The Tories approach a point of no return

This week’s debate over ‘Islamophobia’ highlights the need for the Tories to root out the fringe forces rapidly dumbing down their party

Chris Alexander and Kelly Leitch, November 20 2014. (

Chris Alexander and Kelly Leitch, November 20 2014. (

There are quite a few lessons in civic hygiene that might be drawn from the jamboree of bigot-baiting and mob incitement attending to the shabbily-drafted but otherwise sensible Liberal motion on the contested subject of “Islamophobia” that has preoccupied the House of Commons this week.

Most obvious is that the Conservative Party of Canada has reached an event horizon of indecency. It is a point of no return from which a great many respectable people in the party’s rank and file, along with the Conservative MPs backing a substitute anti-bigotry motion of their own design, can flinch no longer.

While the term “Islamophobia” is a wholly inadequate and often disingenuously-applied description of the gangrene at work here, the Conservatives cannot simply let it go on spreading inward from the party’s fringes.

It is a pathology that several Conservative leadership contenders have been brazenly happy to traffic in, most recently in response to Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s modest but unhelpfully ambiguous anti-Islamophobia motion, which asks the House of Commons for little more than an acknowledgement of the worsening public climate of hatred and fear across the country, and a standing committee to study ways the government might make a dent in systemic racism and religious discrimination, “including Islamophobia.”

RELATED: Liberals back motion condemning Islamophobia

The subject has become that much more urgent in the aftermath of the Jan. 29 mass murder at a Quebec city mosque, where six men were slaughtered while at prayer in what appears to have been a hate crime motivated by anti-Muslim hysteria.

The dirty work of hysterical plot-speculation and its normalization was what party leadership hopefuls Brad Trost, Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander and Pierre Lemieux were up to on Wednesday night in Toronto at an “emergency rally” organized by a website notorious for its huckstering of the angry and the ill-informed with far-right crank excitements and conspiracy theories. The event was convened at Canada Christian College, a minor institution run by the extremist cleric Charles McVety, a veteran axe-grinder about same-sex marriage and evolutionary theory.

More than 1,000 people showed up at the Wednesday event, and they were regaled with fanciful evidences that Khalid’s motion is part of a plot to elevate Islam above other religions, impose Islamic blasphemy laws on Canadians, extend special treatment to Muslims and persecute Canadians who express criticism of Islam. Trost, Leitch, Alexander and Lemieux were happy to go along with this, tossing in their own spins about terrorism and the stifling of free speech.

There have been so many transparently baseless and jackass alarums raised about Khalid’s motion that it is pointless to enumerate them all here, and in any case they will flourish regardless of the facts. Because of this, it will require a great deal of patience and moral courage among Conservatives to at long last get around to rooting out the idiot bloc in their midst.

Michael Chong Conservative MP He famously tabled the Reform Act, perhaps setting the stage for wider change (Fred Chartrand/CP)

Michael Chong, Conservative MP. Fred Chartrand/CP)

But it can be done. Leadership candidate Michael Chong has been bravely candid about the faddish pseudo-populist stupidities that have dumbed down the party’s leadership race, owing in no small way to the vanity candidacy of television personality Kevin O’Leary. And Chong showed some serious backbone this week by coming out in support of Khalid’s motion.

At the same time, interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, Saskatchewan MP David Anderson and Ontario MP Scott Reid have raised intelligent and reasonable objections to the motion, directed mainly at its loose language and reliance on the woolly term “Islamophobia.” Their objections are not far apart from those raised by the eminent human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler, a former Liberal justice minister. Cotler has suggested it would have been better if the motion had referred to “anti-Muslim” bigotry instead of Islamophobia.

It didn’t help that it was only in response to a question in the final minute of an 18-minute press conference prior to Wednesday’s debate that Heritage Minister Melanie Joly revealed her own understanding the term’s meaning. She was asked why the term was left undefined in the motion and what she personally understood the term to mean, and while she failed to explain why the term had been left undefined she offered her own definition: “. . . discrimination against Muslim people and people that are of Muslim faith.” Which is fair enough.

