Share this article:
The Canadian Parliament is now ready to debate whether to condemn "Islamophobia" or to develop a whole-government approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia through force of law.
This anti-blasphemy law exclusively for Islam, which began with an online petition, has gained momentum and will go to a vote on February 16.
A Member of the Parliament from the now-governing Liberal Party, Iqra Khalid first proposed motion M-103 last month in the House of Commons that the government should "condemn all forms of Islamophobia".
Thomas Mulcair, of the left wing New Democrat Party, read the motion into the record by asking for unanimous consent. Though the liberal MPs did not get the unanimous consent they sought, the motion passed.
Now MP Khalid has proposed a stronger motion that goes on to require the government to treat Islamophobia as a hate crime "collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities".
The implications are truly chilling and if passed, will enact Islamic blasphemy laws in Canada creating a defacto Sharia compliant state.
Neither the original e-petition nor the motions put forth by MP Khalid actually define what Islamophobia is, and for good reason.
The term Islamophobia, in yet another act of linguistic manipulation, looks as though it should mean an irrational fear of Islam, just as arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders.
The term Islamophobia was first used in 1991 in a Runnymede Trust Report to refer to a fear or dislike of all or most Muslims, in the context of UK and European politics, but the term gained traction in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks.
In the last fifteen years, however, the term has taken on new meaning as any criticism of Islam, Islamic culture or Islamic countries is now considered Islamophobia by some of the left.
The label of Islamophobia has now been applied even to moderate Muslims who criticize the theocratic excesses and barbarism of their own religion.
With such a loosely define concept that has slowly been taken to encompass all criticism of Islam, defining Islamophobia as criminalized hate-speech serves to enact in Canada a religious blasphemy law in favor of extremist Islam.
In Saudi Arabia, blasphemy against Islam is punishable by death and all atheists, no matter how peaceful, were declared terrorists.
Soon, voicing criticism of these policies could itself become a crime in Canada, ironically enough, as Parliament considers its own form of censorship in favor of Islam.
The petition and ensuing motion call for the Canadian Parliament to condemn Islamophobia without defining it but also require the government to direct resources to shielding Islam above other religions.
The petition calls on Parliament to recognize that "extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam" yet one is left to wonder if extremist groups might.
Is Saudi Arabia, which executes Muslims for converting away from Islam, considered extremist?
In a thinly-veiled reference to ISIS and al-Qaeda, the petition refers to an "infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals" in language both imprecise and misleading as it equates extremism with terrorism while disingenuously minimizing the presence of both within Islam.
So, what would become illegal if this motion were to pass into law?
Drawing Muhammad? Voicing criticism of Sharia Law? Speaking out against Islam or debating whether ISIS is a true version of Islam?
Blocking free speech from any criticism of Islam under the guise of Islamophobia is sure to have a chilling effect on free speech, and only in support of a single religion.
This is how political Islam plans to grow, by manipulating the laws against discrimination to shield itself from criticism.
It has worked across Europe where opinions critical of Islam are either silenced or prosecuted, and it is now threatening to engulf Canada in its warm, suffocating embrace.