I have serious concerns about M-103, a private member’s bill currently before Parliament that would condemn Islamophobia. But I want to reassure my colleague Andrew Coyne that I’m not nearly as unhinged as he seems to think we critics are.
Here is what Andrew wrote of the critics in his recent column on M-103: they’re a “most extreme voice” on “a most extreme position,” flaunting “a kind of moral exhibitionism” and “populist virtue-signaling,” with the purpose of “say(ing) and do(ing) the most intolerant or ill-considered thing that comes to mind.” Further, they’re “whip(ping)” up a “hysteria campaign.”
The case against M-103 is actually much simpler, and one need not be hysterical to make it. M-103 is troubling for its lack of definition and in particular to its deference to language in petition E-411, which M-103 cites as its raison d’étre, to wit: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam… These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world.”