During the debate on the motion in the House, Khalid said she defines Islamophobia as “the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination.” That’s perfectly fine, too, but what makes no sense was Khalid’s statement that she refused Conservative MP (and party leadership hopeful) Erin O’Toole’s offer to help win unanimous consent for her motion by tightening it up, because that would have meant “watering it down.”

In a parallel topsy-turviness, Joly has objected to David Anderson’s alternative motion, which replicates Khalid’s motion except for the ambiguous term Islamophobia, because it’s a “weakened and watered down version.”

RELATED: We need to understand what ‘Islamophobia’ really means

It’s true to say, as Scott Reid does, that seemingly benign injunctions against “Islamophobia” have been put to the squalid purpose of placing the Muslim religion and the practices of authoritarian Islamic regimes off limits to criticism. But it’s also fair to say that “anti-Muslim bigotry” doesn’t sufficiently capture the full-throated paranoid lunacy animating the nutcase wing of the Conservative support base these days.

“Racism” doesn’t quite cover it. “Hatred” doesn’t quite get at it. Whatever term you like, it’s more than merely ironic that those who make the most hysterical claims about clandestine Islamic conspiracies at the centre of Justin Trudeau’s government are also the ones shouting the loudest that an irrational fear of Islam isn’t even a thing.

It’s not as though the Liberals are blameless in all this. They could have welcomed O’Toole’s efforts at reaching out to find a compromise, but they didn’t. And the Liberals do seem quite content to have the Conservatives squirming and chafing against the appearance that the reason they object to the term Islamophobia is that they themselves are Islamophobic, whatever that might mean. It is not as though it bothers the Liberals that the Conservatives are stuck with the crazy talk coming from several of the leadership candidates these days.

Trudeau may have given away more than he intended last week when he was confronted at a community meeting in Iqaluit about why he reneged on his electoral reform promises. Raising the spectre of proportional representation opening the door to “fringe” parties, Trudeau asked, rhetorically: “Do you think that Kellie Leitch should have her own party?”

Clearly, Trudeau doesn’t want that. For starters, it would mean decent Conservatives couldn’t be tarred so easily with the indecencies committed by the party’s fringe factions. It would mean bigot-baiting the Conservative Party would be that much harder to do. In the meantime, it’s up to the Conservatives to get themselves sorted, and after the sordid events of the past few days, their options are limited:

Isolate, quarantine, amputate or purge.


The Tories approach a point of no return

  1. I do not understand why today’s ‘Conservatives’ insist on mixing politics and religion.

    A govt party is there to look after infrastructure, transportation, defence, the economy, justice etc.

    It is not there to regulate personal beliefs and behavior.

    As long as Cons continue to do this…..they will continue to lose.

    • Its a good time for Kathleen Wynne to go after Patrick Brown and see where his party stands on this. Chances are, this would bring the ‘Wacko’ part of the Ontario PCs out, and it may get the needle moving for Wynne, great wedge against the right.

      • Patrick Brown is smarter than to let an issue like this result in another four years of the Liberals ruining Ontario.

        • It would be a right time for Wynne to give it a test drive. Patrick Brown will turn on a dime when and if elected, Ontario doesn’t really know who he is, he is too quiet and silent, and silence breeds contempt. If Brown wanted to be different from his kinfolk in Ottawa(cons), he should be out there speaking up in defense of the liberal motion, but no, he will sit back and hope someone else tries to put the fire out for him, but he will eventually have to face this question. This was a time for Brown and any other leader of a province across the country to speak up and help stamp out racism in this country, if not stamp it out, at least work to keep a lid on it.

        • More likely, Brown would look for a way to come out both in favour of and against Islamaphobia.

    • Why are Muslims are mixing them? Double standard.

  2. Question: Is Charlie Hebdo Islamophobic? i.e. Will blasphemy still be okay like it is against the Catholic Church?

    • Where do you get this nonsense Weetabix?

      None of it is true.

      • Some of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published would be considered offensive by some – e.g., the 2011 cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad as gay.

        So, it’s not an unreasonable question to ask if cartoons along those lines would be considered “Islamophobia” (however, defined).

