|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2017 1:29:50 GMT
The motion is for all of their protection. It specifically mentions Islamaphobia tho That's not unusual tho. I bet there havebeen motions that refer to any particular group facings hardship at a particular time. As ong as the motion includes everyone then it's irrelevant that Islamophobia is mentioned specifically. It's all the same umbrella.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 26, 2017 5:35:15 GMT
Why would any of the groups needs protection "over" the other? Also, that OP.... Come on, dudes... I don't know, ask the Canadians who were adamant that "Islamophobia" had to be named specifically, without actually bothering to define what it is.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 26, 2017 5:36:43 GMT
It specifically mentions Islamaphobia tho That's not unusual tho. I bet there havebeen motions that refer to any particular group facings hardship at a particular time. As ong as the motion includes everyone then it's irrelevant that Islamophobia is mentioned specifically. It's all the same umbrella. Determine what "Ialsmophobia" is. Because criticism of Muslims is NOT the same thing as criticism of Islam. Islam is an idea and therefore should not be immune to criticism.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2017 12:05:59 GMT
That's not unusual tho. I bet there havebeen motions that refer to any particular group facings hardship at a particular time. As ong as the motion includes everyone then it's irrelevant that Islamophobia is mentioned specifically. It's all the same umbrella. Determine what "Ialsmophobia" is. Because criticism of Muslims is NOT the same thing as criticism of Islam. Islam is an idea and therefore should not be immune to criticism. That still applies to anything. If you think any protected class isn't going to try to legitimately find a nuance to a law that protects them further, that just shows how white you may be. Hate crime is unfair and redundant patently unfair and redundant, but this motion is clearly unfair and redundant on behalf of everyone. It's literally in the same sentence as Islamophobia and so there is no issue regarding that. Plenty of people are being critical of Islam in perfectly legal ways unless you want to show what the new definition is.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 26, 2017 18:04:31 GMT
Determine what "Ialsmophobia" is. Because criticism of Muslims is NOT the same thing as criticism of Islam. Islam is an idea and therefore should not be immune to criticism. That still applies to anything. If you think any protected class isn't going to try to legitimately find a nuance to a law that protects them further, that just shows how white you may be. Hate crime is unfair and redundant patently unfair and redundant, but this motion is clearly unfair and redundant on behalf of everyone. It's literally in the same sentence as Islamophobia and so there is no issue regarding that. Plenty of people are being critical of Islam in perfectly legal ways unless you want to show what the new definition is. Why make it racial, dude?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2017 22:47:31 GMT
That still applies to anything. If you think any protected class isn't going to try to legitimately find a nuance to a law that protects them further, that just shows how white you may be. Hate crime is unfair and redundant patently unfair and redundant, but this motion is clearly unfair and redundant on behalf of everyone. It's literally in the same sentence as Islamophobia and so there is no issue regarding that. Plenty of people are being critical of Islam in perfectly legal ways unless you want to show what the new definition is. Why make it racial, dude? Because everyone else is a minority. It's a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 11:00:48 GMT
If someone is not religious, how can they be blaspheming? It is only deemed blasphemy by the followers of the religious sect. It's a hate crime edict so it protects non-religious too.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 11:17:46 GMT
It's a hate crime edict so it protects non-religious too. Yes, and I thought I would just focus on the blasphemy aspect of the OP's post. That said, edicts, laws and legislations, are not going to change a darn thing about people's attitudes and how they feel about certain things. It is about hypocrisy, double standards and control. Well, it's not really a blasphemy law is my point. Unless Canada already has strict speech laws, then one can complain about religion as much as they want. I am not a fan of hate crime law as I tend to think it's piling on and limits speech, but it really is largely tied to other crimes committed against other groups.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 11:19:57 GMT
Actually, looking at it further, it seems to mainly deal with systemic discrimnation so there may not be anything regarding illegality but rather processes.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Apr 21, 2017 12:13:22 GMT
This thread is stupid.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 12:54:49 GMT
Well, it's not really a blasphemy law is my point.Unless Canada already has strict speech laws, then one can complain about religion as much as they want. I am not a fan of hate crime law as I tend to think it's piling on and limits speech, but it really is largely tied to other crimes committed against other groups. Yes, that is why I made my point as well.
It will be something that is used as a layer or even scapegoat to indict serious hate crimes. Waste of time really though, but the powers that be need to stand for something and justify themselves, even if it they are full of their own hypocrisy.
Well, it would be the hate crime itself. Something like vandalism is it's own thing and the reason didn;t use to be the thing people could be charge with unless it was another crime (Like conspiracy or threatening behavior. Now you can simply be charged with hating something. This may mean that you are a jerk, but I don;t think it should get you jail time.
|
|