Canadian Free Speech And Reactions To M-103 (VIDEO)

No one can argue that right now is indeed a very strange point in time. We have polarization on a level not seen for a very long time. It is disturbing to see both terrorism and populists take power and so much of the media’s spotlight. Adding to the problem is the huge ‘us vs. them’ mentality on social media. Where is the peace movement? Where is the unity? Canada’s controversial new motion, M-103, outlawing Islamophobia has caused huge polarity too.

There is a real problem right now. It appears moderates of all beliefs are being forced to choose sides. M-103 is a well-meaning reaction to the brutal murder of Muslims in a Mosque in Canada in January. But the issue is, when you try to legislate on matters such as what people are and are not allowed to say, many problematic questions pop up.

It is already illegal for any group to be discriminated against, and many people who object to the bill make this point, why single out Islamophobia? Why not all religions?

There is also the question of whether it only applies to how you speak to/about people who follow Islam, but what about Islam, as a set of ideas? There is a difference between an idea and the people who believe that idea. Are people in Canada still allowed to criticize the religion of Islam? Secularists criticize basically every faith — are we now silenced on this particular religion? Free speech is essential. Of course, hate speech is not okay, but surely it is not okay across the board? Where is the line and who even gets to drawn that line?

Most people don’t want anyone for any reason to walk into a public place and shoot people dead – for any ideology.

Will stopping people from saying things in public make the current situation better or worse?

How have we arrived here?

Controversial lecturer Jordan Peterson was moved to make this video on the subject. Watch here:

 

Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis is the head writer and editor for SecularVoices, co-founder of Young Skeptics, and author of Understanding an Atheist. He is known for local and national secular activism and has spoken at conferences and events such as Reason Rally 2016 and the Ark Encounter Protest and Rally.

View all posts by Kevin Davis →

34 thoughts on “Canadian Free Speech And Reactions To M-103 (VIDEO)

  1. The law is a natural progression from Canada’s existing censorship, and it isn’t “well meaning” at all. Leftists are exploiting the mosque attack to impose speech restrictions they’ve wanted all along.

    1. To call the Liberal party leftists makes about as much sense as calling H. Clinton a socialist.
      Ignorance of political movements is not excuse for the stupidity to apply labels where they do not fit.

        1. If you consider “liberals” left you really have no clue about the political landscape in Canada. Not surprising for an USA citizen.
          And I care not for fucked up definitions peddled in the US where anything that is slightly left of rabid neocons like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol or Bush is considered left.

          I come from a tradition where one knows what a socialist, a social democrat or a communist is. That comes from action and politics expressed in political platforms and books (if you know what those are) and not the vague feelings of inhabitants of a country that would not know what socialism is when it hits it in the face, and who calls a “democratic” slimebag like Sanders a “socialist”. Give me a fucking brake.

          1. You’re really upset I don’t use words the way you’ve personally defined them. You should calm down and invest in a dictionary.

          2. Sorry if I am upset by idiotic statements.. That happens sometimes. I grew up in a “left” culture, which means socialist and not that pap that seems “left” to liberals and conservatives and the dictionary definitions someone pulls out of his arse.

          3. Growing up in a stupid socialist culture does not justify your irrational response to words being used correctly.

          4. Correct by whose definition? Some liberal profs who shudder at the thought of one? Or some conservapedia idiots who think that Obama was a socialist?

          5. Why should I rely on dictionary definitions having been a member of the movement at one time? I was there unlike those who sit in their ivory towers writing blowing definitions out of their collective arses

          6. How does your communist past change the meaning of a word? And that’s not how dictionary definitions are created.

          7. What do you know about socialism to call it stupid?
            Ever read anything by Marx or just rely on what you got spoon fed by the neocons of the fading empire?

          8. Ever looked at how Marx’s idea work when they are actually applied?

            “In many manual implements the distinction between man as mere motive power, and man as the workman or operator properly so called, is brought into striking contrast. For instance, the foot is merely the prime mover of the spinning-wheel, while the hand, working with the spindle, and drawing and twisting, performs the real operation of spinning. It is this last part of the handicraftsman’s implement that is first seized upon by the industrial revolution, leaving to the workman, in addition to his new labour of watching the machine with his eyes and correcting its mistakes with his hands, the merely mechanical part of being the moving power.”

            It makes sense you admire and enjoy writing like that.

