dialamah

Just think ... if you'd done those two minutes of research, you'd not have to now admit you were wrong. The clue was right in the article you posted, mentioning that Muslins in Greece were subject to Sharia law. Not my fault if you missed/ignored that. 1. I checked the links in one post of yours. As I recall, one link was about the case in Greece and the other 2 or 3 links were different articles about the Austrian case. The third was your post about Ezra Levant. 2. Maybe "the rest" won't be as easily debunked. But I am sure you are right, you probably have better things to do than support claims you've made on an internet forum. 3. I repeatedly held up all three examples, till the final post, as I was getting a bit tired of repeating myself endlessly. The best argument you've made so far was that it cost money for Ezra Levant to defend himself, and that this could discourage others from making similar remarks. On the other hand, Muslims aren't the only people he's pissed off as he was taken to court for comments he made re: Alberta's HRC. He lost that case because "Levant acted with malice in his coverage of a 2008 British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Wendy Matheson said "he did little or no fact-checking regarding the posts complained of, either before or after their publication. Nor did he accurately report what was taking place at the hearing. And, with one exception, when he learned that he got his facts wrong, he made no corrections." Maybe Ezra Levant is just an a-hole who says stuff for attention, with little concern for truth and accuracy. Maybe what journalists (and all of us) should learn from Levant is that truth and accuracy matter.

Yeah, from the article: "There are no special programs currently being considered to resettle people from Lebanon or Syria. Little information is publicly available about who registered or is responsible for the content. We chose to correct the disinformation to remind both prospective immigrants and Canadians that accurate information is available through Government of Canada websites," he added."

People who don't want to be parents don't leave all the birth control up to the other person.

I think it's pathetic that you are offended.

There was plenty of laughter, good grief. I will grant you that Trudeau is a terrible joke teller, though, and I think that delayed the laughter a smidge, but people laughed. Did you not see the Conservative slogan "Justin Trudeau: Not as Advertised" just as Trudeau said "You have to grease the wheels to get these kind of stellar headlines".

Seemed like a joke to me ... isn't that what press dinners do, politicians and journalists poking fun at themselves and each other?

It wouldn't be possible to debunk them if they were legit. Case in point: Muslim citizens in Greece have been subject to Sharia since about 1918. A Muslim woman seeks to have civil law applied to her, and succeeds. Further, that case is the starting point for removing the requirement for Muslim citizens to be subject to Sharia, which the Muslim community supports. But you continue to insist that this is one more nail in the coffin of Muslims imposing Sharia law, and I/we just refuse to see it. Same with the other two links. I don't actually. I also don't deny anti-Semitism, or the fact that women are treated poorly in Islamic countries and often within immigrant communities in Canada. I have expressed my opinion, many times, that education and exposure to Western progressive values will alleviate those problems in the long term. You may disagree with me about the value of education or that being exposed to progressive values over time will help modernize Islam, but to characterize my statements as outright "denial" and claiming that "as soon as Muslims cross the border, they magically become progressive" is only your dishonesty showing through. You "claim" you want discussion, but you don't: you demand that people agree with you and if they don't you characterize their comments in the most extreme way possible and then call them apologists.

Cite, please. Far as I know, here in Canada its against the law to refuse guide dogs. And in case you were thinking of me, recall my post of August 18, where I said: "Anyway, I believe Muslins do refuse guide dogs entry to cabs and buses, and I don't think they have that right. The dog isn't touching them and there is nothing in their religion that prevents them being in company of a dog." Ever tried to get an anti-Muslim type to condemn right-wing slaughter of Muslims? They won't even go so far as to say they condemn it, and will argue endlessly that it's the fault of liberals/progressives/Muslims that the poor killer was overwrought and shot a bunch of people. When you can prove it. So far you haven't. It took me 2 minutes to debunk you Greece story; the clue was right in the article you linked. It took a bit longer on the Austrian story, maybe 5 minutes to find the transcript, and the articles that summarized the findings "objectively". Yes you have. No, you haven't. You've cited articles, and when they've been debunked you've started throwing out accusations and names. Back at'cha.

You provided three that I saw - case in Greece, which was debunked. Austria's case, again debunked. Neither of these had anything to do with imposing Sharia; in fact, in Greece it resulted in Sharia which had been imposed for a century being disallowed - with the support of Muslims. In Austria, the law was put in place well before the advent of any Muslim influence. In addition, perusal of the actual ruling made it clear that the issue wasn't criticizing Islam, but was using unsupported allegations to in order to insult. Claim of imposing Sharia again debunked. In Canada, Ezra Levant was not limited in his speech, even though it apparently offended someone. This completely debunks your claim that Sharia law is being imposed. In addition, Canada's and Austria's laws were both used, albeit with different outcomes, as that is the purpose of laws, especially in a free country. To claim that using a law is the same as an attack on free speech is ridiculous. If that were true, nobody could take anyone to court for anything because everyone's word would be given the same weight and disagreeing would be limiting "free speech".

