Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5673
Reputation: 281.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:48 am    Post subject: Conservatives and Ont PCs split on islamophlbia Reply with quote

Chris Selley: On Islamophobia, Ontario Tories look to pass the very easy test their federal cousins failed
Chris Selley | February 21, 2017 | Last Updated: Feb 22 6:34 PM ET

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown says he will support Liberal MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers’ private member’s motion asking the legislature to “condemn all forms of Islamophobia.”

“I think it’s pretty straightforward to condemn any form of hate,” Brown told reporters Tuesday morning. “In terms of Islamophobia, it is real.” He said he would encourage his MPPs to vote likewise. And there is no sign of significant dissent in the ranks.

That’s a good thing. Private members’ motions compel the government to do precisely nothing. They are not the soil in which legislation grows, nor are they fertilizer. They are farts in the wind. And on thorny issues like Islamophobia or Israel or transgender rights, their primary purpose is often to expose one’s political opponents as holding unsuitable positions and then denounce them.

Nothing good can come from falling into that trap — and if there was any doubt about that, Brown’s former colleagues in Ottawa are proving it in spades.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick DoyleLiberal MP Iqra Khalid is congratulated by colleagues as she speaks about her anti-Islamophobia motion on Feb. 15, 2017.
It is now lost forever in a toxic fog, but there were legitimate debates to be had about Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s private member’s motion M-103, which calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” and to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”

Perhaps the platonic ideal of this legislatively inconsequential motion would not single out any one religion. Perhaps it would be worded differently: were he still an MP, Irwin Cotler said he would have proposed replacing “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim bigotry” or “anti-Muslim hatred.” That’s perfectly reasonable. To some people Islamophobia means “anti-Muslim bigotry” or “anti-Muslim hatred,” but to others it means what it says: fear of Islam.

You’re allowed to be afraid of religions (though I wouldn’t recommend it), and you’re certainly allowed to criticize religions. Some Canadians spent the entire Stephen Harper era being afraid of evangelical Christians, for example. On Monday the Masjid Toronto mosque apologized for a supplication recorded on its premises asking Allah to “purify Al-Aqsa Mosque (on the Temple Mount) from the filth of the Jews.” (That’s as translated by Jonathan Halevi of CIJ News.) I’m certainly not going to sit here and condemn Jews for “fearing” Islam.

ALICE CHICHE/AFP/Getty ImagesInvestigator search the parking lot at the Islamic Cultural Center in Quebec City, Canada on January 30, 2017.
But these are delicate arguments to make even in a regular political climate. It’s quasi-suicidal in today’s political climate — one in which six parishioners were recently gunned down at a mosque in Quebec City; in which protesters have descended on Toronto mosques with signs reading “ban Islam,” “Muslims are terrorists” and the like; and in which some portion of Canadian conservatives who were already leery of Islam have followed Donald Trump’s tire tracks into a ditch of conspiracist madness.

Among the ditch-dwellers and those who flog merchandise to them, M-103 is an “Islamic blasphemy law” that prohibits criticism of Islam or it is the first step (or another!) toward the implementation of Shariah law in Canada. Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media held an entire “free speech” rally based on those premises last week, and four Conservative leadership candidates actually showed up — including whichever demons have seized the bodies of well-regarded diplomat Chris Alexander and orthopaedic surgeon Kellie Leitch. Enough has transpired in the past couple of weeks to fill an entire campaign’s worth of attack ads for the Liberals; they must be thrilled to pieces.

Back at Queen’s Park, there are many grounds on which to question whether Patrick Brown is the best man for the job of ending nearly 14 years of Liberal rule. The Liberals will cast him as the worst Conservative bogeyman since the last worst Conservative bogeyman: anti-abortion, anti-sex-ed, anti-government, the whole lot. Many conservatives, meanwhile, wonder whether there’s much conservatism to Brown at all — or much of anything that outranks political expediency.

But Brown’s outreach to immigrant communities remains one of his key accomplishments; there is no reason to believe he isn’t sincere in supporting Des Rosiers’ motion on principle. And if there are Ontario Tories who do have minor concerns, the Ottawa precedent makes it clear how best to proceed: express those minor concerns by all means, but vote for the motion. There is nothing to be gained by doing otherwise.

This is a low bar the Ontario Tories are clearing here, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. Given that their federal cousins are currently beating themselves around the mouth and ears with that same bar, however, it is nevertheless a reassuring sign of basic political competence, leadership and sanity. It’s quite a world Canadian Conservatives are living in all of a sudden.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8657
Reputation: 288.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( one has to be left wondering if some of these mosques , really need extra protection or if they are actually the one's spreading hate ? )

Condemn hatred from imams, too

Postmedia Network

First posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 05:13 PM EST | Updated: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 05:21 PM EST

Signs of Muslim support are being posted on the wall of the Masjid Toronto, at 168 Dundas Street West in downtown Toronto. (Stan Behal/Toronto Sun)

If politicians are going to pass motions condemning all forms of hatred and discrimination, they need to lead by example.

But that didn’t initially happen in the case of the Masjid Toronto mosque and two recent stories that unfolded at its downtown building.

Last Friday afternoon, over a dozen people gathered to denounce the mosque and Islam in general, holding signs such as “Stop Islam” and “Say No to Islam”.

We support their right to free speech. Readers will know that our columnists have no hesitation in challenging orthodox Islam and its presence in Canadian society.

However, we found this protest to be unproductive. Why was this particular mosque targeted? What was the goal of the protest, aside from broadly denouncing the entire Islamic faith, in general?

Politicians wasted no time in lining up to condemn the protest.

“Islamophobia has NO place in our city,” Mayor John Tory posted to social media. “I've visited Masjid Toronto many times & denounce all acts of hatred towards our Muslim citizens.”

The day after the protest, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne tweeted: “There is no place for Islamophobia in Ontario. Thankful for those who stand with the Islamic community against hate.”

Yet the one thing these politicians did not speak out against, as Joe Warmington detailed in his subsequent Toronto Sun columns, is the hate that came from inside that very mosque.

Two imams from that mosque were caught on video giving hateful sermons.

For example: “O Allah! Give victory to Islam and raise the standing of the Muslims and humiliate the polytheism and polytheists ... Infidels and the atheists and destroy anyone who killed Muslims. Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them, O Allah! Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews.”

Even the mosque acknowledged the sermons, after they came to light, were “inappropriate” and “unacceptable”.

To their credit, a group of Muslim and Jewish Liberal MPs, including M-103 author Iqra Khalid, released a statement Wednesday condemning both the Toronto imam and a Montreal imam, as well as denouncing recent instances of anti-Semitism.

This is how politicians should proceed moving forward – denounce specific instances of hatred, regardless of who they come from


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8657
Reputation: 288.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( weird both the protest and mosque itself is being investigated , and after hearing what they were preaching I'd hardly say it was alleged hate speech )

Police investigate anti-Muslim rally outside Toronto mosque and alleged hate speech inside

Masjid Toronto employee suspended after 'supplication that was offensive to those of Jewish faith'

By Shanifa Nasser, CBC News Posted: Feb 22, 2017 8:58 PM ET| Last Updated: Feb 23, 2017 8:25 AM ET

More than a dozen people gathered outside a mosque in the heart of downtown Toronto Friday with loudspeakers and banners in hand, shouting slogans about banning Islam as Muslims gathered to pray inside.

Toronto police say they are investigating not only an anti-Muslim rally that took place on the doorstep of a downtown mosque nearly a week ago, but allegations of hate speech inside the mosque as well.

More than a dozen people converged on Masjid Toronto last Friday, calling for a ban on Islam as Muslims prayed inside. Police said that prompted multiple complaints over the weekend from people in attendance that day, as well as others who were not present.

After a formal complaint was filed Tuesday, the rally is under investigation by the hate crime unit, corporate communications director Mark Pugash confirmed to CBC Toronto.

But less than 24 hours later, police received another complaint — this time for alleged hate speech inside the mosque.​

Pugash would not confirm that the allegations had to do with anti-Semitic speech, but Masjid Toronto issued a statement earlier this week apologizing for "an inappropriate supplication that was offensive to those of the Jewish faith."

Supplications 'added without authorization'

"Masjid Toronto condemns all forms of hate and racism towards any faith group or others and is committed to offering a safe spiritual space for all congregants," a statement on the mosque's website says.

Muslim Association of Canada spokeswoman Memona Hossain told CBC Toronto the apology referred to prayers made by a junior employee in 2016.