          9. You are almost the equivalent of a mine quoting creationists to bolster a point not realizing what it actually means.
            This is part of the criticism that Marx voiced against the capitalist means of production,the estrangement between the workprocess, himself and the produced workpiece.

            Unless you mean that this criticism of the work-process in the capitalist factories was of course not worth criticism, in which case it shows just that you have never worked in a factory were you become just a part of the machine.

            His analysis is of cause spot on, as I can testify to almost having lost a limb to unsafe machinery working in a paint factory as a student.

    2. Yeah, I’m sure a racist git like you can tell us all about what is and isn’t “well meaning.”

      Go to bed, you little shit, this conversation is over your racist little head.

  2. Don’t those silly Canuckians know about the First Amendment? We should invade them and spread some freedumb around.

  3. This isn’t a speech ban. It barely gives the government any binding action to perform.

    That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (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…

    I’d prefer the term anti Muslim bigotry instead of Islamophobia, but other than that I don’t take issue with it.

    Everyone would be better off never citing Jordan Peterson in general, especially when he is discussing the law. He thinks that he’ll be arrested for using the wrong pronouns simply because Canada added gender identity to protected classes you can’t discriminate against.

  4. It doesn’t matter whether it is “binding”. It is to serve as a “planting of the seed” – that Islam, above other religions and superstitions, is above criticism or mockery.

    We see how SJWs use “unwritten laws” to police and control people. This is along the same lines.

    1. I guess you are not Canadian.
      I am and I get quite a few reactions on my home on facebook page from folks I did not think politically interested at all.
      I no longer live in Canada, but still have connections through friends and my kids.

        1. That might be so in some parts of Canada. Different in most provinces to the West of Satan’s cities Toronto and Ottawa.

  5. According to Wikipedia:

    The motion states that the members of the House of Commons call on the Government of Canada to condemn Islamophobia in Canada and “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”. It also calls on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to carry out a study on how racism and religious discrimination can be reduced and collect data on hate crimes…

    Some people have incorrectly called it a “bill or a law, out of confusion or deliberate attempts to spread misinformation”.[2] M-103 is a private member’s motion, which is a “proposal moved by an MP to draw attention to an issue considered urgent or of public interest”.

    So the motion is mostly symbolic in nature.

    1. The bill is useless as it does not even define the term “Islamophobia”.

      This term has been used to paint anybody, his cats and dogs who criticizes an odious unreformed religion that advocates the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate by violence if necessary, is misogynistic, intolerant of other religions including a heavy dose of antisemitism, advocates child sexual exploitation, has no problem viewing the cheating of non muslims as the correct way to treat them, advocates enmity against those of other religions, as a racist, bigot and a right wing fascist.

      It even goes so far to denounce ex Muslims who after their experiences living with and in that religion as ‘Islamophobes”.

      I wonder why Christians in the US and elsewhere have not glommed on to such a nonsense and just label atheists and secularists “christophobes”, it would be so easy to paint them into that corner implying religious intolerance and hatred.

      I also wonder why this concern about “hatered” is only about religious idiocies? Why not apply the law against ANTICAPITALISTS, ANTICOMMUNISTS, ANTI FASCISTS, ANTILIBERALS, ANTICONSERVATIVES, ANTI POPULISTS?

      It seems a heavy dose of critical thinking and real skepticism when it comes to those terms seems to be lacking in favour of some feel good gut reaction.

    2. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/15/motion-103-iqra-khalid-melanie-joly-liberals-tories_n_14776116.html

      “Systemic racism and religious discrimination

      That, in the
      opinion of the House, the government should: (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; and (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 community-centered focus with a holistic
      response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to
      contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for
      impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings
      and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from
      the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee
      should make recommendations that the government may use to better
      reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts,
      including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

  6. “Islamophobia” is a deliberate conflation of criticism of religion and bigotry towards its adherents in order to silence the criticism (and that’s basically the most CHARITABLE way to look at it) but if the people of Canada want to turn their country into Canadistan, I guess that’s their prerogative.

  7. It might be a little more helpful if you could state some specific objections to what’s actually in M-103, instead of just mumbling darkly about free speech and polarization.

    But the issue is, when you try to legislate on matters such as what people are and are not allowed to say, many problematic questions pop up.

    Yeah, but most countries have laws, and company policies, doing just that already, at least on public airwaves: no profanity, no insulting words, no explicit sexual references, that sort of thing. So what, in this bill, is beyond the pale?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *