Leaderboard

You have to wonder why this has happened? What do the authorities not want us to know and why have mainstream media outlets for the most part been so docile in not apparently seeking to obtain, much less reveal, details concerning the investigation? The incident has virtually been buried and we know little more than we knew the day after the shooting. I can't think of another instance in this country nor in any other Western democracy where such an incident has been handled in this manner. This is serious stuff that calls into question the essence and efficacy of our democracy and institutions.

1. Where's your proof of this anti-Muslim press? Quite the opposite actually as you can see by the dearth of reporting in the Danforth episode - if there was ever an opportunity to feed an anti-Muslim narrative, that was it. There's still plenty of Islam-related bombs and killings going on around the world that don't even gain a mention in our media. The media and Canadians have so far been able to move on from the Toronto 18, Parliament, Richelieu, Edmonton and Yonge Street terror acts. While the residue may be starting to build, I see very little if any forming your "body of anti-Muslim press". 2) Yes we had our own despicable act. Alexandre Bissonnette. Why was this immediately called an anti-Muslim terrorist attack? Where was the immediate cry that he was mentally ill? 3) Instead of insults, perhaps you should reflect on the example I provided - instead of reducing it to "metrics". As is statistically shown, Jews have been - and are - subjected to many times more hate crimes that any other race/culture in Canada - yet you have condoned the Islamaphobia "measure" that singles out Muslims. And all this hubbub is done in the absence of true anti-Muslim activity in our society. Discomfort with certain cultural "traditions" like Burkhas or FGM or anti-women mindsets does not constitute anything approaching "hate" - but it can validly represent "discomfort". Big, big difference. You and I seem to be too far apart to gain any common ground. That's too bad.

Yeah I understand you. I think what most people who are"anti-Islam" want is for them to leave those undesirable traits, misogyny, desire to attack the infidels, hatred of Jews, back in their home environment. When they live in this environment, that they become one of us. But to the point you made earlier which I called you on, you "projected" Islam upon yourself, and could not fathom you ever becoming violent. Rightly so. I think that it really underscores the problem with Liberalism, equating otherness back to oneself, and then making a judgement based on ones personal bias, without understanding the cultural context of people who live in a completely different environment. This is a dangerously naive attitude.

We still do not know the names, ages, wounds of all the victims of the Danforth Shooting, similar to ke the Van Attack - they have not confirmed identities yet, why the stonewalling of Canadians? joe warmingon when asked why no ninformation. Pressure really on those who would bring this information to light - smear campaigns, name calling, pressuring employers etc. Freedom is not free, nor is information - especially if powers-that-be lock it down. Most media threw in the towel on this Danforth long ago. But not all

1. I think that you are welcome, I think. 2. You just hurt my feelings. 3. Why would you do that? You create a topic and then you just forget about it? What is with that?

Rex Murphy nails it, even as the cone of silence on this continues. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-tough-questions-need-answering-about-the-response-to-the-danforth-slaughter?video_autoplay=tru

Of course, because you were likely born and raised here, where Canadian values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence have been instilled in you since birth. Our environment shapes us.

Understanding that hate crimes against Jews are considerably more frequent than against Muslims, Canadians are proving to be exceptionally tolerant in a world that is tarnished with heinous acts perpetrated by those who claim to be adherents of Islam. With ISIS, the Taliban and "lone wolf" attacks right here in Canada - it is comforting (if that's the right word) that Canadians have for the most part, been quite serene and peaceful in their response - in spite of media opinions to the contrary, including yours. Let's not lose track that in 2016, we had 139 reported "hate crimes" against a population of over one million Muslims. When Muslim hate crimes - on a per capita basis - exceed those against Jews, perhaps there will come a day when an "Islamaphobia" motion might deserve some discussion. As you say - context is everything.

Why would you think that? Ideologies and religions have caused massive violence throughout history. Now you might say that the bulk of communists, fascists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, etc., do not become violent towards others. For every thousand people who rush to burn houses because of a rumor some Christian or Ahmadi burned a page from the Koran there are tens of thousands who did not (mind, who knows how close they were and whether they knew in time to join). And I accept that the bulk of the followers of Communism, and probably even Fascism would not take part in or support mass murder in the name of their ideology. But that does not suggest they do not, in large measure, share the beliefs and ideals of those who do. And if that ideology or religion's beliefs are cruel, heartless, and inhumane, then they form a population from which, inevitably, the more zealous and thus more violent emerge. I would not, given we can pick and choose, want someone who is a Communist or a Fascist to immigrate to Canada. Nor would I want a Muslim, or people with other inhumane religious beliefs. The more such people come here, the larger the population base, the more certain that zealots will emerge from it, filled with extremist self-confidence in the rightness of their beliefs, and willing to commit violence in pursuit of them.

