Stop right there, Justin! Hands off our freedom of speech! Back away from the free speech!
Our freedom is not negotiable. It was paid for in blood. Millions of people fled from tyrannies to Canada, yearning for freedom. Your idiot traitors in your party SHALL NOT take our freedom of speech from us. You are naive and childish to think you can succeed. You are an immature, spoiled man-child to think Canadians are that servile. They are not. We will not lick your spittle. We not fall in line. What unites real Canadians is their love of freedom, especially the freedom to criticize whatever we dislike. Justin, you will pay for insulting the character of all Canadians by calling us intolerant or insane! We demand the right to denounce tyranny whenever we see it! There will be no foreign law imposed on us.
Ideologies don’t have rights. People have rights, the right to freedom of speech! It’s not just in Canada’s Constitution, but our Constitution begins with the mention of God, because freedom of speech is gift we receive from our Creator, not from the Constitution. How dare you try to remove what God has given?
There is no right not to have hurt feelings. There never was. There never will be. Hurt feelings cannot be measured, because they are subjective. Someone who calls me a name will be judged by witnesses who will decide if the claim is just or unjust. If we are in our right minds, names do not hurt us but are a source of pride that we are privileged to defend a noble cause. Who said life is supposed to be easy? We can only do the right thing if we have the freedom to speak the right thing. If you remove my freedom of speech today, someone may remove yours tomorrow, and then I will not be free to defend you if I am jail. Freedom of speech is the only defence against tyranny. Without freedom of speech, deaf and dumb we may be led like sheep to the slaughter or to enslavement.
Canadians will not give our freedom of speech to foreigners who come to Canada wishing to enslave us under their foreign laws. They have come here with the disguised intention of stealing our freedom of speech, but they have chosen the wrong people to mug. Canadians will not give in to robbers. Canadians will not give up their freedom to thieves. Canadians will never stop defending our precious, God-given freedom of expression. Canadians will not accept blasphemy laws that enslave us to a foreign ideology. Canadians will not let the government put us in jail or a mental institution for criticizing something that our conscience commands us to criticize. If we are wrong, let some wiser person debate us and prove us wrong and let the people decide which side is right. Otherwise, hands off the freedom of speech! Our freedom of speech is our birthright as Canadians never to be tampered with.
It is not a RIGHT not to have hurt feelings. It never was and never will be. Grow up, snowflakes. Canada’s national sport is hockey, a rough game play to be played by a tough-minded people who don’t like to give in and who like to win and who enjoy the roughness of it.
Canada doesn’t need and doesn’t want a bunch of namby-pamby snowflakes or entitled crybabies. If you don’t love freedom of speech, Canada is not for you. Leave. If you don’t love freedom of speech, Canadians don’t want you. Go some place where they have tyranny and dictatorship and political jails, because that won’t happen here in Canada. Grow up, snowflakes! Grow the heck up!
ACT! For Canada member
MP Iqra Khalid, like MP Omar Alghabra, is typical of the Islamist extremists that are using political Entryism to infiltrate our political system. She leads and supports front groups which espouse Islamist extremism, such as the Muslim Student Association, yet at the same time claims to be a victim of the (largely) fake concept of Islamophobia. Canada and its Parliament would be best served if Member of Parliament Iqra Khadid would either directly denounce the Muslim Brotherhood, the ISNA and the Muslim Student Association or admit that she is a supporter of extremist Islamists – including those that advocate wife beating here in Canada.
Please sign these petitions to shelve this motion once and for all.
FREEDOM TO OFFEND: Support free speech, not sharia!
Canada is on the verge of passing what amounts to Islamic blasphemy laws.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Government is quickly proceeding to address unproven increases of “Islamophobia”— and he’s going to do it by curbing the right to free speech.
The government’s anti-Islamophobia initiative began in the form of a seemingly innocuous online petition presented to Canada’s House of Commons. Citing no evidence whatsoever, the petition made a bold claim that Islamic terrorism has been used as a pretext for a “notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada”.
The petition called upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.
That request — with no evidence, not a single case of Islamophobia cited, virtually no public input, and zero attention from the mainstream media — received unanimous consent by Canadian MPs.
The petition was followed in rapid-fire fashion by a second motion sponsored by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid which called for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to produce findings and recommendations within 240 calendar days of the motion’s acceptance. Titled “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination,” the Motion M-103 demands that the government not only condemn Islamophobia in word but that it also develops a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia.
Motion M-103: 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.
And so, it’s anticipated that legislative remedies — legal options — will be front and centre in the Committee’s efforts going forward.
