dialamah

Depends on who gets the leadership, I think. I have a preferred Conservative leadership candidate who I'd be willing to vote for against JT, but I doubt he'll win. However, I am thinking about joining the Conservative party just so I can give him my vote. If one of the more extreme candidates gets the leadership, I'll stick with JT in the next election.

They are to somebody. I think critical thinking skills should be taught from kindergarten and remedial classes imposed on adults who demonstrate an inability to think critically ... People who continue to believe Trump knows what he's doing, for instance.

Nah. Just in the terrorism database site I've been sorting through since last weekend. But one year isn't a trend, unfortunately.

There are plenty of 'facts' presented to us daily, some of them directly contradicting others. Better to be able to think so one can identify actual facts vs alternative facts.

There were fewer deaths from Islamic terrorism in 2016 than in 2015.

What the heck is Grapevine? Every time I see it I'm reminded of that game where someone whispers something in one person's ear, who passes it on to the next person, who passes it on to the next ... till the last person repeats it out loud and it's unrecognizable from the original statement. So what is this really?

Where is the link so we can find out what else it says.

People come out of Canadian prisons with PTSD due to the violence and living conditions, so its not really that much of a joke. You might think that doesn't matter, they're criminals and shouldn't have it rough. That's not a problem until they get out of prison and can't function effectively in society because of it. I think @Newfoundlander makes a good point that deporting terrorists may only make them more of a threat because unless that country agrees to jail that person permanently, they can simply work from outside the country. How likely is it that Canada has agreements with all these countries to jail people our legal system has convicted?

Co-workers here regularly leave to smoke while I continue to do the work. Some people also go to the bathroom more than me, again leaving me doing the work. It's just not fair, I tell you!

Careful!! You are in Canada now and showing connection to your homeland is offensive to us born and bred Canadians!

Family planning includes contraception as well as health and nutrition advice for pregnant women.

Michael Chong for me.

Because I was talking about Western media attention on Islamic terror attacks in Western countries. I chose 2011-2015 because it's relatively current; claiming that environmentalists are the worst terror group because they knocked over pipelines in the 1980s would be rather silly, wouldn't it? I chose Canada because of us; I chose the US because they're the drivers of a lot of Western media; I chose France because they've had a few highly-publicized Islamic attacks and I chose the UK just because. That data can't say "whatever I want" vis-a-vis those countries and time periods, especially if I give the link. I think 'because it involves a god' is essentially irrelevant to this particular data. I might include some stuff on worldwide terror then, for comparison purposes. Could be very interesting.

I don't agree that it's accurate if you include attacks by ISIS et al in the Middle East. I think it might be true if it's just terror attacks in the West. I do believe that if you go back to the 1970s, home-grown terrorism still outstrips Islamic terrorism in terms of death and property destruction, but what was true in the 1970s/80s/90s is hardly applicable now, eh? I'm currently at a website that contains a database of all terror attacks around the world. It's pretty extensive, so I'm narrowing the search to include France, the UK, US and Canada from 2011-2015; it lists perpetrators if known, affiliation if there is one, injuries and deaths. It includes a link to details for each line item. I am going to see if the Islamic terror attacks: outnumber non-Islamic terror attacks in these countries for any year, and overall; and if media coverage of these events was as extensive as media coverage of Islamic attacks, and if people are as aware of the non-Islamic attacks as they are of Islamic ones. might also break down by injured and dead, not sure yet. So, I'm going to find out if I believe it or not. I will get back to you with the results of research and my conclusion (and links and stuff), although I have an appointment this afternoon so it may not be 'till tomorrow.

I do care, but the media doesn't. If the media was over in Middle Eastern countries, covering terror attacks there with the same dedication they cover terror attacks in the States, France or the UK, then you'd have a point. But they don't. The article I cited covers the time period between 2011-2015, so no I'm not going back to the last century. Did I say anything about Islamaphobic? I said that when a terror attack happens in Western countries, the media covers it extensively (even ad nauseum), but if it's a terror attack carried out by a non-Muslim, it does not get near the same attention. Sometimes, it's not even mentioned.

So if non-Muslim actors attack and kill more Westerners than do Muslim actors, then we should focus on Muslim attacks to the exclusion of these other ones, but that's just good sense and nothing to do with Islamaphobia? Really?

A friend is a scientist involved in studying the effects of climate change. Happened to be talking to her about climate change just yesterday, and mentioned I'd read that it could be an extinction level event for humans. She replied "It is an extinction event, it's already starting, but the earth has gone through these before, so the earth itself will be fine." She went on to discuss mitigation research and possibilities, so I guess in her mind at least there's still hope. Still, I did find that statement a bit shocking ... not a warm and fuzzy moment, that's for sure.

