blackbird

Older immigrants say above 40 or 50 are likely more conservative and not as likely to change to become more militant and extremist. It makes sense that their children when they get into their teens or twenties might take the radical parts of the Quran more seriously and become more ideological and aggressive militants. If you look at the terrorist attacks in France and the UK you will probably find the terrorists are generally in the younger age bracket below 30 or 40. Some who have criminal records and mental problems seem to lean toward becoming radical Islamists. Perhaps they think being a radical will win them favour with Allah and earn them 70 virgins in the next life. In fact I believe there is a prison in England which has many radical Islamists in the prison and it is considered dangerous if you are an inmate there and are not one of them. You will likely find those prisoners are in the younger age bracket.

The problem is Islam itself. Check the article I posted above on no-go zones in Europe. One report says Islamic descendants of immigrants have been found in some cases to become more extremist or terrorist than the parents who immigrated. Reports are that some no-go zones are unable to receive police, fire, ambulance and other services because of the danger from extremists in the no-go zones. They can basically become areas that governments lose control of and become ungovernable.

Yes, the government (Libs and NDP) have figured out ways to exploit and play on people's fears and desires in order to get re-elected. The system is built to exploit people for votes. Even the immigration system is designed to bring in the votes for liberals. Politicians know how to make empty promises to get elected. Much of the west is in the same mess. Who would have believed even 30 years ago that climate change would be the big issue it is and used for votes? Who would have believed that western politicians would be meeting in Egypt now and making promises to compensate the third world for climate change and weather patterns?

I see several serious negatives as a result of bringing in such a huge number of immigrants. 1. Canada is already in a serious housing shortage. Where will these new immigrants be housed and who will pay for it since rent is out of sight. 2. Will bringing in a huge number of immigrants actually cost the taxpayers a fortune to provide income support they will need. 3. How will bringing in a massive number of people from third world Islamic countries impact society? Many people in the third world do not understand our fundamental freedoms like freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and they are used to authorities denying such freedom to people who do not agree with their religion as in Islamic republics. 4. What countries exactly are they planning to bring them from? Will they be coming from failed states like Haiti, Somalia, Uganda, Nigeria, the middle east, Mexico? Will they be people who oppose our system and prefer a Socialist or failing liberal system? Will they be primarily more liberal and left supporters? The list of failures of the Liberal government in almost every area is long. There are many countries where people do not respect human life and have no law and order, such as Haiti, African countries, and other places. We see the rampant shootings in Toronto for years now. 5. How will it affect the already failing health care system? 6. Many cities and towns are already overwhelmed with homeless people living in tents on the streets and rampant crime as a result. The criminal justice system is a revolving door and many criminals are arrested and immediately released back onto the street. This is a major issue in B.C. right now. It would make sense to house these people before bringing in more people. How will this amount of immigration effect this situation? Canada's plan for more immigrants aims to boost workforce, but experts say they'll need support (msn.com)

In spite of its critics, the Notwithstanding Clause is part of the Constitution and is therefore perfectly legitimate. What is needed is mandatory or compulsory binding arbitration instead of the strike option in labour disputes, particularly in services considered as essential by the public. But just because a union makes outrageous contract demands does not mean an arbitration board should go halfway between the employer and union demands. We know that would not make any sense at all. All unions will make outrageous, unrealistic demands. They need an arbitration board that will look at all the economic factors and determine what a reasonable contract would look like. But there should be no strikes in essential services such as the education system, fire, police, health care, transportation. etc. Now the bus drivers are getting ready to strike in Ontario. This is an essential service for millions of people who rely on it to go to work, school, shopping, etc.

You just don't want to accept facts. Put your fingers in your ears. You just proved you don't believe in freedom of expression. What religion are you again? I also quoted a different source in my last post, but you will say any post that you disagree with is not credible. The idea of no go zones really scares you. It scares me too.

quote A No Go Zone is sort of a failed state in miniature form, and is not that recent of a development. In the strictest sense, a No Go Zone (or ”No Go Area”) is an area that has been barricaded off by military or paramilitary authorities. However, a broader definition has emerged in recent years as governments such as France and Sweden use euphemisms such as “vulnerable area,” “exposed area” or “sensitive urban zone” for what are effectively No Go Zones. For our purposes, a No Go Zone is anywhere that the government is incapable of providing basic support services – policing, firefighting and emergency medical services. This is also the common meaning when “No Go Zone” is used in the media. Uncomfortable for some to consider, it is an undeniable fact that most, if not all, of the No Go Zones in Europe coincide with large Muslim populations. In these areas, large radicalized immigrant populations are indifferent or hostile to the central government. Beyond the merely uncomfortable for some and into the deeply disturbing for all, second-generation Muslim immigrants tend to be more radicalized than their parents, not less. This is true across Europe. Second-generation Muslim immigrants have been behind nearly every terrorist attack in Europe post-9/11. The kind of assimilation America saw after its massive immigration wave between the Civil War and the First World War simply is not happening with Muslim immigrant communities in Europe. No Go Zones in Europe Much of the debate around whether or not Europe has “No Go Zones” comes down to how terms are defined. A 2017 article on RT’s website put the matter very succinctly: “Thus those looking to dismiss no-go areas as a ‘myth,’ can argue the semantics of what constitutes a ‘no-go zone,’ or how much of a threat they present, but not that term represents a real phenomenon.” Here are some examples of growing civil unrest in Europe: Belgium: Following the November 2015 terror attacks in France, Belgium’s Home Affairs Minister Jan Jambon stated that the Belgian government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” He described this as a “gigantic problem” without actually using the term No Go Zone. France: Fox News created controversy in 2015 when they declared France had No Go Zones after the Charlie Hebdo shooting. However, looking beyond the hysteria, there’s considerable evidence that France has No Go Zones. In fact, Reuters referred to No Go Zones in Paris in October 2016. In June 2018, the French President Emmanuel Macron gave a speech with repeated euphemistic references to No Go Zones. The National Post, Canada’s paper of record, did an in-depth feature on No Go Zones in 2016. In 2017, an app launched called “No-Go Zone,” allowing the French to report lawless areas to be avoided. So while there may be a reflexive reaction to dismiss reports from Gatestone Institute or Breitbart on French No Go Zones as “right-wing propaganda,” there are no shortage of so-called “mainstream” sources reporting on No Go Zones in France. Germany: Angela Merkel has spoken about No Go Zones as a “reality” in Germany. In April 2018, the Daily Mail reported on a poll showing that a majority of Germans feared No Go Zones, with over three quarters stating they believed the government should crack down harder on organized crime. Sweden: Much of the media attention surrounding No Go Zones is centered on Sweden. Despite vehement denials, there is overwhelming evidence of No Go Areas in Sweden, no matter what term one chooses to use. An April 2018 Sputnik report described areas where emergency services cannot enter without significant police support. In 2018, the Prime Minister of Sweden referred to “parallel societies” in Sweden. The spectre of civil war in Sweden is openly discussed in Parliament. A 2017 RT article quoted Swedish National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson as saying “we cannot continue in this direction ten more years.” In December 2017, the nation’s chief prosecutor described a Stockholm suburb as being like “a war zone” and stating that she would look to countries like El Salvador and Colombia for potential strategies. United Kingdom: President Donald Trump was ridiculed for suggesting the presence of No Go Areas in the UK, however, there is evidence to suggest he was correct. Raheem Kassam, a UKIP activist and former Breitbart UK Editor in Chief has written an entire book on the subject. Kassam is of Tanzanian extraction and was raised as an Ismaili Muslim, though he now identifies as an atheist. An anonymous London police officer went on popular British radio program LBC and stated that the British capital did in fact have “No Go Areas.” Councillors for Leeds suburb Bradford have similarly described areas of that city. unquote No Go Zones: A Guide to Western Failed States and European Secessionist Movements (richardsonpost.com) Notice it says second generation Muslims are often more radical than their parents. That means the more you bring in, the more radicals you may have in the future generations.

1. I am sure there are tech workers in many countries in the world which do not have the death sentence for blasphemers. 2. I am sure you can find much information on the internet from various sources on the problem of no-go zones. There is more than one site. You just don't accept facts. 3. lslam poses a threat everywhere in the world. As numbers of a group increase, they can also become more militant. It is the core beliefs that do not accept our fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of the press that should be a concern as well. Islamic republics have laws against blasphemy and the punishment is the death sentence. There is also female genital mutilation in some countries that should also tell you something about it.

Not all. Radical political Islamists do not believe in those freedoms.

Greta is a world famous figure and presumed leader of the environmental movement so it ridiculous to say she is just an "autistic teenage girl" that nobody should question or criticize. Millions follow her as some great messiah of climate change when in fact she is just a little pawn with mental issues being used by the environmental movement and now by the radical leftists.

I don't see the benefits of bringing Islamists from the third world. No-go zones are not nonsense. They are a serious problem in some cities in Europe. They are the result of multiculturalism which Canada also embraces. You say there have been more terrorist attacks against Muslims than by them in Canada. That might be the case, but that is beside the point. A number of them did in fact travel overseas from Canada to join ISIS. The number of terrorist attacks within Canada has nothing to do with whether or not they should be brought into Canada. The radical jihadists are involved in terrorist attacks all over the world frequently, perhaps daily. What happens when they grow to large numbers in Canada as in some countries in Europe? That will lead to the possibility that a certain segments of them may become radicalized and become militant. Many also travelled from France, Britain and other countries to join ISIS. quote Indeed, Canada was built by immigrants. They came here because of our great cultural heritage which allows for freedom of expression, religion, association and peaceful assembly. Radical Islam does not recognize those freedoms and thus poses a clear and present threat to what makes Canada such a great country and the envy of much of the world – our Christian heritage. Mike Schouten unquote ‘Radical Islam’ a clear threat to Canada | ARPA Canada quote This is the second article in a multi-part series documenting so-called no-go zones in Europe. The first article in this series documents no-go zones in France. This second segment focuses on the United Kingdom. It provides a brief compilation of references to British no-go zones by academic, police, media and government sources. An erroneous claim on American television that Birmingham, England, is "totally Muslim" and off-limits to non-Muslims has ignited a politically charged debate about the existence of no-go zones in Britain and other European countries. No-go zones can be defined as Muslim-dominated neighborhoods that are de facto off limits to non-Muslims due to a number of factors, including the lawlessness, insecurity or religious intimidation that often pervades these areas. In some no-go zones, host-country authorities are unable or unwilling to provide even basic public aid, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services, out of fear of being attacked by Muslim gangs that sometimes claim control over such areas. Muslim enclaves in European cities are also breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism. Europe's no-go zones are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to remain segregated from — rather than become integrated into — their European host nations. The problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist. Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue — often by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "no-go zone." Islam expert Andrew C. McCarthy has offered a lucid clarification of what no-go zones are and of what they are not: "[N]o sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct. unquote European 'No-Go' Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain :: Gatestone Institute

Stop what? The claim they are less religious than Christians is a frivolous argument. Such a claim proves nothing. There is no benefit to Canada in having it here and the future could bring lots of trouble. We have seen the terrorist attacks in France and Britain by the jihadists and we know about the existence of the no go zones in some cities in Europe.

Africa is not Canada. There are bizarre things that go on in some other countries too. Those are terrible incidents in Africa of course but the number of Islamic terrorism incidents in the world and the number of deaths as a result is far greater. There is no comparison. We are talking about Canada and who to let into Canada. No, I would not admit those kinds of people to Canada either. Just common sense. We know you prefer to try to find a frivolous argument against everything. The subject is Islamification of Toronto. I pointed out the website that reports on the ongoing terrorism in the world by radical Islam. That is a serious problem because there are approximately 1.7 billion followers in the world. If even just a small percentage are radical, that could be a large number. But you ignored the website and the issue and try to come up with frivolous arguments that have nothing to do with it. You haven't changed. Much like your argument against any divorce even if women are being seriously abused. Domestic abuse is a serious problem in Canada. Intimate partner violence is fairly common in Canada as well. You still have not admitted that divorce is justified in some cases.

Thousands turn out to protest in Mali against man for trampling Quran and blaspheming Islam (msn.com)

No.

I already explained the reason why freedom of religion cannot be applied equally. Something that is proven dangerous and harmful to society cannot be recognized as just another religion. I gave the example of freedom of speech which has it limits. There is no such things as unlimited freedom of speech. There is also no such thing as freedom of religion if it entails something evil and breaks the laws or is contrary to peace and order. Examples of that are on the news daily from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran as they religious leaders terrorize the population and especially women.

Lots of bad things happened in history such as burning of witches. Nobody condones that and it doesn't happen today, thankfully. But radical Islam continues to terrorize the world. Unfortunately among its followers, some seem to take a radical turn. You obviously know absolutely nothing about it. You should know something if you are an adult, unless you are a follower of it or like Trudeau, supporting it for political reasons and votes. There is none around my area, but that is beside the point. If you did a little study you would learn that Islam denies freedom in many countries and a certain percentage of it's followers are extremists and terrorists and killed many people and continue to every day or week. Go to the religion of peace website and read the latest statistics. We have over a thousand years of history to look at. Go to this website and learn what makes Islam so different: Islam: The Politically Incorrect Truth (thereligionofpeace.com) "On this day of November 5, 2009, the following happened in Texas: On November 5, 2009, a mass shooting took place at Fort Hood, near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] It was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base.[4] Hasan was shot and as a result paralyzed from the waist down.[5] He was arraigned by a military court on July 20, 2011 and was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. His court-martial began on August 7, 2013. Due to the nature of the charges (more than one premeditated, or first-degree, murder case, in a single crime), Hasan faced either the death penalty or life in prison without parole upon conviction.[6][7] Hasan was found guilty on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder on August 23, 2013, and was sentenced to death on August 28, 2013.[8]" from the religion of peace website, which tracks these events.

Are you aware European countries fought for a thousand years to keep Islam out of Europe and prevent it from taking over. Seems the new Post Modernism / progressive liberalism claim that freedom of religion should apply to anything and everything no matter what the consequences may be. It may destroy western civilization as we know it and allow Islam to move in and take over the west. This is the weakness of liberal / multiculturalism. It may turn out to be a disaster and suicide of western nations. The idea of "freedom of religion" is a simplistic phrase but it should not include just anything in the world that has a history and teachings that are proven harmful to society. You are all in favour of freedom of speech, but even you will admit there are limits to freedom of speech.

"Some of the most memorable images from Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the graphics that show how rising ocean levels will dramatically alter our planet’s coastlines. As Greenland’s ice sheets collapse, Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future.” Although he doesn’t give a clear time frame for the 20-foot sea level rise, Gore’s statement seems to contradict several recent reports, including one published in 2008, that predict much smaller rises during this century. Scientists say that the two main causes of rising sea levels are water expanding as it warms, known as thermal expansion, and melting land-based ice, such as ice from Antarctica and Greenland. In 2007, the International Panel on Climate Change, an organization composed of scientists and policy makers around the world who monitor human-caused climate change, estimated that sea levels would rise 0.18 to 0.6 meters (0.59 to 2.0 feet) over the next 100 years. The IPCC based this prediction primarily on how much the ocean waters are expected to warm and expand." - scienceline.org ( for some reason this forum won't accept the actual link) Al Gore's prediction in his movie "Inconvenient Truth" that sea levels would rise 20 feet and cover coastal cities was an outrageous claim and extreme fear-mongering. Turns out even the IPCC, the phony political UN climate change body, said it would only rise 0.18 to 0.6 meters. Unfortunately mainstream media gave endless attention to Al Gore's movie and caused a lot of panic and division across the western world. Critics only got a miniscule amount of media attention later. This is the problem with mainstream media. They love to focus on the bizarre and fear mongering, but are not very interested in the reality or truth. The mundane doesn't interest them. It's the scary reports that draw the big audiences.

" Piers Corbyn, 72, is a climate change denier and adds that listening to Miss Thunberg, 16, was ‘deranged’ describing her as an ‘ignorant brainwashed child’. He tweeted a BBC News article about the teenager’s visit to the UK telling MPs they need to ‘listen to climate scientists’. He said: ‘Listening to an ignorant brainwashed child is deranged. I am an actual scientist of physics Meteorology, astrophysics and climate and say @GretaThunberg is wrong and suffers mental abuse by manipulative adults.’" Greta Thunberg is an 'ignorant brainwashed child being abused by adults', says Corbyn's brother | Metro News "No teenager is more freakishly influential than Greta Thunberg, the deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement." THE DISTURBING SECRET TO THE CULT OF GRETA THUNBERG | Herald Sun This only goes to show that the followers of Greta must themselves be deeply disturbed cult followers. This includes Trudeau and his groveling followers who are saving the planet on the backs of Canadians.

"Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse[1][2] defined by an attitude of skepticism toward the "grand narratives" associated with modernism, opposition to notions of epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning, and emphasis on the role of ideology in maintaining systems of socio-political power.[3][4] Claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism,[5] with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.[4] Thus, the postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism;[4] it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.[6][7]" --- Wikipedia This term came to my attention and made me think of the general attitudes or thinking in society and politics that think that there is no absolute truth. The common belief particularly in liberal ideology and NDP ideology is that there are no absolute truths or moral values. They seem to believe that truth is what men decide it is for today and they reject what has been believed as truth down through the ages. Post modernism seems to be an excellent term to broadly describe the general thinking in many areas of life and politics. The one area I think it is important is in the area of moral relativism. The general belief in liberal ideology is that there is no absolute truth and everything is relative or whatever someone can make an argument in support of must be acceptable or true. I would challenge that with my belief that there is one absolute truth as revealed in Holy Scripture. That is God's revelation to man. Since God is unchangeable, it is reasonable to believe that in his revelation or written word there are certain absolutes that are unchangeable. This demolishes the ideas in liberalism or postmodernism held by many people and politicians today. This is even true in the spiritual sphere where there are hundreds of English translations of the Holy Scriptures and most churches today believe there is no one translation which is the absolute inspired truth. I am referring only to English language translations. I believe there is one absolute inspired Bible in the English language known as the King James Version or King James Bible and furthermore I have much information to prove it is and to expose the hundreds of modern versions as being corrupt. The King James Version is the only version based on the Received Text. I have run into conflict with ministers and people in what I would say are to some degree post modern churches. On the one hand they say they believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but then they cannot say which Bible is the correct one. There is a major flaw in this claim because modern versions differ with the King James Bible in thousands of places. Most of them have not studied this issue; yet they are adamant what they are using as a Bible is perfectly fine. But that is just one example of the world we are living in where error abounds.

"Chris Selley: $7K hotel suites. $93K catering bills. Trudeau's buying himself a populist backlash"

Trudeau won't spend the money on the Canadian Forces that it needs but he apparently stayed in a $6,000 a night hotel according to journalist Lilley. Also see: Chris Selley: $7K hotel suites. $93K catering bills. Trudeau's buying himself a populist backlash (msn.com)

"Opinion: Ottawa has 13% support on its oil and gas policies A new Leger poll conducted for SecondStreet.org shows Canadians want to help. The poll of 1,535 Canadians found 72 per cent of respondents either “somewhat” or “strongly” supported “developing and exporting more oil and natural gas resources so that the world can reduce how much it purchases from Russia.” Support was widespread across Canada, stretched from coast to coast and included men and women and all age groups. But support was weakest where it counts the most — in the federal government. The Trudeau government seems to have taken its marching orders from the 13 per cent of Canadians who are either “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to exporting more of our oil and natural gas. As the world scrambles to find resources we have in abundance, the government continues to focus on its climate change and renewables narrative. Reality and public opinion seem not to be part of its decision-making." How often does it have to be said? The wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. Wind and solar power are a helpful, welcome addition to the world’s energy mix but they are far from a magic solution. They are quite unreliable and, partly for that reason, remain a very small source of the world’s energy — just two per cent in 2019 according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Their biggest shortcoming is that they require back-up sources when the wind isn’t blowing and clouds block the sun’s rays. William Watson: We will need Trussonomics Matthew Lau: Ottawa’s woke plan for washroom equity Philip Cross: The moral argument for fossil fuels This unreliability is one reason Europe is now firing up coal power plants it had previously closed. Yes, while Canada keeps its natural gas in the ground to “reduce emissions,” Europe’s coal plants will now generate nearly double the emissions that burning Canadian natural gas instead would have produced. Prime Minister Trudeau recently claimed there has “never been a strong business case” for exporting natural gas from Canada’s east coast to Europe. Within days, 101 business leaders, most of whom either work or have worked in Canada’s energy sector, took out a full-page ad informing the prime minister that in their view there was in fact a business case . The problem is that government-imposed environmental roadblocks have made it nearly impossible to get new oil and gas projects off the ground." - MSN/Financial Post

I have no problem with Quebec having their own language and culture. After all, that is how Canada developed from the early settlers 500 years ago. I don't have much use for politicians trying to make the rest of Canada bilingual though. I don't see the point in forcing people to learn a language which 95 or 98% of the people in an area or province do not speak. That is a kind of social engineering or big brother ideology. If people want to learn French in other provinces, fine. I have no problem with that. That is by choice. People should have the freedom to learn to speak whatever they wish. I have had a couple close friends who were francophone. They contributed a lot to my life and we had some fine times together.