dialamah

@carepov Interesting article, thanks for sharing. Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech? Is there an obligation to give people a hearing or platform inherent in free speech?

Here's something you'll never see in mainstream media - a Jewish school teaching boys to hate Arabs ..

I agree that working to eliminate online recruitment sites for terrorism is a good idea. Unfortunately, it seems that like child-porn sites and pirating sites, this is easier said than done.

Yup. In 2015, I didn't even know I was "leftist", till certain right-wingers on here started crapping on me for it. Still, despite the box those people want to put me in, for easy labeling and dismissing, I shall continue to feel myself beholden to no political party or ideology.

Indeed. You accept statements such as "Muslims are (something negative)" without asking for qualification, and object if I (or someone else says) "Many Muslims aren't (something negative)", with the admonishment that the other person "didn't mean all Muslims". At the same time you seem to expect me and others to always qualify their responses with "Yes, there are bad Muslims in the world and we disapprove of all the bad things those bad Muslims do". You declined twice to admit that there is a very different agenda between "Here is an issue in which Muslims are involved; let's discuss that issue." and "Muslims do X; Muslims are terrible people" with some deflection. I wouldn't call you Islamaphobic, or racist or even particularly anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim, but I'd certainly accuse you of having a double standard and sympathetic to the anti-Muslim rhetoric. I believe MrCanada is before my time here so your support of minorities against rhetoric has been missed by me.

I do find it odd that you spend so much more effort reminding the left when you think they are assuming too much, but fail to remind the right when they do the same. So, you'll get on my case for calling someone's remarks bigotted, fearful, hateful or Islamaphobic, but say nothing when someone makes some sweeping and negative generalization about Muslims.

The WBC as an institution is a known quantity; it's individual members are not. I may not be entirely pleased to see a WBC Church set up in my neighborhood, because of what the church itself represents. But I doubt I'd care if a member of the congregation moved in next door. Now, someone will no doubt pop up and say "Yeah, but you know what Islam represents!" So, I would feel about the same about a mosque of the Wahhabi sect setting up shop in my hood as I would about the WBC. I would be more welcoming to a Christian church who was more tolerant than WBC and I'd be more welcoming of a mosque that was more progressive than Wahhabi. I would not object to individual members of any congregation moving next door. I would object if they somehow impinged upon my right to live my life as I saw fit, regardless of whether or not they were Christian or Muslim. Edited to add: I hope I spelled Wahhabi right.

Well, for the purposes of the discussion at large, nobody knows what the thought processes, experiences or beliefs of any individual Muslim are. Yet, some on this board keep insisting that Muslims believe x,y,z, and all Muslims should be viewed with suspicion. Our discussion is not removed from the greater discussion. Therefore, I think my second question is the right one for what happens on this board.

Yes, but the context is the claim that some people are ignoring valid issues that are being raised by calling the people/remarks "racist/islamaphobic". The question was "Which of the statements discuss an issue and which use an issue to denigrate Muslims". Here are the statements again, so you don't have to go look back: "Killing homosexuals for being homosexual is wrong and is not supported by either science or religious teachings, according to experts." "Muslims want to kill homosexuals Muslims are backwards and ignorant." "FGM is practiced in many countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, by adherents from many different religions. It is more prevalent in poor villages among the illiterate than in urban centers with a higher education level." "Muslims practice FGM; Muslims are backwards and ignorant."

I personally try to use the phrase anti-Islam or anti-Muslim; I save Islamaphobia for those people/statements that I think are truly over the top in terms of factual accuracy, fearful and hateful rhetoric. WBC - Westborough Baptist Church, yeah? So yeah, inasmuch as I could make a choice I'd choose Mary. I think the question for me isn't "would I rather live next door to a nice person than a not-nice person", but more along the lines of "This person has never done anything wrong that we know of, but his family may have although again we don't really know for sure. Or he might have agreed with something wrong that his family did, but we don't know that for sure either. So, do you want him as a neighbor? (No is the right answer, otherwise you are an idiot.)"

Do you see any difference in these two statements? "Killing homosexuals for being homosexual is wrong and is not supported by either science or religious teachings, according to experts." "Muslims want to kill homosexuals Muslims are backwards and ignorant." Or these two: "FGM is practiced in many countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, by adherents from many different religions. It is more prevalent in poor villages among the illiterate than in urban centers with a higher education level." "Muslims practice FGM; Muslims are backwards and ignorant." Which statements discuss an issue? Which statements use an issue to denigrate Muslims?

I didn't realize how much discrimination existed against Muslims either until I arrived here and began reading posts by you and DoP. I'm aware that this ill-feeling toward Muslims has not yet reached the levels experienced by Jews, Chinese or Japanese in Canada. Is there some reason we should ignore it till it does reach the same levels?

So, neither the word racist nor Islamaphobia is acceptable to use for those who hate/fear Muslims; what term should be used, do you suppose? Or is the idea that no matter how obvious an agenda is, it doesn't exist if you deny any term to describe it?

Everybody on here has, at some time or another, agreed that these things are wrong - whether practiced by Middle Eastern people, African people, South Asians, Russians, Canadians, Americans, British, etc, or whether they are Muslim, Christian or 'other': Honor killings Female inequality/oppression Discrimination/jailing/killing of gay people Pedophilia FGM Terrorist activity Lashings/Stoning/Beheadings Jailing/killing blasphemers and apostates Conversion by the sword Other stuff I may have missed that is generally frowned upon in Western/progressive countries Now, since certain people on this board think they are the only ones who "care" about this, maybe they could explain to the rest of us how they might address those issues? And by address those issues, I don't mean "Let's blame all Muslims by assuming that they support this stuff, and if they say they don't assume they are lying, and let's try to keep them out of our country". Nor does it mean accusing 'the other side' of not caring about Canada, embracing homophobic and misogynistic beliefs, hiding their heads in the sand, etc. The fact is that by 2030, according to Stats Canada, the only way to increase Canadian population is through immigration. That means that those issues have to be addressed, not by refusing adherents of the fastest growing religion in the world entry, but by addressing the actual issues you are concerned about - ideally where they are most common. That means recognizing supporting the organizations in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and India who are actively working to bring changes. How many of the anti-Muslim posters here support "Because I am a Girl" (my personal choice) or "Girls Not Brides" to fight misogyny in other countries? How many even know about "Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees", or Outright - a group that works in Muslim countries and around the world to empower gay people. The difference I see between me and someone like Argus is that I do care about these issues - I do what I can about it, without feeling obligated to hate on every single Muslim in the world. People like Argus aren't dealing with 'the issues'; they just want to build walls of suspicion and fear between "us" and "them".

It is generally right-wingers who are anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Heck, people like Trump/Le Pen/Wilders campaigned on those very things and have a significant and loyal following, so this isn't an 'invented' group. They exist. They may not include all right-wingers, but those who don't toe the anti-immigrant line are accused of being leftists by those who support anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies. Just look at Michael Chong, who probably won't win the Conservative leadership because he doesn't put forth any hint of xenophobic rhetoric. That and his acceptance of climate change science has him fighting a very uphill battle. And eyeball didn't even say *all right wingers*, so exactly what is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to say the same about me - certainly Argus and DoP have accused me of being Muslim and lying about it. Why do you guys do this? Is it because only Muslims are allowed or should defend themselves? Are we all supposed to just accept the rhetoric of fear and hatred against Muslims? Why would you bring up the discrimination Jews, Chinese, Sikhs etc., and use that to try to bludgeon into silence those who speak up for Muslims who are also experiencing exactly that kind of discrimination?

That's Ottawa. Have you looked at the most wanted in BC? Mostly white faces. Even in Surrey, hotbed of immigrant crime, 7 out of 10 are of white Canadian origin. In Edmonton, a lot of First Nations. In Calgary, mostly white faces again. In Winnipeg, all white. Toronto, mostly immigrant or immigrant descent. Out of Canada's 110 most wanted, 32 might be of Middle Eastern/African descent based on either their pic and/or their name; the other 78 look to be Canadians or from Asian/European/South American immigrant populations, again based on their pic and/or name. Vancouver, Ottawa, and Toronto have approximately the same ratio (between 20% and 23%) of immigrants within their populations; Surrey is over 30%. This might lead a person to ask "Why are there so many immigrant people on wanted lists in Toronto/Ottawa and so few on the Vancouver and Surrey lists if immigration and crime are related?" I did ask that question and did not find any really satisfactory answer but I did find a couple of sources that at least looked at the issue of immigrants and crime. Report from Stats Canada outlining the difference between Caucasian and non-Caucasian offenders: This Walrus article is particularly interesting in that it discusses how first-generation immigrants reduce crime-rate and make neighborhoods safer, but that second-generation 'regress' toward the mean and become more like non-immigrant populations in terms of criminal behavior. Still, as the article points out: Ultimately, I don't think one can draw conclusions about crime based on wanted posters. They are, after all, merely a snapshot in time: in a year or two or three, perhaps Vancouver and Surrey posters will show more people of immigrant descent, and Toronto/Ottawa will be mostly white.

The Canadian Borg - you will assimilate!

It takes time and determination to make a country great (for corporations and rich people) again.

Humans are generally pretty good at reading emotion/expression, even just from the eyes, so it's possible she could tell.

From Quora, an interesting overview of immigrants experiences and expectations in coming to Canada, in their own words - what they like, and what they dislike. https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-be-an-immigrant-coming-to-Canada

I've never claimed that immigrants from these countries are going to be equally as liberal/progressive as most Canadians are. However, assuming that they're all going to be the most conservative and least tolerant is also wrong, simply because the most conservative and least tolerant people are also the least likely people to be wanting to change countries. Other than refugees, people don't 'find themselves relocated' - they *choose* to go where customs and expectations are different. Thus, if I were to choose to move to these countries I would be aware of expectations and decide what was acceptable to me and if that would be acceptable where I was planning to move to. A couple of personal examples: my sister, who moved to Egypt and rarely or never wears a headscarf and who often wears pants. Her accommodation to her new country has been to ensure her upper arms are covered and her behind is covered, by a long top when she wears pants. However, she does like wearing the Abaya - a long dress - because it is both comfortable and cool. A Canadian/Iranian Muslim woman I know, when she's in Canada, wears fairly revealing clothes, even sexy outfits and no headscarf. When she's working/living in Iran, she wears a headscarf and her choice of attire is a little more modest. She's currently living/working in Greece with refugee and asylum populations, and dresses in Western styles with no headscarf. I've seen groups of women where some are wearing headscarfs, some are not and one may even be wearing a niqab. I assume all these women in the group are Muslim, yet they have different modes of dress - many of these women would be indistinguishable from a Canadian woman on the street unless one assumed that certain physical appearance = Muslims. If Muslims who move here talk about the value they find Canadian tolerance, why would anyone assume that they are clinging to intolerance? I think the assumption made that Muslims are unwilling or unable to tolerate diversity is simply wrong. Certainly, some will be less tolerant - but that's true of any group - and as long as they do not act on their intolerance, I see little difference between them and a particularly devout and fundamentalist Christian.

Wow! Substitute the word "Quran" for the word "Bible" and you've got exactly what a Muslim woman said the other day, when I objected to her insistence that Muslim women had to wear hijab.