Leaderboard

Yes, the desperate re-branding. Thus Islam becomes magically "the religion of peace" and hijabs and burkas are now "symbols of women's empowerment".

I bet she likes that...

Well, the world is being taught a lesson by Islam about that. Charlie Hebdo massacre over a cartoon, Theo Van Gogh assassination for making a movie, Hirsi Ali death fatwa and needs bodyguards because she wrote a book, riots and killings in every country where their religious sensitivities are "offended", etc, etc. Perhaps Dia is just trying to save our lives...... Her advice is to "submit".

Why? Because I agree with sapper. Islam is the worst of the worst. Misogyny in general has been and continues to be dealt with in our society. Daily, I read about efforts to root it out. Yes, we have more improvements to make, but we at least are trying. Islam in general - not trying to root it out. And why should they? They have people like you on their side to defend it and make sure no one talks about it.

Yes, I've noticed you do this a lot. When misogyny in Islam is being discussed, you want to discuss misogyny in Christianity. Anything happening in Islam, you want to quickly change the subject. I'm glad you have also noticed that you do not wish to address the problems in Islam and get quite angry when others do.

You'll have to provide a link to support your claim. I don't see such a study on the PEW website. And I'd like to see such a survey of Muslims in Canada ... who may come here to get away from such extremism.

You have demonized all men in your posts. Several times you have flat out said, "All men are rapists." Sometimes I seriously wonder about your general comprehension. You seem to argue whatever suits you at the time. Sometimes terrorists are mostly new converts, sometimes terrorists are mostly old-time Muslims. Depends what you need to argue at the time. It just seems desperate to me.

Bingo.

Actually, you have done this quite often.

This is simply bullshit. The dislike of Islam is derived in part from a constant barrage (no pun intended) of Islamic violence throughout the world which has persisted for decades, Islamic terrorist attacks here, and what is known of Islamic doctrine with regards to their attitudes towards women, gays, Jews, and non-Muslims. Not simply what is known of the 'doctrine' but that this doctrine is mainstream in most of the Muslim world. In addition, of course, your belief that to know Muslims it to love them is nonsense. Many who have had experience with Muslims have not come away very impressed, including myself. I have met few, including my next door neighbour, who have much interest in integrating with Canada's culture. Their culture, their values, are derived from Islam, and they feel a sense of brotherhood with other Muslims more than with infidel Canadians.

So you're one of those open borders types, are you? Not the Muslims. That's a brainless response given numerous studies in multiple countries have shown that immigration cannot do much of anything to address a low birth rate. I don't know what your town is. They certainly do elsewhere. I lived in an area which was flooded with Somalis (and shortly afterward crime). And of course, we know about places like Toronto https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/09/30/toronto-is-segregated-by-race-and-income-and-the-numbers-are-ugly.html and of course we all know of the areas in BC like Richmond which are mostly Chinese. You'd prefer the social values of countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, China? Ours would seem, in almost every way, superior, more enlightened and more tolerant. Hamilton's Muslim population sits at about 4%. Much lower than in countries where there is religious strife. Your experience, does it? And my experience, given I've never lived in a 'white suburb' or rural area says differently.

$720/month is less than welfare. Welfare (Ontario) for a single person is $343 (Basic needs - food, clothing, personal supplies) Plus $390 (Shelter Maximum for Rent + utilities) = $733 Homeless people are sleeping "under bridges" because 1- welfare amounts are not enough to pay rent and eat, and 2- they are more often single men, who never qualify for subsidized public housing because they are never a priority and there isn't enough public housing provided to meet their needs. Wages paid for full-time work must be sufficient for a person to live on. Businesses that can't pay people a wage they can live on are not viable businesses and deserve to go bankrupt and shut down, as there are lots of businesses that can succeed while paying livable wages. "Everything" would not get cheaper with poverty wages. People would be homeless and malnourished, and we know that public costs (that we all pay) get much more expensive when more people are homeless and malnourished: hospitals, policing and all social services become much more expensive. You are either supremely ill-informed, or just being ridiculous.

Dialamah would like us to judge the Nazis according to the actions of Oskar Schindler...eh?

Wait, I found one that ticks all the boxes

To be fair, I have no evidence that he's a homophobe.

Some of them are better than you, because at least they don't show up to your events and try to shout them down, the way you show up to theirs and shout them down. In many cases, they have the moral high ground on you, the one's who engage in the same behavior that you do, you are no better than.

Jihad Watch is just that. A watch on Jihad activity. It's not propaganda nor is Robert Spencer (he's not Richard) a purveyor of hate. Islam speaks for itself via its actions. That you choose to ignore what Islam's message is does not make it benign. As for good Muslims...there are plenty. There were plenty of good Nazis, as well. That doesn't mean Nazism is to be coddled and supported based on the actions of Oskar Schindler or some similar Nazi. We judge Nazism by Treblinka and other atrocities it committed as an entity.

Why is it a good thing? It shows lack of sportsmanship when Iranian authorities ban any competitor taking part in competing against an Israeli. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to ban Iranian athletes from competing against Israelis in any sport discipline and let the Iranian athlete forgo their title. Do you ever realise how many Iranians were banned from competition simply because their opponents were Israelis? I recently watched a cage fight between an Iranian and an Israeli where the Iranian guy was banned from future competitions despite his win. That is inhumane. He chose not to honour the government of Iran's policy of not fighting an Israeli. Whilst I may not agree with many Israelis governments policies I think it is totally unacceptable to mix politics with sport. It is worth noting that the domestic issues and recent protests in Iran speak volume about cracks widening in the foundations of the regime. If only puppet western governments (notably europeans) would forgo their financial interest with mullahs and support Iranian people....

There are many challenges there, but luckily you still have your youth I used to think I was a leftist, until I realized that most of the time I am just pointing out the basics of a small-l liberal democracy to people who say things like "xyz should be hanged", people who have no idea where our laws came from or how they work. Some basic facts about Islam are that there aren't many of them, they're not projected to be a huge number, they don't vote as a bloc and they are much like many other religion when they live in a western context. Extremist terrorism is a threat, yes, but on the same scale as other terrorist threats and Muslims are also the targets of rightista extremists. None of this is 'leftist'. There are groups like Jihadwatch that fund puposeful hate propaganda against Muslims, and you even find people quoting them on here. Why ? To disunify, to villify and to foment hate. I invite you to friend me on Facebook, where I make an effort to never let a thoughtless, hateful, stupid propaganda post go unanswered. More people need to do that, to counter the paid fake accounts that are out there. Cheers...

The Arabs started the Arab-Israeli War...not Israel.

I mentioned in another post that most of the people who view Muslim immigrants as a particular threat are not living in areas where they are going to live or work with any Muslims. It's a fear of the unknown......a fear of outsiders who are so foreign and detached, they can regarded as non-human. Those who do live in cities with relatively high numbers of recent immigrants may notice what they have in common, and be less likely to fall for whipped up hysteria and trying to ban sharia law. They likely haven't looked up what sharia law means either, but I guess that could be another topic! For my part, even though I'm in my 60's now, I'm still changing and trying to sort through what I believe on a range of subjects and what I consider important today. So, I'm going to try to make my case for what I believe in, but I'm not really trying to change other people's beliefs.

Look up "White Genocide" and you'll find your motive for most white nationalist terrorist attacks. Most Of America’s Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim Looking at both plots and attacks carried out, the group tracked 201 terrorist incidents on U.S. soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016. The database shows 115 cases by right-wing extremists ― from white supremacists to militias to “sovereign citizens” ― compared to 63 cases by Islamist extremists. Incidents from left-wing extremists, which include ecoterrorists and animal rights militants, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents. While the database makes a point of distinguishing between different groups within right-wing extremism, lead reporter David Neiwert told HuffPost that “those are all gradations of white supremacy, variations on the same thing.” When it comes to right-wing extremism, attackers are also “mostly men” and “almost purely white,” Neiwert said. Attacks by right-wing extremists were also more often deadly, with nearly a third of right-wing extremist incidents resulting in deaths compared with 13 percent of Islamist extremist cases resulting in deaths. However, the sheer number of people killed by Islamist extremists ― a total of 90 people killed ― was higher than the death toll at the hands of right-wing extremists ― 79 people killed.

Wynne is an idiot. She only read the parts of books she wanted to hear.

Yes, they face persecution in their countries from authorities. Nonetheless, friends and family are often aware that they are gay, and do not turn them in or kill them. If every Muslim believed it was their duty to kill gays, there would be no stories about an "underground" gay society, or stories about heterosexual advocates for gay rights, even when those advocates also suffer for their advocacy. These stories are just as valid as the stories where families or friends turn on that gay person because it is about the differences in belief among Muslims. In the West, there are gay Mosques, including one in Toronto. Clearly, these people want and will pursue the opportunity to worship, despite the disapproval of others in their community. This is true for many other people who are working towards modernizing Islam, whether its feminists working towards eliminating FGM, or peace loving Muslims who want to counter extremist groups like ISIS. 50 years ago, in Canada, gays "hid" to avoid jail or being beaten to death by straight "Christian" men; women were (and sometimes still are) told to remain with abusive men by their Christian leaders and community. Somehow, the progressive rights we now have were gained even though the vast majority of people, at that time, called themselves Christian, believed homosexuality was wrong, women were to be submissive to their husbands and that marriage was for life, even if it was your husband who killed you. Your painting of Muslims as deliberate and eager oppressors of women/gays/minorities and yelling at people who disagree with your generalizations does a disservice to every single Muslim who is progressive in their heart, but who submits to government and community out of fear. Your continuing refusal to see past the fear-mongering media you choose insults every Muslim who comes here looking for a life. Your use of every negative media story you can find to define Muslims reveals your agenda. My brother-in-law knows there are gay Muslims, but doesn't want to talk about it. His brother denies that there are any gay Muslims. Kinda like the way some people in Canada feel about transsexuals - use whatever bathroom you want, just don't tell me about it while others claim transsexuals are mentally ill, confused or perverts - and must be controlled so they don't poison our society. Point being - there are diverse opinions and beliefs among Muslims, from extremely conservative to extremely progressive, with most somewhere in the middle.

You keep throwing out labels. What makes your labels accurate? They are subjective and so as a result not a logical way to determine what should be expressed openly. That is why we have a Criminal Code that defines what constitutes hate crimes and common law decisions defining what constitutes hate crime and/or defamation of character which are the only limitations to freedom of expression. It is also possible not to be an extremist Zionist and challenge Muslim ideology and it is also possible people who make anti Muslim comments are not slurring anyone or breaking any laws just expressing opinions you do not agree with.

1. No it does not. Freedom of expression is defined by common law and by the Charter of Rights and is not defined as only meaning protection from punishment by the state which akes no sense-many states punish which is why we then allow people under the UN Convention for Refugees convention to flee to Canada to claim unfair punishment and refugee status. 2. Your second comment makes no sense. Freedom of speech allows people to speak out about social, employment or political issues. It has nothing to do with freedom from consequences but the right to express one's beliefs. 3.In regards to 3, you or I do not get to decide who gets to express their opinion based solely on our subjective beliefs. The fact you may s ubjectively find someone creepy, stating something you disagree with does not give you the right to shut it down. If speech incites violence or hatred then there are criminal laws to deal with that. Those laws were never violated by Don Cherry he violated no criminal or hate speech laws. 4.Jacee this is about freedom of speech-it is the basic right for us to disagree with one another. You can't just shut someone down you dislike. I am the first to defend your right to say what you do-as I do now, it has nothing to do with whether I agree with what you say or not. I say Jacee, there are people I wish would shut up like you for the same reasons-they say things you and I could both disagree are in fact hateful-however that is not enough. We can't be afraid to let them speak and that gives us then the same right to speak out as well. If we censor them they go underground. You and I and everyone agrees if speech goes too far and incites violence or hatred then there are laws for that. We also have the civil tort law of defamation of character. With due respect, you are sounding like an extreme right winger on this or extreme left winger take your pic. Either extreme in politics comie or facist becomes one and the same shutting down open honest debate.

I would say that this is wildly exaggerated. And that the people who have committed politically inspired violence tend to be from poor, rural areas where they feel disenfranchised and scorned by the 'urbanites'. We've seen Muslim doctors and engineers engaging in suicide attacks in the West. How many white doctors and engineers engage in terrorism?

Because most Muslims are 'brown' and left wing progressives find it impossible to criticize or condemn brown people. They will condemn individual members once proven to be violent and hateful, but always insist that you cannot take that as any sign of anything. Tens of thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks are not an indication to such people that Islam is any more violent or dangerous than any other religion. And the fact all 57 Muslim states criminalize homosexuality and are strongly prejudiced against women and non-Muslims in their laws and regulations means nothing to progressives. They certainly won't take THAT as an indication of what Muslim people want. On the other hand, if one or two members of a conservative group says something racist then all members of that group are racist. Thus their scorn and contempt for the yellow vests.

Hiding in Muslim countries, you mean. There are few Muslim countries where they can exist without hiding what they are.

Well, if he genuinely believes that religion doesn't lead otherwise good people into doing bad things, then I see why he objects so strongly to any criticism of Islam. But I dont' see why he DOESN'T"T object to criticism of other religions on the same basis - like Christianity. I dont' know how you can believe that a religion that teaches and enforces misogyny, teaches and enforces hatred of other cultures and certain ones in particular, has explicit instructions to kill, etc - will have absolutely NO EFFECT on people. Yet, he also firmly believes that criticizing Islam WILL affect others and incite to violence. He just does not believe that Muslims can be incited to violence by what they are taught or listen to or hear. For some odd reason.

Islam differs from Christianity in many ways...but in my mind...most significantly for not having anything like 'Thou shalt not kill' as a part of its mandate. Killing under Islam isn't a sin nor a crime under certain conditions...for eliminating strife...fitnah...or as a matter of honor...that is: revenge and such. It's in the Quran.

Islam isn't a skin colour. Anybody...even 'white people'...can join the cult.