Shariah Law is Coming to Canada

[Glacier]

Words matter. We’ve heard the dictum often since the Quebec City mosque massacre. Yes, they do. In fact, the statement “words matter” matters. In my experience it is either a rebuke to those who argue for the widest possible latitude in speech freedoms, or a preamble to proposing speech limitations.

Timing matters too. Because of the mosque tragedy, on Feb. 16, the House will likely vote unanimously for Motion 103, which is potentially a retrograde step for freedom of speech in Canada, at least insofar as it concerns “Islamophobia.”

M-103 asks for a study to determine “a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Though singled out for special consideration, it is noteworthy that the motion does not define Islamophobia.

What I fear is that MP Iqra Khalid, who tabled M-103, may understand Islamophobia to mean what its original promoters, the 56 Muslim-majority bloc of the United Nations known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), say it means. The OIC wants to see the Cairo Declaration on Human rights become the template for Islamophobia policies everywhere. The Cairo Declaration asserts the superiority of Islam and defines freedom of speech according to Shariah law, which considers any criticism of Muhammad blasphemy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... -in-canada

[FreeRights]

So, whole bunch of things about that opinion piece.

I absolutely understand that the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (CDHR) indicates a lot of basis in "the Shariah," though granted it's very moderate in most of it's declarations regarding women's rights, marriage, age of consent, and equality.

That being said, M-103 (side note, it's very interesting that I found relatively few left-of-centre media outlets reporting at all on this) is completely unrelated to CDHR. The writer of this opinion piece "fears" that the person who forwarded this motion, Iqra Khalid, is understanding this under the context of CDHR. So essentially, the writer of this piece is afraid because she is pretending to know what someone else is thinking. Which is irrelevant anyway, because if you go and read the motion itself, there's no mention to CDHR or anything at all.

That being said, I oppose one key part of this motion - a lot of it is actually good:

...(c)request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could ( i) develop a whole- of- government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a communitycentered focus with a holistic response through evidencebased policy- making, ( ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities...

However, what I do oppose is this:

( a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; ( b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e- 411 and the issues raised by it;

Why do I oppose the need to quell systemic racism and religious discrimination? Because while I do agree with that essentially, I'm strictly opposed to any form of restricting freedom of speech and so far, it has been unsuccessful in indicating what methods would be taken to achieve the goals outlined.

[The Green Barbarian]

Why do I oppose the need to quell systemic racism and religious discrimination? Because while I do agree with that essentially, I'm strictly opposed to any form of restricting freedom of speech and so far, it has been unsuccessful in indicating what methods would be taken to achieve the goals outlined.

I agree 100%. And which religions fall under this purview? If an atheist makes a disparaging remark about Christianity (as we see a lot on these forums) will they also be prosecuted under this law? Those cheering any kind of government thought and speech control should consider unintended consequences. This law is garbage. Stay out of our bedrooms and our minds, government.

[Omnitheo]

I'm still waiting for Obama to bring sharia law to the US as everyone had said he would.

[Glacier]

I'm still waiting for Obama to bring sharia law to the US as everyone had said he would.

Who said? Search for yourself. You are only the 5th person in Castanet history to use Obama and Shariah in the same sentence.

EDIT: There are 30 posts using the words "Obama" and "Sharia" in the same sentence.

I did discover some of my old posts from 2009 when I was completely clueless about Islam and Shariah. Interesting how views change over time as we are exposed to new information.

In all those posts, the closest I came to someone claiming Obama and Shariah was this one. So maybe one guy named "dontrump" said so. That's hardly "everyone."

[Omnitheo]

Sorry, by "everyone" I meant "lots of people on the internet" namely sun news commenters and comments to CBC posts. I hadn't considered who on these forums would have made such statements, but it doesn't surprise me to see that there are.

[Glacier]

I agree 100%. And which religions fall under this purview? If an atheist makes a disparaging remark about Christianity (as we see a lot on these forums) will they also be prosecuted under this law? Those cheering any kind of government thought and speech control should consider unintended consequences. This law is garbage. Stay out of our bedrooms and our minds, government.

Funny thing about atheists is that they think they'll get it easy under Shariah since they're neither Jew nor Christian, so they don't want to speak up against blasphemy laws. In truth, atheists are worse off than Christians under Shariah because "unbelief" is considered the worst of all crimes.

At first they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was an atheist...

[The Green Barbarian]

Funny thing about atheists is that they think they'll get it easy under Shariah since they're neither Jew nor Christian, so they don't want to speak up against blasphemy laws. In truth, atheists are worse off than Christians under Shariah because "unbelief" is considered the worst of all crimes.

At first they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was an atheist...

In the thread in the World forum about Egypt someone mentioned that you have to disclose on your driver's licence what religion you are. If there isn't an "M" on your card but a "C" you are second class, but still a class, whereas a "J" is pretty much non-existent. I asked someone about putting an "A" for "atheist" (in case there were any) and I just got puzzled looks. There is no such thing as an "A", other than "Apostate" which is essentially a death sentence in that part of the world.

[FreeRights]

Funny thing about atheists is that they think they'll get it easy under Shariah since they're neither Jew nor Christian, so they don't want to speak up against blasphemy laws. In truth, atheists are worse off than Christians under Shariah because "unbelief" is considered the worst of all crimes.

At first they came for the Jews, but I did not speak up because I was an atheist...

I'm not sure that I agree. I'm an atheist myself, and one of the arguments that apply against religion is the amount of damage it has done over the course of history. Shariah Law is both a perfect historical and modern example of that.

I do agree that atheists, in general, don't speak out against Shariah Law specifically, but we do so against religion in general.

[Glacier]

I do agree that atheists, in general, don't speak out against Shariah Law specifically, but we do so against religion in general.

The problem with generalizing is that there's so many differences between religions to render such criticisms almost meaningless. There's nothing in common between all of them. Even belief in God/gods isn't universal.

[FreeRights]

The problem with generalizing is that there's so many differences between religions to render such criticisms almost meaningless. There's nothing in common between all of them. Even belief in God/gods isn't universal.

And that's true, but I would argue that belief in general is unfounded.

But that's neither here nor there, there's an entire forum for that.

Point being though, that Shariah Law is an example used to demonstrate what religion can do, and basically why we're better off without it. Many religions have at least some aspect of their belief system that while may not be quite at the level of Shariah Law, do support negative or unequal guidelines if accepted literally.

[Glacier]

And that's true, but I would argue that belief in general is unfounded.

But that's neither here nor there, there's an entire forum for that.

Point being though, that Shariah Law is an example used to demonstrate what religion can do, and basically why we're better off without it. Many religions have at least some aspect of their belief system that while may not be quite at the level of Shariah Law, do support negative or unequal guidelines if accepted literally.

It's not the religious aspects that make Shariah bad. Secular ideologies can be just as destructive as religious ones (just ask the North Koreans). The problem with Shariah Law is that it's political and totalitarian. Canon Law only applies to Catholics, Jewish Law only applies to Jews, but Shariah Law applies to everyone whether Muslim or not.

[Glacier]

Saw this on Facebook today...

[FreeRights]

Saw this on Facebook today...

FacebookAd.png

I don't recall reading anything in the motion that suggested any sort of national day designated.

[Glacier]

I don't recall reading anything in the motion that suggested any sort of national day designated.

It's like Trump's "Muslim ban." Not explicitly mentioned, but implied. Only an Islamophobe would be against it.