        • By some yes, but this cartoon would not be considered Islamophobic in Canadian law, even if this motion is adopted. Ms. Khalid said she receives messages inviting her to go back where she came from. My ancestors came to Canada in the 1600s and I am still told on occasion to go back to France, as was Stephane Dion often on this site in the comments section. Freedom of expression is great but it also implies that we can stand up and say STFU in front of intolerance.

          • Ms. LaMontagne, You have no authority whatsoever to say that “a cartoon depicting Mohammed as being gay” would not be considered “Islamophobic” is this motion were to become a Bill, and then adapted into law.

            I am very sorry if your feelings have been hurt by racial slurs. But we all have to deal with things in life. I am overweight, and deal everyday with people’s “dislike” of “fatties”.

            Most importantly, however, you have, as I say, absolutely no basis for saying that comics such as mentioned above would not be considered “Islamophobic”.

          • Lindsay3, The said cartoon published in 2011 is not illegal in Canada today, and adopting this motion will not make it illegal. Adopting a motion is not adopting a bill. That was my point.

            We are now dealing with freedom of expression of a member of parliament. For the rest of the process, should there be any on this non-binding motion, neither you nor I have any authority to claim to know the future of the said cartoon. However, if freedom of expression could be thus limited, with the number of French-Canadian PMs we’ve had, I imagine one would have thought of limiting francophobia.

            IMO, the government will not legislate. It will fund programs to improve understanding of different communities, that sort of thing.

            I am sad to hear you have to deal with people’s dislikes of fatties. I am 5’11” tall, which makes me taller than 99 % of all women on this planet. I have learned to live with body shaming long ago. I can’t lose height! Don’t worry, my feelings are not hurt when someone is challenging my right to live in the country where I can trace ancestry back 375 years. I know I am not leaving, except for my last trip to a Quebec City cemetery.

  3. My God, what a picture. That news conference in itself is what lost the Conservatives the election and why we have Trudeau as Prime Minister. Yet somehow the Conservatives don’t learn.

  4. CPC is 80% driven by religious beliefs…

    • 95% of all internet comments are made up.

      • My experience is not that 95% of internet comments are made up, Brendan.

        Rather, I think that if you follow the streams (comments) on many sites, what you will find are people having that thing that is the very bedrock of a democracy — that is, a respectful dialogue that allows everyone to express their own opinions. Doing so is very healthy for the individual — especially if what they are writing about is something which they believe in strongly.

        But it is just as healthy for the continuation of that which your (grandfather? ; great-grandfather? ; great-uncle? ; or your great-great-grandma ?) fought wars for — so that you could speak your mind freely, without fear of “thought police” coming knocking on your door.

        It would be very , very nice to hear what you have to say about the anti-Islamophobia motion (Motion 103) which is being discussed here. What happens with it — especially if it moves forward, becomes a Bill , and is passed by Parliament into a law, could affect your future greatly.

        “Lindsay3” (yes, the name is made up ; but not the ideas :) :) )

        • Canada already has Hate Speech laws so why Motion 103? It looks like the start of a campaign to make the Hate Speech laws more restrictive or another step towards Sharia. Its timing is also taking advantage of the recent Quebec shootings to push for change.

  5. Question: Is “The Satanic Verses” Islamophobic?

    If one is going to support this motion, one needs answers to questions like this. The motion provides no definitions.

    • Again…..rubbish.

      • Em; Can you define ‘rubbish’?

        • If you read many of her comments the answer is quite clear, most of what she writes.
          If you do not agree with her PM worshiping then it is rubbish.

    • The only chance for the conservatives to ever find the middle again, they need to reach out to the PCs, the center part of the conservative party, they don’y like what they see, its starting to smell of racism in the conservatives, and true PCs, are not racist, they are policy makers, they stay out of people lives and bedrooms and are progressive, not regressive. Other than all of that, with this kind of hyperbole, they will always be a right wing party, like the NDP are, always a left party.

      • This is not Conservative party from the past. The majority of the Conservative Party of Canada under Harper and now days is the former Reform/Alliance Party masquerading as Conservatives.
        Harper kept Party united using “iron fist” leadership approach but since he is gone you can see a true face of divided party on the issues like; religious tolerance, immigration, climate change, carbon pricing, environmental protection, treatment of Indigenous People, ETC.

