M-103: The Motion Every LIBERAL Should Oppose, But Won't.

Iqra Khalid, a Liberal MP, is pushing to have a motion passed which is labelled M-103, calling on the Canadian government to "condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination."

It's not a law or a bill. It's a non-binding motion.And, it's controversial.

Unfortunately, what appears to have happened is that the divide is progressive, liberal Canadians are for the motion, and conservatives are against it. And, the more the liberals are for it, the more the conservatives are against it and so forth.

What liberals seem to be missing here is that there is one important word here that makes this motion illiberal: Islamophobia.

Oxford Dictionary defines Islamophobia as "dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force."

This is a problem.

To dislike or be prejudiced against Muslims merely for being Muslims is wrong, there is no doubt about it. We, as a society, generally speaking, should be protecting the rights of people, and that's what Muslims are after all, right? People? Yes, they are. And many Muslims are wonderful, wonderful people.

HOWEVER, the fact that the term Islamophobia includes the "dislike or prejudice against ISLAM" makes it terribly ridiculous and illiberal. Essentially, it is a word being used to protect the religion itself. A religion is made up of ideas...a set of ideas. The idea that any set of ideas deserves protection is absurd. Yet, that is what the word does. And I've seen it used time and time to silence critics of Islam, including me, who have legit problems with the religion and how it is manifesting in a large part of the world. In fact, it seems that the term is often used to shut down almost anyone who doesn't say the religion is perfect.

Now, those who support the motion insist that it is a non-binding motion so people shouldn't freak out about the wording. Well, no, actually, we should freak out about the wording because this is a non-binding motion that will influence government policy in the future.

This is what the motion asks for:

"Request the heritage committee study how the government could develop a government-wide approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia."

Therefore, if passed, even though it is non-binding, it will have an impact. The wording must be clear here.

As it is, this is not some kind of blasphemy law. But as is, it is a motion that COULD lead to blasphemy style laws in the future in an effort to meet the demands of the motion. How seriously we should be concerned about that is up for debate, but it could be an issue. Yes, we do have blasphemy laws on the books in Canada, even though they aren't used. Will this motion start triggering the use of the laws? It's hard to say, but I have concerns.

Now, I have seen, over the years, very dedicated people who are staunch critics of Islam or at least aspects of Islam, for good reason, smeared as being Islamophobic. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz and many more have been called Islamophobic for genuine criticism of the religion. In fact, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks hate groups has put Ayaan and Maajid on a list of anti-Muslim extremists merely because they are critics of religion and are pushing for reforms.

So, the concern I have is when a university, secular group or even ex-Muslim group wants to bring one of these speakers into Canada. If the motion passes and the government is dedicated to wiping out Islamophobia, will people like these end up being denied entry into the country because they criticize Islam and are often dubbed Islamophobic? It's very plausible that this would happen. And what about critics of Islam within Canada, that include ex-Muslims, progressive Muslims and secular Muslims who are often dubbed Islamophobic? How difficult will their lives end up becoming? Will it lead to online censorship? Will it lead to smears by the government who, in their quest to kill off Islamophobia, will look at people like these as part of the problem? By legitimising the term Islamophobia which is being used against these folks, the government is siding with critics who want them to shut up about the religion.

As long as the term Islamophobia is in this motion, it is terribly problematic and illiberal. It really does have the power to start limiting free speech and creating enemies out of genuine critics of the religion despite the fact progressives insist that it is non-binding and therefore not something to be concerned about.

It saddens me that conservatives are taking up the effort to challenge this motion. It really should be liberals who stand up against it. I get why liberals are for it. Standing up for the rights of Muslims in our communities is noble. Protecting people from racism or hate is important. BUT, we also must maintain the rights of those who want to criticize, legit or not, a religion. The religion itself MUST not be put into a special, protected category that puts it above criticism, debate, analysis or even outright mocking or dislike. There are a lot of things within the religion that people rightly SHOULD dislike. And these are things that liberals SHOULD be fighting against, like homophobia, patriarchy, totalitarianism, etc that are inherent in the three Abrahamic religions. They should be fighting for the right to be able to freely criticize and counter the bad ideas within religions that do genuine harm to people without fear of the government seeing them as part of a problem and being Islamophobic. Why are liberals being so ridiculously blind to this? And why are those who are concerned about rights being diminished if not out and out taken away in this country CONSERVATIVES?? This is something LIBERAL minded people should be at the forefront of. Yet, they are failing and in the process screwing other liberals, especially Muslim liberals who are critical of they religion they were born into.

Get it together, fellow lefties. You are failing by support M-103.

(Originally published at Allthink)

Adam Saleh: Post-Truth, Fake News Poster Boy

YouTube prankster/troublemaker Adam Saleh is in the news because he claims he was kicked off of a Delta flight from London to NYC because he spoke Arabic on the plane and it freaked people out.

Now, if this is the straight up, absolute truth, yes, indeed, that isn't cool. But, there are more than enough reasons to doubt the fact that this whole thing really is about him speaking Arabic and why this is a perfect example of post-truth fake news.

Adam Saleh uploaded a video onto twitter of him and his friend being hoofed off a plane as he called everyone around him racist and was loudly complaining about how he was being kicked off for talking to his mom on the phone in Arabic.

We got kicked out of a @Delta airplane because I spoke Arabic to my mom on the phone and with my friend slim... WTFFFFFFFF please spread pic.twitter.com/P5dQCE0qos

— Adam Saleh (@omgAdamSaleh) December 21, 2016

It has been shared around the internet and seeming every major news outlet grabbed onto the story. It kicked off a #boycottdelta hashtag and people screamed about discrimination and how this is the new norm in Trump's America, etc, etc.

Now, a number of sources (including countless of people on social media) are saying he was kicked off the flight and the whole thing was caught on tape. His supporters are saying it can't be refuted because there it is, right on tape. People are convinced that it happened...because of this video evidence.

Well, what does the video ACTUALLY show? It doesn't show the incident that happened that led up to him and his friends being kicked off the flight. It doesn't show that at all. Not on there. Can't be seen. Evidence doesn't exist. All we see in the video is Saleh calling everyone around him racist, berating people and being a loudmouth claiming he was being kicked off because he spoke Arabic.

So, no, the whole thing was NOT caught on video. Very little of this event was actually caught on video. And yet, there are those claiming that the whole thing was caught on video and the evidence is irrefutable. And people are angry, saying Delta is racist and they will never fly with them again.

Now, I was not there. I don't know what happened anymore than most of those who have decided they won't fly on this airline do. Yet, people believe that based on the video they know exactly what happened. No...you don't. This is post-truth thinking. It seems people are almost convinced that they have seen something they actually have not seen. Mix that with the knee jerk outrage people are showing online, and voila, you have a perfect fake news story going viral.

Now, this video needs to be put in context. Adam Saleh is a YouTube "star" with thousands of followers. He is known for making "social experiment" videos to try and catch people in the act of being racist or "islamophobic". He agitates and "race baits". And, he pulls crazy stunts.

Look, the possibility does exist, of course, that despite this problematic reality, what he says happened actually happened (although there seems to be enough statements, including from the airline itself to cast significant doubt). But, all of the evidence has to be looked at here.

All kinds of people all over the world get onto a plane every single day speaking all kinds of languages. Very, very infrequently do people get chucked off planes for racist reasons or because they are Muslim. It's extremely rare, even though I have seen people on twitter say it happens on a daily basis. It does not. It isn't because there are very few companies willing to put themselves under that level of scrutiny for making a mistake such as that, even though it has happened at times. But, the last thing most airlines want is to be caught up in a controversy. It's bad business.

So, given that, what are the chances that the one dude, out of very few, that got kicked off a plane for speaking a different language or being Muslim just happens to be a vlogger who makes a living off of pulling stunts EXACTLY like this one? Think about that, honestly. That is the context here. We have a man who would go to the ends of the earth to make a video trying to prove society is racist and "islamophobic" and an airline that really does NOT want bad publicity? Who do you think would be the agitator here? Who has the most to gain...and who has the most to lose?

Now, it has been pointed out that, yes, indeed, these kinds of weird things have happened before, but, once again, VERY rarely. One incident was a Muslim couple who were kicked off a flight because the husband was nervous and sweaty and the wife was on her cellphone and the word "Allah" was mentioned. This made a flight attendant uncomfortable and the couple were removed from the flight. It was a BAD mistake. The couple were perfectly innocent and the airline admitted their mistake and did what they can to make amends. It was a sad case that every airline should, and most likely did learn from. And, no, a major airline will do everything it can to avoid a mistake that will make them look bad and start a call for a boycott.

In the end, we may never know the actual truth. Few people were there and saw what happened. The story has taken on a life of it's own and being used as an example to push certain agendas, whether it be the idea that everyone and everything is racist and islamophobic...or that Muslims are liars and there is no racism and it's all made up. Both sides...are very wrong, and this story has fed into both of them perfectly. It is a story sent from heaven for both sides who insist they know the truth here...but don't.

