News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 659     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 812     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 616     0 

What's the future for the Conservative Party?

Videodrome said:
"If this week’s debate on the motion was a trap cynically set by Justin Trudeau’s party, the Liberals could not have anticipated how enthusiastically many Tories would fling themselves into it – pandering to hysteria that the motion would curtail non-Muslims’ rights. (To be clear: It’s a motion, which means it would not change any laws whatsoever, and endorses very little other than the idea that fear of Muslims is a problem and along with other forms of discrimination merits further study.)"

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...hey-need-a-leader-who-can-speak-french-period

I actually agree with Conrad Black...
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I have a feeling this will backfire on the Liberals.

I think people underestimated just exactly how uncomfortable this motion makes many people. Hell, I am pretty uncomfortable myself with how loosely defined "islamophobia" is, and I am not even on the right.

Tories are flinging themselves into this because it is not just excellent ammunition against Trudeau. In the eyes of a swing-voter, this is a massive cause of concern and discomfort with the Liberals. Both my parents (whom are immigrants, moderates + voted for Liberals) have said they will not vote for Liberals in 2019 as a direct relation to this motion. And I think I am beginning to understand why. These things make people disillusioned with the state of politics and the media and begin to seek alternative sources, and even worse, those alternative sources are being legitimized as not necesarially being that kooky or 'fake' anymore as they have been given fantastic ammunition by the establishment.

If you want to know how we get Ezra Levants, this is how we get Ezra Levants.

Videodrome said:
Michael Chong is too rational to be a CPC member. He should just switch parties...
Click to expand...

Indeed, here is him discussing the motion. I wonder just how close to the centre Michael Chong is.
 
Islamophobia is loosely defined? How so?

After six muslims were killed and another nineteen injured in Quebec City (not to mention a whole religious community terrorized), if a motion to condemn systemic racism and religious discrimination makes some people "disillusioned", then I begin to think that motion is more than warranted.
 
Tony Clement is on Twitter this morning tweeting variations of "just enforce the law" to everyone who asks him any detailed questions, and is accusing CBC of shouting over him.

Delicate little snowflake.
 
Skeezix said:
Islamophobia is loosely defined? How so?

After six muslims were killed and another nineteen injured in Quebec City (not to mention a whole religious community terrorized), if a motion to condemn systemic racism and religious discrimination makes some people "disillusioned", then I begin to think that motion is more than warranted.
Click to expand...
We have this issue because Islamophobia is a really poor term in general.

Are we condemning systemic racism and discrimination based on religion? Or are we condemning criticism of Islam, the prophet Muhammed and Islamic doctrine/teachings?

Which one is it? I suspect and very much hope it is the former, but I can't know based on the wording of the motion. This is not a trivial issue - it needs to be clearly defined.
 
Really? When Parliament took a stand condemning anti-Semitism, where were the hand-wringing wordsmiths, worried that we were condemning criticism of Judaism and Jewish doctrine/teachings? Funny how this is only a concern when discussing Islam.

The issue seems incredibly trivial, and petty, when I read the full wording of the motion.

I have heard this nonsense my entire life from right-wing yahoos about the term "homophobia". Silly then, silly now.
 
Skeezix said:
Really? When Parliament took a stand condemning anti-Semitism, where were the hand-wringing wordsmiths, worried that we were condemning criticism of Judaism and Jewish doctrine/teachings? Funny how this is only a concern when discussing Islam.

The issue seems incredibly trivial, and petty, when I read the full wording of the motion.

I have heard this nonsense my entire life from right-wing yahoos about the term "homophobia". Silly then, silly now.
Click to expand...
The difference is that anti-Semitism is clearly defined. It is not the same thing as Islamophobia.

We don't know if Islamophobia is the Muslim equivalant to anti-semitism or to anti-zionism, or both packaged together. That is the point.

If the government was passing a motion condemning criticism of zionist ideology, I would be pretty upset about it too, and so would every person supporting this anti-Islamophobia motion I suspect.
 
WislaHD said:
The difference is that anti-Semitism is clearly defined. It is not the same thing as Islamophobia.

We don't know if Islamophobia is the Muslim equivalant to anti-semitism or to anti-zionism, or both packaged together. That is the point.

