Canada’s verbal battle for free speech is raging, and both Hungarian leader Viktor Orban and Canada’s Dr Jordan Peterson have expressed the view that political correctness has made “sensible public discussions” on free speech and illegal immigration virtually impossible.
[…] Peterson also said that Islam is not compatible with democracy and the issue is not “allowed to be discussed”
[…] Professor Jordan Peterson soared to popularity given his views in support of intellectual freedoms, free speech and human rights. His latest defense of free speech couldn’t have come at a better time. News emerged in Canada this week that opposition Conservative leader Andrew Scheer threw Tory MP Michael Cooper out of a House of Commons “Justice and Human Rights” committee hearing — examining online hate — after Cooper’s confrontation with a Muslim witness. Jihad Watch covered the story HERE.
The Justin Trudeau government continues its campaign–heavily advised by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN)– to “crack down” on free speech in efforts to battle “Islamophobia“, which includes an expensive followup to anti-Islamophobia motion M-103. This Justice and Human Rights Commons committee hearing is an extension of M-103 by all indicators. […]
In a statement highlighting the nonsensical “Islamophobia” subterfuge, Peterson [said] “Islamophobia” is a term which has no place in any democracy. It is propelled by Organization of Islamic Cooperation initiatives to subvert democracies.
Those who force the “Islamophobia” agenda are adamant that the word not be replaced with “anti-Muslim bigotry“, the latter of which would put Muslims on equal ground as any other faith or group. Islamic supremacists seek special treatment and they do it by wielding an invented victimology narrative, all the while covering up the gross abuses committed in the name of Islam globally.
The term “islamophobia” was defined by the National Council of Canadian Muslims as “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.”
This is where it gets scary as what that definition is doing is in effect creating a regressive blasphemy law. In a free society, we should always be able to criticise ideas. We criticise socialist politics on this blog and on left-wing blogs they freely criticise conservative politics. Why should Islamic politics be protected from criticism? European culture is freely criticised by our media and inside our universities. Islamic culture should be treated equally.
[…] In addition to standing up for Canada’s Judeo-Christian democracy, I personally thank Dr. Jordan Peterson for standing up (among the many others) for me when I faced Liberal government scrutiny for writing and speaking about Islamic supremacist and jihad abuse globally…
I was subsequently fired by the Liberal government from my position as a director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF); a subject that was raised again during this current House of Commons committee hearing on “Justice and Human Rights“. It was raised by ‘witness’, Jasmin Zine, who has “a long record of “Islamophobia” propagandizing”, as Robert Spencer wrote HERE. […]
It is very worrying that those who criticise the politics or culture of Islam often lose their jobs as a result. Jordan Petersen lost a fellowship at Cambridge University because he posed for a photo with a man wearing a T-shirt with the text “I’m a proud Islamophobe”.
[…] A YouGov survey showed in January that nearly half of French and Germans have a perceived clash between Islam and the values of their society; similar attitudes toward Islam were shown to be held by over one-third of Britons and Americans.[…]
Hence the rise of the populist movement and the need for real experts who protect the tenets of Judeo-Christian democracy as opposed to the Sharia.
jihadwatch
The topics that we are not allowed to discuss must be discussed if we are to protect free speech and our Judeo-Christian democracy here in New Zealand. No idea or religion should be given special protections under the law. Ideas do not have rights, only people have rights.
