campaign), they're not getting rid of anyone. What seems more likely to happen is that the party is going to tear itself apart after the leadership campaign has come to a close and the next election results have come in. The 2019 election will likely be a test for whether the Conservative Party of Canada can form its own government by going further to the right (I would love to be wrong about this and I plan on voting in the leadership myself but it's appearing to be more likely that a social con will win. Even if Kevin "this is a slap in the face to other religions and races" O'Leary does win, I doubt he's going to rein them in.) and simultaneously hold itself together between the more moderate conservatives like Michael Chong vs the Canadian GOP (even Raitt is showing her colors with her denying support to M-103) and hold itself together under the increasing division within the party. While it's too early to say definitively, I doubt Justin's going anywhere short of an economic collapse in eastern provinces (if him voting for Bill C-51 won't sink him, electoral reform won't either. Marijuana on the other hand...). If there will be a rejection by CPC MPs of this bigotry, it will be through the formation of a new right-wing party by those MPs who will not stand by the party it now permeates.

 

[SRG01]

Nah, it's two rounds. She'd have to win against the entire moderate vote.

Yes. Because the French presidential election is two rounds, it is nearly impossible for the far-right to win unless the other person was impossibly despicable -- which would be unlikely if that person got past the first round in the first place.

That's why I like run-off elections: it gives people a chance to realign their focus after the first round.

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-regions-donors-1.3982061

Bernier's broad donor base still tops the Conservative leadership field

 

[CazTGG]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-regions-donors-1.3982061

Bernier's broad donor base still tops the Conservative leadership field

I see switching back to the gold standard has served Max very well.

 

[gutter_trash]

I see switching back to the gold standard has served Max very well.

he's got the near monopoly in Quebec and ranks 2nd in many other parts of the country

According to the article, Leitch has almost no support in Quebec.

Peter MacKay has been vocal against Leitch identiy politics. His anti-andorsement could influence CPC members in Atlantic Canada

 

[mo60]

Honestly, the only party I could see Russia backing would be the Bloq, and the circumstances required for a Bloq government would be beyond reality. They'd want to create divides in the country, and promoting a"Quebec first" party to the point where they even get near 2nd would be one hell of a divide.

It's ridiculosly hard for the Bloq to come in second unless the bloq wins pretty much every seat in Quebec while the Liberals or another party get like 200+ seats. The only reason they came in second in 1993 was because of the spilt in the conservative vote and quebec separatism was hot in 1993.

 

[bloodydrake]

Andrew Coyne: Hysteria from Conservatives over harmless motion on Islamophobia

I'd like to start by saying I watched the videos of the session , the reading of the threats and attacks in those mails against Iqra Khalid were disgusting..full stop. Some of the authors should be criminally prosecuted.

However I also again saw her avoid any response that addressed the legitimate and rational question "What constitutes Islamophobia" abjectly refused to entertain the idea that it should be defined.

What so many here seem to unable to acknowledge is a legitimate concern over what it being agreed to in supporting the Motion.

Is it condemning irrational fear,xenophobic and prejudices about Islam or Muslims?
If so defined I think all but the true bigots like Leich would have supported it and moved on.

Or is it the one the OIC promotes" all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam?
Thats the one that got people worried and rightly so.

A Motion isn't law and it isn't a Bill. To pretend it isn't related to further support for legalizing whats been agreed upon in the Motion is disingenuous.

Even the same article you linked continues and has a whole section basically saying there's reason to be concerned

It is, at the same time, understandable why there would be some nervousness around this subject. There is a certain school of Islam that would indeed place severe legal constraints on the right to criticize or ridicule the faith, just as there are lots of people, especially on the left, who would eagerly censor all sorts of “insensitive” speech.


This is what makes these issues so maddeningly elusive of resolution: it is not one thing or the other, but both at the same time. We live in a time both of much more widespread and open expressions of racism — thanks, internet — and of acute hypersensitivity to rude or even frank speech of all kinds. Each feeds off the other. But the alternative to “political correctness” is not bigotry and intolerance, and the answer to racism is not censorship. Indeed, we have too much of that already.

