Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

so..... "can't (legally) work <> lack of integration". Problem - yes? From your (now) referenced link... sort of providing a bit of... missing perspective relative to that work/integration fail:

So... how does 'can't legally work' make them different from 'can't find work'? Given most of the Muslims who arrive here as refugees can't speak English and have no job skills and little education, can we expect them to become similarly frustrated and start forming rape clubs?

[Argus]

So you didn't care for the term "Team Islam". If you were to choose a better name, what would it be

-k

I find it amusing the guy who labels everyone who disagrees with him on this issue a 'phobe' should be complaining about being labelled.

[waldo]

Exactly. It pre-dates the west's existence. They don't let anything get in the way of a good meme though. Even stubborn facts. Any means of blaming non-brown people.

your continuing, ad nauseum, 'Power to WhitePower' shtick deserves its own thread!

.

Given most of the Muslims who arrive here as refugees can't speak English and have no job skills and little education, can we expect them to become similarly frustrated and start forming rape clubs?

good on ya for bringing a focus back to Canada. I'm interested in you qualifying your statement with representative data and what apparent process/support failings (failings, to you) bring out such paranoia in you to envision "rape clubs forming". Thanks in advance.

.

[Argus]

good on ya for bringing a focus back to Canada. I'm interested in you qualifying your statement with representative data and what apparent process/support failings (failings, to you) bring out such paranoia in you to envision "rape clubs forming". Thanks in advance.

.

You believe our refugees will be different from their refugees? On what basis?

There is no data available because the left and team Islam has ensured no data will be kept so it can continue to argue that every group is exactly the same.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

Nope. The focus of discussion is on whether it is 'islamophobia' to be wary about importing vast numbers of people with a religious based culture and value system which devalues women and marks them as inherently inferior. What dangers to our secular and liberal cultures are presented by bringing in ever larger numbers of people who are zealous religious adherents of extreme, backward cultural practices?

The incidents in Cologne were simply used as an example of what happens when you invite such people into your society.

please, follow closer. I said 'was on' as in the very pointed exchanges concerning one particular focus. It is most welcome that you choose to now directly speak to a broader focus... but, as always, we (Canada at large, if I might) can learn from you as you might endevour to apply your concerns inward to Canada and speak to what practical measures Canada should be following (that aren't being actioned), to relieve your fears of, as you said, 'rape clubs forming'.

.

[waldo]

There is no data available because the left and team Islam has ensured no data will be kept so it can continue to argue that every group is exactly the same.

are you saying you have no representative data to support your statements/claims? Just who/what (continue generalizing as you must), within your target team has so, apparently to you, stymied your data want and constrained you in your ability to properly substantiate your concerns? Name the names!

.

[kimmy]

easy for you to say 'no kidding'... now that I highlighted that very pertinent point from your referenced article... but absent from your initial quote. Yes, it's a very pertinent influence - no kidding! If you had included it, your selective quoting from that article wouldn't appear so selective... and self-serving.

.

They're lifestyle surfers who picked Germany because they heard the streets were paved with gold. What makes you think they even want jobs?

I'm sure that Germany is just brimming with jobs for uneducated migrants with poor language skills, if only those mean Germans would let them work.

more broadbrush? More? Cause, apparently (at least to you), there were no questions, challenges or protests concerning the large influx of refugees into Germany before 'New Years Eve'. Imagine that. I've read that the biggest target for your "hiding the problem... the New Years Eve problem", was the German media. I also read the event was so fluid, so dynamic that press coverage was forever "dated"... days old dated. Hey German media, welcome to my MLW world where kimmy has been on a tear here cause I put forward... days old data! Oh wait, yes... I did read about the City of Cologne's police chief playing down the events/numbers... but then again, some might think that was self-preservation given his police force didn't manage the event too well - ya think! And if there was some like downplay/cover-up by some politicians, I expect it has similar self-preservation attachment to it.

.

No kidding it's self-preservation.

The main complaint is not with the German media, but rather with the German police, who attempted to describe New Year's Eve as "largely peaceful" and "a jolly mood", even though their own internal report proves that they knew full well at the time that they had a major disaster on their hands. They only came clean later on, when the media-- aside from the state broadcaster of course-- began to report on the issue.

