Islamophobia in Canada

[kimmy]

What??? I am asking Kimmy for clarification on something she posted, so what is your point here??

Hal's point is that a Canadian politician who made a similar comment would be pilloried (as has Ms Reker) for putting the focus on the victims as opposed to the attackers.

-k

[eyeball]

How could there not be a backlash?

-k

Good question. I was asking conservatives about this backlash 10 years ago when they decided that ramping up the chaos in the region was a good idea.

[eyeball]

...errrrr because this is the Islamophobia thread?

-k

This is just one more thread out of dozens that are saturated in Islamophobia.

[Rue]

This is just one more thread out of dozens that are saturated in Islamophobia.

Funny you've never been concerned in the past about threads saturated by Jewaphobia. In fact I would argue your past posts can easily be argued to have engaged in Jewaphobia. Why now only a concern if it is in your opinion Islamophobic...why have you demonstrated the exact same criticism of Jews you now say is wrong when it comes to Muslims...why the double standard with you and not just you but H. Jones, Big Guy, Jacee and some others...

Kimmy is talking about issues you do not want to discuss, violence against women and how in the name of political propriety important information as to that violence was covered up in the name of political propriety precisely because people like you throw out the accusation and apology of Islamophobia to justify not disclosing the ethnicity of the rapists mentioned.

This thread in fact deals with an issue of when and if identifying ethnicity or minority status of the perpetrator is necessary and if it is done and the perpetrators are Muslim does that automatically make it Islamophobia...

Yes you, Jacee, Big Guy, et al, are quick to call any reference to the word Muslim, Islamophobic, but you do not explain why other than to argue since the rapist is Muslim, saying they are Muslim makes it automatically an Islamophobic comment.

We are past the point of you or Jacee or Big Guy can detract or block or censor or prevent discussing certain issues by simply calling them Islamophobic as a catch 22 to justify censoring them.

There comes a time when your cry of racism or anti Islamism, or isms and ists and phobias no longer work.

Its a fact that a concentrated number of Muslim refugees have raped. That will not poof disappear because you cry out the word Islamphobia like the word abbra cadabra. Its not a magic word that makes it go away.

A specific pattern of behaviour has emerged and identifying and disclosing that pattern is essential if we are to understand it and contain it and prevent it and in fact head off extreme right wing extremist reaction to it if its perceived to not being dealt with.

Crying racism or Islamophobia is not making it go away, its fanning, feeding, right wing extremism..

In fact your denial is a reaction every bit as dangerous to fueling hatred of Muslims as any right wing extremist reactions to blaming all Muslims.

If I was seeking to incite racism against innocent Muslims, I would send in a bunch of extremists, have them rape women and then sit back and watch the reaction. If I did not know any better and was a conspiracy theorist I would think could these rapists be operatives inciting right wingers to riot. Then again I am not a conspirator because if I believe they are agents of disruption for ISIL letès say, the same argument could be made they are agents of the illuminati, Zionists, shapeshifting lizards, on and on.

So Unless we can talk openly about what is happening it and deal with it openly and honestly and with calm and logical discourse, the problem will continue to fester and snowball and feed anti Islam riots.

Think about that. when you pull the Islamophobia card. You are not helping Muslims with that liberal knee jerk guilt reaction. Its not working. You are simply showing your own discomfort and need to deny a fact because you think it attacks you as a Muslim. It does not. Its not a reflection on innocent Muslims to admit its happening, its a release from blaming those innocent Muslims from being blamed for the actions of the Muslims who do it. Those innocent Muslims are just as much victims of these Muslim rapists-you donèt help innocent Muslims protecting rapists in their community.

In fact your stances or positions may in fact are enabling these rapists to hide behind their minority status to get away with rape by using the Islamophobia card and if you canèt see that point some of us have made on this thread and want to label it simply as Islamophobia by us, then that refects in fact your Islamophobia not ours.

Ironically maybe your comments simply may be showing Its you who are in fact Islamophobic because you words show you fear the word Muslim used in any sentence.

All my comments are said as to your positions and opinions, not you as a person. I know you do not support anyone raping any one. I am talking about the issue as to avoiding saying Muslims are raping when I refer to your positions, not your own personal feelings. I know despite our arguments you do not approve of violence against women.

its your use of the Islamophobia card I question because I believe its coming in direct conflict with the need to engage in proper and effective policing. Catching the actual perpetrator is an act that calls for proper identification of the perpetrator. Claiming that need to properly identify canèt be done because it automatically can be labelled as Islamophobic is illogical.

Yes I agree that proper safeguards must be in place to protect innocent Muslims from being smeered in the same brush as guilty ones, but you are fanning that guilt by association if you in fact even with good liberal intentions prevent the identification and distinction between good and criminal Muslims from taking place.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Rue

[eyeball]

I'd say you're full of balony.

Edited January 10, 2016 by eyeball

[kimmy]

I'd say you're full of balony.

This sort of thing isn't constructive... some explanation of which parts you disagree with, or some rebuttal of the main points would move things forward.

-k

[dialamah]

Kimmy is talking about issues you do not want to discuss, violence against women and how in the name of political propriety important information as to that violence was covered up in the name of political propriety precisely because people would use the pretext and apology of Islamophobia to justify not disclosing of the ethnicity of the rapists mentioned.

Kimmy makes a valid point, but this is a thread about Islamaphobia, not a thread about the ways in which politicians manipulate information. Using the actions of politicians in a different country to justify anti-Islamic sentiment in Canada is part of the problem of Islamaphobia. Kimmy isn't wrong about how the politicians and police responded; she is wrong in trying to make it relevant to what our experience will be in accepting FAR FEWER refugees, the vast majority of whom will not be men in the 'suspect' age group.

This thread in fact deals with an issue of when and if identifying ethnicity or minority status of the perpetrator is necessary.

Identifying a perpetrator is necessary. Identifying their ethnicity and/or religion isn't necessary, unless one wants to use it to "prove" that any person of that ethnicity or religion must also be guilty of the same behavior. Or at least, potentially guilty. That is what is happening in this thread, which is why the term "islamaphobia" is used.

Its a fact that a concentrated number of Muslim refugees have raped. A specific pattern of behaviour has emerged and identifying and disclosing that pattern is essential if we are to understand it and contain it and prevent it.

Here are the facts, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, yesterday:

Among 32 suspects identified as of Friday night, he said, were 22 people registered as asylum seekers, revising an earlier figure of 18. The identified suspects included 17 people from Algeria and Morocco, as well as three Germans and one U.S. citizen. another 44 suspected assailants hadn’t been identified, he said.

Your assertion that these were all Muslim refugees is wrong. Of the 66 people implicated, only 22 have been confirmed as refugees so far. No doubt, more refugees are among the 44 still not identified, but so might more Germans and maybe even more Americans be found. Some of these asylum seekers, immigrants and citizens might even be Christian or atheist. You don't know, and blaming it all on Muslim refugees clearly shows bias. So how about rather than pointing fingers at those who say "You can't blame all Muslims for this", you stop and look at your own assumptions.

In fact your denial is a reaction every bit as dangerous to fueling hatred of Muslims as any right wing extremist reactions to blaming all Muslims.

Assuming things not proven, blaming an entire group for the actions of a few, and pretending you (we) are morally or culturally superior is what is dangerous. The belief of one's own group moral superiority has led to some of the worst atrocities in history.

You in fact are enabling these rapists to hide behind their minority status to get away with rape by using the Islamophobia card and if you canèt see that point some of us have made on this thread and want to label it simply as Islamophobia by us, then that refects in fact your Islamophobia not ours.

Blaming the people who attacked these women isn't 'hiding' - nowhere has Eyeball or anyone who've been accused of 'excusing rape and misogyny' ever excused rape, or misogyny or any kind of violence. What we aren't willing to do is blame ALL MUSLIMS for what the few do. Others, sadly, aren't willing to do that. If there's a Muslim in the area of a crime, and the perpetrator isn't actually known - some assume it must have been the Muslim.

Violence, rape, terrorism, misogyny, human rights abuses are wrong. All countries, cultures and religions engage in similar behaviors, to a greater or lesser degree; we have no moral standing to judge the Middle East, but only the moral obligation to show them - by example - what is possible. That example doesn't include engaging in wholesale condemnation of every person from that culture, region or religion.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes I agree that proper safeguards must be in place to protect innocent Muslims from being smeered in the same brush as guilty ones,

Identifying Islamophobia is not fanning it as you suggest, rather ignoring it is much more likely to allow it to exist. The last part of your post is really about the only part that didn't seem to go in circles. If we could successfully complete that suggestion we wouldn't have to worry about the phobia part I reckon.

[dialamah]

I think the sheer volume is a key part of what happened in Germany. The police were on scene, and had a higher-than-normal presence on site, and were still powerless to help.

If the mob numbered a few dozen instead of in the thousands, then things obviously would have turned out much differently. In all likelihood there wouldn't have been a mob in the first place.

I agree with that. Having a million people who've been displaced descend upon one's country is bound to result in problems. Although, I don't think the problem is Islam per se, but rather the effects of the displacement itself. It doesn't take much in Western society for violent elements to get out of hand, it can be something as innocuous as the home team losing, to a severe natural disaster. Crimes of violence and of opportunity, including sexual assault, rise with very little provocation. We are lucky, in Canada, that for the most part we've been spared these kinds of events.

I want to emphasize that I agree that the refugees coming from the Middle East will have different cultural experiences, and beliefs. Where I differ from you is how much of a problem or risk these differences represent.

The common-sense advice to women in Canada has always been to take special precautions in dangerous areas. The common-sense advice from Mayor Reker is to treat the whole city as if it's a dangerous place.

In Canadian cities, "dangerous places" has always been understood to mean high-crime areas of town, and areas where you might be isolated from assistance if something bad happened. In Cologne, "dangerous places" now appears to mean everywhere outside your home.

-k

That is indeed different than what I initially understood you to say. I agree that that would not be a pleasant experience. Was the advice based solely on this New Year's Eve event, or was it from an ongoing problem? If the former, I'd suggest it's an over-reaction to a one-off event; it would be as if Vancouver instituted a permanent curfew due to the riots that happened a few years ago. If it's because of an ongoing problem, then yes, they have a problem that they'll have to address.

But to me that doesn't mean that we'll have the same problem if we accept 5% of what Germany has accepted. Especially since we're accepting mostly women/children/older men while leaving the young men (who tend to be the most violent in ANY culture) behind.

Edited January 10, 2016 by dialamah

[Hal 9000]

This sort of thing isn't constructive... some explanation of which parts you disagree with, or some rebuttal of the main points would move things forward.

-k

Maybe if eyeball said that the post was full of baloney...or balogna.

[kimmy]

Among 32 suspects identified as of Friday night, he said, were 22 people registered as asylum seekers, revising an earlier figure of 18. The identified suspects included 17 people from Algeria and Morocco, as well as three Germans and one U.S. citizen. another 44 suspected assailants hadn’t been identified, he said.

Plus 5 Iranians and 4 Syrians. That's 26 out of 31 from North Africa/Middle East, so far.

As well, the leaked police report has been confirmed to be authentic, which indicates that the police force's own internal reports agreed with the assessment of the mob being largely Arabic and North African. As well as confirming that the police checked many IDs that night and that many of thes IDs presented to them were asylum-seeker documents.

-k

[Hal 9000]

I think what Dialamah is saying is that raping young women is bad, but discrimination is worse.

[Hal 9000]

This is what our non-discriminate world looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7XumVOIII

http://globalnews.ca/news/2435863/10-year-old-girl-patted-down-at-airport-over-juice-box/

Edited January 10, 2016 by kimmy
removed embedded video

[eyeball]

This sort of thing isn't constructive... some explanation of which parts you disagree with, or some rebuttal of the main points would move things forward.

-k

No it wouldn't. So I'll just back to ignoring him. My bad for not doing so.

[kimmy]

I agree with that. Having a million people who've been displaced descend upon one's country is bound to result in problems. Although, I don't think the problem is Islam per se, but rather the effects of the displacement itself. It doesn't take much in Western society for violent elements to get out of hand, it can be something as innocuous as the home team losing, to a severe natural disaster. Crimes of violence and of opportunity, including sexual assault, rise with very little provocation. We are lucky, in Canada, that for the most part we've been spared these kinds of events.

I want to emphasize that I agree that the refugees coming from the Middle East will have different cultural experiences, and beliefs. Where I differ from you is how much of a problem or risk these differences represent.

If it's simply a matter of displacement, why do the events in Cologne last week bear such a disturbing resemblance to the events in Tahrir Square a couple of years ago, when attackers and most of the victims were right in their home country?

The comparison to the Vancouver Canucks riot of a few years back is somewhat apt, in the sense of events escalating out of control of the law enforcement officers on site, but one striking difference is that in Vancouver even at the height of the lawlessness, the violence was directed at cars and windows, not at people.

That is indeed different than what I initially understood you to say. I agree that that would not be a pleasant experience. Was the advice based solely on this New Year's Eve event, or was it from an ongoing problem? If the former, I'd suggest it's an over-reaction to a one-off event; it would be as if Vancouver instituted a permanent curfew due to the riots that happened a few years ago. If it's because of an ongoing problem, then yes, they have a problem that they'll have to address.

That was Mayor Reker's advice to Cologne women this week. Her comments were ridiculed all over the planet. For the moment this appears to be "the new normal", although Mrs Merkel is now attempting to reassure German women by promising massive security and surveillance increases to prevent repeats. They appear to grasp, belatedly, that they've created a monster.

