Islamophobia in Canada

[Hal 9000]

37 minutes ago, jacee said:

So are hate crimes against people because of their religion.

How can you be so passionate about prosecuting this quaran incident, yet be so in love with and excited that a terrorist was freed and given 10$mil.?

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

How can you be so passionate about prosecuting this quaran incident, yet be so in love with and excited that a terrorist was freed and given 10$mil.?

Because he wasn't a terrorist. What part don't you understand that the US illegally invaded Afghanistan, not to mention many other countries. The US has been terrorizing the Afghan people for over 40 years. 

The question really is, why do you support such deeply evil people, the ones who have murdered tens of millions all the while pretending they are something good.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

So are hate crimes against people because of their religion.

Sure, crimes.  Like threats.  But not like insults.

[dialamah]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:03 PM, bcsapper said:

No, you see, that's you speaking for me.  You claim to know my motives so you can continue to set your hair on fire instead of actually caring.

I have not asked any Muslim women if they want me speaking for them.  Nevertheless, I am nearly sixty years old, grew up in Bradford, England, and spent some time in the middle east.  I don't need to ask.

Perhaps Jacee is nearly 60, and has seen enough of 'your type' to be able to speak for you.  If age and familiarity is all it takes, that should qualify almost anyone on here to be able to 'speak for others'.   

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps Jacee is nearly 60, and has seen enough of 'your type' to be able to speak for you.  If age and familiarity is all it takes, that should qualify almost anyone on here to be able to 'speak for others'.   

Fair point, but if it's good for one, it's good for all.

That said though, what does "speaking for others" actually entail?  And what's wrong with it anyway?  Why should one remain quiet in the face of bad behaviour?  Jacee certainly didn't, above. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[Hydraboss]

12 hours ago, jacee said:

So are hate crimes against people because of their religion.

There was no "inciting hatred".  Not a hate crime.

 

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

Section 318: Hate Propaganda 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Nope.  Did not "advocate or promote genocide".  Just acted like an asshole.

 

Section 319: Public incitement of hatred  

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of  

Nope.  Did not "incite hatred".  Just wrote a dumbass note.

 

430.4.1: Mischief relating to religious property   

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

Nope.  Did not "incite hatred".  Just scribbled on a stack of paper that happened to be in book form - and they brought their own.

 

 

edit->sp

Edited August 1, 2017 by Hydraboss

[jacee]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Fair point, but if it's good for one, it's good for all.

That said though, what does "speaking for others" actually entail?  And what's wrong with it anyway?  Why should one remain quiet in the face of bad behaviour?  Jacee certainly didn't, above. 

You, for example, being a man, you don't get to speak for women ... any women.

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, jacee said:

You, for example, being a man, you don't get to speak for women ... any women.

To my mind, in the moral sphere there are 3 general circles of involvement:

1. Those directly accountable and impacted by the issue in question.

2. Groups who are impacted by the issue in question.

3. Those groups indirectly, not directly, or arguably not impacted.

With regards to women's issues men have a right and sometimes a duty to express their views in the third, or outer, circle.  As implied, their voices aren't as fundamental to the questions being posed.  To me, the noise comes when an issue comes up and it's brought to the fore by 3rd circle groups.  All of us have a duty to facilitate responsible dialogue.

[Goddess]

17 hours ago, jacee said:

No I wouldn't either. It's a piece of cloth.

Terrorizing people because of their religion is another matter.

 

Do you even read what you write?

A koran is just a book, too.  It might be "holy" to you, but to lots of us...it's just another book.

Terrorizing people because of their flag is not another matter, as you suggest.  But you seem to have no problem with terrorists or terrorizing, as long as it terrorizes the people you want it to, such as those who insult Islam.

[WestCoastRunner]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

To my mind, in the moral sphere there are 3 general circles of involvement:

1. Those directly accountable and impacted by the issue in question.

2. Groups who are impacted by the issue in question.

3. Those groups indirectly, not directly, or arguably not impacted.

With regards to women's issues men have a right and sometimes a duty to express their views in the third, or outer, circle.  As implied, their voices aren't as fundamental to the questions being posed.  To me, the noise comes when an issue comes up and it's brought to the fore by 3rd circle groups.  All of us have a duty to facilitate responsible dialogue.

It's imperative that men speak up about womens issues. Men can give exposure to issues that can be ignored if a women is leading the charge. The trick is for men not to exploit that opportunity to their own benefit. 

I can also see men making a huge difference in the states when fututre Supreme Court Judges are appointed. Trump will try to appoint pro-life Judges. These need to be stopped. 

[WestCoastRunner]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Do you even read what you write?

A koran is just a book, too.  It might be "holy" to you, but to lots of us...it's just another book.

Terrorizing people because of their flag is not another matter, as you suggest.  But you seem to have no problem with terrorists or terrorizing, as long as it terrorizes the people you want it to, such as those who insult Islam.