I’m not sure how many of those either praising Chong or denouncing him for his stand on Motion 103 are aware that he has at the same time proposed repealing Section 319 of the Criminal Code: the “hate speech” provision. But he is as correct in the latter stance as the former. Even a free society allows some exceptions to the liberties it enjoys — but a free society always insists that any such exception be, to borrow the language of our Charter, “demonstrably justified.”

The burden of proof is always on those who wish to restrict freedom to show why they must. At the very least they must show what harm it is they wish to address. In the case of “hate speech,” the harm is supposed to be the violence towards its objects that might ensue. But the Criminal Code already contains provisions against incitement to violence: that is, where the connection between the speech, and the violence that might reasonably be expected to result, is so immediate, so direct and so clear as to be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

[gutter_trash]

Claude Patry: Former Federal MP (elected NDP later defected to Bloc) now joins Far-Right extremist fringe group called ''La Meute''

http://www.lapresse.ca/le-quotidien...epute-federal-claude-patry-joint-la-meute.php

Mulcair was in charge of vetting Quebec candidates in 2011 FYI

 

[maharg]

Is it condemning irrational fear,xenophobic and prejudices about Islam or Muslims?
If so defined I think all but the true bigots like Leich would have supported it and moved on.

Or is it the one the OIC promotes" all expressions of opposition to or disapproval of Islam?
Thats the one that got people worried and rightly so.

On what basis do you believe that a Liberal government or a Canadian court (were this in fact a law of any sort and it even could come before one) would use anything but the former definition? Is Canada a member of the OIC? I didn't think so, but maybe you know better.

We live in a common-law jurisdiction (other than Quebec). The former definition is reasonable within the scope of constitutional powers granted to Parliament. The latter is not. No Canadian court would ever agree that "disapproval of islam" is something the government has a rational interest in restricting or that restricting it would be proportional to any cause (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test).

But none of that matters. The motion's goal is to instigate the *study* of Islamophobia in light of recent events inspired by just that. This is entirely reasonable and entirely within the purview of Parliament, as demonstrated by its studies of domestic violence against *women* or, as matthewwhatever pointed out, anti-semitism, both of which are violence targeted at a specific group that is otherwise considered equal under the law. Accepting those things on one hand and turning a study of Islamophobia into a circus show is precisely the opposite of treating them as equals under the law, it is putting a higher bar to legislating remedies for them than for other groups.

I'm sorry, but these arguments just continue to get more ridiculous. Parliament passes motions without defining every single thing all the time. Only when a group that Conservatives don't like get brought up does it turn into a JAQing off session about whether islamophobia is a legitimate issue or some kind of evil conspiracy to bring sharia law to the west (and this is precisely the question you're asking, even if you can't bring yourself to name this absurd fear directly).

 

[imBask]

On what basis do you believe that a Liberal government or a Canadian court (were this in fact a law of any sort and it even could come before one) would use anything but the former definition? Is Canada a member of the OIC? I didn't think so, but maybe you know better.

We live in a common-law jurisdiction (other than Quebec). The former definition is reasonable within the scope of constitutional powers granted to Parliament. The latter is not. No Canadian court would ever agree that "disapproval of islam" is something the government has a rational interest in restricting or that restricting it would be proportional to any cause (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test).

But none of that matters. The motion's goal is to instigate the *study* of Islamophobia in light of recent events inspired by just that. This is entirely reasonable and entirely within the purview of Parliament, as demonstrated by its studies of domestic violence against *women* or, as matthewwhatever pointed out, anti-semitism, both of which are violence targeted at a specific group that is otherwise considered equal under the law. Accepting those things on one hand and turning a study of Islamophobia into a circus show is precisely the opposite of treating them as equals under the law, it is putting a higher bar to legislating remedies for them than for other groups.

I'm sorry, but these arguments just continue to get more ridiculous. Parliament passes motions without defining every single thing all the time. Only when a group that Conservatives don't like get brought up does it turn into a JAQing off session about whether islamophobia is a legitimate issue or some kind of evil conspiracy to bring sharia law to the west (and this is precisely the question you're asking, even if you can't bring yourself to name your absurd fear directly).

Just wanna mention that this is a decent post, I didn't really pay much attention to the whole anti-Islamophobia debate going on but that post helped me

could've done it without the pointless aggressivity though

 

[maharg]

Just wanna mention that this is a decent post, I didn't really pay much attention to the whole anti-Islamophobia debate going on but that post helped me

could've done it without the pointless aggressivity though

If this were an isolated thing, I would probably apologize for the aggressiveness. But it's not. Pretending that there isn't a campaign to misinform people and that posts like the one I'm replying to aren't either a part or a product of that campaign (just read back the last couple of pages of this thread and witness the repeated form-letter like patterns to these posts: expect more) isn't productive. IMO doing just that, and being complacent about it, is a big part of what's gotten people into right-wing messes around the world.

 

[Pedrito]

There's absolutely no way a judge, under canadian law, could convict someone for criticizing islam, or any other religion, if there's no extremely hateful langage or a strong and precise call to violence. No motion, regulation or bill will ever change that.

With so many MPs being lawyer, you'd think they would know that.

 

[bloodydrake]

On what basis do you believe that a Liberal government or a Canadian court (were this in fact a law of any sort and it even could come before one) would use anything but the former definition? Is Canada a member of the OIC? I didn't think so, but maybe you know better.

Why do I need a basis for you to acknowledge there are broadly differing definitions for the same terms being promoted internationally that can be the root cause for those that have expressed concern. How does a simple declarative statement undermine anything while alleviating just about all rational concern?

This is entirely reasonable and entirely within the purview of Parliament, as demonstrated by its studies of domestic violence against *women* or, as matthewwhatever pointed out, anti-semitism, both of which are violence targeted at a specific group that is otherwise considered equal under the law. Accepting those things on one hand and turning a study of Islamophobia into a circus show is precisely the opposite of treating them as equals under the law, it is putting a higher bar to legislating remedies for them than for other groups.

Is there any dispute of what constitutes anti-semitism?(which btw my understanding of the motion that passed couple years ago is that it actually had specifics in it to define itself)
What about homophobia? or Domestic Violence. Are these terms being used dually to mean completely different things?

I'm sorry, but these arguments just continue to get more ridiculous. Parliament passes motions without defining every single thing all the time. Only when a group that Conservatives don't like get brought up does it turn into a JAQing off session about whether islamophobia is a legitimate issue or some kind of evil conspiracy to bring sharia law to the west (and this is precisely the question you're asking, even if you can't bring yourself to name your absurd fear directly).

Theres nothing ridiculous about the question. I find it ridiculous how spiteful and vindictive people respond to simple questions
. I'm not going to claim I'm not ignorant to all nuances of all these many social issues but I can't help but shake my head at just how intolerant people like you are to those just askin them.

I know it will blow your mind but sometimes people are willing to learn and broaden their view when they aren't completely shutdown and vilified for not just turning off their brain and being a cheerleader for whatever the Mob Of Left wing Authoritarians demand.

For the record yes I am concerned with things like Sharia law in the west,
I'm concerned with Misogynistic views on woman's rights,
I'm concerned about gay rights,
I'm also deeply concerned about the treatment of apostates.

I also thing Trumps approach is moronic and counter to helping anyone.
As an Atheist myself I appreciate Sam Harris's thoughts that we need to encourage and help moderate Muslims to have more influence and that it will only be through that peaceful understanding there will be any meaningful change in reducing the Islamist,radical percentages that are worrisome.

I also think Jordan Petersons video is 100% on point and brilliant..if he or you or anyone cannot post a picture and say this is Mohammad without fear of reprisal..then its not phobia to be concerned.

 

[Pedrito]

I believe the whole debate about the motion is just a political game. No one is actually interested in getting the wording right. The Liberals are just trying to bait the Conservatives in outing themselves as being anti-muslim. The Conservatives are trying to push the narrative that the Liberals are favoring a special group (that isn't all the popular these days among the populace) and that they're a threat to free speach (and to their loony base, that Trudeau is a secret muslim).

 

[gutter_trash]

IMO, the should make a hate crime bill that covers all bases not just one religion.

Plus is criticisms of religions really hate speech?

Lets say we criticize the Catholic Church for covering up pedophile priests or if we criticize Islam for enforcing gender segregation and misogyny... where does the line draw?

Why are Liberal governments goign out of their way to shield religions that have Ultra-Conservative Anti-Liberal views?

I'm with Bill Maher on this one

 

[AuthenticM]

The courts have already clearly defined what is hate speech and all that. There won't be any confusion there for them.

 

[Silexx]

IMO, the should make a hate crime bill that covers all bases not just one religion.

Plus is criticisms of religions really hate speech?

Lets say we criticize the Catholic Church for covering up pedophile priests or if we criticize Islam for enforcing gender segregation and misogyny... where does the line draw?

Why are Liberal governments goign out of their way to shield religions that have Ultra-Conservative Anti-Liberal views?

I'm with Bill Maher on this one

It's motion, not a bill.

If the Liberals ever decided to make some kind of bill (Very unlikely) then, yes, the wording needs to be specific and defined. Until then, it's all politics.

 

[gutter_trash]

It's motion, not a bill.

If the Liberals ever decided to make some kind of bill (Very unlikely) then, yes, the wording needs to be specific and defined. Until then, it's all politics.

just remember what happened in Ontario with the Sex Education protests based on religious grounds

that's conservatism

 

[CazTGG]

Why do I need a basis for you to acknowledge there are broadly differing definitions for the same terms being promoted internationally that can be the root cause for those that have expressed concern. How does a simple declarative statement undermine anything while alleviating just about all rational concern?

Is there any dispute of what constitutes anti-semitism?(which btw my understanding of the motion that passed couple years ago is that it actually had specifics in it to define itself)
What about homophobia? or Domestic Violence. Are these terms being used dually to mean completely different things?

Theres nothing ridiculous about the question. I find it ridiculous how spiteful and vindictive people respond to simple questions
. I'm not going to claim I'm not ignorant to all nuances of all these many social issues but I can't help but shake my head at just how intolerant people like you are to those just askin them.

I know it will blow your mind but sometimes people are willing to learn and broaden their view when they aren't completely shutdown and vilified for not just turning off their brain and being a cheerleader for whatever the Mob Of Left wing Authoritarians demand.

For the record yes I am concerned with things like Sharia law in the west,
I'm concerned with Misogynistic views on woman's rights,
I'm concerned about gay rights,
I'm also deeply concerned about the treatment of apostates.

I also thing Trumps approach is moronic and counter to helping anyone.
As an Atheist myself I appreciate Sam Harris's thoughts that we need to encourage and help moderate Muslims to have more influence and that it will only be through that peaceful understanding there will be any meaningful change in reducing the Islamist,radical percentages that are worrisome.

I also think Jordan Petersons video is 100% on point and brilliant..if he or you or anyone cannot post a picture and say this is Mohammad without fear of reprisal..then its not phobia to be concerned.

Stop JAQing off and hiding behind terrible videos that misunderstand the purpose of M-103. Just say what we know you're too afraid to say and be done with this tired act.

 

[Pancake Mix]

bloodydrake put it better than I could.

A reminder that this is a map of blasphemy laws:

Blasphemous libel is a crime in Canada under section 296 of the Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Subsection (1) reads:

"Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
Subsection (3) reads:

"No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Yes, Canada has a blasphemy law, a stricter one than Australia or the UK, and something that doesn't even exist in the US, Mexico, or most of Europe and the Americas.

So if you're not going to define what you mean, and nations where that religion is dominant almost universally have very strong blasphemy laws up to and including the death sentence...it's pretty easy to see why people would have concerns. Just because it's not a law (yet) doesn't mean it's not setting out and leading up to one, like many, many motions.

 

[gutter_trash]

bloodydrake put it better than I could.

A reminder that this is a map of blasphemy laws:





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Yes, Canada has a blasphemy law, a stricter one than Australia or the UK, and something that doesn't even exist in the US, Mexico, or most of Europe and the Americas.

that is a terrible law, that would silence dissenters who left religion who wanted to speak out about their experiences.
Djemila Benhabib (an Algerian-Canadian atheist) was sued for voicing her criticism about a religious school

 

[Pancake Mix]

that is a terrible law, that would silence dissenters who left religion who wanted to speak out about their experiences.
Djemila Benhabib (an Algerian-Canadian atheist) was sued for voicing her criticism about a religious school

It really should be off the books. I should note it is entirely off the books in England & Wales as of a 2008 repeal, which is why the UK is only yellow now. The last prosecution in Scotland for it was 1843...

It's an archaic law and not really in keeping with modern Western values of secularism...and yet Canada has one of the harshest laws on it in the Western World. It's absolutely absurd.

Throw it in the dustbin of history.

 

[Pedrito]

Yes, Canada has a blasphemy law, a stricter one than Australia or the UK, and something that doesn't even exist in the US, Mexico, or most of Europe and the Americas.

That is pretty much never used.

https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&sort=decisionDate&text="blasphemous libel"

that is a terrible law, that would silence dissenters who left religion who wanted to speak out about their experiences.
Djemila Benhabib (an Algerian-Canadian atheist) was sued for voicing her criticism about a religious school

She was sued for slander in civil court. That has nothing to do with the infraction under the Criminal code. And she won so...

Saying that, I have no problem with getting rid of that infraction. Just don't use its existence to feed the hysteria over a "thought police".

 

[Pancake Mix]

That is pretty much never used.

https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/type=decision&sort=decisionDate&text="blasphemous libel"



She was sued for slander in civil court. That has nothing to do with the infraction under the Criminal code. And she won so...

Saying that, I have no problem with getting rid of that infraction. Just don't use its existence to feed the hysteria over a "thought police".

Obviously it's not really used anymore. I could tell you that, but it's not the point. If you're specifically making a motion for one religion, get rid of the damn blasphemy law at the same time or I don't think you're acting reasonably.

If they do get rid of it, then fine, I'll drop it I guess..., but while it's on the books (and hasn't been struck down by the courts), yeah, no, just no. I have zero faith (pun intended) that the motion's controversial wording was necessary.

 

[bloodydrake]

Stop JAQing off and hiding behind terrible videos that misunderstand the purpose of M-103.

ummm how bout no, what terrible videos have I posted I've posted links to a bunch I find very compelling that advocate rational thought and dialog. Non are fox news/Milo incendiary rhetoric.

Just say what we know you're too afraid to say and be done with this tired act.

Spare me your innuendo and just label me how ever you wish, your manor doesn't suggest your interested in anything other then to ridicule. I'm pretty sure I'm not afraid to say anything,tho i imaging your gleefully waiting for me to get pissed off and lash out so you can plant your flag on some supposed morally superior position. You keep on keepin on

 

[Pedrito]

Obviously it's not really used anymore. I could tell you that, but it's not the point. If you're specifically making a motion for one religion, get rid of the damn blasphemy law at the same time or I don't think you're acting reasonably.

If they do get rid of it, then fine, I'll drop it I guess..., but while it's on the books (and hasn't been struck down by the courts), yeah, no, just no. I have zero faith (pun intended) that the motion's controversial wording was necessary.

Of course it's not necessary. It's mostly to score political points, like a lot of things done in Ottawa by all parties. It's also not a big deal because a motion like that doesn't have any legal weight. Prosecutors won't suddenly start charging people with blasphemous libel. They have more important things to deal with. If it leads to a bill, it will go to court and will be striken down at the first occasion.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Of course it's not necessary. It's mostly to score political points, like a lot of things done in Ottawa by all parties. It's also not a big deal because a motion like that doesn't have any legal weight. Prosecutors won't suddenly start charging people with blasphemous libel. They have more important things to deal with. If it leads to a bill, it will go to court and will be striken down at the first occasion.

I'd rather we make sure a single religion doesn't get special protection, end of story.

 

[Pedrito]

I'd rather we make sure a single religion doesn't get special protection, end of story.

Well, thanks to s. 15 of the Charter, you don't have to worry about that.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Well, thanks to s. 15 of the Charter, you don't have to worry about that.

Great, then don't defend motions that seem to go against that without defining what they mean.

