Dutch Consider Forced Use Of Dutch in Religious

[caesar]

I didn't single them out. This thread is discussing that specific issue. I support the logical arguments indicating a potential danger from religious indoctrination within Canada's own borders. It has also been discussed that this particular siuation appears to pass unnoticed and unmonitored. I am arguing that it should be monitored. If there was a similar situation developing in a different religion (indoctrination with potential to create violence and not being monitored) my response would be exactly the same. My logic is not confined to Islam but is based upon the arguments and information available in this thread and would be applicable to any similar situation.

You may not have singled them out; this thread has. The base is too broad and must not be used to spy on a whole religion. We do not need the "Big Brother" attitude here.

There ARE the same situations in all religions. So called Christians (Of which I am one) have many fanatical groups. You may monitor the fanatics but don't allow it to spread as an excuse to spy on a whole religion. We don't want to lose our democratic rights or freedoms here in Canada. To include a complete religion is discrimination pure and simple.

[Argus]

Basically I'm trying to drag peoples focus away from Bush to other problems that exist within their own borders. Lets not be be caught unawares because of tunnel vision.

A good portion of our problems are caused by Bush. Worry about your own country

Which of our problems are caused by Bush? The only one I can think of is that his idiotic economic policies have caused the US dollar to plummet, which affects exports to the US, or those who export to other nations but get paid in US $ - like me.

So how has Bush caused problems for you?

[Argus]

Our problems with Mr Bush are more far reaching than Iraq and American aggression.  We have serious trade issues where the Americans do not observe accepted fair international agreements.

I think that vicious, right wing organ the CBC recently said that only 4% of the trade between the US and Canada is the subject of any kind of dispute. IMHO that's not a bad ratio, especially given our $82 billion trade deficit with them.

It constantly abuses its use of the veto at the UN and is very reluctant to pay its dues.

Very recently, Alan Rock pointed out the absurdity of the two dozen one-sided anti-Israeli resolutions the Arabs and Muslims force through the UN every year. He pointed out they served no purpose other than to harden attitudes and be fodder for anti-Israeli propaganda.

Canada, it seems, usually doesn't bother to vote against such resolutions, nor do most other western countries. Why not? Because we know they're useless BS and that the US will veto any action anyway. So why bother? Why tick off the fanatical Arabs for no reason? The Muslim and Arab nations have little difficulty buying, uh, er, that is, rounding up third world votes for the same reason; such resolutions really mean little or nothing to most third world nations.

The US is not abusing its veto, it is using it properly against Muslim nations who abuse the UN.

The USA has many questionable allies such as Pakistan.

And Canada was an apologist for the worst human rights violations in Indonesia - because some of our companies had big mining contracts there.

To single out one religion for concern is prejudicial and not the Canadian way.  I do agree; that there are radical religious groups that need to be watch.  But they come in EVERY faith;  Christian, Jewish, as well as the Muslims.  Most Muslims are no different that the rest of us.

Except for their distressing habit of murdering people in boxcar loads. Virtually all the world's terrorism now comes from Muslims. You think that's a coincidence? Did anyone but me catch the CBC special on Al Quaeda last night? It went from England to France to the US to Germany to Spain and Italy, all detailing through interviews the rising support for fundamentalism and violent Jihad among Muslim populations, especially the Muslim populations in the West.

[Guest eureka]

Those vetos are in the Security Council. They are not motions of Muslim countries. Also, many of them have been voted for by most members of the Council: some, only the US voted against - the other 4 permanent members voted in favour.

Most world terrorism is not muslims only and is not all directed against the West. The greatest number of terrorist incidents before the spotlight on Arab nations was in India. Other countries also suffered; some more than the US and the West. Sikhs; Tamils; the IRA; to mention a few.

It seems that some think that terrorism is only an issue when it is next door.

[Tawasakm]

You may not have singled them out; this thread has. The base is too broad and must not be used to spy on a whole religion. We do not need the "Big Brother" attitude here.

I'm not really advocating 'spying' on the 'whole religion'. This, no doubt, would involve phone taps on all religious leaders and so on and so forth. I said 'monitoring'. I think observers should go along to religious services every now and then and be aware of what is being preached.

I don't necessarily agree that this particular religion should not be singled out fo scrutiny (bearing in mind that I'm not talking massive espionage here - just scrutiny). Any organisation in society should be open to scrutiny if there is reasonable reason for that scrutiny.