    • Mr. Rushdie received death threats for writing a book.

      According to Kathleen Harris, posted on CBC Feb 16, 2017 6:32 PM ET, Ms. Khalid has been receiving death threats for being a Muslim member of parliament. Some of these messages were read by Ms. Khalid in the HoC today.

      The Satanic Verses may be blasphemous to some, but it is not a death threat.

      • Rushdie had to go into hiding because there was a fatwa calling for him to be killed.

        So I’ll expand my question is: Is it Islamophobia to criticize the idiots who ordered Rusdie’s death? You know, the people that Trudeau wants to normalize relations with. The fatwa has never been revoked.

        • That would be the million dollar question, WhyShouldISellYourWheat!! Bravo!

        • Why no global fatwa against the pisslam extremists? All islam must approve.

      • Did she expect roses for controversially mixing religion/ideology with politics? Almost everyone in the public eye is a target for criticism and every politician should know that.

    • Get a clue, Wheatboy. First, the motion doesn’t change any laws; it is a condemnation of bigotry, and an encouragement that the government take better measures of its extent, and consider better ways to address it.

      Second, there is a difference between criticism and hate speech (or worse). Threats like the ones she has been receiving over the motion do not constitute criticism. Some of them are distinctly criminal, and I hope they result in charges.

  6. I am very disappointed to see that Mr. Glavin considers his role as a “journalist” to be one which involves writing a piece of pure opinion, filled with emotional adjectives, etc.. Many,many , many thoughtful , respectful and sincere Canadians are upset by Motion 103. Many are “scared”, having witnessed before the way in which the radical branches of Islam can slowly but surely creep into a country , counting on the “righteous indignation” of people like Mr. Glavin to give them cover. I am beginning to think that MacLean’s magazine has been bought, wholly or in large part, by supporters of the Liberal party. And it is the LIBERALS who brought the government and religion together with this motion (M – 103). I can’t believe that a (formerly respected) newsmagazine would print the unabashedly opinionated article above, not without clearly labeling “Editorial — not necessarily reflecting the views of MacLean’s magazine”.

    • Many, many thoughtful, respectful and sincere Canadians are concerned that a member of parliament has received so many death threats because she is Muslim. Many are scared having witnessed the murder of innocent Muslims in a peaceful assembly, scared of the hatred that creeps into our country. The radical branches are very dangerous, be they Islamists or Identitarians as white supremacists call themselves these days. I hope Macleans continues to print whatever it sees fit to print.

      • Of course Canadians are dismayed about the violence of those terrible murders in the mosque. But, last fall, six young First Nations females (early teens) committed suicide because they did not see hope for their future. Canadians commit “genocide” every day with their indifference and neglect towards the indigenous people of this land. When I see Justin Trudeau putting his time, effort and actions into keeping his promises to the First Nations, I may begin to believe that he puts Canadians first. And, if he reverses his broken promise to bring about electoral reform, AND if he meets his commitments on climate change, then I might begin to believe anything his government says again. Until then, Ms. LaMontagne , could I ask you to do some open-minded reading on the matter of Motion 103. Whether you want to believe it or not, the Muslim Brotherhood is alive and well in Canada. And Shari Law is being practiced in Canada — albeit behind closed doors. I think that your empathy for Ms. Khalid is admirable, but please look into how many activist of the Palestinian group which our own government has said is a terrorist group live in Ms. Khalid’s riding. And investigate what her meetings with them have been about. Do you really not think that there is a possibility that she is trying to gain support from a largely ethnic base?

        • Yesssssssss

        • Well said Lindsay3.
          Motion > Bill > Law > New Law (Sharia) etc ….

      • Then let it print facts instead of blatantly biased opinions.

    • Lindsay,
      I’m glad you had the courage to speak the truth.

      • Even the the name Lindsay is made up.

    • The whole point of an opinion piece is to express an opinion.

      • That is my point, KeithBram. Unless I missed something, this article was not labelled “opinion” or “editorial”. It is presented as “news”. If the author is going to be so blatantly one-sided, then there should be a note that “this article reflects the author’s opinion, but does not necessarily reflect the position of MacLean’s magazine. ”

        As I say, that was the whole point of my comment. Did I miss where it says, “Opinion piece” or even “Editorial”?

        • “Lindsay3”

          What is it about this article that you see as unacceptable? What do you consider his point of view to be, exactly? It is analytical, and not simply reporting the news, and it uses descriptive terms, but what do you see as his point of view.

          Would you mind quoting something from the article and commenting (analyzing) that? Or are you one of those people who sees news as being only about “facts”?

    • It is part of the government campaign to sway Canadians to the Liberal way of thinking. It is having the opposite effect in many quarters. Until all legitimate concerns are openly discussed there will be resistance to being spoon fed what we should all think. Attempting to shame people by calling them racists, bigots, haters, etc. will not cut it.

  7. Emily,
    Aren’t the Liberals doing exactly what you say Gov’t shouldn’t-mixing politics and religion??
    Regardless, all one should request is a definition of Islamophobia. If it’s the one prevailing in Europe-no blasphemy against the religion of Islam-that’s a major tenet of Sharia Law!!

    • The definition is easily found online:

      noun: Islamophobia
      dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

      The Con party constantly mixes religion and politics…’s what’s killing them

      Libs don’t often do so.

      I have no idea why you’re so terrified by Sharia Law….it’s much the same as Jewish and Christian church law.

      It is not the same as Canadian law…and that isn’t going to change.

      • Sharia Law is responsible for slaughter and hate and FAILED STATES, stoning of women, no women’s rights, murder of gays, and on and on. That’s why many are afraid. The religion of peace and tolerance? Not a bit.

      • Emilyone You said “I have no idea why you’re so terrified by Sharia Law…it’s much the same as Jewish and Christian church law.”

        This is exactly why I told you before you need to so some serious studying before making those outlandish comments. You have a computer and everything you mention is on the internet to learn about. Just google the subjects.

        Most of what you say needs to be totalled ignored and just scrolled by.

  8. Totally unhinged Glavin yesterday MOCKED people who were imprisoned in Iran due to blasphemy laws and are speaking out against this creeping Sharia. RELIGION IS NOT A RACE!

  9. The exact opposite is true: Media Parliament are totally disconnected from everyday realities and concerns of Canadians. They livei na bubble.
    If the cons select Chiong they are toast. if they select someone who r=will repeal this c-16 clamp down on massive immigration they will win a majority. They can read the message boards, we are clearly in favor of them not Glavin, NDP nor Liberals. Many is are former card-carrying liberals and NDP members who will now vote Conservative over this issue.

    • Chong is gone. I used to like him but he should cross the floor. No loss

  10. Fringe forces? You as a journalist should open your eyes. This motion is a test, a probe, to see if Canadians were paying attention. Perhaps if you read the odious terms in it and then the propaganda subsection which proclaims the wonders of pisslam you would think differently. This is a frightening motion. Read your HISTORY on how Nazis and Communists came to power using very similar methods.

    • Personally, I think that it is wonderful that we (Canadians) are now having this discussion. It is happening in many places — not just on this site. Once again, Canadians have proved to their government that “we are NOT asleep”. We care about our democracy, and we will fight for it.

      If people have the time, please go to the FaceBook page : Yesterday some YouTube videos from Europe were posted. It is my sincere hope that we are going to put the brakes on this thing before we become like more England, Finland, Holland.

      Before you say it, I know that a person has to carefully “look at the source”. I understand that many people will be leery of believing what they see “just anywhere”. But, if you look around, you will see that many people are active are on this issue.

      If you believe that there are too many Muslims being brought into this country , or that immigration in general is too high, please go to the website for ImmigrationWatchCanada and sign the petition. As of last night, it had approx. 22,000 signatures. As Ms. Khalid keeps going on and on about the 70,000 signatures on her petition, we need to try to counter with just as high a number.

      Does anyone besides me think that, in a close-knit community like the Muslim Canadian one, it wouldn’t take much work to get 70.000 signatures. Like, put the petition on a table at the back of some mosques, and tell people that “Allah” wants them to sign it.

      How many individuals would just as soon not have signed it, but were pressured to do so ? How many females were expressing their own free will when they signed it? How many even understood what it was about, other than a quick , “yeah, that sounds good…..”

      • Thousands of Canadians are on MSM American and UK websites discussing this issue because they cannot speak openly in Canada. With Bill C51 in effect our every communication can be surveilled. The Bill C51 that Trudeau voted for and said he would fix if he was elected. Visit some of the UK and European news sites to understand what has happened there and how it happened. We are sleep walking.

  11. Terry Glavin’s conclusion:
    “it’s up to the Conservatives to get themselves sorted, and after the sordid events of the past few days, their options are limited:Isolate, quarantine, amputate or purge.”

    It is a problem, and not one only for the Conservatives. How did someone like Liberal MP Iqra Khalid”s motion ever get to be aired? It was irresponsible, reflecting narrow-minded point of view and immature understanding of the problem of differences in beliefs and religions in this country. She wasn’t born here, and wasn’t born in a western country. Did anyone bother to check her knowledge of Canadian values, or those of her parents? People in her riding elected this girl, on what basis who knows. Do people really believe that, following one mass murder, rules supposedly for the purpose of preventing it from happening against should be put in place?

    How can anyone regulate against feelings a person may have, such as about not liking the Muslim religion, or not liking the culture of Islam. The idea of a phobia is that it is irrational, to feel afraid of something that cannot hurt you. But we know that having too many Muslims in this country can hurt our own jobseekers, it can affect our own culture, and there is always the possibility that a dangerous Muslim might get in due to open attitude towards immigration.

    Recently – at Christmastime as it happens – I had an experience where a woman wearing a hijab, from a different country, took the liberty of entering a Christmas celebration for seniors for the exchange of presents – the Secret Santa get-together. Instead of following the unspoken custom of keeping the “Santa” – the giver – secret – this person thought it was okay to take over and present a small gift (all the same) to each person there. I thought about it afterwards and realized I had to speak out about it, and for that I was excluded and silenced. I know the woman was at fault, whether intentionally or not, and it was not her place to demonstrate her generosity in such a manner, that made her the main Santa there, and a non-secret one at that. Others said to me that was was being overly generous at this time of year, but if she had wanted to be generous, she should have laid the gifts at the tables, secretly, before the participants entered the room, so they would not know the source of the gift.

    We don’t make a big deal of religion in this country. We who are Christian in heritage have taken it for granted and let our conscious association with it drop, even to the point of not realizing automatically when someone has overstepped their bounds. This religion – the Christian one, brought here by European settlers – is mixed up with our western ideals and culture. Google Santa Claus to see more about it. To counteract the strength of the Muslim religion growing here in this country (and make no bones about it, it does have an impact on our culture), we need to become more aware of our heritage, including the heritage of the indigenous peoples here and minority religions and cultures. And we need to ensure that those from foreign cultures also become aware.

    This woman Khalid’s extreme response to the killings at the Mosque, by using her power to bring a motion forward, is unacceptable. These fringe elements should be removed from their positions. And according to our democracy, it seems the only way to do that is to not elect her again. Elect a Conservative, or a Liberal, but do not elect people like this who try to bring forward motions that have no place in our politics.

  12. “Isolate, quarantine, amputate or purge”? : Are we back to Hitler’s days?
    Incidently, Democracy and Islam are incompatible.

  13. Seems to me it’s the Liberal party that is at the point of no return – and in fact it’s already past it. The point where it places the values of Islamist organizations above those of Canadian citizens. There’s no need for a motion “denouncing Islamophobia” because we just had one a few months ago, and if you want to do some more denouncing, that’s what your twitter account is for. What’s concerning about this motion is the recommendations that the committee will pass on to Parliament….what could they possibly recommend to change how people view the regressive ideology of Islam? I highly doubt that they will call on the federal government to fund another season of Little Mosque on the Prairie or something like that. They are obviously looking to pass some sort of blasphemy laws and make it easier for Muslims to use human rights commissions to sue any Canadian who criticizes the Pedo (piss be upon him).

    What’s really troubling is how when Trudeau was asked about this motion at a town hall recently, he went in to some crap about “well you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre”. We already have hate speech laws on the books, so he basically tipped his hand here as to what the end goal is. Canadian “liberals” have been conditioned to just concede to Muslims every demand that they make – partly because they are afraid of being seen as intolerant, and partly because they fear violence by enraged Muslims, although they would never admit it. As Canadians we need to stand up against the Muslim Brotherhood-linked lobbying/advocacy groups that have such a disturbing and disproportionate influence with the Liberal party, and thus the federal government of Canada.

    • Well said.

  14. So much is being loudly expressed about so-called Islamophobia and its significance to the next election, that something is forgotten, the core feelings of the electorate. Those silent, sick and tired, people who do not write on this Website and, thus, are forgotten by prospective politicians. Forgotten, as they were a few months ago in the U.S. Remember, the phoenix.

    • You are speaking my thoughts, B.CauseIKnow!! “Thanks”.

  15. “…. fanciful evidences that Khalid’s motion is part of a plot to elevate Islam above other religions, impose Islamic blasphemy laws on Canadians, extend special treatment to Muslims and persecute Canadians who express criticism of Islam. Trost, Leitch, Alexander and Lemieux were happy to go along with this, tossing in their own spins about terrorism and the stifling of free speech.”

    This is just a motion in front of the house. It is not making law nor any regulations. It will NOT give Muslims or any other religion any more freedoms or protections than they already have. But what the above quote shows is that those four pretenders will never win their party let alone be PM. I don’t know where O’Trumpabe stands since he is too busy selling American wines in the US to even bother to come to the debate being held here in BC.

  16. We already have anti-hate laws on the books as well as our Charter which protects us from religious discrimination. Further stating a dislike for anything or anybody is not hate, the hate comes around when one professes to physically harm someone or destroy something. That may seem simplistic to some but it may be common sense to others. Do we stumble ahead in the muddy waters and make like miserable for those who express an opinion?

  17. Ten signs of an abusive relationship. Read it and determine how many of the 10 Islam commits.

    1. Jealousy & Possessiveness – Becomes jealous over your family, friends, co-workers. Tries to isolate you. Views his woman and children as his property instead of as unique individuals. Accuses you of cheating or flirting with other men without cause. Always asks where you’ve been and with whom in an accusatory manner.
    2. Control – He is overly demanding of your time and must be the center of your attention. He controls finances, the car, and the activities you partake in. Becomes angry if woman begins showing signs of independence or strength.
    3. Superiority – He is always right, has to win or be in charge. He always justifies his actions so he can be “right” by blaming you or others. A verbally abusive man will talk down to you or call you names in order to make himself feel better. The goal of an abusive man is to make you feel weak so they can feel powerful. Abusers are frequently insecure and this power makes them feel better about themselves.
    4. Manipulates – Tells you you’re crazy or stupid so the blame is turned on you. Tries to make you think that it’s your fault he is abusive. Says he can’t help being abusive so you feel sorry for him and you keep trying to “help” him. Tells others you are unstable.
    5. Mood Swings – His mood switches from aggressive and abusive to apologetic and loving after the abuse has occurred.
    6. Actions don’t match words – He breaks promises, says he loves you and then abuses you.
    7. Punishes you – An emotionally abusive man may withhold sex, emotional intimacy, or plays the “silent game” as punishment when he doesn’t get his way. He verbally abuses you by frequently criticizing you.
    8. Unwilling to seek help – An abusive man doesn’t think there is anything wrong with him so why should he seek help? Does not acknowledge his faults or blames it on his childhood or outside circumstances.
    9. Disrespects women – Shows no respect towards his mother, sisters, or any women in his life. Thinks women are stupid and worthless.
    10. Has a history of abusing women and/or animals or was abused himself – Batterers repeat their patterns and seek out women who are submissive and can be controlled. Abusive behavior can be a generational dysfunction and abused men have a great chance of becoming abusers. Men who abuse animals are much more likely to abuse women also.

    • Well said, Julian Ross!