阿省年轻保守党议员在M103国会辩论中的发言，非常非常经典！！

ittop · 发表于 2017-3-23 14:58

本帖最后由 ittop 于 2017-3-23 16:22 编辑

garnett-genuis_jpg_67x90_crop_first-28,20,68,20_q85.jpg

Garnett Genuis Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is something quite perverse about the discussion of Motion No. 103. Effectively, Canadians have been divided on a motion when there seems to me to be very little substantive disagreement on the underlying topic.

Canadians and all parliamentarians agree that discrimination against anyone is unacceptable. We agree, in particular, that there is a problem of discrimination against the Muslim community in certain quarters. This is not to deny, of course, the existence of other kinds of discrimination and that it can range in type and form. For myself at least, I would quite happily vote in favour of a motion condemning discrimination against Muslims, even if Muslims were the only faith community mentioned.

Why, then, are we divided? It is because 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. People should not discriminate against individuals, but should feel quite free to criticize the doctrine, history, or practice of any religion. This distinction between discrimination against religious people and criticism of religion is not at all a trivial point. It is the point that separates societies like Canada, which seek to protect people from bigotry, from other societies that impose violent sentences on people who blaspheme or apostatize in the name of protecting religion itself.

The Liberals and some in the media want us to simply shrug off this point and vote in favour of this motion because it is just symbolic anyway, but even a symbolic motion should have clear definitions and say what it means. As members of Parliament, our principal tool is the words we use. The suggestion that we should shrug about the meanings of words, about the definitions of things we are being asked to condemn, is clearly wrong. We are in the words business here. We should not, therefore, shrug about the meanings of words. This is my sole basis for objecting to the text of the current motion. This is a problem that should have been easy to solve.

I have spoken to many people about Motion No. 103, both supporters and opponents. Those who support this motion, though, almost uniformly agree with me that the government should entertain amendments that strengthen the motion by providing definition and clarity. Why not simply define Islamophobia? Members have provided definitions of lslamophobia verbally in their speeches. Why not take the verbal clarifications and add them to the text of the motion itself?

I asked the mover of the motion this direct question during debate on February 16. I said the following:

I have a very specific question that would be worth the member answering. Why does she insist on characterizing the ask for clarity as a watering down? It is not a watering down to amend a motion to provide a definition. It is not a watering down for Canadians with legitimate concerns about knowing what we mean when we use this word to ask the member to provide a clear definition, not just verbally but in the context of the motion.

The member responded:

“Mr. Speaker, this has been a great debate on issues that the Muslim community really tackles on a daily basis, and has tackled for a number of years. However, it is not just about the Muslim community; it is about all Canadians.

In October of last year, I was happy to see the House unanimously condemn Islamophobia. Since then, nothing has shifted to what “Islamophobia” means. I find it very interesting that the members across the way are now using the definition of Islamophobia as the reason why they cannot stand up for the Muslim community, recognize the issue as it is today, and do the right thing.”

However true or false any of that may be, it is quite obviously not an answer to the question posed. Why are Liberals so allergic to a clear definition? Why will they not answer that question?

What is perplexing about all this is that, if the government or the member were serious about their stated objectives, then they would have every reason to work with us on amendments. The rules of the House do not even allow me to move an amendment without the member's permission, but
an amendment that provides a definition would cut off all this unnecessary disagreement and would strengthen the motion.

Liberals might claim that Conservatives are failing to stand up for the Muslim community when we oppose this motion, but the fact is that they failed to stand up for the Muslim community a month ago when we presented a motion that explicitly condemned discrimination against Muslims and that they voted against. When they voted against our motion, they put politics ahead of the fight against bigotry. When they refuse amendments today, they are again putting politics ahead of the fight against bigotry. I sincerely hope that this will be the last time they do that.

Following these points about the motion in front of us, I would like to take a step back and talk about the global climate in which we find ourselves and how we as legislators ought to respond to it. Specifically, I believe we can understand the western political environment in which we find ourselves as being characterized by different kinds of anxieties, anxieties that are real and legitimate and need to be responded to as opposed to dismissed. We see the emergence of economic anxieties, security anxieties, and political anxieties.

On the economic front, many middle and low-income workers, especially in certain sectors, feel they have been left behind and are being ignored by economic and policy change. In Canada, this anxiety is being driven by dramatic tax increases across the board and by the disdain with which ordinary workers are being treated, particularly in the natural resources sector. It is all well and good to talk about the jobs of the future, but nobody today is putting food on the table with jobs of the future. The erosion of present natural resource and manufacturing sectors with policies that are supposed to lead to jobs of the future is a recipe for present discord and discontent, and we have seen the effects of that elsewhere. Policies of higher taxes and increased regulation and other changes are contributing to broader economic anxiety.

An increase in terrorist attacks in the western world as well as the increasing accessibility of information and images about terrible violence in other parts of the world are contributing to anxiety about our security situation. Anxiety is increased by fears of uncontrolled migration. Western societies have been built and strengthened by the entry of legal immigrants who come to contribute to our countries, but fears about uncontrolled, unregulated migration are legitimate and sensible. Societies with successful immigration systems do not have open borders. Societies with open borders invariably invoke a backlash. They cannot even sustain the policies they intend to have in place.

Finally, political anxieties emerge when the public feels that politicians are focused on symbolic issues as opposed to on their substantive and legitimate concerns. When people with real economic and security concerns are called deplorables, sewer rats, racist, and whatever it is, they are unlikely to respond well to political elites, and they should not.

Anxieties about the economy, about security, and about disconnected political elitism are all legitimate, but these anxieties can also lead to dark, dangerous, and even violent responses. Recognizing these anxieties and their potential sequelae, we need to do two things. We certainly need to call out and condemn bigotry and violence in clear terms. However, we cannot treat all of those people with legitimate anxieties like they are violent bigots. Instead, we need to recognize and respond to the legitimate anxieties of the wider public.

What is the relationship between this and Motion No. 103? Motion No. 103 would not in any way advance toward its supposed objectives. What genuine bigot was ever dissuaded in his or her bigotry by a motion of the House of Commons? Does the government really think that there is even one person who will repent of his or her bigotry as a result of the outcome of this vote?

The failure of the government to work collaboratively on this has clearly had the effect of accentuating public anxiety among those who fear that the government or people who support it have some dark and hidden agenda, which is their reason for not seeking an amendment. I do not think this motion is the result of any kind of secret conspiracy. It is really just cynical politics. However, surely the experience of this motion should by now have taught them the lesson about the need to have a clearer and more serious response to bigotry that actually deals with the underlying anxieties that give rise to it.

To conclude, I would like to share with the House some words written by Shimon Fogel, CEO of CIJA. He has some good advice for all of us as we go forward. He recently wrote:

I was pleased to engage with the sponsor of M-103...in advance of her motion being debated on the floor of the House of Commons. We had an open and frank conversation at her invitation, which included discussion of the need to define Islamophobia.

We support the motion's intended objective of combating anti-Muslim hate in Canada, which should be unanimously endorsed. However, we are concerned with the potential validation of any restriction placed on criticizing those manifestations of Islam that drive hatred and violence against Jews, Muslims and other Canadians...

Following the anticipated adoption of the motion, critics and proponents alike must set their disagreement aside and ensure that any parliamentary initiative that follows is unifying.

It is not too late for the mover of the motion to do the right thing and amend it so we can have unanimous support. However, regardless of the outcome of the vote, I hope that going forward, the government will be willing to work with us in good faith on these issues. They are simply too important to do otherwise.

JZ9633 · 发表于 2017-3-23 15:20

"Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB" 是萨省吗?

ittop · 发表于 2017-3-23 15:22

JZ9633 发表于 2017-3-23 16:20
4 A0 S7 S5 {4 Z1 V8 L- v* s. v"Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB" 是萨省吗?

艾玛一激动没仔细看，谢谢提醒

任大先生 · 发表于 2017-3-23 18:14

“Religious people deserve legal protection, but religions do not. People should not discriminate against individuals, but should feel quite free to criticize the doctrine, history, or practice of any religion. ”
我是基督徒，我认为他讲得很好。
没有人们对天主教的批评，就不会有马丁路德的宗教改革。

账号		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

[时事热评] 阿省年轻保守党议员在M103国会辩论中的发言，非常非常经典！！