But to me that doesn't mean that we'll have the same problem if we accept 5% of what Germany has accepted. Especially since we're accepting mostly women/children/older men while leaving the young men (who tend to be the most violent in ANY culture) behind.

I agree with that much. Manageable numbers will reduce the scale of the risks. And families and women are, I suspect, far less likely to form a sex-assault mob than single men.

I feel like we're making progress here in the sense that at least we can acknowledge that yes, there is a risk involved in bringing in people who don't understand the law or the culture to live among us.

-k

[eyeball]

Germany is dealing with a monster that's been years in the making.

I've always been more afraid of the monster that would rise up in response.

[Argus]

Women in Canada already have a 25% chance of being sexually assaulted. I very much doubt that importing 50,000 Middle Eastern refugees, most of whom will be women and children, is going to put Canadian women at more risk of being sexually assaulted.

It isn't just about sexual assault. It is about importing a misogynistic attitude which flourish in Muslim, and in particular, ME Muslim cultures.

Do you know that in a UNICEF survey, 90% of people in Jordan, men AND women, felt that it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife if she displeased him?

And Jordan is one of those 'moderate' ME countries...

[dialamah]

If it's simply a matter of displacement, why do the events in Cologne last week bear such a disturbing resemblance to the events in Tahrir Square a couple of years ago, when attackers and most of the victims were right in their home country?

Any kind of 'displacement' can result in an increase of violence and rapes. Consider this story from Katrina, for instance. Even a relatively localized event such as a riot can result in a great deal of criminal activity, including rape, regardless of the country/culture/religion of the participants. And it's a pretty well known fact that there is a certain percentage of soldiers will rape women from the opposing (or even same) side, during military activity. The rapes in Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring weren't because these people were Muslim, but because they were people in a certain situation where social bonds/norms had broken down to some degree.

I feel like we're making progress here in the sense that at least we can acknowledge that yes, there is a risk involved in bringing in people who don't understand the law or the culture to live among us.

I think the risk is so small as to be negligible. Don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to clearly remember the 'threat' of the Asian immigrant: They were set on taking over Canada, through increasing the population of Asians in Canada and taking over financially. I think that mindset is still out there to some degree, but 40 years after I heard that particular 'worry', Canada doesn't seem any more Asian than it was before. Maybe it has more Chinese people living here, but certainly neither our culture nor our laws have changed to make us more like China.

[Hal 9000]

Any kind of 'displacement' can result in an increase of violence and rapes. Consider this story from Katrina, for instance. Even a relatively localized event such as a riot can result in a great deal of criminal activity, including rape, regardless of the country/culture/religion of the participants. And it's a pretty well known fact that there is a certain percentage of soldiers will rape women from the opposing (or even same) side, during military activity. The rapes in Tahrir Square during the Arab Spring weren't because these people were Muslim, but because they were people in a certain situation where social bonds/norms had broken down to some degree.

I think the risk is so small as to be negligible. Don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to clearly remember the 'threat' of the Asian immigrant: They were set on taking over Canada, through increasing the population of Asians in Canada and taking over financially. I think that mindset is still out there to some degree, but 40 years after I heard that particular 'worry', Canada doesn't seem any more Asian than it was before. Maybe it has more Chinese people living here, but certainly neither our culture nor our laws have changed to make us more like China.

This incident didn't happen in the middle of a war zone or disaster, this was at a New Years celebration and all early reports planned. And, it happened in other european cities. Every major city has NYE festivities, and yet there have no reports of any other groups of people sexually assaulting young women en masse.

As for your second point; Vancouver says hi!

[dialamah]

I think what Dialamah is saying is that raping young women is bad, but discrimination is worse.

I think they're equally bad, in different ways. Being raped is horrific, and I would be happy to mete out some severe punishment to proven rapists. Discrimination victimizes individuals, families, communities and nations. Left unchecked, It leads to things like genocide.

[dialamah]

This is what our non-discriminate world looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7XumVOIII

http://globalnews.ca/news/2435863/10-year-old-girl-patted-down-at-airport-over-juice-box/

Again, your point eludes me, but I'm sure someone will clarify for me. I will say I think it's ridiculous for 10-year-olds to be patted down over a juice box, and for weeks-old babies to be on no-fly lists.

[dialamah]

This incident didn't happen in the middle of a war zone or disaster, this was at a New Years celebration and all early reports planned. And, it happened in other european cities. Every major city has NYE festivities, and yet there have no reports of any other groups of people sexually assaulting young women en masse.

The people who perpetrated the crime, according to reports, were displaced, with the exception of two (or more?) German and American citizens. Not that the whole area was in the midst of civil unrest. \

As for your second point; Vancouver says hi!

Yes, and Vancouver and area still enjoys a *Canadian* system of laws and culture. We get all kinds of *Canadian* Stat holidays, we have all kinds of Canadian *equality* for women, we can have as many Canadian kids as we want, we can all say what we want with the exception of things designated as hate speech. So, just because we have a high concentration of Asian people in the area, I see not one iota of evidence that our "Canadian" way of life is gone or even in danger of being subsumed by Asian culture.

[Rue]

Di thank you for your responses.

You stated:

'Identifying a perpetrator is necessary. Identifying their ethnicity and/or religion isn't necessary, unless one wants to use it to "prove" that any person of that ethnicity or religion must also be guilty of the same behavior. Or at least, potentially guilty. That is what is happening in this thread, which is why the term "islamaphobia" is used."

Your comments after the first sentence automatically assume identity can only be used to blame innocent Muslims. That is illogical and more importantly you haven't proven it. Provide the words where I blamed innocent Musims for rape and explain how you have psychic abilities to know my motives.May I suggest you are projecting your own biases or subjective presumptions and assumptions.

You stated:

" .....blaming an entire group for the actions of a few, and pretending you (we) are morally or culturally superior is what is dangerous."

The above is your subjective name calling as to what I said. At no time have I said I was morally superior to Muslims or blame Muslims for the acts of other Muslims.

You stated in defence of yourself and Eyeball:

"What we aren't willing to do is blame ALL MUSLIMS for what the few do."

I have not asked you to blame all Muslims. I ask you now to stop apologizing for what Muslim rapists do by saying if someone points out they are Muslim it automatically makes the person who identifies them as Muslim a racist. By doing that you censor discussion as to their committing rapes. Context and contextual use of the word Muslim not the word Muslim itself, defines hot its used and whether its used fairly. Your argument does not take into consideration context. You assume the moment you hear the word Muslim it can' t be used fairly. That is illogical.

You might actually want to read what I wrote. I deliberately clarified I did not think Eye was condoning rape. Interesting you didn't read it. I put it in deliberately because I know you don't read what I write you react after a few words. I can anticipate knee jerk responses you know. Lol.

Finally you stated:

"we have no moral standing to judge the Middle East, but only the moral obligation to show them - by example - what is possible. That example doesn't include engaging in wholesale condemnation of every person from that culture, region or religion."

Don't speak for me thank you. I do not feel I have a moral obligation to show anyone let alone Muslims by example how not to rape a woman. That is absurd. I also have never condemned all Muslims as rapists just Muslims who are as I would anyone else who is.

I have for that matter no interest in how any Muslim decides their morality. They can continue in their societies to engage in in-breeding, stonings, cutting off of heads, etc. I have no intention of living in Pakistan or ISIL territory thank you or Arab countries. Been there done that. You confuse me with someone who cares and wants to engage in a mission to convert them to some sort of civility. I don't.

If they try impose their moral beliefs on me or rape a woman or commit a crime, then they have a problem with me, yes.

As for the society I live in, I hope they condemn any Muslim who rapes just like they would anyone who rapes.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rue

[dialamah]

It isn't just about sexual assault. It is about importing a misogynistic attitude which flourish in Muslim, and in particular, ME Muslim cultures.

Do you know that in a UNICEF survey, 90% of people in Jordan, men AND women, felt that it was acceptable for a man to beat his wife if she displeased him?

And Jordan is one of those 'moderate' ME countries...

And if such people move here and beat their wives, they'll find out it's not acceptable here. Its not as if we don't have Canadians born and raised who think it's acceptable to beat on women, and it's not like we're all suddenly going to start emulating these wife-beaters whether full-blooded Canadian or full-Blooded Middle Eastern.

It's ridiculous to claim that a portion of 1% of the total population of Canada is going to substantially change the other 99%. Chinese-Canadians, haven't managed to impose their cultural beliefs, or their rather admirable family values, on the rest of us, despite having a population 3 or 4 times higher than Arab-Canadians. The patriarchal society of India hasn't been imported into Canadian society by the over one-million Indo-Canadians - again, three or four times the number of Arab Canadians currently in Canada. The fear that bringing in refugees is somehow going to increase misogyny in Canada is an unreasonable fear, hence the words 'xenophobic' and 'islamaphobic'.

[dialamah]

As for the society I live in, I hope they condemn any Muslim who rapes just like they would anyone who rapes.

Me too.