Islamophobia in Canada

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I find it rather ironic that some of these leftists openly defend a culture that gives a Muslim man the right to treat women as if they are mere chattle 

Can you point to any tangible examples of even one single lefty from this forum openly defending that women be treated like property?  I mean an example of someone unequivocally saying this in a manner that leaves no doubt.

Otherwise be quiet or something.

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I was against it based on the principle that an adult has the right to wear it if they wish, and to keep the nanny state out of people's closets. (I know it sounds weird... nanny state, get back in the closet!)

However I came to realize that if they're brought up in that culture from birth they won't willingly let go of it, and they would pass this tradition on to their children. I do not want this to be a Canadian tradition.

I disagree; I think exposure to Canadian culture will be enough and that laws imposing how women should dress will backfire.    People tend to cling more closely to their precious things if they perceive that something external to them is trying to remove them.  I think that explains, in part, why young Muslim women in Canada are increasingly the wearing of the hajib; they aren't oblivious to anti-Muslim sentiment, or how the hijab is viewed, they feel under attack to a certain extent and the hijab is a way of identifying allies amongst the wider society that may seem threatening.   I think it would be more effective to let young people rebel against their parents - to decide for themselves that they don't want to wear a long, ugly dress - rather than have them rebel against the state that tells them they can't wear or can't wear.

 

[dialamah]

31 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So you agree something should be done at least. Implementation would have to ensure that she is fully protected. People who find that unacceptable should not immigrate to Canada. I imagine it is never easy for first generation immigrants to deal with a big cultural change when moving to a foreign country. A law banning the Burka and unwanted female circumcision would be accepted much more easily by the second generation, girls who are born here.

Female circumcision is already illegal.  

[OftenWrong]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Can you point to any tangible examples of even one single lefty from this forum openly defending that women be treated like property?  I mean an example of someone unequivocally saying this in a manner that leaves no doubt.

Otherwise be quiet or something.

My quote below which you take issue with:

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I find it rather ironic that some of these leftists openly defend a culture that gives a Muslim man the right to treat women as if they are mere chattle 

I underlined the part you are ignoring, with your one eye. Do you defend Muslim culture? Because treating women as chattle is part of it.

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I disagree; I think exposure to Canadian culture will be enough and that laws imposing how women should dress will backfire.    People tend to cling more closely to their precious things if they perceive that something external to them is trying to remove them.  I think that explains, in part, why young Muslim women in Canada are increasingly the wearing of the hajib; they aren't oblivious to anti-Muslim sentiment, or how the hijab is viewed, they feel under attack to a certain extent and the hijab is a way of identifying allies amongst the wider society that may seem threatening.   I think it would be more effective to let young people rebel against their parents - to decide for themselves that they don't want to wear a long, ugly dress - rather than have them rebel against the state that tells them they can't wear or can't wear.

 

I don't consider the hijab a big deal. Different. But I doubt that fundamentalists would just let it slide, if given their way they want to establish an separate Islamic society within Canada, closed communities that are run by sharia law, with their own enforcement.

Edited October 6, 2017 by OftenWrong

[OftenWrong]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Female circumcision is already illegal.  

Well that's what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned it. This whole discussion has been about females. And I don't want to talk anymore, I need to go to sleep.

Edited October 6, 2017 by OftenWrong

[eyeball]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Do you defend Muslim culture?

No, but I don't attack it either do I?  I think that's what must be confusing you.  It's a symptom of that chronic tendency your ilk has to conflate things and jerk to conclusions.

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, but I don't attack it either do I?  I think that's what must be confusing you.  It's a symptom of that chronic tendency your ilk has to conflate things and jerk to conclusions.

I am only against those aspects of it that directly conflict with our culture, and I have been very clear about that. So it is actually you that is conflating what I have said.
Maybe you should try discussing the issues a bit more, rather than attacking a forum member based on your misunderstanding.

[Army Guy]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Female circumcision is already illegal.  

