Motion M103 and the Perilous Ambiguity of ‘Islamophobia’
Tomorrow, our noble Parliament will vote on Motion M103, which is a motion to get into a motion laws forbidding ‘Islamaphobia’. Said Motion is put forward by Iqra Khalid, a native of Pakistan. I know not her motives, but other commentators are wondering, why Islam? There are far more reported ‘hate crimes’ against Jews.
But, anon. Here is the text of the motion, for your perusal:
Text of the Motion
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
- recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
- condemn and Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making
One is left wondering, what is Islamaphobia? Can one really make illegal the ‘fear of Islam’? Does it mean any criticism of Mohammad, or Muslims, or Islam itself, its policies and practices, its origins and history, which are clear, objective facts?
I did a bit of research, and found, amongst many examples that could be adduced, this text from an on-line version of ‘Women in Islam’, paper copies of which were handed out by the Muslims Students’ Association at York University. The electronic version contains the following permission, even advocacy, of wife-beating (which one may presume was not in the paper version, but that is the way, is it not?):
Allah, the Exalted, stated in the Glorious Qur’an: (As to those women on whose part you see ill- conduct, admonish them (first), (next,) refuse to share their beds, (and last,) beat them (lightly, if it is useful).
But if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Most High, Most Great.) [4:34] Islam forbids beating women and warns strictly against it. The Prophet (r) never beat any of his wives or servants, as his wife Aishah (y) reported in an authentic tradition. Women are, in general, weaker than men in their physique and stamina. Women are often unable to defend themselves against violence. Although beating of women is generally forbidden, Islam permits the beating of wives in a restricted and limited sense only as a final solution and acceptable valid reason when all else fails. This is analogous to spanking children when all else fails and they must learn a lesson in obedience for their own protection and success.
Third and final stage: Beating without hurting, breaking a bone, leaving black or blue marks on the body, and avoiding hitting the face or especially sensitive places at any cost. The purpose of beating her is only to discipline and never retaliation or with desire to hurt by any means. Islam forbids severe beating as punishment.
A wife, from this type of women, becomes more attracted and admiring of her husband when he beats her. Nothing, on the other hand, will sadden some women, as much as a soft, very kind and very obedient husband who is never upset regardless of being challenged!” Beating, according to the Islamic teachings, is listed as the last and final stage of disciplining methods…
Questions, of course, arise. Ms. Khalid was apparently a President of the aforesaid Muslim Student Association at York in the early 2000’s, the same organization that handed out the booklet, yet we may presume that Ms. Khalid does not advocate wife-beating, even if it is desired by the wife. Was and is she vocal in this opposition? What of polygamy, amputation, forced conversion, capital and other punishments such as stoning for ‘apostasy’, blasphemy, adultery and so on, which have all been advocated by various strains of Islam? What beliefs and practices of Islam does she advocate and not, and may we ask which? Are we permitted to criticize them, or the irrationality of some of their beliefs? Or will that be, ahem, Islamophobic even to inquire?
Martin Scorcese, in vogue nowadays for his new film Silence, was also in vogue a couple of decades ago for the blasphemous Last Temptation of Christ. Could you imagine such a film being made about Mohammad? The small knot of fear in the pit of your stomach even pondering such an endeavour signifies that we hardly need such a law, do we? For violence, especially of the extreme variety tends to be a law unto itself…Just think of the eight-foot bullet-proof wall they are building around the Eiffel Tower. One need not spend much time wondering why.
The suppression of free speech is rarely ever a good idea in any society, for as Mark Steyn and others in history have pointed out, without the free and hearty exchange of ideas and opinions in the full clear light of reason and truth, the only other recourse is violence. And should this ‘motion’ ever take on the full effect of law, it will ironically be a kind of violence, forcing Canadians to accept, even submit to, Islam, at least on the surface, regardless of what has been and is being done in its name. We are submitting ourselves into dhimmitude without even a whiff of opposition.