And likewise it is only since that debacle that German politicians have put a priority on getting rid of rejected asylum seekers. Before this, only the "far right" thought there was a problem, and everybody else depicted them as fear-mongering racists for saying it. People like yourself-- who would shout down any discussion of the subject with attacks on the character of people who don't share your rose-colored glasses view of the Muslim migrants.

And as this news from Germany shocked the rose-colored glasses set out of their collective illusions, people in other countries have begun to suspect they've been lied to as well, as in Sweden where the Stockholm police have fessed up to covering up sex assaults by Muslim migrants as well. And now Swedish politicians have decided to take action on getting rid of rejected asylum-seekers as well.

ya, ya... your quoting hit all YOUR major points - you betcha! And yes, per your initial quote (from a cite you didn't provide), you had no problem highlighting a very critical crime stat for "North Africa"; one that had no qualification on the severity of crimes within that stat, one that didn't distinguish families from single males per the article, one that didn't highlight the referenced article statement that none of the migrants met the definition of actual refugee, and... and... one that didn't mention the article point about them not being able to legally work, or the subsequent article points that extended upon 'not being able to work... idle-hands... failed integration...etc..

.

So having finally gotten the "perspective" you've been demanding regarding criminality among Muslim migrants, you now wish to narrow the scope to only just those who are from Syria, and those who are not single males, and I assume you'd prefer to discuss just those with jobs as well.

-k

[Big Guy]

I see there are posters here who are advising “caution” in Canadian dealings with refugees. There have been demonstrations in the UK by organizations advising “caution”. They are the South East Alliance (who are angry, white and proud), the East Kent English Patriots and the North West Infidels (check out their views).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fascist-anti-fascists-violent-clash-dover-immigration-refugee-demonstrations-a6843596.html

In the past, In an attempt to warn potential racists just what kind of bed they were getting into, I had referenced a few white supremacy web sites, posted quotes from their sites, posted quotes by Adolf Hitler and his inner circle. I was admonished and criticized by the owners of this board that my references had to be put in context.

I will try again. It is not illegal and very simple to be racist or bigoted or xenophobic. All it takes is a level of intolerance rationalized into something good and noble like patriotic or nationalistic. I had been using quotations of organizations and people known to be racists as examples very similar to what I read on this board.

Well, someone went one step farther and replaced the word “Jew” with the word “Migrant” in quotations from Adolph Hitler and posted them as new ideas:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/10/hitler-quotes-in-the-comments-of-daily-mail-articles_n_7966560.html

The new comments received enthusiastic approval from many readers.

Some things never change. Posters just find different packages to present the same ....

[waldo]

So having finally gotten the "perspective" you've been demanding regarding criminality among Muslim migrants, you now wish to narrow the scope to only just those who are from Syria, and those who are not single males, and I assume you'd prefer to discuss just those with jobs as well.

oh my! I go where the discussion goes... you took it there - that was you. I'll re-quote you if you'd like... your "Syrianophobia" or "Refugeeophobia" related comments... and your most selective and self-serving quote selection. Perhaps next time you might choose to offer a more rounded quote selection from your referenced article... the one you only cited after I pressed you to provide it. If your only big-time reach reply is to now ask if that was/is "now my wish for narrowed scope discussion", you should really take a break and come back later to try again - try harder though!

.

[Guest]

I see there are posters here who are advising “caution” in Canadian dealings with refugees. There have been demonstrations in the UK by organizations advising “caution”. They are the South East Alliance (who are angry, white and proud), the East Kent English Patriots and the North West Infidels (check out their views).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fascist-anti-fascists-violent-clash-dover-immigration-refugee-demonstrations-a6843596.html

In the past, In an attempt to warn potential racists just what kind of bed they were getting into, I had referenced a few white supremacy web sites, posted quotes from their sites, posted quotes by Adolf Hitler and his inner circle. I was admonished and criticized by the owners of this board that my references had to be put in context.

I will try again. It is not illegal and very simple to be racist or bigoted or xenophobic. All it takes is a level of intolerance rationalized into something good and noble like patriotic or nationalistic. I had been using quotations of organizations and people known to be racists as examples very similar to what I read on this board.

