This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

Geert's not far right. He just detests Islam like any normal person would.

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

 All of this for about 100 full time Burka wearers.

Only 100 people, but millions influenced politically, as though something important was done.  Some kind of victory, instead of what it is: the death of western pluralism in tiny cuts.

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Only 100 people, but millions influenced politically, as though something important was done.  Some kind of victory, instead of what it is: the death of western pluralism in tiny cuts.

 

Western Pluralism isn't a suicide pack with its historical...and implacable...foe, Islam.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Only 100 people, but millions influenced politically, as though something important was done.  Some kind of victory, instead of what it is: the death of western pluralism in tiny cuts.

Death of personal freedoms.  Have tried to find out how "successful" these bans are in terms of reducing extremist actions or persuading people not to wear them, but can't find information.either way.  France implemented their ban in 2010, extremists use these bans as recruitment tools and France seems one of the hardest hit Western countries for terror activity, but 'correlation is not causation'.  Have seen one article.saying that women who'd wear a burka are simply staying home in France, but there was no backup so who knows?   

It'll probably be 50 years after Islam-hate has subsided before all the events are tied together, when historians look back and trace the way in which Western democratic society chose oppression over tolerance.  Kinda like Germany and Jews, Canada and Japanese in second world war, but on a more global scale. 

Of course at some point we'll be appalled and vow to never do it again, enlightened governments will apologize to descendants of our victims .. and then after a while another group will be targeted as bogeyman.

[DogOnPorch]

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

  

It'll probably be 50 years after Islam-hate has subsided before all the events are tied together, when historians look back and trace the way in which Western democratic society chose oppression over tolerance.  Kinda like Germany and Jews, Canada and Japanese in second world war, but on a more global scale. 

 

The death cult you champion has zero interest in tolerance.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Geert's not far right. He just detests Islam like any normal person would.

Most normal people will disagree with you. But wait, let's see which of the 5 canned responses you will throw out next.

[scribblet]

As I said, many more than a 100, a few hundred, in Holland, and a heck of a lot more in the U.K - heck in Denmark, bus seats were even mistaken for burkas.  That`s isn`t the point tho,  it`s about not allowing people to cover their faces in public, they can wear anything, except cover their faces or obscure their identity.   It`s also about being the symbol of oppression for women, something that women in the west have been fighting against, but again, it`s not banning the burka, it`s banning face coverings. 

Britain should do it but are chicken for the same reasons they wouldn`t give Asia Bibi asylum. 

On another note, Saudi Arabia is loosening restrictions on women travelling.  Women  will no longer need the permission of a male guardian to travel, one more step forward for women in S.A.

What is it with migrants and machetes, according to the Daily Mail, machete attacks are taking place every 90 minutes on U.K. streets,

In Germany,  a Syrian migrant hacked someone to death... 

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/brutaler-angriff-in-stuttgart-mann-auf-der-strasse-mit-schwert-erstochen-63680002.bild.html

Edited August 2, 2019 by scribblet

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The death cult you champion has zero interest in tolerance.

You sound just like Neo Nazi leader, Andrew Anglin.  No wonder you don't think Geert Wilder is alt-right.

[DogOnPorch]

28 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Most normal people will disagree with you. But wait, let's see which of the 5 canned responses you will throw out next.

 

I really don't care if you convert and marry a six year old. It's your move.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You sound just like Neo Nazi leader, Andrew Anglin.  No wonder you don't think Geert Wilder is alt-right.

 

When losing an argument, call your opponent names.

A sure road to victory.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Death of personal freedoms. s bogeyman.

Progressives will fight to the death for the 'personal freedom' to wear a burka but have no interest in such outmoded ideas as freedom of speech. That must be suppressed because people who disagree with progressives use it to say so!

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Progressives will fight to the death for the 'personal freedom' to wear a burka but have no interest in such outmoded ideas as freedom of speech. That must be suppressed because people who disagree with progressives use it to say so!

Ok.  If we're going to insult each other ... conservatives are regressive racists who believe everyone must conform to their notion of right and wrong, or be severely punished.   The rights of the individual must be subsumed to the dictates of the State, society must favor the Christian White above all others, and force is justified to ensure the protection and favoritism if the White Christian class. 

 

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

When losing an argument, call your opponent names.

Or when someone throws insults at another member of this board.  You get what you give DoP.

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

I really don't care if you convert and marry a six year old. It's your move.

 

[DogOnPorch]

39 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Or when someone throws insults at another member of this board.  You get what you give DoP.

 

 

You're the Islam fan-boy...not moi. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Do any of yous want help avoiding insults and personal attacks?  

[jacee]

5 hours ago, scribblet said:

As I said, many more than a 100, a few hundred, in Holland, and a heck of a lot more in the U.K - heck in Denmark, bus seats were even mistaken for burkas.  That`s isn`t the point tho,  it`s about not allowing people to cover their faces in public, they can wear anything, except cover their faces or obscure their identity.   It`s also about being the symbol of oppression for women, something that women in the west have been fighting against, but again, it`s not banning the burka, it`s banning face coverings. 

Britain should do it but are chicken for the same reasons they wouldn`t give Asia Bibi asylum. 

On another note, Saudi Arabia is loosening restrictions on women travelling.  Women  will no longer need the permission of a male guardian to travel, one more step forward for women in S.A.

What is it with migrants and machetes, according to the Daily Mail, machete attacks are taking place every 90 minutes on U.K. streets,

In Germany,  a Syrian migrant hacked someone to death... 

https://www.bild.de/news/2019/news/brutaler-angriff-in-stuttgart-mann-auf-der-strasse-mit-schwert-erstochen-63680002.bild.html

While it may be so, I see nothing in that article saying the attacker was Syrian.

Nor does it say it was ideologically motivated. In fact, it seemed personal, with the attacker first yelling "Why did you do this?! Why did you do this?!!"

[jacee]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Ok.  If we're going to insult each other ... conservatives are regressive racists who believe everyone must conform to their notion of right and wrong, or be severely punished.   The rights of the individual must be subsumed to the dictates of the State, society must favor the Christian White above all others, and force is justified to ensure the protection and favoritism if the White Christian class. 

Argus is a far-right ultra-conservative, not really representative of all conservatives. I think you've characterized the far-right well: They're fascists. Lol 

[Charles Anthony]

8 minutes ago, jacee said:

Argus is a far-right ultra-conservative, not really representative of all conservatives. I think you've characterized the far-right well: They're fascists. Lol 

OK.  

 

Anybody else want help?  

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

Ok.  If we're going to insult each other ... conservatives are regressive racists who believe everyone must conform to their notion of right and wrong, or be severely punished.   The rights of the individual must be subsumed to the dictates of the State, society must favor the Christian White above all others, and force is justified to ensure the protection and favoritism if the White Christian class.

How did I insult you? You brought up restrictions on the burka as the end of personal freedoms. Is it not apropriate to point out that progressives are generally quite willing to sacrifice personal freedoms, especially freedom of speech, on the alter of political correctness?

Progressives Are Making A Big Mistake Abandoning Freedom Of Speech

That is a headline from the Huffington Post.

There are people on this topic who have frequently demanded those who write offensive words about protected identity groups be banned from the internet and prevented from speaking.

Oh, and by the way, it is the right which cares about individual freedoms and liberties, and the Left which collectivises, and demands the individual be subsumed by the group's needs.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Argus

[dialamah]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

How did I insult you? You brought up restrictions on the burka as the end of personal freedoms. Is it not apropriate to point out that progressives are generally quite willing to sacrifice personal freedoms, especially freedom of speech, on the alter of political correctness?

Progressives Are Making A Big Mistake Abandoning Freedom Of Speech

That is a headline from the Huffington Post.

That was a blog post about another blog post.  I would tell the first blogger that free speech is worth fighting for.  Along with freedom of religious expression, even if that freedom means wearing ridiculous outfits.

