dialamah

Since I hold no belief in Allah or any god, I can't even identify an intent of a mythical being, never mind a country that reflects it.

I'm talking about a white guy screaming insults at me for not supporting his hatred against non-white people. In this particular case the non-white person was from South America, and would presumably be Catholic, if he was anything. Perhaps in your ire at my failing to join your hatefest, you've stopped being able to comprehend what I write.

As I clearly stated, they still have considerable work to do. And yeah, a shitty history. But if you are holding their history against them in order to discount their efforts today, then I expect you'll do the same for Canada, the States, Great Britain and Christians. Or any other group throughout history.

I'm all for curbing radicalization and I imagine what works for Islam will work for any group. Things may change but I think White Nationalism is a bigger threat to personal safety than Muslim extremists in Canada. I'm not their target group but anyone of that mindset who sees me as standing up for or defending minorities or immigrants has included me in their attacks. Not much fun having a 6' 200 lb white guy screaming insults at you cause you didn't agree that brown people should go back home.

It used to be common to leave kids in cars, windows down in summer, motors and heaters on in winter (the latter not for long usually). Kids used to be able to roam the streets alone, even after dark sometimes. But as news of kidnappings spread, people became fearful. I remember reading articles about how the chances of any particular kid going missing were very small, but still fear of the unlikely has gradually reduced kid's freedoms to almost nothing. Kids are still kidnapped at about the same rate, so all the extra care and lack of freedom didn't help. There is now evidence that kids can suffer psychological damage because they have so little opportunity to explore and learn the world on their own. Terrorism and fear of it (and Muslims) seems to be growing and with that our freedoms are gradually decreasing, whether imposed by our own fear or a government that wants to increase their control over their citizenry. Its a tragedy when a kid is kidnapped or otherwise harmed when out of their parents' direct sight. Its a tragedy when people are killed in a terrorist attack. Its also a tragedy when an entire generation of kids can't play outside after school or on weekends, when people won't explore their world and when nations close their borders because of the fear that the most unlikely event will actually happen.

I think this is the same guy who was an extremist and spent some time in an Egyptian jail. Not sure of all the details. I wonder what is meant by 'nuanced' policies?

As of 2016 Tunisia has been rated as free by Freedom House, the only Arab country to gain that rating. They still have considerable work to do however. Many Muslims want freedom and equal rights; authoritarian governments rarely want to give their citizens more rights. Islam helps governments maintain their power and control, but it is not due to Islam that these types of governments exist.

Irrational fear that makes people behave irrationally is not irrelevant. If these people were not afraid, tourism would not be reduced.

This might be a valid question if it didn't come along with the lack of acknowledgement that Christan majority countries in the region have many of the same practices and laws as do the Muslim majority countries and to benefit Christians where applicable. Even oppressive secular govs tend to lack human rights and gender equality and squash dissent harshly. These issues are not exclusively due to Islamic beliefs, despite the desperate attempts of some to make it seem so. Patriarchal religions can very effectively be used to support inequality, whether in a Muslim majority country or a Christian majority. I would not want to be female or gay in many countries of the world, including but not limited to Islamic countries.

Could be his figures are more accurate than the ones I was able to source re violent extremism. Gender equality etc. is kind of a continuuim, imo. Canada lags behind some European countries, the US lags behind Canada, Russia lags the US and most Middle Eastern and African countries are barely on the radar. For me, demonstrating tolerance, equality and acceptance through accepting immigrants and refugees from those places is a powerful method of combatting that inequality. It is the governments who condone such through their laws that should be held responsible and guilty, not the people who want to leave.

I've been reading stuff from theexmuslim.org. I agree reform is in order but don't agree that calling people names like 'rat Muslims' is going to lead to reform. If our government had any moral balls, they'd refuse to do business with countries like Saudi or even iffy places like Egypt. Places like Tunisia should have more international support, imo.

Saudi is a terrible place, that's for sure, and many other places in the Middle East and Africa aren't much better. Its also true that what a government does is not necessarily supported by all of the populace. In oppressive countries people who object are subject to sometimes severe penalties, so most objectors or non-believers will hide in conformity. Some people will activate and risk jail time or death and of course some really do believe. Assuming that what an oppressive regime determines as law is automatically wholeheartedly endorsed by its citizenry is a mistake that a lot of people seem to make. Myself included at times. Specifically in regards to violent extremism, its estimated that approximately 106,000 or .006625% of all 1.6 billion Muslims are actively involved. 106,000 people sounds like a lot, but compared to the larger group, its pretty small.