Personally, ya, I'm highly sceptical of Adam Saleh's account. But, I acknowledge that I wasn't there. I acknowledge that I don't possess the absolute truth here. I may not believe him, but that doesn't mean the chances that this happened are zero. Who knows. I don't see it as an example of how crazy Trump's America has suddenly become as some want to sell this as. I don't believe for a second that the majority of people who are true victims of hate and abuse are faking it, as some seem to say a video like this shows. It's clear that something happened, but it's difficult to say exactly what. I can only look at the evidence we have...and, in my view, it seems to stack up against Adam Saleh and we appear to have a bogus event that has triggered knee jerk reaction and proved that the truth really doesn't matter here at all.

Why Do Some Western Liberals Spit In The Face Of Muslim Liberals?

So, I'm on twitter as I tend to do and am currently looking at tweets by one CJ Werleman who is a "Columnist for Middle East Eye. Host of 'Foreign Object' on iTunes. Author of The New Atheist Threat." Apparently, people who speak out against religion are a threat. Who knew? And what is a "new" atheist? It's the same as an old atheist...but they haven't been jailed or killed thanks to secularization. Unfortunately, if you look a 13 Muslim countries in the world, atheists can be sentenced to death by the state. But, hey, who is to judge, right? That would get you labelled as a neocon Islamophobe in CJ's circles.

He also seems to have an absolute disdain for those Muslims pushing for reform within Islam. He seems to particular have a hate on for Maajid Nawaz of the anti-extremist Quillium Foundation. Meanwhile, he does seem to have a thing for ultra-conservative Muslim organzations like CAGE UK. That's pretty twisted and makes a mockery of the whole concept of being a liberal. A liberal supporting ultra-conservatives over true liberals? Absurd.

Proof: The "Muslim reformers" are just paid Western government propagandists. That's all. Hi, @MaajidNawaz https://t.co/IiWtTll7tj

— CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) May 3, 2016

As far as I can tell, CJ Werleman sees himself as some kind of progressive while selling out any progressive who doesn't happen to be in the West. Apparently, to him, the Muslim world is one giant, homogeneous land where everyone wishes to adhere to conservative religious belief without question and completely shuns seemingly all Muslims in the Muslim world who would like to live in a secular, liberal, free society. How dare people want to live like that. No, these are brown Muslims. Their culture is different. They shouldn't have liberal ideas pushed on them...or even mentioned to them. They don't deserve anything better than what they have. All their desire for a better life, for change in their countries, their wish to have a society where they are more free to express themselves is just them being brainwashed by Western imperialists who are using concepts like freedom and secularism to control the minds of a few to overthrow the much better ultra conservative regimes that he seems to feel shouldn't be challenged...or something.

In this case, it seems that CJ Werleman and his devotees have abandoned liberal ideas and aspirations. They have forsaken their liberal brothers and sisters in Muslim countries in what almost seems like a ridiculous form of racism where brown people in certain places on earth who wish for change aren't deserving of the same support from liberals that liberals in the West give each other, or at least should. Apparently, CJ Werleman's hate of "New Atheists" is far stronger than his desire to support non-white non-Western liberals. He is more obsessed with hating one group than he is helping another who is deserving of support and help.

With "liberals" like CJ Werleman, who needs conservative enemies?

Rachel Dolezal and Mo Ansar: Two Peas in a Pod?

Ahhhh, Rachel Dolezal. What have you done? It has become big news that the leader of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington has been pretending to be "black" for something like 20 years. I'm not sure how one pretends to be black, or how an obviously white person can manage to pass as being black, but, who am I to question. Regardless, what she appears to have done is to create a complete fantasy world for herself. She has made up a persona and put herself out there as a great activist using this persona. Sound familiar?

To me, it sure does! The first person I thought of is, of course, my favourite persona inventor and outright liar, Mo Ansar. I have written about ol' Mo in the past. He is a character that I find most fascinating and can't help return to. One reason he is so fascinating is because of the fact that he is a fraudulent creation of his own mind, which is bizarre on many levels. Even when I look at Rachel Dolezal, I see a person who has done a lot of good in her role as a black women, despite the fact that she lied about being a black women. I cannot say the same about Mo Ansar, although he insists that he is doing great work as an activist and community leader.

So, what is at play with both of these people? Narcissism? Confusion? A pathological need to lie? A desire to be something that you aren't? Why would people such as these create these identities for themselves? It is bizarre. There is such a strong desire to be something, to connect with something that they are willing to pretend to be anything to make that connection. For Mo, becoming the Mo Ansar we know has definitely been done to get onto TV, get fame, get recognition, to have a community rally behind him. Is this what Rachel did as well? What was she hoping to achieve? And was it really worth it? In the end, it all appears to be crashing down and unravelling before her just as it did when Mo Ansar was exposed by so many journalists, writers and researchers. Mo has struggled to make his way back, trying to worm his way into any little crevice he can to regain his low level glory. Will we see Rachel do this as well? Or will she be content with letting this go now? Will she learn the lesson, reevaluate and come clean? Or will she continue to try to lie to everyone...including, most importantly, herself?

This is something that Mo failed to do. Even when being completely outed as a fraud, he could not come clean. He continued to lie and deceive and hasn't stopped to this day. He refuses to fess up and he refuses to learn, and then pretends to be a pious Muslim on top of that. He makes a mockery out of his own religion, attacks atheists and any one who he deems Islamophobic and just generally pisses people off. In that way, his persona is quite dangerous and is a black eye on activism. Now it's Rachel's turn. What route will she take? Will she come clean? Will she open up and work on her honesty? We can only hope.

Rachel Dolezal might be excellent in her work, unlike Mo Ansar. And if she is, I hope that she can continue doing good for people despite her lies. But if she can't be open and honest about who she is, her intentions, her goals, etc, then she stands no chance. She will continue to be dogged, not by anyone else, but by her own recklessness.

UPDATE:

Since writing this, Rachel Dolezal has only made things worse for herself by continuing to lie, continuing to insist that she "identifies" as black, etc. She has resigned from the NAACP. But she is still defiant. She isn't helping herself, that's for sure.

Likewise, interactions with Mo's sock puppet's online only further muddy his waters as he continues to try and deflect, distract and dismiss the fact that he has been lying for years and is a fraud. He refuses to budge on the issue and attacks anyone who points out the truth. He seems to feel his being silenced in a McCarthy-esque way, playing the victim in all of this as usual, as opposed to the perpetrator of lies and fraudulent behaviour.

The arrogance of these two individuals make them liabilities to the causes they supposedly fight for. To continue to lie makes no sense, and only destroys what credibility they might have even further, yet neither seem to see this. How arrogant can you get? Or have they just brainwashed themselves to believe they are who they are, and instead of admitting their wrongs, they continue to pretend they are some kind of victim in this, as if they are martyrs to the cause. They are so dedicated to wanting to be victims that they will do anything to try and make themselves out to be victims.

Forget Islamophobia, Let's Look at Atheophobia

Came across this fascinating Facebook status update the other day that I thought was telling on so many levels:

I hear people talk constantly about how atheists are so rude in their hatred of religion. And I hear constantly about things like "Islamophobia" (there isn't a Christian equivalent like Christianphobia) and I cringe.

This, clearly, is atheophobia, ladies and gentlemen. And it is atheophobia that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How does atheism create discrimination and disorder in any state?? HOW? How is the simple act of understanding there is no god or gods discriminatory or disorderly in any way, shape or form? And when atheists question religious beliefs, how does that cause discrimination and disorder? HOW? The answer is that it doesn't.

This is a completely irrational dislike of atheism based on absolutely no facts. It isn't destructive in itself. This isn't a persecution of atheists as a statement. This is just a really dumb thing to say and frankly to believe. I mean, in the end, it doesn't matter what this dude thinks. Mind you, if he was in a position of power this would be far more worrisome. And sadly, this idea does coincide with the fact that there are thirteen countries in the world where an atheist can be sentenced to DEATH. I don't know of any country on the planet where someone can be sentenced to death by a state for practising a religion.

Furthermore, this guy, who is a Muslim, follows a book that completely demonizes non-believers and explains in detail all the various ways we will exist in brutal, firey pain for eternity. Yet, to him, this isn't a problem, isn't discriminatory or disorderly. And then, on top of that, I came across this dude arguing against same sex marriage in a terribly homophobic way....you know, in a truly discriminatory and disorderly way. Ahhhh, the hypocrisy. Don't talk to me about Islamophobia when you got guys like this representing your religion, and holding a belief that isn't uncommon at all.

Now, as someone who believes that thoroughly skewering religion is perfectly fine, I am not going to completely dismiss this guys statements. Just as any religion is open to criticism, dislike, scrutiny, debate and even outright dislike, so is atheism. It's okay. You don't have to like atheism. It's up to you. And yes, statements like this are perfectly fine. But given the fact that there really isn't any evidence that I can think of that makes this statement accurate, and he hasn't provided any, I will freely say that his opinion is ridiculous. This free speech stuff is so much fun!