Leaderboard

More off-topic nonsense from you, little one-trick pony. Cultural mysogyny extends back much further than 9/11. This is about Islamophobia in Canada, not the USA.

What this proves is that you don't open links posted by members who don't share your ideology and mindset. Yet, you expect posters of all opinions to look at your linked articles. Chalk up another reason why discussions with you are a waste of time. And in any case, I was talking to Hydra but you decided you wanted to butt in add your two cents. I add that cause I don't want to leave the impression that I engage you in debate.

I don't think this is off topic. Have you ever thought about what would happen if a western gov’t fell being replaced by a dictatorship? Would anyone of us be the person to order executions along with sending people to starve in concentration camps? Wonder no more If you live in Britain, One of those people would be the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone. I knew he was radical but he actually said: “One of the things that Chávez did when he came to power, he didn’t kill all the oligarchs. There was about 200 families who controlled about 80% of the wealth in Venezuela,” Livingstone told Talk Radio. “He allowed them to live, to carry on. I suspect a lot of them are using their power and control over imports and exports to make it difficult and to undermine Maduro.” When pressed, Livingstone said he was “not in favour of killing anyone”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/ken-livingstone-venezuela-crisis-hugo-chavez-oligarchs

Judging by this thread Islamophobia is certainly not going away anytime soon. Oh well, its good for comic relief if nothing else.

The Vikings probably were the first Europeans who came to the East coast and so? Its also believed South pacific Islanders by sea came to South America and people from the Mongolian plains crossed the ice from Russia to Alaska. So? Populations came to North and South America and evolved. Then thousands of years later, Europeans in the name of Jesus Christ came upon these lands declaring them for Christ and their Kings and Queens who they believe personified the beliefs of Christ. The clash of civilizations is now recorded. So? I totally disagree with Jacee on many threads but on this one I must defend her position as it is legally sound. In law there is no concept of losers and winners. The law is in theory blind to such concepts and is supposed to see parties as equals and do a balancing act so to speak and provide remedies to equal the imbalances when they arise. The Supreme Court of Canada uses a rule of law that does not define aboriginals or non aboriginals as winners or losers, just two equal conflicted components. The Manga Carta act signed by King John with aboriginal leaders is the basis of all treaties our laws are based on when interacting with the aboriginal nations. The aboriginal nations are defined as a nation of nations, equal and running parallel in equal coexistence with our non aboriginal federal government. Our non aboriginal government broke treaties we signed with aboriginals. They don't in law get to break treaties because they are winners and aboriginals are losers. The law doesn't define the issues or solutions to remedying the issues in conflict that way. Say what you want aboriginals have not engaged in terrorism when we violated and broke the agreements we made with them. They have waited us out waiting for us to evolve to a point where we get to their method of conflict resolution that sees the planet and where we live as something we share not own. I think what pisses so many people off is that in this supposed power struggle or conflict, the concept that aboriginals may be more highly evolved than we non aboriginals in terms of how they perceive the universe let alone our place on the planet is something they are not yet ready for. Thus we prefer to think of aboriginals as losers, drunks, lazy, etc. The epidemic of suicides in aboriginal lands in Canada, the alcoholism, the poverty, its a complex form of behaviour with many causes, some that begin and end with each aboriginal's decision making processes but some so heavily imposed on them by environmental limitation as to make it difficult to overcome. Being angry at aboriginals for asking for their rights to be honoured and their way of life to be respected which is at the pith and substance of these legal conflicts causes a lot of backlash with non aboriginals feeling if they do that it gives aboriginals an unfair advantage. The fact is non aboriginals approach land issues from the perspective of someone owns the land to the exclusivity of others. Aboriginals approach the very same issue with the concept that no one owns land, land is a collective shared concept. Our conflicts can actually be summarized as simply as this-when the Europeans came, they put up fences. Aboriginals looked at them and said why would you do that? That difference is still and the pith and substance of every legal issue we remain confllicted about. I am not hear to romanticize aboriginals or demonize non aboriginals, just to say on this one Jacee's description of the legal process is accurate and we still have a long way to go in resolving conflicts with the native collective of nations. Yes their collective of nations faces internal challenges of corruption, suicide, alcoholism. Yes. Our non aboriginal governments also face the same challenges. I personally have seen some very bad stomach churning situations in the court system with native peoples-I don't romanticize sniffing glue, lighting children on fire, beating women senseless in a drunken rage. I don't though take sides and say it makes all aboriginals lost or losers. How can I? I've seen the same crap with my people if I call them that. Its all relative. I tell you what. I don't myself find Trudeau capable of doing anything but simplistic lip service and feel good photo ops with aboriginals. I think where he really lost their respect was going into a teepee on capital hill during July 1 celebrations thinking it made him look tolerant and hip. The first thing he did when he came out was to brag how he was the first PM to do that. To me it was a monumental indication of everything wrong with Trudeau let alone our approach to our issues with native peoples. All Trudeau could do is talk about himself and use natives to make himself look better, Maybe in our dialogue with natives we need to stop doing that and talk in collective terms rather than how it relates to us as individuals.

