-
楼主 / 望峰息心
- 时间: 2017-2-25 11:39看到大家还在吵这个，加西大妈大爷们的种种反穆斯林言论甚嚣尘上，哥本来没什么兴趣也不关心，对回教也不感冒，但是这里的种种言论让俺觉得这些不正是 Islamophobia 吗？
加西的大妈大爷们，除了泡微信和中文论坛外，稍微了解一下主流意识还是有益处的，至少可以分辨哪些是谣言哪些是危言耸听哪些是过分解读。
鉴于此，俺就狗了一下到底啥是 M-103,大家自己看:
www.google.ca/amp/glob...ttawa/amp/
需要指出的是，M-103不是第一个，类似关于某特定人群(不是穆斯林)的动议早就有，而且此次国会争议主要在对 Islamophobia 的定义不明确而起。对类似加西论坛上的这种恐惧和仇恨主流社会的态度还是一致的，所以加西大妈大爷寄希望于保守党出来反对穆斯林俺觉得是没有弄清情况。
下面的是顺带狗出来的，有时间也读读吧。
www.google.ca/amp/s/ww...-m103.html -
-
- 时间: 2017-2-25 11:55鉴于大妈大爷们比较懒，哥还是 copy & paste 吧:
Motion 103 has been making lots of headlines this week, with the Liberals and Conservatives repeatedly butting heads over the text, the intention behind it, and what it could mean moving forward.
The motion was tabled by a Liberal MP, Iqra Khalid, and is just one of several similar motions that have passed without much fanfare in the House.
READ MORE: Islamophobia bill: Irqa Khalid, Irwin Cotler offer conflicting takes on their conversation
So why is this particular one so controversial? And what does it actually propose? Here’s a primer:
What is M-103?
M-103 is a motion currently before the House of Commons.
Here’s what it proposes (read the original text here):
The government should recognize the need to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”
The government should “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should look at how the government could develop an “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.”
The committee should present its findings and recommendations to Parliament within 240 days
So basically, if the motion passes, a committee will study how to better tackle religious discrimination in Canada. That’s it.
What is M-103 NOT?
Motion 103 is not a bill, and it will never become law.
There is no requirement for the prime minister or his cabinet to take any action based on M-103, even if it passes and the Heritage committee issues recommendations.
The motion will not place any new legal restrictions on freedom of speech. It has no power to change Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other law. Anyone who wishes to denounce Islam or Muslims publicly can still do so if this motion passes.
Hate speech is still a crime in Canada, however. M-103 has no affect whatsoever on the Criminal Code’s provisions related to hate speech and inciting hatred, which remain in effect with or without it.
Why is it so controversial?
One word: Islamophobia. Critics of the motion point out that M-103 asks the House to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” without defining what “Islamophobia” actually means.
Conservative MPs have argued that condemning “Islamophobia” without providing that context could stifle legitimate debate about controversial issues like sharia law and the niqab.
In addition, by pulling one religion out of the list and mentioning it by name, then simply lumping the rest under “religious discrimination,” critics like Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch have suggested that the motion is singling out Islam for “special treatment.” (Previous motions before the House have singled out individual religions in a similar manner, for instance by asking MPs to condemn anti-Semitism.)
It’s not just Conservatives crying foul. Even former Liberal minister Irwin Cotler has said the wording should be tweaked to ensure broad support.
The government argues that critics are playing politics with what should be an easy motion to get through the House.
Now what?
The House debated the motion on Wednesday this week. The Conservatives tried tabling a similar motion on Thursday, taking out the reference to Islamophobia, to no avail.
It could be April before the motion actually moves to a vote.
When it happens, it is expected to be a free vote, meaning each MP can vote for or against it according to their personal preference. -
-
- 时间: 2017-2-25 11:58第二篇，貌似学者写的:
Factors to consider about Sharia law and M103
There is no monolithic understanding of the Sharia — there is a spectrum of interpretations ranging from the very liberal to the extreme conservative. In fact, the inherent diversity and pluralism of the Sharia may be the best tool we have to counter the violent and antimodern narratives of extremists.
“Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, Smears all Canadians with Islamophobia Lie to Create a Sharia State,” tweeted notorious American Islamophobe Pamela Geller, in reference to M103, a motion debated in Parliament this week.
Unfortunately, such views are not restricted to the lunatic fringe. Several Conservative leadership hopefuls have bought into the “moral panic,” only confirming the importance of the motion. Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander, Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux even spoke at a Rebel Media event, which according to organizers, was to oppose “Islamic blasphemy laws” in Canada. Speakers warned that the government planned to silence critics of Islam.
Haters have always relied on conflation, misinformation, and obfuscation of the facts to fearmonger. The less bolder ones resort to dog whistle politics. Either way, the pack hears the message.
Let’s deconstruct the rhetoric.
First, it’s not a bill. It’s a non-binding motion asking the government to study “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination.” There is no new law or changes to laws. Quebec passed a similar motion in 2015. There is still no Caliph or “Sharia” laws on the books.
Second, M103 is not giving preference to a community, but rather is tackling a pressing issue by responding to a petition on Islamophobia presented last year after hate against Muslims more than doubled in a two-year period. As noted by the Globe, “Motions like this usually receive little attention; this one has taken over Parliament.” Such opposition within weeks of the slaughter of six Muslims praying is not only insensitive, but highly irresponsible.
Third, to claim it is the lead chariot in the procession of Islamization is ludicrous. Islamophobes love the “Sharia,” because its mere mention effectively shuts down any critical thought or reasonable discussion. In fact, the moment the word is used, with all the negative associations, Islamophobes win without even having advanced a single coherent argument.
The deep-seated bias fixates people on their worst fears and lead many normally critical people to suspend reason and resort to feelings and beliefs. An innocuous and symbolic motion to assuage a community under siege becomes an Islamist Trojan Horse.
So, what exactly is the Sharia. It literally means “the path,” but justice and rule of law to most Muslims, as noted by Harvard Islamic scholar Noah Feldman. It involves both personal, spiritual aspects and the legal/political realm. Only the former is relevant for most Muslims, especially in the West. Within both, there is a spectrum of interpretations ranging from the very liberal to the extreme conservative. There is no monolithic understanding of the Sharia. Like any world view it can be used and abused by people with varying agendas.
Developed over 1,424 years in diverse societies, it has manifested itself in a range of views. In fact, the inherent diversity and pluralism of the Sharia may be the best tool we have to counter the violent and antimodern narratives of extremists.
For those who fear Sharia creep, it’s too late. It’s already here. For most, rather like “the golden rule,” the Sharia demands that they obey the laws of the land; live peacefully with their neighbours; don't lie; don't cheat; pay their taxes; respect each other; care for the underprivileged and the oppressed; and focus on making the world better for all.
In fact, scholars consider the thrust of the Sharia to be advancing human welfare. Muhamad Abdu, a prominent Al-Azhar jurist at the turn of the 19th century, once said: “I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.”
Getting past the Sharia hysteria is not enough, because opponents still have their trump card (pun intended). They don’t have a hate on for Muslims, they only object to the term “Islamophobia.” These newly minted word etymologists argue it is imprecise and precludes legitimate criticism. They counter that it is not a phobia because it is not a mental condition, but a grounded fear of bad ideas.
Au contraire, it is a phobia, because it is prejudice and bigotry towards Muslims and the irrational and exaggerated fear of an assumed, but nonexisting monolithic Islam represented by the Sharia bogeyman.
It is exaggerated, because it takes the regressive interpretations of the few who justify terrorism and antimodern ideas and instinctively project it onto all Muslims.
It is irrational because it ignores the peaceful and progressive Sharia interpretations adopted by the clear majority of Muslims while authenticating only the extremist views. All 1.6 billion Muslims (except “moderates”) are painted with the same brush.
Respectful criticism of Islam and even Muslim practices is done daily by many, including Muslims. Yet the Islamophobia label is not used, because it is not done with loathing and contempt. Diversity of opinions are a recognized forte of Islamic jurisprudence.
For the past 26 years, I have critiqued the mainstream Islamic opinions on blasphemy, apostasy, the status of women, etc. I am challenged sometimes, but never have I been labeled an Islamophobe. Many in the Muslim world are persecuted for this, but it’s not for Islamophobia.
Yes, anti-Muslim hate or “Muslimophobia” work, but Islamophobia conveys the deeper, richer and more precise nature of the feelings and beliefs that drive the “othering” of Muslims.
Faisal Kutty teaches law at Valparaiso University Law School in Indiana and Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto and serves as counsel to KSM Law. He is co-authoring a forthcoming legal casebook on Global Legal Traditions, including Islamic law. @faisalkutty -
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:00
-
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:00
望峰息心 写道:鉴于大妈大爷们比较懒，哥还是 copy & paste 吧:
Motion 103 has been making lots of headlines this week, with the Liberals and Conservatives repeatedly butting heads over the text, the intention behind it, and what it could mean moving forward.
The motion was tabled by a Liberal MP, Iqra Khalid, and is just one of several similar motions that have passed without much fanfare in the House.
READ MORE: Islamophobia bill: Irqa Khalid, Irwin Cotler offer conflicting takes on their conversation
So why is this particular one so controversial? And what does it actually propose? Here’s a primer:
What is M-103?
M-103 is a motion currently before the House of Commons.
Here’s what it proposes (read the original text here):
The government should recognize the need to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”
The government should “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should look at how the government could develop an “approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia” and collect data to “contextualize hate crime reports.”
The committee should present its findings and recommendations to Parliament within 240 days
So basically, if the motion passes, a committee will study how to better tackle religious discrimination in Canada. That’s it.
What is M-103 NOT?
Motion 103 is not a bill, and it will never become law.
There is no requirement for the prime minister or his cabinet to take any action based on M-103, even if it passes and the Heritage committee issues recommendations.
The motion will not place any new legal restrictions on freedom of speech. It has no power to change Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms or any other law. Anyone who wishes to denounce Islam or Muslims publicly can still do so if this motion passes.
Hate speech is still a crime in Canada, however. M-103 has no affect whatsoever on the Criminal Code’s provisions related to hate speech and inciting hatred, which remain in effect with or without it.
Why is it so controversial?
One word: Islamophobia. Critics of the motion point out that M-103 asks the House to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination” without defining what “Islamophobia” actually means.
Conservative MPs have argued that condemning “Islamophobia” without providing that context could stifle legitimate debate about controversial issues like sharia law and the niqab.
In addition, by pulling one religion out of the list and mentioning it by name, then simply lumping the rest under “religious discrimination,” critics like Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch have suggested that the motion is singling out Islam for “special treatment.” (Previous motions before the House have singled out individual religions in a similar manner, for instance by asking MPs to condemn anti-Semitism.)
It’s not just Conservatives crying foul. Even former Liberal minister Irwin Cotler has said the wording should be tweaked to ensure broad support.
The government argues that critics are playing politics with what should be an easy motion to get through the House.
Now what?
The House debated the motion on Wednesday this week. The Conservatives tried tabling a similar motion on Thursday, taking out the reference to Islamophobia, to no avail.
It could be April before the motion actually moves to a vote.
When it happens, it is expected to be a free vote, meaning each MP can vote for or against it according to their personal preference.
很多大叔大妈连英文都懒得看，他们更相信的是一些片面，夸大，蓄意歪曲事实的中文报道。 -
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:38楼上说的也是。哥勉为其难就翻译一下吧，在此鸣谢谷哥哥：
Motion 103本周一直在做大量的头条新闻，自由主义者和保守主义者反复接受文本，背后的意图，以及它可能意味着向前迈进。
这项议案是由一名自由党议员伊克拉哈立德提出的，只不过是众议院几个类似的动议之一。
阅读更多：伊斯兰恐惧症法案：Irqa Khalid，Irwin Cotler对他们的谈话提出了冲突
那么为什么这个特别的一个这么有争议？它实际上提议什么？这里有一个底漆：
什么是M-103？
M-103是下议院目前的议案。
这里是它的建议（阅读原文在这里）：
政府应该认识到需要“平息越来越多的公共气氛的仇恨和恐惧”。
政府应“谴责伊斯兰恐惧症和一切形式的系统性种族主义和宗教歧视”。
加拿大遗产问题常设委员会应该研究政府如何制定“减少或消除包括伊斯兰恐惧症在内的全面种族主义和宗教歧视的方法”，并收集数据以“将仇恨犯罪报告置于背景”。
委员会应在240天内向议会提交调查结果和建议
因此，基本上，如果动议通过，一个委员会将研究如何更好地处理加拿大的宗教歧视。而已。
什么不是M-103？
运动103不是法案，它永远不会成为法律。
没有要求总理或其内阁采取任何基于M-103的行动，即使它通过，遗产委员会提出建议。
议案不会对言论自由施加任何新的法律限制。它没有权力改变加拿大的“权利和自由宪章”或任何其他法律。任何人如果这个动议通过，仍然愿意公开谴责伊斯兰教或穆斯林。
但是，仇恨言论在加拿大仍然是一种犯罪。 M-103对“刑法”关于仇恨言论和煽动仇恨的规定没有任何影响，这些规定在有或没有仇恨言论和煽动仇恨的情况下仍然有效。
为什么这么有争议？
一个字：伊斯兰恐惧症。动议批评者指出，M-103要求众议院“谴责伊斯兰恐惧症和一切形式的系统性种族主义和宗教歧视”，而不界定“伊斯兰恐惧症”实际意味着什么。
保守党议员认为，谴责“伊斯兰恐惧症”而不提供这种情况可能会扼杀有争议的问题，如伊斯兰教法和尼加布的合法辩论。
此外，通过从名单中提取一个宗教，并在名称上提及它，然后简单地将其余的“宗教歧视”，批评如保守党领导候选人凯利·利奇建议这个议案是挑选伊斯兰教“特殊待遇”。 （众议院之前的动议以类似的方式挑选了各个宗教，例如要求议员谴责反犹太主义。）
这不只是保守党哭泣。即使是前自由主席欧文·Cotler说，措辞应该调整，以确保广泛的支持。
政府认为，批评家们正在扮演政治，应该是一个容易的议案通过众议院。
怎么办？
众议院周三辩论这项议案。保守党试图在星期四提出类似的动议，提及伊斯兰恐惧症，没有成功。
可能是动议实际进行表决前的四月。
当它发生时，它应该是一个自由投票，意味着每个MP可以投票或反对它，根据他们的个人喜好。 -
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:41
-
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:54第二篇翻译：
考虑伊斯兰教法和M103的因素
对伊斯兰教没有单一的理解 - 有一系列的解释，从非常自由到极端保守。 事实上，伊斯兰教的固有多样性和多元性可能是我们必须对付极端分子的暴力和反现代叙事的最好工具。
“加拿大PM，贾斯汀·杜鲁多，涂抹所有加拿大人与伊斯兰恐惧说谎创造一个伊斯兰教国家”，推特了臭名昭着的美国伊斯兰教Pamela Geller，参考M103，议会本周辩论的一个议案。
不幸的是，这种观点并不局限于疯狂的边缘。几个保守党的领导人希望人已经陷入了“道德恐慌”，只是确认了议案的重要性。 Kellie Leitch，Chris Alexander，Brad Trost和Pierre Lemieux甚至在Rebel Media活动上发表演讲，据组织者称，他们反对加拿大的“伊斯兰亵渎法”。发言者警告说，政府计划沉默伊斯兰教的批评。
