dialamah

Perhaps Candice Malcolm has an agenda and is the one who wants to mislead Canadians, ever think of that? Or maybe you just believe her because what she says supports your views. This would be called confirmation bias. My opinion, based on what I have read thus far, is that this guy had a history of mental illness, probably did visit Islamist websites and something triggered him to shoot people. The trigger may have been the websites he visited, paranoia due to his mental illness, depression due to his own or his family circumstance or a combination of any/all of those things. The desire demonstrated by some people here to remove any motive or explanation except Islamic terrorism isn't any more helpful than ignoring the possible motivation an extremist site might have provided. When Bissonett killed those Muslims his association with and admiration for far-right people, websites and rhetoric as a motivator was dismissed by many posters here. Now, oddly, many of those same people want to insist that Faisal's association with similarly extreme Islamist elements was the primary and perhaps only motivator. That double standard is exactly why I consider this thread merely an excuse to bolster their anti-Muslim sentiments and conspiracy theories about the media.

I agree. I am disappointed that he is dead because he escapes justice in our legal system, regardless of how paltry it may be. FFS. The only point is that people often don't recognize mental illness in friends or even family until its too late and they've killed themselves or others as the case may be. Hussain's family apparently did, as did at least one friend. Pointing these two things out makes no difference of course. I repeat, for the third time, accurate information and real discussion is not wanted here. Its just an opportunity to bash Liberals/indulge in theories about coverups.

That is not what I said, nor was it what I thought. But why don't you try looking at what is already been said: the guy is an Islamist, is not mentally ill, Trudeau, the gov't, the media is trying to hide the truth and anyone who says differently is part of that conspiracy. I repeat, there is no desire here for real information, facts, honesty or discussion. The only agenda is to indulge in conspiracy theories and criticize "those liberals".

Robin Williams looked happy too till he killed himself. At least one friend said they were aware of his issues. But of course this thread isn't about truth, accuracy or understanding: its about vilifying people Conservatives don't like - the Liberal Government and Muslims. Carry on.

If its the Fraser Institute its probably highballing the figure for political partisanship reasons, giving the Conservatives an anti-Liberal talking point.

Here's a better link. Seems not so much that they're lost, but that we (the public) aren't being updated. The columnist opines it's because they are doing so poorly.

It seems that God was ok with homosexuality, and then some human changed Leviticus to make it seem He wasn't.

Correct, you were wrong about my views. Changing the goalposts now doesn't make you any less wrong, but nice try. Which claim I have only seen from you and given how often I have caught you presenting misleading information, I am not likely to accept it till I have verified it and I am currently too lazy to do so. Your understanding of the UN refugee definition appears to be lacking from other discussions I have seen so I am discounting this from you as well. I've proven you wrong multiple times over two forums regarding cultural compatibility of immigrants/refugees but clearly you are unable to accept logic or evidence that contradicts your anti-Muslim bigotry.

Here's what I posted earlier in the thread: Notice how I acknowledge a problem and suggest that either a change in gov't or some real action by JT would be needed to address it? See, you have put me in a box and decided what I do or do not believe based on that box and not what I actually think or even what I post. You make most of your mistakes because you make hese kinds of broad based assumptions about people. (Wonder if Goddess will leap to my defense for the "lie" you just posted about me, as she did for you). Attack you? Nope, just clarifying for a new poster where your interests lie. A poster, BTW, who you continue to personally attack because their language skills identify him/her as an immigrant.

A friend and I were discussing this recently. A friend of her family decided on assisted suicide due to incurable cancer but she did not discuss nor advise her family and friends about her decision. She did call friends on Monday to ask them to sing at her memorial on Friday, announcing only that she would be passing on Tuesday. Friends and family were shocked and devastated, but I do understand why she may have decided to avoid pleas and bargaining from others to wait. On the other hand, this woman had also lost her husband and mother to cancer within the previous two years, so was her decision entirely untainted by her recent losses? I think this is a decision that needs to be thought out and discussed well in advance, not left to the last minute, perhaps made under emotional duress and/or sprung on family and friends. I have already let my kids know that assisted suicide is definitely an option for me under some circumstances and at some point I plan on written directives to support them and myself as needed. If one is suffering a terminal disease, it can be relatively straightforward to decide when to pull the plug. But dementia is much trickier, since quality of life is determined subjectively and for a time dementia allows some quality of life interspersed with nothingness. Does one decide that being aware and responsive 20% or 10% or 1% of the time is worth the time spent otherwise? If one ultimately decides to leave the decision in someone else's hands is that fair to them? So much of this is based on one's personal beliefs and their relationships that making a law that will effectively address all scenarios seems very difficult. I think the widest latitude combined with the best safeguards is needed. One safeguard could be that the individual has to choose, well ahead of time, who should make the decision, that it should be a minimum of three people and that at least one should have nothing to gain through the death of the individual. Another could be a significant waiting period for a person that is not suffering from dementia, so that a temporary sense of hopelessness does not lead to a hasty and permanent decision. I don't think addictions or depression should be included under the "assisted suicide" banner. I spent much of my adult life wishing for a way to end the pain I felt, but now I am glad my attempts failed. I also know of people who spent decades addicted and/or in jail but are now functioning, productive and happy members of our society. In my opinion, assisted suicide should only be for physical ailments that are terminal according to our best medical knowledge today.

*shrugs*. Ok, I'm self righteous. Feel better?

I just have not seen that. Seems to me people say whatever they want, and often ignore facts, evidence and commin sense to do so. Its easy enough to find different media perspectives if you really want to. To suggest you can't look outside of Canada for different perspectives is odd, given our access to the world wide web.

..... Ok. I didn't read your whole post, but I will say I don't think you are morally reprehensible. Your concern and care for Syrian refugees and your work with women leaving JWs would certainly demonstrate where you care. But if I say that its no reward for a woman to lose her family and potentially her child is met with "I have no sympathy for her", why am I wrong for considering that a heartless response? Sure, she deserves to be deported but I don't think I am wrong for feeling empathy. Anyway, I am done ... Being attacked for presenting facts and expressing empathy is not my idea of a good time.

Fuck her and her kid was implied in your words, deny though you will. Argus has said everything I accuse him of saying. I used to go find and post his words as proof but he and his followers are kinda like Trump and Trumptards in their belief in his "rightness" so there's really no point. Only a few people here are the least interested in accuracy or not looking for a fight; else why would a simple statement of mine about women who are deported even with kids result in you and Argus.both attacking me? Neither Turning-rite nor Centerpiece felt it necessary to do so, even though we don't really agree. Funny how you never notice or complain when Argus "lies" about me, or for that matter when you do.

I am labelled progressive here because of not hating certain groups and a tendency to consider more than just simplistic explanations and scenarios and lots of things are assumed about what I believe based on a label I have been given. It's unfortunate and certainly hasn't led to better understanding or discussion.

Hey just cause you can't imagine having empathy for someone even while supporting consequences for their illegal actions doesn't mean others can't.

I made it clear more than once that I agreed that woman should be deported, even though she stood to lose her kid and family. You couldn't wait to say "Too fukin bad for her and her kid", and now you whine that you come across as rather heartless.

Sure, just like why not roll the dice and overstay your visa or cross the border illegally in the hopes that you can beat the odds and be granted PR status. But that's the point: you have to beat the odds. Regardless of claims made by some people, we don't simply throw our hands in the air and allow most people who flout our laws to stay. I agree we could be faster at processing claims and more effectively follow through on deportation orders, but no doubt that would mean a change in government priorities to more effectively resource the entire system - that means tax dollars reallocated from somewhere else, or increased taxation. May also mean a change in government, but if JT is paying attention he will have to at least present some plan to deal with the current migrant issue.

There was no indication in the news story I posted that she deliberately produced a baby to use to stay in Canada, though I am not saying she didn't. The whole point of my first post was merely that having a baby didn't mean people got to stay in Canada, and further on that I think deportation is what should happen. You seem to be responding as if we disagree here, when we don't really. I guess the biggest difference between us is that I can support her deportation because she did break the law, while still having some empathy for where she now finds herself. You seem pretty gleeful that she's losing her family and baby.

Damn. I was nearly done posting a longer reply and it all went boom. But briefly: your friend was no doubt accurate in assessing the weakness of the system, but if he's anything like most humans, he's overly-focused on the negative and so I suspect his assessment is only part of the story. Personally I agree that Canada should figure out how to be more efficient at deporting those who need deporting; I just don't think hyperbole and falsehoods need to be part of the discussion. Perhaps this current crisis will lead to more efficient processing. Btw why do you need to identify yourself as "right" or "left"? Must we all claim a "team"? Wouldn't it be easier to avoid stupid partisanship if we avoided joining one team or another, but instead kept our options, and maybe our minds, open?

True, but the point was that she was deported even though she had a 4-month-old baby. The.point was that babies do not give one a free pass into Canadian citizenship. Nothing to do with "why" she was.deported. I have no problem with her depotation; I agree people should follow the law and overstaying one's visa should get one deported. I just happen to be fond of accuracy and Capricorn's claim that baby-making was almost a sure path to staying isn't accurate. How is remaining in a country long enough to get comfortable, make connections, create a family and then being forced to leave a "reward" exactly? I would call that a much worse outcome than being deported much sooner. Not to mention the five years of living under such uncertainty.

Then it is good to point out some facts in case any migrants stumble across this thread, read Capricorn's post and think .. "I just hafta have a baby to stay!" Seems the deportation of mama-with-or-without-baby isn't all that uncommon. On the other hand, I suppose a fact or two does tend throw a spanner into the unending bitchfest about migrants, refugees and how stupid/easy Canada is.

Maybe not. This woman was deported, despite having a 4-month old. Here is some info on women who are deported despite having a Canadian kid.