That's quite a stretch saying Jaycee supports terrorists.  It's a ridiculous comment and you are smply taking her posts out of context. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by WestCoastRunner

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

That's quite a stretch saying Jaycee supports terrorists.  It's a ridiculous comment and you are smply taking her posts out of context. 

She has no problem with Khar or his horrible family, but wants someone who insulted a Muslim thrown in jail for life.

??

[Argus]

22 hours ago, marcus said:

I already mentioned the variables involved in why he was elected. On top of that, Trump, more than the average politician, promised things that he ended up backing away from. This is one of the reasons why he is now one of the least popular presidents in the history.

As far as I can tell he still maintains about a 100% lock on those who voted for him. Trump voters had a median household income of $72,000, which is well above average.

22 hours ago, marcus said:

 Only people still backing Trump are the uneducated, scared white people who are too lazy and unintelligent to learn and research and instead follow what is fed to them.

Trump got 40% of the Hispanic vote, 42% of the female vote

22 hours ago, marcus said:

You may want to educate yourself on the rate of crime in Canada.

The crime rate is based on police reported crime, which has been going down steadily over the past twenty years due to a lack of faith in the police and courts.

22 hours ago, marcus said:

Are you angry that crimes are being committed by people other than white gangs?

There were no white gangs here, at least, none that engaged in the kind of routine violence we see today. Even the Hells Angels, small as they were, were relatively peaceful compared to today's third world street gangs.

22 hours ago, marcus said:

Overall, based on more than just my personal observation, our country is improving in many aspects.

Really? Name them.

22 hours ago, marcus said:

What other information and stats do you have to show that immigrants are bad for this country?

I start with the proposition that our immigration numbers are based on politicians wanting new votes, not on Canada's economic or social needs. Mulroney tripled immigration for just that purpose. Add in the low incomes of many immigrants, and the fact we don't tax lower income people, and you get the Fraser Institute report that Canadian governments have to fork out an extra $30 billion per year because of immigration. Add in the violent crime and you get a lot of negatives for very few pluses.

22 hours ago, marcus said:

No. Despite what you say about how I feel about Canada, I still love Canada and look forward to it getting better. Part of that improvement is educating our young and teaching them about what they may be unfamiliar with so they don't end up being scared people who argue based on ignorance

Education, another of those things that hasn't gotten better. Although from your perspective, I'm sure it has. After all, you don't want kids educated, you want them brainwashed. Don't bother teaching them about history or geography or science. But make damned sure you teach them that all world cultures and religions are equal and none come with the guilt and shame of Christianity and Canada. Why teach kids how to think for themselves when you can teach them to think the way you do?

[Argus]

19 hours ago, jacee said:

It isn't about paper.

It's about people being terrorized because of their religion.

If Muslims were terrorized because of their religion they wouldn't keep coming here.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, jacee said:

You, for example, being a man, you don't get to speak for women ... any women.

Would that not suggest you don't get to speak for Muslims, despite having taken up the noble mantel of doing so?

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

To my mind, in the moral sphere there are 3 general circles of involvement:

1. Those directly accountable and impacted by the issue in question.

2. Groups who are impacted by the issue in question.

3. Those groups indirectly, not directly, or arguably not impacted.

With regards to women's issues men have a right and sometimes a duty to express their views in the third, or outer, circle.  As implied, their voices aren't as fundamental to the questions being posed.  To me, the noise comes when an issue comes up and it's brought to the fore by 3rd circle groups.  All of us have a duty to facilitate responsible dialogue.

I had no like button to push so I wrote this in response to it.

[Rue]

22 hours ago, hot enough said:

All Rue blather with no sourcing, no evidence.

Hey genius get back to me when you can figure out the difference between someone stating a subjective opinion  and someone posing a subjective opinion as an objective fact.

 

" it took him a while to learn how to tie his shoes...now he has to learn how to put the shoes on before he ties them."

Rue  1.2

[Rue]

22 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Well from what I understand , Muslims in Canada wanted some system for their own family courts some years back. That got crushed and at the same time, the Jewish family courts were also abolished which supports the notion of one set of laws for all Ontarians/Canadians. Which to me is fair. On the notion of cemeteries, I have no problem with religion-specific graveyards. So it looks like we already went down this road, and that battle was won a decade ago.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-bill-bans-faith-based-tribunals/article1131070/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Wow, I had no idea McGinty was behind that.

Halakha councils or as you call them Jewish family courts were never abolished because hey never opted out of Canadian family law. They are more accurately called arbitrations. The parties must consent to attend them and follow the rulings of the Rabbiah but the Rabbiah can not make any ruling that contradicts existing Canadian laws and the decisions can be appealed or ignored.  So don't make inaccurate comments and drag Jews into the discussion.

The Muslms requesting Sharia law courts wanted to opt out of the existing Canadian laws and then certain Jewish and Christian clergy said if Muslims can opt out so should we.  These Jews and Christians represented a small minority. In fact the majority of  Muslim community in Ontario wanted the opt out.

It was the idiot  McGuinty who raised the idiot idea to let Muslims opt out of existing  provincial family laws. Then the jack ass realized divorce law is federal jurisdiction and he needed consent of the federal government who said no, this would cause chaos.. McGuinty initiated it as a trial balloon to pander for ethnic votes for an election coming up. Gee imagine that a Liberal pandering for ethnic votes.

This Jew says keep state and religion separate.,

Just to answer another poster who raised the point, interestingly I do know Islam and Judaism say we should be buried separately from people outside our belief. I don't agree. I don't believe in segregation myself. Then again my religion says you must be buried immediately and not donate your organs. I will donate my organs (the non rotted ones which at this point may not exist) and be cremated. I do not believe in polluting the ground with toxic chemicals. If I had my way they would feed me to vultures my favourite birds. I am told it is against the city by-laws.

As for my ashes, I am donating them for cat litter at the humane society. Hot Enough wants them to check for traces of thermite. All he will find is  gefilte fish.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Rue

[Guest]

8 hours ago, jacee said:

You, for example, being a man, you don't get to speak for women ... any women.

 

Sure I do.  What a ridiculous notion.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

To my mind, in the moral sphere there are 3 general circles of involvement:

1. Those directly accountable and impacted by the issue in question.

2. Groups who are impacted by the issue in question.

3. Those groups indirectly, not directly, or arguably not impacted.

With regards to women's issues men have a right and sometimes a duty to express their views in the third, or outer, circle.  As implied, their voices aren't as fundamental to the questions being posed.  To me, the noise comes when an issue comes up and it's brought to the fore by 3rd circle groups.  All of us have a duty to facilitate responsible dialogue.

I have only women in my family.  Count me in for 1 and 2 as well.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, jacee said:

So are hate crimes against people because of their religion.

Like those muslims that want everyone arrested and charged and even sent to jail for daring to offend or question or criticize their archaic tenth century religion. Hate crimes laws are a crime. The only thing that hate crimes do is suppress free speech. Canada is fast becoming a dictatorship and is being run and ruled by communist terrorists. 

[GostHacked]

10 hours ago, jacee said:

You, for example, being a man, you don't get to speak for women ... any women.

 

You don't get to speak for women , just like Rue does not speak for all Jews, just like I don't speak for all reasonable people. You speak for yourself, and yourself only.

[GostHacked]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Halakha councils or as you call them Jewish family courts were never abolished because hey never opted out of Canadian family law. They are more accurately called arbitrations. The parties must consent to attend them and follow the rulings of the Rabbiah but the Rabbiah can not make any ruling that contradicts existing Canadian laws and the decisions can be appealed or ignored.  So don't make inaccurate comments and drag Jews into the discussion.

The Muslms requesting Sharia law courts wanted to opt out of the existing Canadian laws and then certain Jewish and Christian clergy said if Muslims can opt out so should we.  These Jews and Christians represented a small minority. In fact the majority of  Muslim community in Ontario wanted the opt out.

It was the idiot  McGuinty who raised the idiot idea to let Muslims opt out of existing  provincial family laws. Then the jack ass realized divorce law is federal jurisdiction and he needed consent of the federal government who said no, this would cause chaos.. McGuinty initiated it as a trial balloon to pander for ethnic votes for an election coming up. Gee imagine that a Liberal pandering for ethnic votes.

This Jew says keep state and religion separate.,

Just to answer another poster who raised the point, interestingly I do know Islam and Judaism say we should be buried separately from people outside our belief. I don't agree. I don't believe in segregation myself. Then again my religion says you must be buried immediately and not donate your organs. I will donate my organs (the non rotted ones which at this point may not exist) and be cremated. I do not believe in polluting the ground with toxic chemicals. If I had my way they would feed me to vultures my favourite birds. I am told it is against the city by-laws.

As for my ashes, I am donating them for cat litter at the humane society. Hot Enough wants them to check for traces of thermite. All he will find is  gefilte fish.

 

 

I was thinking,  OH CRAP , I better not post this because Rue is gonna say something about how I am dragging Jews into this.  That's how predictable you are.

Anyways, the overall notion I am putting out is that there is one set of laws that govern all of us. Religious tribunals ect .. we can do without.

 

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I have only women in my family.  Count me in for 1 and 2 as well.

Again, if you're not directly impacted then you're probably in 3.  "I have women in my family" is true for every human on earth.  If you think your opinion on all things is as important as anyone's you don't accept my model, which is fine.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Again, if you're not directly impacted then you're probably in 3.  "I have women in my family" is true for every human on earth.  If you think your opinion on all things is as important as anyone's you don't accept my model, which is fine.

I guess what we need here is a defining of terms.  What exactly is meant by speaking for?

If it means telling them what to do then nobody should do that for anyone.  If it means speaking up when they are in distress and can't do so for themselves then why wouldn't one?

And who is not directly impacted by what happens to their wives and daughters?

Husbands, sons and brothers, too, if it comes to that.

The problem is not SPEAKING for women.  The problem is speaking for WOMEN.