Is it OK to insult Islam in Canada?

[Shwa]

What nonsense..I would ask if that's the best you can do....but that would be rhetorical.

Bloodyminded's response is better than yours.

[Moonbox]

As is applying one society's cultural norms and traditions to a totally different one. Righteous fingerpointing can go on forever, and not necessarily in our Western culture's favour considering all of its manifestations, not just the selected ones that match prejudged pattern. I.e. complete with two hugely violent world wars, multiple episodes of mass murder, persistent pattern of colonisation, interference and plain unprovoked aggression. And right off the news, quasi institutionalized paedofilia, a relatively minor contribution considering the above.

You contradict yourself with your own point. Most would agree the treatment of women in some of these cultures is pretty ass backwards. Your defence for it is to bring up completely different problems we have in our own culture.

Bringing up paedofelia in the Church system as a defence for barbaric treatment of women elsewhere is a giant red herring.

No culture is perfect, but one that murders women for learning to read is not worthy of any respect.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Moonbox

[Shwa]

No, you're missing the point entirely. Serial killers in the Western world are universally viewed as villains and violent nuts. They're put away and never see the outside of a jail again.

Sure, some serial killers get away with it. Unfortunately you can't catch them all. The fundamental, and very important difference, is that those violent killers are not accepted in our society and we remove them, or at least try to. Woman are murdered regularly in many Arab cultures for doing things like trying to read or showing their legs. Their murderers are celebrated as men of honour and faith.

Comparing the two is absolutely brainless.

Then quit comparing them.

Rapes per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Numbers of rapes: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

Murders per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-

Numbers of murders: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

Executions per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe_percap-crime-executions-per-capita

Numbers of executions: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

Females prosecuted: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_fem_pro-crime-females-prosecuted

Percentage of assault victims: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

[Shwa]

No culture is perfect, but one that murders women for learning to read is not worthy of any respect.

And what "culture" would that be that you are referring to?

[bloodyminded]

You contradict yourself with your own point. Most would agree the treatment of women in some of these cultures is pretty ass backwards. Your defence for it is to bring up completely different problems we have in our own culture.

Nobody is saying Canada is perfect, but bringing up paedofelia in the Church system as a defence for barbaric treatment of women elsewhere is a giant red herring.

No culture is perfect, but one that murders women for learning to read is not worthy of any respect.

With all due respect (seriously!), I think you've got it backwards; to be fair, some of us have not been careful about expressing ourselves properly, perhaps:

The point is that the failing within our own society are of prime importance; the failings in others are secondary at best.

The red herring I see is that criticisms of our own systems and society are frequently met, reflexively, with critiques of other societies. This doesn't appear especially useful to me. We should be most concerned with those things we can most affect.

What's more, the fact that there is a perceived war going on between Islam and the West (which isn't exactly accurate, anyway), means that the reflexive criticisms are of societies which are official or unofficial enemies. Which makes it hihgly suspect, especially considering the staggering amount of propaganda to which we are subjected.

[myata]

You contradict yourself with your own point. Most would agree the treatment of women in some of these cultures is pretty ass backwards. Your defence for it is to bring up completely different problems we have in our own culture.

Most would agree that dropping a nuke on a city full of civilians is a terrible act. So? Faults and problems can be found with most cultures on this Earth. The point is what we do. We can change i.e hopefully, improve ourselves; or we could keep pointing fingers at others. Instead.

Bringing up paedofelia in the Church system as a defence for barbaric treatment of women elsewhere is a giant red herring.

No, it's not a defense, only a suggestion how shaky (and incredible) our (self assumed) position of moral leaders of the world would be. To me, both are wrong and inacceptable.

No culture is perfect, but one that murders women for learning to read is not worthy of any respect.

Presuming that you actually defined that "culture"; it may not merit your respect, and that's fine, I do not believe they asked for it, or even care. The moment your "culture" starts to treat them without respect though, and maybe even with violence, it'll set itself on the way to losing all claims to moral superiority, and maybe self respect as well.

[Handsome Rob]

To be clear, I also believe that the Western way, i.e. separation of church and state, is superior but there's no point in being smug about that. We certainly had nothing to do with making it happen.

I think freedom of religion pretty much guarantees there can be no separation between church and state.

