dialamah

Egypt has many fine qualities, even though they treat Christians poorly. Just as Canada has many fine qualities, even though we treat First Nations poorly, and have for over 100 years. I know you'll pretend that terror attacks against Copts in Egypt are worse than a suicide rate among FN youth that is 3 times higher than the national average, or that MMIW aren't really victims of our cultural disinterest and general contempt for Natives.

You failed to condemn it. I am regularly raked over the coals for failing to condemn Muslim misbehavior, even though I do regularly. In Canada, Islamic terrorism happens even less often. Yet, people regularly raise fears about "extremists in Canada". Before you bring up that worldwide Islamic terrorism is more prevalent, at this time, than any other, I will agree. And I will also remind you that Muslims are also by far, the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism. Not to mention the camps in China, the violence against them in India, and increasing violence from Nationalists in Western countries. All this hate and violence is driven by "tribalism", which you regularly use to excuse harassment and violence of Canadians against immigrants, especially Muslims. Tribalism is one of those "natural impulses" that we are better off rejecting than embracing. Kinda like rape and murder.

And yet when I have pointed the cultural aspects of some practices, where they originated from and that they are shared by other religious groups, including Christians, I have been accused of trying to whitewash Muslims and that, if those things happen among other groups it's relatively rare, even as I post stats demonstrating otherwise. And when I have opined that those practices must be addressed in those countries, and in Canada among immigrant groups from those countries, I am again attacked for whitewashing Muslims. When I have raised the issue of radicalization of young men, Muslim or not, you have ignored me. If you were the least concerned about cultural practices, you'd not attack me for bringing them up. Your lack of interest in addressing issues of misogyny, radicalization and violence among any group except Muslims is what persuades me that your agenda is to demonize Muslims, whether you realize it or not.

Hardly my misreading "Islamic violence" as "Muslim violence". Freudian slip or what, eh? I don't feel angry, though. I feel pretty amused by your attempts to present your views on Muslims as logical or reasonable. I am not the one pissing myself in fear about "Muslims" and how they're going to destroy Canada.

Here she mischaracterizes me (aka lies) while she says nothing about Argus and DoP slinging nothing but mud about Muslims. More double-standard, more denial about the agenda here.

I thought you told us you don't blame all Muslims for the violence of some, but were a critic of Islam, the religion. I believe you've just outed yourself as a true Muslim-hater.

I don't spend 90% of my posting time demonizing non-Muslims and defending people who hate White folks. I condemn "all" bad behavior, not just some. Pay attention. People like you, not you specifically, but people who demonize Muslims/immigrants is the reason Quebec has a law that oppresses religious minorities, why there has been an uptick in attacks against Muslims, Jews, Blacks and LGBTQ. Now watch Argus rush in to declare it's the fault of Muslims/immigrants/Backs/LGBTQ (but not Jews, strangely) for being too visible. Certainly not the fault of White folk for being hateful or violent.

I said "prove the hoaxes outnumber the real incidents" - I did not deny there have been hoaxes. I strongly recommend a remedial reading course for you.

Even as I clearly condemn bad behavior and criminal actions by Muslims. You are such a liar. Let me point out that you are the one who is saying non-Muslims bad behavior and criminal actions aren't that serious because it's "mostly just" graffiti and racism. Not only a liar, but a hypocrite as well.

So, now you are saying that the hoaxes outnumber the "real" incidents. Prove it, unless it's just more "facts" pulled out of the Islamaphobic media butthole.

Not to belittle the girl's experience, but online abuse is rather different than in-your-face abuse and physical attacks. You consistently fail to show the same level of outrage against attacks on Muslims as you do against attacks by Muslims. And once again, I condemn the Muslims who attacked the Isreali girl online, just as I condemn the "mostly graffiti and racist" along with the death threats and physical attacks against Muslims and Jews, against LGBTQ, against politicians online and offline. I

Funny how this abusive behavior by Muslims upsets you, but when non-Muslims in Canada abuse Muslims in person - saying hateful things, threatening them, ripping off womens' hijabs, you agree with Argus that it's not a big deal. Why the double standard?

The US under Trump and Canada under Harper both refused funding to organizations that provided family planning services, including birth control information, because they might also fund abortion. Improved infant survival, a higher standard of living, higher levels of education result in lower birth rates. The birth rates in developing nations is slowing as these things become more common. Poor people have a much smaller carbon footprint than rich people. Several people living in a small house or shack, no vehicle, few possessions, little food, and even less meat, is a lot more environmentally friendly than even a lower-middle class Canadian living alone in a 600 sq ft apt, with one car, lots of possessions, lots of clothes, lots of food and daily meat. Even that Canadian is more environmentally friendly than a family living in a 2500 sq ft house, with two or more vehicles, lots of possessions, clothes, food and meat. The richer the individual, the worse their effect on the environment. The richer the country, the more impact they have on the environment. Link. Link. Choices some climate scientists are making to reduce their carbon footprint.