In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam.
Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes,
If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.
This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.
According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.
Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.
Join me in demanding that this motion is rescinded and exposed for what it is: A blatant attack on free speech, and so an assault on the very cornerstone of our Canadian democracy.
The government is not going to proactively ask for your opinion or let you have your say before they vote on this motion.
Considering they voted unanimously in support of the petition that started this sharia creep in our federal legislature, there’s a damn good chance this thing will pass — that is, of course, unless we make our voice heard.
If you agree, please sign my petition below and remind our politicians that it’s their job to defend our Constitution — our rights and freedoms.
Our legislators must denounce any legislative initiative to curb our fundamental right to free speech.
Dear Members of Parliament,
I am a retired veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have served Canada in both peace and war and consider myself honoured to have been a member of a proud tradition responsible for protecting and projecting Canadian values, rights and freedoms. I see my service in the context of a continuum of citizen soldiers that have paid, and will pay, the ultimate price in defense of the Canadian way of life. It is on behalf of these patriots that I would like to express a profound concern on motions and proposals that seek to curtail fundamental freedom of speech rights in order to address charges of rampant “Islamophobia”. So concerned have I become that I have initiated a nation-wide petition drive to inform the public, and yourselves, of the danger that such motions and proposals entail.
As originator of the petition linked to here and author of the related, detailed occasional paper that underpins it and is found here, I am in a position to review all petition signatures and related comments. These, by the way, are exploding on my petition site with thousands of signatures being registered on a daily basis. I am finding that the public-at-large is at odds with the sentiments expressed by you, your leadership and most of the national media. In general, I see three major themes being articulated that may be of interest to you and your political calculations. These are; a deep sadness and prayerful wishes for those who suffered as a result of the Quebec mosque attacks of 29 January, 2017, a belief that charges of “Islamophobia” are ill-defined and overstated and a near unanimous conviction that you are abandoning the right of individuals to speak freely in favour of appeasing an identifiable interest group. Indeed, they see this last development as a betrayal of a prized birthright.
Petition signatories have also been busy writing letters to all of you and I see many of your responses. You make the point that the attack of 29 January, 2017 is likely due to a hatred that has its genesis in loose and offensive speech aimed at those practicing a specific faith. My signatories disagree in this, however, and rightly note that no specific motivator, as of yet and fully weeks after the event, have been ascribed to the attack. More than this, many postulate that it is more likely that political correctness, and its inhibiting effect on speech, results in the penning up of emotions with knock-on, explosive repercussions. At any rate, more than one signatory noted that Prime Minister Trudeau, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing attacks, stressed the need to resist rushes to judgment and to “look at the root causes”. It would seem that my sampling of over 15,000, and increasing, Canadians speaks to the need to better understand the motivations behind the Quebec attack before using unsubstantiated assumptions to curtail critical free speech rights.
The use of the term “Islamophobia” is of great concern to petition participants as they thought it might be serving as a “Trojan horse”. From your responses to petition letter-writers I can see how this could be the case as you inevitably call up the right of Canadians to worship their faith freely without undue disturbance or harm. Petitioners agree on this point but understand that Islam is much more than the worship of a deity as it embodies a political project, in the form of a Caliphate, wrapped tightly in an enabling legal code, the Sharia. They fear that restrictions on speech directed at the religion of Islam, which by the way is currently prohibited by in-place constitutional protections, will allow the political and legal aspects of Islam to be piggy-backed into legislative protection. This is of great concern as such protection would prohibit fair comment on aspects of Islam that are antithetical to those resident within the Canadian tradition. Certainly, any support of Motion 103 would be premature until such linkages are better understood.
Finally, petition signatories express a deep sense of being betrayed as M-103 proceedings, along with those associated with its forerunner “e-411” petition, have taken place with no public input and little media attention. They feel that the issue is being ramrodded through the parliamentary process with an end game of enabling legislation intended and well in sight. This overwhelming attitude is of great concern as it speaks to the possibility of fracturing the nation along lines of competing views on how the State and Church/ Mosque relationship should unfold. They can see how such competing views can clash and worry that difficulties demonstrated in the European context can be brought to fruition in Canada absent a full debate in the marketplace of ideas. Safe to say, there is a danger in rushing to embrace “anti-Islamophobic” measures as we stand to lose fundamental rights to free speech while gaining nothing but division and acrimony. Please consider your M-103 vote carefully.
Major (Ret’d) Russ Cooper
Because of the mosque tragedy, on Feb. 16, the House will likely vote unanimously for Motion 103, which is potentially a retrograde step for freedom of speech in Canada, at least insofar as it concerns “Islamophobia.” M-103 asks for a study to determine “a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Though singled out for special consideration, it is noteworthy that the motion does not define Islamophobia.