Masjid Toronto
"The incident occurred when inappropriate supplications, in Arabic, were added without authorization, and in contravention to MAC's code of conduct," the organization said in a statement.

"We know who made the comments and we have suspended the employee," said Hossain, adding that the mosque has launched an internal investigation.

She said the organization has also extended an apology for the incident to leaders of the Jewish community, including the Toronto Board of Rabbis.

Police said both incidents are now being reviewed by its hate crime unit.

Toronto Imam Hamid Slimi said he was shocked to hear of the incident, calling it "unacceptable."

"We must denounce any anti-Semitic act," adding Canadian Muslims must "not see our relationship with the Jewish communities through the Middle East conflict but rather through the Canadian spirit of respect and common good in addition to the historical connection through our Common father Abraham [Peace be upon him]."

'An aggravating factor'

Under the Criminal Code, a hate crime refers to a crime motivated by hate, which can be either violent or non-violent in nature and carried out to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs.

In Canada, there are four offences listed as hate propaganda or hate crimes under the Criminal Code. These include advocating genocide, publicly inciting hatred, willfully promoting hatred, and mischief in relation to religious property, motivated by hate.

"We have to demonstrate that a crime has taken place and if we can show that the motivation was hate, that's an aggravating factor that a judge can use in sentencing," Pugash said.

But at what point does an act change from free speech to hate?

"That's a conversation we've been having all day," Const. Allyson Douglas-Cook told CBC Toronto over the weekend, calling it "a fine line."

"If the hate crimes unit discovers evidence of hate, then the way the law works, depending on how that's manifested, it can either be an aggravating factor in sentencing, it can form the basis of a charge," Pugash said. "But it depends on the way in which it's manifested."

On Friday, some on their way to the mosque told CBC Toronto the rally blocked them from going inside for congregational prayer. Muslims hold Friday to be the holiest day of the week.

'Celebrate Islamophobia'

Many in support of Friday's protest outside the mosque have described it as peaceful and an expression of free speech.

A Facebook event for the rally, entitled "Defy M103 — Celebrate Islamophobia," appears to characterize the rally as a show of support for Eric Brazau, a man convicted in 2014 of wilful promotion of hatred and criminal harassment.

Celebrate Islamophobia
A Facebook event for the rally, entitled 'Defy M103 — Celebrate Islamophobia,' appears to characterize the rally as a show of support for Eric Brazau, a man convicted in 2014 of wilful promotion of hatred and criminal harassment. (Facebook)

Last March, Brazau lost an appeal relating to a separate 2014 incident aboard a Toronto subway, in which he denounced Islam and Muslims as part of what he termed "a social experiment." He was convicted of mischief, disturbance and breach of probation, and sentenced to 20 months of jail time.

It's those kinds of incidents that spurred Suraia Sahar to file a formal complaint about the rally, she said.

"I'm a Muslim who lives in Toronto, and I have to see this every single day," Sahar said on Tuesday. "It gets emotional for me. I'm 30 years old, I've been dealing with Islamophobia here in Canada for half my life. Especially after the 9/11 attacks."

Sahar said she felt especially threatened by the rally because it took place less than a month after a shooting left six men dead after an evening prayer at Quebec City's busiest mosque.

"After the Quebec shooting massacre, I was devastated. And to see our elders from our community break down into tears after losing their friends.… it really, really hurt," said Sahar.

"It concerns me not just personally but it makes me concerned for my family, for my friends, for my community … they have the audacity to do it less than a month after the Quebec mosque shooting."

"That to me, was a threat."


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8657
Reputation: 288.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say the positions are necessary different , the Ottawa motion and queens park motion are not necessary the same thing . the queens park motion is more a "symbolic " motion against islamophobia , where is the Ottawa motion is somewhat symbolic but also sets in motion a committee to look into the laws and such , but both were brought forward by activist driven liberal social justice type mp's

I don't believe that any laws would change as a result of the queens park vote being passed where is the Ottawa vote could lead to changes down the road depending on what the committee decides

the federal conservatives were never saying islamophobia was ok , just that they had concerns with the wording of the motion and that it should of included other religions

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5673
Reputation: 281.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are already laws on the books that protect religions. This is a request for more protection for only one religion, and a religion that authorizes the beheading of supporters of other religions.

