Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, Omni said:

  Mainstream Christianity focuses largely on the peaceful message of the New Testament, though obviously some today and throughout history have used it in much more violent ways.

If only mainstream Islam would do the same and ignore those other messages.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

If only mainstream Islam would do the same and ignore those other messages.

Which brings us right back to that's what most Muslim immigrants do when they come here.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Which brings us right back to that's what most Muslim immigrants do when they come here.

And if that were true more and more Muslim women would not be hiding their faces and heads.

[Argus]

Muslims in Australia demonstrate their commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance

 

 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Which brings us right back to that's what most Muslim immigrants do when they come here.

Why do they still preach about intolerance toward Jews, gays, women's rights in their Mosques here in Canada?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

Do you get ALL of your ideas from youtube?

This was an eye opener for me.  I understand the preacher being a complete arsehole, that's what a lot of preachers are, regardless of religion.  But the entire congregation too?  I was surprised.  Is it your contention that the video is a fake?  I bloody well hope it is.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

My offensive is to stand up to bigotry and xenophobia when I see it.

Me too.  It seems to get me into trouble on here sometimes.

[OftenWrong]

50 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

This was an eye opener for me.  I understand the preacher being a complete arsehole, that's what a lot of preachers are, regardless of religion.  But the entire congregation too?  I was surprised.

BBC documentary on what is being preached at mosques in the UK.

Undercover Mosque is a documentary programme produced by the independent television company Hardcash Productions for the Channel 4 series Dispatches that was first broadcast on 15 January 2007 in the UK. The documentary presents video footage gathered from 12 months of secret investigation into mosques throughout Britain. The documentary caused a furore in Britain and the world press due to the extremist content of the released footage. West Midlands Police investigated whether criminal offences had been committed by those teaching or preaching at the Mosques and other establishments .

West Midlands Police acknowledge the concerns that some parts of the programme may have been considered offensive, however when analysed in their full context there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges against any individual. ACC Anil Patani for West Midlands Police said: "As a result of our initial findings, the investigation was then extended to include issues relating to the editing and portrayal of the documentary. The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and its making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray".

West Midlands Police complained that the programme had been subject to such an intensity of editing that those who had been featured in the programme had been misrepresented, creating an unfair, unjust and inaccurate perception of both some speakers and sections of the Muslim community within the West Midlands. The resulting complaints to Ofcom were rejected by Ofcom on 19 November 2007. "Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest...

In a move supported by Channel Four, the makers of the documentary then launched a libel action against the CPS and West Midlands Police. "The statements made by both the West Midlands Police and the CPS were completely unfounded and seriously damaging to our reputation. We feel the only way to set the record straight once and for all is to pursue this matter through a libel action."

It gets better...

On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologized to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000. The statement, released to the media by West Midlands Police, after the High Court hearing, said they now accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".

It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context". The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release." 

Kevin Sutcliffe, deputy head of current affairs at Channel 4, said the apology was a vindication of the programme team in exposing extreme views. "Channel 4 was fully aware of the sensitivities surrounding the subject matter but recognised the programme's findings were clearly a matter of important public interest. "The authorities should be doing all they can to encourage investigations like this, not attempting to publicly rubbish them for reasons they have never properly explained," he said.

Edited May 7, 2017 by OftenWrong
Corrected overzealous formatting

[Omni]

46 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

This was an eye opener for me.  I understand the preacher being a complete arsehole, that's what a lot of preachers are, regardless of religion.  But the entire congregation too?  I was surprised.  Is it your contention that the video is a fake?  I bloody well hope it is.

Who can tell if it's a fake, but even if it's real I'm quite confident it's an isolated event that Islamaphobes will try to convince us is right at our doorstep. As they say "paranoia will destroya"

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

And if that were true more and more Muslim women would not be hiding their faces and heads.

They do so by choice as shown in the survey evidence from the actual people, and which you continue to ignore because it swamps your preconceived notions.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Who can tell if it's a fake, but even if it's real I'm quite confident it's an isolated event that Islamaphobes will try to convince us is right at our doorstep. As they say "paranoia will destroya"

I hope it's a fake.  They seemed awfully "normal"...

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

They do so by choice as shown in the survey evidence from the actual people, and which you continue to ignore because it swamps your preconceived notions.

Some do, some don't.  We've both been to the Middle East.  We both know.

 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

They do so by choice as shown in the survey evidence from the actual people, and which you continue to ignore because it swamps your preconceived notions.

Of course. They choose to be religious zealots.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

BBC documentary on what is being preached at mosques in the UK.

On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologized to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000. The statement, released to the media by West Midlands Police, after the High Court hearing, said they now accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".

We've seen a lot of this from European governments, media and police agencies,  particularly in the UK, Germany and Sweden; a desperate determination to avoid any depiction of migrants or minorities as in any way responsible for any kind of disproportionate criminal activity or anti-social behaviour, and to downplay and make apologies for religious extremism on the part of Muslims. All in the name of progressive inclusiveness and not wanting to cause offense or 'provoke racism'. 