If the government was passing a motion condemning criticism of zionist ideology, I would be pretty upset about it too, and so would every person supporting this anti-Islamophobia motion I suspect.
Click to expand...

What? How is it any more "clearly defined" than Islamophobia? The same cockamamie "concerns" that are being read into Islamophobia can be read into anti-Semitism.

People are honestly worried about that Islamophobia is the "Muslim equivalent" (WTF) to anti-zionism? Seriously?

Again, like most things, this only ever appears to be an issue when Muslims are involved. The pettiness is staggering.
 
It's amazing some people's first thought when they hear Islamophobia is concern about themselves and not about the ones dealing with discrimination ("what do you mean I can't say whatever I want about Islam?").
And I agree with the above poster, why hasn't the term homophobia been scrutinized as such? It's just as ambiguous as Islamophobia (both technically describing a fear rather than hatred of or discrimination against the respective groups).
 
APTA-2048 said:
It's amazing some people's first thought when they hear Islamophobia is concern about themselves and not about the ones dealing with discrimination ("what do you mean I can't say whatever I want about Islam?").
And I agree with the above poster, why hasn't the term homophobia been scrutinized as such? It's just as ambiguous as Islamophobia (both technically describing a fear rather than hatred of or discrimination against the respective groups).
Click to expand...

Islamophobia is an overused and value-laden word (and I don't mean the traditional meaning, but the read-in one - dismissive, derided - among certain circles) - replace it with "discriminatory, hateful acts against Muslims" and you'd have a far more airtight case. It's easy to cry against a word that sounds so loaded, not so easy to say it against what's clearly spelt out as indefensible.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Islamophobia is an overused and value-laden word (and I don't mean the traditional meaning, but the read-in one - dismissive, derided - among certain circles) - replace it with "discriminatory, hateful acts against Muslims" and you'd have a far more airtight case. It's easy to cry against a word that sounds so loaded, not so easy to say it against what's clearly spelt out as indefensible.

AoD
Click to expand...

Again, this "problem" with it being so loaded is only an issue because Muslims are involved - we don't worry about airtight cases when we talk about other forms of hate and discrimination. Instead of looking to address the ongoing problem, the Tories are being wracked by those who prefer to look at the word in isolation, parse it, and make shit up.
 
Skeezix said:
Again, this "problem" with it being so loaded is only an issue because Muslims are involved - we don't worry about airtight cases when we talk about other forms of hate and discrimination. Instead of looking to address the ongoing problem, the Tories are being wracked by those who prefer to look at the word in isolation, parse it, and make shit up.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, but I'd rather die fighting on the hill that is the idea than the word - isms and phobias might be great for labelling, but it's a bad way to do outreach.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Of course it is, but I'd rather die fighting on the hill that is the idea than the word - isms and phobias might be great for labelling, but it's a bad way to do outreach.

AoD
Click to expand...

Really?

The police now have to protect both Iqra Khalid and her riding office, given all the death threats, but by all means let's pander to those who are all like "whatever could Islamophobia mean?" and "we want to make sure it doesn't cover the usual vitriol against their religion".

You can do all the outreach you want with Ezra and his fans. Kudos to you for that, but my suspicion is that they are not really in it to find wording that helps protect Muslims. Personally, I prefer that we deal with this issue the same way we deal with discrimination against other communities - we don't need to use diplomatic language and avoid touchy words simply because Muslims are involved.
 
Skeezix said:
Really?

The police now have to protect both Iqra Khalid and her riding office, given all the death threats, but by all means let's pander to those who are all like "whatever could Islamophobia mean?" and "we want to make sure it doesn't cover the usual vitriol against their religion".

You can do all the outreach you want with Ezra and his fans. Kudos to you for that, but my suspicion is that they are not really in it to find wording that helps protect Muslims. Personally, I prefer that we deal with this issue the same way we deal with discrimination against other communities - we don't need to use diplomatic language and avoid touchy words simply because Muslims are involved.
Click to expand...

The outreach isn't to them - but to the mushy middle that has limited attention span and tolerance, fair or otherwise of too much "isms" on the airwave. What gets the message across better - saying we will not tolerate discrimination against Muslims, or we will not tolerate Islamophobia? The former is far more direct, easy to understand and clearly identifies the target - it should be the goal of any public communication. This really isn't an academic debate - and if it got turned into one half the battle is lost.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top