That's not anyone's position that I have seen, but as far as some are concerned, failing to jump on "Muslims are evil" bandwagon is exactly the same as denying Islamic terrorism, supporting FGM, killing of gays, oppression of women and minorities. Re: the list of links... I see 4 or 5 that are probably credible.

Irrelevant. Taxes are as much my money as yours, and your whining that Canada's compassion for others is paid for by "other people's money" is ridiculous. Wrong, as usual. This article is critical of Trudeau and (some) liberals, but also points out long-term polls showing your beliefs are shared, to some extent, by 40% of Canadians but that percentage has dropped from 60% in the 1990s, and from 50% more recently. Also from the article: "Non-white Canadians appear even more likely than most Canadians to say there are too many non-white immigrants coming to Canada. While 39.9 percent of respondents overall said there were too many “visible minorities” among Canada’s newly arriving immigrants, the percentage of “visible minority” respondents who agreed with the statement in the EKOS poll was 42.8 per cent." You'll need considerably more non-white immigration before your beliefs will become the majority.

Right, because a man who smears innocent dead children and their families is exactly the same as someone who objects to that smearing.

Canada suits me, because of its compassion towards people undergoing hardships in other lands. You are the one who despises such compassion. There are places where your hatred would be welcome and where I am sure you'd be much more content. Any banana republic, countries steeped in corruption where the wealthy take all. Bullshit. You'd take away the right of poor people to vote, if you could. I pay taxes too; it's just as much my money as yours.

Actually, it's a human interest story because Canada Day. Today's stories will be about people who got their Canadian citizenship, again because Canada Day. Nothing to do with Liberals. Don't need to. We gots lotsa folks like you, telling us all about it, true or not. No doubt there are refugees and immigrants who think Canada and Canadians are worthy of severe criticism. Just like you do, with your constant complaints about government and your regular demeaning of Liberals, progressives and immigrants, and declaring women who cover up are extremists. Good thing opinions are not illegal in Canada, that you can insult and criticize anyone you want just as newcomers to Canada can. All indications from statistics, even the ones that you post, are that most refugees work, and they work the shit jobs non-refugees turn their nose up at. Those that "sit on welfare with no intention of working" are no different than non-refugees that sit on welfare. The alt-right rhetoric you indulge in is a lot less accurate and honest than any mainstream media.

Even if the economic stuff you post were 100% accurate and the competing narratives 100% inaccurate, in what world should money come before compassion and basic humanitarian actions? Certainly no world I would want to live in. People who are guided by compassion and giving are happier and enjoy better physucal and mental health than those who put economic wealth at the forefront of their lives. Brain imaging shows equal pleasure in giving money as receiving it. And also from link above: "Half of the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves and the other half were told to spend the money on others. At the end of the study, participants that had spent money on others felt significantly happier than those that had spent money on themselves. This is true even for infants!" An article citing several studies that link compassion to happiness and how material wealth can decrease compassion and the ability to connect with others. Further: "It is not surprising that compassion is a natural tendency, since it is essential for human survival. As has been brought to light by Keltner, the term “survival of the fittest,” often attributed to Charles Darwin, was actually coined by Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinists who wished to justify class and race superiority. Indeed, in The Descent of Man and Selection In Relation to Sex, Darwin makes a case for “the greater strength of the social or maternal instincts than that of any other instinct or motive.” In another passage, he argues that “communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.” Compassion may indeed be a naturally evolved and adaptive trait. Without it, the survival and flourishing of our species would have been unlikely." In case you'd like to become happier (and healthier) through learning how to be compassionate.

A Syrian refugee about what brought her to Canada, her struggles and her commitment and appreciation for her new country. Link

Looks to me like pretty standard CYA language. From the CBC website TOU: "CBC/Radio-Canada’s mandate is to inform, enlighten and entertain. Content provided on CBC/Radio-Canada digital services is not intended to replace professional advice when required, in any field whatsoever." Fox News TOU: "Company is not responsible for and makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Third Party Services or the providers of such Third Party Services (including, but not limited to, the accuracy or completeness of the information provided by such Third Party Service or the privacy practices thereof). Inclusion of any Third Party Service or a link thereto on the Company Services does not imply approval or endorsement of the Third Party Service. Company is not responsible for the content or practices of any websites other than the Company Sites, even if the website links to the Company Sites and even if it is operated by a Company Affiliate or a company otherwise connected with the Company Sites. " Royal Bank TOU: "The Information is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide specific financial, investment, tax, legal, accounting or other advice to you, and should not be acted or relied upon in that regard without seeking the advice of a professional. None of the RBC Companies are responsible, and will not be liable to you or anyone else, for any damages whatsoever and howsoever caused (including direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages) arising out of or in connection with the Websites or the Information, or your ability on inability to access or use the Websites or the Information, or any action or decision made by you in reliance on the Websites or the Information, or any errors in or omissions from the Websites or the Information, or any unauthorized use or reproduction of the Websites or the Information, even if an RBC Company has been advised of the possibility of these damages. Links from or to websites, including links to the Websites, are for convenience only. The RBC Companies do not review or control, and are not responsible for, any websites linked from or to the Websites, the content of those websites, the privacy practices of those websites, the third parties named therein, or their products or services. Linking to any other website is at your sole risk and the RBC Companies will not be responsible or liable for any damages in connection with such linking. In addition, the RBC Companies do not endorse or approve of any websites linked from or to the Websites, except for Websites of RBC Companies." Mapleleafweb TOU: Mapleleafweb contains external links to other websites. Mapleleafweb does not necessarily endorse the content of these other websites. You are subject to the privacy policy of each subsequent website you visit. Under no circumstances shall Mapleleafweb be liable for any losses or damages whatsoever from the use of, or reliance on, information or content contained in Mapleleafweb, or obtained through an external link to another website contained in Mapleleafweb. For the purpose of this limitation of liability clause, the term “Mapleleafweb” shall include its employees, contributors, partners, sponsors, associated companies and organizations, and agents and representatives." If you are going to determine a website as 'shady' because it's terms-of-use seek to avoid liability, you will consider virtually the entire internet shady. Perhaps a good idea, but still can't pick out one as especially deserving of suspicion for doing exactly what virtually every other website does.

I agree with you that religions believe in spreading their word, and quite often con people out of money and lead them into behavior that is not always beneficial to society at large. An awful lot of people still hold belief in a God (or Gods) of some kind, so outlawing religions overall would be very difficult. On the other hand, extremists come from every religion and no religion, and are the minority of any group. Identifying them, while ignoring the larger group to which they belong, in order to reduce violence and death to innocents seems a laudable goal, to me.

Travis Patron wants to form a political party; he holds some far-right views. He talks about the 'parasitic tribe' and says they should be removed from Canada. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks 'parasitic tribe' refers to Jews, and that this is hate speech. Are they correct? I don't know; presumably Travis knows exactly who he is referring to, but prefers not to name them too directly. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network thinks Patron is engaging in hate speech has just as much right to their opinion as Patron has to his opinion about the "parasitic tribe', whoever he means. Patron, concerned about this "parasitic tribe' (as well as LGBTQ+) wants to form a political party - which is within his rights. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network, concerned about hate speech, reported him to authorities - also within their rights. The investigation is happening, as it should. This is how democracy works, is it not? The article also points out that Canada is very reluctant to refuse political status to far-right or far-left groups: "Pauline Beange, an Elections Canada expert at the University of Toronto, believes Canadian governments would be "very reluctant" to pass legislation restricting access to political participation. "Basically anybody can apply to be registered," she said. "They have to choose a name. They have to have a certain number of signatures. But after that, it is not Elections Canada's job to decide who should or who should not become a political party." There is always a risk of extreme views on the left or right, she said, but whether the groups that espouse those views actually gain a political foothold is another matter. "We have had parties on the extreme left like the Marxist-Leninist Party, the Communist Party of Canada. So, we have tolerated those. They have not hijacked democracy in any way, shape or form. And again, I rely on Canadian voters and their judgment." " So again, it seems to me your argument fails due to your assumptions about 'what's really going on here'.

Thanks for the link. 1. According to the link, this is a known technology, already used in other countries, that identifies searches for violent/extremist content and presents results that are of a more positive and less violent nature. From your link: "The online space is a place where violent extremists can spread propaganda, recruit others and incite violence. The project, Canada Redirect, will provide alternative, positive content to vulnerable individuals searching for violent extremist material online. The technique, termed the "Redirect Method," uses online advertising tools and Internet video channels to direct individuals to content created by credible third parties that challenge ideologies that can motivate destructive attitudes and behaviour." Here is a link to the organization that is providing these services: http://moonshotcve.com/vision/ 2. There is a press release, so it is hardly 'in secret'. There is an organization with a website explaining what they do, and why, again hardly 'in secret'. 3. I have noticed recently that my searches tend to present fewer fake news sites in the first page, although they can still be found if you scroll or go to the next page; I figured Google had done something to combat 'fake news'. I just did a few searches, such as "how to make a bomb", and had no trouble finding information. (If anyone is watching, I assume I'll get a knock on the door in a while). I tried to imagine what a person might search for to find an extremist ideology, and didn't find anything suggesting I'd been redirected to a 'more positive' site - but that may be the fault of my search terms, rather than any 'redirecting'. Given that Moonshot CVE is currently working in 28 countries, 15 languages and is headquartered in the UK, I suspect the goal is exactly as they say - combating online radicalization. Of course, they *could* be engaging in nefarious censorship under the radar, but so could plenty of other organizations - with or without a press release or a website. I could assume the worst every time the government blinks at the internet, or expresses some interest in ensuring that individuals are not drawn into extremist ideology, I suppose, but at least for now your argument lacks merit, in my opinion.

Terror plot foiled in New York, three men pled guilty to terror related charges. These guys are 19 and 20, born and raised in America. How did they become radicalized to the point that they would plan to bomb people? Luckily, a member of their own community contacted authorities, averting another potential tragedy. Link