Bubble Burst

I have not expressed any view about who is to blame about that. I don't really care. All I care is that I want to be able to exercise my right of speech about criticizing an ideology and minimizing the risk of being randomly attacked.

Yeah and you don't have the right to kill unarmed puppies. I am not telling people how to dress, I am saying I am not going to vote for people dressing in religious garments while running a Political Party. And if I see pm JT continue to pander to minorities by dressing like a clown I am not going to vote for him next time either. Can I vote the way I want without you assuming I tell people how to dress?

If I think that the Islamic Ideology as described in Qur'an is "bad", that says nothing about Muslims. I also think that the ideology described in the "Old Testament" is equally bad. That says nothing about Jewish people or Christians. I also think that the Nazi ideology is bad and that the KKK ideology is bad, and the Chinese Communist Ideology is bad. These are not statements about people. I respect Muslim dissidents and Muslims who are trying to reform the medieval ideology. I don't respect people who think Apostates or Homosexuals should be killed or those who are defending those beliefs, no matter their religion.

They dress like that in churches/synagogues, or they are employees of a religious organization, or they are not leaders of POLITICAL parties. If they were, I wouldn't vote for them. The country also allows freedom of speech and freedom from religion.

Then, according to your definition, your are a racist, because you treat Islam with indecency. The last four items are pillars of Islam. And you are completely wrong on your assumption that the "the vast majority of Muslims would also answer no": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/?utm_term=.4043ac6d1e97 It's a fallacy of Islamist apologists like yourself to project your liberal views on Islam practitioners. They are nothing like you. And they tell you that if you ask them.

I was talking about presenting yourself in public dressed in your religion's uniform. That's putting religion above Canada in my view and shows disrespect. I like Canada remaining a secular country.

Are you Canadian, living in Canada? Are you Muslim? Do you think ISIS is a good organization? Do you think Muslims should be judged according to Sharia Law everywhere in the world? Do you think Muslim Apostates should be killed, or otherwise punished? Do you think Homosexuals should be killed, or otherwise punished? Do you think someone has a God-Given right to kill Apostates and Homosexuals?

That didn't take long. What is calling someone a racist for expressing an opinion you don't agree with? Anyhow, you believe that Islam is a Race, but not an Ideology, right?

Another thing: I think the Webster definition of Islamophobia :irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam makes the word more of a political statement and an unfounded accusation. Fear of Islam is NOT irrational. It's like one would use Naziphobia as a word to express fear of Nazis. Actually just googled "Naziphobia" and found out a definition of it very similar to Islamophobia in "The Urban Dictionary", but surprisingly the word is not in Webster or on Wikipedia. Reading the section "Criticism of term and use" on Wikipedia makes clear that the word "Islamophobia" is loaded and controversial, being used to prevent any criticism of "Islam". I don't understand how it was possible that the Canadian Parliament was used by Islamists to ban freedom of speech in Canada. Are our politicians complete idiots?

According to Webster: Definition of phobia :an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation Definition of Islamophobia :irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam Yeah, you're right. I though "irrational" was an optional part of the definition. The Wikipedia definition leaves out the "irrational" part. Note though that the definition doesn't mention anything about violence against Muslims. Violence is in general illegal, not just against Muslims so it wouldn't need any additional legislation. Anyhow, the attempt to ban "fear" either rational or irrational is still idiotic. Also, I think discrimination against an extremely hateful ideology is not in any way hateful. This shameful motion was nothing but a condemnation of the condemnation of hate, so it can be labeled as a motion in favor of hate.

That was later, the original ones were predators. I have nothing against welcoming Muslim dissidents trying to escape that horrible ideology and the dictatorial theocracies it generates. However if they are escaping dissidents, they would not honor the ideology they escaped from by wearing the compulsory uniforms of that ideology. I know that because I know a few of them. On the other hand, if you are a fanatical follower of a particular Islamist sect in war with a different sect, I don't think your best place of refuge is the Western Secular World, and we should not accept the spread of hate.

A headline from that site: US Coalition Bombing of Raqqa Comparable to the World War II Destruction of Dresden: tells you everything you need to know about their objectivity. The list is mostly about US taking sides in conflicts around the world and some are hilarious, like blaming US for the victims of the Korean war. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the Islamic ideology, and I am not gonna continue this with you.

I think Europeans came to America to take the land from the Native Americans for themselves and in the process they killed most of the original inhabitants (directly or indirectly). Are you claiming that Islamists are now invading the Western world with the same purpose and that is a good outcome?

Why are people so afraid of admitting Islamophobia. According to Wikipedia: Islamophobia is defined as "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims". Look at the list of killings in the name of Islam in the last 30 days: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30 Read what their book teaches about violence: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx I don't understand what's so controversial about feeling "Intense dislike or fear" about these (if you are not part of their ideology). Trying to legislate against "Islamophobia" is mind boggling beside being a clear violation of freedom of speech.

I agree with no minimum wage, but add Guaranteed Minimum Income for every adult, not just for those over 65, and tax the wealthy (300k+) to pay for it. Also eliminate corporate tax, but compensate 100% by taxing the wealthy at progressive tax rates. Add additional progressive tax rate brackets going up to 99% for incomes over 100M.

List of civilian killings by Islamic warriors in the last 30 days: https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30 Note that the list include an attack in Canada. Could you provide the list of civilian killings by Christian warriors in the last 30 days so we can compare. Though, I'll give you that the Old Testament is the most violent religious book ever written by man. This is garbage. If you subscribe to that ideology and you are in Canada, or any Western Country, you will not be very happy, and I don't think we should accommodate your views. As I said, there are lots of countries in the world sharing your ideology, we don't want it everywhere.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx You can't be serious? In all those cases, different sects of Islam are slaughtering each other and western countries are trying to stop that. None of these ideologies actively promotes the killing of those not subscribing to it. Some of them are actually quite peaceful. However, if an ideology actively promotes the killing of those not subscribing to it, it should be restricted. Showing ostentatious support to such an ideology should be banned, especially in western secular countries. There are lots of other countries where one could express those extremist views unimpeded, no need to spread it everywhere.

I am a secular Liberal. Voted for Trudeau's Liberals and for provincial NDP. However I will never vote for someone who ostentatiously displays religious garments in public life. It shows him as a religious fanatic, and I don't want religious fanatics in government or paid by my taxes.

Because we can't take everyone, we should take as refugees to Canada only the most vulnerable victims of the numerous wars affecting the Muslim World: the very young orphans. They are not yet completely brainwashed by the destructive ideology that generates all those wars and they will suffer the least adaptation problems in a completely different Culture. I think we should be placing them in loving same-sex families. This way the government will spend the least amount of money and the benefit will be maximized.

I am a Secular Liberal. I am for banning all extremist ideologies. Islam's objective is to convert everyone to Islam. People who are not converting to Islam should be killed or they should pay a tax to Islamic institutions. That is their stated ideology. So making this about masking/unmasking is just playing around the corner. The problem is with the ideology. We should not accept in Canada subscribers to extreme ideologies. We should encourage and accept as refugees real dissidents who are fighting against those ideologies. The evolution of mainstream Liberalism towards Regressive-Liberalism is the worst thing that happened to Liberalism, in Canada and in US, and is what produced the current disgusting US Prez.

I am a non-regressive Liberal and here is how I see this issue. This is all about secularism and anti-extremist ideologies. Anyone who has read about the Islamic ideology knows their extreme views: their objective is to convert everyone to their ideology and those that don't convert need to be killed or they have to pay tribute to them. Ostentatiously wearing Islamic religious symbols indicate strong support for that ideology. That is why it should be banned. It's for the same reason that if a large number of people were wearing Nazi uniforms, they would be banned. You cannot promote your hate ideology in a secular country like Canada. Among the regressive liberals in Canada (including pm Trudeau) there is obvious confusion about what the Islamic ideology stands for. They hate you and want to kill you or subjugate you. It's written in their book. When someone is telling you something, you better believe it. I also accept that not all religious Muslims subscribe to the extreme aspects of the Islamic Ideology. Those people do not ostentatiously wear Islamic religious symbols and the law does not affect them in any way. I think this law is a good first step, I hope it will be followed at the federal level and expanded upon. I think the government should make clear that extremist ideologies are not accepted in Canada.