• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Canada on the Brink of Incorporating Islamic Speech Codes

CMPancake said:
Do you honestly believe that evil and violence will suddenly come to a halt as soon as we stop letting Muslims immigrate to the country?
Click to expand...

Black and white. Do you honestly think there will be either more or less terrorist attacks if we stopped letting Muslims into our country?
 
Fair said:
Your knowledge is limited.
Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 99.6% that Aren't
Islamic Terrorism !
Click to expand...

That is only if one includes retaliation and hate crimes with the Islamic terrorist activities. Localized incidents to punish or demand restitution or for political self gain are not the same as terrorism to kill, maim, destroy terrorize innocent people who are targeted not for any 'crime' but because they are not Muslim.

For instance Black Lives Matters have vandalized, destroyed, looted, committed arson, obstructed, and terrorized people, but they are not considered terrorists in the most clear definition of the term.

So in rebuttal to your link I will offer this one:
| National Review
 
coldjoint said:
People are not arrested for insulting or criticizing Islam? Try again.
Click to expand...

You may be referring to laws such as the public order act in the UK and that is not dedicated to protecting Islam.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and
The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986: The Impact Of Harvey v DPP - Criminal Law - UK

Parts 3 and 3A- Racial and religious hatred[edit]
If the act is intended to stir up racial hatred Part 3 of the Act creates offences of
use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18),
publishing or distributing written material (section 19),
public performance of a play (section 20),
distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21),
broadcasting (section 22). or
possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23)
Acts intended to stir up religious hatred are proscribed in POA Part 3A by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (RRHA) with the insertion of new sections 29A to 29N.[3] The RRHA bill, which was introduced by Home Secretary David Blunkett, was amended several times in the House of Lords and ultimately the Blair government was forced to accept the substitute words.
To stir uphatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was to be proscribed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in POA Part 3A section 29AB.[4] This legislation was introduced by David Hanson MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986

If you can provide a link to any European law on the statute books which makes it a crime to insult Islam then please post it. Or is this yet more "information" from one of your racist sites?
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
You may be referring to laws such as the public order act in the UK and that is not dedicated to protecting Islam.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and
The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986: The Impact Of Harvey v DPP - Criminal Law - UK

Parts 3 and 3A- Racial and religious hatred[edit]
If the act is intended to stir up racial hatred Part 3 of the Act creates offences of
use of words or behaviour or display of written material (section 18),
publishing or distributing written material (section 19),
public performance of a play (section 20),
distributing, showing or playing a recording (section 21),
broadcasting (section 22). or
possession of racially inflammatory material (section 23)
Acts intended to stir up religious hatred are proscribed in POA Part 3A by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (RRHA) with the insertion of new sections 29A to 29N.[3] The RRHA bill, which was introduced by Home Secretary David Blunkett, was amended several times in the House of Lords and ultimately the Blair government was forced to accept the substitute words.
To stir uphatred on the grounds of sexual orientation was to be proscribed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 in POA Part 3A section 29AB.[4] This legislation was introduced by David Hanson MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986

If you can provide a link to any European law on the statute books which makes it a crime to insult Islam then please post it. Or is this yet more "information" from one of your racist sites?
Click to expand...

Once again, I don't care where the truth comes from.
 
shrubnose said:
Come back and tell us all about it when Canada or the USA give up free speech to placate any religion.

:lol:

I predict that won't happen.
Click to expand...


Looks like the odds it will have improved.:cool:
 
zyzygy said:
The truth is that there are no laws in Europe that protect only Islam.
Click to expand...
Hate-Speech Laws Aren’t the Answer to Islamic Extremism—They’re Part of the Problem
Click to expand...
How these laws are enforced is what is telling. They are used by authorities to harass citizens and stifle critics.
Read more at: | National Review

Don't you have a quote to find?
 
coldjoint said:
How these laws are enforced is what is telling. They are used by authorities to harass citizens and stifle critics.
Read more at: | National Review

Don't you have a quote to find?
Click to expand...

An unbiased source, lol. And you don't care where the truth comes from. Why do you ignore the truths that I post?

