Islamophobia in Canada

WestCoastRunner · January 27, 2016

Done here.

kimmy · January 27, 2016

you just can't help yourself! Ya ya, you never claimed "all"... followed by yet another broad-sweeping "others". It's glaringly obvious why you raised such a stink at my providing the first (and to that point only) stats in an attempt to provide perspective on the degree of that criminality in the profiled city. You stated I was "attempting to diminish"... you claimed "deceit by omission"... that I was "trying to make a case for the criminals". Yes, clearly... you much preferred the wide-open, most generalized, broad-sweeping brush to tarnish... stats/numbers are apparently such an inconvenient truth to some!

.

.

Your attempt to "provide perspective" is just spin. It's as rigorous as when Shady posts something like "East coast blizzard today. #GlobalWarming" except that when Shady posts that stuff at least I know he's just having fun, while with you it seems you're quite serious and want your "analysis" to be taken "seriously".

why so perturbed over data... numbers?

Well for starters you proposed the figure of 100 victims, which was badly out of date by the 3rd day of the scandal. When I corrected you with the figure of 500, you went shopping for a cite and through either design or serendipity came up with a still badly out of date figure of 170.

With the figure now at well over 600 victims including 359 sexual assaults, you've completely abandoned that metric and are now going with "just a handful of rapes". Can you concede that you're just searching for some way to phrase what happened in a way that makes it sound less outrageous?

You obviously want to "pump them up"! What is, as you say, "hilarious", is that you don't even realize you're adding to the perspective I intended to provide... relative to that single years (2015) 1.1 million registered 'asylum seekers' number.

I don't need to say anything to "pump up" what happened. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts were sufficient to create almost universal anger and outrage in the western world. (almost universal, with the MLW member who contends the whole thing was a hoax being one exception and yourself being the other exception. Universal except for you two.)

I don't have to "pump up" anything. I don't have to exaggerate anything. I claimed 500 victims and it was actually well over 600 at the time... I actually understated it.

A mob estimated at around 2000 people takes over a train station and hundreds of women are surrounded by groups of men and sexually assaulted, while the police are helpless to do anything. Those are the facts, universally agreed upon by eye-witnesses and by the police force's own internal report. Why would I need to do anything at all to "pump up" the incident? It's unprecedented in the Western world. (it's not unprecedented in the Muslim world, of course.)

Let's not lose track of who was the one who started trying to reframe what happened in Cologne. I'm comfortable with the universally agreed on facts of the case. You're the one trying to provide a different "perspective", ie, you're trying to spin it.

you used the words "complaining" and 'complaint"... I did neither in my reply to you. In your back-handed compliment to the Liberal government/Trudeau, you used the words, "settling on such a modest number", and "focusing on actual Syrian refugees". I simply asked you if you thought there ever was an intent otherwise. I also reinforced for you the security focused rationale behind excluding single males... particularly given the efforts to instill fear into the Canadian public by Harper Conservatives during the election campaign.

.

I simply don't care what Trudeau's rationale was for excluding males, I'm just glad he did. In light of recent events in Europe, I think this decision has been vindicated.

-k

Bonam · January 27, 2016

It's disgusting your argument.

I'm sorry. This filth disguists me.

Done here.

Stop with the content-free spam please. Yes, we get it, you're disgusted every time someone dares to disagree with you. Doesn't mean you have to keep proclaiming your disgust over and over.

WestCanMan · January 27, 2016

Do you have the slightest clue/cite to back up your speculation?

Sept 11 2001 was a bad day for plane crashes of the seemingly intentional variety. Do you need a stat to prove that?

Dec 7 1941 was a bad day for ships at anchor in the pacific ocean in their home port. Do you need a stat to prove that?

Dec 31 2015 was a bad day for cities experiencing sexual assaults out in the street. Do you need a stat to prove that?

If you want to take the position that events like Dec 31 occur frequently on this planet then the onus is on you to provide a cite to back that up.

waldo · January 27, 2016

Your attempt to "provide perspective" is just spin. ... while with you it seems you're quite serious and want your "analysis" to be taken "seriously".

I could care less what you think in this regard; what I won't accept is your disingenuous attempts to play out your agenda at my expense. I offered a legitimate attempt to put a degree of definition around the criminality exercised... where none existed prior.

.

Well for starters you proposed the figure of 100 victims, which was badly out of date by the 3rd day of the scandal. When I corrected you with the figure of 500, you went shopping for a cite and through either design or serendipity came up with a still badly out of date figure of 170.

With the figure now at well over 600 victims including 359 sexual assaults, you've completely abandoned that metric and are now going with "just a handful of rapes". Can you concede that you're just searching for some way to phrase what happened in a way that makes it sound less outrageous?

no - the initial numbers you provided (after following my lead) were not that different from mine... which I subsequently made note of. My referenced source (which I provided a link to) was but 3 days old. You subsequently went on a googly hunt and found something more current... and as I laughed at you, you belittled me for not being accurate... yet somehow, as I noted, you managed to conveniently forget that your initial numbers were not significantly different than mine. And... through all that... you never provided a single linked reference source and when challenged on that you simply dismissed it by saying something along the lines of "you could easily provide a source if you had to"! Yes, clearly, your intellectual honesty was on full display through that exchange!

.

I don't need to say anything to "pump up" what happened. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts were sufficient to create almost universal anger and outrage in the western world. (almost universal, with the MLW member who contends the whole thing was a hoax being one exception and yourself being the other exception. Universal except for you two.)

I don't have to "pump up" anything. I don't have to exaggerate anything. I claimed 500 victims and it was actually well over 600 at the time... I actually understated it.

yes, the facts most certainly do speak for themselves... facts that put the degree of criminality in perspective relative to the 1.1 million asylum seekers is a most inconvenient fact/truth for you. And again, to counter your specious charge that I was "attempting to diminish" the severity, from the onset I've never wavered from calling the actions criminal in nature. Apparently, that's not enough for you! As I said, you're simply reinforcing the perspective I attempted to provide... did provide! Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure (which was just one years worth (2015) of asylum seekers), that offers a reference/perspective on the CRIMINALITY. One you're most uncomfortable with.

.

Bob Macadoo · January 27, 2016

This somehow doesn't seem to fit the definition of "facilitating" to me....when is your launch date?

drummindiver · January 27, 2016

I could care less what you think in this regard; what I won't accept is your disingenuous attempts to play out your agenda at my expense. I offered a legitimate attempt to put a degree of definition around the criminality exercised... where none existed prior.

.

no - the initial numbers you provided (after following my lead) were not that different from mine... which I subsequently made note of. My referenced source (which I provided a link to) was but 3 days old. You subsequently went on a googly hunt and found something more current... and as I laughed at you, you belittled me for not being accurate... yet somehow, as I noted, you managed to conveniently forget that your initial numbers were not significantly different than mine. And... through all that... you never provided a single linked reference source and when challenged on that you simply dismissed it by saying something along the lines of "you could easily provide a source if you had to"! Yes, clearly, your intellectual honesty was on full display through that exchange!

.

yes, the facts most certainly do speak for themselves... facts that put the degree of criminality in perspective relative to the 1.1 million asylum seekers is a most inconvenient fact/truth for you. And again, to counter your specious charge that I was "attempting to diminish" the severity, from the onset I've never wavered from calling the actions criminal in nature. Apparently, that's not enough for you! As I said, you're simply reinforcing the perspective I attempted to provide... did provide! Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure (which was just one years worth (2015) of asylum seekers), that offers a reference/perspective on the CRIMINALITY. One you're most uncomfortable with.

.

So you are suggesting that a certain percentage of rapes per asylum seeker is acceptable?

kimmy · January 27, 2016

This somehow doesn't seem to fit the definition of "facilitating" to me....when is your launch date?

I have been reluctant to do any "facilitating" in this thread where I've been heavily involved as a poster.

If I weren't involved as a poster, perhaps I'd have sent WCR a suggestion (as Bonam did) regarding the previous posts. But since that outburst was directed at me, I didn't feel it would have been appropriate to put on a moderator hat at that point.

If there's discontent that I'm continuing to participate as a poster rather than staying out of threads, then perhaps I should turn in my badge.

-k

Big Guy · January 27, 2016

There has been a recent report that claims that Islamophobia is becoming rampant in the Western world. Huge refugee flows to Europe coupled with broadening attacks on Western civilians in the name ISIL have led to growing fear-mongering and Islamophobia, a new report said on Wednesday.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/01/islamophobia-surges-politics-fear-160127104124003.html

One of the authors said public discourse has been filled with "voices of hatred and fear of Muslims, for whom the refugees are surrogates".

Wow! Thank goodness we have none of that in Canada and especially not on public access opinion boards!

kimmy · January 27, 2016

I could care less what you think in this regard; what I won't accept is your disingenuous attempts to play out your agenda at my expense. I offered a legitimate attempt to put a degree of definition around the criminality exercised... where none existed prior.

The extent of the New Years Eve incident had already been described... the element you were introducing is to attempt to frame it in terms of the overall number of asylum-seekers.

Your attitude seems to be that since the number of participants was small in proportion to the overall number of asylum-seekers, it's not that big of a problem.

My attitude is that a 2000-man sex-assault mob that police are powerless to stop is a big problem, period. 350 sexual assaults in one location in the span of a couple of hours is a big problem, period. Women being told by their mayor that they shouldn't go out alone for their own safety is a big problem, period.

