A couple of months ago the Canadian government passed Motion 103, also known as the anti-Islamophobia motion.

Some, namely the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, are downplaying the political ramifications of the motion. If we believed them, we would conclude that M-103 isn’t least bit threatening to the fundamental freedoms of Canadians. In reality, the motion is in direct opposition to our freedom of conscience, opinion, and religion.

There are others, however, including members of the Conservative Party, who are overstating the significance of the motion. To be clear, M-103 is not a law, as some would lead you to believe. M-103, like all motions, is a proposal for a particular course of action. It does not fundamentally prohibit anti-Islam speech.

The motion, proposed by liberal MP Iqra Khalid reads: “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination.”

There is indeed an increase in hate crimes against Muslims in Canada. Iqra Khalid actually received thousands of death threats and added security from law enforcement after she proposed M-103. And according to Statistics Canada, there were 99 hate crimes against Muslim-Canadians in 2014. That is more than twice as much as the number of hate crimes against Muslims in 2012, which numbered 45.

And mere months ago, Alexandre Bissionnette murdered six Muslims and wounded nineteen others at a Quebecois Mosque.

M-103, however, is not the solution to these problems. In fact, it will not reduce discrimination. It might increase it.

Before I explain how it might increase discrimination, here are a number of things you should think about concerning Motion 103.

  1. Our politicians—the people who implement the system—suggest that our laws are systemically racist. This is ridiculous on many levels. For one, Muslims are not a racial group. And if our laws were truly discriminatory against Muslims and other groups, these politicians would not merely call on themselves to condemn systemic racism; they would identify and abolish these racist and discriminatory laws. That, of course, would suggest that their talk of systemic racism in this nation is anything more than a buzzword to further an agenda.
  2. What is Islamophobia? Examples of Islamophobia apparently range from the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad, opposition to Islamic teachings, and according to Petition E-411 (as referenced in M-103) associating Islamic terrorism with Islam.
  3. M-103 isn’t necessary to protect Muslim-Canadians. Three lengthy sections of the nation’s Criminal Code address the penalties (fines and imprisonments) a person might suffer for inciting hate against another person’s religion or race. There are also provincial regulations targeting hate-crimes. Muslim Canadians, like all Canadians, are already heavily protected by this nation’s federal and provincial laws.
  4. Why did the Liberal Party reject a more inclusive and alternative motion to M-103 that read: “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities.”
  5. Isn’t it curious that the same people behind M-103 are also developing Bill C-16, a bill that if passed by the Liberal Party, might categorize speech against transgenderism as a criminal offense? Isn’t it strange that Feminist and LGBTQ groups like Black Lives Matter Toronto, for example, are supportive of M-103 and Bill C-16? Are we to believe that Islam and Progressivism are harmonious to one another?

There is a burgeoning alliance between Progressivism and Islam in the western world. For instance, this year’s Women’s March in America was led by Linda Sarsour, a feminist-Muslim who endorses Sharia Law in America. And the Canadian government’s apparent preference for Islam over other religions might signal an eventual reunion of sorts between church mosque and state.

If M-103 develops into a law, it may become discriminatory. Whenever a government favours or adopts a particular religion, that government inevitably discriminates against citizens who hold to a different religion. The relationship between the European Kingdoms and the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages led to the mass persecutions of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. And in present times, the relationship between the nations in the Middle East and Islam is why so many Jews and Christians (and LGBTQ people) suffer persecution in that region.

We do not know what will become of Motion 103. Perhaps M-103 (and Bill C-16) may be signalling that we Christians may soon be joining much of our brothers and sisters in the world in suffering persecution for our faith in Christ. Or maybe not. Still, the strange alliance between Progressivism and Islam in Canada reminds me of 1 Peter 2:7-8, which says:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”

The imagery here is that the builders used every single available stone to build a temple: except one, just one. And that stone, though rejected by men, is actually the most precious stone to God. That stone is cornerstone of the temple. That stone is Jesus Christ.

In other words, the world accepts anyone and everyone, except Jesus Christ. Progressivism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Atheism, and every other ideology is considered right and acceptable to the world, except Christianity.

With that in mind, the alliance between Islam and Progressivism isn’t all that strange, after all.