Rasism, anti-Semitism It can happen here

[Guest Peeves]

Do you think this isn't an issue in other Islamic 'teaching' facilities in our democratic countries.

In mosques?

In Islamic schools,madrassah?

Toronto Islamic school removes parts of curriculum from website casting Jews as ‘treacherous,’ akin to Nazis

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/07/toronto-islamic-school-removes-parts-of-curriculum-casting-jews-as-treacherous-akin-to-nazis/

(emphasis mine)

A Toronto Islamic school said Monday it had removed part of its curriculum from its website following a complaint about the material, which depicts Jews as “treacherous” and comparable to Nazis.

“We are looking into it,” said Masuma Jessa, principal of the East End Madrassah, which operates out of David and Mary Thompson Collegiate Institute, a Toronto District School Board facility.

In a press release, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs complained the madrassa’s curriculum was rife with antisemitic slurs. The document refers to “Jewish plots and treacheries” and calls Jews “crafty.”

“Using religion to promote hatred among youth is not just offensive and abhorrent – it shows a stunning disregard for Canada’s basic values of decency and tolerance,” David Spiro, Greater Toronto Co-Chair of centre said.

“Canadians of all backgrounds would be outraged to learn that horrific conspiracy theories are included in this curriculum, including the blood libel that Jews plotted to kill Muhammad.

“Such slurs against the Jewish community violate the values that Canadians hold dear – such as goodwill and mutual respect. Instead of promoting such values, this curriculum only serves to promote animosity, racism, and hatred.”

The Level 8 curriculum was no longer on the website, eemadrassah.ca, on Monday morning. Ms. Jessa said it had been removed once the school found out about the concerns. “We took the book off the website and yesterday we had a meeting and we looked at it and we are correcting it.”

The Level 1 through 7 curriculum documents remained on the website. In a section called “Sports and Jihad,” it says Muslim boys were encouraged to engaged in physical training, but girls were instead to get involved in “hobbies” to prepare them to become wives and mothers.

“Islam has allowed boys to engage in sports for one specific reason and that is to always keep them healthy and strong,” it reads. “But why should a Muslim be healthy and strong? Firstly, it is necessary to take care of the body because it is a gift from Allah. Secondly, so that you may physically be ready for Jihad whenever the time comes for it.”

The complaint is the latest about the use of Toronto public schools. Last year there were protests outside Valley Park Middle School, which had been holding Muslim prayer services during school hours.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Peeves

[Fletch 27]

Yet another reason to elimonate religeon based schools... Islamic, Catholic, Jewish, etc.etc... They only instil hatred... NO more funding for these festering pools of hatred.. Shut em down, This is Canada right?

Do you think this isn't an issue in other Islamic 'teaching' facilities in our democratic countries.

In mosques?

In Islamic schools,madrassah?

Toronto Islamic school removes parts of curriculum from website casting Jews as ‘treacherous,’ akin to Nazis

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/07/toronto-islamic-school-removes-parts-of-curriculum-casting-jews-as-treacherous-akin-to-nazis/

(emphasis mine)

[Guest Peeves]

Yet another reason to elimonate religeon based schools... Islamic, Catholic, Jewish, etc.etc... They only instil hatred... NO more funding for these festering pools of hatred.. Shut em down, This is Canada right?

And it came to pass.. that those * that had attacked Steyn using religious censorship tactic now face similar scrutiny.

It stands to reason, if 'Human Right' commissions are used to silence or censor critics by Muslims, the tide will turn and Muslims will be scrutinized for their own 'mea culpas'.

The web site etc. was quickly removed. Still, that it was initially considered acceptable is rather important.

I don't think any other contemporary religion is teaching similar crap in religious schools, least wise I've never heard of any except maybe those little family groups that burned a Koran..???? I doubt they have a school though.

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_magazine

[Michael Hardner]

It stands to reason, if 'Human Right' commissions are used to silence or censor critics by Muslims, the tide will turn and Muslims will be scrutinized for their own 'mea culpas'.

You have a strange way of looking at it. I wouldn't characterize these organs as being agents of attack, as you seem to. They're intended as quasi judicial bodies that help govern the peace, even if you acknowledge their flaws. I think you have to give the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt here, if only for the purpose of discussing these matters on MLW.

