dialamah

Why do you characterize disagreeing with you about the threat Islam presentd as "don't want it talked about"? I am allowed to think you are misinformed without being accused of wanting to shut you up. I'm even allowed to think you are wrong, crazy, fearful or dishonest without being accused of wanting to shut you up. Well, from my side there are a lot more good ones out there than Islamophobes want to admit - but you don't want us to talk about that, do you.

Nope. I have criticized Islam's attitude toward women, gay people, anti-Semitism expressed by Imams, apostates, the lack of human rights in Islamic countries, child marriage, especially in Iran because its legally sanctioned, FGM anywhere, including among Muslims, terrorist activity among extremists, and the extreme punishments some countries claim as part of Sharia. What I don't agree with is the fear-mongering rhetoric that Muslims are a threat to our culture/economy/women/children/gay people or that there is an agenda among nearly 2 billion Muslims to take over the world, that Muslims hate Westerners or that Muslims hate democracy. I think the situation in these sensitive areas are long-standing and are more related to marginalization and poverty than to Muslims out to destroy democracy. But hey, you can boil down my thoughts to a simplistic "don't criticize Islam" as that's apparently easier for you than employing a smattering of critical thinking.

It was the Nazis spreading propaganda about Jews that ultimately led to German citizens either supporting, doing nothing, or opposing the propaganda machine, often at risk to themselves. Propaganda marginalizes and demonizes a group by spreading "information" about the group's goals, behavior, threat to public order, threat to women, threat to the economy, threat to the culture, threat to social cohesion. These themes have been used regularly to whip up sentiment against outsiders, whether those outsiders have been Japanese, Eastern Europeans, Catholics or any other group. The same themes permeate the anti-Islam rhetoric presented on this forum by Argus, DoP and you. You also might stop and think about how many of those themes are used by religious organizations to keep their members too scared to leave *including Islam*. Is it any wonder I'm so hard to persuade, when I see so much rhetoric that looks just like anti-Jew and anti-Japanese rhetoric from the second world war?

And, not surprisingly, you are unable to follow a thread. Also from Argus' article: "The ‘yellow vest’ movement has contributed to the sharp rise in 2019. The street protest that began last November at the planned introduction of a fuel tax was subsequently hijacked by far-left extremists who enjoy nothing more than attacking the police" So is it Muslims, or "The Left" that have created these dangerous zones? Can you guys maybe get your stories straight? As I've already quoted: Think about this - many of fears you are expressing about Muslims are the same fears people expressed about Catholics, once upon a time.

Christians, Jews and atheists live in those neighborhoods, as well as Muslims. How is that not diverse?

Where did I or anyone say that Catholics/Jews were are violent? I'm merely pointing out that these are diverse neighborhoods and not "Muslim strongholds".

From people who actually live in Paris and are familiar with these supposed "no-go" zones. "The so called "no-go zones" list is a 20 year old list of urban areas drawn up by the French government as a prelude to a series of extremely large urban regeneration plans. The zones are called "ZUS" (zone urbaine sensible) and the list was reached by taking into account population, employment rates, income levels and crime. ... At least one of the zones has a large Jewish population, another has a Catholic Cathedral. Quite a few of the zones are student campuses, because it apparently didn't occur to the list makers that many university students have low incomes." Link "The reality is that these zones are the same poor and underprivileged ghettos that have been neglected by the authorities for decades. In France, they are called “Zones Urbaines Sensibles” (ZUS), or Sensitive Urban Zones. Their size, crime rates, and security levels vary widely. According to reports, there is hardly a town in France that does not have at least one ZUS." "...the claim that these neighborhoods are microstates governed by sharia law is just lame. Yes, there is concern about Muslims in the West rejecting Western values and, instead, immersing themselves in radical versions of Islam. This might also give the impression that Islamic laws are being applied instead of the laws of the land, but this is not the case." "In fact, many of the fears expressed today regarding the integration of Muslims in the West are identical to the fears of a century ago about the integration of Catholics, who were seen as undemocratic and unpatriotic because of their perceived refusal to integrate and their allegiance to the Pope. But all that changed as Catholics paved the way to acceptance and full citizenship." Link I think an equivalent claim in BC would be calling the DTES a no-go zone, ruled by indigenous law or Whalley (in Surrey) a no-go zone under South Asian law. These places have problems, no doubt, but calling them no-go zones would be ridiculous. A description here of one of France's most notorious "no-go zone."

Understanding why someone (or a group or a country) does something doesn't mean you agree with it or think it's right.

Scheer took his five kids to some campaign bbq. "Scheer was to have had a low-key campaign day Saturday, glad-handing in McCaffrey's riding and bringing his five children along for the first time on his tour." But you didn't.

People's personal behavior and systemic discrimination is common in Egypt, I agree. Nonetheless, the legal system is set up so that non-Muslims are not under Sharia. Malaysia is another country where Sharia only applies to Muslims, even though it's a Muslim-majority country. Even so, Sharia plays a smaller role than secular, common law systems. These are just two of many examples which include countries in North Africa as well as the Middle East. These examples disprove your claim that everybody under Islamic rule is (or would be) subject to Sharia wrong, and your continued claim is just fear-mongering.

If you twist things enough, you can believe that's happening or even successful. This is straight out fear-mongering. More scare-mongering; there are plenty of examples where a country applies Sharia only to Muslims, Egypt being just one example. "HOW WOULD THE ISLAMIC SHARIA APPLY TO NON-MUSLIM EGYPTIANS? Here the current approach of the Egyptian legal order is clear: each recognized religious community is free to have its own affairs governed by its own personal status law. Regular Egyptian courts regularly adjudicate such cases for all Egyptians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but simply shift the law applied; there are not separate courts for each religious community and the judges in personal status courts come out of the regular judiciary."

Not even all Muslim women cover themselves, even in Muslim majority countries. Many Muslims do not even believe Islam demands it. You are clearly attempting to spread misinformation. Stop it.

If a Christian who is anti-abortion shoots an abortion provider because his religion tells him abortion is wrong, do you blame him for his choice and his religion for its teachings? Or do you primarily blame him and consider his actions irrelevant to his religion?

This is already addressed in our current system. Here's a link explaining that everyone's face must be clearly seen for ID purposes, even Muslim women. Accommodation comes into play by allowing these photos be taken in private, by another woman. Here's another link explaining why being veiled at a public citizenship ceremony isn't a security risk, since the individual's identity is confirmed prior to the ceremony. The myth that Muslim women have ID photos with faces covered, or are excused from "identifying" themselves as appropriate is spread by Islamophobes. Don't fall for it. You don't have to like women in niqabs (I personally don't), but I do like Canada's commitment to freedom of expression, even that expression which I find incomprehensible or ridiculous.

Are you being extreme for effect or do you really believe this? I find this claim as unreasonable as you find the claim that hijab=empowerment. I agree, unless she herself chooses to. I might not get it, but as long as she's not forced through physical or mental abuse, it's her choice. Even if my personal opinion is that she's been brainwashed by religion/culture/love, it's not my place, or the government's place, to tell her that she cannot dress how she wishes.

Argus said this, but I copied from Rue's post. This looks like Argus being honest: he believes immigrants have fewer "rights" to this country than non-immigrants. This isn't true, according to the law, of course. But for those who do believe immigrants have fewer rights than non-immigrants, it's easy for them to assume every white looking person is not immigrant, and every non-white looking person is immigrant, regardless of the individual's birthplace, or their parent's/grandparent's birthplace. No doubt this personal bias results in an assumption of their own duperior entitlement vis a vis non-white Canadians. This attitude is discrimnatory and racist.

I'm taking about Canada, not claiming uniqueness in the world.

I agree. My question would be, why can't racists, closeted or not, learn from history? I believe the surest way to learn to accept "others" is to get to know them. That's worked for neo-Nazis getting to know Jews, for homophobic getting to know gay people and for Muslims getting to know non-Muslims and vice versa. Education is an excellent tool for creating aetheists (as well as reducing isms of all kinds). The ex-Muslim and ex-JW subreddits have numerous stories of education creating questions that lead to people leaving these two religions.

I'm ok making that distinction. I've an Iranian-Canadian friend who works for an NGO, she's sent pics of Iran. It looks like a beautiful place.

Good to know. PS. I'm on my phone, and the font for your quote is too small for my 60 year old eyes. You can remove formatting when pasting something so it's the same size as everything else, which you may already know, but like me sometimes forget to do.

Someone made the claim that Victoria BC was going to take down Christmas lights so as not to offend Muslims. As a result, the Mayor of Victoria has been receiving hateful email. The story is completely false, of course, and the city this year is planning its biggest ever display of Christmas lights. Examples like this abound, and people wonder why I'm so skeptical of stories about Muslims demanding things, and Western progressives, leftists etc. are "protecting" Muslim sensibilities at every turn.

So I do not particularly like JT either, but I prefer liberal policies over conservative policies. Do I vote against Liberals because I don't like JT, even though overall I prefer their policies over conservatives? In any case, I'm probably going to vote Green this time around. I'm hoping for a minority government, either Liberal or Conservative, doesn't much matter to me. So this and other statements I've seen by the anti-Trudeau brigade suggest that JT is "destroying" the country, yet there is no evidence of that. We have problems, sure, but most people's lives have changed very little under JT and some people have even seen an improvement. We're still among the safest countries in which to live, and most of us have luxuries beyond imagination for 3/4 of the world. The same would no doubt be true if Harper had been re-elected, of if Scheer gets elected this time. The threat of DOOM due to JT/liberals is vague, and even when asked for particulars, the doomsayers can rarely point to anything specific, merely regurgitating fears about deficits and refugees/immigrants. Both conservative governments and liberal governments run deficits and accept refugees/immigrants, so it's hard to see how it's so much more destructive under Liberals. Also, good on you for caring about corruption in politics. I do agree with you that people should care more. I don't agree that either the Liberals or Conservatives are either better or worse in that regard.