Well, someone went one step farther and replaced the word “Jew” with the word “Migrant” in quotations from Adolph Hitler and posted them as new ideas:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/10/hitler-quotes-in-the-comments-of-daily-mail-articles_n_7966560.html

The new comments received enthusiastic approval from many readers.

Some things never change. Posters just find different packages to present the same ....

One of the problems with the terms "racist, bigoted or xenophobic" is that people will deliberately ignore behaviour by an identifiable group in order to avoid being described as such. In some cases that avoidance can have tragic consequences. In others, of course, it's just cowardice.

Still, it's a pickle we're in, for sure.

Edited January 31, 2016 by bcsapper

[kimmy]

oh my! I go where the discussion goes... you took it there - that was you. I'll re-quote you if you'd like... your "Syrianophobia" or "Refugeeophobia" related comments... and your most selective and self-serving quote selection. Perhaps next time you might choose to offer a more rounded quote selection from your referenced article... the one you only cited after I pressed you to provide it. If your only big-time reach reply is to now ask if that was/is "now my wish for narrowed scope discussion", you should really take a break and come back later to try again - try harder though!

.

I said a lot more than that, all of which you completely ignored in favor of reminding me for the 5th time that I forgot to link the article in my earlier post, a mistake I've apologized for and been happy to correct.

You apparently feel that it's of extreme importance to note that the poor dears weren't provided with jobs while their refugee applications were being evaluated rejected. I simply don't. They also weren't provided with BMWs and nice homes either, which also no doubt added to their disillusionment and contributed to their delinquency. Oh the humanity!

-k

[waldo]

I said a lot more than that, all of which you completely ignored in favor of reminding me for the 5th time that I forgot to link the article in my earlier post, a mistake I've apologized for and been happy to correct.

and I will continue if you presume to continue to draw reference to the particulars... as if you actually originally provided the cite; as if you actually originally provided a fair/balanced interpretation of your own referenced article. Your 'happy to correct' falls flat in the face of prior exchanges where you took exception to having it noted you weren't providing linked citations... along the lines of stating, "you could provide them if you had to"!

.

You apparently feel that it's of extreme importance to note that the poor dears weren't provided with jobs while their refugee applications were being evaluated rejected. I simply don't. They also weren't provided with BMWs and nice homes either, which also no doubt added to their disillusionment and contributed to their delinquency. Oh the humanity!

'poor dears'? I do believe you just scored 'an own goal'! Look, I get it... you don't like having perspective added (as relevant) and you don't like having your selective, self-serving quoting highlighted. I get that.

.

Edited January 31, 2016 by waldo

[Big Guy]

One of the problems with the terms "racist, bigoted or xenophobic" is that people will deliberately ignore behaviour by an identifiable group in order to avoid being described as such. In some cases that avoidance can have tragic consequences. In others, of course, it's just cowardice.

Still, it's a pickle we're in, for sure.

I agree when we are dealing with an identifiable group who are organized and whose views are documented. It is safe to say the KKK, Stormfront and the Nazi Germany's government was/is racist, bigoted and xenophobic.

When you start to apply the same labels to groups of people whose homogeneity rests strictly in your mind then that is where the problems begin. The last time I remember people correctly and collectively referring to the behaviour of an identifiable group was in reference to a military parade in which each member of a battalion was dressed the same and marching in lock step with each other.

One way to check to see if your post or view is valid is to substitute "Jew" for the target group. If that is not offensive or racist then you may be showing some objectivity.

[kimmy]

and I will continue if you presume to continue to draw reference to the particulars... as if you actually originally provided the cite; as if you actually originally provided a fair/balanced interpretation of your own referenced article. Your 'happy to correct' falls flat in the face of prior exchanges where you took exception to having it noted you weren't providing linked citations... along the lines of stating, "you could provide them if you had to"!.

.

I read all of that to say you've got nothing left.

'poor dears'? I do believe you just scored 'an own goal'! Look, I get it... you don't like having perspective added (as relevant) and you don't like having your selective, self-serving quoting highlighted. I get that.

.

And I read that to say that you want to make excuses for the migrants, rather than discuss the idiocy of people who thought it would be a good idea to let hundreds of thousands of young males wander into the country with no possible idea what to do with them once they arrived.

