The Conservatives' reaction to Resolution M - 103 reveals a lot about the Post Harper Party. Alan Freeman writes:
Some Conservative MPs have suggested that adoption of this non-binding motion will somehow constrain free speech by condemning hatred of Islam. Leadership candidates Kellie Leitch and Kevin O’Leary have, as usual, been trolling well beneath contempt. “No religion should be singled out for special consideration,” said Leitch. “A slap in the face to other religions,” said O’Leary, ignoring the motion’s condemnation of systemic racism and religious discrimination.
Chris Alexander, the boy-wonder diplomat turned crass populist, told a rally organized by the hard-right online outlet The Rebel in Toronto this week that he had trouble supporting a motion that “doesn’t mention the number one threat in the world, which is Islamic jihadist terrorism.” So hatred of Islam presumably isn’t a problem that Canada needs to worry about, according to the former ambassador.
The truth is that there’s pressure on Conservative leadership candidates to keep the back door open to the Islamaphobe vote. How else can you explain Leitch’s posting of a photo of a (blue-eyed) young woman wearing spaghetti straps, her lips sealed with a tape marked M-103, the number of Khalid’s motion? In the background is a faint image of police officers on Parliament Hill — a not-so-subtle reference to the 2014 attack on the Commons.
Then there’s candidate Pierre Lemieux (whoever he is), who said that Islamophobia isn’t at the forefront of discussion and isn’t a problem in Canada. He clearly hasn’t been watching the news for the past month. Maxime Bernier says he’s worried the motion would restrict freedom to criticize Islam — and then somehow managed to link its passage to support for Sharia law.
Backbench Conservatives have been no better. MP Marilyn Gladu said she worries that she could be accused of Islamophobia if she voiced the concern that ISIS terrorists would want to rape and behead her. By even suggesting that equivalence, our enlightened MP demonstrates that she clearly has issues of her own.
Of the candidates for leadership, only the thoughtful and eminently reasonable Michael Chong has said he would support the motion. Others are openly hostile, or are trying to slither out of supporting it. Not an edifying sight.
It's pretty clear that the Conservative Party is now the Nasty Party.
Image: The Old Grey Mare
12 comments:
Owen, your title, "The Nasty Party", is descriptive. M - 103 has brought the raving trolls out from under their rocks. Somewhat like the proverbial stopped clock that is accurate twice a day the perpetually angry do occasionally get it right.
The politically correct are running amok. How did we get to a point that phobia is used to accuse of those who criticize of hatred? If M - 103 simply condemned racism and discrimination I'd be the first one to agree. Singling out one religion for special treatment puts me at odds with it. Such rules tend to backfire. Those pushing for M - 103 believe they have righteousness on their side, even as they bully their opponents. They haven't thought it through.
Canada has laws that deal with abuse and hate speech. They need to be enforced. Yes, we need to contest hateful speech and actions. What we don't need to do is set up mechanisms that can be use to hammer free thinkers. There are many of us who have little patience for belief in religious fairy tales of any sort and the silly rituals that accompany. We would rather not be accused of intolerance when we speak out against the intolerance of others or even if we simply walk away.
The problem, Toby, is that "Islam" has become a loaded word -- just as, in my youth, the word "Communism" was a loaded term. If we ignore the buzzwords which generate an immediate reaction, we won't come to terms with the problem.
Owen, is there some collective noun to describe a "bag of creeps, reprobates and blackguards"? If not, English is your thing so why don't you come up with something?
I'll work on it, Mound. I think retrogrades goes well with reprobates.
I don't know a collective noun but I do know the anagram for conservative. Voters cave in.
Conservatives know how to appeal to our darker angels, Dana.
Owen, I don't know if you read back column comments but if you do check Bill Longstaff's post, Islamophobia—what's in a word?
https://beltlineviews.blogspot.ca/2017/02/islamophobiawhats-in-word.html
I agree that anti-Muslim may be a better term, Toby. But, at the moment, Islamophobia is a term in common currency. In the course of the argument, a distinction can be made. Given the rising tide, though, distinctions appear to be lost. In any case, this debate is not about freedom of speech.
" . . . this debate is not about freedom of speech."
Yes it is. It shouldn't be but as soon as they use a made up expression such as "Islamophobia" it ceases to be about rights and safety and tolerance and leads to thought suppression. Sorry, Owen, but language is important.
It's a debate about semantics and definitions, Toby. Properly defining the problem makes the problem easier to solve. But nobody's freedom of speech has been short circuited.
I dont know how true this is but it makes sense. The problem is the few millions out of more than a billion that are bats shite crazy.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2017/02/20/factors-to-consider-about-sharia-law-and-m103.html
Thanks for the link, Steve. The problem is that we tend to make sweeping generalizations -- which is simply illogical.
Post a Comment