Islamophobia in Canada

[Dougie93]

 the onset of the information age is atomizing

these are males who spend all their time on the internet or playing video games

they are low status, socially inept, self isolating

many become filled with rage

it's evolutionary biology, this is what young males will do if they lose all hope

when male dominance is unachievable for the male of the species, this can induce Anomie

suicidal & homicidal at the same time, the desire to destroy oneself by destroying the other

this is how you get to mass shooters, this is how you get to the Holocaust in extremis

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

"Some Muslims". There are 51 Muslim majority countries in the world and not a single one of them treats women as the equals as men. Not a single one gives the same rights to non-Muslims as it does to Muslims. 

Yet you continue to attempt to portray the backward values of the Islamic world as an occasional thing, something rejected by the majority.

So clueless, LOL

Hey, did you know that in Egypt the law allows for divorce for Muslims?  But Coptic Christians can't get divorced, legally, because their religion doesn't allow it!  This is because in Egypt, the law is whatever your religions says it is.

I think it's stupid, personally.  And while I agree with you that religious countries do not treat women well.  I disagree with you that Islamic countries are unique in this regard.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

Well, they could be more specifically named, of course, but that might result in caution or sanction from moderators.  There are about half dozen, plus BCSapper who remains perpetually confused but at least not deliberately hateful.  

Propaganda requires the painting of a group with a very broad brush, whether it's to denigrate Jews, Christians, gays or Muslims.  People who pretend "criticising Islam" is the same as assuming being Muslim = murderer and a driving goal to take over (if not now then certainly as soon as they get to x% of a country) create a space in which a mentally unbalanced person will think it's necessary to make a statement by driving over a family.  The same kind of propaganda gets young men and women to strap on vests and make a similar statement with their own lives and as many other lives as they can.

It's really sad.  

Not confused.  Baffled.  I just can't get where the disconnect between advocating for gay rights, women's right, etc, and supporting a religion like Islam occurs.

It's weird. 

 

[Shady]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

So clueless, LOL

Hey, did you know that in Egypt the law allows for divorce for Muslims?  But Coptic Christians can't get divorced, legally, because their religion doesn't allow it!  This is because in Egypt, the law is whatever your religions says it is.

I think it's stupid, personally.  And while I agree with you that religious countries do not treat women well.  I disagree with you that Islamic countries are unique in this regard.

Compare any non-Muslim country with any Muslim country when it comes to rights of women and minorities.  How about you compare say Israel and any other Middle East country on how they treat women.  Then compare Judeo Christian countries like Europe or North America.  

[Dougie93]

it's likely the perpetrator did not actually have any quarrel with Islam per se

these mass killers simply choose targets which are viewed as being "the other"

the motivation is Anomie, the targets are selected after the fact

once committed to the suicidal homicide mission

the affected male will simply select targets for maximum impact in the information war

he knew he would get more attention attacking Muslims, merely by the zeitgeist

Edited June 8, 2021 by Dougie93

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not confused.  Baffled.  I just can't get where the disconnect between advocating for gay rights, women's right, etc, and supporting a religion like Islam occurs.

It's weird. 

 

Exactly.  These are the same people that vilify Israel.  The only country in the Middle East where Pride celebrations take place every June.  The biggest one being in Tel Aviv.

[dialamah]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Not confused.  Baffled.  I just can't get where the disconnect between advocating for gay rights, women's right, etc, and supporting a religion like Islam occurs.

Only because you mistake calling out people for expressing ignorance and hate is the same as supporting Islam. 

Magically (I suppose it seems to some) I can have no use for both Islam and for bigots.  I can also (again magically) understand that someone's religious belief does not define them automatically. 

[Shady]

This graph never gets old, and perfectly illustrates the mindset of people like @Michael Hardnerand @dialamah.

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1. Only because you mistake calling out people for expressing ignorance and hate is the same as supporting Islam. 

2. Magically (I suppose it seems to some) I can have no use for both Islam and for bigots. 

1. Or for that matter, mistaking support for freedom of religion with agreeing with all of the values of a religion.

2. Somehow you have done the impossible yet again.. criticized Islam without dehumanizing them.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There's a difference between Critics of Islam and "Muslim haters".

Islam is a religion that features male-dominance, homophobia and xenophobia.  Some of its adherents take those precepts to extremes, using them to oppress and kill people who fail to fall into their narrow definition of "Muslim".  Those people are also prone to ignore other parts of Islam, which teach tolerance and speak up against murder.   Muslims are, as a group, generally more conservative than people who've been born or raised in the West.  The majority of them reject the idea that murder is acceptable, or that women are not given respect.  But it's pretty clear that the conservatism of Islam is played out in Islamic society, as women are restricted - sometimes severely - and being gay is not acceptable.  When they move to a less religious country, these conservative beliefs will likely come with them, but studies have demonstrated that over time - two or three generations - they become more mainstream in their beliefs.

vs.

Muslims are fanatics; their religion tells them it's ok to beat women and to kill gays.  If too many come to Canada, they'll take over - all women will have to wear hijab, and gay people won't be safe!  They kill unbelievers - anyone who doesn't convert!  We can't allow such barbaric people, whose belief system is still stuck in the 13th century, to come to Canada; they'll destroy our culture!    Just because they come to Canada, they won't change - because their religion won't let them!

That top bit is pretty much what I've been saying, except I feel no reason to be nice about it.  Male-dominance, homophobia and xenophobia are barbaric, as are the punishments for blasphemy and apostasy, and adultery in some countries.  You can't sugar coat that, nor argue that the numbers are minimal.  Look at what happens when an alleged blasphemer is found not guilty in Pakistan, for instance.  How do you feel about what happened to the women who didn't want to wear a veil in Iran? 

You want me to say the bottom bit  because it excuses you from dealing with the top bit.  But I've never said anything you said in the bottom bit.  Except maybe the first sentence, if you put the word "some" in front of it. 

But all that said, it is still a barbaric religion with entire countries running on a backward belief system with severe penalties for anyone who deviates.  Awful.  It's okay to say that.  It's cowardice to hide from it.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Only because you mistake calling out people for expressing ignorance and hate is the same as supporting Islam. 

Magically (I suppose it seems to some) I can have no use for both Islam and for bigots.  I can also (again magically) understand that someone's religious belief does not define them automatically. 

What about calling out people for telling the truth, and turning a blind eye to such truth yourself?

I always ask for examples of my ignorance and hate, and no-one ever provides them.  It's because the truth is bad enough.  There's no need for ignorance and hate.

Not that there's anything wrong with hating that which the truth reveals, of course.

[dialamah]

25 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

But I've never said anything you said in the bottom bit.  Except maybe the first sentence, if you put the word "some" in front of it. 

You, yes.  But you aren't the only person on this forum, you refuse to see when others do it, and so you jump into the defensively when those people are called out.  

Why don't you object to Argus's claim that if a woman is wearing a hijab, she must be fanatical/fundamentalist?  I'd just provided an example of a women who wears a hijab, but doesn't go to Mosque (nor does her husband) and supports freedom of religion and doesn't care about gays. This woman has worked in bars (in Syria), left her first husband because he was abusive, came to Canada, supported herself and her son till she married her current husband.  She doesn't care about other people's religion, or their sexual orientation, loves that in Canada, she can do what she wants - but somehow Argus is the expert on her because the only thing he knows about her is that she wears a hijab.  He hasn't ever seen her, or talked to her or her husband - but he's sure she's lying to me because what she says doesn't line up to what he believes about her.

Why don't you object to that?  Is it because you agree with him?  And so the calling out of these assumptions and broadbrushing is unacceptable to you?

Edited June 8, 2021 by dialamah

[DogOnPorch]

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi.

The whole 'some Muslims' or 'most Muslims' is a bad argument. The Quran is clear that the disbeliever is to be fought until he/she submits and all religion is for Allah...strike terror and such. Atheism is considered a faith to Islam...and is to be fought. Islam is at war with you as a non-Muslim even if the Muslim guy down the street isn't particularly "radical". It's not a race. It's not a skin colour. 

It's a religion...man made. It says fight...and conveniently...if one dies fighting in the service of Allah, one's sins are erased. That's what we might call...dangerous thinking.

 

[dialamah]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What about calling out people for telling the truth, and turning a blind eye to such truth yourself?

I always ask for examples of my ignorance and hate, and no-one ever provides them.  

Really?  Argus can accuse my neighbor and my brother in law of lying - Because they're Muslims.  Argus can accuse them of hating gays - because they're Muslim.  Argus can accuse them of supporting wife abuse - because they're Muslim.  Their words, their actual actions and the way they live their life doesn't matter - They're Muslim, and Argus can assume all kinds of things about them (and every other Muslim) - and you have no problem with that.  

As far as I know, no one has ever accused you of exhibiting such overt ignorance and hatred.  But it's odd that you take it personally if anyone should call Argus et all out for their demonizing of Muslims.  Why is that?  Why did you even bother answering MH, if what he said did not apply to you?  Do you feel some kinship with Argus et al?  Do you perhaps feel the same as they do - and are hiding behind what they are saying, rather than saying it yourself?  Because if what MH initially said didn't apply to you, why did you step up?

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by dialamah

[dialamah]

21 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi.

The whole 'some Muslims' or 'most Muslims' is a bad argument. The Quran is clear that the disbeliever is to be fought until he/she submits and all religion is for Allah...strike terror and such. Atheism is considered a faith to Islam...and is to be fought. Islam is at war with you as a non-Muslim even if the Muslim guy down the street isn't particularly "radical". It's not a race. It's not a skin colour. 

It's a religion...man made. It says fight...and conveniently...if one dies fighting in the service of Allah, one's sins are erased. That's what we might call...dangerous thinking.

 

I was wondering when you'd show up with your narrow definition of Muslims, favored by fanatics all over the world.  You are one of the worse hate/fear mongers on this forum, and I'm calling you out for it.  You, along with Argus and others of your ilk, are the ones creating a space in which some unbalanced kid thinks he needs to go out and "do something" - shoot up a Mosque, or run down a family.

Good on ya, please join the rest of the group in the 'people I don't want in Canada' category.  Now now, don't cry - you and Argus would refuse my sister life in Canada, were it in your power, based on nothing more than your hatred of Muslims.   At least my dislike of you is based on your words, and not on something irrelevant - like where you live.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You, yes.  But you aren't the only person on this forum, you refuse to see when others do it, and so you jump into the defensively when those people are called out.  

Why don't you object to Argus's claim that if a woman is wearing a hijab, she must be fanatical/fundamentalist?  I'd just provided an example of a women who wears a hijab, but doesn't go to Mosque (nor does her husband) and supports freedom of religion and doesn't care about gays. This woman has worked in bars (in Syria), left her first husband because he was abusive, came to Canada, supported herself and her son till she married her current husband.  She doesn't care about other people's religion, or their sexual orientation, loves that in Canada, she can do what she wants - but somehow Argus is the expert on her because the only thing he knows about her is that she wears a hijab.  He hasn't ever seen her, or talked to her or her husband - but he's sure she's lying to me because what she says doesn't line up to what he believes about her.

Why don't you object to that?  Is it because you agree with him?  And so the calling out of these assumptions and broadbrushing is unacceptable to you?

I have argued with Argus.  I'm of the opinion that immigrants shouldn't be judged on their views.  As a proponent of free speech, especially speech I disagree with, I don't believe people should be sanctioned for their views.  So if a Muslim immigrant says he hates homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers, etc, but agrees to not do anything about it and follow our laws to the letter, I don't care.  Argus and I differed on that.

I have different views to those of DoP, too.  I was a lapsed Catholic before I became an atheist.  I think a Muslim can lapse too. DoP would insist they are no longer a Muslim.  Going by the letter of the Koran, he might be right.  I look at it in a more general way.

I'm also against any law banning any item of clothing.  I find a law to ban a burka in Toronto as reprehensible as a law to ban a bikini in Medina.  I think a woman should be able to choose to wear anything she wants. 

But they are not big arguments.  Argus and I and DoP and I will agree far more than we disagree when it comes to Islam.  The big arguments are those with people who insist Islam is not a barbaric religion, when it is.  Trying to reconcile the fact that countries, entire countries, are run based on a law that itself is based on a fairy tale.  And not a nice fairy tale, either.  One of the really brutal ones.  And people who normally will man the barricades for minority rights suddenly find themselves with other things to do.  Shady's meme posted earlier is quite appropriate.

Earlier you posted "Islam is a religion that features male-dominance, homophobia and xenophobia."  but you might as well have been discussing the weather for all the weight you gave that statement. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Really?  Argus can accuse my neighbor and my brother in law of lying - Because they're Muslims.  Argus can accuse them of hating gays - because they're Muslim.  Argus can accuse them of supporting wife abuse - because they're Muslim.  Their words, their actual actions and the way they live their life doesn't matter - They're Muslim, and Argus can assume all kinds of things about them (and every other Muslim) - and you have no problem with that.  

As far as I know, no one has ever accused you of exhibiting such overt ignorance and hatred.  But it's odd that you take it personally if anyone should call Argus et all out for their demonizing of Muslims.  Why is that?  Why did you even bother answering MH, if what he said did not apply to you?  Do you feel some kinship with Argus et al?  Do you perhaps feel the same as they do - and are hiding behind what they are saying, rather than saying it yourself?  Because if what MH initially said didn't apply to you, why did you step up?

 

I don't take it personally when anyone is called anything, as long as it isn't me.  Argus can take care of himself, I'm sure.

As can you.  I'm not going to argue for your relatives.  You can do that.

The reason I answered MH was because I was implied in his post.  I realise there are a variety of views, but it seemed like a knee jerk reaction that was intended to take in anyone who has no reluctance to speak about Islam without self censorship.

I will say this:  I oppose anyone who attempts to tar all the members of any group with the same brush, without qualification.  I don't care if it's you or MH, Argus or DoP, Taxme or Betsy, Marcus or eyeball.  I don't care what a person's politics are.  I argued the toss with DoP over Trump.  We still might agree on something else tomorrow.  I had more that one agreement from you on that issue.

I lean more left than right, though, which is why I am so vehemently opposed to conservative right wing religious nutjobs. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by bcsapper

[Guest]

The American Humanist Society (Motto - Good without a God) updated its country rankings in October 2020.

The rankings are based on four criteria:

Constitution and government (Const/Govt)

Education and children’s rights (Edu/Child)

Society, community and family (Society/Comm)

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values (Expression).

The ranking index can be found on this page:

https://fot.humanists.international/ranking-index-2020/

I gotta say, it's not looking good for one certain group of people...

[CITIZEN_2015]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Oh, so now you agree with this? This is okay with you when you were screaming about anyone wanting to interfere with Muslim immigration was a murderer?

As an example I would say as per my posts that those who do not believe in equality of women and respect for women and respect for other religions and equality of races must be barred from immigrating to Canada (

What you quoted was said by me not Michael. I always wanted to ban those who lack respect for women and don't believe in equality and wish to impose their ideology upon others and this covers not only some muslims but also many other groups like white supremacists' and some Christian fundamentalists as a few examples. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[blackbird]

41 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The American Humanist Society (Motto - Good without a God) updated its country rankings in October 2020.

The rankings are based on four criteria:

Constitution and government (Const/Govt)

Education and children’s rights (Edu/Child)

Society, community and family (Society/Comm)

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values (Expression).

The ranking index can be found on this page:

https://fot.humanists.international/ranking-index-2020/

I gotta say, it's not looking good for one certain group of people...

Actually it's not looking good for the western civilization for several reasons.  Communist or authoritarian countries are forming an alliance with China-Russia.  China is officially atheist.  Secular humanism is spreading throughout western countries and the consequence of that will be more and more people believing the great lie that man is god and can create a utopia on earth. So people believe this and will give up their freedoms and rights in exchange for promises by government to take care of them from cradle to grave.  Of course left wing politicians are already capitalizing on that line of thinking and promising utopia on earth.  Left wing politicians like Trudeau and NDP leader Singh are more than willing to take away basic freedoms such as freedom of expression and other freedoms in exchange for promises to provide all the social programs you can imagine.

We also see the move toward globalism with Trudeau's love for Communist China and what appears to be secret dealings between the virology lab in Winnipeg and one in Wuhan China.  Plus the strange report of the PLA (People's Liberation Army) having some kind of dealings with the Liberal government behind the backs of our allies.  China appears to already have a strong hold on the Canadian government.  The Liberal cabinet (government) could not bring themselves to vote with the Parliament to condemn the genocide of the Uyghurs.  So far they refuse to release documents concerning the Winnipeg virology lab and the two Chinese people who were removed from the lab.

 

41 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The American Humanist Society (Motto - Good without a God) updated its country rankings in October 2020.

The rankings are based on four criteria:

Constitution and government (Const/Govt)

Education and children’s rights (Edu/Child)

Society, community and family (Society/Comm)

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values (Expression).

The ranking index can be found on this page:

https://fot.humanists.international/ranking-index-2020/

I gotta say, it's not looking good for one certain group of people...

I read lately in the book Alliance of Evil (Russia and China) that China will be the world's strongest superpower in one to two decades.  They may already be economically the superpower in many ways.  They control the U.N. and many international organizations.  They do not believe in western values such as liberalism and human rights.  They will gradually force the west to accept their authoritarian style of government.  They also have proxy countries who will do their bidding and help them grow in power and supremacy.  The west is full of liberals, democrats, Socialist, and progressives like yourself who want government to take care of them from cradle to grave and create a utopia.  China promises this type of system for you but the only catch is you will surrender your fundamental freedoms and democracy in exchange for this form of government security system.  This is what is happening.  One tool to do this is the U.N. and World Economic Forum.  We also see this happening with the World Health Organization which is run by a former liberation revolutionary from Africa.  The W.H.O. is controlled by China which controls much of the U.N.  They don't need to nuke the west to take over.  That is old thinking.  There are many other ways which they are now taking control such as propaganda, ideology, cyber, and many countless agents working in various western countries.

This seems to be all in line with biblical prophecy which prophesies a one world system run by the anti-Christ at some point in the future.  It is easy to see how that is coming with the globalists push for more global control and the U.N. Marxist agenda called Social Development Goals (SDG).  That is a Marxist manifesto for creating a global utopia.  Of course that won't happen until all countries forfeit their sovereingty and submit to the globalist one-world government.  But this could be happening gradually as we see with Trudeau and the Liberals supporting things like the U.N. Compact on Migration and the U.N. Climate Change Accord.

Edited June 9, 2021 by blackbird

[Guest]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Actually it's not look good for the western civilization for several reasons.  Communist or authoritarian countries are forming an alliance with China-Russia forming an alliance.  China is officially atheist.

 

I read lately in the book Alliance of Evil (Russia and China) that China will be the world's strongest superpower in one to two decades.  They may already be economically the superpower in many ways.  They control the U.N. and many international organizations.  They do not believe in western values such as liberalism and human rights.  They will gradually force the west to accept their authoritarian style of government.  They also have proxy countries who will do their bidding and help them grow in power and supremacy.  The west is full of liberals, democrats, Socialist, and progressives like yourself who want government to take care of them from cradle to grave and create a utopia.  China promises this type of system for you but the only catch is you will surrender your fundamental freedoms and democracy in exchange for this form of government security system.  This is what is happening.  One tool to do this is the U.N. and World Economic Forum.  We also see this happening with the World Health Organization which is run by a former liberation revolutionary from Africa.  The W.H.O. is controlled by China which controls much of the U.N.  They don't need to nuke the west to take over.  That is old thinking.  There are many other ways which they are now taking control such as propaganda, ideology, cyber, and many countless agents working in various western countries.

Well, I for one no longer buy anything from China if I can avoid it.  But I do like Combination D...

[CITIZEN_2015]

Hating the victims!!!

I think that many on this forum fail to realize that most of muslims who are here in Canada wanted to leave behind the culture of oppression and inequality and instead live here which is the land of freedom and equality. They didn't leave their birthplace or family because there are more mosques here or because there are more murderous mullahs here but because they wanted to get away from the culture pf oppression and inequality  in their homeland. So hating them is like hating the victims of a crime

Edited June 9, 2021 by CITIZEN_2015

[Dougie93]

the more Canadains fetishize their pet Muslims, the more those Muslims will be targeted

the mass killers are reacting to the media coverage

Canadians who adopt Muslims as their pet class mark which targets will have the maximum effect in the information war

[Dougie93]

it was the same in New Zealand

priggish leftist New Zealanders adopted pet Muslim immigrants from Afghanistan or whatever

if you want to get attention from the media and upset the masses, that's who you go after

the fetishized victim classes of the bourgeois left and their mass media

[Dougie93]

again, low status male, socially inept, self isolating, mental breakdown

nobody was paying attention to him before, now he has your attention

by killing your pet Muslims

the bourgeois left & associated media adopt victim classes as their pets

all over the western world, the leftist bourgeoisie fetishize them as being virtuous somehow

the noble Muslim savages, most precious projects of the priggish leftist twits

 note that this comes in the wake of spasmodic media outrage about their precious Palestinians

these mass killers will sometimes write a manifesto

it's quite clear that these are actually written for maximum media effect

they know what you screech about on the internet, they know what will get your attention

they have reached the threshold of homicidal rage, they are going to kill somebody

but who they select is not really ideological, it's just who is the most precious to you

who is the Canadian media going to give the most attention to ? Who will they weep for most ?

if it was Vietnamese boat people, then that's who it would be

if it was Guatemalan Roman Catholics, then that's who it would be

the Canadian media's favourite pets are Muslims these days, so that's the ticket

whoever is clearly "the other"

who the media fetishize as being most precious

this is information war, the mass killers go for maximum media clickbait

maximum psychological shock effect by targeting your fetishes

I doubt the killer was actually driven to target Muslims per se

that's just the targets who the media selected for him

you have to understand why males kill

they don't kill for ideology, they kill for status, or a lack thereof

killing is not for a cause, it's the male dominance hierarchy drive, evolutionary psychology

if you have large numbers of single, low status, disenfranchised males, that is when homicide rates rise

if there is pathological narcissism in play, that is when they mass murder for maximum attention

I might guess that he was seeking female attention

the left is generally feminized and it's the females who fetishize the victim classes the most

he can't get the attention of mating females, due to his low status, so he lashes out

if a male can't be loved, then he will seek to be feared

all male behaviour is related to their position in a dominance hierarchy vis a vis mating females

if you are a high status male, you are happy, if you are low status, that can become an abyss

when that abyss becomes endemic, societal,  then you have amonie

the breakdown of social order is the breakdown of the male dominance hierarchy

no male is going to mass murder for Islamophobia, that's not how the male psychology works

this was an information warfare attack on leftist feminine Muslim huggers

Edited June 9, 2021 by Dougie93