Islamophobia in Canada

[WestCanMan]

You know not even all Muslim countries recognize Sharia Law as the law of the land, right? There's a million Muslims in Canada, don't you suppose if Sharia was going to become law here they would have enough Muslims to back it if every Muslim here believed that it should take precedence over Canadian law? These fears you people have are completely unfounded and show a stunning disregard for the fact that we are protecting Muslims from OTHER Muslims. Yet, there are way too damn many people here who can't get it through their heads that Islam itself and Muslims the,selves are not the problem. Now pay attention, the zealots and radicals are a problem. And that includes the knuckle dragging, bed sheet wearing, flathand saluting variety we claim as our own.

Muslims in Canada have already asked for Sharia law.

cyber- you don't know much about Islam. The Quran is based on the revelations of Mohammed. The Hadith is basically his accepted biography. His interpretation of the Koran, his interpretation of the muslim way of life is the gospel for muslims. I challenge you to go learn about Mohammed and then decide whether he was the peaceful man you seem to think he was..

Edited January 31, 2016 by WestCanMan

[GostHacked]

Muslims in Canada have already asked for Sharia law.

And Canada said no. Issue solved.

[Argus]

And Canada said no. Issue solved.

Soon there'll be two million. Then four million...

[Guest]

And Canada said no. Issue solved.

Yeah, but there always seems to be poltroons like the Archbishop of Canterbury (104) though....

[Shady]

Soon there'll be two million. Then four million...

Exactly. It's just really an issue of math.

[GostHacked]

Soon there'll be two million. Then four million...

And the answer will still be no.

[Argus]

And the answer will still be no.

Yes, because politicians never try to suck up to ethnic groups...

Trudeau said that if a Grit government is elected on Oct. 19, it would double the number of applications for parents and grandparents that could be submitted each year to 10,000. The Conservatives capped the number at 5,000 in 2013, saying that the number of older immigrants allowed into Canada must be limited because of the burden they place on the health-care system and other social security programs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-immigration-reform-1.3243302

[Big Guy]

I read this much of your post, no need to go on any further.

You just basically equated any vote against an open-door policy is equally racist.

Are you for real or just trolling?

My views are for real and yours to evaluate.

I would suggest that if you are prepared to understand or at least listen to views which are different from yours that you do not stop reading at the point at which you disagree.

If I had used the same process then when I would have read "I read this much of your post, no need to go on any further" I would have stopped reading because it was obviously critical of what I had posted.

I am of course assuming that you have read this post and had continued beyond, "My views are for real and yours to evaluate".

[Big Guy]

...

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.

I agree and will take the chance of being viewed as contrarian. To me an identifiable group is a very personal description of what it is that the individual feels is common among these people that makes them a "group".

If I declare that tall people are not very bright than I have subjectively decided what is "tall" and what "bright" means. Tall people is the group to which I am referring.

For example, If someone stated that "those people who sexually assaulted females during those protests should be prosecuted. Any of them found to be migrants should be deported immediately" then I would agree wholeheartedly.

Or even, "Those refugees who do not adhere to or follow the law in Canada should be deported immediately" then I would again agree wholeheartedly.

The "groups" to which I am referring are those people who assault women and/or break Canadian laws.

Those statements are not racist, bigoted or xenophobic. At least I do not think they are.

[waldo]

Muslims in Canada have already asked for Sharia law.

citation request... oh wait, are you referring to that decade old circumstance in Ontario where a Muslim organization was seeking a like tribunal settling of family issues (say divorce related) as then existed with the separate tribunals for Jews and Catholics. Is that your reference? As I recall, the Ontario government at that time said no and proceeded to also remove the provisions to support the existence of any religious based tribunal reviews. So no Jewish tribunal after that... so no Catholic tribunal after that. Is that what you're referring to - yes?

.

[Argus]

citation request... oh wait, are you referring to that decade old circumstance in Ontario where a Muslim organization was seeking a like tribunal settling of family issues (say divorce related) as then existed with the separate tribunals for Jews and Catholics. Is that your reference? As I recall, the Ontario government at that time said no and proceeded to also remove the provisions to support the existence of any religious based tribunal reviews. So no Jewish tribunal after that... so no Catholic tribunal after that. Is that what you're referring to - yes?

.

Over 60% of Canadian Muslims told a survey done by the macdonald-Laurier institute that they would either like to be given the opportunity to be governed by Sharia, or that all Muslims should be governed by Sharia, as opposed to just 22% who said Sharia should not be a part of Canada's laws. An earlier Environics poll found similar numbers.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/What-Do-Muslim-Canadians-Want-November-1-2011.pdf

Edited February 1, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Nope.

Now that I know you live in some sort of fantasy world where colonialism never happened and Rome wasn't militant and the Crusades don't exist, I guess I can understand why you make the arguments that you do.

[Shady]

Now that I know you live in some sort of fantasy world where colonialism never happened and Rome wasn't militant and the Crusades don't exist, I guess I can understand why you make the arguments that you do.

You're being very disingenuous if you're trying to argue that the west has been at war with itself for 1400 years. Btw, the crusades where a response to Muslim aggression. So bringing that up only weakens your argument.

[Guest]

I agree and will take the chance of being viewed as contrarian. To me an identifiable group is a very personal description of what it is that the individual feels is common among these people that makes them a "group".

If I declare that tall people are not very bright than I have subjectively decided what is "tall" and what "bright" means. Tall people is the group to which I am referring.

For example, If someone stated that "those people who sexually assaulted females during those protests should be prosecuted. Any of them found to be migrants should be deported immediately" then I would agree wholeheartedly.

Or even, "Those refugees who do not adhere to or follow the law in Canada should be deported immediately" then I would again agree wholeheartedly.

The "groups" to which I am referring are those people who assault women and/or break Canadian laws.

Those statements are not racist, bigoted or xenophobic. At least I do not think they are.

Exactly. The problems occur when you do that, and others accuse you of things. Or, worse, when you don't do that, for fear of being accused of things.

For instance, if you say, "those taxi drivers have been raping young girls". No problem, they lose their licence, at the very least. But if you say to yourself, hang on a minute, they are all Pakistani, what will people think of me, then you might be too afraid to report them and they continue with their nefarious pursuits.

No-one says they are doing it because they are Pakistani. They might be though, and think of the effect that will have on the community, and race relations therin. So one has to choose. I would nail them. Pakistanis or not, with no qualms whatsoever about describing them as such.

Same as the immigrants who sexually assaulted women in Germany and Sweden. If it turns out that their background was purely coincidental, then so be it, but we don't hide anything because it might not be.

Those people who burned that village in Nigeria today were Muslim. They were also male, and African. Those are all pretty large groups, but it would be pointless identifying them as male and/or African, because that's not why they burned the village. It doesn't mean all Muslims burned the village.

Edited February 1, 2016 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

You're being very disingenuous if you're trying to argue that the west has been at war with itself for 1400 years. Btw, the crusades where a response to Muslim aggression. So bringing that up only weakens your argument.

The birth of this nation is an extension of the West being at war with itself. Do you know nothing of history?

[waldo]

Over 60% of Canadian Muslims told a survey done by the macdonald-Laurier institute that they would either like to be given the opportunity to be governed by Sharia, or that all Muslims should be governed by Sharia, as opposed to just 22% who said Sharia should not be a part of Canada's laws. An earlier Environics poll found similar numbers.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/What-Do-Muslim-Canadians-Want-November-1-2011.pdf

it's quite clear the liberties you've taken with your past favourite ready-go-to Pew Survey... you know, the survey so critically reviewed for the failures I've outlined several times in past thread posts... including overt generalization to suggest one definition of Sharia and related implementation across the entire complement of all Muslims countries and all Muslims. Let's examine this, your latest foray:

- over 60% of Canadian Muslims? You mean those 2008 (Ottawa only) phone interviews with some 450 Muslims living in Ottawa. Why that puts a whole new attachment to national country-wide survey representation and 'of Canadians'! But wait, the questioning reference was actually with respect to Ontario provincial laws only.

- governed by Sharia? Which means what exactly? In actuality, the following are the results in question from that survey... showing how the 62% was arrived at in regards the leading phrase, "in your judgement should Ontario laws"... returned clear delineation in regards "family matters" versus "all matters" (with the largest percentage offering the caveat choice, "if they want to") ... notwithstanding "Allow" versus "Require" delineations in the results:

- 47% => Allow in regards divorce and other family matters if they want to

- 8% => Require on family matters

- 7% => Require on all matters

details matter MLW member, Argus... details matter and add perspective to purposeful broad generalizations made. But then again, this really is a direct follow-up on a 3-year prior event within the actual quote of mine you replied to here... where I said:

... are you referring to that decade old {2005} circumstance in Ontario where a Muslim organization was seeking a like tribunal settling of family issues (say divorce related) as then existed with the separate tribunals for Jews and Catholics. Is that your reference? As I recall, the Ontario government at that time said no and proceeded to also remove the provisions to support the existence of any religious based tribunal reviews. So no Jewish tribunal after that... so no Catholic tribunal after that.

.

[Rue]

Cyber do explain your last post 3240. The West at war with itself? France and Britain were two colonial powers at the time that did get into a fight over Canada. How is that the West at war with itself? You are quick to throw out such statements but they make zero sense.

Then because someone does not have your bizarre take on history you think you should condescend to them as if because they don't agree with you, they don't know history.

You are now trying to suggest France and Britain who have had many wars in the past means what exactly in relation to Muslim values? Wjat? Go on instead of insulting people who don't agree with you at least enunciate your theory-can you do that?

[Rue]

Cyber in post 3237 you referred to the Crusades, colonialism and Rome being militant.

What does that have to do with Islamophobia? You throw out comments and do not bother to form coherent positions with them.

You just assume you can throw out various past episodes of history but you are incapable of forming an argument or position with them so what is your point?

What will you keep insulting people when they don't infer whatever it is you think they should infer from your raising such past historic episodes?

Well?

At this point what is your point. I think and I can only guess because you fail to explain yourself, you are trying to argue that since Christian society was once where Islamic society is today that this means one can not criticize Islamic Society today.

That's the only inference one could even begin at this point to think your fractured, disjointed references refer to.

The exercise of arguing one can not criticize Islamic society because Christians were savages or the West had wars is illogical.

Its a classic example of someone trying to shut down any criticism of Islamic society. Its illogical. People have and continue to criticize the West for its wars, its infighting, its history past and present no different than they do Islamic societies.

[Rue]

Cyber you poste din 3211 that there are Muslim countries that do not follow Sharia law. Please list them. Let's see if you can find any and then explain how that suggests the vast majority of Muslim nations do impose Sharia law because there is no separation of state from religion. I can't wait for you to find one in the Middle East which in all Arab League nations prohibits any non Muslim from owning land or holding the same legal rights as Muslims.

You also stated "we" as in Canada is protecting Muslims from other Muslims, then state Muslims are not the problem. If Muslims are not the problem why do they need protection from one another?

At this point Cyber your comments are filled with a lack of any logic or common sense.

[Rue]

On Guard in 3207 you supposedly provided a list of elected Muslim women but the majority were not elected.

As well the original reference was from Cyber suggesting as perhaps you and Hudson Jones have tried, that Muslim women get elected to leadership positions in the Muslim world as do women in the West.

Well to start with aside from Golda Maer (oh my Goid she's a Zionist), Indira Ghandi, Mrs. Mrs. Merkel, the Danish PM, Icelandic PM's, etc., and Maggie Thatcher, we could all agree that in the West at one point women were not allowed to vote and their entry into politics took some time. Now we have Canada with half the cabinet, women.

Its not the point. The point was in Islamic society today women are still treated as inferior. Trotting out some names of Queens or two former Premiers doesn't change that and its ridiculous to suggest it can be used to suggest criticizing Islamic society for its views on women is unjustified.

Its a pretty flimsy attempt to try talk away Islamic religious treatment of women by trotting out the name of some Queens and most important, the Middle East has none and will probably not have women leaders for the considerable future. If you think Iran and Saudi Arabia and the puppet satellite Muslim states they control are going to put women in positions of power, you are in complete and utter denial.

[Shady]

The birth of this nation is an extension of the West being at war with itself. Do you know nothing of history?

I know that it was a long time ago.

[cybercoma]

I know that it was a long time ago.

You're the one who invoked "the last 1400 years." So how long were Western powers at war with each other? Germany invaded Poland when exactly? A long time ago? Give me a break. Even when your biases are pointed out in full relief you double down on them.

[cybercoma]

And that doesn't even touch on the slavery and indentured servitude that Western corporations engage in around the world to this day when it comes to mining and bottled water, amongst other things. But hey, it's not a full blown war when you enslave other people, so I guess that's okay.

[Boges]

You're the one who invoked "the last 1400 years." So how long were Western powers at war with each other? Germany invaded Poland when exactly? A long time ago? Give me a break. Even when your biases are pointed out in full relief you double down on them.

Do you really think WW2 was a religious conflict. Sure the Nazi's hated the Jews but Axis and Allies weren't fighting each other because they believed it's what God wanted.

The current conflict in Syria/Iraq is 100% a sectarian conflict. Which is why I'm hesitant to put too much blame on the West. They just relieved the Sunni's in Iraq of power so the Shiites too over leading to the Sunni movement ISIS. It's a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A more contemporary Western comparison would be the troubles in Ireland. But I don't think the Irish were blaming other parts of the world for their religious squabbles.

[kimmy]

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

It was an obvious conclusion. If you had anything of substance left you'd have gone with that rather than continuing to harp on a missing link several pages back.

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.

.

How all of this relates back to Canada is a question I asked weeks ago in this thread: why do we assume things will turn out differently in Canada than they are turning out in Western Europe? When we see the difficulties other liberal democracies are having with Muslims, why do we assume we won't see the same effects here?

And the only two reasonable answers I've been given are:

-because we are bringing far fewer Muslims to Canada than those other countries are attempting to deal with.

-because we are bringing women, children, and families, and avoiding single males.

Obviously, both of those answers amount to an admission that there is reason to be cautious.

WestCoastRunner contends that the decision to steer clear of single males is Islamophobic. She's right. And yet, this is what's being offered as one of the main reasons why Canadians need not worry about the refugees. What does that tell you? Supporters of the refugees have said over and over that 25,000 is a tiny number, not enough to change anything. They're right. But it's an admission that a larger number would be cause for concern.

Most of the Muslim world has culturally entrenched, institutional misogyny. Most of the Muslim world has culturally entrenched, institutional homophobia. What makes people expect that those values won't be brought to Canada by the immigrants and refugees who come here? As we're now seeing in Europe, that's not realistic. And the only reassuring thing people can say in response is "we're just bringing a small number." It's a concession that yes, there is reason for concern.

-k