Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

[Black Dog]

Many people come to the west to destroy it and our way of life.

How many exactly?

I'm shocked and appalled that you aren't more supportive and against the oppression of women in our society.

Oh spare me, you who probably doesn't give two shits about women's rights except when you can use them to score points against Muslims. Are you also up in arms about the Catholic Church not allowing women to serve as priests or their stances on abortion or birth control? What about Orthodox Jews who segregate women in their places of worship?

Edited September 1, 2011 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

The fact that there was a melee over the scarf issue is pretty good proof as to the U.S. As to Canada, as Chretien said, "a proof is a proof".

I didn't know the amusement park was enforcing the laws of your nation.

[GostHacked]

One thing that's being ignored is that the Muslims turned to violence to sort out the disagreement. Surely this isn't the most civilized way to go about it. I'm not surprised of people here ignoring the Muslim triggered violence when they don't get their own way.

I am sure people ignore all the other violence not done by Muslims.

[Michael Hardner]

One thing that's being ignored is that the Muslims turned to violence to sort out the disagreement. Surely this isn't the most civilized way to go about it. I'm not surprised of people here ignoring the Muslim triggered violence when they don't get their own way.

We don't usually attribute mob violence to the religion of the groups involved. Unless, of course, we're prejudiced and trying to make a case.

Of course individuals who engage in mob violence are to be repudiated but why pick on one group ?

[Michael Hardner]

The fact that there was a melee over the scarf issue is pretty good proof as to the U.S. As to Canada, as Chretien said, "a proof is a proof".

It most definitely does not prove that "many, though not all, Muslims are not prepared to accept secular laws of the U.S. or Canada".

[GostHacked]

We don't usually attribute mob violence to the religion of the groups involved. Unless, of course, we're prejudiced and trying to make a case.

Of course individuals who engage in mob violence are to be repudiated but why pick on one group ?

Because Mr. Canada hates Muslims. Especially if they live in the occupied territories.

[Black Dog]

It most definitely does not prove that "many, though not all, Muslims are not prepared to accept secular laws of the U.S. or Canada".

Exactly. The statement it proves is: "Some Muslims in New Jersey are not prepared to accept the rules of certain amusement parks."

[Mr.Canada]

We don't usually attribute mob violence to the religion of the groups involved. Unless, of course, we're prejudiced and trying to make a case.

Of course individuals who engage in mob violence are to be repudiated but why pick on one group ?

You're right we usually don't attribute mob violence to one group except when that group is a homogeneous in nature. As it is here.

Because Mr. Canada hates Muslims. Especially if they live in the occupied territories.

I don't hate any group of people. Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't do that to you.

I am critical of the Islam world, yes. Islam tries to paint itself as cute and cuddly while ignoring the facts that many Muslims are beheading people in the name of God. Almost every Islamic nation beheads its citizens in the name of God. Honor killings are common as is the oppression of women.

The citizens of those nations come here, to my country and think they can behave the same way they did back home. You're damned right I have a problem with that.

More of you should.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[Black Dog]

I am critical of the Islam world, yes. Islam tries to paint itself as cute and cuddly while ignoring the facts that many Muslims are beheading people in the name of God. Almost every Islamic nation beheads its citizens in the name of God. Honor killings are common as is the oppression of women.

The citizens of those nations come here, to my country and think they can behave the same way they did back home. You're damned right I have a problem with that.

More of you should.

That statement requires proof.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. The statement it proves is: "Some Muslims in New Jersey are not prepared to accept the rules of certain amusement parks."

Taking into account the age of these people, their race, their income ... let's try to show religion as a cause if that's what they're really saying. It's easier, though, to imply these things.

[GostHacked]

I don't hate any group of people. Please don't put words into my mouth.

We can actually use your own words that show your hate towards Muslims, for example, you want to eradicate the Muslim Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. You've said that yourself. So don't blame me for the hate that comes out of your own mouth.

I am critical of the Islam world, yes.

Nothing you are putting forth here is being 'critical' of the Muslim world. It's a soapbox platform for you.

Islam tries to paint itself as cute and cuddly while ignoring the facts that many Muslims are beheading people in the name of God. Almost every Islamic nation beheads its citizens in the name of God. Honor killings are common as is the oppression of women.

Hope you can back that up!

The citizens of those nations come here, to my country and think they can behave the same way they did back home. You're damned right I have a problem with that.

I also have a problem with someone like you calling yourself Mr. Canada when you clearly have no idea what Canada is about. I'd really appreciate it if you leave Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

You're right we usually don't attribute mob violence to one group except when that group is a homogeneous in nature. As it is here.

You don't know that this is the case here. You're ignoring lots of factors in this case, and in cases of - say - riots of youths or other non-Muslims here in other cases.

You focus in on the attributes that you wish to demonize.

I don't hate any group of people. Please don't put words into my mouth. I don't do that to you.

You didn't say that but after reading your many posts on here, that is the conclusion I have come to. I have pointed out the logical errors in your approach yet you persist.

The rest of your post is proof of this.

The point is: groups of people act in similar ways when you provide a certain environment. It's just bigoted to point out the attributes that you want to demonize, to say that one group is worse than yours.

Do you know what bigots from other countries say about our culture ? That we're fat, crass, decadent, that we have an uncivil violent society that is materialistic and doesn't provide necessities to the poorest of society.

Neither your comments, nor these comments are untrue at the face of it but what is the point of calling these things out if one isn't a member of that group? The only point is to demonize them as far as I can see.

[Mr.Canada]

You focus in on the attributes that you wish to demonize.

I'm focusing on the facts.

An amusement park choses to enforce safety guidelines to everyone who wishes to go on the rides. A group of Muslims interprets, in their arrogance, that the rules are just for them. They then play the race/religion/victim card and start a physical confrontation in which police need to intervene.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[jbg]

I find this statement ironic, coming from a Jew.

Last I checked I obey U.S. and New York laws. When I am in New Jersey I obey U.S. and New Jersey laws. When I am visiting Canada I obey applicable Canadian laws. One of the prime tenets of Judaism is to comply with local law. Requesting and obtaining a one or two day suspension of requirements to move a car for street cleaning (courtesies the Muslims in New York get for their holidays as well) is far different that allowing anyone's religious traditions to endanger public safety.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) gave a chilly reception to the argument that just because peyote was part of religious rituals its use was protected. Similarly, scarf restrictions are an exercise of a generally applicable police power.

[Sir Bandelot]

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) gave a chilly reception to the argument that just because peyote was part of religious rituals its use was protected. Similarly, scarf restrictions are an exercise of a generally applicable police power.

You are deflecting now. Here's what you said:

Remember, they came here. When in Rome....

And I find this statement ironic. This is what people in Europe have said for centuries. And for a Jew to say "When in Rome" is also ironic, as when the Jews came to Rome they saw it as a decadent society, utterly at odds with their own religious beliefs. They chose isolation.

[cybercoma]

How many exactly?

Oh spare me, you who probably doesn't give two shits about women's rights except when you can use them to score points against Muslims. Are you also up in arms about the Catholic Church not allowing women to serve as priests or their stances on abortion or birth control? What about Orthodox Jews who segregate women in their places of worship?

What about pentecostal Christians that force their women not to cut their hair, wear long skirts and sometimes a headscarf as well?

What about the woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to wear the headscarf? Has he ever considered that? I could go on and on, but it's obvious Mr. Canada just has an axe to grind with Muslims. Why? Because he's a bigot and believes that the very fact that they're Muslim must mean they're terrorists or uncivilized, ignoring the fact that there are many Muslim people in Canada that are not immigrants and you wouldn't know they were Muslim unless you asked.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm focusing on the facts.

You flit between the safety issue and the "they should act like we tell them to" line.

You also focus on some facts, but the conclusions you draw - implicitly and explicitly - are illogical and incorrect. And you continue to do this, which is why I have my suspicions about your motives.

[cybercoma]

You're right we usually don't attribute mob violence to one group except when that group is a homogeneous in nature. As it is here.

Muslims are not a homogeneous group. By saying that you've shown that you're not only a bigot, but completely ignorant about the very thing you're bigoted against. I guess what they say is true. Ignorance breeds intolerance and bigotry.

