so, the canadian right is very upset about this following motion:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and 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, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Iqra-Khalid%2888849%29/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8661986

we have our own steve bannon up in canada. his name is ezra levant. you can't believe a word he says; as usual, he's lying through his teeth. i won't repeat what he said, because it's not worth it.

what is my analysis of the motion?

i think that this is a political pastiche of incoherent buzz words designed to increase the profile of the mp. this is cynical self-promotion. for example, consider the following line:

condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination 

how do you make sense of the idea of islamophobia as "systemic racism and religious discrimination" in the context of canada, where the entire establishment from the top down is falling all over itself to appear inviting, and the push back is coming from isolated weirdos that live in their parents' basements? the motion is being brought up in the context of the mosque attack, which very clearly demonstrated the reality that the system has work to do in enforcing tolerance from the top down, while the self-identified pure laine quebecois struggle and resist against this elitist push for social engineering.

so, yes: this exposes the flaws of unthinkingly importing theories and language from the united states. it makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against blacks in georgia, and it even makes sense to speak of "systemic racism" against indigenous groups in canada. but, there is no "systemic racism" against muslims in canada; this is a total fabrication, a complete fiction. there is, rather, a strong social engineering push to manufacture harmony within diversity. but, that's all there really is to it: it's just a bunch of incoherent buzz words strung together for self-interest. if it passes, as a non-binding motion, it means nothing. some students will clap, some old men will jeer. life moves along.

but, what the reaction really draws attention to is the need to define the term islamophobia, especially in the context of hate crimes legislation. how can you vote on a measure like this without defining the idea you're voting on? the mp did not think that through for the simple reason that it's nothing more than a pr stunt. that leaves it to observers to do so.

does this refer to a healthy skepticism of religion, as i've outlined in my previous posts? if so, i could hardly support the motion, and would agree that it's a step backwards towards religious despotism. but, it seems unlikely than anybody intended for this interpretation, or any court would pick it up. does it instead refer to violent attacks on muslims? i would be more likely to support a non-binding resolution in the latter context, but apprehensive in going beyond it as i think the existing laws are more than sufficient.

see, here's the thing: while i'm never going to buy into the narratives presented on the right, because they are so frequently obvious excuses to push racist nonsense, i am actually aware of the reality that free speech is considered incompatible with islam by most muslims. i'm exceedingly apprehensive about religious groups co-opting left-leaning political parties as a consequence of not being welcomed by the right, which is where their views more accurately align. this is actually a legitimate concern.

they have to define islamophobia to clarify their intent; in doing so, they should probably eject the term from the motion and in the future avoid using it altogether. the court would smack something stupid down, here, pretty fast. but, there's little reason to fight a losing battle on multiple fronts that has the potential to cut deep into the party's actual base.