Now there has been evidence presented that, in at least some mosques, there is indoctrination amongst Islamic faithful promoting violence against the 'infidel'. I think this is potentially dangerous and we really need to know what is going on. If it turns out not to be a problem thats fine - but how do we know without first investigating?

There ARE the same situations in all religions. So called Christians (Of which I am one) have many fanatical groups. You may monitor the fanatics but don't allow it to spread as an excuse to spy on a whole religion.

A very good point. I DO only want the dangerous sectors monitored. But there must be some period at first with a broader area of inspection in order to be able to isolate the fanatics who should then come under more intensive scrutiny. Yes there should be the same procedure for any religion (or part thereof) which promotes such an agenda. If you know of fanatical christians using that same methodology and going unnoticed then report it because they should be monitored too.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't actually have a fax machine at home. Nevertheless lets assume I do.

The difference between my fax machine and Islamic religious services is that my fax machine has never been used as a tool for disinformation leading, possibly, to violence and segregation.

So YOU say. But how do WE know? You could be doing something subversive. Unless you have something to hide, I don't see why you would mind us establishing a special program to monitor your fax machine.

[Tawasakm]

But TTS you would be doing that without any evidence of such behaviour on my part either as an individual or as part of an organisation. Since there is no evidence of me as an individual behaving that way you have no reasonable grounds to investigate my conduct. Since I am not part of an organisation under any suspicion of behaving in the manner I have been describing there is no reasonable justification for investigating me for being part of an organisation.

A further point is that I've only been advocating monitoring of actual religious services. Where and when did I suggest anybody should be bugged at their private residence? I said:

I'm not really advocating 'spying' on the 'whole religion'. This, no doubt, would involve phone taps on all religious leaders and so on and so forth. I said 'monitoring'. I think observers should go along to religious services every now and then and be aware of what is being preached.

Note the bit where I say we shouldn't spy on the whole religion? Do you also note the bit where I say I'm not advocating phone taps? Now please note the part where I say we should monitor the religious services.

Your example is not in anyway analagous to what I am suggesting.

Judging by some reactions you'd almost think I'm on a witch hunt here. I'm saying that it needs to be determined whether or not there are sections of the Islamic religious community in Canada that are inciting violence through religious indoctrination. There seems to be a good chance this is actually happening (in some mosques at least). My idea is: hey lets find out about it! I haven't actually advocated anything beyond being aware of what is occuring AND only in the actual religious services! I don't understand why this is such an objectionable concept.

[Argus]

Those vetos are in the Security Council. They are not motions of Muslim countries. Also, many of them have been voted for by most members of the Council: some, only the US voted against - the other 4 permanent members voted in favour.

I'll bet that rarely happens. But look at who they are. The Russians and Chinese, who would invariably, through the years, delight in voting against the US in anything, and France, which is only slightly better. So you automatically get three votes against whatever the US supports. Then you have the members from the regional blocs; two members each from Africa, Asia, Middle East, and East and West Europe. That would invariably give the Muslims who raise these issues another 8 votes. Through the last thirty or forty years on the Security Council the only ones who might vote against stupid anti-Israeli resolutions would be the two Western Europe votes, and the British. And in many cases they didn't bother, knowing the US would veto such things anyway.

Most world terrorism is not muslims only and is not all directed against the West. The greatest number of terrorist incidents before the spotlight on Arab nations was in India. Other countries also suffered; some more than the US and the West. Sikhs; Tamils; the IRA; to mention a few.

Much of the terrorism in India is also Muslim. The Sikhs have eased their fight for a homeland. The IRA is not actively practicing terrorism, and even the Tigers are giving it a rest. And International terrorism is occupied solely by Muslims.

[Guest eureka]

And, if you look at the information that has been given in the past, the vetos were also against British ayes.

The year before the WTC incident, 60% of all terrorist incidents happened in India. They were no Muslim and that accusation is anti-Muslim prejudice. The Muslims in India have always been fairly quiet in that way. There have been some significant attacks by Hindus on Muslims, too.

[Argus]

And, if you look at the information that has been given in the past, the vetos were also against British ayes.

The year before the WTC incident, 60% of all terrorist incidents happened in India. They were no Muslim and that accusation is anti-Muslim prejudice. The Muslims in India have always been fairly quiet in that way. There have been some significant attacks by Hindus on Muslims, too.