 

[Pedrito]

Great, then don't defend motions that seem to go against that without defining what they mean.

I'm not defending the motion. I'm saying that the narrative that the motion is an assault on free speech is ridiculous.

The motion can't really go against the Charter as it's not legally binding. But anyway, even if it was, I doubt it would be considered to be unconstitutional as it does mention "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination".

 

[AuthenticM]

bloodydrake put it better than I could.

A reminder that this is a map of blasphemy laws:





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Yes, Canada has a blasphemy law, a stricter one than Australia or the UK, and something that doesn't even exist in the US, Mexico, or most of Europe and the Americas.

So if you're not going to define what you mean, and nations where that religion is dominant almost universally have very strong blasphemy laws up to and including the death sentence...it's pretty easy to see why people would have concerns. Just because it's not a law (yet) doesn't mean it's not setting out and leading up to one, like many, many motions.

That subsection is old and hasn't been used by prosecutors for ages, and it would assuredly be struck down by the Courts if it ever were contested.

 

[Pancake Mix]

That subsection is old and hasn't been used by prosecutors for ages, and it would assuredly be struck down by the Courts if it ever were contested.

Remove. It. From. The. Books. Then.

Looks like it's under review right now:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-382/421-01047_JUS_E.pdf

Motions. Are. Not. Binding.

No. Shit. Sherlock.

You should still define what you mean when you're prompted to, repeatedly.

 

[Silexx]

Great, then don't defend motions that seem to go against that without defining what they mean.

Motions. Are. Not. Binding.

No one is expected to define any meaning in motions because since it's not a law, we simply need to use our common sense when understanding the term 'Islamophobia'.

 

[AuthenticM]

Remove. It. From. The. Books. Then.

Looks like it's under review right now:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/ePetitions/Responses/421/e-382/421-01047_JUS_E.pdf

Oh of course, but you will be severely disappointed if you expect the Federal government to clean up the Criminal Code. There's so much shit in there. And let's not even mention its presentation.

Like one of my law teachers said: Common Lawyers all suffer from compulsive hoarding.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Good news re: the Criminal Code: apparently they've finally recognizing it's a serious issue, and they're going to address it.

One was "Is global warming a hoax?" with a photo of a polar bear, the other I forget what it said, but something like "Are we alone in the universe?" with a picture of a grey alien. R T . com in both corners.

This boggles my mind. Is there some weird connection between Russian propaganda and aliens that I'm missing entirely? Is part of their plot to destabilize the West based on getting people to believe stupid things? Are they hoping people visit their site, and then either hand over personal info or download some malware? I'm just so puzzled.

could've done it without the pointless aggressivity though

Given the kind of garbage that gets thrown maharg's way by people who are Just Asking Questions and complaining about "the intolerant left", like this:

I'm not going to claim I'm not ignorant to all nuances of all these many social issues but I can't help but shake my head at just how intolerant people like you are to those just askin them.

I know it will blow your mind but sometimes people are willing to learn and broaden their view when they aren't completely shutdown and vilified for not just turning off their brain and being a cheerleader for whatever the Mob Of Left wing Authoritarians demand.

For the record yes I am concerned with things like Sharia law in the west,
I'm concerned with Misogynistic views on woman's rights,
I'm concerned about gay rights,
I'm also deeply concerned about the treatment of apostates.

(And respectively: that's not a thing, no you're not, I highly doubt it, and that has zero relevance to Canada.)

Or people who are just making up nonsense to cover up thinly-veiled bigotry:

I'd rather we make sure a single religion doesn't get special protection, end of story.

Then yeah, a little bit of aggression is entirely warranted. The entire reason the right has been allowed to drift along into neo-fascism elsewhere is because they just say garbage like this and it goes unchecked; I'd rather we didn't see the same thing happen here.

And speaking of neofascist right-wingers, apparently Kellie Leitch has surged into second place in the CPC contest:

Interestingly, O'Leary, in addition to being leading the first-choice ballots, is now also dead last with the most people, too:

 

[Pancake Mix]

I know she has many concerning policies, bu she would probably be better for things like the Canada Health Act than Bernier or O'Leary. She's an ex-cabinet minister so she gets you can't run the government like a business. The Conservatives have a long line of rather scary candidates right now for various reasons.

