International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance IHRA definition of antisemitism suppresses all criticism of the state of Israel.
As repression against the Palestinian liberation movement in Canada continues to intensify, this handbook serves as yet another tool for curtailing our right to protest and speak out against the atrocities Israel is committing. As charges from the past year against protestors in Toronto are being dropped, the state is seeking new and creative ways to criminalize Palestinian solidarity. Hiding behind the same excuse used to found the State of Israel, the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the newly released handbook are merely another tool for distraction and repression.
Except that the person is intentionally misdirecting the entire convo in order to invalidate an entire highly problematic edifice of issues.
I did no such thing.
Orly?
My Muslim neighbor seems pretty chill. I doubt he partakes in honor killings, sexual slavery, and/or apostate killings in his free time.
There are extremists in almost any facet of humankind, especially so when religion gets involved. It’s best not to paint everyone with the same brush.
There it is, the “not all Muslims” defence. Totally misdirects away from how “Islamophobia” is wielded to protect all manner of religious-based evil, by throwing up a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy to force the convo onto the people instead of the religion.
I never focused on the people or even a single person, my argument was entirely the flip side - how a tool that is meant to protect people is instead shielding an entire religion.
If a religion needs protections of any kind from criticisms, censure, or challenges, then it has no right to exist in the first place. And that is what makes “Islamophobia” so unremittingly evil - it protects the religion from anything that can diminish it. It goes out of it’s way to conflate the religion with the people, thereby muddying the waters and making both the exact same thing; usurping what is meant only for the people to include the religion as well.
You seem to keep trying to bring me into your arguement. I was not arguing all that drama. I was just saying your islamopobia was showing. That is all.
Please realize, I am just an impartial observer and your aggression doesn’t seem to help your agenda.
Thank you for proving my point for me. You wielded it like the duplicitous cudgel it was designed to be - to protect the religion instead of any person.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Orly?
There it is, the “not all Muslims” defence. Totally misdirects away from how “Islamophobia” is wielded to protect all manner of religious-based evil, by throwing up a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy to force the convo onto the people instead of the religion.
I never focused on the people or even a single person, my argument was entirely the flip side - how a tool that is meant to protect people is instead shielding an entire religion.
If a religion needs protections of any kind from criticisms, censure, or challenges, then it has no right to exist in the first place. And that is what makes “Islamophobia” so unremittingly evil - it protects the religion from anything that can diminish it. It goes out of it’s way to conflate the religion with the people, thereby muddying the waters and making both the exact same thing; usurping what is meant only for the people to include the religion as well.
You seem to keep trying to bring me into your arguement. I was not arguing all that drama. I was just saying your islamopobia was showing. That is all.
Please realize, I am just an impartial observer and your aggression doesn’t seem to help your agenda.
Thank you for proving my point for me. You wielded it like the duplicitous cudgel it was designed to be - to protect the religion instead of any person.