Islamophobia in Canada

[Rue]

On Guard to answer your post 3299, there is no punch line, but there is a real punching, its called violence against women-something you either think is worth a giggle or something you don't think should be criticized in Islamic society. Which one is it hmm? You think you defense of criticism against Islamic society for being prehistoric and ignorant towards women is a giggle? What then? See this liberal self righteous snide I am holier than thou attitude some think they have over those of us who criticize Islamic societies as we do any others, its not missed on some of us-the double standard, the smugness.

You think what Hal said is a giggle then tee hee. He was making a salient point. If it soared over your head so be it.

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard to answer your post 3299, there is no punch line, but there is a real punching, its called violence against women-something you either think is worth a giggle or something you don't think should be criticized in Islamic society. Which one is it hmm? You think you defense of criticism against Islamic society for being prehistoric and ignorant towards women is a giggle? What then? See this liberal self righteous snide I am holier than thou attitude some think they have over those of us who criticize Islamic societies as we do any others, its not missed on some of us-the double standard, the smugness.

You think what Hal said is a giggle then tee hee. He was making a salient point. If it soared over your head so be it.

I don't think it's self righteous to poke fun at xenophobes. But that may go over your head.

[Rue]

It never fails to see supposed defenders of tolerance quick to label others as racist, xenophobes, bigoted, It speaks loudly and the irony is missed on the name callers posing as righteous.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

On Guard you couldn't wait to name call yet again. Xenophobe is it? Yah yah. . How about if you call people xenophobe I call you then a liberal apologist for fascism? Now what.

How ironic is it you pose your positions in the name of tolerance, and you evidence the very same bigotry you claim to fight. Oh yah I know your name calling is different. Its not bigoted. Your sheeyit don't stink just the sheeyit of those you disagree with. Yah yah, Got it.

Let me spell it out-if you think you can avoid dealing with the issues raised about Islam by throwing out words like xenophobe, racist, or any other bigoted stereotype you or othersd care to throw out, to try suggest anyone who disagrees with you is evil and hateful, lol, it aint working. In fact its hilarious to see you calling someone a xenophobe for criticizing sexism in Islamic society.

Talk about using the political correct righteous card to try shut down free speech. Lol. Your exercise is exactly what the SA did for Hitler. They called their enemies bigots, xenophones, anti German, etc. Lol.

You think defending extremist ideology by name calling others is new? Lol.

Go on continue. What next do you want to burn books of those you disagree with? How far does this name calling go?

You want to lecture me about minorities? Please. you want to patronize me and say someone can't criticize my religion or point out that a version of it practiced by ultra Orthodox and even some Orthodox Jews is problematic in a modern society? Really? Lol. Go on try.

Tell me how its not allowed and how the millions of Jews that criticize our own religion and demand it constantly reform and evolve should shut up. Go on tell me. Tell all the Christian and Muslim reformists challenging the stagnation in their ideologies they should shut up. Please.

You think you are the first person to call people like me or others who criticize religious fascism as xenophones, bigots, etc.? Lol.

How funny. Someone carrying the flag of liberalism to shut down reformism and free speech by calling it bigoted. Lol.

Right. Got it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Rue

[Argus]

already done so in the posted reply you, apparently, don't have the intellectual honesty to actually quote in it's entirety.

.

No, you did not.

and here we realize the depths you will sleaze into. No where have I been an advocate for, as you say, extremist Islam - no where.

On the contrary, whenever people express concern or disapproval for various brutalities inflicted against women or gays or others by Islamist fanatics and dictatorships one can count on Waldo and the rest of team Islam to run up panting and waving their arms, throwing themselves desperately in between their beloved Islam and any criticism of it, hurling invective and accusations towards any and all who dare to criticize any aspect of Islam or the extremely misogynistic and homophobic Muslim cultures of the world. What else is one to conclude but that you guys are supporters of fundamentalist Islam?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

You think bombing those two countries was to stop genocide? You've been listening to Faux, Fox news too much perhaps.

Oh? Going to treat us to a conspiracy theory? It's all to profit the military industrial complex? It's because of the Jews? It's a conspiracy of the Illuminati?

[Argus]

Do you mean really awful things done by some people to some other people who are different from them, or do you mean the people who notice and call attention to it?

The latter, of course. To a progressive, brown people committing genocide against brown people is nowhere near as horrific as a presumably white person criticizing the brown people for doing it.

After all, it's not their fault anyway. It's the fault of the Americans, or the Jews, or the Illuminati.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Then you need to take our politicians to task for allowing it instead of bitching at Muslims for wanting it.

That would be easier to do if all our politicians weren't whores.

[Hal 9000]

Is there a punchline in there somewhere?

No, just an irony that this dude who has no respect whatsoever for women, liberals, feminists...whatever (except prostitutes) and a guy who I fought with many times on the issue of muslims (he loved the idea of a muslim world, whereas i was still somewhat liberal at the time and believed it would be detrimental to equality), might actually get what he wants mainly because of liberals, feminists and progressives.

He always said the if he ever married, it would be an asian (right out of asia, but not "western" asian) or a muslim chick.

[waldo]

Post 3298 from Waldo is ironic. He engages in broad brushing and generalized stereotyping of any criticism of Islamic society to accuse those who criticize Islamic society as lacking in credibiltty because they broad brush and sterotype Muslim society. Yes Sir, it sure is credible.

oh Rue you! Please don't hesitate to define my (your claimed) "broad brushing and generalized stereotyping"... put some substance around that; an example would be insightful, hey! As well, your phrase "Muslim society" is incorrect syntax - carry on!

another member who can't manage to quote something to alert his target that a comment is being made about them... one way to attempt to get a shot in and avoid a return reply. Sorry to have stumbled on your comment!

.

Edited February 2, 2016 by waldo

[WestCanMan]

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?

.

Waldo, did you think that they were going to try and get full-blown sharia law established across Canada when they were less than 10% of the population?

The point is that after living here all this time and becoming familiar with our laws, and knowing the inequity in their old system of laws they still wanted to get as much sharia as they could. It shows a terrible lack of character and liberal values to try and gain a foothold for such an abysmal code in North America. That would be like rolling the clock of civilization back at least 500 years.

[WestCanMan]

oh Rue you! Please don't hesitate to define my (your claimed) "broad brushing and generalized stereotyping"... put some substance around that; an example would be insightful, hey! As well, your phrase "Muslim society" is incorrect syntax - carry on!

another member who can't manage to quote something to alert his target that a comment is being made about them... one way to attempt to get a shot in and avoid a return reply. Sorry to have stumbled on your comment!

.

Waldo it's so funny to see you trying so hard to be the ultimate liberal while defending a culture that is diametrically opposed to every liberal belief known to man.

[waldo]

Waldo, did you think that they were going to try and get full-blown sharia law established across Canada when they were less than 10% of the population?

The point is that after living here all this time and becoming familiar with our laws, and knowing the inequity in their old system of laws they still wanted to get as much sharia as they could. It shows a terrible lack of character and liberal values to try and gain a foothold for such an abysmal code in North America. That would be like rolling the clock of civilization back at least 500 years.

you're referencing the decade old pursuit to have the Ontario government authorize a single organization's pursuit to have the equivalent to Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals to rule on the very narrow focused area of family related issues. You didn't even have a clue what that reference was - you simply reacted to the 'ShariaBoogeyman'! I'm shocked you have nothing to say about those other 2 Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals - shocked, I tells ya!

.

[waldo]

Waldo it's so funny to see you trying so hard to be the ultimate liberal while defending a culture that is diametrically opposed to every liberal belief known to man.

MLW member WCMan, it's not so funny to see you trying so hard to apply a strawman to me!

.

[WestCanMan]

To a progressive, brown people committing genocide against brown people is nowhere near as horrific as a presumably white person criticizing the brown people for doing it.

Too true, and that's the most ironic thing I've ever seen. My sense of humour wants to kick in but it's overpowered by disgust.

[Big Guy]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

[WestCanMan]

you're referencing the decade old pursuit to have the Ontario government authorize a single organization's pursuit to have the equivalent to Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals to rule on the very narrow focused area of family related issues. You didn't even have a clue what that reference was - you simply reacted to the 'ShariaBoogeyman'! I'm shocked you have nothing to say about those other 2 Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals - shocked, I tells ya!

.

You're so out in left field now waldo it's hilarious that you feel on track.

The decision to deny sharia was based on the fact that women basically had to check their human rights at the door because sharia overrides their basic civil rights.

[Guest]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

Or at least, if BOTH parties say they agree, anyway.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bcsapper

[On Guard for Thee]

Too true, and that's the most ironic thing I've ever seen. My sense of humour wants to kick in but it's overpowered by disgust.

I see you and Argus are of a similar mind when it comes to outrageous assumptions. At least he has some backup, somewhere.

[Boges]

you're referencing the decade old pursuit to have the Ontario government authorize a single organization's pursuit to have the equivalent to Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals to rule on the very narrow focused area of family related issues. You didn't even have a clue what that reference was - you simply reacted to the 'ShariaBoogeyman'! I'm shocked you have nothing to say about those other 2 Jewish and Catholic religious based tribunals - shocked, I tells ya!

.

It was a non issue because the backlash was so extreme the Province scrapped the plan and has never looked back.

A Sharia Tribunal that would have been proposed would have infringed on charter rights.

[WestCanMan]

When any two people are involved in a disagreement they can have a third person to resolve their argument. It can be a layperson, a lawyer a counselor or anybody else to which BOTH agree. That is nothing new.

Domestic disagreements can be resolved by a grandfather, priest, rabbi using their criteria as anything that BOTH people agree to. Some Jews and some Catholics will choose to have someone mediate between them based on the tenets of their religions. I see no reason why Muslims cannot choose to be mediated by Sharia law as applied by a Muslim cleric if BOTH parties agree to the process and be committed to the decision.

There is a movement for more and more Canadian aboriginal disputes (including criminal behavior) be allowed by aboriginal elders using their ancient tenets as long as EVERYONE involved agrees to the process.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, but the Gov't in Canada cannot endorse sharia law in any way, shape or form.

The pressure on women born and confined to Islam will be too much for them to resist. Many of them will have to choose between ostracism and accepting the ruling of that kangaroo court.

[Hudson Jones]

Not one Middle East country and ironically one who was assassinated. Lol.

I already addressed that. These are women who have been elected in Muslim countries.

So has the hatred and bigotry shifted from Muslims to only Middle Eastern Muslims? "Lol"?

[WestCanMan]

MLW member WCMan, it's not so funny to see you trying so hard to apply a strawman to me!

.

So you don't feel like you're playing the part of the ultimate liberal, or you don't feel like the core of Islam is completely the opposite of liberalism? I don't know how you can find fault with that.

[Boges]

So you don't feel like you're playing the part of the ultimate liberal, or you don't feel like the core of Islam is completely the opposite of liberalism? I don't know how you can find fault with that.

Paradox because Liberalism also can't find fault with the cultural/religious beliefs of visible minorities.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Boges

[Hudson Jones]

Your previous comments generalizing about Jews are on this forum for all to read.

Where? You are once again saying something without showing proof and engaging in slander and defamation. We have been over this before and you have continuously failed miserably in proving what is in your head vs what is reality.