The problem has to do with the freedom speech. I wonder how the courts would have reacted had Mr. Brazeau had castigated Presbyterians? Do you think he'd have gotten 2o months in jail?

If only one religion gets this extra protection, then who is to say that anyone who denies the role of Mohammad as the messenger from Allah in a public way wouldn't be subject to penalties. Anyone who drew a picture of Mohammed?

You also have to ask yourself -- where does religious hate come from these days? From Moslems themselves, or from ... say ... Anglicans? Perhaps the faiths that really require protection are being ignored, while the genuinely hateful one is being given a soapbox?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5673
Reputation: 281.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something to think about ...

This is a short video report on the point of view of the citizens in one Moslem countries where immigration has been delayed until proper vetting can be done.


It has reference to the USA rather than Canada, but would they feel any differently if they came to Canada?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8657
Reputation: 288.3
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The backlash to political correctness was inevitable

lorne gunter
By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun
First posted: Saturday, February 25, 2017 05:56 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, February 25, 2017 08:03 PM EST

Several times this week I’ve been warned by supporters of M-103, the anti-Islamophobia motion being debated in Parliament, that if the motion fails even more Muslim youth will become radicalized. They will feel discriminated against in Canada and more likely to fall victim to the hateful propaganda of ISIS or other radical Muslims.

Frankly, if the failure of a House of Commons motion is enough to push someone over to the jihadis’ side, they were headed in that direction anyway.

But radicalization cuts both ways.

Elitist sneering at concerns about radical Islam or about mass refugee intakes leads Donald Trump and Brexit and politicians such as France’s Marine Le Pen.

If you don’t want anti-immigration walls and travel bans, stop pretending there are no problems at all with refugee crime and stop denying that claims of widespread Islamophobia have been used elsewhere (like at the UN) to limit free speech.

Stop pretending there isn’t a problem with radical Islamic terrorism – a problem that is much worse at the moment than any other form of ideologically driven terrorism.

And stop scolding (or even persecuting) those who question Islam’s peacefulness, while simultaneously attempting to cover up the violent messages of some radical imams and other Muslim leaders.

When ordinary citizens see an obvious gap between what elites claim isn’t happening and what citizens suspect to be the truth, the citizens start looking around for any politician who is prepared to respect their concerns.

That’s where anti-immigration politicians such as Trump and Le Pen come in. That’s one of the reasons the British voted for Brexit – the plan for Britain to pull out of the European Union.

Plenty of average Brits worried that Europe’s open-door policy towards millions of Middle Eastern refugees would mean hundreds or even thousands of radicals would be let in along with the truly needy.

That is a legitimate concern. Yet every time it is raised, those raising it are scoffed at by politicians, academics, activists and journalists. British voters got sick and tired of having their concerns mocked, so they voted to get out of the EU.

Is the threat of radical Muslim immigration to the U.S. so great that it warrants Donald Trump’s sledgehammer-to-kill-a-fly travel ban? No.

But a threat does exist. So after eight years of having real concerns ignored by the Obama admin, American voters felt they had no option but to vote in a man who exaggerates the crisis.

Mainstream politicians in at least France, Germany and the Netherlands are facing electoral defeat because after years and years of denying there is any problem at all with radical Islam, populist demagogue’s have sprung up to challenge the establishment.

Last week in Toronto, imams at a downtown mosque were filmed calling for the annihilation of “filthy Jews.” A couple days after the videos got out, a small, quiet protest took place outside the Masjid mosque with demonstrators carrying signs that said ‘Stop Islam” and “Say No to Islam.”

Sensing a chance to demonstrate just how liberal they are, Ontario politicians quickly pounced on the quiet protest, denouncing it as Islamophobic. Only many days later did officialdom condemn the genocidal sermons.

It is that disconnect between what is acceptable and what is really happening that drives fed-up voters into the arms of demagoguing politicians.

Earlier this month, a Syrian refugee, Soleiman Hajj Soleiman, 39, was arrested and charged with six counts of sexual assault for allegedly groping teenage girls at West Edmonton Mall’s indoor beach. Many PC politicians and advocates for multiculturalism urged media outlets to withhold Soleiman’s refugee status from the public.

It’s that diversity-and-inclusion-trump-personal-safety thinking that has created the backlash against political correctness.

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Conservatives and Ont PCs split on islamophlbia

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB