Leaderboard

Because you can't legally kick out Canadian citizens who were born here. Yes there are a lot of Canadian-born riff-raff in Canada. With immigration, we have the ability to pick and choose who can come here or not. Bring the best. Go into the worst parts of any major city in Canada and you will find it dominated by impoverished, poorly educated, unskilled immigrants. Go for a drive right now and tell me what you find. The only exception might be in the prairies where you may find aboriginals there too, unfortunately. It's not about race or ethnicity, it's about education & poverty. If you come to this country, even seeking refuge, and you have no hope of securing a decent income and are going to help turn major parts of our cities into run-down crime infested third-world crap-holes, you should be shipped off to a third-world country where you'll fit in just fine. If you can pull your weight, you can stay.

I’m not trying to insult you or your post, I just don’t have time to reply to it all. The vast majority of Muslims live in countries with laws that are extremely bigoted towards people of minority religions. Bigoted to the point where minorities are afraid for their wives and children if they don’t convert. Bigoted to the point where women are forced to wear islamic head coverings or they face harassment, violence, rape, or jail time. The simple fact of the matter is if you wanna live in a Muslim majority country you’re not safe unless you’re a Muslim yourself. If the vast majority of the people there opposed this type of behaviour then it wouldn’t really be a thing.

Harry has spoken out about the racist undertones in the press so enough of this it isn't racist crap. It is clearly one of the reasons behind them wanting to step down from royal duties. Not the sole reason but a contributing factor.

Muslims coming into this country is not a big problem. Stupid, unskilled people being allowed to stay in this country are. They're the ones who live in community housing , live off welfare, who cause crime, raise kids who get knocked up as a teen etc. Being stupid and unskilled is not protected by the Charter fortunately. Keep out the riff-raff.

Get real Wes. Nothing I have said is politically correct or incorrect. You want to interpret it that way because you disagree with it, period. I do notice though now that you mention political correctness you stated and I quote: " 99% of them (terrorist attacks) come from 1.4 of the earth's population rather than say what you meant, Muslims. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, which is estimated to be 23% of the world's population which is where I am assuming you get your 1/4 estimate from. I got that. What I do not get is where you pulled the 99% figure from. Please share. What you also did not explain is what percentage of those 1.6 billion Muslims carried out the terror attacks because to come up with a pattern of how likely a Muslim will commit terror one needs to extrapolate the exact no. of Muslim attacks by Muslims who performed those attacks and then compare their amount to the total amount of all Muslims to then be able to extrapolate a number that predicts the likelihood of any Muslim committing a terror attack. You did not do that. Your assumption also does not properly taken into account the KIND of Muslim that engages in the terror act and who is attacked. You make no distinction between Sunni, Ismaili, Shufi, Ahmedya, Shiite, etc. and just assume all Muslims are the same and you ignore the fact that most Muslim terror attacks are directed at other Muslims not non Muslims. The last time I looked zero Amidyah and Ismaili Muslims had committed any terror attack, so why do you assume because they are Muslim they are more likely to engage in terrorism? That makes no mathematical or logical sense. If Muslims are more likely to be violent people because Muslims are more likely to be terrorists then provide numbers and your method of extrapolation. That is all I have asked and you continue to make up numbers with no source or basis and make conclusions as to patterns of risk with no extrapolation process. That is why I challenge it.. because I argue it makes no logical sense.. and in fact suggest you might want to ask an actuary how to properly extrapolate risk from preceding actions because that is what I am arguing. I am arguing predicting risk is a lot more complex then what you or I might assume and so I challenge you its not based on political correctness but on lack of objective formulization. While we are at it, do you have any figures as to how many Muslim refugees or immigrants in Canada have committed terror attacks in Canada or overseas? Have you correlated their rates to the entire Muslim population of the world to get a proper extrapolation of a Muslim's likelihood to kill non Muslim Canadians? Have you broken those Muslims down into more accurate categories so as not to assume all Muslims are the same, i.e., that Ismailis, Amidyah, Shiite, Sunni, etc. are different? Please....share the numbers. Here is what I have also considered and that is your 99% figure may not necessarily be accurate. Some would argue that since September 11, Islamist groups have conducted about 20% of terrorist attacks worldwide and so terrorist attacks are less likely to be conducted by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim group. (source: http://theconversation.com/looking-at-terror-attacks-per-capita-should-make-us-rethink-beliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449) I also found one site that says and I quote:: "Fact: There are only about a total estimated 100,000 militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.7 billion people. “The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.” Source: P. Bergen, National Security Analyst and E. Schneider, Research Associate: http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html" and: Fact: Most terror attacks in the Western world (Europe, USA) are committed by non-Muslims, yet terrorist attacks by Muslims receive 449% MORE MEDIA COVERAGE than other attacks from 2011-2015. This is per the findings of an academic study from Georgia State University quoted below: “We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. Given the disproportionate quantity of news coverage for these attacks, it is no wonder that people are afraid of the Muslim terrorist. More representative media coverage could help to bring public perception of terrorism in line with reality.” Source: Kearns, Erin M. and Betus, Allison and Lemieux, Anthony, Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others? (March 5, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138 I also have argued I think your conclusions ignore good Muslims. I think your conclusions ignore moderate Muslims who are against extremism and terrorism and could positively contribute to Canada. I argue your conclusions and generalized negative assumptions about all Muslims wrongfully stereotypes law abiding, good, hard working, anti terrorist, peaceful Muslims. How is that politically correct to say that? What makes you think the only reason I challenge your assumptions are because of political correctness. Lol. I am one of the biggest smell faces on this forum when it comes to correctness. No one who argues as I do has ever stated there are no Muslim terrorists or no Muslim shmucks. I have been the first to say we need to be realistic on how we deal with extremist terrorists. Never have I justified terrorism or shmucks on this forum so stop stereotyping me. You know better and no I do not and have never said you are a violent Muslim hater. I am simply debating the issues. The difference between us is I want to take the time to differentiate good from bad Muslims because its the fair thing to do. I treat people the way I want to be treated. Its that simple. I do not assume the generalizations you do about them precisely because people have done that to me about my Jewish identity and I know how unfair it is. That is all. I am no King of any Jews. I was shot at and spit at and had rocks thrown at me by Muslims, I cleaned the aftermath up after Muslim terrorism and I learned because of that-that when people are shot and die and blow up, as I witnessed , they dead were both Muslim and Jewish and they blew up the exact same way and looked no different once they awere burning flesh. So I will be damned if you ask me to assume the flesh I put in plastic bags should not be properly acknowledged The people in those bags Muslim or Jewish suffered equally from bad Muslims. I also saw bullshit extremist behavior from certain Jews and I never condoned what they did and will not allow anyone to stereotype me as being the same as them either. I have been spit at by both extremist Muslims and Jews because of the uniform I wore I was no King. I dug toilets and cleaned toilets and feet and cleaned roads and pulled worms out of toes. What you see as Muslim or Jewish shit I only see as shit because from my perspective its all it was, shit. I am not arguing all Muslims or for that matter Jews or anyone else is innocent or never had a shit. Give me a break. I know what I cleaned thank you. What I am arguing is not all Muslims and everyone else should be assumed to be full of shit simply because they were born with a propensity to be assholes. I argue if you do that you become no different than terrorists in your reasoning and they have the last laugh because your incorrect assumptions may however unintentional alienate the very people you want to win over to help you fight the terrorists. I argue what you are doing makes it easier for terrorists to recruit the very people we need to form an alliance with to fight the terrorists.

I agree, and think this should apply to schools as well as residences for seniors, drug treatments centers, homeless shelters, halfway houses - any kind of institution that is operated by a religious organization. I suspect (though I'm not going to try to prove it) that all these organizations are heavily reliant on government funding; take away that government funding and their true desire for "charity" will be exposed. I also do not think that religious organizations should be given any tax breaks; most of them don't need it.

I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated. When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.

No it is not normal, not for government funded housing which should be open to every one.

I can see that little brat Greta Thornbug has gotten too you with her climate change bull chit nonsense alright? Even President Trump does not believe her made up bull chit stories about climate change. Trump totally ignored her at some stupid UN climate summit in Europe somewhere. Greta looked a little upset when Trump walked into some room and totally ignored her presence, and rightly so. She may be the darling of the MSM fake media but to Trump he probably thought that she should be in school instead and trying to get an education.

John Tory is a complete embarrassment. On one hand he says he believes in free speech. But then completely contradicts himself by saying he doesn’t think this particular speaker should be allowed to speak. He either has absolutely no spine, or he fundamentally doesn’t understand the concept and value of free speech.

If it was just the women's bathroom that would be one thing. It's the little girls' room too. In a country like this, where pervs just do a bit of time and get out of jail to reoffend, what's to stop a guy from claiming that he's a woman just to get into the little girls' room? If they're going to have men going into the women's bathroom then they need a separate room for girls 17 and under. Or something.

You don't think there are any crowds of leftists that try to shout down opinions they don't like? You think that's just a joke and that has never happened?

Strange that people would react negatively to that. This is exactly what the HRT in BC said when they dumped the Yaniv case.