dialamah

I agree that there are very many disadvantaged people in our country, and for whom we should be doing more. But we have to have both the political and social will to help those people. In BC, I've seen that business people are offering jobs and property owners are offering free rent for up to four months for the refugees. How sweet is that? But where are these people when a 55 year old disabled man is looking for part-time work and decent living accommodation? For a single mother who is working a minimum wage job and going to the food bank in order to feed her kids? Where is the support for increasing minimum wage to an actual 'living' wage, even a poor living? It's not there. Instead, we get people (usually conservatives) saying things like: they can find a different job, people shouldn't expect the government to look after them, these people made choices, not our fault if now they're suffering for them. It's really convenient for people to use the plight of our own "poor" people to deny refugees, and yet also refuse to help our own poor people because essentially it's not up to "them" and if poor people are poor, it must be because of something they did or didn't do (didn't get an education, had kids when they shouldn't have, spent too much time partying, etc). Maybe not you specifically, but I've seen more than a few exhibit that kind of hypocrisy here and there. Anyway, for the moment there is both the political and social will to help these people, and to spend the money it takes. Maybe some day there'll be the same support for our own, and that will happen as well.

Non-Muslims keep saying this, and Muslims keep saying something else. Are you Muslim, notca? Have you spent years studying the Koran and the history of Islam? Have you spent decades teaching the Koran? Just why should what you say be taken more seriously than what thousands of Islamic scholars and clerics say, and what over 1 billion Muslims also believe?

Maybe we're trying to be nicer now than we were to the Jews, eh? And maybe for the actual Muslim services they will use an existing 'religious' building. Maybe when the organizers say "allocate prayer space", they merely mean a quiet corner where an individual can have a moment of privacy. I expect most of them would be praying inside their homes, but on the other hand, I don't know the layout of military bases, or the accommodations, or just why the organizers would think that is important. And maybe it's not, they're just going all out to ensure a little comfort for people who've bee through hell. Seems to be a problem for some people, which I think is kind of petty and nitpicky, but then I'm not expecting these prayer spaces to be extravagant either - maybe a sign saying "prayer space --->", or something.

Ok, I'm wrong. :shrug:

Yes, but it's kind of a weird way to make a point, because in the normal course of events, those facilities are not used in the winter. If it became necessary to use those accommodations to house army personnel in the winter, are you suggesting those same upgrades would not have happened? Not to mention, the reason they are using those barracks is to reduce the number of military personnel impacted by refugees having temporary accommodation. Are you suggesting it would be better not to winterize these places, and just relocate military personnel from accommodations that are already winterized, so as to avoid appearing to unfairly 'upgrade' facilities for refugees at the expense of our military personnel?

Winterizing Barracks: These are apparently the barracks that are used by summer cadets, and are not used in the winter by military personnel. No doubt, if they were used in the winter, the'd already have been winterized. So, as proof for "Sprucing up" - fail. "Allocating prayer space" - I could be wrong here, but 'allocating space' doesn't mean the same thing as 'Sprucing up'. Fail #2. In any case, I imagine military personnel are allowed accommodation for their religious needs, so why not refugees? "Cleaning up barracks" - From this and other articles I've read, they are attempting to utilize as many empty/unused spaces as they can - they probably do need cleaning up. Fail #3.

is it a fact that the barracks will be spruced up for refugees, or a supposition on your part?

Fair point, Argus, but on the other hand other factors are at play. One is that many of the people who currently heads of large corporations didn't necessarily start those businesses. For example, however the current head of Ford feels about change (or votes), the founders began a foundation supporting and promoting what most people consider liberal values. There's also a fairly strong contingent of garden variety psychopaths among heads of multi-nationals, a rather amoral bunch who make decisions based on a different risk/benefit model than the average person. It might be interesting to know how many small business owners/starters are liberal in outlook rather than conservative. And as BCsapper mentioned, he can safely vote Conservative knowing that the Liberal values he feels are important will be protected.

I'm not even sure that being conservative means you have to vote conservative. One can be afraid of change and the unknown, but still vote for a party that puts social issues on a par with economic issues.

There's been at least one study suggesting that risk-averse people also tend to be more conservative over all. http://www.futurity.org/politics-conservative-dopamine-989972-2/ So to my mind, not an insult but more a statement of fact. But if you like, I'll rephrase: "Perhaps we'll end up with more progressive people because conservative people tend to be risk-averse and will choose to stay home." Most of my family tend to be conservative, they prefer things to remain the same and to avoid the unfamiliar. I don't get why they let fear direct their actions and miss out on some great experiences, but perhaps they have little choice if it's partly gene-driven. I've seen the same kind of fear exhibited by conservative people my entire life, especially Republicans when I began following US politics more. To me the religious right is probably the most fearful type of person there is, regardless of culture or religion.

Not all refugees even want to come to Canada. Perhaps we only end up with the least conservative group by default, the more conservative choose to remain close to home. Fear of the unfamiluar does seem to be a more conservative trait. "One woman told us three families had been offered the possibility of going to Canada by the UN, but that two refused, afraid of going such a long way, and worried they would never get back." http://vf.to/4VWf7BMHLeS

Hi Kimmy, I just want to apologize to you for my comments about you being the definition of 'xenophobe' and a bigot because on reflection, I realized I was being unfair. The 'stone-age' mentality comment in particular really bugged me (still does, honestly), but that doesn't excuse my lack of moderation in my response. I understand your concern about importing 'regressive' attitudes, but I think that's true of the majority of people who've emigrated to Canada. South Asians are not exactly a bastion of progressive, and Chinese are pretty conservative in many ways as well. There are always outliers regardless of whatever group, but I expect that for the most part the refugees will adjust to Canadian life, as have all the other ethnic groups from more conservative cultures - I suspect that would be most of them, as I can't think of many countries that are more progressive than is Canada.

She's not disagreeing with "Islamic Excesses". Instead, she's assuming and saying that most Muslims have 'stone-age' mentalities and hateful attitudes. By that measure, so do most Christians because most Christians believe about the same as do 'moderate' Muslims.

Yup, I would. The Muslims I've met have been the warmest and friendliest people, most willing to help, who really value personal relationships. Or maybe it's just that they're from the Middle East; one person I met was the same, but he was a Christian from the ME.

You are making assumptions based on ignorance, and you refuse to even consider getting to know the people about whom you think so poorly. You won't accept any information that demonstrate the majority of Muslims do not hold 'stone-age' attitudes. And then you try to claim that you aren't racist or a bigot. Give it up. So says the white person who doesn't expect any Syrians to be showing up in her town, and she likes it that way. But lucky you, you've got a whole damn country to "feel safe and comfortable amongst people of shared background", you don't have to learn any new language, or contemplate being exposed to anything 'different'. You are the very definition of a xenophobe. Were it up to me, I'd be happy to eliminate hateful attitudes from among us. I'd not be starting with Muslims though.

And yet Christians the world over still kill other people for 'biblical' reasons.

I just cannot disagree with this, and think it applies just as much to the Christian holy book.

Yeah, funny how you took that 500,000,000 from a post I made in which I said "1 Billion Muslims, give or take". Nice to know you accept me as an 'expert' - albeit only when it suits you. If that's not the case, then please - show some actual statistics, real numbers, etc., which prove 500,000,000 radical Muslims - radical meaning they'd remove hands for theft, kill non-believers, stone adulters and murder homosexuals, or who belief that a Caliphate has been already established in Syria. Radical does not mean they believe that homosexuality is wrong, or that gay marriages should not be allowed; there are plenty of Christians who believe the same thing. Even child marriage is common enough among Christians to take it out of the 'radical Islam' definition. So please - prove what you are saying.

No, I wouldn't care about interest on a loan, obviously. My brother-in-law would also NOT force a young girl to marry, nor would he kill an apostate or a gay man, because his version of Sharia specifically forbids it. Nor would his government, which bases some of its law on Sharia - they do not force or allow young girls to marry, nor do they kill homosexuals. In his country, the LEGAL age for marriage is 18 - same as in Canada. Girls being married at much younger ages still does happen in poor, rural areas, but the incidence of such marriages has been declining for years. In Canada, girls as young as 16 can be married with parental and/or judge's consent. Although, I knew of a girl who, at 13, was flown to a country outside of Canada to marry the 19-year-old who got her pregnant. This was a white, Canadian family of Christian origin, though non-practicing. The point is, Sharia law is not entirely composed of the horrific things you've posted. And, even for the horrific things you've posted, the majority of Muslim countries and majority of Muslim people do not accept them as part of their version of Sharia law You are assuming just the opposite.

This is why the word "bigot" come up. You post the very worse aspects of Sharia law, as if that was the *only* thing Sharia law. I point out that is a lot of latitude and you come back and still insist that "it's all just the same one (bad) thing". That is bigotted thinking. My brother-in-law does not pay interest on any loans he has outstanding. He had to sign a multi-page marriage contract that protected my sister when they married, including her right to seek divorce and her right to property. He is obligated to care for his wife (or wives if he had more than one), his children, his parents, his family; as the eldest son, this requirement that he take care of younger siblings is taken very seriously. He is obligated to help those less fortunate than he is, regardless of their religion. He is not allowed to force his religion on others, he is not allowed to beat his wife, he is not allowed to harm innocents or non-believers. That all derives from the Sharia law he follows. I don't agree with the death penalty in the States, nor do I agree with their 'mandatory minimums' or their 'three strikes you're out' policies. That they lock up pot smokers for years but let people who defraud billions from society go unpunished strikes me as extremely immoral - but it seems their law allows for it. Even though I disagree with all of those thing, it doesn't mean their entire body of jurisprudence is absolutely wrong, or that every single American believes in all aspects of their law. The same is true of Sharia law and Muslims.

This attitude supposes that all Muslims and all Muslim countries support all tenets of Sharia law. They do not. So yeah, there are aspects of Sharia law that are cruel, inhumane and against most values of decency. There are other aspects of Sharia law that are not a lot different than Western law - such as presumption of innocence (The 40 Hadith of Imam al Nawawi, No. 33) [/size]and some that could be considered 'progressive' by Western standards, such as not charging interest on loans (Verse 2:278).

Actually, you can't count on people automatically knowing that you don't mean "all" of a group when you fail to specify. And you need to consider your audience as well. If you were to say "Police kill innocent people", you probably wouldn't get an objection from a group of prisoners, because they'll accept that the "Police" as a single entity, kill innocent people. But say the same thing in front of a group of policemen, and you'll get an objection because they're not going to accept "Police" as a single entity, but will point out that there are individuals within that group. You can always say things like "Some Muslims are extreme" or "Some Muslims believe in Sharia law" or "Some Islamic countries impose the most severe version of Sharia law". Or, if you believe it's "most", then say most. The trick is that if you want to be understood, then use the modifiers. Especially in a discussion where feelings are involved. And generally speaking, it is more the responsibility for the communicator to ensure they're understood, than for the listener to accurately decipher what the communicator *really meant*.

True. I opened it, and recognized it from a different version I'd seen previously which focused on the protest march. I did not realize this one went much longer, and included "the other side" of the story. My apologies.

You like being scared of extremists, what do I care? It's you has to live with it. So yeah, there are a half-billion extremist Muslims just waiting to take us out. We're doomed, I tell you, doomed. Here, let me help you feed your fear and bigotry: http://islamthreat.com/ https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/home/why-islam-is-a-threat http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/islam-greatest-threat-world-peace-since-hitlers-nazis/ http://www.amren.com/news/2015/01/the-real-threat-is-islam/ Wow I can see why you guys like this - its so damn easy to have your opinion formed, no thought required. Anyway, looks like quite a bit, you can now scare ... err, read yourself to sleep.

Correction - this is from Foreign Policy.com -- The Threat is Already Inside