dialamah

Also: For newcomers, the level of coverage depends on your immigration status. Generally speaking though, immigrants have limited access to free medical care and will likely have to pay for some treatments or insurance. https://immigration.findlaw.ca/article/can-non-citizens-get-free-health-care/ In BC at least, there is a 3-month period where sponsored immigrants are not covered, and they may also not be covered for pre-existing conditions: If they currently have any pre-existing medical conditions, their coverage options may be somewhat limited, https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/sponsored-parents-what-health-care-do-they-qualify-for.107675/

Maybe not, and may also depend on which province they arrive to. Sponsored-class newcomers represent 12% of our patients. It is not unusual for them to wait several years for their provincial health care eligibility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395500/#__ffn_sectitle

Fine; nonetheless, they still represent a minority view within Islam. And that view has been part of their downfall; their brutality and violence alienates far more people than it invited. And as ISIS has lost power and territory, so have Islamic terror attacks around the world declined. Not being unduly afraid of Muslims or Islam doesn't mean I have the warm fuzzies for terrorists. I happen to disagree with the government about the lack of consequences for those who went to fight for ISIS.

What is frustrating is non-Muslims who claim to speak for all Muslims, claiming that they are irredeemably violent despite the fact that most Muslims aren't violent at all and most condemn violence. 1. Not my estimate; its an expert's estimate. I have seen expert's estimate as high as 300,000 but couldn't find that link today. Even so, I allowed for as many as 500,000 ... And that still remains a tiny minority of all Muslims. 2. We were talking about violent extremism, were we not? You suddenly expect me to discuss something else because you don't like the numbers?

The vast majority of Christians in Canada and Western natioms disagree with Betsy and her anti-abortion\anti-gay Christian beliefs. Some Christians agree with her and some are, and have been, violent. Why aren't you demanding that Christians do more to shut her particular brand of Christianity down? Is it every Christian's duty and responsibility to condemn the actions of violent people who use the Bible to support a violent agenda? Or is that an expectation you only have for Muslims? Muslims denounce violent extremism all the time; Egypt regularly bombs those extremists on its borders and condemns their actions. There are websites, Facebook sites, and youtube videos denying the validity if violent Islamic terrorism. There have been marches against it and there have even been fatwas against it. Plenty of websites and Imams and Muslims explain jihad as an internal struggle. Why do you ignore those examples, along with the billion or so Muslims who do not practice or support violence, in favor of the minority who do? If you are specifically talking about Wahhabism exported by Saudi, then do you demand that Canada and all Western nations stop doing business with them? Or are you suggesting that Middle Eastern countries wage war on Saudi Arabia while its being backed by Western money, Western arms and Western political leaders?

Those people who don't go on a violent Jihad are also the people who condemn those that do. Most Muslims understand Jihad to be a personal struggle related to their faith and not a violent struggle against unbelievers. Most Muslims take the Koranic instruction to peaceful co-existance very seriously. The notion you have that Muslims are a cruel, bloodthirsty horde just waiting to crucify Westerners is simply far-right and White Nationalist rhetoric that has sifted into right-wing mainstream.

Experts on terrorists and radicalization disagree with you. Most of those radicalized, whether in the Middle East or not, are young men who know very little about Islam, but they feel alienated for whayever reason. They are looking for something to hang their feelings of rejection on and gain a sense of belonging, violent Islam fits the bill. Its the same motivation for violent White Supremacists - a way to blame and punish someone else because they feel rejected, and a group to identify with. I am not saying, btw, that terrorism isn't a problem. I am saying that focussing on Islam as the reason for terrorism is a mistake. If 5 terrorists share similar traits, but each has a different ideology, how are you going to address terrorism effectively if you select one ideology and declare that the reason? Would be much more effective, in my opinion, to address the other, similar traits. That way, you'll have a better chance of identifying those at risk of radicalization and hopefully preventing deaths. Doesn't matter if the person is an Alexandre Bissonnette or a Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, identifying those at risk of radicalization is a more effective strategy than assuming that a particular ideology is at fault. Especially when the vast majority of those with a less extreme version of the same ideology are never violent and condemn those who are.

In my view, radicals have several characteristics in common, most notably a desire to belong, to have an identity that feels important. The ideology, whether Christian, Islamic, White Supremacy or any other violent group, is essentially irrelevant to these people's desire to find belonging and identity.

You dismiss that peaceful majority regularly, as you have again right here: Even if I double the estimate in the link I provided, a couple hundred thousand violent jihadists vs 1.4 billion non-violent Muslims is a minority, regardless of how the anti-Islam lobby wants to claim. Even if there were 500,000 active Muslim terrorists, that would still be less than 1% of all the Muslims in the world. That is a tiny minority and those who think that tiny minority is representative of all Muslims is being willfully ignorant. Lies debunk nothing. Facts demonstrate that my point is correct: Islamic terrorism is carried out by a tiny minority of people who claim it is a requirement of Islam. Nah, I just felt it was important to point out where the anti-Islamists fail in their assessment of how prevalent terrorism is in Islam or that it is an integral part of Islam, just as you felt it was important to point out where QueenMandy fails in her argument.

I thought the black girl was being unreasonable.

I happen to think it's willfully ignorant to pretend that the vast majority (a billion plus) of Muslims who follow Koranic instructions against murder and terrorism can be dismissed as the true representation of Islam in favor of what a small minority (around 100,000) of politically motivated and/or ignorant and/or thrill seekers and/or mercenaries claim is Islam.

Christians do do it here; your links provided two examples of communities intended to appeal to Catholics.

This assumes they are actively suppressing confirmed details. I haven't seen any information that even suggests thats the case. The assumption that information is being suppressed because its not confirming a preferred narrative is as logical as Bible thumpers claiming that the Bible proves God's existence.

Unless of course its a Muslim guy shooting people: in that case we should make the case that its terrorism and that media and authorities are in some plot to hide this from us.

Not sure what they mean by "practicing Christians"; at the time the bylaw was made, it meant "not Jewish" and for a while "not Black". Pretty sure there are capitalists there and doubt they'd agree with the idea that Christians can't be capitalists.

True. If Muslims are doing it, its wrong. If Christians are doing it, not a problem. I didn't read all of Scribblet's links, but if the planned Montreal community really intended to dictate dress, I would not consider that acceptable.

Yes, they build these developments to draw certain people. They also build communities around fairways to appeal to golfers. But you wouldn't call them golf-only communities, since non-golfers could buy there if they wanted. Nobody is saying that these communities aren't or won't be inhabited primarily by Muslims, merely disputing your claim of Muslim-only as part of the legal requirement for purchasing the home. The town linked in the OP has an actual bylaw requiring that property be owned by Christians. Which I notice you haven't bothered to comment on one way or the other. So let me ask you directly: do you support religions creating communities and using a law to exclude other religions?

I agree, but that seems to be the case. Perhaps the government deems it cheaper to subsidize housing that helps at least some people rather than risk having to provide all the help for everyone that needs it. Interestingly, when Muslims attempted to set up Sharia Tribunals in Ontario to arbitrate family matters, similar to already existing Catholic and Jewish Tribunals, public outcry was strong enough that all religions lost the ability to privately arbitrate family matters according to their religious precepts. Perhaps, if enough people are incensed by Muslim-only publically subsidized housing, all such facilities will be denied any public funding. Would that be a good thing?

I think one is strictly privately funded, not sure if the others get government money.

I asked once to have my profile deleted, never happened. Discovered later that what we post here is considered the University's property or something, so deleting a profile would be deleting content. Cyber wanted to have his stuff deleted, tried to do so manually and was banned, but his posts still show up. No doubt profiles could be deleted, if moderators were given a good enough reason. Who doesn't show up in a search?

That info is included in the N.Y. Times link you provided. They also installed industrial strength fans in the kitchen for aromatic cooking. I suppose two living rooms could be billed as a living room and a family room for non-Muslims.

The N.Y. Times article about Peace Village does not say "Muslim only", it says the buyers are Muslim because the community is centered around the Mosque. It also mentions two other, similar communities-one is a a Roman Catholic community built around a Catholic Church and the other is a community planned around a Cathedral which is expected to draw primarily Slovakian Catholics. The planned Vaughan community is open to non-Muslims: The objections to the Vaughn community are driven by concerns over density and green space, which is valid in my opinion. Some of the objections are driven by bigotry - as expressed by this woman: Michael is right: you have attempted to misinform. No doubt your other links follow the same misinformation agenda.

If Muslims who believe X are being killed by Muslims who believe Y, how can all Muslims believe the same thing and be willing to fight/die for that, as you claim? Also, the Koran advises Muslims to obey the law of the land and to not engage in violence. These are the commands most Muslims follow; those who claim Muslims are or will be become violent as a matter of faith are extremists who have an agenda. The agenda is either to whip up anti-Western sentiment or to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment. Either way, it is people like you and DoP and like ISIS who cause violence, not Muslims.

Here are a couple of examples of places that would be able to legally exclude, for example, a disabled Muslim person: Yes, many organizations, religious and otherwise, do not exclude anyone. I myself prefer that, but some people want to be with "their own kind" so to speak, and Canada allows for that under certain circumstances. Yes, we do. And we are pretty even handed about who can exclude; our rules are around allowing groups to determine who'll belong in their "club", so to speak. Here's a story of a disabled woman who could not live in the condo her mother left her, due to age-restrictions.

Further down in the article: Sounds like two stories were presented: the company claiming she excluded the male, the woman claiming she used the same greeting for both. Perhaps that explains why the court ruled strictly on religious accommodation grounds, rather than noting that she hadn't treated the men and women differently.