Legal Technicalities vs Social Realities

Conservatives argue motion to condemn Islamophobia impacts freedom of speech: Melanie Joly said Wednesday the government is voicing ‘strong and clear support’ for Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s motion M-103
The Globe and Mail
Melanie Joly said Wednesday the government is voicing ‘strong and clear support’ for Liberal MP Iqra Khalid’s motion M-103
I can see as other groups such as disabled persons gay people and other religions we will have to figh for our rights why do others feel they can change our constitution we are free in Canada saying how we feel we should never be silenced people slam Christians every day and other individuals get discriminated against all the time this is so self serving Islam is not the only thing in Canada open your eyes you dont see other groups complaining and trying to clog up the news with there onesided own agenda.
Meanwhile Islam is homophobic, anti feminist, anti Jewish, anti Christian,and not a equal opportunity supporter…in fact a hate group..and you don’t want to talk about that…do you ?

Ok people, this is not a bill or an amendment to the constitution. This is a motion to formally recognize Islamaphobia as wrong and discriminatory (like other the things people are whining about already are), and systemic racism in general is a problem, and to have a government agency study posible solutions. Saying “Islamaphobia and other forms of systemic racism is a problem” is not saying people are only ever bigotted towards Muslims, or disregarding other issues with biggotry. How often are Christians specifically targeted en mass, harrassed daily, or shot in church for being Christian, or assumed to be a member of the KKK? (sub in just about any other religious/ethnic/social group) The problem is there for everyone, but it’s hitting Muslims harder right now. This is why it’s specifically mentioned.

And again, this isn’t a “let’s all change the laws because Muslims are special” thing, it’s a “let’s figure out what exactly is going so wrong that people are killing each other, and what we can do about it” thing.

TL/DR — WTF is all the whining about over the government wanting to figure out how to reduce hate crimes? This isn’t an anti free speech thing at all.

 but this is not that. At all. They’re not saying “let’s make it illegal to say negative stuff about Islam”, they’re saying people are spewing hatred and bigotry at people for being Muslim, and other reasons, and it’s leading to violence, lets figure out how to fix that. That isn’t superceeding anything, or giving special rights to anyone over anyone else.
Canada has a Charter of Rights. what country are you in?
…which is Part I of the Constitution Act of Canada. (Maybe try checking facts before implying someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about next time. Or have an argument with an actual point maybe?)
how is it a license for misuse? How does it violate any rights? It is a motion to investigate a problem people are literally dying over. It’s not legislation. It’s not a bill. It’s a motion for an inquiry.

a condescending cartoon character on the internet, how unique, perhaps you shouldn’t assume everyone’s being rude or that it’s reasonable to internet lawyer as if normal conversation. conservatives are arguing for fear mongering and hate speech and that’s the criminal code, eh

And here we come to the “I have egg on my face, so I’m going to make up some reason that has nothing to do with the topic at hand to belittle you, while calling you condesending, and how I didn’t actually say what I obviously implyed, so I’m going to find a different way to pretend you’re technically wrong” part of the conversation. Extra points for the internet-lawyer remark BTW.

Let’s just skip over all the insults and BS, just pretend I’m crying and put in my place or whatever so you can be all superior and rightious. M’kay?

actually, I’d rather we both get to move on peacefully and award each other 500 sarcasm points. lower defense shields and play nice?
A list of controversial and embarrassing statements about rape made by Republican politicians.

yes.. he actually said that .

he does not understand why sexual violence is wrong and that the two things are not related.
Wake up! These assholes are trying to prepare for Shara law Islam garbage.
Quietly slip it in and convert or kill later. Fuck Islam. the lie that kills.
ahhh no, im not sure they are smart enough to plan anything TBH. Thats about as silly as saying the government orgs are conspiracy theory shit – they can’t organize themselves out of a paper bag most of the time
What the actual fuck?

they are the same religion, 2 parts of the Abrahamic trilogy. and we all know the quality of sequels
HB 1441 would require a woman seeking an abortion to obtain written permission from her sexual partner.

women not having rights and men taking too many
But what if the baby is his, and he actually wants his child

women are not brood mares
would you be okay with a woman forcing a man to have a vasectomy?
I don’t know. You can’t get one without the other. Conversations should be going on somewhere. But I know that each abortion is different for every female. Somethings we can somethings we can’t. Different views from different people. No one is the same and it goes for the body too

if a person does not have sovereignty over their own body, they are not a person; but chattel.
do you want strangers deciding your family planning or do you want to manage that?
no I would not.

so how is it even a question that women are entitled to that?


The Christian Science Monitor
Colbert’s late-night viewership surpassed Fallon’s for the second week in a row, which analysts attribute to greater interest in politicized comedy under the Trump administration.
Poe Law has it’s limitations

Satire is the only reasonable response to the disgrace that is the Drumpf administration. Putin’s Puppet deserves nothing less than mockery and ridicule.

embrace the absurd, it’s the only way to save your sanity
MEANWHILE, IN CANADA, British Columbia, Vancouver eh:
Vancouver Sun
Cupid’s arrow has struck Vancouver-West End MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert and his husband Romi after the pair welcomed a baby boy on Valentine’s Day.

why are they in a hospital bed, neither gave birth.
good question! Ok +who gave birth darling? 😲

they need to create gay imagery, not mimic the heteros and offend allies.

I’m familiar with this scene, so I get why they are doing it. The hospital staff most probably supported or maybe even are the ones to suggest it. After a baby is born, he/she (I wish English has a gender neutral term) is immediately placed on the new mom’s chest for bonding. Since this couple will be the parents of this baby, the bonding process should start with them. And of course its a great photo op too, heh!

from a surrogate mom who is resting in another bed ☺😊

Yeah, she’s a good friend of theirs who offered them this beautiful opportunity. 😊💞
I am disappointed in Mr Spencer Chandra Herbert’s sudden lack of political savvy.
all part of the gay vs lesbian divide on the spectrum


This entry was posted in Canada, Raw Recovery Specialist, Uncategorized, Zeitgeist Analytics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Legal Technicalities vs Social Realities

  1. dykewriter says:

    I think this might be my new fave post.


  2. Pingback: Social Movements and Ripples | Nina's Soap Bubble Box

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.