I agree. Yup, people have been intolerant and exclusionist, or protectionist, throughout history - including Canadians. This to me is the root of the evil within Islam (and many other religions, less famous at the moment) - intolerant, exclusionist - though some factions have certainly taken it to an extreme. At least we only interred Japanese, we didn't (as far as I know) torture or kill them. I certainly agree with birth control, although I saw a news story recently that said birth control was illegal in some countries, which means that abortion is the option many women are forced to if they do not feel capable of raising that child. That's sad. I have heard of the idea of funding camps, and it sounds good. I've also read a couple of articles that make a case that funding for refugee camps doesn't work because the money is misappropriated and there isn't enough to significantly improve conditions for these people. It's also difficult to get commitment for an unknown amount of time, given the reasons people are often in refugee camps. As you said it's complicated. It's true that people tend to bring their culture and religion with them, I agree. But it's also true that the majority of immigrants/refugees become indistinguishable from Canadians with a few generations. Even those who live within a community of their own ethnic group become more 'Canadianized' over time. Many of the objections to Muslims are the same objections I heard to Sikhs/Hindus and to Chinese decades ago. Yet, we still remain Canadian, despite the fears of having our culture and legal system 'changed' to suit these newcomers. True, but at the same time what are 'the words of the people' based on? We have a surprising number of people who think a motion for a study is the same as a bill proposing legislation. How can we trust people this unaware to be able to make a knowledgeable decision about immigration or how to best help refugees? It's true that politicians are pretty much 'slaves of their political dogma', but I still think that in many cases they have information and knowledge of facts that the vast majority of people are either unaware of or believe in some outlier philosophy. Consider someone who believes that 'only white people' should live in Canada because all other races are inferior. Or people who are convinced that immigrants add to crime, or are criminally inclined when statistics and studies suggest just the opposite. Do we really want people like that deciding our immigration/refugee policy? I sure don't. As you said, it's complicated.

Yup, we are. People are afraid because of terrorism, so they don't travel to places where they believe terrorism may occur (or if they do, they stay in their hotel room). This is a real fear they experience, although not really rational. Yes, this affects the economy of the country due to reduced tourism. "I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened" --- attributed to Mark Twain.

Other people's money? Taxes are "everybody's" money, not just yours. I'm proud of the way Canada makes the world a better place by helping a few people escape horrific situations. So far, more Canadians than not agree with me and so we continue to help a few people every year. If and when enough people agree with you that Canada should not accept refugees and elect a Canadian Trump, you'll have your wish.

Unless they're 'leftist' trolls ....

So, twice you've declined to condemn right-wing types hurling insults and death threats at liberals with whom they disagree, so I guess you appove. Got'cha.

I disagree that the *only* reason for newcomers to Canada is to benefit Canada. We also do it for humanitarian reasons, aka refugees. The "Me First" attitude amongst so many conservatives is not a Canadian value, imo.

Yes and if people were rational, terrorism would have no effect on tourism because they'd understand that being injured or killed in a terrorist attack is not very likely - they're more likely to die in a non-terror related plane crash on the way to their vacation destination. You should read the link Bubber posted; it's pretty interesting. Irrational fear. Or, more precisely, politicians pandering to the irrational fear that they've also whipped up.

I agree, changing one word would not have hurt and would have demonstrated goodwill, imo. But that doesn't excuse threats of rape or death.

So it's ok to threaten death and bodily harm to someone with whom you disagree politically? Please explain to me why isn't this an attempt to shut down free speech through insults and name-calling, the way it would be if it were a conservative MP being threatened by 'the left' who disagreed with them.

It's ok Betsy. I understand comprehension is not your strong suit.

Alternate fact #638: Extreme right-wing groups don't actually exist.

And we won't mention the hostile, angry, intolerant people from the right who left rape and death messages for Khalid, who killed a man last week because they thought he was Iranian, or shot a Sikh man over the weekend in Washington as he yelled "Go back to your country". How about you denounce those sorts of crimes - regardless of whether it's "right" or "left" - instead of deflecting to "the left" as if idiots only come in one shade. Unless of course, these criminals who threaten and kill others because they disagree with their politics/religion/color really are representative of all right-wingers?