And you see it in Canada, as well. You'll never see a Canadian media organization doing this sort of thing, or asking blunt questions about what newcomers feel about women, gays or other religions, much less blasphemy. 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

And you see it in Canada, as well. You'll never see a Canadian media organization doing this sort of thing, or asking blunt questions about what newcomers feel about women, gays or other religions, much less blasphemy. 

Never, eh ?

[kimmy]

On 5/6/2017 at 9:53 AM, Omni said:

And a lot of those people 'hit our shores" to escape the type of culture you speak of, so they don't want to recreate it here. Surveys have shown that, and integration typically improves generationally with whatever the culture of origin.  

I don't think that very many of our Muslim immigrants are here because they disagree with Muslim morality. I think that most of them are here because they want to escape violence and poverty, or because they believe Canada is a land of comfort and prosperity.  I suspect that a desire that terrible sinners be treated with more kindness is actually far down the list of reasons Muslims come to Canada.

 -k

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Never, eh ?

<shrug> Well, you never have so far. And given the reluctance of Canadian media to even put a toe into those waters I think it highly unlikely they'd be diving into the deep end. I'm a news whore, and the cheer leading and feel-good stories I've seen coming from the media on integration and multiculturalism and Syrian refugees and the like doesn't leave much room for hard hitting investigative reports. None of them I've seen have even tried to get into the cost of refugees, much less any kind of coverage of cultural adaptation problems.

[kimmy]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Never, eh ?

Let's consider our Syrian refugee coverage of the past couple of years. We frequently get puff-piece "news" stories on the CBC and the major Canadian networks... Syrians arriving in Canada waving Canadian flags, Syrians attend their first hockey game, Syrians build their first snow-man, Syrians join search for missing puppy, that sort of thing. Feel-good stories, and nothing else.

No stories about adult Syrian men attending school in the same classrooms as adolescents. No coverage of the sex assault of a 14 year old girl at a school dance by Syrian men. No questioning of whether it was a good idea to put older teens and adults into the same classroom was a smart plan.  The only coverage of these less-than-feel-good stories seems to come from Ezra Levant and his crappy "alt-right" website. Ezra didn't make up these stories... they've obtained thousands of pages of school documents through Freedom of Information requests that show these are real issues. But nobody except Ezra is talking about it.

Why is that?

If the mainstream media is only willing to cover stories about Syrian refugees building snow-men, people will still find out, through social media and through "alt-right" news sources like Ezra Levant.  Hiding it doesn't work.

If the mainstream media were willing to cover this stuff, maybe there could be a balanced discussion about what schools are doing and whether there is a better way of handling this stuff.  If the mainstream media flees from the issue and leaves it to Ezra Levant, we get fear-mongering, sensationalism, and paranoia. 

Argus recently posted a comment to the effect that "if the Brown-Shirts are the only ones who will promise to protect the border, a lot of people are going to vote for the Brown-Shirts."

I think that one could also say that "if Brown-Shirt Media is the only site willing to report the uncomfortable stories about the refugees, more people are going to start reading Brown-Shirt Media."

 -k

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1) <shrug> Well, you never have so far.

2) And given the reluctance of Canadian media to even put a toe into those waters I think it highly unlikely they'd be diving into the deep end.

3) None of them I've seen have even tried to get into the cost of refugees, much less any kind of coverage of cultural adaptation problems.

1) Me ?  *I* am the Canadian media ?

2) They haven't ever asked how newcomers feel about women, gays and so on ?

3) Not even tried ?

I could look this up, and I think I *might* find ONE organization that has done this.  Care to step back from this blanket statement ?

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, kimmy said:

1) Let's consider our Syrian refugee coverage of the past couple of years. We frequently get puff-piece "news" stories on the CBC and the major Canadian networks... Syrians arriving in Canada waving Canadian flags, Syrians attend their first hockey game, Syrians build their first snow-man, Syrians join search for missing puppy, that sort of thing. Feel-good stories, and nothing else.

2) No stories about adult Syrian men attending school in the same classrooms as adolescents. No coverage of the sex assault of a 14 year old girl at a school dance by Syrian men. No questioning of whether it was a good idea to put older teens and adults into the same classroom was a smart plan.  The only coverage of these less-than-feel-good stories seems to come from Ezra Levant and his crappy "alt-right" website. Ezra didn't make up these stories... they've obtained thousands of pages of school documents through Freedom of Information requests that show these are real issues. But nobody except Ezra is talking about it.

3) Argus recently posted a comment to the effect that "if the Brown-Shirts are the only ones who will promise to protect the border, a lot of people are going to vote for the Brown-Shirts."

I think that one could also say that "if Brown-Shirt Media is the only site willing to report the uncomfortable stories about the refugees, more people are going to start reading Brown-Shirt Media."

 -k

 

1) This has nothing to do with whether the questions Argus brought up are also covered.

2) Yes, this seems to be a stupid idea to school adults with children, but... did somebody decide that because these adults were "Syrian" that they should be in school with children ?  Or is this just a bad policy in general that we're bringing up because it helps the story that immigrants are a problem ?  Seems like *somebody* in the media is actually asking questions.  ie. Rebel media is Canadian media so you've already torpedoed Argus' argument while trying to support it.

3) Yes, that's obvious but still doesn't address the claim that Canadian media doesn't cover these stories at ALL which you yourself have refuted.

[kimmy]

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

I've never claimed that immigrants from these countries are going to be equally as liberal/progressive as most Canadians are.  However, assuming that they're all going to be the most conservative and least tolerant is also wrong, simply because the most conservative and least tolerant people are also the least likely people to be wanting to change countries.   

That's a big assumption. There's no reason to assume that ideological and moral reasons are the primary reasons driving immigration. It's much more likely a search for prosperity and security than a philosophical disagreement.

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

Other than refugees, people don't 'find themselves relocated' - they *choose* to go where customs and expectations are different.  Thus, if I were to choose to move to these countries I would be aware of expectations and decide what was acceptable to me and if that would be acceptable where I was planning to move to.  

You could adapt as you choose, but ultimately your core belief in the equality of women isn't going to change, is it?

23 hours ago, dialamah said:

 If Muslims who move here talk about the value they find Canadian tolerance, why would anyone assume that they are clinging to intolerance?    I think the assumption made that Muslims are unwilling or unable to tolerate diversity is simply wrong.    Certainly, some will be less tolerant - but that's true of any group - and as long as they do not act on their intolerance, I see little difference between them and a particularly devout and fundamentalist Christian.  

I assume that when you say "act on their intolerance" you mean commit violence, but there are acts of intolerance that don't involve violence.  The things you teach your children, the things you say in your church or mosque, the policies you vote for.  I'm not a fan of Christian fundamentalists either, but we're at a point where that line of thought is dying off in Canada, and I'm not enthusiastic to see it refreshed.  I wouldn't be thrilled about a wave of mass immigration from the American Deep South, either, if you're wondering about that. Luckily I don't think that's likely.

 -k

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, kimmy said:

  ....I wouldn't be thrilled about a wave of mass immigration from the American Deep South, either, if you're wondering about that. Luckily I don't think that's likely.

 

 

No, instead there has been a mass emigration of Canadians to the "American Deep South", many buying homes there.  

Hope they leave their intolerance in Canada.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, instead there has been a mass emigration of Canadians to the "American Deep South", many buying homes there.  

Hope they leave their intolerance in Canada.

Yes they certainly wouldn't need to bring any more intolerance to the US, especially the deep south.

[kimmy]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) This has nothing to do with whether the questions Argus brought up are also covered.

I think it illustrates the fearful, walk-on-eggshells mentality our media have in addressing Muslims.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Yes, this seems to be a stupid idea to school adults with children, but... did somebody decide that because these adults were "Syrian" that they should be in school with children ?  Or is this just a bad policy in general that we're bringing up because it helps the story that immigrants are a problem ?  Seems like *somebody* in the media is actually asking questions.  ie. Rebel media is Canadian media so you've already torpedoed Argus' argument while trying to support it.

That argument only works if you consider Rebel Media to be a real media organization, and most people don't. If Stormfront was also posting articles about troubles with Syrian refugees, would you point to Stormfront as an example of media willing to take on this issue?  This is one where you can't have it both ways. Most times when people cite Rebel Media here, others just scoff at it as far-right propaganda. Myself included. Well, if it's far-right propaganda you can't cite it as an example of a real media outlet willing to take on this uncomfortable topic.

And there's no doubt the Rebel Media is using this issue as propaganda for their own agenda.  But underlying this propaganda is actual facts that they've obtained through FOI requests. Why couldn't real media have gone out and obtained the same information using FOI requests?

If the real media is ignoring the issue and Rebel Media is the only place to read about it, it makes it look like the real media is trying to hide something, it makes them look scared, or biased. It makes them look untrustworthy. That isn't good. That is bad. And people will look elsewhere. That has fueled the rise of everything from Breitpravda to Alex Jones.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Yes, that's obvious but still doesn't address the claim that Canadian media doesn't cover these stories at ALL which you yourself have refuted.

Who, aside from Rebel Media, is covering these stories?  Can you point me at major media outlets willing to address these?  Because I don't consider Rebel Media to be real media, I just consider them alt-right propaganda. As it happens, they are writing about a real issue. Why isn't the mainstream?

 -k

[kimmy]

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No, instead there has been a mass emigration of Canadians to the "American Deep South", many buying homes there. 

I am sure the Deep South will welcome this new wave of northern carpetbaggers with open arms.

 -k