7 hours ago, Argus said:

by the way, it is the right which cares about individual freedoms and liberties,

You mean those people who are all gung ho about enforcing dress codes on religious people and binary gender norms on everyone?     

[Argus]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

That was a blog post about another blog post.  I would tell the first blogger that free speech is worth fighting for.  Along with freedom of religious expression, even if that freedom means wearing ridiculous outfits.

It was simply the first one of many that I read. Another pointed out that progressives at the ACLU had changed their mandate and would no longer represent free speech when it 'disagrees with our values'. Others dealt with the university speech code mess. And as I said, we have people here demanding we crack down on words that offend certain protected identities.

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

You mean those people who are all gung ho about enforcing dress codes on religious people and binary gender norms on everyone?     

Free speech is an individual right. Wearing a full-body covering while working for the government is not.

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

Free speech is an individual right.

Free speech only refers to a person's ability to speak out against government without being censored or punished by that government.  There is no right to say whatever the heck you want wherever you want, without consequences.  

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wearing a full-body covering while working for the government is not.

Yes, organizations can dictate, to an extent, how employees dress.  But there are limits to that, and in our country at least, it used to be that religious freedom trumped an organization's right to dictate dress.  And these laws, intended to put, at most, a few thousand Muslim women in their place, also affects Jews and Sikhs and probably others as well, assuming they are enforced equitably.

In France, it's not just government offices, it's in public.  In Holland, it's not just Government workers, but people going into government facilities - such as police stations, or wanting to ride public transit.  It's not like you and others here in Canada wouldn't like to see similar bans so that burkas were never seen in Canada.  You somehow think that's going to "help" these women, or "save" Canadian culture, which isn't even at risk from Burka wearing women, or even turbaned Sikhs. 

What is putting Canadian culture at risk is seeking to limit the freedoms of individuals practicing their faith in a way conservatives don't like.

[scribblet]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

.......What is putting Canadian culture at risk is seeking to limit the freedoms of individuals practicing their faith in a way conservatives don't like.

Gee, and here I thought it was the Liberals censoring any speech they didn't like as in calling anyone who disagrees with them....   put your slur here - and you know, censoring social media, buying off the media  (Red Star is getting $1,500 a week )   yeah...  I think you have it backwards.

Free speech is a lot more than speaking out against the gov't .  In Canada Freedom of expression is protected as a "fundamental freedom" -    It does allow gov't to enforce "reasonable limits"  such as inciting violence. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Free speech only refers to a person's ability to speak out against government without being censored or punished by that government.  There is no right to say whatever the heck you want wherever you want, without consequences.  

Yes, organizations can dictate, to an extent, how employees dress.  But there are limits to that, and in our country at least, it used to be that religious freedom trumped an organization's right to dictate dress.  And these laws, intended to put, at most, a few thousand Muslim women in their place, also affects Jews and Sikhs and probably others as well, assuming they are enforced equitably.

In France, it's not just government offices, it's in public.  In Holland, it's not just Government workers, but people going into government facilities - such as police stations, or wanting to ride public transit.  It's not like you and others here in Canada wouldn't like to see similar bans so that burkas were never seen in Canada.  You somehow think that's going to "help" these women, or "save" Canadian culture, which isn't even at risk from Burka wearing women, or even turbaned Sikhs. 

What is putting Canadian culture at risk is seeking to limit the freedoms of individuals practicing their faith in a way conservatives don't like.

Free speech refers to a person's ability to say whatever the heck they want, wherever they want,  whenever they want, without being censored or punished by that government.  Within the law.  No incitement, harassment, etc.  No-one has the right to stop them, and no-one has an obligation to enable them.  No-one has to listen to them.

 

Edit>  I should make clear that's what I think "free speech" refers to.  I do understand that various governments and organizations disagree with me. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by bcsapper

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,  

You have all the free speech you want as long as you all stay on topic.