03.23.2017 07:14 AM

This makes me sad

It perhaps explains Donald Trump, Kellie Leitch et al. It also can’t be dismissed as a methodological error – the question(s) were very straightforward. 

Mostly, however, it makes me sad. We have a long way to go. 


  1. Kev says:

    Tulk, in what way does the motion stifle, let alone criminalize, anything? Be specific, with references to the actual words of the motion.

  2. doconnor says:

    I agree. The House of Commons need to be free to exercise its right to condemn Islamophobia.

  3. Matt says:

    Sad? No.

    Look, NOBODY should be subjected to discrimination based on their religion, and EVERYONE should be free to practice whatever religion they want in peace, but let’s call a spade a spade here.

    M-103 is completely unnecessary. Everything it claims to do or want to do is already covered under current Canadian law. It is already illegal to discriminate based on religion. There are already hate speech laws on the books. If they want to study incidents of anti whatever religion hate speech or hate crimes, go ahead. They don’t need M-103 to do that.

    The Liberals, as usual arrogantly thinking they are smarter than everyone else introduced this motion to try and sow division among the Conservatives during the leadership race, and they thought they could play the racism card against the CPC. And it is identity politics at its worst.

    Unfortunately for them it would seem the majority of Canadians are seeing right through their bullshit. Even self identified LIBERALS don not support the motion as written. Not a single opinion poll has come out in support of M-103, and best of all, Trudeau voluntarily, enthusiastically and directly tied this anchor around his own neck.

    • doconnor says:

      It’s a motion from a backbeancher of the governing power, so of course it is unnecessary.

      I’ve noticed that NDP motions are often designed to sow division or expose the hyprocracy of the Liberals or Conseratives.

      • Charlie says:

        That’s some strategy there. The NDP can’t form government so they just sit in the corner of the House bitterly trying to sabotage parliamentary cohesion. Its beyond me that they could go back to the electorate every 4 years and ask people to vote for them just so they can go back to Ottawa and be insidious.

        For the record, the Liberals and Conservatives are absolutely hypocrites and go back forth in chastising each other for essentially behaving the same way. But I don’t understand where the NDP gets the idea that its incumbent upon them to be self-righteous crusaders.

    • Kelly says:

      So you’re against the same type of Conservative motions specifically mentioning Coptic Christians, Yazidis and Jews, Intake it? How about a motion condemning attacks on athiests?

      I’m sick of religious bigots hiding behind phony free speech arguments. You’re all just assholes who don’t like Muslims because of something you saw on TV. Everyone in now’s it. Stop the charade.

      • Robert Frindt says:

        “You’re all just assholes who don’t like Muslims because of something you saw on TV. ”

        9/11 ?

        • dave constable says:

          Is that the one where we learned that our air forces and air lines put way too much time and resources into training large aircraft pilots?

      • Kev says:

        Kelly, you hit the nail right on the head.

        When Deltell can’t explain why it was OK to back a (equally valid) motion condeming anti-Semitism, when it didn’t define that term, it’s not hard to tell.

        Conservatives and all the freakouts are racists. Plain and simple.

        Well, maybe 15% of them are Russian bots.

      • Kev says:

        Unless the anti-M-103 frothers can explain why it’s OK for Parliament to condemn anti-Semitism, but not Islamophobia, without defining either of those terms, then yes, the shoe fits.

        • dean sherratt says:

          Since I am not a frother I suppose I should not answer…but a literal meaning for islamophobia, based on its greek root, is very doubtfully the intent of the writers. There is also a history and practice respecting anti-Semitism that provides quite a good context.

          Do you think that a motion condemning mediaphilia would not cry out for a definition?

          BTW, one similarity between law and a motion is both can be used as an instruction to government. I don’t doubt that the Liberal government will take some marching orders from this motion as well. And the government is well, a big thing.

      • Kev says:

        Shoe fits.

    • Kev says:

      Have you read the motion?

      • Matt says:

        Yeah. Have you?

        Why only mention Islam/Islamaphobia by name? Over the past year Jews have faced more hate crimes in Canada than Muslims.

        Why not define Islamaphobia?

        Why not mention the top seven religions practiced in Canada?

        Liberals playing identity politics, that’s why.

        • doconnor says:

          “Over the past year Jews have faced more hate crimes in Canada than Muslims.”

          Do you have data to support that? Besides the Quebec massacre trumps all other hate crimes over the past year.

        • Kev says:


          The 2015 motion on anti-Semitism didn’t include a definition, either. Do you have a problem with that? Why or why not?

          That, in the opinion of the House:

          a) there has been, in the words of the Joint Statement issued following the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on January 22, 2015, “an alarming increase in Antisemitism worldwide,” including the firebombing of synagogues and community centres, the vandalizing of Jewish memorials and cemeteries, incendiary calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and anti-Jewish terror;

          b) this global anti-Semitism constitutes not only a threat to Jews but an assault on our shared democratic values and our common humanity;

          Therefore the House:

          a) declares its categorical condemnation of anti-Semitism;

          b) reaffirms the importance of the Ottawa Protocol on Combating anti-Semitism as a model for domestic and international implementation;

          c) reaffirms, in the words of the Ottawa Protocol, that, “Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest;”

          And the House further calls upon the government to:

          a) continue advancing the combating of anti-Semitism as a domestic and international priority;

          b) expand engagement with civil society, community groups, educators, and other levels of government to combat anti-Semitism and to promote respect, tolerance, and mutual understanding.

  4. MikeTO says:

    When the House of Commons acts against the will of the Commons, there remains but only one solution to be honest fam.

  5. dave constable says:

    Are you referencing the motion to condemn Islamophobia? or the one to condemn BDS?
    Motions don’t (yet) criminalize anything.

    • MikeTO says:

      This motion is a point along a vector, that then proceeds further along in its defined direction. What is a motion today becomes a law tomorrow. Are Warren’s fans obfuscating, lying or afraid of the truth because it will require them to stand for something that our sick apathetic culture might not praise them for?

  6. Eric Weiss says:

    B-b-b-but if conservatives can’t freely express their racism and bigotry, however will we prevent Sharia law from taking over our country?

  7. doconnor says:

    The poll question repeated the false claim that it will infinge on free speech, which could explain some of the opposition. I guess the felt they had to include it because there is no legitimate reason to oppose it.

  8. dave constable says:

    People in North America shot to death because they are Sikh and Muslim.
    Mosques in America are burned and bombed.
    Synagogues and Jewish centres report bomb threats.

    So, here in BC our BC Lib provincial government gives the Jewish community in Vancouver $100 thou to upgrade security systems.

    Then, today, some Israeli dual citizen in America is arrested for computer assisted bomb threat phone calls to synagogues and Jewish centres.

  9. MetisRebel says:

    (I put my Tweeting handle there because it’s relevant to this conversation)

    I just went through this he11 on Twitter over this motion.

    Then I was googling the lawyer who was pulling these crappy stunts (what is it about so many cons/repugs that they play this way?) of being in a dialogue, then when confronted with his own crap, did what I’ve noticed what too many cons do nowadays–pull one quote out of context insulting the recipient and having his cronies retweet and “like” it endlessly out of context and having them spread his disingenuous baiting, far and wide. I’ve seen it enough times to know now, that this is a *deliberate* tactic on the part of the right.

    I confronted him enough times for him to run away because he wouldn’t answer my challenges such as “Stop gish galloping. As a lawyer, you know this is only a motion that won’t affect you, so what is your actual point?” and suchlike. If he can’t handle that, I’m pretty sure I’d never want him to represent me in a real court case.

    I wish I had a strategy to counter this kind of mob mentality behaviour. I haven’t been on Twitter for years and it used to be kind of crazy but it wasn’t a bunch of nasty piling on.

    The reality is, with all the present anti-Muslim sentiment, standing up loud and proud against the racist putrescence now infiltrating so many discussions with Americans, is probably a good idea. The backbencher who proposed it received thousands of hate emails which proves the point that it needed to be said.

    Many of the points made above this, I probably made at one time or another during that discussion.

    I’m just not sure how NOT to get dragged into those bashing fests where they pile on.

    And oh hai, Eric 🙂

  10. Matt says:

    Trudeau has said repeatedly over the past few months how important M-103 is.

    So important he was putting the Liberal governments full support behind it. Sent out Cabinet Ministers like Mélanie Joly to defend it. Every time Iqra Khalid had a press conference or media scrum to talk about the motion the PMO made sure there were dozens of Liberal MP’s standing behind her.

    Although, it apparently wasn’t important enough for Trudeau to, you know, actually show up in the HOC and vote in support of the motion according to the CBC.

    • Darren H says:

      Because PMJT is afraid of the strong Conservative feminist women that eat his lunch in Question Period on a daily basis. One of them needs to lead the Conservative party. I would say Rona but she is going to leave federal politics to lead the new Alberta Conservative Party to obliterate Notley and bunch.

      • Matt says:

        Rona isn’t going to lead Alberta’s PC’s.

        Jason Kenney just won the leadership last weekend with about 75% of the vote. He wants to unite the right to take on Notley.

  11. Miles Lunn says:

    I think the biggest mistake supporters of the motion made was not debunking the lies from the hard right. This motion does not restrict free speech and it does not involve bringing Sharia Law to Canada. We need to be more active against lies peddled by the Rebel media and far right since if their lies go unchallenged I fear things could get worse. I suspect a lot in the 42 percent are more ignorant of the motion than bigots at least that is what I hope.

    • Kev says:

      Those lies were debunked, repeatedly.

      As has been abundantly clear through the Harris, Harper, and now Trump years, it doesn’t matter: right-wing nutjobs live in a universe blissfully free from facts.

    • Kev says:

      They debunked the lies from the get-go.

      It doesn’t matter. As the Harris, Harper, and now Trump years (months?) show, right-wing nutjobs live in a blissfully fact-free zone.

    • MetisRebel says:

      The problem lies that the conservative pundits, some with tens of thousands of followers on facebook and twitter, have *deliberately* whipped their followers into a frenzy. Many of them *know* the difference between a motion and a law and are misrepresenting this as some form of attack on free speech, all the while claiming it’s about “justice”, “fairness” and “freedom”.

      When you demand that they provide *facts*–they attack in droves.

      Thus, little voices get knocked out of the discussion because how much abuse and deliberate misinformation can the average person, stand?

      It’s far easier to get ten thousand people spewing venom in a fear-induced frenzy than it is to slow them down long enough to hear the voice of reason.

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Exactly. Yes the lies were debunked, but the opponents of this were a lot louder than the supporters. As annoying as it maybe we need to speak up louder as we are letting the bigots drown us out. I fear if we don’t speak out we could get our own Donald Trump. Donald Trump didn’t come out of nowhere he is a result of the hate filled right wing radio, Breitbart, and hatred from the tea party. I also hope if the Tories chose a moderate like Raitt or Chong, they send the nutcases packing in the party and also make clear to them like Patrick Brown has the party is not interested in them

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *