Verbal abuse is not freedom of speech
Re: Be aware of this dangerous motion, by John Preston, Feb. 15. John Preston is concerned Motion 103 in Parliament will be an attack on free speech. I, too, am concerned about maintaining the right of free speech.
At the same time, the right of free speech does not give the right to someone to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire.
I believe Motion 103 is necessary since a web search resulted in the following:
• Oct. 2, 2015, in Montreal, pregnant Muslim attacked.
• Nov. 19, 2015, in Toronto, Muslim women accosted on TTC.
• Jan. 8, 2016, in Vancouver, new Muslim refugees pepper-sprayed.
• June 13, 2016, young Muslim mother says she was spat on and punched.
• Jan. 29, 2017, in Quebec City, six Muslim men killed while at prayer.
Since people are willing do these things to Muslim citizens and residents of Canada, it is no surprise to me that many more Muslims have been on the receiving end of verbal abuse.
I would hope that my MP would introduce a motion like M-103 if my wife or daughters or other Christian women were being attacked, spat on, pepper-sprayed or punched because they wore a cross as a necklace for such behaviour would only be the tip of the iceberg of intolerance.
Verbal abuse is not freedom of speech in my book. REV. GLENN J. SELLICK, Leamington
M-103 is a motion, not a bill
Re: Be aware of this dangerous motion, by John Preston, Feb. 15. In response to the letter, I would point out that Mr. Preston appears to have not taken his own advice and instead is engaged in histrionics and fearmongering.
M-103, regarding the denunciation of Islamophobia, is a motion, not a bill. As such, it has absolutely no force of law. It cannot be used in the enforcement of existing laws, does not codify new laws, and does not promulgate new regulations.
Put simply, it is an opinion. Regardless of whether it is passed, no one in government is obligated in any way to act on it. Period. End of story.
Preston might be more advised to review the legal workings of our federal government and differences between “bills” and “motions” to determine what is actually “law” and what is “opinion.”
It would enable him to direct his energy towards dealing with actual issues, as opposed to ones that just have the appearance of one.
It would also save on the fearmongering — something we have far too much of today. BLAKE MOORCROFT, Windsor