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

[Borgia]

If she does not like the natural consequences of eroding basic western rights she is free to go back to whatever sharia compliant shithole she or her family crawled out of.
Creating blasphemy laws, what a fucking nerve.

[Endus]

It can never be genocide since they are not a race so lets focus on 319.

The law isn't based on race, it's based on the concept of identifiable groups, which religious groups absolutely qualify as. "Genocide" isn't exclusively applied to race.

Those four have not been shown to be ironclad defenses from large monetary penalties. I am extremely hesitant to extend what isn't a sturdy system to start with. Direct death threats yes I agree. The rest it comes down to if you see it as coming from good faith or bad faith. I look at what has been down with current hate speech laws and they are wielded as a sword rather then a shield so I can't support this.

You have literally no examples to back you, particularly as the hate speech laws in Canada involve prison sentences, not monetary penalties.

Well I can't easily find the case and I will admit am unwilling to do so with the time I have for at least tonight I can point out how poorly these laws are enforced...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8436939f767a

I don't trust any of the actors involved to not abuse any power given to them.

That case may be an instance of racism, but it doesn't break any of those laws. Thanks for proving that your prior claims were incorrect and that my position has been correct all along, I guess?

[Venant]

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.

Unless you say specifically 'hey kill that guy standing over there right now!', which would be an incitement of violence, I don't see why you should ban saying 'kill all xxx'. If you really want to ban the phrase 'kill all xxx' then you would have to ban the bible and the quran, since both of those books have multiple calls to 'kill all xxx' in them.

It really seems like such a law would be impossible to actually enforce fairly, how such a law would be used would be to specifically target those that the state wants to target for saying things that they don't like.

The way of thinking that lies behind 'thought crime' legislation is the reason why the East German government felt the need to put informants in every single house.

[announced]

she probably made all those emails up just so she can garner more sympathy, its very sad.

[kail]

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.

I don't blame so much for people believing crazy ideals, but to act on them is where they deserve the blame.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I condemn those threatening to kill her, should they exist, and her actions have been reprehensible.

[minteK917]

Unless you say specifically 'hey kill that guy standing over there right now!', which would be an incitement of violence, I don't see why you should ban saying 'kill all xxx'. If you really want to ban the phrase 'kill all xxx' then you would have to ban the bible and the quran, since both of those books have multiple calls to 'kill all xxx' in them.

It really seems like such a law would be impossible to actually enforce fairly, how such a law would be used would be to specifically target those that the state wants to target for saying things that they don't like.

The way of thinking that lies behind 'thought crime' legislation is the reason why the East German government felt the need to put informants in every single house.

Its already banned either way, this topic is fume over a law Canada had for a very long time. You cannot incite to genocide of any group period. Kill that guy stand over there right now is another law in its own. Its death threats to a citizen, a very serious criminal offense. Ok look at it this way to compare to USA. Imagine the BLM people on the street in the USA chanting death to all cop. In Canada BLM is commiting a crime doing this, they are inciting genocide against police officers.

[Somewhatconcerned]

I think the bill itself is a bit unnecessary but it's funny watching conservatives:

"We can't beat the terrorists unless we call it radical Islam! But don't use the word Islamophobia in a bill."

[Deleted]

Nice to see that some canadians are still willing to fight against the invaders.

[Nasuem]

No, no she isn't. What was tabled was basically a request for the government to officially say that religious hate crimes (including islamophobia) is bad and to maybe look into ways to reduce it's frequency. It's something the government has done in the past repeatedly, condemning discrimination against Jews and against Coptic Christians notably. The motion suggests absolutely 0 new laws.

Where was all this hatred when the government was condemning violence towards Coptic Christians?



The motion does not suggest any changes in law, and would not make criticizing Islam illegal. It's slightly disturbing that people don't seem to understand the difference between a valid criticism of a religious practice, and encouraging people to murder anyone who practices a religion. In Canada, the first is protected speech, the second is a hate crime.

"And maybe look into ways..."

That ambiguous open ended garbage is the way erosion of rights start. Islam is a set of ideas, no ideas are beyond criticism. If they are basically doing nothing, then just do nothing. Islamophobia aka honest interpretations of the Quran and Hadiths is not inherently bad, so the government should be taking no position. I mean, they actual should take a position based on the statistics from majority Muslim countries haha, but that won't happen.

The only thing that will happen is I'll get infracted for saying something negative about a set of ideas on MMO.

[The Stormbringer]

Geez, it's spreading to Canada too? I'm sorry to hear that. People don't deserve this kind of abuse for trying to stifle hatred.

[Hiricine]

If you're a politician at a national level and you aren't getting death threats then you aren't doing your job.

[Sail into the wind]

Anti-phobia laws are pretty fascist. Fight fear with education, not more fear.

[Deleted]

@Hubcap, what's going one? Why are you also staring to use emoticons in your titles now?

Son, I am dissapoint

[Spectral]

...M-103, calls on the government to condemn and eliminate "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination."

What would it look like for the government to "eliminate Islamophobia"? This seems to imply the use of government force against individuals who are insufficiently polite in their criticism of Islam.

[D3thray]

Nope. He's got it right, and you're the one who has no idea what the law states.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...e-72.html#h-93

Holy crap.

I am so glad I don't live in Canada.

Not only are the provisions under 319(1) and 319(2) (public incitement and willful promotion of hatred) exceedingly vague as to catch almost any criticism written, spoken, gestured, or telepathically broadcast in a public place as hate speech if the Attourney General really wanted to go after it, the specific exemptions to indictment for 319(1) or 319(2) in 319(3b) for an OPINION based on religious text are batshit insane. I can say all homosexuals are deviant and should be castrated and be indicted if an atheist but protected if Muslim.

What in the actual f*** are you guys doing up there?

[primalmatter]

Holy crap.

I am so glad I don't live in Canada.

Not only are the provisions under 319(1) and 319(2) (public incitement and willful promotion of hatred) exceedingly vague as to catch almost any criticism written, spoken, gestured, or telepathically broadcast in a public place as hate speech if the Attourney General really wanted to go after it, the specific exemptions to indictment for 319(1) or 319(2) in 319(3b) for an OPINION based on religious text are batshit insane. I can say all homosexuals are deviant and should be castrated and be indicted if an atheist but protected if Muslim.

What in the actual f*** are you guys doing up there?

Right now the vibe people are getting is that there is a real possibility of a Canadian Trump emerging and it has certain political groups in a mad dash to surpress it.

[Endus]

Holy crap.

I am so glad I don't live in Canada.

Not only are the provisions under 319(1) and 319(2) (public incitement and willful promotion of hatred) exceedingly vague as to catch almost any criticism written, spoken, gestured, or telepathically broadcast in a public place as hate speech if the Attourney General really wanted to go after it, the specific exemptions to indictment for 319(1) or 319(2) in 319(3b) for an OPINION based on religious text are batshit insane. I can say all homosexuals are deviant and should be castrated and be indicted if an atheist but protected if Muslim.

What in the actual f*** are you guys doing up there?

You do realize that hate speech laws are pretty standard in the Western world, right? The USA is an exception, not the rule. And most of us think your supportive attitude towards hate speech is just as completely ridiculous.

[Deleted]

You do realize that hate speech laws are pretty standard in the Western world, right? The USA is an exception, not the rule. And most of us think your supportive attitude towards hate speech is just as completely ridiculous.

We're seeing a big swing away from social democracy and more into a conservative attitude in several ""western"" countries and these laws have recieved a ton of criticism along with it, because people don't like it when the state starts to control your speech or when it shields certain groups that people don't think warrants the effort from the government.

Now wether what people say is in line of what one could describe as ''kosher'' or not is irrelevant to the point being made, i'm not making a defense for hate speech.

[Zecora]

-snip-

It's horrible, but there is nothing new about there being racists and bad apples in most countries, even the "kindly grandmother" ones.

Also...seriously, you couldn't even be bothered to remove the "Media placeholderPlay Media" tags from the article you copy-pasted?