Canadian poll: Only 14% like anti-Islamophobia motion M-103

Very good news is coming out of Canada, despite the forcefulness of the “anti-Islamophobia agenda” and the slackness of Liberal immigration policy, which has led to unvetted asylum seekers streaming into Canada from the U.S.

A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Another poll has shown that 74 percent of Canadians want to see a “Canadian values” screening test for immigrants.

Any truly reformist Muslim should reject “anti-Islamophobia” initiatives, which are an element of the stealth Islamization of the West. Canada’s anti-Islamophobia motion M-103 is a follow-up to another motion, e-411, which was passed in parliament in October. E-411 “suggests that attributing terrorism to Islam is Islamophobia.” It stated:

We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

No one should be making declarations in the Canadian parliament about who represents Islam. Motion e-411 omits discussion of Muslim Brotherhood strategies for the Islamization of the West via peaceful means. For instance, Dr. Ewis El Nagar’s preaching that the Islamic ruling on slave girls was not abrogated would not appear to place him into the category of “extremist individuals” as defined by e-411, yet preaching such Sharia doctrines clearly is calling for violation of Western laws.

Liberal MP Raj Grewal revealed an ominous intention of the “anti-Islamophobia” motion during the M-103 parliamentary debate of February 15, 2017:

“One of the most important things about the motion that Canadians should understand is that it encourages a committee to collect data and to present that data in a contextualized manner so we, as members of Parliament elected to this chamber, can study it and propose laws.”

“Propose laws.” Part of the argument in support of M-103 was that it was not in the form of a bill, but Grewal has now clearly stated that it is intended to guide attitudes and help in formulating policies that lead to legislation.

Western nations should not be allowing the imposition of religious edicts upon its citizens. The “Islamophobia” scheme of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to silence the freedom of speech in the West and impose Sharia blasphemy laws is no secret.

“Nobody likes M-103, new data reveals”, by Anthony Furey, Toronto Sun, March 13, 2017:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is crying “Islamophobia” after his government ministers weren’t allowed to campaign in the Netherlands over the weekend in support of his bid to expand his presidential powers.

It’s just another reminder of why this vaguely defined buzzword should never be officially recognized by Western governments.

Thankfully, the vast majority of Canadians also see it this way. A new poll out by Forum Research reveals that only 14% of people support M-103, the anti-discrimination motion put forward by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid that singles out so-called Islamophobia.

Most respondents want to see some sort of change to the wording that brings it in line with suggestions made by Conservative MPs to either mention all religions or none. When broken down by political support, even 71% of Liberals are against the motion’s wording.

Nobody seems to like M-103. And you can’t blame them.

The main argument I’ve made against it is that the term is ripe for abuse. In many countries, “Islamophobia” is criminalized, used to punish apostates or critics of Islam.

Every year, Canada welcomes tens of thousands of people from these countries. While many are coming to escape such nonsense, others will be acclimatized to a broadly-defined “Islamophobia” and support its aggressive application here.

Erdogan’s use of the term is nowhere near as robust as how some Middle Eastern countries employ it.

But it’s still troubling given the context. Turkey has become increasingly Islamist in recent years. Since Erdogan first became prime minister over a decade ago, the federal religious affairs directorate has greatly expanded its budget and overseen the construction of 10,000 new mosques.

While the headscarf was once banned in the public service, it’s now encouraged and even worn by women for career advancement. The Economist notes the governing party has a “subtle but relentless Islamising influence”.

Last summer’s coup, if it had been successful, would have likely put an end to this religious encroachment. Previous coups, like the most recent in 1997, had similar goals.

Instead, Erdogan is now consolidating and expanding his powers. Government ministers are flying around Europe to cities with significant dual national populations, who are eligible to vote in next month’s constitutional referendum, to hold pro-Erdogan rallies. This understandably makes European politicians a tad bit nervous.

The Netherlands incident is far from the first time Erdogan has cried the “I” word. Last year he told CNN he supported “an official declaration that Islamophobia is a crime against humanity”. And right after Brexit he said it was Islamophobia that was keeping Turkey out of the EU.

A couple of weeks ago, German police conducted raids on the homes of four Muslim clerics who were accused of spying on behalf of the government. Religion was only a peripheral component in the police action, yet that didn’t stop the head of Turkey’s religious affairs directorate from denouncing it as “Islamophobia-based hatred.”

Make no mistake about it: There is a correlation between Erdogan’s stance against alleged Islamophobia and his power play to expand Turkey’s Islamist agenda. And it’s not a pleasant one.

Islamophobia is weaponized language and, whether this was Khalid’s intention or not, Canada’s legislators are being asking to give it a stamp of approval.

One of the biggest arguments the motion’s enablers push forward is that M-103 is no big deal because it’s just a motion. Yes and no. It does call for a committee study that creates a pathway to legislation……