..

no - the initial numbers you provided (after following my lead) were not that different from mine... which I subsequently made note of. My referenced source (which I provided a link to) was but 3 days old. You subsequently went on a googly hunt and found something more current... and as I laughed at you, you belittled me for not being accurate... yet somehow, as I noted, you managed to conveniently forget that your initial numbers were not significantly different than mine. And... through all that... you never provided a single linked reference source and when challenged on that you simply dismissed it by saying something along the lines of "you could easily provide a source if you had to"! Yes, clearly, your intellectual honesty was on full display through that exchange!

Your cite was from Sunday Jan 10 and was posted on Jan 16... your cite was a full work-week of new reports behind.

You opened with a figure of 100, and when I said 500, you edged up slightly to 170 supported by your out-of-date cite.

My stated figure-- 500-- was one that I had read multiple places that week and could have easily been verified by yourself or by anybody who had the slightest interest. But you challenged me, and when I came back with the newer figure, you chided me for being inaccurate, and now claim that your own numbers weren't that different.

And I don't think you once even acknowledged the 359 sexual assaults... you just jumped right to your new metric "just a handful of rapes".

yes, the facts most certainly do speak for themselves... facts that put the degree of criminality in perspective relative to the 1.1 million asylum seekers is a most inconvenient fact/truth for you. And again, to counter your specious charge that I was "attempting to diminish" the severity, from the onset I've never wavered from calling the actions criminal in nature. Apparently, that's not enough for you! As I said, you're simply reinforcing the perspective I attempted to provide... did provide! Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure (which was just one years worth (2015) of asylum seekers), that offers a reference/perspective on the CRIMINALITY. One you're most uncomfortable with.

.

As the rest of the world reacted with shock and anger, you're here trying to provide your own "perspective" that in terms of the number of immigrants, the New Years Eve debacle was actually pretty minor.

No, it wasn't pretty minor. No amount of tortured logic and misleading math will show otherwise.

-k

waldo · January 27, 2016

So you are suggesting that a certain percentage of rapes per asylum seeker is acceptable?

the proper response to any loaded question is to simply say... no.

oh, by the way, you would have realized more to have structured your question along the lines of the usual example attached to that logical fallacy; as in, "have you stopped beating your wife"?

waldo · January 27, 2016

The extent of the New Years Eve incident had already been described... the element you were introducing is to attempt to frame it in terms of the overall number of asylum-seekers.

Your attitude seems to be that since the number of participants was small in proportion to the overall number of asylum-seekers, it's not that big of a problem.

your interpreted attitude is self-serving and suits your agenda here. Your attitude seems to be that speaking to real data/numbers and framing that data as criminal in nature is improper. Your attitude favours attacking someone providing data (where none had existed prior) by charging them with, as you did to me, "intent to dismiss", "deceit by omission" and "making a case for the criminals/criminality".

.

Your cite was from Sunday Jan 10 and was posted on Jan 16... your cite was a full work-week of new reports behind.

You opened with a figure of 100, and when I said 500, you edged up slightly to 170 supported by your out-of-date cite.

My stated figure-- 500-- was one that I had read multiple places that week and could have easily been verified by yourself or by anybody who had the slightest interest. But you challenged me, and when I came back with the newer figure, you chided me for being inaccurate, and now claim that your own numbers weren't that different.

And I don't think you once even acknowledged the 359 sexual assaults... you just jumped right to your new metric "just a handful of rapes".

your parlour tricks are profound! You're mixing complaint numbers with victim numbers... will you offer your apology in that regard? In actuality, your 16th date reference is a post quoting the prior 15th day post... of a newspaper article that was updated on the 10th. Your premise is that I purposely put forward a dated reference link... while through all of that you never could manage to actually put forward a cited reference. Through all of this charade of yours we're still talking about the difference of (notwithstanding you mixing complaint numbers with victim numbers)... hundreds... of cases of reported criminality set against the backdrop of a million+ "asylum seekers".

.

As the rest of the world reacted with shock and anger, you're here trying to provide your own "perspective" that in terms of the number of immigrants, the New Years Eve debacle was actually pretty minor.

No, it wasn't pretty minor. No amount of tortured logic and misleading math will show otherwise.

no, that's your spin - your phobic driven spin.

.

drummindiver · January 27, 2016

the proper response to any loaded question is to simply say... no.

oh, by the way, you would have realized more to have structured your question along the lines of the usual example attached to that logical fallacy; as in, "have you stopped beating your wife"?

"and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure"

You clearly believe that a "handful" of rapes is acceptable collateral damage to the number of refugees.

Argus · January 27, 2016

your interpreted attitude is self-serving and suits your agenda here. Y

From what I stand her 'agenda' seems to be a concern that we not import vast numbers of people who hate women. Your agenda, on the other hand, seems to be to deride anyone with such concerns, given you have no such concerns. She has legitimate real-world concerns, in other words, while your efforts are entirely ideological and lack any care about what violence might be done to women in a real world setting.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Argus

Argus · January 27, 2016

oh, by the way, you would have realized more to have structured your question along the lines of the usual example attached to that logical fallacy; as in, "have you stopped beating your wife"?

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion you have one.

waldo · January 27, 2016

You clearly believe that a "handful" of rapes is acceptable collateral damage to the number of refugees.

is your phobia leading you to believe that belief?

waldo · January 27, 2016

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion you have one.

please rise above your continued drive-by personalization/slags - carry on

Boges · January 27, 2016

please rise above your continued drive-by personalization/slags - carry on

Did you not just debase the debate to a point where you are accusing people that show concern over an incident of mass rape as having a "phobia"?

Seems you should go first.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Boges

waldo · January 27, 2016

From what I stand her 'agenda' seems to be a concern that we not import vast numbers of people who hate women.

good on ya for turning this thread back towards Canada - so "her agenda as expressed by you", should have no cause for worry/concern then in regards Canada, hey!

.

Your agenda, on the other hand, seems to be to deride anyone with such concerns, given you have no such concerns. She has legitimate real-world concerns, in other words, while your efforts are entirely ideological and lack any care about what violence might be done to women in a real world setting.

if, to you, providing reference data that speaks to the degree of criminality exercised, is "deride"... guilty as charged!

.

drummindiver · January 27, 2016

is your phobia leading you to believe that belief?

I quoted you. Clearly, you believe it.

Edited January 27, 2016 by drummindiver

waldo · January 27, 2016

Did you not just debase the debate to a point where you are accusing people that show concern over an incident of mass rape as having a "phobia"?

Seems you should go first.

why provide this comment relative to the post you're quoting? In regards your "just" timing, I expect the "phobia" reference quote you should have been replying to is where I ask the question, "is your phobia leading you to believe that belief?"... in response to this assertion towards me:

You clearly believe that a "handful" of rapes is acceptable collateral damage to the number of refugees.

try again! Try harder.

.

Boges · January 27, 2016

why provide this comment relative to the post you're quoting? In regards your "just" timing, I expect the "phobia" reference quote you should have been replying to is where I ask the question, "is your phobia leading you to believe that belief?"... in response to this assertion towards me:

try again! Try harder.

What about that quote indicates that phobia? It's a response to your insistence that the New Years even incident isn't reflective of the refugee community.

Perhaps it isn't but it's still a startling level of criminality that's extraordinarily rare in the west and it appears the cause is Misogyny that's more common in the Muslim world than it is in western societies. It should be cause for concern.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Boges

waldo · January 27, 2016

I quoted you. Clearly, you believe it.

you selectively pulled out a partial sentence... here's the full post you presume to play gotcha with and make-up your own assertions from. And if you actually took the effort to read what I replied to (as I quoted) you would see that "handful" was declared 'my metric' by the other member.

yes, the facts most certainly do speak for themselves... facts that put the degree of criminality in perspective relative to the 1.1 million asylum seekers is a most inconvenient fact/truth for you. And again, to counter your specious charge that I was "attempting to diminish" the severity, from the onset I've never wavered from calling the actions criminal in nature. Apparently, that's not enough for you! As I said, you're simply reinforcing the perspective I attempted to provide... did provide! Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure (which was just one years worth (2015) of asylum seekers), that offers a reference/perspective on the CRIMINALITY. One you're most uncomfortable with.

apparently... I didn't use the words criminal/criminality enough!

.

drummindiver · January 27, 2016

you selectively pulled out a partial sentence... here's the full post you presume to play gotcha with and make-up your own assertions from. And if you actually took the effort to read what I replied to (as I quoted) you would see that "handful" was declared 'my metric' by the other member.

apparently... I didn't use the words criminal/criminality enough!

.

"Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure"

You are still minimizing. I could put the whole sentence in, and it still shows you believe a ""handful" of actual reported rapes" is acceptable given the number of refugees.

waldo · January 27, 2016

"Criminal actions resulting in some hundreds of assaults... and yes, some "handful" of actual reported rapes... relative to that 1.1 million figure"

You are still minimizing. I could put the whole sentence in, and it still shows you believe a ""handful" of actual reported rapes" is acceptable given the number of refugees.

you're reading... inferring... what you want to. Apparently you have pause/reservation in applying a reference perspective to the criminality exercised. You prefer to believe that looking at actual data/numbers is "minimizing", as you say. Don't be phobic towards the data as well!