'Kill her and be done with it': MP behind anti-Islamophobia motion reads hate mail

[Rennadrel]

Yeah, totally deserved, and it has everything to do with setting a really fucking retarded precedent. We can get away with criticizing Christians, Catholics and Jews but apparently now Muslims are the chosen children who get special privilege? Fuck that. This MP needs to be sacked along with all the other libtards in this country who think it's OK to put Islam first.


[Infracted]

[minteK917]

Yeah, totally deserved, and it has everything to do with setting a really fucking retarded precedent. We can get away with criticizing Christians, Catholics and Jews but apparently now Muslims are the chosen children who get special privilege? Fuck that. This MP needs to be sacked along with all the other libtards in this country who think it's OK to put Islam first.

You realize the same law protects Jews and Christians as well? Inciting to genocide of any religion is illegal in Canada. That MP is not passing any law, they are voting on doing a statement that this law also includes Islam. Which it already does.

Heres how the law work. Ill make two statement and you decide which one you think the law covers.

- Kill all the muslims.

- The Quran is derogatory towards women.


If you answer #1, you now understand this old law against hate speech.

Example #2

-I hate jews.

-We should burn all jews.

If your answer is #2, you are correct again.

[Lynarii]

Free speech is something worth rolling the dice on rather then surrendering.

Some things are beyond petty political groups.

May I ask why it's specifically important to you to be able to advocate for the murder of Muslim Canadians?

See, the problem with absolute rights is that rights frequently are at odds with each other. You may value your right to free speech over the right to security of the person of others, yet very few people hold to that view when it's someone else's right to free speech vs their own right to security. Both rights are enshrined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and it's part of the government's job to try and arbitrate when competing rights clash, setting a line where one person's rights end and another person's begin. In the case of hate speech laws, Canada has decided that the right to free speech ends where the right to security of the person begins. It is simply impossible for all rights to be universal and absolute, and in practice EVERY right has specific limitations.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Free speech is something worth rolling the dice on rather then surrendering.

Some things are beyond petty political groups.

Hahahahahahaha! That's a romantic rewrite of hate speech if ever I did see one.

[Lynarii]

Yeah, totally deserved, and it has everything to do with setting a really fucking retarded precedent. We can get away with criticizing Christians, Catholics and Jews but apparently now Muslims are the chosen children who get special privilege? Fuck that. This MP needs to be sacked along with all the other libtards in this country who think it's OK to put Islam first.

Are you forgetting that the Canadian government made similar statements condemning violence towards Jews and Christians in the past? What you're arguing is that Muslims should be specifically singled out and denied protections that other religions enjoy.

[Liftbrul]

It's not a death threat unless there's a severed horse head on your bed. People need to stop being pussies.

[Blade Wolf]

So let me summarize:
Punching Nazi's in the face: Not good.
Sending death threats to politicians: Fine.

How are you guys going to defend this?

Punch was caught on camera. This is 1 person claiming they received hatemail from thousands of people. We can prove that there is a perpetrator in the punching incident but you cannot prove that there are people doing this yet because you only have the emails and not the senders.

[purebalance]

\

Section 318 only applies if you advocate genocide.
Section 319 only applies if you're inciting hatred in public.

In neither case can a conviction be turned out if you can prove that;
A> your statements are true,
B> that it's a religious viewpoint based in a your religious text and you were speaking in good faith,
C> your statements were relevant to the public interest/good and you had reasonable grounds to believe they were true, or
D> you were making those statements to point out examples of hate speech to pursue their removal

Any one of those four is an ironclad defense.



I can't think of a single case that would even remotely come close.

Yusra Khogali should be punished then right? I mean she calls Trudeau racist words in public and calls for the extermination of white people. Nope she gets a free pass since she isn't white right?

[Mornic]

So let me summarize:
Punching Nazi's in the face: Not good.
Sending death threats to politicians: Fine.

How are you guys going to defend this?

Yeah physically assaulting someone of any background or belief is not okay. I've gotten death threats you don't see me crying.

[apeiron1234]

I like how people are more outraged over this than a Muslim getting into a truck and killing over 90 people.

[Rennadrel]

Are you forgetting that the Canadian government made similar statements condemning violence towards Jews and Christians in the past? What you're arguing is that Muslims should be specifically singled out and denied protections that other religions enjoy.

This has almost nothing to do with inciting violence against Muslims, it has everything to do with criticizing their religious ideologies, which should be criticized due to the ultra conservative-ness of Islam. Oh, and separation of church and state, no religion should be protected under law from persecution.

[purebalance]

So let me summarize:
Punching Nazi's in the face: Not good.
Sending death threats to politicians: Fine.

How are you guys going to defend this?

Oh does she need a safe space bunker for this?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Whether people agree with the motion or not...can we at least agree death threats aren't an acceptable form of protest?

[Lynarii]

This has almost nothing to do with inciting violence against Muslims, it has everything to do with criticizing their religious ideologies, which should be criticized due to the ultra conservative-ness of Islam. Oh, and separation of church and state, no religion should be protected under law from persecution.

Except it has nothing to do with criticizing their religious ideologies. You're willfully ignoring the fact that it makes no changes to laws whatsoever, much less any changes specially protecting Islam from having anything bad said about it. We have legal precedence saying that criticizing Islam is NOT hate speech.

[Rennadrel]

Whether people agree with the motion or not...can we at least agree death threats aren't an acceptable form of protest?

No, they are not. But there are a lot of people who also believe that the practice of Islam should be banned in the west and that any protection of it is seen as a slight towards western values. Don't blame them.

[Diablo3derp]

It starts with condeming "islamophobia" then the Muslims will want to add arabic as a 3rd official language then they will convert our legal system to Sharia law because our current system "discriminates against their 'religion'"
Harper was 110% right when he said the biggest threat to Canada is Islamization

[Dr Assbandit]

It starts with condeming "islamophobia" then the Muslims will want to add arabic as a 3rd official language then they will convert our legal system to Sharia law because our current system "discriminates against their 'religion'"
Harper was 110% right when he said the biggest threat to Canada is Islamization

These slippery slope doomsday prophecies get cuter by the minute .

[Deleted]

I'd love to actually hear of some arrests or an actual investigation that doesn't turn out to be "sry no foul play here" akin to the """death threats""" personalities like Anita Sarkeesian have recieved.

I'm sorry I just can't trust the word of a politician - or any public figure for that matter, especially one asserting themselves to be the victim to FIFTY THOUSAND(!!!) *buzzword* people.

[Dr Assbandit]

I'd love to actually hear of some arrests or an actual investigation that doesn't turn out to be "sry no foul play here" akin to the """death threats""" personalities like Anita Sarkeesian have recieved.

I'm sorry I just can't trust the word of a politician - or any public figure for that matter, especially one asserting themselves to be the victim to FIFTY THOUSAND(!!!) *buzzword* people.

You're absolutely right! We should wait for her to get shot first like the people in the Quebec mosque.

[Deleted]

You're absolutely right! We should wait for her to get shot first like the people in the Quebec mosque.

????????????

No, authorities should look into these fifty thousand emails, I don't know canadian law however I would figure that sending explicit death threats to someones person is against the law of the land, be them by carrying pigeon or digital email.

And when I hear of a case where people have actually been arrested for sending threats of violence (or death??) in regards to these cases, I am certainly willing to start giving these people some benefit of the doubt in the future.