There's a good article in today's Globe and Mail, written by an immigrant, about the illegal/irregular migrant issue. (See link, below) The author of the piece notes that Trudeau's stance on this issue has the effect of undermining the seriousness of Canadian citizenship itself: "We could, and should, have an honest debate about the consequences of the PM’s grandstanding in encouraging migrants to cross over in the first place, and his seeming reluctance to defend the integrity of Canada’s borders publicly. What is irrefutable is that his words betrayed a lack of seriousness about the value of Canadian citizenship." The author goes even further in noting the consequences of Trudeau's self-serving and hollow approach in stating that "[he] is increasingly likely to lose [immigrants'] support in 2019 by willfully diminishing the values of new Canadians and replacing them with his own. Then he expects them to be grateful for it." Ouch. I think it's time for a fresh look at damage being done by our 'poseur-in-chief' and by 2019 it will be well past time to dispatch him to the dustbin of political history. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeaus-gamble-on-immigrant-voters/

Pope Francis has called for end to capital punishment. What an incredible statement coming from the Catholic Church. The Pope has indicated: "Pope Francis says nothing can justify the use of the death penalty, and there is no “right” way to humanely kill another person." He fully rejects the death sentence for prisoners and hopes to abolish the death penalty around the world. In Canada, the last people executed was in 1962. What does the Pope's opinion mean to the Catholic Politicians? What does it mean to Christian followers around the world? I know that we have a number of Christian followers on this forum. What do they think? Personally, I think it 's about time.

As predictably as the weather gets cold in winter (well, in most of Canada at least), the Ford government announced yesterday that it's rolling back welfare reform in Ontario. In particular, it's chopping the "basic income" experiment even though I believe that prior to the election the Conservatives said they'd continue it. And measures announced yesterday will eliminate many other reforms as well as re-emphasize fraud reduction. Some of the changes are probably warranted as there's a concern that welfare and other unearned subsidies may be contributing to the entrenchment of an urban underclass. Also, it's difficult to justify a basic or guaranteed income to compensate for jobs that will theoretically be lost to automation when Canada's bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year to meet presumed labor market 'shortages', and about half of the newcomers end up living in Ontario. These policies, which are premised on conflicting logic, can't be rationally justified at the same time. So, what is the role of welfare at this point? Is it time we end it for employable people and simply set up a system of short-term repayable loans rather than encourage dependency? Maybe rolling back recent reforms isn't enough. Maybe we should begin to look at the whole system through a broader and more realistic lens.

I'm not an economist - I just know that business reacts to policy (or non-policy). As I said, I'll watch the stock market. So far, my US based RRSP is doing pretty good.

Not really, I didn't mention anything about the means of production, the proletariat, the clash between classes, etc. Just being dissatisfied with status quo, poor governance, corruption, etc, has nothing to do with Marxism.

This story gives keen insight into the life and death of an entitlement program no matter how small...as well as the mindset and expectations of pogey champions. In one fell swoop, the premier of Ontario just ruined their welfare dream lottery ticket.

This morning, in a call-in radio show one woman on the cancelled pilot project called to complain she didn't know how she would be able to pay her mortgage. The poor dear.

Apparently there was not enough "shock and anger" before to motivate "welfare queens" toward gainful employment. They were happy to just stay in the free ride plan for three years.

I usually don't react this way - but we have not heard one iota about Faisal Hussain for several days - including The Sun. Think about it - something as simple as verifying that he had been treated for mental illness/psychosis - but nada. News reporters usually dig this stuff up really quickly. It's as if the editors have been advised to shut everything down. In summary, it hit me that something major is likely going on - linked directly to national security. I guess we should let the authorities do their job - as long as we get an explanation at the end.

Being arrested under the Mental Health Act is not in and of itself proof of a mental illness diagnosis. Those so detained are held in health or medical facilities for observation and assessment by qualified professionals. Police officers aren't for the most part qualified medical or mental health professionals. As for the mental illness explanation for the shooter's motives and/or behavior, this theory becomes less tenable as each day passes given that the information necessary to reach this conclusion could easily have been obtained and analyzed by this point. Mental illness may have played some role, but it's increasingly likely that if it applies at all it's a secondary factor.

Mentally ill or otherwise...

