Canada’s Bill M-103 was twisted to ensure it was discriminatory by itself

「terrance and phillip canada」の画像検索結果

Canada has passed bill M-103 in the House of Commons (201 in favour, 91 against. PM Trudeau was conveniently absent for a vote which is a surprise given he loves to appeal to his penchant for virtue signalling) which condemns “Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”.   Conservative member David Anderson tabled a motion on February 16 to remove the word “Islamophobia” and asked the House of Commons to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.” That the liberals rejected the equitable amendment shows Bill M-103 is in fact openly discriminatory.

The motion was proposed by Iqra Khalid, a first-time MP representing Mississauga, Ontario who went on to say,

“Our country is very diverse…I think that we need to continue to build those bridges amongst Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this, by really understanding the issue and really listening to what Canadians have to say. I’m really looking forward to the track that the Canadian Heritage Committee takes on this.”

Put simply, free speech was sold out with the passing of this bill. If bridges are needed to be built and the government wants to “really listen to what Canadians have to say” why push legislation that effectively gags them from expressing concerns they might have. Hypothetically if a radical Islamist terrorist was to storm Canada’s Parliament (one already has) and a Canadian citizen was to calmly mention it was the result of radical Islam then that would be a violation of M-103 because it could be interpreted as an Islamophobic statement. Even if it was cold hard fact. Is mentioning fact each and every way hate speech? Certainly not. Candians would seem to agree that it M-103 takes away free speech.

Pollster Angus Reid Institute asked 1,511 Canadians, “if you were a a Member of Parliament, how would you vote on this motion (M-103)” and found that 42% would vote against it; 29% would vote in favour and 29% were not sure or would have abstained.

From a regional standpoint, a plurality of survey respondents in every province rejected M-103 though objections to M-103 were softest in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada.

As M-103 was sponsored by a Liberal MP support among those who voted for the party in the 2015 election revealed just 38% of them would support M-103 versus 33% of  who oppose it and 28% with no opinion. 68% of those who voted Conservative in 2015 rejected M-103 and  just 14% voting in favour.

There is no condoning racism or religious discrimination. Even if one argues that the majority of Canadians need not worry about it because they are tolerant, we’ve got Australia’s 18C Racial Discrimination Act as exhibit A of how the application of the law turned into state sponsored witch hunts. Secret trials conducted over years held by a biased and prejudiced Australian Human Rights Commission ended up wrongfully and unnecessarily destroying lives based on trumped up charges based on a law which promotes victimology. These people were innocent yet ‘interpretation’ becomes very dangerous and often used in completely the wrong way.

We shouldn’t be the least bit surprised when trumped up charges start hitting the headlines because honesty gets re-branded hate speech.


One comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s