And Mark Steynproved that it is OK to offend religion, but damn expensive because our kangaroo court sees fit to impose court and defense costs on people, regardless of just how frivolous the accusations are. That in itself is already a punishment.

[bloodyminded]

And Mark Steynproved that it is OK to offend religion, but damn expensive because our kangaroo court sees fit to impose court and defense costs on people, regardless of just how frivolous the accusations are. That in itself is already a punishment.

I agree that Steyn was unfairly targeted, and as a direct result of Commissions with which I fundamentally disagree. That it couldn't happen to a nicer guy doesn't change the fact that he was wronged.

[Michael Hardner]

Then quit comparing them.

Rapes per capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

Good for you for producing some numbers - but that stat shows the Canadian rate more than double the US rate ? There must be difference in how the crimes are counted.

[Michael Hardner]

I think freedom of religion pretty much guarantees there can be no separation between church and state.

And Mark Steynproved that it is OK to offend religion, but damn expensive because our kangaroo court sees fit to impose court and defense costs on people, regardless of just how frivolous the accusations are. That in itself is already a punishment.

That was discussed elsewhere. It's marginally different than a libel suit, and certainly Mr. Steyn wasn't surprised by the process in question. You should be able to countersue for malicious prosecution though.

[Handsome Rob]

That was discussed elsewhere. It's marginally different than a libel suit, and certainly Mr. Steyn wasn't surprised by the process in question. You should be able to countersue for malicious prosecution though.

Wasn't my intent to get into specifics or defend Mark Steyn, just an example of precedent, and what the 'judicial' consequences are.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok... I don't know what to make of this:

I think freedom of religion pretty much guarantees there can be no separation between church and state.

other than it's an interesting paradox.

[Handsome Rob]

Ok... I don't know what to make of this: other than it's an interesting paradox.

When you have Religious beliefs taking precedence over judicial preceding, IE: 'People riding motorcycles in turbans but still getting access to state health care after they crash,' you guarantee that the two interact together toward a common goal.

[Guest TrueMetis]

When you have Religious beliefs taking precedence over judicial preceding, IE: 'People riding motorcycles in turbans but still getting access to state health care after they crash,' you guarantee that the two interact together toward a common goal.

You got an actual example to back that up? The most I've seen is Indian RCMP officers allowed to wear a turban in place of the regular hat. Never heard of being able ro go without a helmet and wear a turban instead. (I seriously doubt you could as the turban would come off)

[Handsome Rob]

You got an actual example to back that up? The most I've seen is Indian RCMP officers allowed to wear a turban in place of the regular hat. Never heard of being able ro go without a helmet and wear a turban instead. (I seriously doubt you could as the turban would come off)

No but when the rider comes off and the head contacts the pavement, I don't imagine the results are going to be pretty.

1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:

Such things aren't that common now, but the rate at which they are being added is frightening.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No but when the rider comes off and the head contacts the pavement, I don't imagine the results are going to be pretty.

1 The following persons are exempt from the requirements of section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act:

Such things aren't that common now, but the rate at which they are being added is frightening.

That's messed up.

[jbg]

The poll is not well worded. I voted on the basis of replacing the word "(i)s" with "(s)hould it be".

[Moonbox]

The point is that the failing within our own society are of prime importance; the failings in others are secondary at best.

Fair enough, but serial killers and pedos I would contend are not so much an institutional failure in our society as they simply very visible and disgusting exceptions.

The red herring I see is that criticisms of our own systems and society are frequently met, reflexively, with critiques of other societies. This doesn't appear especially useful to me. We should be most concerned with those things we can most affect.

We have lots of problems in our system. That doesn't mean we can't comment on the problems with other systems. The thread itself was set up to be a discussion on how a good number of nutjob fanatics wet their pants when anyone does anything they feel is hostile to their religion. Bringing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Catholic Church and whatnot into the discussion was a red herring.

What's more, the fact that there is a perceived war going on between Islam and the West (which isn't exactly accurate, anyway), means that the reflexive criticisms are of societies which are official or unofficial enemies. Which makes it hihgly suspect, especially considering the staggering amount of propaganda to which we are subjected.

It's not really propaganda anymore when the nastiness that's talked about is enforced and confirmed by the other side. The difference between the fundamentalist Islamic world, and the western world, is that people flee to the west to tell their stories, while nobody in the west flees to the Islamic world. We hear the stories first hand here. I have two Persian friends (both women actually) who can readily confirm it. I know that's just hearsay on the forums, but we have enough people of different backgrounds to get an idea of how ugly things are over there.

[Molly]

That's messed up.

You might try putting on a wig with waist-length hair, and then add 5 square metres of fabric to the pile, to see if it provides any cranial protection. Probably ask a Sikh man how often his turban falls off, too, and what sort of activity it takes to knock it off his head.

I've seen plenty of helmets fly off, but I've never seen a turban suffer any disturbance at all, under any circumstances. It may be anecdotal, but I'd suspect they might achieve CSA approval if tested, and maybe even perform better than some helmets. If they do, or even if they perform better than helmets not designed to cover uncut hair... where's the beef?

[Wild Bill]

You might try putting on a wig with waist-length hair, and then add 5 square metres of fabric to the pile, to see if it provides any cranial protection. Probably ask a Sikh man how often his turban falls off, too, and what sort of activity it takes to knock it off his head.

I've seen plenty of helmets fly off, but I've never seen a turban suffer any disturbance at all, under any circumstances. It may be anecdotal, but I'd suspect they might achieve CSA approval if tested, and maybe even perform better than some helmets. If they do, or even if they perform better than helmets not designed to cover uncut hair... where's the beef?

I worked in the construction industry years ago Molly and vividly remember this very question arising as we began to see Sikhs wearing turbans in the workforce.

The reality is that their turbans gave almost NO protection! They are simple cloth, nothing more. Any protection they gave was only spiritual.

I left the industry before it was all worked out so I can't claim to know the eventual outcome. I do know that CSA had a conflict. They were tempted to just allow Sikhs to do what they wanted in the name of allowing free religious expression but the employers started screaming! One of the ways governments enforce helmet and safety laws on construction sites is to force employers to be their own policemen. If they allowed Sikhs to forgo safety helmets then they could have had their asses sued off if a Sikh was hurt or killed in a job related accident!

I had one Sikh workmate who had actually wound a turban around a conventional hard hat! It seemed a sensible compromise to me. Perhaps that's what's being used today.

[Muddy]

You might try putting on a wig with waist-length hair, and then add 5 square metres of fabric to the pile, to see if it provides any cranial protection. Probably ask a Sikh man how often his turban falls off, too, and what sort of activity it takes to knock it off his head.

I've seen plenty of helmets fly off, but I've never seen a turban suffer any disturbance at all, under any circumstances. It may be anecdotal, but I'd suspect they might achieve CSA approval if tested, and maybe even perform better than some helmets. If they do, or even if they perform better than helmets not designed to cover uncut hair... where's the beef?

Well I don`t hardly think a turban can give the protection of a helmet,but I do know that the warriors beneath those turbans do not cut and run in a battle. If your helmet is falling off one needs to understand the reason and proper operation of a chin strap.

[M.Dancer]

but I'd suspect they might achieve CSA approval if tested, and maybe even perform better than some helmets.

I suspect you will never work for the CSA...

[GostHacked]

You might try putting on a wig with waist-length hair, and then add 5 square metres of fabric to the pile, to see if it provides any cranial protection. Probably ask a Sikh man how often his turban falls off, too, and what sort of activity it takes to knock it off his head.

If that turban does come off, it's taking more than hair with it. Cloth will never replace a quality hard hat or helmet.

[Argus]

But this is not a tran-Muslim way of thinking, thank Godzilla. Most Muslims do not condone any of the horrors that you mention. The tendency to overgeneralize in a rampant way is not helpful.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support that statement. In fact, in most Muslim nations the opposition is not demanding liberalization but harsher and more conserative laws. The majority in every Muslim nation polled wanted Sharia Law, which does not speak to your belief Muslims wouldn't support any of "the horrors" listed.

[Argus]

Not true. Dingbats, as you call them, do have patriarchal cults that are Christian based. There are also elements of our society that permits disrespect to women that strict religious societies do not, at a cost of freedom of course.

Really? So if someone took a survey in Canada asking how many want strict bibilcal laws in place at least 50%-60% of te population would vote "yes!" Is that what you're saying?