Your attempts to turn this Jihadist into a victim and his victims into the perpetrators shows where your loyalties are. Had the shooting victims...dead and wounded...simply done MORE to help poor Faisal...this wouldn't have happened. Does that sound about right to you? I bet it does...

When is the last time you heard a police update about the details and motivations of the Jihadi that killed Canadians with a van? That's right...don't hold your breath.

Not true, it has not been debunked, we still have no confirmation of such illness, only the Muslim spin doctor. Howver, it really is shameless and ignorant of apologists for terror to use the excuse of mental illness for terrorism which seem to be their knee-jerk attributing of it tonsidering that most mentally ill people are not violent and far more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators.

You're free to support the Muslim Brotherhood and their claims of mental illness. Don't expect others to Dhimmi-up in the same fashion.

Thanks for the link. It's an excellent article and given that almost a week later we have no clearer understanding of the shooter's circumstances and motives than was the case when Murphy wrote the article, the official silence is even more problematic. To hide behind supposed ISU jurisdiction in this case amounts to an enormous public disservice. As Murphy notes, if ever there were a valid reason for police to justifiably kill a suspect, assuming that's what happened to the Danforth shooter, this was it. One has to believe that the police and public officials know a lot more than we are being told. Trudeau's opaque comment about citizen safety, uttered when he was in Toronto a few days ago, suggested that he knew a whole lot more than he was willing to acknowledge. He avoided direct questions about the Danforth incident and looked like he wanted to get out of town as quickly as possible. I'm even more concerned that Canadian media outlets have for the most part been so apparently deferential about the Danforth investigation. Without an inquisitive, free and critical press, do we even live in a functioning democracy? Hmmm...

You're free to support Islam and the violence and terror it brings.

Bullshit. First, I don't read any of those people. I highly doubt many Canadians do. You progressive types seem to have a bizarre hate on for free speech, equating it with every manner of dark intent and malevolent influence. Here's an original thought for you. Try not to run from it. Those who voice suspicion and antipathy towards Islam and its devoted adherents are not causing the public distrust but are a reflection of that distrust.

No. I realize your definition of rational is rather different from mine, though. My point was that antipathy towards Muslims is based on the behaviour of Muslims. I am not justifying illegal acts or even rude acts against individual Muslims. But to suggest the antipathy and ill-feeling towards Muslims, as a group, is not the result of behaviour of Muslims, as a group is utterly blind. Again, you appear intent on using a word which you clearly misunderstand. I asked why there wasn't the same antipathy towards Hindus or Budhists and your response was that it's probably because I like to blame victims. This is truly strange, Trumpian level logic. So if I'm reading you correctly your position is that all antipathy towards Muslims is the responsibility of a newspaper chain a tiny percentage of the population reads and a web site virtually no one has even heard of. Have I got that correctly? So the victims of violence or even rudeness (most Canadian hate crimes amount to rudeness) are never responsible for provoking it in any way?

Right, because there's no religious violence in Iraq. Can you find me even ONE Muslim nation without religious violence? There are, I believe, 37 Muslim states for you to pick from.

Because they have zero imagination and can only compare everything to the US.

There is a labour shortage. I work in corporate IT and there are basically zero white people on the team. You are not going to be able to get the welfare recipient into one of these jobs. Also good luck getting any centrist party to turn it's back on business to stop bringing in low wage workers.

We have a lazy national media. Why aren't the media going into ERs in France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, or wherever, to compare? Why aren't they talking about how long trials take in other countries? Why aren't they showing us how things work in other countries? Without a basis of comparison it's hard for Canadians to really understand how much of a problem there is.

1.) Why? Because it's inconvenient to your argument? You should explain your contention rather than simply dismiss out of hand an obvious conclusion. 2.) I don't have a clue what you mean by this. Do you? Again, please explain.

Seeing Muslims already lie about being victims of 'hate crimes' in Canada, there is no way to determine how many complaints are real or are completely manufactured by Muslim Brotherhood spin doctors.

Kudlow, really? He’s as partisan as it gets.

Damn straight. A world in which half the population does nothing and lives off handouts from the few who still work is a dystopian nightmare that has been played out enough times in science fiction, we don't need to try it out in reality.

And yet at the same time we are increasing immigration rates to unprecedented numbers because there is a "labour shortage". Ahh, the wonderful world of alternative facts.

I know you want to believe that because it makes you feel better. Show me where I've ever said "most of them". Yep, like most of your views are idiotic, fella. Go take your medication again.

You're free to support the Religion of Islam. I owe it no allegiance or respect. Islam's cult members can turn murderous which is my issue with this particular death cult.

Apparently just reporting crimes or incidents by Muslims is stirring it up, only non Muslim crimes shold be reported. If it where not for the Sun we would have less imfo than we do now. There was another swimming pool incident recently but no worries, he'll get off due to cultural differences. If we continue to cover up and hide incidents we enable them. Fortunately Canada doesn't have the same demographics as Europe because they are in trouble.

You're free to support Islam. I'm free to not support your cult.

Really? You don't think maybe Muslims are in some way responsible for that too? I mean, there doesn't seem to be the same antipathy to Hindus or Buddhists. Why do you suppose that is? How come we're not seeing tons of hate crimes against Chinese, given the rise in their numbers? Why Muslims in particular?

I think your position and that of some other commentators on this topic to be a bit overblown. Hate crime is more commonly being reported nowadays, likely as a result of greater publicity about and acceptance of its existence, but also because the meaning of the term has expanded. Many incidents that are now reported as hate crimes likely wouldn't have warranted police attention even a decade ago. We now consider insults and all manner of other rude behavior to fall into the category of hate crime. But even with the broader definition of and increased credibility accorded hate crime, including much behavior that in the past would likely have been considered merely uncivil conduct, there were according to Stats Canada fewer than 1,300 hate crime incidents reported to police across the country in 2015 (see link), which, given a population of 36 million or so, works out to one report for every 27 thousand people. And presumably far fewer criminal convictions resulted, particularly in cases where non-violent incidents were reported. Further undermining the notion that there's been an explosion in hate crimes is the fact that fewer than 40 percent of the total incidents reported in 2015 were violent in nature. And the Stats Can report the table accompanies indicates that those most statistically likely to suffer violent attacks were members of the LGBTQ community while those least likely among the categories analyzed to face violence were those who reported incidents grounded in religiously motivated intolerance. Sometimes it helps to stand back and broaden one's perspective on these matters. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14832/tbl/tbl02-eng.htm

How long are we to bear the white man's burden for things which happened generations ago? If you're talking about Iraq or Afghanistan they brought that on themselves. But I can't recall the last incident where these people committed terrorism in the West. Instead its usually Pakistanis or Egyptians or Somalians or Saudis or Sudanese.

I love the term "urban underclass" it has an almost free love and bohemian feel to it. Get a real job you rastafarian's! I too agree that we should set up a system of short-term repayable loans, that'll force those free loving fentanyl users to be accountable to the money i give them. Hell! Just like me, they wouldn't spend a loan on drugs, only a drug addict would do that! Now undoubtedly some of those welfare users wont have the money to pay back their loans, so either A. let's throw them all in jail. But not just any jail, we can't just have a bunch of heroin addicts clogging up our judicial system. Lets create a special jail in nunavut, that way when they shiver all night, we can chalk it up to them being cold and not withdrawal. It can be like our own little Siberia. Option B. we could set up some kind of co-op program similar to japan, where they turn in something easily collectable and get money back in return. In Tokyo the homeless collect the garbage off the street. But Toronto's not filled with trash, it's filled with opioid users and immigrants, and you know what opioid users on immigrants on welfare don't need.. teeth. So i vote we set up a teeth exchange program with the dentist college. for each full set of teeth, you get a grand to pay back those loans! But you know what the answer isn't! The answer isn't treating mental health like an actual issue that our society faces. The answer isn't giving doctors the power to prescribe clean government tested and regulated drugs in conjunction with some kind of counselling program. And the answer definitely isn't talking about mental health in an open manner. Rather lets hide it away like the "special child" a mother gave birth to in the 1600's. I live in a society so i can have a better life, not so others can!

There are a couple/number of contrarians on the board who never seem to have thoughtful opinions that further a rational discussion. Throwing out straw man arguments is annoying. Just thought I'd mention it.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released in the spring I believe 48% of respondents favored immediate deportation of the illegal/irregular migrants and 36% favored permitting them to stay. When Doug Ford demanded that the federal government pick up all the cost for this fiasco I believe polling indicated overwhelming support among Ontarians for Ford's position. And that view is probably echoed across the country. There is an elite political consensus on immigration-related issues at the federal level - well, with reservations expressed by some Conservatives - but there's a lot more skepticism in the broader population. At some point, one has to believe, voters will get to express their displeasure and hopefully our feckless federal politicians will hear the message loudly and clearly.

I love it.....Canadians are very generous and welcoming, and there is lots of room in Canada, but Canadians hate spending money !

I do.