Mr. Lorne Gunther of the Edmonton Sun offers us possible definitions of Islamophobia:
“Does that (Islamophobia) mean an irrational fear of all Muslims based on a very real fear of several thousand radicals who truly do want to harm Western democracy? Or does it mean the much broader, politically-correct concept of Islamophobia, namely that anyone questioning whether Islam is a religion of peace is guilty of Islamophobia?”
He points out that the second definition would include people: “who doubt the superiority of Sharia law, argue that compelling Muslim women to wear burkas or even niqabs is contrary to Western values or draw or publish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed.”
He fears the second one will be adopted. We concur because it fits the modus operandi of the thought police.
For the actual definition of Islamophobia we turn to Dr. Sherif Emil of Montreal. He wrote, in a special to the Gazette (linked below), that a charge of Islamophobia is used in Muslim countries to: “silence, marginalize and imprison the few liberal Muslim thinkers who are attempting to reform Islam from within, and the weapon to subjugate and humiliate minorities.”
Opinion: Canadians should oppose the anti-Islamophobia motion, M-103
Parliamentarians should be ashamed of voting on such a poorly worded motion (M103) rife with ignorance. Equally shocking is the taxpayer money that will be wasted on chatting about this motion in committee for 240 days.
Dr. Emil points out that all parties supported, but the Liberals voted against, a vastly more appropriate motion that condemned: “all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.”
Ah yes, for some Canadian wishy-washiness is an endless source of make-work projects funded by taxpayers.