February 08, 2017

M-103 is a modern day blasphemy law, and “all Canadians should be worried”

Barbara KayArchive

Jews are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes in Canada than Muslims. But a motion called M-103 is coming before Parliament on February 16 to urge special consideration regarding “Islamophobia” without defining the word. 

M-103 could lead to curtailments of freedom of speech deemed hateful towards Muslims, but also, critically, towards Islam itself. Blasphemy laws conceived according to Shariah law have been adopted in a number of western countries.

It could happen here.

If it does, many of my columns could be construed as Islamophobic and subject to penalties.

I’m worried.

All Canadians should be worried.

PS: If you haven't already, sign our petition against the Liberals' new censorship measures at FreedomToOffend.com.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-02-18 12:01:52 -0500
“…taking a charge of ‘Islamophobia’ to the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Annesley, to be clear, M-103 is neither a “law” nor a “policy”, vague or otherwise.

‘Laws’ are a particular type of thing. They start with a “bill”, they go through a Parliamentary process, and once they’re passed by both Houses and receive Royal Assent, they become enforceable laws. Furthermore, where it creates offences for which a person may be prosecuted (not all laws do), it will define sets of offences (i.e. it actually SAYS that anybody who does “x” is “guilty of an offence”).

Government ‘Policies’ are a different, and lesser, type of thing. (Never in the history of the country has there ever been a ‘policy’ of prosecuting an act that does not violate any ‘law’.)

Parliamentary Motions are a different sort of creature entirely, neither creating a law nor a policy. Most of them (and there are lots of them) are either fluffy statements of principle, or are procedural in nature – such as, for instance, giving instructions to a Parliamentary Committee.

The important takeaway here is this: No Canadian will have to defend a charge of “Islamophobia” based on this Motion, because it does not create a chargeable offence.

Incidentally, I don’t know where you get your information, but the OIC’s Cairo Declaration says absolutely nothing about “Islamophobia”. Nor does it mention “blasphemy”. (Feel free to actually read the document you’re citing. You can find it using Google. There’s an official English version.) While the OIC has offered a definition of Islamophobia in other publications, it is not in the simplistic terms that you have described.

In other words, if that’s the best you can do to find an overinclusive interpretation of the word “Islamophobia”, I think that says a great deal about the legitimacy of your point. Ultimately, Islamophobia is widely understood as being, essentially, bigotry against Muslims. No different than anti-Semitism (a term which has also been used in Parliamentary motions before), homophobia/transphobia (which are frequently discussed and condemned in Parliament, and in fact informed the context of Bill C-16), etc. These aren’t complicated concepts.
commented 2017-02-13 19:34:27 -0500
Then why bother. If is only a “study”, why does the Trudeaupian government need a motion? The purpose of the motion is to empower the current “human rights” government apparatus to start going after people now for claims of “Islamophobia”. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation passed the Cairo declaration to assert that Islamophobia means that ANY form of criticism of Islam is blasphemy How many people can afford the time and money to defend what they may have written or said by taking a charge of “Islamophobia” to the Supreme Court. What Mr Chanain does not seem to grasp is that it is the accusation that destroys you if the government decides to go after you based on a vague law or policy. This is how tyranny works-keep your head down and your mouth shut and you might just be OK. No need for troops in the street. Sorry, not buying. Contact your MP, as I have done, and get this thing shelved.
commented 2017-02-12 02:42:57 -0500
A little bit of context goes a long way. M-103 is not a “law” at all. It is not a censorship measure. Despite what many are saying, it does not criminalize any sort of speech whatsoever. It’s a motion, which may lead to a study, which may lead to further legislative reform and other government action dealing with “systemic racism and religious discrimination”, including (but not limited to) Islamophobia. Presumably, if there is further government action, there would be a little more clarity of terms.


Something to remember: The Charter severely limits the ability of the government to curtail expression rights, and can only do so by express and clear legislation, with a pressing and substantial objective, in a manner which is rationally connected to the objective, minimally impairing on Charter rights, and proportional.
commented 2017-02-11 16:02:25 -0500
I would like to thank the Rebel and its staff ,for the political motivation …I sent my very first “email of concern” off to my lib MP regarding M-103 . I haven’t heard anything back yet and I ain’t holding my breath 8^) . but it does feel quite refreshing. I would HIGHLY recommend this to everyone , just to let these peckerwoods’ know that they are not talking for their constituent’s and we do not agree with their stance. I really don’t expect any results…. but i do know ,i’m scratching at the right door 8^).
commented 2017-02-11 09:18:03 -0500
A phobia is defined as an irrational fear. As we have seen many times, fear of Islam is rational. And how does pointing out a defined group’s own bigotry and misogyny make one a bigot and misogynist? I have purposely left out the word racism since Islam is not a race, a fact which is continuously ignored, mostly by white liberals intent on mass suicide and the banning of free speech.
commented 2017-02-10 22:03:09 -0500
Humm well i really think it is time foe Canadains to take down..the Lieberals..take to the streets in the thousands riot do what ever is nessary to topple this Islamic .satanic goverment…..
commented 2017-02-10 17:02:20 -0500
Correction to my posting below: my posting is directed to Barbara Key, not to “Hyacinth”. Thanks.
commented 2017-02-10 16:54:52 -0500
Hyacinth, very balanced, factual, thoughtful piece! Rebel needs this tone of quiet persiasion to balance its other, equally useful and persuasive, exhyberant reporting approaches of Ezra, Faith Laureen, and others. Please continue.
commented 2017-02-10 01:10:18 -0500
“Islamophobia” means denial of the truth of the Islamic religion. To be consistent, any court in Canada dealing with an Islamophobia case must rule that the Queen reigns, and the court is established, in violation of the law and providence of Allah. It therefore has no jurisdiction and must stand down and give way to the Muslims.
commented 2017-02-09 19:04:16 -0500
Thanks Hyacinth.
commented 2017-02-09 13:49:21 -0500
Thinking about it the use of “stories” is the incorrect choice of wording, more appropriately it should be “articles”. So let me reword that, that link contains a short bio and past articles.
commented 2017-02-09 12:15:24 -0500
Does anyone have a link to Barbara Kay’s original story in the Financial Post?
commented 2017-02-09 11:01:09 -0500
What shocks me, is that this bill was given unanimous approval by the House of Commons. Shame on Rona Ambrose and the so-called Conservative Party.
commented 2017-02-09 09:33:21 -0500
When you take away words all that is left is action and ACTION speaks louder than WORDS !
commented 2017-02-09 07:55:46 -0500
A friend told me the other day that he thought it was OK for Muslims to have prayer rooms in public schools.I’m not against anyone praying.My point is that you are providing a separate room for them to pray.What if you had a Nazi room in public schools,even though it was only part time do you think Jewish children would be offended?Or even a KKK room.This is no different and has to stop.
I emailed my MP yesterday still waiting for a reply.They have this in England and just look at the problems they are having.
commented 2017-02-09 01:43:00 -0500
Hey progressives , you mocked us for saying something like this could happen, well IT IS HAPPENING!
commented 2017-02-09 01:34:46 -0500
So if Canada’s PM by virtue of the fact that he controls the Liberal Party gets to determine what is acceptable speech in Canada, does that mean that President Trump gets to determine what is acceptable speech in the United States? You see that is the thing about controlling speech, censorship, someone has to decide what or who is acceptable, and it may be someone you like or someone you do not like.
commented 2017-02-09 01:30:17 -0500
Not only was there hardly any mention of Liberal Motion M-103 in the MSM, but, to most Canadians, the idea of a blasphemy law, is a foreign concept. In the West, any ideology is fair game for scrutiny in spite of the fact that some people may feel offended or insulted by the scrutiny. However, the way Islam would have its followers treat women,homosexuals, animals and infidels, I can see how Muslims would not want that to be widely known and therefore, would welcome a blasphemy law. As for the rest of us, we would prefer free speech.
commented 2017-02-09 00:43:20 -0500
If Islam were JUST a religion, even then, they could take any complaints to the Human Rights Commission, so there’s no need for Motion M-103. However, Islam IS NOT just a religion. It’s also a political movement, (Islamism), advocating theocracy. Islam is like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. At first, Muslims tell you they’re just poor innocent victims being persecuted for their religion, but, what they neglect to tell you is that there’s a whole political wing of Islam that would overthrow democracy and replace it with theocracy, a very intolerant theocracy, too. Portraying Islam as simply a persecuted religion is very deceptive.
commented 2017-02-09 00:07:33 -0500
“Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.”
― Leonardo da Vinci