Oh of course, but you will be severely disappointed if you expect the Federal government to clean up the Criminal Code. There's so much shit in there. And let's not even mention its presentation.

Like one of my law teachers said: Common Lawyers all suffer from compulsive hoarding.

Yes, I'm aware there's a law about frightening her majesty and other such things.

Would still be prudent to alleviate fears. At the very least she could have answered what she meant with that term when asked repeatedly.

 

[Silexx]

No. Shit. Sherlock.

You should still define what you mean when you're prompted to, repeatedly.

No, it's a motion. It's purely symbolic. It's pointless to have to try and define 'Islamophobia' on the heels of a massacre that saw 6 Muslims killed and 19 injured at a mosque.

 

[Pedrito]

This boggles my mind. Is there some weird connection between Russian propaganda and aliens that I'm missing entirely? Is part of their plot to destabilize the West based on getting people to believe stupid things? Are they hoping people visit their site, and then either hand over personal info or download some malware? I'm just so puzzled.

They cater to conspiracy theorists, skeptics, etc., i.e. people that tend to dislike their government. Their motto is "Question more" and "we're just asking questions" is their main tactic of disinformation.

They bring in these people with the conspiracy stuff. They hear what they want to hear (your government is baaaaad and hiding something), as well as plenty of pro-Russia stuff, so they end up thinking Russia is the victim of a global conspiracy to bring it down.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Something funny to lighten the conversation a little: Brad Trost -- last seen arguing that this:

...was a convincing argument against same-sex marriage -- is now trying to push forward a Private Member's Bill that would eliminate the CBC entirely. He can't get a single other MP to support it, including any other CPC MPs.

They cater to conspiracy theorists, skeptics, etc., i.e. people that tend to dislike their government. Their motto is "Question more" and "we're just aksing questions" is their main tactic of disinformation.

Ahhhh, got it. It's pretty obvious now that you mention it, but I hadn't connected those dots in my head. Thanks.

 

[AuthenticM]

Good news re: the Criminal Code: apparently they've finally recognizing it's a serious issue, and they're going to address it.

That's great, but they need to go further than what they said they would do. I'm talking about a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Code, just like what Québec did to the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1991.

 

[Mr.Mike]

I put the CPC Leadership poll thing into a chart that makes it easier to compare first and last choice percentages.

 

[bloodydrake]

(And respectively: that's not a thing, no you're not, I highly doubt it, and that has zero relevance to Canada.)

1. its not a thing.....yet...good,
2. fuck you, don't tell me what I care about, you don't know me.
3. as I doubt your desire for rational debate or constructive discussion.
4. I would think it is enough to give anyone pause. shrug but I guess not you.

 

[Pedrito]

The fact that the 3 most popular candidates are also the 3 least popular says a lot about the conservative movement. So does the ridiculous number of candidates.

 

[AuthenticM]

I put the CPC Leadership poll thing into a chart that makes it easier to compare first and last choice percentages.

So what does it take for a candidate to win? Only the most number 1 choices, or is it more complicated than that?

 

[Pancake Mix]

That's great, but they need to go further than what they said they would do. I'm talking about a complete rewrite and reorganization of the Code, just like what Québec did to the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1991.

Eh....no. Not a complete re-write. The Quebec Civil Code is based on the (relatively simplistic) Napoleonic code.

Common law systems (like criminal matters in Quebec and both civil and criminal matters in the rest of Canada) get highly complex. Many things should be changed from time to time, but generally laws can be interpreted as courts see fit, and other judges will use that precedent to ensure equal treatment if a law is no longer constitutional. It's complicated (a lot more complicated than Civil Law-esque systems), but it works! It's not really feasible to re-write it entirely.

The fact that the 3 most popular candidates are also the 3 least popular says a lot about the conservative movement. So does the ridiculous number of candidates.

Well, the fact that virtually the entire right of centre vote is united in Canada is part of it. It's a big, big tent, would probably be even larger with more provincial red Tories.