Letter to the Editor – National Post
Barbara Kay is right to worry about the potential of parliamentary motion M-103 to silence criticism of Islam. I understand that a motion is not a bill and does not have the force of law. However, this motion to fight Islamophobia calls on the Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage to undertake a study to determine what kind of action the government should take to combat Islamophobia and to report to Parliament within a specified time. Surely this raises the ominous prospect that the government of Canada is considering some sort blasphemy law to protect Islam from criticism and satire. In that case, Canada’s Members of Parliament would unwittingly be implementing the objectives of Resolution 16/18 promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the United Nations.
Human beings have rights, but ideas, religions, and ideologies do not. Islam is no more deserving of legal protection from criticism than Christianity, Judaism, communism, or capitalism. As the West has learned over the centuries, blasphemy laws are a really bad idea. Freedom of speech by definition means the right to express opinions that are offensive to others. The tragedy of the killings in Quebec City must not be used as an excuse to revoke this cherished right. But that is exactly what Petition e-411 and Motion M-103 (and any legislation that might arise from them) threaten to do.
Let us hope that our Parliamentarians have the sense to vote down Motion M-103 and to rescind their endorsement of Petition e-411 on which it is based.
Honourable Members of Parliament:
Below are comments from ACT! For Canada regarding Motion M-103 – “Systemic racism and religious discrimination”, to be debated on Wednesday, Feb 15th. These comments, expressing serious issues regarding this Motion, are entitled: “Why ALL MPs should vote AGAINST M-103.”
Thank you for considering our concerns, prior to the Wednesday vote on M-103. (and yes, we do understand the difference between a Motion and a Bill.)
Honourable Ministers and Members of Parliament
WHY ALL MP’S SHOULD VOTE AGAINST M-103
- It gives an Overly Broad Mandate to a Committee. Words such as “systemic”, “whole-of-government” and “holistic” are concerning.
- Term “Islamophobia” is too broad, undefined, often includes protection for a belief system,
- Term “Islamophobia” coined by Iranian fundamentalists with the AIM of declaring ISLAM INVIOLATE. No Religion or belief system should be declared off-limits by the State.
- Term “Islamophobia” includes a belief that “offending” a person or a person’s religion should be a crime. One is never responsible for the “feelings” of another person. Extending the law into the realm of personal feelings is excessive and Orwellian.
- No evidence is given of an “increasing climate of hate and fear”, or that such fear is not justified by global terrorism. “Quelling” emotions is not the realm of government or of legislation. Stopping criminal acts IS. (Again, this is Orwellian.)
- “Systemic racism” is not relevant to “Islamophobia”, since Muslim Canadians comprise all races, ethnicities and skin-tones, as do all other Canadians. (Maybe an attempt to expand scope of Islamophobia complaints?) Islam is not a race, any more than Christianity, which also has its share of “black” and “brown” adherents.
- Freedom of Religion is already protected in the Charter. It is not intended to and should never protect any religion or belief system from criticism. The intent of Freedom of Expression is precisely to protect speech which may offend or question orthodox beliefs or “sacred cows”.
- It is based on unproven assumptions: (1) that “hate and fear” of Muslims is widespread; (2) that it stems from and results in “systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia”; (3) that government remedies (over and above existing legislation) could “quell” these emotions; and (4) the unstated assumption that hate crimes against Muslims are more numerous or more important than, say, those against Jews, which is patently untrue.
- The use of “evidence-based policy-making” in the area of “Islamophobia” research and statistics is concerning, as it is conducted or funded largely by political advocacy groups, so may be biased in favour of the desired conclusion.
- It appears to be an attempt to put in place at the federal level what the advocacy groups were unsuccessful in achieving in Quebec, with Bill 59, “an Act to enact the Act to prevent and combat hate speech and speech inciting violence and to amend various legislative provisions to better protect individuals”- both based on the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) draft legislation to impose so-called “blasphemy” laws in the West.
- The perception by Canadians that M-103 constitutes “special treatment” could cause a feeling of resentment towards Muslim-Canadians.
- The phrase “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” gives particular concern, implying a limitation of Freedom of Expression for “Islamophobia”!
- MPs represent ALL Canadians. Do not abrogate their Constitutional right to Freedom of Expression in a well-intended but wrong-headed gesture of solidarity with Muslims after the tragic events at the mosque in Sainte-Foy, Quebec.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns,
ACT! For Canada