仇恨一直依赖于混淆，错误的信息和混淆的事实到恐惧者。不那么大胆的人诉诸狗哨政治。无论哪种方式，包听到消息。
让我们解构修辞。
首先，它不是一个帐单。这是一个非约束性的动议，要求政府研究“系统性种族主义和宗教歧视”。没有新的法律或法律的变化。魁北克省在2015年通过了类似的动议。书中还没有哈里发或“伊斯兰教法”。
第二，M103不是倾向于社区，而是通过回应去年对穆斯林的仇恨之后提出的对伊斯兰恐惧症的请愿，解决一个紧迫的问题，在两年期间翻了一番。正如地球所指出的，“像这样的动作通常很少注意;这一个已经接管议会“。在六个穆斯林的祈祷的几个星期内的这种反对不仅不敏感，而是非常不负责任。
第三，宣称这是在伊斯兰化的队伍中的主导战车是荒唐的。伊斯兰教徒喜欢“伊斯兰教”，因为它只是提到有效地关闭任何批判性的思想或合理的讨论。事实上，在这个词被使用的那一刻，与所有的负面联想，伊斯兰教徒甚至没有提出一个单一的连贯论据。
深层次的偏见使人们感到最恐惧的心理，并导致许多通常关键的人暂停理性和诉诸感觉和信仰。一个无害和象征性的动作，以扼杀社区在围困下成为伊斯兰特洛伊木马。
那么，什么是伊斯兰教法。它确实意味着“道路”，但大多数穆斯林的正义和法治，如哈佛伊斯兰学者诺亚费尔德曼所指出的。它涉及个人，精神方面和法律/政治领域。只有前者与大多数穆斯林有关，特别是在西方。在两者中，有一系列的解释，从非常自由到极端保守。没有对伊斯兰教的单一理解。像任何世界观，它可以被不同的议程的人使用和滥用。
在不同社会中发展超过1424年，它表现在各种各样的观点。事实上，伊斯兰教的固有的多样性和多元性可能是我们打击极端分子的暴力和反现代叙事的最好工具。
对于那些害怕伊斯兰教徒的人来说，这太晚了。它已经在这里。对于大多数人来说，而是像“黄金法则”，伊斯兰教法要求他们遵守土地的法律;和他们的邻居和平生活;不要撒谎不欺骗缴纳税款;互相尊重;照顾弱势群体和被压迫者;并专注于使世界更美好。
事实上，学者认为伊斯兰教的主旨是推进人类福利。 Muhamad Abdu，19世纪之交的着名Al-Azhar法学家曾经说过：“我去了西方，看到伊斯兰教，但没有穆斯林;我回到东方，看到穆斯林，但不是伊斯兰教。
越过伊斯兰教的歇斯底里是不够的，因为对手仍然有他们的王牌（双关语）。他们对穆斯林没有仇恨，他们只反对“伊斯兰恐惧症”这个词。这些新出现的词汇词源学家认为这是不精确的，排除了合法的批评。他们反驳说，它不是一个恐惧症，因为它不是一个精神状态，而是一个坏的想法的基础恐惧。
Au是一个恐惧症，因为它是对穆斯林的偏见和偏见，对伊斯兰教教士代表的一个假设，但不存在的整体伊斯兰教的不合理和夸张的恐惧。
这是夸张的，因为它需要回归的解释的少数人的理由恐怖主义和反现代的想法和本能地投射到所有的穆斯林。
这是不合理的，因为它忽视了明确的大多数穆斯林所采取的和平和进步的伊斯兰教解释，同时仅仅核实极端主义观点。所有16亿穆斯林（“温和派”除外）都涂上相同的刷子。
对伊斯兰教甚至穆斯林的做法的尊重批评是由许多人每天做的，包括穆斯林。然而，伊斯兰恐惧症标签没有使用，因为它不是用憎恶和蔑视做的。意见的多样性是伊斯兰法学的公认的福音。
在过去的26年里，我对亵渎，叛教，妇女地位等主流伊斯兰观点提出批评。我有时受到挑战，但从来没有被标记为伊斯兰教。穆斯林世界中的许多人为此受到迫害，但不是为了伊斯兰恐惧症。
是的，反穆斯林仇恨或“穆斯林恐惧症”工作，但伊斯兰恐惧症传达驱使“穆斯林的”其他“穆斯林的感觉和信念的更深，更丰富和更精确的性质。
Faisal Kutty在印第安纳州瓦尔帕莱索大学法学院和多伦多Osgoode Hall法学院教授法律，并担任KSM法律顾问。他正在共同创作即将出版的关于全球法律传统，包括伊斯兰法律的法律案例。 @faisalkutty -
- 时间: 2017-2-25 12:59
-
- 时间: 2017-2-25 13:02
到底什么是M-103
