Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment

Free speech in Canada: The beginning of the end?


By —— Bio and Archives--February 13, 2017

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Motion M-103 is scheduled to come up for a vote on Feb. 16. While it is a non-binding motion that does not have the force of law, it could very well mark the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in Canada as we know it.

M-103 was introduced in Parliament in December by rookie Liberal MP Irqra Khalid and is entitled “Systemic racism and religious discrimination.” With a title like that what could possibly be wrong? Like many things coming out of Justin Trudeau and his party of trained seals, the title is misleading.

To a person of average intelligence, it is clear the purpose of this motion is to attack Islamophobia

Motions are not bills that, if passed, become laws. They are merely expressions of those who vote in favour of the motion and like this one, make its supporters feel good about themselves. Judging only by its headline, this motion serves no useful purpose because, after all, is anyone sitting in Parliament really in favour of systemic racism and religious discrimination? In addition to make MPs feel good about themselves, the ability to table a motion allows rookie MPs of no particular note like Khalid feel important and feel they are actually doing something.

There is little doubt this motion will pass. Even without the Liberal majority, the NDP and many of, not most Conservative MPs will vote for it. And despite the fact passage will have no legal consequences, there are two troubling aspects of the bill that do not bode well for Canadians who value their right,  or what they think is their right to freedom of speech.

First the word “Islamophobia” is specifically mentioned twice in the motion. Anti-Semitism or homophobia or hatred against another specified group is never mentioned but is described, as the afterthought it is as “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.” To a person of average intelligence, it is clear the purpose of this motion is to attack Islamophobia.

CBC has been well known over the years as the taxpayer-funded propaganda arm of the Liberal Party of Canada. But, in a random act of journalism as Rush Limbaugh might say, CBC gets it right. An article was posted to the CBC website on Feb. 9, entitled “Liberal MP’s anti-Islamophobia motion set for debate next week.” And the first paragraph of the article, written by Kathleen Harris, is as follows:

“Members of Parliament will debate a motion to condemn Islamophobia and track incidents of hate crimes against Muslims in the House of Commons next week.” [Emphasis added]

Despite pleas to the contrary from supporters of the motion that Islam and Muslims are not being singled out for greater protections than other groups are, the headline and opening paragraph is a conclusion arrived at from a clear reading of the motion. Since it happens so rarely it is worth repeating; CBC got it right.

Had Khalid, the Muslim MP who sponsored the bill, been really concerned about “systemic racism and religious discrimination” she would not have included the word “Islamophobia” in M-103. It is clear the intent of the motion that has MPs from all political parties absolutely enthralled is to give a special status to Muslims and the religion of peace.

There is another part of the motion that is even more troubling than paying homage to the left’s (and this includes some members of the CPC) favourite group of victims. This has to do with what the motion requests the government should do.

The motion asks the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Canada does not have any heritage according to Trudeau so why do we have a heritage committee but I digress) to study, among other things, “to develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia in Canada…” The committee is asked to report back to the House within 240 days.

Since the government is in the business of making laws, this “whole-of-government approach” must be interpreted as including passing laws to make Islamophobia illegal or a crime. Of course the government has never defined exactly what Islamophobia is. And probably never will.

 

Continued below...

The Parliament of Canada has always had the bad habit of making certain activities illegal while failing to define exactly what the crime is. The most recent example was the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the crime of bestiality.

A man convicted of bestiality argued before Canada’s top court that he was not guilty because he did not have actual intercourse with the animal in question. He was convicted on the basis that he engaged in inter-species sex but there was no evidence of actual penetration.

The majority of the court accepted his defence and quashed the conviction. Under common law bestiality is defined as having sexual intercourse with an animal. Parliament could have easily defined the crime as including all sexual activity with an animal short of intercourse but, since bestiality became a crime in 1890, no Parliament ever did.

The majority of the judges were wrongly criticized for appearing to see nothing wrong with people having sex with animals when the reality was Canadian governments never bothered defining the crime. They simply applied the law. The lone justice who dissented and ruled the conviction should stand was engaging in judicial activism rather than interpreting the law. She decided Parliament would have made sex with animals short of intercourse a crime if they had bothered to think about it. As true as that may be, she was usurping the function of the legislators.

So it is unlikely the Canadian government will define Islamophobia anytime soon. We already have general hate crimes laws that protect all races and religions; not just the government’s pets. So any law that comes out of the Heritage Department’s study will be broader than those currently on the books. The only thing left is to make criticism of Islam or Muslims short of what constitutes a hate crime illegal.

Islamophobia, of course can mean calling for the deaths of Muslims. But the made-up word can also include any criticism of Islam or describing certain terrorists as being “Islamic” even though that is the way they refer to themselves.

There is certainly evidence to suggest many Muslims and members of the left, including Trudeau, want special rights not just equal rights for Muslims. The prime minister does not even attempt to hide how he feels. After six Muslims were killed in Quebec City a couple of weeks ago, Justin ran to a mosque. He was quick to characterize the act as terrorism after he learned the shooter was a white French Canadian. He didn’t run to a church a little over a year ago when six Christian Canadians were slaughtered in Burkina Faso by Muslims.

Earlier this week, it was revealed an imam in Quebec called for the annihilation of Jews in 2014. Not a peep out of the Little Potato even though under Canadian law this act would constitute a hate crime. There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment. Justin’s CBC even said so.

To repeat, passage of M-103 will not result in a law. Any such law will be a long way off but a law to make any criticism of Islam is what Trudeau’s preferred group wants. And if such a law does eventually pass, Canadians cannot look to the courts to protect their freedom of speech.



Arthur Weinreb -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press. Arthur’s latest book, Ford Nation: Why hundreds of thousands of Torontonians supported their conservative crack-smoking mayor is available at Amazon. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin is also available at Smashwords. His work has appeared on Newsmax.com,  Drudge Report, Foxnews.com.

Older articles (2007) by Arthur Weinreb

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: