Islamophobia in Canada

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

“Man who beat wife said he didn’t know it was against law,” read a recent headline in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. The man – Mohamad Rafia, a Syrian refugee – didn’t just beat his wife, he beat her with a hockey stick. For half an hour.

Rafia told a Fredericton court that he didn’t know it was a crime in Canada to beat your wife with a hockey stick for half an hour.

 

He lied; his sponsor had told him several times that it was illegal to beat one's wife in Canada.    Not that such details matter to right-wing, anti-Muslim and anti-Immigration types - or the media they support.

 Here's an insightful article about the Rafias.   Consider his situation, and then consider the fact that as the economy in Alberta declined, domestic abuse increased.   

 Here's the thing: if the man hadn't been a Muslim refugee, this would not have been a story worth publishing.    Every week, at least one woman dies as a result of domestic violence; how many more do you suppose end up in hospital?    Three thousand women sleep in shelters every night, and 300 more are turned away - women trying to escape from violent partners.  That's an awful lot of women who are suffering from domestic violence, don't you think?   But these aren't Muslim women who've been beaten by a Muslim man, so it's not news.   Why waste time on the many examples of Canada's wife-beating culture when you can focus in on a single Muslim refugee that will support your anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant agenda?    

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by dialamah

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I am interested in learning a little more about it.  Don't fear learning about it.  Knowledge about such things can never hurt, unless you are afraid it might colour your view of Islam.

My view of Islam is that it's a male-centric religion that the world would be better off without.  Same view I have of Christianity.   

 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Exactly,  you are making my point verbatim.  In Germany, 1000 women report muslim men sexual assaulting them, Sweden is now the rape capital of the western world and because not one politician can utter the word muslim, it falls on all men.  Thanks for that muslims!

 

All men rape.  Deal with it.  Women have had to for fucking ever.

 

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My view of Islam is that it's a male-centric religion that the world would be better off without.  Same view I have of Christianity.   

 

Then you don't understand christianity.  (biblical christianity, not some of the denominational kinds or Romanism kinds which have departed from the Bible in many ways)  We are living in perilous times when men shall be lovers of themselves as the Bible says.  I'm not surprised you have a dim view of it.  History is full of bad things that have happened.  But the Bible remains true even if many do not follow it very well, including myself.

Edited August 3, 2017 by blackbird

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

All men rape.  Deal with it.  Women have had to for fucking ever.

 

All men?  Really?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, jacee said:

Then shut up about telling them what to decide. Duh.

Okay, whatever you say.  Eventually it all becomes Panto with these arguments.  For someone to argue that women choose to wear burkas and we should all shut up about it is beyond callous to me.  To do so because to recognise the truth would be to admit that there might be problems with Islam is cowardly.  You care more for your optics than you do for any women.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My view of Islam is that it's a male-centric religion that the world would be better off without.  Same view I have of Christianity.   

 

What if you just had to pick one to do without?  I think of the two, the world would be better off without Islam.  What do you think?

[dialamah]

Just now, blackbird said:

Then you don't understand christianity.  (biblical christianity, not some of the denominational kinds or Romanism kinds which have departed from the Bible in many ways)  We are living in perilous times when men shall be loves of themselves as the Bible says.  I'm not surprised you have a dim view of it.  History is full of bad things that have happened.  But the Bible remains true even if many do not follow it very well, including myself.

History and current events demonstrate quite clearly that when Christianity is allowed power within a society, it behaves much as Islam is currently behaving in the countries where it holds power.   You live in a society where religious beliefs are not allowed to dictate policies or laws (mostly), where Christianity has had it's teeth pulled, so to speak, and so you think Christianity is the same everywhere.  It's not.  While there are no longer many countries where Christianity has political power, but the more power it has, the more women and minorities are oppressed.  I'd provide you examples (although you've completely ignored the ones i've provided previously) but it's late, and I get up early for work, so g'nite.

 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

History and current events demonstrate quite clearly that when Christianity is allowed power within a society, it behaves much as Islam is currently behaving in the countries where it holds power.   You live in a society where religious beliefs are not allowed to dictate policies or laws (mostly), where Christianity has had it's teeth pulled, so to speak, and so you think Christianity is the same everywhere.  It's not.  While there are no longer many countries where Christianity has political power, but the more power it has, the more women and minorities are oppressed.  I'd provide you examples (although you've completely ignored the ones i've provided previously) but it's late, and I get up early for work, so g'nite.

 

g'nite!

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

What if you just had to pick one to do without?  I think of the two, the world would be better off without Islam.  What do you think?

It's the people who choose the worst of either that I'd pick, not the religion itself.  There are some very fine Christians and some very fine Muslims; it's the ones who think their special holy book gives them the right to oppress others that I'd get rid off.

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

History and current events demonstrate quite clearly that when Christianity is allowed power within a society, it behaves much as Islam is currently behaving in the countries where it holds power.   You live in a society where religious beliefs are not allowed to dictate policies or laws (mostly), where Christianity has had it's teeth pulled, so to speak, and so you think Christianity is the same everywhere.  It's not.  While there are no longer many countries where Christianity has political power, but the more power it has, the more women and minorities are oppressed.  I'd provide you examples (although you've completely ignored the ones i've provided previously) but it's late, and I get up early for work, so g'nite.

 

I think you've just uncovered something that I know very little about.  I hope you can expand on that hypothesis.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It's the people who choose the worst of either that I'd pick, not the religion itself.  There are some very fine Christians and some very fine Muslims; it's the ones who think their special holy book gives them the right to oppress others that I'd get rid off.

Yeah, but if I twisted your arm?

Edited August 3, 2017 by bcsapper

[jacee]

58 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Okay, whatever you say.  Eventually it all becomes Panto with these arguments.  For someone to argue that women choose to wear burkas and we should all shut up about it is beyond callous to me.  To do so because to recognise the truth would be to admit that there might be problems with Islam is cowardly.  You care more for your optics than you do for any women.

 My optics ... 

Tell you what: When Muslim women who wear traditional dress want your help ... they'll call you.

There "might be" problems with all religions, but people are free to practice them.

 

 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Then you don't understand christianity.  (biblical christianity, not some of the denominational kinds or Romanism kinds which have departed from the Bible in many ways)  We are living in perilous times when men shall be lovers of themselves as the Bible says.  I'm not surprised you have a dim view of it.  History is full of bad things that have happened.  But the Bible remains true even if many do not follow it very well, including myself.

Oh let's not play 'mine is better than theirs', k?

We're not debating religions because that's a personal choice. 

We're discussing Islamophobia, an increasing problem in Canada.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

He lied; his sponsor had told him several times that it was illegal to beat one's wife in Canada.    Not that such details matter to right-wing, anti-Muslim and anti-Immigration types - or the media they support.

 Here's an insightful article about the Rafias.   Consider his situation, and then consider the fact that as the economy in Alberta declined, domestic abuse increased.   

 Here's the thing: if the man hadn't been a Muslim refugee, this would not have been a story worth publishing.    Every week, at least one woman dies as a result of domestic violence; how many more do you suppose end up in hospital?    Three thousand women sleep in shelters every night, and 300 more are turned away - women trying to escape from violent partners.  That's an awful lot of women who are suffering from domestic violence, don't you think?   But these aren't Muslim women who've been beaten by a Muslim man, so it's not news.   Why waste time on the many examples of Canada's wife-beating culture when you can focus in on a single Muslim refugee that will support your anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant agenda?    

 

Quote

 

So using your reasoning since domestic violence is not reported sufficiently in your mind, covering it up further using a race card argument is going to help the issue.

O.k. That was logical.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I think you've just uncovered something that I know very little about.  I hope you can expand on that hypothesis.

its absurd to argue that since Christian societies were violent or are violent one can draw moral equivalence with Muslm societies to argue Muslim fundamentalist terrorism and Muslim violence is no worse.

Its an argument liberals like to make to condone things that are wrong-point out the people who challenge the wrong are just as evil.

You and I already know and have stated repeatedly on this forum any religious extremism is dangerous and at this point in time, today, now, is fueling Muslim terrorism. Trying to white wash the word  Muslim out of the fuel that inspires Muslim terrorism by arguing  Christian fundamentalism  is as bad as Muslim fundamentalism does not justify or white wash the word Muslim religion out of the fuel that feeds the fire..

This politically correct liberal horse crap would have you believe none of us can challenge anything let  lone Muslims or Muslim extremism because we are inherently evil. Oh phack that recipe for moral impotence and passive aggressive liberal feigned tolerance. .

Its a pile of crap. This is not about claiming to be better-its about challenging extremist religious a-holes who at the moment are predominantly Muslim in belief and using that belief to fuel their violence.

If they are Christians or Jews or whatever I know damn well you apply the same standard -that standard for me  is if  someone is a Muslim extremist terrorist they need a bullet between the eyes.just as if they were a terrorist in the name of Jews or Christians.

Y'all ask me the stink of terrorism is as consistent as the stink of a  liberal feigned tolerance and moral righteousness  when it comes to dealoing with terrorism.  Either way the windows have to be opened and the fan turned on.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

It's the people who choose the worst of either that I'd pick, not the religion itself.  There are some very fine Christians and some very fine Muslims; it's the ones who think their special holy book gives them the right to oppress others that I'd get rid off.

That sounds suddenly tough on terrorism but its not consistent with your other opinions stated on the forum.

I personally do not think  or a minute you would get rid of anyone you disagree with, even terrorists. Of course you'd leave that for others.  Unfortunately those others, i.e., police, soldiers then get  challenged  by the  people just like you who delegated that job.

I say that with no disrespect at all. I mean it literally and psychologically because I think that is what we all do with our police and soldiers, not just you. I think your comments reflect most rational peoples' feelings on the matter including mine so I am criticizing myself exactly as I do you for the very same reasons. I am talking rhetorically not just at you.

I believe our  allegedly moral  righteous standards are conflicted because after delegating the augthority tokill on our behalf we then back-track and try put all conditions on the procedures for killing that are unrealistic and reflect our inability to deal with the actual thing required to kill someone.

 I think our second guessing soldier and police with unrealistic procedures in effect provides power and advantage to terrorists by holding soldiers and police to a different standard of behaviour.

I think the standard we hold police and soldiers to when dealing with the task of taking out terrorists is unrealistic and reflects are guilt and doubt about killing.

I believe most rational people even when they rationalize killing regret what they have rationalized and so after the fact back-track and project on police and soldiers their own self doubts and misgivings about authority.

I would argue soldiers and police with ptsd in effect are carrying a baggage of emotion placed upon them by people like you and me for having to do what they did to protect us.

So my perspective is to worry about the police and soldiers and the toll is taking on them, not terrorists. My perspective is to worry about the toll terrorism is taking on innocent civilians.

I think far too much emphasis is placed on the feelings and needs of  terrorists on this board to rationalize for the moral impotence of the people who feel guilty about the fact that terrorists are just that and need to be taken out before they kill.

In the heat of the moment with a split second on the line, no moral righteousness standard  is going to be followed-you send a soldier or police officer in the line of fire, they do  what they hve to do in the moment  to go home that night, period. In the heat of battle there is no moral code, there just is the moment, live or die, The reaction to that reality is reflex. You hope your training engages the reflex that keeps you alive. Good men, trained properly, still freeze up and die in the heat of the moment. I worry about unrealistic expectations from society that flow into the chain of command and are reflected in unrealistic orders.

I think its easy to talk the talk but to  put into action that "getttng rid of" exercise is not trivial no be a throw in concession in a debate to make liberalism sound tough. Its not. Its easy to be morally righteous and tolerant and talk in theory. It is in the moment when face with kill or be killed the reality takes over from the theory and with due respect none of us on the forum are in that moment and have the perspective that comes from that moment.-maybe Army Guy but even he does not claim that. No soldier will. They don't claim to be able to discuss it. Its a private feeling if they have gone through it, they won't discuss with people who have not and  get hints of it in the eyes of the soldiers who have returned with unresolved issues but I know better then to enter into their nightmares or thoughts. Its their business. It is their world. The best we can due is respect its need to private until those ultimate witnesses speak about it.

I think we spend too much time listening to terrorists and not any time with soldiers after their return.

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Rue

[Guest]

6 hours ago, jacee said:

 My optics ... 

Tell you what: When Muslim women who wear traditional dress want your help ... they'll call you.

There "might be" problems with all religions, but people are free to practice them.

 

 

Sure.  Not the first one.

 

noun: optics

1. 1.

   the scientific study of sight and the behavior of light, or the properties of transmission and deflection of other forms of radiation.
2. 2.

   North American

   (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

   "the issue itself is secondary to the optics of the Democrats opposing this administration in a high-profile way"

    

    

   The problems lie, of course, when they are not free to not practice them.

Edited August 3, 2017 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure.  Not the first one.

 

 

Jacee is free to support Islam and marry Omar Khadr...if he'll have her.

[drummindiver]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

My view of Islam is that it's a male-centric religion that the world would be better off without.  Same view I have of Christianity.   

 

Then why your unwavering defense of it and everything related to it? 

I call bs in the loudest possible way.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

So using your reasoning since domestic violence is not reported sufficiently in your mind, covering it up further using a race card argument is going to help the issue.

O.k. That was logical.

What?   Pointing out that certain media only mentions domestic violence if it's perpetrated by a Muslim is advocating for covering up all domestic violence?   Good grief.  

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What?   Pointing out that certain media only mentions domestic violence if it's perpetrated by a Muslim is advocating for covering up all domestic violence?   Good grief.  

 

Islam's apologist apologizes.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

That sounds suddenly tough on terrorism but its not consistent with your other opinions stated on the forum

Yes, indeed, because failing to express constant, hyperbolic criticism of anything and everything the news cares to feed us about Muslims means I support terrorists, misogyny, FGM, child-marriage, etc., etc.  Clearly, the only reasonable choices is to hate Muslims indiscriminately or hate Canada/freedom/democracy.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I personally do not think  or a minute you would get rid of anyone you disagree with, even terrorists. Of course you'd leave that for others.  Unfortunately those others, i.e., police, soldiers then get  challenged  by the  people just like you who delegated that job.

Sapper presented a fantastical choice and I gave a fantastical answer.  Getting rid of just the 'bad' people is as realistic as getting rid of 'only one religion'.

Sorry, have to head for work, no time for the rest.  

 

[Hydraboss]

9 hours ago, jacee said:

Islamophobia, anti-Muslim behaviour, is now the number one source of hate crimes and attacks in Canada

You may want to check your "facts" on this.  "Hate crimes" against muslims is nowhere near the level of "hate crimes" against Jews.

[DogOnPorch]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

All men rape.  Deal with it.  Women have had to for fucking ever.

 

 

All men rape?

Here I thought hockey practice was just getting rough.