Not a chance; Clintons and Obama will have to own it, wait and see.

I am still hopeful he'll end up with a minority at most. I'd be ok with either a Liberal or Conservative minority. Thinking I'll vote my heart this time and not "against" anyone.

You have failed to prove that Muslims are "forcing" Sharia law in Western countries. Your story about Greece turned out to be the exact opposite of what you claimed. Your claim about the Austrian case turned out to have nothing to do with Muslims, given the law was put in place for all religions and was used by Christians to bring suit against a cartoonist. Also, the report Scribblet linked to regarding Islamic councils was critical of several aspects of these councils, and was supported by the Muslims on the board that carried out the investigation. Just like your heroine Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, you can't tell the difference between criticism and slander. Yup, your a total Islamophobe.

So ... Ezra Levant won his case, and somehow this "proves" that freedom of speech is under attack. Part of freedom of speech happens to be allowing people to say "I think this is wrong and I'm going to take it to court". Calling people apologists is just an attempt to shut down speech you don't like.

I have no issue with Isreal protecting their existing border. I have issue with moving that border, bit by bit, while the rest of the world watches silently.

How about you use the same fact checking I use and call me out for using far-left sources that spread propaganda and misinformation, because your unsupported "opinion" on my sources means SFA. In other words, put up or shut up. In the meantime, Bangladesh drops the requirement for "virgin" to appear on marriage certificates. A tiny step in the direction of equality between male and female Muslims. Left-center bias link. Right-bias link.

I suppose if the US and Canada would stand up against Isreal's encroachment, there wouldn't be any Palestinians looking for better options.

Oh. So reading the link you provided and noting that it didn't actually say what you claimed it said is parsing words and drawing my own conclusions? Maybe a better response would be to make sure your links support what you are claiming rather than getting mad at me for doing the reading you didn't. ---‐----------------------------- Media Bias Fact check's assessment of Voice of Europe: Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing.

The report is good, objective and fair. Notes the disadvantage women have in Sharia councils, admits that outlawing them wouldn't eliminate them, and suggests ways forward that would protect women and reduce the power and use of these councils. Thanks for the link, Scribblet.

1. Nothing to do with tar and feathering one group vs. another; that's your purview. 2. I like accuracy, and your claim that all the boys were free was absolutely wrong, according to the link you initially posted. 3. This new link from Yahoo says differently, so good on you, finding a credible link that supports your claim.

"Some' have been released, others still face charges. From your link: Nine of the teens have admitted to being in the room when the alleged rape occurred and three refused to answer police questions, according to Channel 2, the Times of Israel reported.

@Goddess. Your claim that Europe is being overtaken by Sharia Law has been debunked. I accept your surrender.

Here's the full ruling against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. The court distinguished between child marriage and pedophilia, noting that the defendant had failed to provide "evidence that his primary sexual interest in Aisha had been her not yet having reached puberty. Moreover, there were no reliable sources for that allegation, as no documentary evidence existed to suggest that his other wives or concubines had been similarly young." "The court stated that child marriages were not the same as paedophilia, and were not only a phenomenon of Islam but also used to be widespread among the European ruling dynasties." "Even though criticising child marriages was justifiable, she had accused a subject of religious worship of having a primary sexual interest in children’s bodies," "the Supreme Court held that she had not aimed to contribute to a serious debate about Islam or the phenomenon of child marriage, but merely to defame Muhammad by accusing him of a specific sexual preference," "The Regional Court further stated that anyone who wished to exercise their rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention was subject to duties and responsibilities, such as refraining from making statements which hurt others without reason and therefore did not contribute to a debate of public interest" ______________ Austria's law re: disparagement of religious doctrine: "Whoever, in circumstances where his or her behaviour is likely to arouse justified indignation, publicly disparages or insults a person who, or an object which, is an object of veneration of a church or religious community established within the country, or a dogma, a lawful custom or a lawful institution of such a church or religious community, shall be liable to up to six months’ imprisonment or a day-fine for a period of up to 360 days.”

Yet you, DoP, Goddess, Argus and others are still here posting your "criticisms" of Islam and Muslims. .

Yes, the article is from 2004. Here's the Rest of the Story, from the Guardian in 2008: "Such was the political feeling that the province's premier, Dalton McGuinty, eventually dismissed Boyd's recommendations. He was also forced to ban other religions which had been using faith-based tribunals." Which I'd already pointed out.

The Rest of the Story. Austria has a blasphemy law, predating the fear of creeping Sharia. This law has resulted in a conviction against a cartoonist for his portrayal of Jesus (though overturned on appeal) and he was sued again on same grounds by Catholics offended by cartoons. The European Human Rights Court didn't support Sharia, it simply said that States with blasphemy laws can keep them. So again, this is not Sharia taking over, but rather laws already in place and completely separate from Sharia.