Here's what I mean - attacks related to Islam are given much more media attention than attacks from other actors:

How about if every time a non-Muslim committed an act of terror, it had days of media coverage with political figures denouncing non-Muslim terrorism and promising to keep us safe? Watch Trump play this up to support his ban, and remember how he ignored the Muslims killed in Quebec, once he found out the killer wasn't Muslim.

How many Parisian Muslims didn't attack, today? More than one, do you suppose? Are they mentally ill? What about all the Muslims in Canada, the States, the UK who didn't attack anything today or yesterday or even the day before. Don't they get a shout-out, too? Do the violent actions of this ONE Muslim today negate the actions of all the non-violent Muslims today?

100s of millions who neither rape nor murder, then. Is that ok?

Bigotry, at the very least.

In my opinion, legitimate criticism focuses on the ideas without simultaneously claiming Muslims are 'bad'. "Islam teaches that homosexuality is wrong and this results in severe human rights violations against gays in Islamic countries, from social discrimination to jail time to death" is legitimate criticism. Saying "Islam requires that Muslims throw gays from roofs; do you want this in Canada?" is Islamaphobic fear-mongering. Criticizing the violent interpretation of passages related to jihad is legitimate; claiming that violent jihad is a requirement of Islam and Muslims is Islamophobic fear-mongering. Not to mention, making violent jihad a requirement of "true" Muslims is helpful to those extremists who want violent jihadists to join their ranks. So why do that? Why not instead make the peaceful jihad a requirement of "true" Muslims? The Qu'ran clearly supports both interpretations. There are other things, of course, but I hope these examples clarify what I think are the difference between legit criticism, and the painting of every Muslim with the same Wahhabi brush, aka Islamaphobia. The biggest problem I have with this broad-brush tendency is the way in which it denies legitimacy or even existence to those people who are working to reform Islam. If all Muslims support killing gays, then the ones who don't are irrelevant; forgotten, or not even seen, let alone supported. If people only hear about Sisi's crackdown in Egypt on 'debauchery' (aka gays), then they don't hear about the concert that was canceled by Jordanian authorities because the band contained a gay member, who then rescinded the order within 24 hours, due to widespread condemnation. It is the Danger of the Single Story explained by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. In it, she tells of her experience in growing up in Nigeria; she moved to the US to attend college, and shocked her roommate by knowing English (English is the official language of Nigeria), listening to Mariah Carey (and not African Tribal music) and knowing how to use a stove. This roommate's expectation of an African woman was the result of a 'Single Story' of Africans presented by Western media: "Beautiful landscapes, beautiful animals, filled with incomprehensible people fighting senseless wars, dying of poverty and aids, unable to speak for themselves and waiting to be saved by a kind white foreigner." If 'legitimate' criticism of Islam is allowed or required to presuppose only a single story of Muslims as backward, homophobic, misogynistic and violent, then what about the Muslims who are none of those things? Where is their story told?

1. Criticizing the patriarchy that is an integral part of the Quran and Islamic teaching. It's this patriarchy that disempowers women and leads to the adoption of misogynistic practices such as FGM and honor killings, things that are common among many people regardless of religion. A patriarchal religion lends credibility to those practices, even if the practice is not explicitly directed within the original teachings. Someone who says "Muslims practice FGM and honor killings because they are misogynistic" ignores the reality of who actually practices such things. It makes "MUSLIMS" the bad guys, instead of the practice - which is not limited to Muslims. It misses the point, which is that a systematic disempowering of women (patriarchy) includes more than FGM and honor killings. It includes the notion that the woman doesn't need to know about finances, because 'the man is the one who takes care of it', or that if a woman is left a widow, well she can just marry her husband's brother, that a woman cannot be seen by a man (who's not a relative) unless she's completely covered, that a woman cannot go out without being accompanied by a male relative. The pervasiveness of 'women as children' and need to be submissive to and controlled by men within Islam is a huge problem, in my opinion - more for women than for men, but men also are subject to stupid rules and expectations. One example is that my brother-in-law cannot enter the home of his ex-wife, the home which he pays for and the ex-wife he supports, to visit his daughter. How stupid is that? Another expectation of Islamic patriarchy is the that a man must have a home, complete with furniture, linen and dishes, before he can even think about looking for a wife. What this means in poorer countries is that they have to wait until their 30s of 40s before they can marry because it takes that long to accumulate the required material resources; as a result the only women available to them are often significantly younger (not children; legal age for marriage in most Muslim countries is similar to that in Canada). Criticizing this patriarchy doesn't mean one can't also condemn FGM and honor killings and point out how neither is part of the Quran, but even if FGM and honor killings disappeared tomorrow from Islamic societies, it would still exist around the world - and Muslim women would still be wearing ugly sacks, would still be expected to subjugate themselves to their husbands because of the patriarchy that is such an inherent part of Islam. More later, gotta go for dinner. 2.