[CANADIEN]

The truth is somewhere between your post and that of the post to which you were responding.

The problem that Mr. Canada points out, perhaps in somewhat extreme terms, is that many, though not all, Muslims are not prepared to accept secular laws of the U.S. or Canada. Whether it's amusement park rides, voting or other public activities, Muslim tradition must sensibly bow to secular norms. Similarly, I do not support making allowances for workers to stop work five (5) times a day for prayer. Maybe we can bend a bit on holidays, but a month off for Ramadan is a bit much.

Remember, they came here. When in Rome....

In this Rome, a 12 year-old can legally walk on the street with so little clothing she might as well be naked. If she can do that, she can wear a scarf.

[g_bambino]

In this Rome, a 12 year-old can legally walk on the street with so little clothing she might as well be naked. If she can do that, she can wear a scarf.

I don't think that's his point, though. It's more that if there's a rule that says, for reasons of safety, and completely regardless of what kind of scarf or the reasons for the wearing of said scarf, "no scarves", then people shouldn't expect to be exempted from the rule because they think their scarves are the most important scarves around.

It's the whole turban vs. motorcycle helmet issue again, just with different participants.

[c/e]

Edited September 1, 2011 by g_bambino

[CANADIEN]

Head coverings weren't a problem until people who covered their entire faces started coming to Canada. This should not be allowed in Canada.

They were told to wear western clothes so as to blend in. It worked. We have to be smarter then them now. We need to start racial profiling to protect the majority of our own citizens. I think it's about time that the majority gets a say in the running of our country instead of noisiest minority groups.

A company is contracted to run the midway at a fair. That company has to pay insurance so for the day the fair ground is their own property.

Interesting that you don't have a problem with Sikh or Jewish headgear.

Also interesting that you call for majority rule when you have called for a dictatorship should the results not be to your liking.

[Mr.Canada]

Muslims are not a homogeneous group.

The people who were rioting at the amusement park were and that's what I'm talking about in my post.

These Muslims at the park interpret the rules to be solely against them when in fact the rules are in place for everyone's safety.

Of course they play the victim card and shout bigotry to all who will listen. This is just a tool to shut down debate, nothing more.

Try to discuss this with me without calling me a bigot or a racist or any other name you can come up with.

Interesting that you don't have a problem with Sikh or Jewish headgear.

Sikh or Jewish head covering isn't dangerous to the public at large.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

The people who were rioting at the amusement park were and that's what I'm talking about in my post.

These Muslims at the park interpret the rules to be solely against them when in fact the rules are in place for everyone's safety.

Of course they play the victim card and shout bigotry to all who will listen. This is just a tool to shut down debate, nothing more.

Try to discuss this with me without calling me a bigot or a racist or any other name you can come up with.

I'm calling you exactly what your points show you to be. I never called you a racist because Muslim is not a race. However, you're now being explicit about THESE Muslims at THIS amusement park, when earlier you were talking garbage about all Muslims that come to the "West" and don't follow "our values".

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm not against the park rule, and I doubt that most others here are. These people behaved in an uncivil manner, and police did the right thing.

That is quite different from using this as a means to lambast Muslim culture and say there is no room for it in our society. Provided everyone behaves in a civil, law abiding manner, let them wear their religious garb wherever it is appropriate to do so (not on an amusement ride that bans it, not on a motorcycle...), let them pray towards Mecca as often as they wish.

[CANADIEN]

Many people come to the west to destroy it and our way of life. Which is why they force their women to wear the head and face coverings. Its the Muslim men who force their women to wear these oppressive styles of dress under threat of death. I'm shocked and appalled that you aren't more supportive and against the oppression of women in our society. Honor killings are a real threat here in Canada. They are carried out more and more nowadays...it's really sad that girls are killed because they want to be a normal teenager.

There have been many injuries due to long hanging hair. In fact I grew up with a girl who had her scalp ripped off by a go cart after her long hair became entangled in the wheels. There is no reason to believe that a long hijab couldn't create a hazard for the wearer. Many women wear the hijab long down the back. It may not have been a problem had they been wearing it short and tucked in.

Here we go again. Where are the actual NUMBERS for honour killings?