"The National Review, a magazine which some have called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias."
National Review | AllSides
 
zyzygy said:
An unbiased source, lol. And you don't care where the truth comes from. Why do you ignore the truths that I post?

"The National Review, a magazine which some have called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias."
National Review | AllSides
Click to expand...

Because you post none. Next question?
 
zyzygy said:
Punishing racists? Good.
Click to expand...

Find another word. They are punishing people warning others that Sweden is becoming a ****hole. I doubt race plays a part in it.
 
zyzygy said:
Punishing racists? Good.
Click to expand...

Oh dear!. I thought that even the slowest thinkers had by now understood that Islam is not a 'race'.

Imo the massive influx of Muslim migrants into Sweden has had many bad consequences, economic and social. I am not a ''racist'.
 
shrubnose said:
I predict that the1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution won't be repealed any time soon no matter how many of Trump's minions sign petitions supporting that stupid idea.

:lol:

Wait and see.
Click to expand...

Please explain what specific part of the First Amendment you think is relevant to this issue. And please cite any Supreme Court decisions you think are relevant.
 
matchlight said:
I'm pretty sure Mr. Trump is no longer proposing to turn away all Muslim aliens who want to immigrate to the U.S. But nothing whatever would prevent Congress from making a law which did exactly that, any time a majority of the American people wanted it to. None of the rights secured by the Constitution of the U.S. apply to aliens who have not yet entered U.S. territory, and the Supreme Court has made very clear that Congress' power to regulate matters of alienage is nearly absolute.

Anyone who wants to label the wish of millions of Americans to defend our country from Islamist savages as "Islamophobia"--a bit of politically correct jargon designed to gull the gullible--is free to prattle that neologism all he wants. Most Americans aren't listening much these days to the Islamists' rear guard.
Click to expand...

I'd change a few things in your last paragraph... "Anyone who wants to label the wishes of tens of millions of Americans to defend our country from the ravages of Islamic Extremism by labeling those tens of millions as Islamophobic..... Most Americans aren't listening to the extremists' rear guard."

Now I can honestly support ever word...
 
Barbara Kay: How long until my honest criticism of Islamism constitutes a speech crime in Canada?
Click to expand...

Another article. Seems to be a very important concern to some.
Even without any law that singles out Islamophobia for special consideration, I note that, shaken by the mosque massacre, several journalists are now pledging more “nuance” in their approach to Islam-related subjects. I was surprised to hear one colleague and friend here in Quebec, who has been outspoken in criticizing Shariah law on perfectly reasonable grounds, state in an interview that she intends to be more “careful” in future.
Click to expand...

Those aren't journalists.

Barbara Kay: How long until my honest criticism of Islamism constitutes a speech crime in Canada? | National Post
 
Serenity said:
Who is labeling those critical of Islamists, Islamophobes? I'm critical of islamists and I'm not an islamophobe. An islamist is an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. I see criticism from those who may feel a complete ban on ALL muslims entering the US is not ok because they recognise that all Muslims are obviously not Islamists....I don't see people advocating for known islamists to gain entry.

Unless of course you're attempting to equate all Muslims to Islamists.
Click to expand...

I think that every time the world is stirred up about religions, it is often a sign that the economy went wrong.

Religions existed with their differences since humanity existed. But wars and disputes erupt when people's livelihood is negatively impacted that they are seeking reasons to fight.

Let’s look at who are supporting more relaxed immigration policy and who are opposing it? Upper middle class and affluent elites support more relaxed immigration policy to import labor skills at cheaper cost from their countries of birth. Those countries invested in their education but the elites of other countries steal them to maximize their profits. Elites want to flip the dollar for higher profits without incurring the heavy infrastructural cost of raising the talents necessary for their profits from their own children or community. This theft is the cause of the current crisis. Theft is a moral violation. It must have negative repercussions.

Why immigrants are leaving their countries? Why unfavorable living conditions existed that prompted people to emigrate? Have the host country cared for their own population first or are they importing immigrants and off-shore employees because they do not care for their own communities? These are the real problems that people are not discussing. Instead they got embroiled in religious criticism of each other's culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom