Allan Ross: Because we have hate crime and human rights laws, what other forms of (suspected?) intolerance, (assumed?) hatred and (irrational, by definition) phobia does M-103 intend that Parliament address, and more importantly what kind of legal responses might the motion envisage? Censorship is surely one approach but it would become a legal circus because any new prohibitions would clearly clash with the Charter right to freedom of expression. So what does M-103 intend to achieve other than to serve as a pre-emptive vilification of all points of view that are in any way critical, even if rationally so, of Islamic ideology and/or opinions and analyses that challenge overly broad interpretations of racism? Is moralistic pigeonholing the appropriate role of Parliament in a free and democratic society? Personally, I think not.