There have been a lot of moronic opinions expressed opposing the motion, but I don't subscribe to many of them.

The motion itself is pointless, and in its pointlessness, seems to imply that one form of hatred is somehow more repugnant than another.  But that's not the only reason it's, like, stupid.  Parliamentarians are elected to pass legislation, not table motions for or against a particular flavour of the month.  Meaningless gestures in the wake of  tragedy are not why I am a booster of parliamentary democracy and intelligent debate.  I am  not foolish enough to think this is a harbinger of Sharia law in our fair nation, but do we now need successive narrowly defined motions against other forms of hate?

We already have laws against hate speech and discrimination that protect all minorities.  The events in Québec City were a tragedy, but were not a symptom of Islamophobia.  They were the symptoms of a deranged mind.

Parliamentary motions won't guard against solitary lunatics.