Goddess

Yes. I imagine that's what a lot of Germans said until the Jews were actually being loaded into cattle cars. But by then it was too late.

Won't it be too late then? We already have laws regarding immigration that we are ignoring and refusing to enforce. That tells me that this government agrees with the Pact - that all countries should be required to open their borders to anyone at any time for any reason and the existing population must provide for all their needs/wants/desires. Once it becomes law that anyone, from any part of the world can walk into any country at any time and expect to be given housing, healthcare and social assistance for life, it will be too late to challenge. From the Pact, it appears that this is the goal - open borders across the world, the rights of economic migrants coming before all else, with the native populations only having the right to STFU and pay for it all.

That's too bad. Seems like a free-for-all. Nothing is off limits in that religion. OK with gays? You're a Muslim Think gays should be thrown off rooftops? You're a Muslim Like beating your wife? You're a Muslim Don't beat your wife? You're a Muslim Believe women are not humans? You're a Muslim Agree with equality between the sexes? You're a Muslim Love it when women have mutilated genitals? Your'e a Muslim Dont' agree with FGM? You're a Muslim I'm curious, (although you are not a Muslim but seem to speak for them) what is the point of this religion if they all can do whatever they want willy-nilly and its all okay and acceptable? It seems to me that this kind of religion would actually attract a lot of miscreants, because there is nothing off limits.

You have an interesting take on Islam for sure - you don't think Muslims believe, read or follow their own holy book?

Isn't that your stance on Islam? The vast majority aren't violent so we shouldn't be concerned about it all and if we are, we're Islamophobes?

No, he's a hero to a lot of folks.

OK. Well you worry about those few women and I'll worry about the rest who are forced into it. To me, they are more important than a woman who chooses to promote a garment which has such a bloody and abusive history and present. I view those women "choosing" it (especially in Western cultures) as slapping the faces of the women who are forced into it. I feel it is disrespectful of them to "choose" this garment. Disrespectful to all the women who endure regular beatings over it, to all the women who have died because of it, to all the women who live in misery because of it. I think these issues and the rights of *those* women are more important than the right of a few women to have their fashion statement.

Yes. In my spare time, I like to run around the city searching out women in hijabs to confront them, violently if necessary, until they take them off or else I rip them off their heads. You do realize the difference between discussing this topic with you and others here, on a discussion forum, and running around the city ripping hijabs off, yes?

Except both of the examples are evidence of extreme beliefs. Just because YOU don't see it as an extremist belief - women can never leave the house or be in public without a headcovering simply because they are women and therefore automatically inferior to men and subservient to all and must display this "mark" of their inferiority at all times - does not mean others do not see that as extremist. I agree that not ALL women who have to wear them are being bullied and forced into it, but let's face it - the majority are. Again, it is a garment that has been used throughout history to abuse and kill women, to strip them of any humanity, to make them into objects. THAT IS ITS PURPOSE. THAT IS ITS ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING. The fact that some women now want to pretend that its a symbol of women's empowerment and freedom, in no way legitimizes this garment. Well, maybe for you, but not for me. The Catholic cross has never been anything but a symbol of the Christian faith - a symbol that either sex can choose to wear or not wear (and I'm not talking about the "wear it or else you get beaten or killed" type of choice, I'm talking a real, actual CHOICE here). People who dont' wear a cross are not beaten or killed for not wearing it. I dont' suppose most Catholics care too much whether anyone else wears one or not. This is not the case with hijabs. Muslims (in general) are VERY interested in who is wearing them and who is not. I know you have disagreed in the past - that there is no harrassment amongst Muslims to conform to the hijab, but you are wrong on that one.

When you see people in KKK hoods or skinhead/Nazi regalia (also extreme beliefs) - do you give them the benefit of the doubt? Do you say, "Hmmmm......He's wearing a swastika t-shirt. But he COULD be progressive and actually love Jews and black people. Better not judge." or "Hmmmmmm......He's wearing a KKK hood. But he could be black under there. Or gay. Better not judge" I doubt you do.

Like it or not, Dia, we are all judged and we all judge others by how they appear - how they dress, how they act, their facial expressions, mannerisms, etc. Even Muslims judge others by how they dress and act. Many hijabi women and Muslim men judge Western women as whores for not wearing headcoverings in public - modesty to them is a garment you put on, not a quality of character.. That is a fact. As uncomfortable as that makes you feel in regard to Muslims, it is a fact of life. If a person chooses to wear KKK or skinhead gear, is it really the fault of OTHER PEOPLE when they are judged for those choices? Hijabs have a long, bloody history of being very bad for women. In fact, the PRESENT existence of hijabs is a sad story of women being abused, killed and beaten in every Muslim-ruled country and many times when they are seen in Western culture as well. It's wonderful that YOUR brain can shut that truth out and view hijabs as progressive symbols of women's empowerment and freedom. I think they should pick another symbol. This one has too much of a bloody, horrible past. I am sorry that you think this view of hijabs makes me a horrible, judgy, critical, unloving, racist **insert whatever else you want to call me** person. I'm not sure there is any way for you to convince me that hijabs are a wonderful and innocent fashion choice for women.

I wasn't comparing the goals of the 2 groups. I was pointing out that your "don't ask, don't judge" mentality with Islam is very different from your attitude towards other groups - in that you feel free to judge them based on their dress/actions and speech, but Islam is "hands off" for you.

Is it any flimsier than your assessment that she might be very progressive or gay? You said before when I questioned you that you agreed that it is MORE likely that she is being forced by extremism to wear it, than that she is gay. As someone else pointed out - there could be a chance the person under the KKK hood is very progressive or black, But what are the chances, really?

I said you want everyone to act on the assumption/belief that there are no Muslim extremists and that they are all peaceful. They are not all peaceful. And there is no way to tell which are extremists unless you look at their dress, their actions and their speech.

And do you allow us to each make our own personal assessment of risk? What YOU are willing to risk personally may be different from what another person is willing to risk. Your granddaughter may feel your advice on being cautious is just you being an Islamophobe. Perhaps if she's in love, she is more willing to risk certain things than you would be willing to risk for yourself. You told me one time that I was probably exposed to more fundamentalist Muslims where I was living than other people who perhaps live in bigger cities and Muslims are not such new immigrants. I agreed with you. You insist there are NO no-go zones in Europe or any other country. None. At all. That it is all just fear-mongering and lies. But when I've seen interviews of those who live near or in these no-go zones and when I have talked to Europeans who are dealing with them and the lack of integration from the Muslim community, I accept their own personal assessment of risk. I understand that their risk - living in or near no-go zones - is likely greater than the politicians who live in giant houses with security gates or a person who lives in a big city and works with well-integrated Muslims. Given that assessment, why do you not allow my own personal assessment of my own risks? Why do insist that the risk is the same for all people? Why do you insist that everyone agree with and adopt YOUR personal assessment of risk or else they are racist Islamophobes?

I'm sure Dia would allow women to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves from rape by men. I'm sure she would allow women to be aware of the signs that a man could be dangerous - the way he dresses, the way he acts, the things he says. I'm sure she allows that women who take precautions and try to be aware of their surroundings do not hate ALL men. But her standards are different for how we approach Muslim extremism. We are to automatically assume (not just assume but to actually believe) that ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs. We are racist Islamophobes or xenophobes if we want to take reasonable precautions or are aware that certain types of Muslim dress, actions and speech would indicate a higher likelihood of extremism and danger. She also does not allow that taking precautions (either as a country or an individuals) and being aware does not mean that a person hates ALL Muslims.

But that's exactly the point - we don't know. So women take a LOT of precautions. Because men do not announce that their intention is to rape you. But if I see a man in a bar wearing a "Grab 'em By the Pussy" shirt and not taking No, Thank You for an answer from women, it's a good sign that he's not safe. Going with your analogy - are ALL women misandrysts who take precautions against getting drugged and raped? Do all women who take those precautions HATE men? It's unfortunate that women have to do all kinds of things and be aware of the signs men give off to protect themselves and it is also unfortunate that we have to take precautions against radical Islamic extremists and be aware of the signs they give off. It's not about HATING all Muslims. It's not about Islamophobia or racism. It's just the way things are. And Islam is to blame for this situation also.

We can't. And neither can Dia.

Here are the people we COULD have in our country, contributing members of society who entered through the proper channels.......but Noooooooo, we are sending them back because we have 10's of 1000's of illegals flooding the country, living in hotels on the taxpayer's dime. https://globalnews.ca/news/4751451/family-canada-deported-christmas-eve/

You've got to have a deathwish...... To me, Islam is in too much of a mess to invite it willy-nilly in masses of undocumented people into any country right now.

Except for Khadr's supporters, such as Eyeball. Our laws are woefully inadequate to deal with Islamic terrorism because terrorism and Islamic extremism is moving faster than we can change laws. To Eye, we dont' need to update our laws to allow us to deal legally with terrorists. He's okay with letting them continue to travel to Islamic terrorist hotbeds and giving them unfettered access to their fellow terrorists.

This is what it seems like to me, too. Our government and progressives who are for more and more immigration from Islamic countries expect the Canadian public to just accept that some of us are going to die at the hands of Islam. And you're a racist Islamophobe if you don't think the risk is worth it. It's so easy for them to gamble with other people's lives and the lives of other people's loved ones.

They've been protected by the Canadian government for a long time. I don't know why no one cares to find out WHY.

Eyeball's take on this is such a bizarre viewpoint to me. It would be like a Catholic priest who molested a bunch of children, then got off on a technicality and who then petitions the courts to give him unrestricted access to young boys and permission to travel anywhere in the world where young boys are available for molesting. And Eyeball would say, "Sure! Give him access to all the things that led to his criminal actions in the first place. Absolutely bizarre.