There's no conceivable way of providing jobs and comforts for all of these migrants, and yet to those who'd question the wisdom of an "open door" that invites asylum seekers from everywhere, you guys cry "racists!" "phobes!"

-k

[Guest]

I agree when we are dealing with an identifiable group who are organized and whose views are documented. It is safe to say the KKK, Stormfront and the Nazi Germany's government was/is racist, bigoted and xenophobic.

When you start to apply the same labels to groups of people whose homogeneity rests strictly in your mind then that is where the problems begin. The last time I remember people correctly and collectively referring to the behaviour of an identifiable group was in reference to a military parade in which each member of a battalion was dressed the same and marching in lock step with each other.

One way to check to see if your post or view is valid is to substitute "Jew" for the target group. If that is not offensive or racist then you may be showing some objectivity.

I could subsitute "Jew" for "Muslim", say, in the case of the Boko Haram attack on the village in Nigeria today where children were burnt to death but it wouldn't be valid, as there were no Jews involved. Well, I didn't check all the victims.

Still, the point I made was about fear. The fear of a label being applied if one dares to question the behaviour of a group that one might consider identifiable, but the act of identifying the group would be carried out by those doing the applying.

For instance, in my example above, what do you think? Did I show objectivity? Should I be afraid of the labels?

[Big Guy]

I could subsitute "Jew" for "Muslim", say, in the case of the Boko Haram attack on the village in Nigeria today where children were burnt to death but it wouldn't be valid, as there were no Jews involved. Well, I didn't check all the victims.

Still, the point I made was about fear. The fear of a label being applied if one dares to question the behaviour of a group that one might consider identifiable, but the act of identifying the group would be carried out by those doing the applying.

For instance, in my example above, what do you think? Did I show objectivity? Should I be afraid of the labels?

Sorry, did not read your post of the Boko Haram attack on the village in Nigeria so I cannot comment. Also am having difficulty in understanding your second paragraph. Please expand if interested in a reply.

As to how your posts are evaluated as to objectivity, that will probably vary with the poster. As to fear of labels - why would anybody care about a label applied to your posted opinion by some anonymous posting on an anonymous bulletin board? I have been labelled a whole bunch of things from Anti-Semitic to being a Russian operative to having bad breath. I consider the critical comment on what credibility that poster has built up with me.

There are a few posters here whose positive criticism I do consider even if they are anonymous based on my evaluation of their posting here. There are also many posters whose criticisms I dismiss after evaluating the spirit, sincerity and objectivity in which those criticisms are given.

Finally, why would anyone fear what others think if you are expressing your honest, if passionate, opinions?

[Guest]

Sorry, did not read your post of the Boko Haram attack on the village in Nigeria so I cannot comment. Also am having difficulty in understanding your second paragraph. Please expand if interested in a reply.

As to how your posts are evaluated as to objectivity, that will probably vary with the poster. As to fear of labels - why would anybody care about a label applied to your posted opinion by some anonymous posting on an anonymous bulletin board? I have been labelled a whole bunch of things from Anti-Semitic to being a Russian operative to having bad breath. I consider the critical comment on what credibility that poster has built up with me.

There are a few posters here whose positive criticism I do consider even if they are anonymous based on my evaluation of their posting here. There are also many posters whose criticisms I dismiss after evaluating the spirit, sincerity and objectivity in which those criticisms are given.

Finally, why would anyone fear what others think if you are expressing your honest, if passionate, opinions?

I didn't post an article about Boco Haram. I was referring to the first sentence in my post. (The event is in today's papers)

To clarify my second paragraph. The "identifiable group" is often applied to the conversation by those seeking to apply the labels of R,B and X. The most obvious example was Rotherham, an article on which I posted somewhere on here recently. Criminal activity perpetrated by an identifiable group was ignored because of the fear that bringing attention to that group's activities (without in any way seeking to blame the group itself, or any aspect of that groups culture, specifically) would result in the accusations of R,B, and X. (That aspects of the groups culture would leave them vulnerable to such group accusations is neither here nor there. Girls suffered unduly)

Similar things happened with the recent sexual assaults in Europe. Descriptions of what happened seemed to vary, based solely on a desire to separate the actions from the group identity of the perpetrators, based on political expediency.

As to your question about caring: Why do you post? Why do you come on here at all? I suggest it's for the same reasons I do. It's a distraction. It's fun to argue. Given that, it's tough to enjoy it to the full if you don't take a position that you care about, as opposed to simply being contrarian.

As to your last point, are you talking about this site, or the world in general? No-one likes to be misunderstood, even less if it seems deliberate, but on here it has few consequences, beyond a slight, temporary rise in blood pressure. Out in the real world, the results can be much worse.

Edited January 31, 2016 by bcsapper

[waldo]

I read all of that to say you've got nothing left.

And I read that to say that you want to make excuses for the migrants, rather than discuss the idiocy of people who thought it would be a good idea to let hundreds of thousands of young males wander into the country with no possible idea what to do with them once they arrived.

There's no conceivable way of providing jobs and comforts for all of these migrants, and yet to those who'd question the wisdom of an "open door" that invites asylum seekers from everywhere, you guys cry "racists!" "phobes!"

you can certainly choose to read and draw whatever assessment you feel comfortable making... a self-declared 'win' is apparently satisfying to you!

is it a surprise to you that I have little interest in propagating degrees of paranoia back... directly or indirectly... to Canada. Of course, it's the obvious reason why I continue to ask/imply 'what's the relevance to Canada?' - and I trust someone honestly choosing to draw that relevance back to Canada can and will present it in practical terms to explain their concerns and offer related requirements/wants to presumably alleviate their concerns... all relative to Canada.

.

[Shady]

your continuing, ad nauseum, 'Power to WhitePower' shtick deserves its own thread!

.

good on ya for bringing a focus back to Canada. I'm interested in you qualifying your statement with representative data and what apparent process/support failings (failings, to you) bring out such paranoia in you to envision "rape clubs forming". Thanks in advance.

.

Nothing to do with so-called white power. Just another waldo strawman. I guess you had a few to spare, even after using so many against kimmy. You must have an army! Anyways, just pointing out differences between that culture and pretty much every other culture. Whether it's in North America, Europe, South America, Africa, or Asia.

[waldo]

Nothing to do with so-called white power. Just another waldo strawman. I guess you had a few to spare, even after using so many against kimmy. You must have an army! Anyways, just pointing out differences between that culture and pretty much every other culture. Whether it's in North America, Europe, South America, Africa, or Asia.

I sincerely suggested your repeated like commentary is thread worthy on its own - something along the lines of 'why is everybody keeping the white guy down?'. Your call - carry on.

.

[Shady]

I sincerely suggested your repeated like commentary is thread worthy on its own - something along the lines of 'why is everybody keeping the white guy down?'. Your call - carry on.

.

You're a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.

[Rue]

Women have even been elected leaders of Muslim countries. Let's not let that get in the way of Argus's broadbrushing though....

Are you friggin serious? Go on name them and tell me how how the last one died.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are you friggin serious? Go on name them and tell me how how the last one died.

Here's a few for you.

http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/muslimwomen/summary/C86/category-search/heads_of_state

[Guest]

I think the idea that women having been elected as leaders of Muslim countries is indicative of the level of equality women enjoy in Muslim countries might be comparable to the idea that Obama being elected POTUS is indicative of the level of equality African Americans enjoy in the USA.

Except I suspect it's much worse for the women.

Edited January 31, 2016 by bcsapper

[Rue]

Rue, the reason I so rarely respond to you is that you ether completely misunderstand what I've posted or you're so intellectually dishonest that you think you have a valid point in making up a bunch of crap that isn't even remotely close to my argument. Either way, it's a complete waste of time slogging through your dissertations as a consequence.

You did respond by insulting me personally which only shows you can't back up your absurd attempt to suggest because at one point federal law discriminated against gays being able to marry or individuals may not like transgender people, that this to you is relevant to backing up the argument you find both equivalent to our Canadian government's treatment of gays past and present and the way gays are treated in Muslim society.

You provided all the above as pretext to justify Canada as a nation and Canadians as individuals are in no position to criticize Muslim societies as we are no better.

Of course you attack me personally and don't respond otherwise. Your position can't be defended other than to try insult me.

\