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.
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
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.
论坛通告:
个人空间:
论坛转跳:
赞 
花篮 
投诉
踩 
分享