India has had long years of independance scuffling with various minorities, including the Sikhs in the Punjab and Tamils in the south. For some years, though, the Muslims in Kashmir have been the biggest source of trouble (and to a smaller extent in Gujarat, though that one is mostly the Hindus fault). Of course it defines every attack by anti-government forces as terrorism (some of them actually ARE terrorism, of course).

[The_end_of_continuity]

Canadians have nothing to fear. We have made it very plain that we disagree with Bush and we did not send any troops to the Middle East. The radical Islamists will leave us alone.

You can't rely on a policy of non-involvement as a safeguard against future attacks. These terrorists attack their own people, so what makes you think you're safe.

I don't agree with the American policy, but at least they're trying to make the world a safer place. They're a little overzealous in doing so, but at least they're doing it.

They're not hiding behind a healthy dose of cowardice. That's what non-involvement is. Cowardice with a halo.

[Guest eureka]

Are they really? Try demonstrating any policy that is "making the world safer."

There has never been a more provocative time in human history.

So much safer are we that there is some reason to think that we may be on the verge of "the war of all against all."

Until it comes, we can relax and enjoy heightened terrorism

the world over.

[maplesyrup]

Is this how we made/make the world safer?

Ex-CIA officer alleges agency retaliated after he didn't falsify report

In the lawsuit, the officer asserts CIA managers retaliated for refusing their demands by beginning a counterintelligence investigation of allegations he had sex with a female contact and by initiating an inspector general's investigation into allegations that he stole money meant to be used to pay contacts.

The lawsuit marks the first public instance in which a CIA employee has charged directly that agency officials pressured him to produce intelligence to support the Bush administration's prewar position that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a grave and gathering threat, and to suppress information that ran counter to that view.

[kimmy]

What happens if "doing the right thing" requires taking a stand against a Muslim nation (as with Australia's intervention in East Timor, or, conceivably, humanitarian intervention in Sudan)? Do we still do nothing, in fear of incurring the wrath of extremists?

(and isn't it kind of a moot point, since Canada's participation in the overthrow of the Taliban has already put us on the list of enemies?)

-kimmy

[Tawasakm]

kimmy continues to raise the most important point. Making a unilateral decision to avoid confrontation with Islamic nations is potentially as bad as making a unilateral decision to invade an Islamic nation. It is the opposite of imposing our will on others - it is allowing others to impose their will on us. Killing, corruption and exploitation can be as ably supported by inaction as by action.

It is best, in my view, to act with compassion and with all effort to understand a situation from everyones point of view (although that does not necessarily entail catering to everyones point of view). It is better to act then not act.

[scribblet]

Maple Syrup, the Dutch caused this problem themselves.

I hope you are not saying that the terrorist violence is acceptable, because it isn't. Killing those people in Holland had nothing to do with Bush or the war. It was in retalliation to someone speaking out against Islam, and that is cause for killing to some adherents. f Europe doesn't take a

Multiculturalism is fine to a point but when it produces the tension and problems arising in Europe we need to look at that and learn. It is not just Holland but Denmark, Sweden, France and Britain who are struggling with how to handle a huge muslim population which some radicals, and are now waking up to the realities of what could be in store for them if they do not react now. We can co-exist peacefully, but we cannot allow demands for Sharia and Muslim law to take hold.

Sharia Law in Ontario is the start of a slippery slope, why would we allow a group of women to become second class citizens and why would we allow any Imam or minister to preach jihad or exhort his flock to commit violence? We shouldn't.

[Guest eureka]

I may have missed something here, but I am not sure how the suggestion that there should be no stand against Muslim countries came about. There should be the potential to act against any nation, whtever its religious persuasion.

That does not include unilateral action other than is no permitted under International law.

I have, on a few threads now, raised this question but it is one that no one seems to want to touch. How should we prepare for a change in International law to allow for Kosovo-like situations where intervention is necessary quickly.

It must be a multilateral solution. No nation has the right to decide to intervene in another and cannot be given the right.

Should there be some emergency action committee at the UN that can act without first reference to the Security Council?

[kimmy]

I may have missed something here, but I am not sure how the suggestion that there should be no stand against Muslim countries came about.

An earlier post said

Canadians have nothing to fear. We have made it very plain that we disagree with Bush and we did not send any troops to the Middle East. The radical Islamists will leave us alone.

