dialamah

Nice to agree from time to time.

Seems like the Conservatives are beginning to clue in - Michelle Rempel, for instance, posted this, in which she said, among other things: "Step one is acknowledgement. Yesterday, a horrific act of terror was perpetrated against a Muslim family in London, Ontario. This follows the September 2020 slaying at the IMO mosque in Toronto, and January 2017 Quebec City Mosque massacre, and the countless aggressions that are rooted in dangerous stereotypes that Muslims in Canada face on a daily basis. Islamophobia is real, and it must be addressed" Michelle goes on to express her regret that she was silent about the 'cultural practices hotline' and the niqab ban. From Jeff Bennett, speaking about the racism he ignored during his campaign: "Now I see people expressing shock that a racist terrorist would drive his truck into the pathway of a Muslim family going for a walk. "London is better than this" they say. "I can't believe this happened here". Bullshit. I knocked on thousands of doors in the very neighbourhood this atrocity occured. This terrorist may have been alone in that truck on that day, but he was not acting alone. He was raised in a racist city that pretends it isn't." And Michael Chong - a Conservative candidate I could vote for - sadly, he's not anywhere near me and he wasn't elected as leader so I was out of luck. He was the only Conservative to vote in favor of a statement to condemn Islamophobia. We need more Conservative politicians like him, Michelle Rempel and Jeff Bennet.

I'm sad for your neighbor with the abusive husband. Did you report this to the cops? I'd have been tempted, for sure, just as I'm tempted a couple of times of month to call the cops on the people upstairs - they're Hindu, I think. However, just as my anecdotes do not prove that no Muslim women get abused, yours don't prove they all do.

Maybe he should have obeyed the law, then he wouldn't have to whine when he got arrested. Not to mention, this idiot has no clue what it means to live in a "communist-fascist" state - he just thinks he's some special snowflake who shouldn't have to obey the law. Canada is the best place in the world for people like him: he gets to break the law with absolutely minimal consequence. Try to pull this kind of BS in a place like China, he'd come to understand what government oppression really is.

Well I agree it's a problem for which I certainly don't have answer. I guess it's each individual's choice whether to support what we have, give up on it or fight for change.

Realistically, any government can restrict freedoms with the stroke of a pen. The institutions and laws we have are only as good as the populace willing to obey them. If enough people aren't, then violence is likely to ensue as government tries to enforce that law. The US system isn't inherently better or worse than Canada's, it's just different, imo.

I was wondering when you'd show up with your narrow definition of Muslims, favored by fanatics all over the world. You are one of the worse hate/fear mongers on this forum, and I'm calling you out for it. You, along with Argus and others of your ilk, are the ones creating a space in which some unbalanced kid thinks he needs to go out and "do something" - shoot up a Mosque, or run down a family. Good on ya, please join the rest of the group in the 'people I don't want in Canada' category. Now now, don't cry - you and Argus would refuse my sister life in Canada, were it in your power, based on nothing more than your hatred of Muslims. At least my dislike of you is based on your words, and not on something irrelevant - like where you live.

Really? Argus can accuse my neighbor and my brother in law of lying - Because they're Muslims. Argus can accuse them of hating gays - because they're Muslim. Argus can accuse them of supporting wife abuse - because they're Muslim. Their words, their actual actions and the way they live their life doesn't matter - They're Muslim, and Argus can assume all kinds of things about them (and every other Muslim) - and you have no problem with that. As far as I know, no one has ever accused you of exhibiting such overt ignorance and hatred. But it's odd that you take it personally if anyone should call Argus et all out for their demonizing of Muslims. Why is that? Why did you even bother answering MH, if what he said did not apply to you? Do you feel some kinship with Argus et al? Do you perhaps feel the same as they do - and are hiding behind what they are saying, rather than saying it yourself? Because if what MH initially said didn't apply to you, why did you step up?

You are the one who said "Canada is nothing". i'd never say "Canada is nothing"; I'd say Canada is arguably the best country in the world, even with our faults and mistakes: we're freer than even the US, we have a great standard of living - our democracy is still strong, despite the people who are mad that they aren't allowed to forbid abortion, or have to follow health guidelines crying about 'communism' at hand. Why would you say "Canada is nothing" if you didn't hate her? Maybe you need to start learning how to express yourself more clearly.

Rightists are simple-minded creatures; they are unable to follow logic, and must make up things in order to cope with life. They require a leader to tell them what they must do, and believe - without that, they are lost. That is why so many rightists are also religious. Thinking for themselves is far too frightening. Hmmmm .... I see why so many people appreciate generalizations - they take all the work out of thinking!

Why do we have so many people on here who hate Canada so much?

You, yes. But you aren't the only person on this forum, you refuse to see when others do it, and so you jump into the defensively when those people are called out. Why don't you object to Argus's claim that if a woman is wearing a hijab, she must be fanatical/fundamentalist? I'd just provided an example of a women who wears a hijab, but doesn't go to Mosque (nor does her husband) and supports freedom of religion and doesn't care about gays. This woman has worked in bars (in Syria), left her first husband because he was abusive, came to Canada, supported herself and her son till she married her current husband. She doesn't care about other people's religion, or their sexual orientation, loves that in Canada, she can do what she wants - but somehow Argus is the expert on her because the only thing he knows about her is that she wears a hijab. He hasn't ever seen her, or talked to her or her husband - but he's sure she's lying to me because what she says doesn't line up to what he believes about her. Why don't you object to that? Is it because you agree with him? And so the calling out of these assumptions and broadbrushing is unacceptable to you?

Only because you mistake calling out people for expressing ignorance and hate is the same as supporting Islam. Magically (I suppose it seems to some) I can have no use for both Islam and for bigots. I can also (again magically) understand that someone's religious belief does not define them automatically.

So clueless, LOL Hey, did you know that in Egypt the law allows for divorce for Muslims? But Coptic Christians can't get divorced, legally, because their religion doesn't allow it! This is because in Egypt, the law is whatever your religions says it is. I think it's stupid, personally. And while I agree with you that religious countries do not treat women well. I disagree with you that Islamic countries are unique in this regard.

I suppose that's a point.

Really? You think so? If I had my way, Muslim clerics who did that would have consequences, the same ones that white supremacists and Islamaphobes ought to have for the hate/fear they spread. Why should Muslim clerics get a break?? In my opinion, too much ignorance, hate and fear is allowed to be expressed without any consquence. The States has "Free Speech" and we have "Freedom of Expression", which means there is a lot of freedom for people to say what they will. I suppose you can call me a communist, or something, since now I've made it clear that I'd do more speech limiting than our current government does.

Unless they go out into their private back yard, of course. Which my neighbor does regularly.

There's a difference between Critics of Islam and "Muslim haters". Islam is a religion that features male-dominance, homophobia and xenophobia. Some of its adherents take those precepts to extremes, using them to oppress and kill people who fail to fall into their narrow definition of "Muslim". Those people are also prone to ignore other parts of Islam, which teach tolerance and speak up against murder. Muslims are, as a group, generally more conservative than people who've been born or raised in the West. The majority of them reject the idea that murder is acceptable, or that women are not given respect. But it's pretty clear that the conservatism of Islam is played out in Islamic society, as women are restricted - sometimes severely - and being gay is not acceptable. When they move to a less religious country, these conservative beliefs will likely come with them, but studies have demonstrated that over time - two or three generations - they become more mainstream in their beliefs. vs. Muslims are fanatics; their religion tells them it's ok to beat women and to kill gays. If too many come to Canada, they'll take over - all women will have to wear hijab, and gay people won't be safe! They kill unbelievers - anyone who doesn't convert! We can't allow such barbaric people, whose belief system is still stuck in the 13th century, to come to Canada; they'll destroy our culture! Just because they come to Canada, they won't change - because their religion won't let them!

Interesting.

1. If they can determine it after this length of time, it will likely be tuberculosis/malnutrition for the majority. 2. You are three or four or even six or ten years old. You go to a strange place, where, if you speak your language that you learned at home, you are slapped - at the very least, beaten and put into solitary confinement at worst. If you go sleep with your sister because you are scared, cold and lonely, you will be removed, beaten and put in bed with the girl who is so terrified she wets herself regularly. You lay in bed at night, waiting to see who the nun/priest will pick for their entertainment tonite and desperately hoping it won't be you. You work in the fields/barns or the kitchen and laundry for part of the day, and get 'educated' for the other part of the day. There's never enough to eat, and what there is may have worms, or bugs. I understand that corporal punishment was common and accepted, but what went on was not corporal punishment - it was abuse, plain and simple. Anyone who thought otherwise then, or now, is simply excusing it. 3. The children in residential schools died at a significantly higher rate than other kids, even for the day. 25% of those in one school died; 67% of the 'graduates' of that same school died shortly after 'graduation'. 4. While it's true, in some cases, that the parents supported the schools and voluntarily took their kids, it was equally true that children were taken from their parents under severe protest - screaming, crying, being handcuffed, put into a truck bed with dozens of other kids, transported like cattle to the farthest residential school. Parents tried to hide their children from the Indian Agent and the RCMP. Sometimes they succeeded, but mostly they didn't. Their livelihood and other family members were threatened if they didn't give up their kids. They weren't just 'taken', they were forcibly removed under great protest. My understanding is that when parents took their kids voluntarily, it was to a school in their neighborhood, on or close to their reserve, not to one hundreds of miles away. They weren't opposed to their kids being educated; they were opposed to their kids being removed from them, abused and dying. 5. No they're not. Consider that a boy/girl is taken to a residential school when he/she is six years old. They are abused and starved; no sexual abuse necessary. They are told for years how savage/sinful/terrible they are. They graduate 10 or 11 years later, after all of this abuse has been internalized, go back 'home'. But now all they see are people to be ashamed of; they are strangers to their family. They try to go live in the white world, but all they get is rejection because people still consider them savages. They numb their pain with alcohol, and as people do - get together and make babies. Those babies, if they are allowed to keep them, are raised by people who know nothing of parenting and are self-medicating their pain and shame with alcohol and drugs. That's what they learn, each generation. What your friends found was part of the legacy of residential schools. 6. I commend them. But why should this get more attention than the conditions under which close to 150,000 children were raised? Is that some sort of consolation prize for these kids - there are nice people who really cared, so please don't complain that things were so bad for you? 7. What, exactly, were the gains for the First Nations people? 8. Yes, let's do better. Let's acknowledge what happened to these people, how it still affects them. Let's discuss how we can move forward to mitigate the damage to their culture and society caused by our ill-advised "education" program. Let's not diminish what happened to them by pointing out how it was 'well-intentioned', and that 'some weren't abused' and that 'they benefited from the great white culture'. Let's actually hear and understand and stop trying to excuse it away.

"Woke folks"; hahaha! The newest 'right wing' insult tossed out to dismiss any idea with which they disagree. Especially if that idea involves treating all people with compassion, respect and dignity.

1. Weirdly, that is exactly what MH wasn't doing. 2. Weirdly, nobody blames what is written in the bible when very religious people take those beliefs to extremes, and refuse their kids medical treatment, marry multiple women, or shun/kill their son for being gay because "that's what the bible says". (yes, Christians in other lands kill gays; it's hard for too many to believe that all Christians aren't as defanged as the western version we're all familiar with). 3. Word salad. 4. Yes, it is.

Shrugs. Yeah, the killer is responsible for the killings. He will have to have consequences. People who spread hate and fear are responsible for the hate and fear they spread, especially when it leads to nutcases "taking action", as BCSapper said. Those people need to be called out. This applies whether the hate-spreader is preaching in a mosque, a church or online. Spreading hate/fear directed toward a specific group is connected to action by nutcases taking action against that group. I'm surprised you are denying that connection.

Describe to me what happens over 100 years if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we stop immigration? Describe to me what happens if Canadian birth rates continue to decline and we keep immigration to replacement levels, only. How does the economy expand if population is declining or static?

So, your stance is now that propaganda only works if it's not Muslims being killed?