You can't find the stats saying Muslims were targets of hatred more than Jews Jacee? That is crap. They don't exist. Your claiming you can't find them speaks loudly as to your credibility. So be it.

Yes, because for the first time in decades the parliamentary hard-left is no longer marginalised - the loss of the referendum caused the far more numerous parliamentary soft left (social democratic wing) of the Labour party to lose faith in Corbyn and spark mass resignations from cabinet, so to fill those vacancies Corbyn's shadow cabinet was dominated by the hard-left (socialist wing) and they've set the agenda since Corbyn comfortably won re-election as leader, especially so after he outperformed in the election. As detailed above, the hard-left is just as anti-EU as the hard-right, and whilst Corbyn was willing to sideline his Euroscepticism to gain leadership, focusing his battles on steering the party Left and democratising it, and reflected the program he won on by campaigning for a Remain vote, the loss of the referendum has changed everything. The soft left and Blairite right desperately want to reverse or at least ensure a soft Brexit, whereas the hard-left can't believe their luck and are quite content to see the government's Brexit plans through.

Where in those numbers does it show that reported hate crimes against Muslims is higher than reported hate crimes against Jews? You did, after all, claim that reported hate crimes against Muslims was the highest in all reported hate crimes.

This is exactly what you do to others, those of us who do have clear issues with Muslim culture. You project it claim the person is some kind of mindless bigot. You have done that to me, and others here. So suck it up, buttercup.

More likely they'll shut up and hide, as many oppressed women do.

This could get even more interesting now that Mueller has issued subpoenas, and begun probing Trump's finances with regard to the Russian issue. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-grand-jury/index.html

Can I say all Muslims are terrorists now?

Drivel. It's not even remotely close, not even to being in second place, or third.

Lol. Oye veI. Was there ever such misandry and bigotry posted in the name of progressive liberalism?

All men rape? Here I thought hockey practice was just getting rough.

Anyone here want to blame this on the US or Exxon ?

If there is anything to be learned from history it is that there is no such thing as anyone's "own lands". Stronger cultures will always crush under their feet the weaker ones which can do nothing but either adapt or disappear. However, strong cultures may not be strong forever and they may themselves end up being replaced. The same thing again; adapt or die!

I understand the court rulings on Aboriginal rights pretty well. I am just curious why you think there's something wrong with some or all of them. The courts always provide a detailed rationale for their judgements, so you can find out how treaties are interpreted and why, if you choose to. If you don't provide any evidence, support or even examples for your claims then you can't expect your concerns to be taken too seriously.

Treaties are interpreted by the courts in the same way as any contract: According to the 'meeting of the minds' of the parties. Sometimes there are letters between parties, etc, that the court uses to clarify. And the courts do interpret treaties in the modern context. Thus, Aboriginal 'hunting, fishing' rights are interpreted as the right to sustain themselves from their traditional land, and may now include receiving revenues from activity on that land - mining, building, etc. "The intent of the Canadian government has always been to honor the treaties ..." by the law. The government doesn't determine how that's done. Nor do you or other random Canadians. The courts decide that. I don't really care if you agree. I didn't make the laws. Inform yourself about treaty interpretation. The rest of your post is just opinion and bafflegab.

You two are welcome to any opinion you like, but it doesn't change the facts of law: Canada accepted responsibility for treaties at Confederation, perhaps not intending to honour them but the Supreme Court ruled that we must.