If Canada's safety comes from non-involvement, isn't the converse that involvement would put us at risk?

There should be the potential to act against any nation, whtever its religious persuasion.

That does not include unilateral action other than is no permitted under International law.

Do you think OBL and his ilk make that distinction? That it's OK to trespass against Islam, as long as the UN says so? Recent history says no: Australia's actions in East Timor were as part of a UN resolution, and other nations participated, but Al Qaeda killed 85 Aussies in Bali as revenge.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

Making a unilateral decision to avoid confrontation with Islamic nations is potentially as bad as making a unilateral decision to invade an Islamic nation. It is the opposite of imposing our will on others - it is allowing others to impose their will on us.

That is very well said.

-kimmy

[August1991]

Maple Syrup, the Dutch caused this problem themselves.

I hope you are not saying that the terrorist violence is acceptable, because it isn't. Killing those people in Holland had nothing to do with Bush or the war. It was in retalliation to someone speaking out against Islam, and that is cause for killing to some adherents.

My original post was tongue in cheek. I'll never learn that irony and sarcasm don't work on Internet forums. (Those silly smiley faces are a bad substitute IMV.)

But scriblett, I do see a connection between events in Holland in November 2004, and in New York in September 2001.

I have, on a few threads now, raised this question but it is one that no one seems to want to touch. How should we prepare for a change in International law to allow for Kosovo-like situations where intervention is necessary quickly.

It must be a multilateral solution. No nation has the right to decide to intervene in another and cannot be given the right.

This question deserves a separate thread. In brief, perhaps we need some way to legitimize the external overthrow of tyrants.

Making a unilateral decision to avoid confrontation with Islamic nations is potentially as bad as making a unilateral decision to invade an Islamic nation. It is the opposite of imposing our will on others - it is allowing others to impose their will on us.

I agree too. Well said.

[Argus]

That does not include unilateral action other than is no permitted under International law.

I have, on a few threads now, raised this question but it is one that no one seems to want to touch. How should we prepare for a change in International law to allow for Kosovo-like situations where intervention is necessary quickly.

It must be a multilateral solution. No nation has the right to decide to intervene in another and cannot be given the right.

Should there be some emergency action committee at the UN that can act without first reference to the Security Council?

First, there is no way the world powers will ever give advance permission to act militarily under any circumstances without consulting them. Ever.

Frankly, world powers don't care if people are dying, even by the millions. They care about their own interests. Why is there no action being taken against Sudan, a fairly clear cut case? Because the Muslim block is behind them. The Muslim block doesn't care what happens to a bunch of darky infidels, if you'll excuse the language. The French are also opposed - as they have oil interests at stake. And many, many nations want the freedom to deal with restive minorities however they want, without the rest of the world interfering. That includes the Chinese, of course, and the Russians. There has to be intense world pressure with specific examples before they can be made to bend. That's why it takes a long time for intervention to happen in these cases.

[August1991]

Argus, I think the discussion is going outside the box.

First, there is no way the world powers will ever give advance permission to act militarily under any circumstances without consulting them. Ever.

I agree, but. What happened in WWI? By treaty, countries agreed in advance to act. NATO has the same requirement. Europe has tried to create a common response.

Frankly, world powers don't care if people are dying, even by the millions. They care about their own interests.

What was Somalia? There was a window after the fall of the Soviet Union where the US thought it could do something. It didn't work. Now, with the Islamofascist threat, the question is academic.

The desire of Americans to do good will come back again.

I frankly don't think the US would now stand aside and watch what happened in Cambodia in 1978-79. (Then, it was part of the Cold War and the US could not intervene.)

What about Rwanda? I think after Somalia, it was impossible for the US to intervene.

In fact, I blame the Europeans for Rwanda and for Yugoslavia. It is an absolute sin that so-called civilized Europeans (Swedes, Germans, Danes and so on) sat around and watched as people on their own continent butchered one another.

Why is there no action being taken against Sudan, a fairly clear cut case? Because the Muslim block is behind them.

Incidentally, the same problem applies in Ivory Coast, I think. The US is now understandably concerned about its relations with the Muslim world.

-----

My point was that respect for sovereign integrity or internal affairs need not exist. The US, along with others, must become the world's policeman.

If the guy next door is beating his wife (or I guess now, beating his husband), someone should stop the jerk. This nonsense of "internal family affair" must stop.