The demonstrators came to Ottawa’s Parliament Hill — the seat of the nation’s government — to protest or support Motion M-103, potential legislation that condemns “Islamophobia,” without even defining the word.
It took about 25 police officers to prevent a full-scale rumble from erupting Tuesday afternoon as the proponents and opponents of the motion met each other with waving placards and angry words. As the two groups yelled threats and obscenities at each other, police had to move in and separate the opposing factions as they started to swing at each other.
The protest started peacefully as those against M-103 sat on the steps in front of the Parliament buildings. They were met by a smaller group of people supporting the ‘Islamophobia’ motion who called the opponents “Nazis,” and “fascists,” who responded by calling the counter-protesters “communists” and “anti-Canadian.”
After the police intervened, the two sides separated and, after exchanging a few more jibes, went home.
Later that afternoon and into the evening, Members of Parliament (MP) debated M-103 at its second reading before the House of Commons. The motion is sponsored by Toronto-area Muslim MP Iqra Khalid and has little support from Canadians, according to a poll released this week; even some political commentators are beginning to give the motion greater scrutiny and question its potential consequences on free speech.
The House will vote on the motion for the second time on Thursday. It is certain to pass with only the opposition Conservatives trying to stop it.
One Conservative MP put the Conservative position in succinct terms:
“The word ‘Islamophobia’ can be used to mean both discrimination against Muslims and criticism of Islamic doctrine or practice. It is important that we not conflate the two — religious people deserve legal protection, but religions do not,” Genuis said. “People should not discriminate against individuals, but should feel quite free to criticize the doctrine, history, or practice of any religion.”
Without addressing any of these concerns or those of over 70 percent of Canadians who say the motion is fundamentally flawed, the Trudeau Liberals simply denied the charges.
“Unequivocally and without hesitation, I can state that this motion is not an attempt to control or limit speech,” said Liberal Quebec MP Peter Schiefke.
Conservative MP David Sweet implored Khalid to amend her motion.
“M-103 could have affirmed the right to freedom of speech so Canadians can respectfully criticize any religious practice they believe to be wrong, including the one I adhere to and cherish,” said Sweet, who is an evangelical Christian.
“Instead of pursuing these changes in an effort to have a meaningful, inclusive and non-partisan study on the matters of racism and religious discrimination — a debate that should unify us — the Liberals have decided that there are more political points to win by ramming this motion through regardless of the legitimate concerns.”
