dialamah

I was confused by this at first, why you'd think you were dignifying anything. Then I read both articles and I see the blogger, who was also there, failed to see a crazed mob 10s or 100s strong; the blogger did see that she was being manhandled (at the very least) and that she was quickly rescued by Egyptian males who took her to safety... Fully dressed, if somewhat mussed. This account certainly is very different fdrom Lara's account and would not fit the view you prefer of Muslims, I guess. But thanks for posting it despite your distaste. My opinion: clearly, Lara experienced something that frightened her, and I hope she is lying about the degree of violence she experienced because nobody should have to live with that.

LOL. How about I post all the pics of all the immigrants who have never broken any laws at all. Will that prove to you that the vast majority of immigrants are law-abiding?

I think they have a backlog because they do a thorough job of checking the applications.

I talked to a co-worker about their experience emigrating to Canada from South Africa. A huge amount of paperwork and a two-year wait before they were approved.

We already screen them and they already fail to break Canadian laws, regardless of their personal religious beliefs. That is what we expect of our citizens, born here or not.

Wrong. Neither Betsy nor Blackbird are criminals as far as I'm aware. What I'm saying that one of Canadian values is that people have the right and the freedom to believe as they wish, as long as they obey the law. Even if they're Muslim, they get to believe as they want, as long as they don't break Canadian laws while they live in Canada.

What's the link? Given that in the story I read she names colleagues who were there, it seems odd that she'd even briefly get away with lying.

What about people like Betsy or Blackbird, who do not 'prefer' Canada's secular law but would prefer to install some kind of Christian-based system. Why do they get to be a Canadian with different views than mine, but a Muslim does not? As long as Betsy and Blackbird and other Christians like them follow the law, they are entitled to believe that abortion is wrong, gays are disapproved by God (and can be cured) and that women should submit to men. Same with Muslims, even if I disagree with what they believe.

I would call this "changing the topic because I can't refute what she said". What happened to Lara Logan was horrific, absolutely devastating. Along with that, both male and female Muslims tried to help, protecting her when they could and beating back the mob, as did the Muslim soldiers who rescued her. You and Goddess and Argus trying to make an out-of-control mob and criminal behavior by men as the defining characteristics of all Muslims is just wrong.

'Hyperbolic misstatement of actual fact' is not the same as 'fabrication'. Here's an example of the differences: Fact: US drops MOAB in Afghanistan Hyperbolic misstatement would be: US drops 3 bombs in Afghanistan, kills 3000 soldiers and 5000 civilians, including women and children. Fabrication: There is no such thing as an MOAB, so the US could not possibly have dropped one in Afghanistan. Fact: Taharrush game'a means 'Group Harrasment' and can involve sexual harassment. The term was coined as a result of some Egyptians who would harass people, and steal from them, as well as assault women during the Arab Spring. It is illegal in Egypt and everywhere, and condemned around the world, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Hyperbolic misstatement: Tarrahush game'a is a traditional Arabic rape game in which 100s or thousands of men gang rape a woman. This is a common occurrence and accepted practice in the Arab world and will become common in the Western world too because there are so many Muslims. Fabrication: There is no such thing as Tarrahush Game'a anywhere at all.

I wouldn't take what sapper says too seriously. They've "railroaded' complainants as well as defendants. But generally, people only remember their side being 'railroaded'. In BC they recently agreed that restaurants could not require women to wear high heels. I think that was a good decision, personally, but perhaps men who like seeing women in high heels would disagree. Here's some actual cases, which might give you a better idea of the kinds of cases HRCs deal with: http://greggowe.com/content/the-top-10-human-rights-cases-canada

I've already done in that early February and discovered, it's yet another right-wing hyperbolic misstatement of the actual facts. But that doesn't matter to you does it? if it doesn't criminalize Muslims and Islam in some way, it's not true.

Think about that, for a minute: 2000 men involved in raping one woman - even if not all of them were physically involved. Think about where the woman was, how many men might be in the immediate vicinity - able to see and hear, and how big an area wold be needed to fit 2000 men. Imagine yourself at an event with 2000 people. Do you know what the people even just a short distance away are actually doing? Even if a woman was being raped in a crowd containing 2000 men, the likelihood that all 2000 knew what was happening and cheering on the rapists is ludicrous. Although, I haven't heard the story: was the woman perhaps in an arena and the 2000 men had actually shown up for that event? If that's the case, I will be corrected as to the veracity of this claim. In any case, rape is wrong whether it's one man, ten men, 100 men or 2000.

Where did I say that I supported two sets of laws? Stating *what happens elsewhere* is not the same as saying "it should happen here as well*. Anyway, we already allow other religious groups to administer certain matters according to their group's traditions rather than through Canadian legal systems. This includes Jews and Catholics.

For themselves. Not for everyone else. There are Muslim-majority countries where Sharia law is only imposed on Muslims, and secular law is used for non-Muslims. I've already posted about this, listing all the countries and the different ways in which Sharia has been implemented, but your Islamaphobia made it impossible for you to understand.

I put "Extremism" in quotes to indicate that I think that is a problem: it's a problem for Islam and it's a problem for peace and goodwill around the world. A huge fvcking problem, is my personal opinion. And you are like the nazi-feminist who screeches at every man she meets that he is a rapist and needs to be castrated, because she knows a friend of a friend of a friend who was assaulted.

Nowhere did the article claim these were *exclusively* Islamic values and not Western ones. He said "The Koran's teachings are better represented in Western societies than in Islamic countries" and expanded on that. Nowhere does he claim these are not also Western values, or that nobody but a Muslim can legitimately claim them. This entire article is critical of *Islamic* governments, something people like yourself claim you want to see people like myself do more of. Maybe your level of anti-Muslim bias is what the issue is here.

Try a legit criticism instead of your hyperbolic lies. Here's a critic of Islam I do follow and often agree with: https://nervana1.org/

-The goal of discussion should be greater understanding of how cultures do and don't mesh together Off the top of my head: Culture changes over time. When two cultures "meet", they learn from each other and will adopt each other's practices, to the point where it can be difficult to know where or when a particular practice or belief originated. Cultures also change as a result of uncertainty or instability: if a group perceives itself at risk, they tend to become more conservative and more religious, demanding more conformity from the group. Do cultures move 'backward' speaking specifically in the area of individual freedoms? It seems that in the Middle East some have; in the 50s and 60s there was less religiosity apparent than there is currently. The reversion to a more fundamental and conservative religious belief seems to have coincided with the imposition of Western geopolitical manipulation in the region and the resulting instability. Could such a thing happen in the Western world? I certainly think it's possible, but I think it would more likely come as a part of climate change societal disintegration rather than military invasion or even a cultural invasion. As the threat to humans increases due to environmental deterioration, people will tend to become more conservative and less willing to tolerate behavior out-of-the-norm, however that 'norm' is defined. Many will look for a savior - often these saviors are a charismatic human with a line to God and the rules for salvation allow no deviation from whatever "God" demands, through the words of the savior. History certainly shows that God (however he is named) often demands adherence to rules that create divisiveness, outcasts and oppression of those perceived as 'different'.

I've tried to have a rational discussion about the "problem of Islam Extremism", and there was no interest. The Islamaphobes idea of rational conversation is this: 1. OMG, Muslims killed a few Westerners (because Muslims killing other Muslims, or Westerners killing Muslims for decades, or Christians killing Muslims in far-flung lands isn't a problem) 2. OMG, it's because they are all violent extremists due to their religion (ignoring the fact that most Muslims aren't killing anyone) 3. OMG, all Muslim countries are shitholes for gays and women (ignoring all the other countries in the world that are also shitholes for gays and women, like India - from whom we also accept immigrants) 4. OMG, Muslims are a scourge upon the earth! Here's how Islamophobes work: Someone takes a video of British Muslims celebrating a cricket match win in 2009 and posts it on the internet claiming it's Muslims celebrating a terror attack: Islamaphobes fall for it, hook line and sinker. A sensational story about a particularly egregious act comes out of the Middle East: it's news because it's unusual. Islamophobes conclude that this is 'business as usual' and all Muslims behave this way. Islamophobes choose fear over reality. Someone claims that Muhammed married and had sex with a six-year-old. Islamaphobes believe it and when evidence is presented to the contrary, they reject it. Islamophobes choose guilt without evidence. Islamaphobes demand that Muslims stand up and denounce terrorism; when it's pointed out that Muslims around the world do exactly that, they say it's not enough. Islamophobes choose hate over understanding. Islamaphobes claim that Muslims want to implement Sharia law over everybody in Western countries; when it's explained that there are countries around the world where Muslims have the power to do just that and they don't, that's ignored. Islamophobes choose fear over reality. Islamophobes claim that Muslims want to take over the West and force everyone to convert and when, again, it's pointed out that in many countries they have the power to do just that and they don't, that's ignored. Islamophobes choose fear over reality. Islamaphobes refuse to allow that just like Christians around the world have different beliefs, so do Muslims. Islamaphobes use the interpretation of Islam to define and condemn all Muslims. Islamophobes choose hate over understanding. Islamaphobes accuse those who doesn't jump on their hate and fear bandwagon of supporting human rights violations by Islamic governments and brutal, violent behavior by Muslims. There is no middle ground with Islamaphobes, there is no way to both be concerned about terrorism, religiously-motivated intolerance and patriarchy and oppressive governments, while also allowing for Muslims who want to leave that behind. Islamophobes choose irrationality over rationality. Islamaphobes: irrational, illogical, ignorant and gullible. I'm not here to defend Islam; I'm here to fight against Islamaphobes.

Weren't you just remarking on brainless comments that have absolutely no relationship to the topic?

If you don't think you are a bleater, why should Micheal's comment bother you? And if you think my comments are brainless, you should just ignore them or put me on ignore. Save yourself the irritation.

So you do think you were bleating. Ok.

So, you think you bleat?

For the landowner, the end result is the same: he/she loses the land. In the States, it just costs the landowner more if they choose to fight a court battle over it. But we can agree to disagree about how effective property rights are in the States.