babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Syndicate
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Comment policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001- the authors
What's happening now is a petition against it and hate.
'Kill her and be done with it': MP behind anti-Islamophobia motion reads out hate mail
CPC leadership contenders rile crowd at Rebel event opposing M-103
Not a bill, it's a motion.
I HATE the expression Islamophobia - it is a huge step backward from antiracism. But I guess we are stuck with it, just as we are stuck with the term "antisemitism", a term coined by so-called scientific racists who wanted to provide some academic credibility to their Judenhass. The problem is that there is very serious discrimination and racism, including violence, against Muslims and people assumed to be Muslim, or from predominantly Muslim countries. This discrimination must be fought.
On the other hand, progressive people are under no requirement to like any religion, in particular the Abrahamic monotheistic religions that loom so large. Look at how fundamentalist Catholicism is being used to persecute women in Poland and Ireland. How do we reconcile these elements?
That would appear to be the primary sticking point though -- insistence on that specific term, and also singling Islam out among other religions.
I'm happy to be corrected, but to some degree this does seem a bit like an MP proposing a Motion that the House should condemn "gun violence", followed by another MP proposing instead that they should condemn "weapon violence", and in the end, regardless of which they choose to condemn, the violence continues anyway. It's not like they're earmarking funds, or committing to some specific action.
The thread title (perhaps inadvertently) continues the unfortunate misinformation surrounding this motion. it does not propose any legislation and has no legal effect.
This is basically Parliament saying something. Which it does dozens of times a year.
The motion requests a committee study, and collection of statistics. It highlights discrimination against Muslims throughthe word Islamophobia. But it includes other forms of discrimination and hate.
The absolutley hysterical reaction - accusing the motion of infringing on "free speech" and ushering in sharia law - demonstrates the depth of the social problem.
I'm up for a title change
I'm not specifically supporting all criticisms of this Motion, nor specifically condemning this Motion.
But we do live in interesting times, where speech that has nothing to do with violence is nonetheless called "violence", and speech that simply wouldn't satisfy the criteria for "hate speech" is nonetheless called "hate speech".
So I'm not ready to get too critical of anyone who'd like to see this motion -- and specifically the term "Islamophobia" -- made concrete.
I'll re-use my favourite example. If Parliament were to approve a Motion that "All Canadians have a duty to be patriotic", would we be OK with the term "patriotic", or would we prefer that the Motion refer plainly to actions, rather than attitudes? I don't, personally, think it should ever be a problem to ask the government to clarify, or to be specific, or to not say "just trust us".