JB Globe

Then, you must support the full withdrawal of the Israeli military from all Palestinian territory, and the dismantling of all settlements outside the pre-1967 borders (save for a few remaining settlements negotiated via land swaps). Because Hamas would not exist without the occupation, and without it it would quickly become irrelevant and fade in power and influence. So, you respond to my post with snide-one-liners, then when asked to clarify what your position is on the issue, you answer vaguely, now you're telling me you're not obligated to answer my questions. Well, congratulations, you're right, but perhaps you could explain to me why I or anyone else should bother trying to engage with someone with your kind of behavior? I mean, you definitely want people to respond to you, otherwise you'd be talking to yourself, after all. But why should I or anyone else bother if all you ever do is make snarky one-liners and then run away from ever clearly defining your position on any given issue?

Totally co-sign. Since we're talking about the Middle East I tend to not try and make moral arguments because it's pretty useless, and neither side really cares too much about morality, so I make practical arguments, and the facts are that terrorism and occupation are both the worst strategies for attaining what each side really wants - peace and security. If terrorism or occupation worked, than the situation would not be as bad as it is right now for either side in this conflict.

I guess there are no studies or statistics after all. Suprise.

Try harder please.

Islam (as in, all forms of Islam) accepts regular, old murder as an acceptable practice? Really? Do you have something to back that up? Please don't tell us you expect us to believe it "because I said so" - especially with your track-record.

Than where are all the posts where you throw a hissy fit about Jewish Family Law? Yet again, as in the post about "honour killings" you don't actually care about the bigger issue at hand (domestic violence, or in this case - ALL KINDS of religious family law) you are only using this as a vehicle to release all that pent up bigotry against Islam. And again - the stats you cite about under-30's supporting Sharia Law is for all under-30 Muslims, regardless of if they immigrated or were born here - so your statement is actually false.

There is every indication that Muslims are integrating. That same survey also says that 94% of Muslims ARE PROUD TO BE CANADIAN, quote: "citing Canadian policies of democracy, multiculturalism, peace and humanitarianism as sources of their pride." Talk about selective reading on your part. Clearly support for Sharia Law doesn't automatically translate into non-integration. This issue is simply not as black and white as you're making it out to be. This apparent paradox (support for Sharia Law yet a strong love of Canada) is actually a positive sign, it demonstrates integration - it's gradual, just like it has been with other immigrant groups in the past. Integration is a complex issue both from a policy perspective and from a personal perspective. I don't know if you ever personally had to reconcile conflicting aspects of your identity and society, but maybe you have, and hopefully you at least know some people who have and you've talked about it with them. If you haven't, I think it would help you to understand the situation a lot of Canadian Muslims find themselves in if you would be more empathetic and really hear what they're saying when they talk about what it's like to try and find yourself while being Canadian and Muslim in the current social climate.

Please, we've been waiting for you to post stats that back up your accusations for days now, so go ahead: Provide statistics that show that the number of "Muslim honour killings" are on the rise in relation to the increase in the Muslim population in Canada. While you're at it, explain to us why a Muslim man murdering his wife or kid over "honour" is worse than a Christian man murdering his wife or kid out of jealousy. Because you sure spend a lot more time talking about the former versus the later - even though the later is much more common place.

That isn't what I asked you, I asked you if you support the Occupation of Palestine. Am I to assume that you believe the occupation contributes to the destruction of Hamas? If yes, how so? Again, that's not what I asked you, why are you dodging these questions? I asked you don't you want to know the full reality of policies you support? If you support the occupation for example - don't you want to know what the reality of occupation is for everyone involved? Including both Israelis and Palestinians?

Absolutely. Many of those communities came from countries where people of their background were fighting conflicts where the other side considered them to be "terrorists" . . . Ever hear of the Easter Rising in Ireland? And many came from places where organized crime is considered to be on-par with terrorism in terms of the negative impact on society - the Italian government still sees it that way today. Yet within a generation those communities were integrated . . . If you are going to try and say that the actions of a dozen individuals are representative of a community of hundreds of thousands of people - than why are you only applying this logic to Muslim Canadians? Wouldn' the bad actions of a few white Christian Anglo Canadians represent ALL white Christian Anglo Canadians? Including yourself? Unfortunately for your argument, in the 1800s being Catholic in Protestant English Canada really was the same thing as being from another religion. Society was just THAT much more xenophobic in those days, so differences that seem small now were enormous back then. Hence why the Irish and orthodox Eastern Europeans were treated like filth.

If that's the case than why do so many of us and our parents count new immigrants or the kids of new immigrants (aka - your term for non-white immigrants) as our life-long friends? And please don't use some baseless rhetoric like: "oh, well you've been brainwashed by the liberal education system!" Because that kind of crap won't convince anyone. Actually, many old immigrants were criminals, chose to live in ethnic ghettos (The original Kensington Market), engaged in communal violence (Christie Pits Riots), and had customs which clashed with Anglo-Canadian sensibilities. Of course, there were also many who were of the hard-working kind you described. There's a similar mix among today's immigrants, and my point is: if all of us were able to figure out a way for old immigrants to fit into Canadian society while still being Canadian in a time where the country was so xenophobic, being Irish was akin to being black, than we're more than capable of integrating all communities in this country now. Why do you doubt our abilities as a nation so much, Mr. Canada? Why do you believe we can't overcome this challenge? And can you point to say, one or two government policies which represent this? I really hope you're not just rambling again.

Receiving their scholarly training in Canada isn't a prerequisite for an Imam to have moderate views. After all, it would be fully possible for an Islamic university in Canada to be funded by the Wahhabi movement, and of course there are many well-respected international schools that teach inclusive and peaceful interpretations of the Qu'ran. Although it probably would be a source of pride for Canadian Muslims if Canada were to have a world-class Islamic school of it's own, and it would make it possible for more people to attend who couldn't afford to travel abroad.

Mr Canada, again . . . 1 - What stats do you have that demonstrate OBJECTIVELY that honour killings are a widespread and serious problem in Canada? 2 - Why are you not as equally concerned when a non-Muslim father kills their daughter, or wife, or both, such as the recent case of Frank Delong: "Father killed wife, children in Toronto triple murder-suicide: police" http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...ng.html?ref=rss In short - why do you only seem to care when a woman is murdered by a husband or father if the family is Muslim? Are you faking concern about this issue simply because it presents an opportunity for you to try and smear the entire Muslim community and religion?

Question: do you support the Israeli occupation of Palestine? In what capacity? Also - if you do support it, why don't you want to know what the full reality of the policy you support is?

I'm not saying such reports don't exist, I'm saying that they're rare in comparison to the amount of reporting that goes on detailing suicide bombings and profiling groups like Hamas. This is especially the case when you look at the 24-hour networks. Generally, as one learns more about a subject their opinion on it either changes or evolves to become more precise and less vague - I think that applies here. No, not really. Most people in general don't know much about Israel or Palestine other than reports of terror attacks and Israeli bombings. Case-in-point: most folks are shocked to find out that the majority of Israelis aren't religious, and that the IDF offers it's officers that are assigned to liason positions in the US a class on "what to do in a synagogue" because many of them have never set foot in one in Israel, and will most likely be invited to one while in the US.

Let me summarize Some interpretations of it are incredibly misogynistic and oppressive of women, others aren't. Some versions of Sharia are, others are not. Although I don't want Sharia law in Canada at all (simply because I believe our current legal system should be enough for everyone) I know that not every interpretation of it is as horrible as your making it out to be. Actually, a large amount of Orthodox Rabbis were born and educated in Israel. That's false. One example - Imam Yusef Badat of Islamic Foundation, one of the largest mosques in Toronto. Who by the way, has made dealing with domestic violence a campaign of sorts.

Only in this forum is reason one step away from rebellion.

Are you going to participate in the discussion or just chastize me for spelling mistakes and grammatical errors? Because I have no interest in the later.

Settlements make a Palestinian state impossible, and thereby makes long-term peace and security with Palestinians impossible. You can't really call yourself a supporter of Israel if you are promoting something which guarantees conflict in the future. The settlers who are out there building illegal settlements and provoking conflict with Palestinians are just as religiously fanatical as their counterparts on the Palestinian side, and I fail to understand why anyone would ally themselves with these people and support their actions. No less an American news icon than 60 minutes recently did an excellent piece looking at how settlement building in the West Bank blocks the peace process, and what life is like for Palestinians living there: PT 1 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=S_UwGgLdmdI PT 2 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KwUSQL9zc&...feature=related The checkpoints, needing a permit (which you are constantly denied for) to visit the town where you were born and worked for most of your life. The hardest thing for anyone however would be the case in which the Israeli army would take over a family's house in the middle of the night and stay there for a day, leave, come back a few days later - do the same thing, put the family under house arrest, then the next time only the men, then the next time only the women . . . And this goes on for months at a time, with no explanation or compensation. I only wish more reports like this made it into American (and Canadian news), there is (thankfully) no shortage of reports on how terrible a suicide blast is to remind us of the reality of the situation. However we almost never hear mainstream news reporting on what life is like under the occupation, and how fanatical many West Bank settlers are. And that is why I think we have so many people who have this sort of blind-faith in Israel, and unconditionally support most of it's policies. They are simply not properly informed as to what happens in the West Bank.

Nowhere in the article does it state how "mainstream" this Imam is: we don't know the size of his congregation or his influence. Until you demonstrate how "mainstream" this Imam is, than he is no more representative of mainstream Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of mainstream Christianity. http://www.godhatesfags.com/ ^^^ Flashy new website from them, same old ignorant garbage.

Actually, that's what you're doing right now by allowing Orthodox Jewish family law. But you don't care about that, because it doesn't involve Muslims. How about you make a post about women's rights that doesn't involve Islam in some way before you start proclaiming what a great advocate of women's rights you are? So if I can summarize your arguement here it's this: "It doesn't matter how well educated or wealthy a Muslim Canadian is - they're likely going to support Sharia Law, and that means Islam is the problem, and Muslim Canadians are the problem." Of course, if only you didn't have a big problem with selective reading and you didn't just read the negative stats in the article you quoted, and bothered to look at the REASONS WHY a majority of Muslim Canadians support Sharia Law: "Underlying this is the question: Why the growing affinity to sharia? Since 9/11, Canadian Muslims have felt increased discrimination. This has a direct impact on identity and how a minority perceives its acceptance by the majority. With the raucous, sometimes racist, nature of the Ontario controversy, many Muslims were forced to focus on sharia as a component of identity, resulting in a plurality wishing to abide by Islamic principles in matters of family law." Essentially - people are feeling marginalized by the mainstream and they're doing what other immigrant groups have done when faced with discrimination - retreat into their communities and identify more strongly with signifies of their culture or religion (ie - Sharia Law). If Mr. Canada REALLY cared about this increase in support for Sharia Law, he wouldn't try to make this into an "Islam is evil" discussion, because that will just push more Muslims away (after all, who wants to join the side in a debate that says that you are backward and evil?) A better idea would be to make legal arguments against Sharia law that have nothing to do with bashing religion - after all, it's easier to get government policy done on legal issues than it is to on some sort of social opinion on Islam being evil. The downside is it's harder to make posts about legal issues, because then you actually have to do your homework, as opposed to just running your mouth about how terrible Islam is.

Really? Says who? You? How do you know this? Guteral insight? ESP? You're not a defender of women's rights, because if you were you'd be making posts about domestic violence IN GENERAL and not just talking about it when it involves someone who happens to be Muslim. If you cared about women's rights you would be as outraged about Aqsa Parvez as you are about a man murdering his girlfriend: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Murder...1901/story.html As said earlier, why do you separate "honour killings" from cases where a man who isn't Muslim murdered his wife or girlfriend? Why is one worse than the other? Is the end result not the same? Why do you not care about one versus the other? I believe the answer is that you are simply feigning concern here and this is merely a vehicle for you to express your bigoted views against Muslims in general. Also you spoke about Imams who justify honour killings - who are you talking about? Because I don't know of any, I only know of Imams who condemn honour killings and the forced wearing of the hijab: http://www.islamicfoundation.ca/friday_ser...aring_the_hijab

Well I'm sorry to disappoint you then.

No, Hamas negotiated with Egypt, which in turn negotiated with Israel, because Israel refuses to negotiate directly with Hamas. Eventually, if they want peace, they're going to have to talk directly to each other and stop trying to divorce and using a best friend as the messenger, it's very unproductive. End the occupation? It's an excellent idea, but when you do, and the rockets continue to fall, well, what next? You're reading too much into rhetoric. As I said earlier, although the actions of Hamas are reprehensible, they are not irrational, they know it's IMPOSSIBLE to wipe out Israel, but their PR people make those claims because a certain segment of the Palestinian population eats it up. Case in point - Ismail Haniyeh, the PM of Hamas in Gaza said last year he'd be willing to accept a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. If he was totally committed to the destruction of Israel, he'd never make that concession, or consider getting into peace talks. Fact is while one can point at Hamas as the force on the Palestinian side that is the driving force of militancy and confrontation, you only need to look at the settler movement on the Israeli side to see that Hamas has a counterpart of sorts in that their actions both provoke an aggressive response from the other side. With Hamas their actions translate into terrorism against Israelis, and with the settler movement their actions translate into colonization against Palestinians.

Israel is still occupying Palestine.