And yet it is still being done Here in Canada......go figure....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/craig-and-marc-kielburger/female-genital-mutilation_b_2813119.html

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

And yet it is still being done Here in Canada......go figure....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/craig-and-marc-kielburger/female-genital-mutilation_b_2813119.html

I know!  Its simply amazing that people do things that are illegal!

So following the conversation closely, you might have read this:

Oftenwrong:  I support a law banning burka and female circumcision.

Dialamah:  female circumcision is already illegal.

Instead of this:

Oftenwrong:  I support a law banning burka and female circumcision.

Dialamah:  Female circumcision never happens in Canada because its illegal.

 

 

 

[dialamah]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I have no fears. I don't see the two issues as identical, but perhaps tied to the root cause of a barbarous culture that is becoming increasing more oppressive and fundamental in its teachings.

So I think this is more fluid than one might think.  Using Egypt as an example, because my sister lives there so I have inside information haha, but during the brief time that the Muslim Brotherhood was in power she noticed a definite trend towards more conservativism but when Sisi took power, that trend has reversed.   Of course, this may also suggest that banning burkas would work better than I think in terms of encouraging women to oppose female-oppressive habits.

Also Tunisia is fighting hard to modernize Islam, and Saudi recently decided to lift the ban on women driving.  

As funny as it seems, my brother-in-law thinks (or thought, this was a while ago) that Sisi and Trudeau were similar in goals of pursuing more progressive social values. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by dialamah

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 Of course, this may also suggest that banning burkas would work better than I think in terms of encouraging women to oppose female-oppressive habits.

I waffle on burka banning, but I sometimes wonder if banning it would give women at least one more weapon in their arsenal against it.

If the vast majority of Muslims are against the burka, as you say, then those who wear it by choice shouldn't have a problem with a ban.  A certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it, their family will think twice about continuing to enforce wearing it, if it's against the law and that law is enforced.  But I agree with you that a certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it will be held captive by their family.  This is where the law would be able to step in and start charging them with forcible confinement or something.  By your own admission, this percentage would be miniscule.  I say that, even though even one woman being forcibly confined by her family for not wearing the burka is still wrong.  But they would at least gain a bit of strength by knowing they have the law on their side.  It would suck for them, yes.  And I do understand the personal fortitude it takes to defy family and culture.  You mentioned women who had been kidnapped and held captive sometimes for years because no one knew they were being held anywhere.  (I'm thinking of the Cleveland girls, maybe you were too.)  They had to finally rescue themselves.  But when they did, the outpouring of support and resources from others was there.  I'm confident that if a woman was being held captive in her home for refusing to wear the burka, if she is able to get out or let someone know the situation, it would be the same.  

[betsy]

On 10/3/2017 at 5:38 PM, Omni said:

Hint, you don't think Trump is an islamaphobe? 

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CANADA?

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

I waffle on burka banning, but I sometimes wonder if banning it would give women at least one more weapon in their arsenal against it.

If the vast majority of Muslims are against the burka, as you say, then those who wear it by choice shouldn't have a problem with a ban.  A certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it, their family will think twice about continuing to enforce wearing it, if it's against the law and that law is enforced.  But I agree with you that a certain percentage of those who are forced to wear it will be held captive by their family.  This is where the law would be able to step in and start charging them with forcible confinement or something.  By your own admission, this percentage would be miniscule. 

Aren't you a hypocrite, Goddess, as you do not, have not made the same argument for the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, far out christian evangelicals, ... ?

This has all come into being totally as a propaganda ploy advanced by the wacky far right, those who have never cared one iota about these issues or these people until the US falsely accused 19 Arab hijackers for an event that was planned and carried out by others.

[Are there any thinking people who want to hazard a guess as to who had/has the capabilities, the expertise, [the US non-commercially available nanothermite] of pulling something like this off?]

These are the same people who still don't care in the least about these women/people because these same loving individuals verily cheer when millions are slaughtered,. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by hot enough

[betsy]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

I know!  Its simply amazing that people do things that are illegal!

So following the conversation closely, you might have read this:

Oftenwrong:  I support a law banning burka and female circumcision.

Dialamah:  female circumcision is already illegal.

Instead of this:

Oftenwrong:  I support a law banning burka and female circumcision.

Dialamah:  Female circumcision never happens in Canada because its illegal.

 

 

 

If female circumcision is already illegal in Canada, why is it still being practiced?

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, betsy said:

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CANADA?

Islamophobia started, occasioned, caused, perpetuated by the lies of the USA, many of them totally Trump owned, falsely accusing Arab men of attacking the USA. 

[betsy]

Just now, hot enough said:

Islamophobia started, occasioned, caused, perpetuated by the lies of the USA, many of them totally Trump owned, falsely accusing Arab men of attacking the USA. 

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CANADA.

 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, betsy said:

Of female circumcision is illegal in Canada, why is it still being practiced?

Zero evidence, Betsy. 

Why is male circumcision still being practiced in Canada?

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 

Why is male circumcision still being practiced in Canada?

It's not illegal, that's why.

 

Quote

 

Male circumcision isn't genital mutilation!

FGM is sometimes termed female circumcision, but this is a misnomer as it implies a minor operation equivalent to male circumcision. According to Doriane Coleman, a Duke University law professor whose expertise is children and the law, "This analogy can and has been rejected as specious and disingenuous, as the traditional forms of FGM are as different from male circumcision in terms of procedure, physical ramifications, and motivation as ear piercing is to a penilectomy."

The World Health Organization is also clear that:

 

"FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sheryl-saperia/infant-circumcision-canada_b_1646749.html

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN CANADA.

Are you denying the connection between what the US has done by falsely accusing 19 Arabs of something they never did, could never possibly have done, and the Islamophobia/racism/terrorism/murders being carried out by the wacky far right in Canada?

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's not illegal, that's why.

Nice diversion, Betsy. It's still circumcision. Why aren't you for equality for women? Why aren't you plumping for doctor done FC?

Now, about your "evidence".

Edited October 6, 2017 by hot enough

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Nice diversion, Betsy.

Now, about your "evidence".

Here, I'll repost it:

 

Quote

 

Male circumcision isn't genital mutilation!

FGM is sometimes termed female circumcision, but this is a misnomer as it implies a minor operation equivalent to male circumcision.

According to Doriane Coleman, a Duke University law professor whose expertise is children and the law, "This analogy can and has been rejected as specious and disingenuous, as the traditional forms of FGM are as different from male circumcision in terms of procedure, physical ramifications, and motivation as ear piercing is to a penilectomy."

 

The World Health Organization is also clear that:

 

"FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sheryl-saperia/infant-circumcision-canada_b_1646749.html

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, betsy said:

Here, I'll repost it:

Do you know what 'sarcasm' means, Betsy? 

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Nice diversion, Betsy.

Now, about your "evidence".

 

 

Quote

 

Women in small Muslim sect say they have had FGM in Canada

The first research of its kind to probe the practice within this tightly knit South Asian community, the study found that 80 per cent of Dawoodi Bohra women surveyed have undergone FGM and two of the study’s 18 Canadian participants said it happened within Canada’s borders.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/fgm/2017/08/21/women-in-small-muslim-sect-said-they-had-fgm-in-canada.html

 

 

Quote

Female genital mutilation practitioners are travelling to Canada, border officers warned

https://globalnews.ca/news/3602227/female-genital-mutilation-canada-border-officers-warned/

 

Quote

Female genital mutilation is happening in Canada, study finds

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/08/21/women-in-ismaili-muslim-sect-say-they-have-had-fgm-in-canada.html

[betsy]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Do you know what 'sarcasm' means, Betsy? 

hahahaha - suddenly it's just sarcasm because I have the evidence, huh?

 

Sarcasm doesn't work on me, HE.  Especially when I can rub your face in it.

Edited October 6, 2017 by betsy