[Guest Peeves]

You have a strange way of looking at it. I wouldn't characterize these organs as being agents of attack, as you seem to. They're intended as quasi judicial bodies that help govern the peace, even if you acknowledge their flaws. I think you have to give the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt here, if only for the purpose of discussing these matters on MLW.

B.O.D. ? What doubt? Please elaborate. ? We are discussing these matters since I made such a topic.

Human rights tribunals..commissions, have been used for attack.

A minister was attacked..convicted for using excerpts from his bible.I suggest; what naturally follows is similar attacks on the Koran.

You reap what you sow. Are you familiar with the Mark Steyn case?

[Michael Hardner]

Human rights tribunals..commissions, have been used for attack.

Your assessment only, and a strange one at that. If somebody trespasses on my property and I press charges am I 'attacking' them ?

A minister was attacked..convicted for using excerpts from his bible.I suggest; what naturally follows is similar attacks on the Koran.

You have a regressed understanding of our justice system, as it is designed.

You reap what you sow. Are you familiar with the Mark Steyn case?

Of course. If he slanders, smears and attacks people I suppose we should just let it be, hm ?

[Guest Peeves]

Your assessment only, and a strange one at that. If somebody trespasses on my property and I press charges am I 'attacking' them ?

Just where was anyone's property trespassed.. a non sequitur

You have a regressed understanding of our justice system, as it is designed.

No I don't It is designed for addressing violation of law. Human Rights Commissions do not require a law to be broken, and 'facts' are not a defense. Human rights Commissions debase the law.

Of course. If he slanders, smears and attacks people I suppose we should just let it be, hm ?

What a leap! When did he slander smear or attack with his writing? Had he, he could have been sued or charged.

[Michael Hardner]

Just where was anyone's property trespassed.. a non sequitur

An analogy.

What a leap! When did he slander smear or attack with his writing? Had he, he could have been sued or charged.

He painted a religion as a worldwide plot. Are you denying that ?

[Guest Peeves]

An analogy.

He painted a religion as a worldwide plot. Are you denying that ?

Yes! Emphatically. He deals with the Muslim birth rate, The Islamification of Europe.

So, I disagree. He as most, myself included, criticizes Islamists dedicated to violence.

There is a distinction between Islamists and Muslims simply wanting to live and let live, but in Europe numbers are of concern if the West is to remain free and have Western values. Certainly where Muslims settle there are factions wanting Sharia law and others carrying with them baggage/customs contrary to our values. (FGM, "Honor killings". Certainly not a majority, but still a concern, as he is pointing out. Do you deny that?

Now as to a plot. While Islam itself is not a plot against 'others', there is a large number of fundamental Muslims who openly declare their purpose is to control, convert, or conquer those non Muslims.

Do you deny that?

But his writing

He stated that in sheer numbers and by immigration Islam is a threat to thee West.

The argument of his book shines through, nevertheless, and can be simply put. It is that, because of unprecedented low birth rates of the native populations, and because of the presence of ever larger numbers of Muslim immigrants with very high birth rates, Western Europe is being rapidly Islamized, and many countries will have Muslim majorities in the not very distant future. The low birth rates of its native populations are caused, ultimately, by the welfare state. And the laughably weak pieties of multiculturalism render the native population incapable of resisting Islamization, without being able to engender any loyalty on the part of Muslim immigrants.

Fault his reasoning if you can, but stick to truth. His book,America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, by Mark Steyn

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1339/article_detail.asp

[DogOnPorch]

This is quite the giggle as the Muslims (as a general term) when involved in WW2, went with the Nazis. Iraqi, Iranian and of course, the beloved Arab Palestinian leaderships all either tried or did hitch their l'il red wagons to the 3rd Reich with various results. The Jews of Palestine served with honours in the Italian Campaign after forming their own brigade.

[Michael Hardner]

Now as to a plot. While Islam itself is not a plot against 'others', there is a large number of fundamental Muslims who openly declare their purpose is to control, convert, or conquer those non Muslims.

Do you deny that?

"A large number" ? No, I don't deny that. Fifty is a large number. A billion is a large number. Fifty out of a billion would still be a large number, but not a significant number.

But his writing

He stated that in sheer numbers and by immigration Islam is a threat to thee West.

Calling somebody a "thread" is pejorative, and I don't see how else that can be seen.

You can call things what you like, but don't expect people to accept your characterization of a complaint as an "attack", especially if you don't characterize his article as an "attack".

[Guest Peeves]

"A large number" ? No, I don't deny that. Fifty is a large number. A billion is a large number. Fifty out of a billion would still be a large number, but not a significant number.

Calling somebody a "thread" is pejorative, and I don't see how else that can be seen.

You can call things what you like, but don't expect people to accept your characterization of a complaint as an "attack", especially if you don't characterize his article as an "attack".

A pejorative??? Nonsense. Used as you narrowly and erroneously define threat as a pejorative is a misnomer. A high birth rate is a threat. A storm, a swarm of locusts a killer bee hive are all or can be threats. If I were to say our higher Canadian $ was a threat to our trade balance just what and who am I disparaging? The friggin buck? I can call the million (or millions more) Muslims that polled as supporters of Osama a threat without that being more than a fact!

A threat is quite simply that, an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.

3.

a person or thing that threatens.

If indeed the immigration of Muslims into Europe and the subsequent higher birth rate will cause a potential imbalance in civil law or human rights or anti-Semitism, or civil unrest or customs that are abhorrent to contemporary mores or society, then that is indeed a threat.

[guyser]

Are you familiar with the Mark Steyn case?

Which case would that be?

(best not say HRC , Steyn has never been charged by any HRC , but he wishes he was , so does his idiot bro in arms Levant)

[Michael Hardner]

A pejorative??? Nonsense.

Nonsense, eh ? I say calling a religion a threat is an insult. You may not agree but it's not nonsense.

If indeed the immigration of Muslims into Europe and the subsequent higher birth rate will cause a potential imbalance in civil law or human rights or anti-Semitism, or civil unrest or customs that are abhorrent to contemporary mores or society, then that is indeed a threat.

And you're saying that this isn't insulting? You're saying that *people* will cause an *imbalance*, a reduction in human rights and an increase in anti-Semitism.

And you call people who object to this attackers ? Please.

[Guest Peeves]

Which case would that be?

(best not say HRC , Steyn has never been charged by any HRC , but he wishes he was , so does his idiot bro in arms Levant)

This case. For your edification and opportunity to opine.

Canadian Islamic Congress human rights complaint

Main article: Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine

In 2007, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to an article "The Future Belongs to Islam",[32] written by Mark Steyn, published in Maclean's magazine. The complainants alleged that the article and the refusal of Maclean's to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The complainants also claimed that the article was one of twenty-two (22) Maclean's articles, many written by Steyn, about Muslims.[33] Further complaints were filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission refused in April 2008 to proceed, saying it lacked jurisdiction to deal with magazine content. However, the Commission stated that it, "strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims ... Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism."[34] Critics of the Commission claimed that Maclean's and Steyn had been found guilty without a hearing. John Martin of The Province wrote, "There was no hearing, no evidence presented and no opportunity to offer a defence — just a pronouncement of wrongdoing."[35] The OHRC defended its right to comment by stating, "Like racial profiling and other types of discrimination, ascribing the behaviour of individuals to a group damages everyone in that group. We have always spoken out on such issues. Maclean's and its writers are free to express their opinions. The OHRC is mandated to express what it sees as unfair and harmful comment or conduct that may lead to discrimination."[36]

Steyn subsequently criticized the Commission, commenting that "Even though they (the OHRC) don't have the guts to hear the case, they might as well find us guilty. Ingenious!"[37]

Soon afterwards, the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a public letter to the editor of Maclean's magazine. In it, Jennifer Lynch said, "Mr. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be give free reign [sic]. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."[38] The National Post subsequently defended Steyn and sharply criticized Lynch, stating that Lynch has "no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it" and that "No human right is more basic than freedom of expression, not even the "right" to live one's life free from offence by remarks about one's ethnicity, gender, culture or orientation."[39]

The federal Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the Canadian Islamic Congress' complaint against Maclean's in June 2008. The CHRC's ruling said of the article that, "the writing is polemical, colourful and emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike." However, the Commission ruled that overall, "the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature, as defined by the Supreme Court."[40]

[guyser]

This case. For your edification and opportunity to opine.

I asked....Which case would that be? (M Steyn)

And got....

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine

Thought so.

Edited May 9, 2012 by guyser

[Guest Peeves]

Nonsense, eh ? I say calling a religion a threat is an insult. You may not agree but it's not nonsense.

^{"towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed"}

^{That's documented Fact available to anyone that wants to look it up. To anyone reasonable that would be termed a threat. A historically recorded threat to Jews was obviously a FACT and certainly as such, as factual history, not an insult...It is correct to call it as it factually was,a threat of brutal torture in the name of a religion!}

^{Any that would poo poo and minimize this barbarian behavior conducted in the name of a religion and deny it a threat are truly misguided and need to open their eyes to the F.A.C.T.S !}

To claim it's insulting to call such a threat is quite silly and stuff and nonsense.

So if there are tortures, incarceration and forced conversion conducted by the religion, that should not be called a threat ?, it would be insulting? Shouldn't be called a threat? Even if it's a commonly known fact? Nonsense!

You state that " calling a religion a threat is an insult." Nonsense!

Sorry in my world, where fact trumps selective P.C. and gullible enablers it's quite simply religious terror and persecution and a threat to human rights and a threat to life, free speech, and freedom of religion.

And you're saying that this isn't insulting? You're saying that *people* will cause an *imbalance*, a reduction in human rights and an increase in anti-Semitism.

I suggest that factions of the Islamic religion have a purpose and agenda and the actions and words and deeds they are responsible for, that are violently done and are constantly spoken as conducted in the name of the religion. They are a threat to our way of life, our culture, our values..yes indeed.

I repeat, if It's The Truth then it is quite simply reality.

Islam quite generally prohibits or restricts those freedoms and human rights in many Islamic countries. Often that cultures carried to our countries. That's a threat.

That prohibition - restriction is a threat wherever it moves into other spheres of democracy and, those in denial had better face that reality.

Islam often formally, schools children and teaches hate for other religions as was exposed here just this week.

Islamists bomb trade centers, ships and other targets in the name of Islam.

Islam has through some Muslim states declared jihad on the West and Israel.

To deny these things are occurring is insulting to our collective intelligence.

And you call people who object to this attackers ? Please.

Explain your question in more detail please.

* I call those that proclaim the truth, patriots. If on the other hand they lie, suborn the truth, they are liars and should have their lies exposed. However, an opinion supported by fact is neither a lie nor should it be deemed an insult.

If it's a lie, expose it.

: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront;

It certainly might upset those accused, but, facts remain.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

That's documented Fact available to anyone that wants to look it up. To anyone reasonable that would be termed a threat.

As you said yourself, the facts are no defence. Insults are insults, whether they're facts in front of your face, or a 600-year-old crime that you will pin on one religion and not another.

Also, I don't expect that you track crimes done by Christians back to the Inquisition, or by Chinese folks back to the huns.

So if there are tortures, incarceration and forced conversion conducted by the religion, that should not be called a threat ?

No, see above.

Those who complain about smears such as this have a recourse in our laws. To call them attackers is a complete misrepresentation of the process.

I call those that proclaim the truth, patriots. If on the other hand they lie, suborn the truth, they are liars and should have their lies exposed. However, an opinion supported by fact is neither a lie nor should it be deemed an insult.

Almost any opinion can be supported by some fact or other. That doesn't mean the opinion is true, or even that it is reasonable. There are many racist arguments that scatter facts throughout, using faulty logic to produce a bad conclusion.

[Guest Peeves]

As you said yourself, the facts are no defence. Insults are insults, whether they're facts in front of your face, or a 600-year-old crime that you will pin on one religion and not another.

Also, I don't expect that you track crimes done by Christians back to the Inquisition, or by Chinese folks back to the huns. Really?

The following on Jews, WAS about the inquisition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

What religion were you thinking of?

"towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed"

That's documented Fact available to anyone that wants to look it up. To anyone reasonable that would be termed a threat. A historically recorded threat to Jews was obviously a FACT and certainly as such, as factual history, not an insult...It is correct to call it as it factually was,a threat of brutal torture in the name of a religion!

Any that would poo poo and minimize this barbarian behavior conducted in the name of a religion and deny it a threat are truly misguided and need to open their eyes to the F.A.C.T.S !

[/sup]

No, see above.

Those who complain about smears such as this have a recourse in our laws. To call them attackers is a complete misrepresentation of the process.

Almost any opinion can be supported by some fact or other. That doesn't mean the opinion is true, or even that it is reasonable. There are many racist arguments that scatter facts throughout, using faulty logic to produce a bad conclusion.

A truly inane position, a fact must be true to be factual, you are chasing your tail. If it's true and an insult too bad.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

A truly inane position, a fact must be true to be factual, you are chasing your tail. If it's true and an insult too bad.

A fact must be true to be factual, but true facts can lead to false conclusions. I could come up with a lot of examples of that. It's quite elementary.

[Guest Peeves]

A fact must be true to be factual, but true facts can lead to false conclusions. I could come up with a lot of examples of that. It's quite elementary.

Tail meet nose...

[Guest Peeves]

I asked....Which case would that be? (M Steyn)

And got....

Thought so.

Was there a point there somewhere? Are you implying or stating Steyn was not involved?

[Michael Hardner]

Tail meet nose...

So, you're saying you don't have a response to my point about facts leading to wrong conclusions ?

So you accept the idea that insults can have facts interspersed ?

So you accept that Steyn insulted groups of people (or perhaps 'attacked' them) ?

So you accept that the complaint was warranted on some level, and not an 'attack' as you asserted ?

Thanks.

[Guest Peeves]

So, you're saying you don't have a response to my point about facts leading to wrong conclusions ?

So you accept the idea that insults can have facts interspersed ?

If I said there has been a threat to minors from priests or Scout leaders, is that an insult? It's true. Should I need to add but most priests or Scout Leaders are not pedophiles? Isn't that a given?

If I say most terrorist attacks are conducted by those doing so in the name of Islam, is that an insult?

What if I elaborated by saying terrorist attacks are overwhelmingly conducted by those that profess to be Muslims, but most Muslims do not commit acts of terror. Isn't that also a given.

Why is it an insult to state what others cannot deny with lucid points or opposing facts?

The numbers of Muslims immigrating to Europe is a fact. That that will impact on Europe is a fact. That

in some manner and way it is a threat to European values is a threat in fact unless you can refute his reasoning.

Yes facts, even those taken or used out of context can be used deviously, but if such is the case one cannot simply dispose of them by saying 'that's an insult." Prove it or stop bleating around the bush.

So you accept that Steyn insulted groups of people (or perhaps 'attacked' them) ?

No I deny that inference absolutely. He stated a position based on his conclusion after research. If some were insulted by his conclusion, refute his conclusion. Yelling 'Offended" or " insulted" carries no weight in dispute. Those that simply yell insult or Islamophobia are insulting those of us that recognise what is going on all around us. Bigotry taught in a Canadian public school..18 Muslim Canadians charged in connection with a bomb plot. Canadian Muslims fighting our allies in a NATO war zone!

Am I insulting them? Attacking them or they us?

So you accept that the complaint was warranted on some level, and not an 'attack' as you asserted ?

It was never an attack. It was an opinion put forth by Steyn for any to dispute, though claiming that his position is an insult is hardly disputing anything. Who care if some feel insulted, I feel insulted by the temerity of some that accuse without making a point.

What Steyn says is free speech and needed saying. Saying what he did was open to refuting not by name calling or calls of insult..no way that meets the test of contradiction.

Thanks.

You're welcome, anytime.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, you're posting a quote from an old post, which I responded to by explaining to you that bad conclusions can come from new data. If you have no response, then I submit that you're stumped, i.e. that someone found fault with your argument and you are still sticking with that argument without any reason given.

There's nothing wrong with arguing that way, as long as you don't complain when others do it. Personally, I tend to change my opinion when someone presents me with facts that I can't refute.

EDIT: I hadn't seen Peeves' response when I wrote this - my apology & see below.