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
― Harry Truman
commented 2017-02-08 23:40:51 -0500
A few days ago I called my MP, who’s a Conservative, interior BC, but his office couldn’t say how he was voting on M-103 ( I like Muzzle -103 ), and I haven’t heard back yet…of course I haven’t heard back about the email I sent him over a month ago, either, thanking him for the Christmas card…and what about RCMP bureaucrats arbitrarily prohibiting legally owned property from law abiding, tax paying citizens, and what the Loyal Opposition was doing about it, and could he give me some feedback on a link I included to Faith’s ‘Come and Take Them’ Petition piece…
commented 2017-02-08 22:20:49 -0500
I completely agree with those here asking everyone of us to write our MP & I will be doing just that as soon as I finish posting. I bet you right now that I could quiz 20 or 30 people who have never heard of M-103, nothing in the newspaper or radio about it. If not for The Rebel I would be clueless as well. Our rights as Canadians are all going down the toilet, thanks to Trudeau & Muslim rights are taking over, Another example of Muslims demanding & Trudeau reciprocating. Your faith is your faith no matter what & no law should exist to punish anyone who might say something derogatory about it, regardless of the religion. There should be no exceptions whatsoever. What else are they going to demand & another Liberal MP willing to jump 10 ft high to introduce another Bill?? Everything seems to be up in the air now as I’m wondering what other laws they want to change or repeal simply to appease a certain group. Off to email my MP now.
commented 2017-02-08 21:35:44 -0500
MAD DOG, sorry to say that your gutless MP, not confronting the reality of Islam, is adopting an attitude of dhimmitude (submission), essentially offering up, surrendering his citizens as dhimmis, a state of subjugation under the rule of Islamic law. According to Robert Spencer (Jihad Watch), one of the rules for dhimmis, second class citizens under the rule of Islam, is that “They must respect Muslims and not criticize their religion”.
As Barbara Kay pointed out in her video, the OIC, Organization for Islamic Cooperation (56 Muslim governments worldwide and the Palestinian authority) began a campaign against ‘Islamophobia’ in 2008. As explained by Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in the conclusion to his video, “The Basics of Islam 1: Robert Spencer on Islamophobia”:
“This is the ultimate goal of charges of ‘Islamopobia’ to stigmatize, demonize, marginalize, and ultimately criminalize criticism of Islam, such that jihad terrorist activities can continue unimpeded and unopposed”.
Trump’s National Security Adviser, former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has made comments about Muslims, including one on Twitter this February in which he stated ‘Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL’ and linked to this video to support his position:
The video begins saying, “Please keep in mind that the term ‘Islamophobia’ is a oxymoron”. One could add to that video in the Canadian context, "The terrorists who attacked on October 20th in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and on October 22th on Parliament Hill, leading to the deaths of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, were Muslims”.
commented 2017-02-08 21:07:22 -0500
Too add to my last post..Bombard every Political identity/Office you can think of..Immigration Departments..It could be our last chance..unbelievable what this Trudeau and his new Liberals are doing..surreal doesn’t even come close.
commented 2017-02-08 21:03:51 -0500
Not only are our politicians cowards, but most of them if not all of them are so ignorant about Islam that it’s not even funny. Go ahead and ask them something pointed. They haven’t a clue, and they are the ones responsible for keeping Canada safe free and recognizable. Since when did their definition of multiculturalism mean having no regard for tipping our demographic, accepting others imported laws, or accommodating one culture at the expense of all others?
commented 2017-02-08 20:55:07 -0500
Why not send our voices to all MP’s, Liberal, NDP, etc..What about sending our voices to all Law Enforcement in Canada? Why not to all Legal agencies? It’s all legal and Law abiding.
commented 2017-02-08 20:53:49 -0500
It is ridiculous really. Most of Canada and the world will be guilty. Sharia law is already a thing in Canada, albeit in the shadows. It will be out of our control soon if we don’t get it reeled in.

Mad Dog, with respect to your reply from John Barlow, do you or anyone else have any doubt that the recommendations will be accepted and will end up being passed as law? These guys aren’t going through the motions for fun. They are going to do their damnedest to get this through and at that time it will be official. Canada will be living under a form of Sharia law, and our police will be no better than Mutaween, enforcers for Islam. As long as Canada continues to accept Islam as a religion to be treated the same as all others nothing will change. Our religious freedom laws are being taken advantage of and used out of context, by a political theocracy. Our cowardly politicians are too afraid to speak up or do anything about it. True North strong and free my ass.
commented 2017-02-08 20:43:50 -0500
Ron Voss commented
HYACINTH, with respect to "What is wrong with the tories who went along with this?”, at the web site for “ACT! For Canada”, Catherine Campbell, a Conservative of many years, has posted an excellent “Open Letter to all Conservative Members of Parliament on Motion M-103”: … The upcoming vote on M-103 will be very telling, separating the wheat from the chaff as far as Conservatives and CINOs. "

I knew about her letter Ron but it is worth repeating.

However, you do realize that one voice will be drowned out by the collective so her letter may not make much of a difference. The majority always takes precedence/rules within the party and the majority are sellouts as evidenced to date. The majority are only interested in their salary and the golden handshake or using your terminology they are CINOS.