dialamah

You let pass PIK's declaration that Muslims getting attacked and killed wasn't a problem because "We don't want Islam in Canada". I guess you agree with him since didn't say anything when I called you out on it. Not so much a defense of Islam, as standing up against bigotry.

Where did I say shut up? I acknowledged your contribution and that sounds like "shut up" to you? Thats just weird. BTW, do you agree with PIK that if a Muslim is beaten or killed, that"s just too bad because we don't want Islam here?

Thanks for your contribution.

Yes, but only by people who seem to think that allowing Muslims some humanity = supporting brutality. I have said repeatedly that these countries have issues. This does not mean that all Muslim men treat women like pieces of meat or are rapists. Now, how about you show me a Western country where women are never beaten, raped or killed by men, and where not only is gender equality the law, its actually universally and without fail an integral part of the culture.

That"s a really good question. Maybe you could look into it and get back to us with a really good answer.

You would know, of course.

I agree Islam has sone pretty outdated practices, but this bit simply isn't true.

So its ok to attack and kill people who have done nothing wrong?

Canadians don't recognize Islamaphobia even as Mosques are subjected to hateful graffiti, death threats are sent to Mosques, Muslim women are attacked verbally and physically in public, and six Muslims are killed while praying. Religiously motivated attacks against Muslims have risen 253% over four years, but Islamaphobia is a made up term by Liberals to kill free speech. SMH

Yes, you do. You also assert that the parts of those studies that do not support your claim are wrong and/or the respondents are lying about those parts, but not the parts that support what you believe. Yes it is, but some people claim it's a proposed law that limits free speech, or that it is a law already passed. The same was said of the Ottawa Protocol prior to its adoption, but those people were wrong. Even if that were the intent (and I don't believe for a minute that it is), common sense should tell people that given the scrutiny of the opposition and anti-Islam watchers, the chances of that happening are absolutely nil. If you examine those surveys, they want Sharia for themselves, not everyone. In addition, they may only envision Sharia as applying to family law or inheritance and not necessarily criminal behavior. The study takes pains to point that out. I notice you could not resist the impulse to toss in a couple of insults although the post you responded to contained none. I thought you didn't do that.

So much bullshit. Islamaphobia refers to those people who are so afraid of Islam, they are unable to talk rationally about it. They think a motion proposing a study is a law against free speech, that Muslims are just itching to impose the Most extreme form of Sharia on Wsterners, they spread myths fuelled by fear and ignorance, while denying and discounting anything suggesting Muslims aren't a threat to Western civilization. Please note that I am replying to you, but this is not explicitly about you. If you see yourself in the description above, that is not my problem. If you don't, then you have no need to take my comments personally.

Sure they are, constantly. They're offended by "Happy Holidays", by subsidized childcare, by women who work instead of staying home the kids, by abortion, by any religious practice or belief that's not Christian, by custom that doesn't derive from White Anglo Saxon Protestant history. They're offended by the idea that women, gays, people of color and poor people"s experiences are different than that of a white male. As for "safe spaces", conservatives are the ones demanding that "white" society be dominant and that we return to the 50s so they don"t have to deal with people who don't look like them, or ideas that are different than their own.

So you support cutting economic and political ties with countries with human rights abuses? Did you note the Chinese media taking Canada to task regarding First Nations? Do you think we, as a country, have treated First Nations poorly?

Trudeau has spoken out regarding their human rights, according to this article.

Are you an anarchist-earthling?

You mean declaring "And this one is for Canada!" as they drop the MOAB on the offender?

What I don't get is when person A expresses an opinion, person B disagrees and person A says "You are trying to shut me down! How dare you, you snowflake!". Which is what I see happening a lot. I do think universities, especially, should not cancel controversial events - boycotting by those who disagree, or even polite and non-violent rallying is fine by me, should be allowed. Although, I do recall that guy who was going to present on how to 'get' women by appearing genuine; I thought it was ok to shut that down because it seemed misogynistic to assume that a man had a right to pretty much any women he wanted and that it was acceptable to game her to achieve his goals. Seems the presenter promoted some use of force, as well as charm and money, in his techniques.

Isn't Trump constantly threatening to break treaties and agreements?

Why would an interpretation occuring 1600 years after the supposed events be more accurate than any other interpretation? Especially when that interpretation came at a time when the Church was starting its long downhill slide? I daresay there was good reason to present an interpretation that would scare people into not straying from Church authority.

Here is some much more intriguing info on the origins of hell.

If a nuclear missile goes off nearby, 20 minutes warning won't really help. Sure, there's helpful articles on the internet about what to do in the case of a nuclear attack, but personally I'd rather be flash-cooked than die slowly of radiation poisoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome