The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.” What exactly has the Parliament of Canada made a motion against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Mohammed? Criticism and condemnation of the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered “Islamophobes” by Canada?
What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams in the country continue to spew openly hateful and radical ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?
The motion (M-103) which the Canadian government recently passed was initiated on June 8, 2016, by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. It condemns Islamophobia in “all” forms.
The details of the motion, which was sponsored by a member of parliament from the Liberal party, are extremely sketchy to say the least. The motion states:
“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”
It seems that many Western politicians, the mainstream media and our intellectual elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot of things about which one could be rationally “phobic,” or simply fearful of, in Islam.
For example, political Islam is known to be an ideology that produces Islamist terrorists. Islamic Republic of Iran is a prime example of it.
Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe.”
Yet, many people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Islamic (sharia law) and radical or political Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islam.
I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies (which now might be viewed as Islamophobic in Canada). They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard about every day in that dark place.
It was reported that the highest commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad. That means I am on their hit list.
People are jittery about radical Islam and sharia law for many justifiable reasons: They look at how sharia is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by the Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram.
The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are defined under Islamic sharia law. Therefore, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights.
Is that what we want for or in Canada? Or in any country?
To those of us who have experienced Islamic Sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed a cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.
Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different political ideology, religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?
It is interesting to note that there are no comparable terms for other religions, such as Christianophobia or Judeophobia that define a dislike or prejudice against Christianity, Judaism or the Judeo-Christian worldview.
What is true is that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to call for a similar motion in any Middle Eastern country in the world.
While M-103 has been stirring in our halls of government, there is also another trend sweeping through these same halls to rid the Canadian Charter of obsolete, unconstitutional or redundant laws, thanks to other Liberal MPs.
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, the liberals unveiled Bill C-51 that would clean up the Canadian Criminal Code. This Bill would remove the outdated blasphemy law that has existed in Canada since 1892. Government feels this would clean up old law that isn’t consistent with freedom of speech and religion in Canada.
Strangely, C-51 and M-103 seem to contradict one another. While M-103 condemns Islamophobia in all forms, including speaking against Islam, C-51 is loosening law to allow anyone to freely express themselves concerning anyone’s religion without fear of reprisal or imprisonment. Will C-51 only apply to every religion except Islam?
“Intolerance of Intolerance” is the de-facto blasphemy law of the secular state. Is the Government of Canada scrapping one blasphemy law, only to replace it with another?
A complete version of this article appeared on Mackenzie Institute.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment