Islamophobia in Canada

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Another lengthy screed but what does all that have to do with what I asked you? 

cite:http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm

 

Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants.

To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this:

 

1. Your child makes a request
2. You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One.
3. Your child asks again.
4. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else.
5. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him.

 

If this routine happens every time your child makes a request, he or she will soon learn that you will give the matter serious attention and thought, come up with an answer, reflect upon it if necessary and THAT's IT. The child will learn that there is no point in harassing you further because it won't make any difference at all."

[Rue]

I do note as some to a constant attempt to hijack this thread to avoid the actual topic and avoid having to discuss the question as to whether islamophobia is used as a pretext or shield to shut down legitimate criticism of Islamic religious values. So with that in mind I refer to the following wording before I go further:

 

"The vast amount of what is called "Islamophobia," however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic; responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence just as we react against all other forms of terrorism. If you read Muslim or pro-Muslim accounts of Islamophobia, they find fault with just about everything that implies a negative view of something Islamic, whether texts, history, or customary practices. Curiously, the same people who complain about Islamophobia seem never to complain about Muslim anti-Semitism or hatred for homosexuals or other violations of human rights.

In that sense, many have constructed a hate crime that only exists sporadically, within small groups like the UK's fading English Defense League or in comment pages remarks by individuals, few of whom seem well- educated or polite. The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), for instance, has a website called Islamophobia.org, but the offenses do not seem nearly as ubiquitous or as hateful as Muslims claim, and often seem to have occurred as a reaction to some kind of "Infidelophobia."

Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims toward each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more "Infidelophobia" by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims."

source:https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6327/islamophobia-fact-fiction

The above article  is a response to the person who coined the phrase "islamophobia", Edward Said.

 

[Argus]

On 8/3/2017 at 3:52 PM, Goddess said:

What I don't understand is how a person can see that a religion is male-centric (aren't they all, really?) and still deny that that worldview affects how they relate with females inside and outside of their families.

By cultural equivalency. To their minds, sure it's male-centric, but so is Christianity. Therefore, sure the Muslim world is sexists, but so is the West. And even if Muslims who arrive are a teeny bit more sexist than western Christians, well, no fear, that will all disappear the moment they get here.

[Hal 9000]

8 hours ago, jacee said:

Report dated 2017, but that's the same 2015 StatsCan data I posted.

Look, I'm sorry if it disturbs you that Jews 'lost the victim race' for the most hate crimes in Canada in 2016, due to the 6 Muslims murdered and 19 injured in Quebec in 2016. It's a close race. Maybe they'll pull ahead again in 2017.  

It's kind of inevitable, though, with millions of Muslims being driven out of the Middle East (by Israel and its allies) to western countries. 

I hope not!

[Hal 9000]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

cite: http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm

"Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants.

To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this:

 

1. Your child makes a request
2. You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One.
3. Your child asks again.
4. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else.
5. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him.

 

If this routine happens every time your child makes a request, he or she will soon learn that you will give the matter serious attention and thought, come up with an answer, reflect upon it if necessary and THAT's IT. The child will learn that there is no point in harassing you further because it won't make any difference at all."

 

Your words, " Look, I'm sorry if it disturbs you that Jews 'lost the victim race' " reflect your ignorant hateful words towards Jews and your own ignorant framing of  hate actions as something to  measure in a pissing contest to suggest one form of hatred should take more priority over others. Your ignorance speaks loudly.

Listen up, hard as it is for you to let go of the anti semitic concept,  we Jews are not a race. Save it for your other audience but thanks for showing what's underneath the posing as a liberal-a miserable bigot.

 

Here are the 2016 statistics you know exist but won't produce showing you are a liar:

https://torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2016hatecrimereport.pdf

 

Here is the pathetic agenda you engage in:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/08/05/4514098.htm

 

 

This made me laugh because I remember when my kids were small, I'd tell them "no!" on certain things and tell them to come back with a convincing argument for their point.  Sometimes I gave in, sometimes not, but it got them to where they could come to me with a solid reason for their requests.  

[Hal 9000]

7 hours ago, Rue said:

cite: http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm

"Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants.

To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this:

 

1. Your child makes a request
2. You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One.
3. Your child asks again.
4. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else.
5. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him.

 

If this routine happens every time your child makes a request, he or she will soon learn that you will give the matter serious attention and thought, come up with an answer, reflect upon it if necessary and THAT's IT. The child will learn that there is no point in harassing you further because it won't make any difference at all."

 

Your words, " Look, I'm sorry if it disturbs you that Jews 'lost the victim race' " reflect your ignorant hateful words towards Jews and your own ignorant framing of  hate actions as something to  measure in a pissing contest to suggest one form of hatred should take more priority over others. Your ignorance speaks loudly.

Listen up, hard as it is for you to let go of the anti semitic concept,  we Jews are not a race. Save it for your other audience but thanks for showing what's underneath the posing as a liberal-a miserable bigot.

 

Here are the 2016 statistics you know exist but won't produce showing you are a liar:

https://torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2016hatecrimereport.pdf

 

Here is the pathetic agenda you engage in:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/08/05/4514098.htm

 

 

How come "whites" are featured in there anywhere?  I find it stunning that there were no cases in Toronto of a white person being victimized by another race.

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

By cultural equivalency. To their minds, sure it's male-centric, but so is Christianity. Therefore, sure the Muslim world is sexists, but so is the West. And even if Muslims who arrive are a teeny bit more sexist than western Christians, well, no fear, that will all disappear the moment they get here.

The level of rights and freedoms that women have in their country or culture directly corresponds to the birth rate of that country or culture.  IOW, women who have little or no rights as women, come from countries or cultures that have the highest birth rates, while countries that have low birth rates are invariably those countries where women have a high level of rights and freedoms.  This is why nearly every (maybe every) westernized country has an unsustainable growth rate.

[hot enough]

15 hours ago, Rue said:

Here this might help.

http://candeobehaviorchange.com/3-keys-to-breaking-free-from-masturbation-addiction/

 

You sure are an anally, feces, ... oriented fella, Rue. You need to seek help. You also have this nutty idea that you are a humorist. 

[hot enough]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

More off-topic nonsense from you, little one-trick pony. Cultural mysogyny extends back much further than 9/11. This is about Islamophobia in Canada, not the USA. 

Not off topic at all, as usual, OftenWrong. The US rules your blinkered little existence and they are the ones that have advanced all these lies about Muslims, ..., when it was all based on myriad US/UK/Aussie/Canada/... lies, propaganda, ... .

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Not off topic at all, as usual, OftenWrong. The US rules your blinkered little existence and they are the ones that have advanced all these lies about Muslims, ..., when it was all based on myriad US/UK/Aussie/Canada/... lies, propaganda, ... .

Do us all a favour, and get some therapy.

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Do us all a favour, and get some therapy.

Typical OftenWrong escape. It's the delusional ones that need the therapy, OftenWrong, and you USGOCT science deniers fit that description to a T. 

[OftenWrong]

49 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Typical OftenWrong escape. It's the delusional ones that need the therapy, OftenWrong, and you USGOCT science deniers fit that description to a T. 

Please take your medication.

 

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Rue said:

The above is an example of the phenomena known as the "Downing Effect".

http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/PersonalityIntelligence_I"JSA_2005.pdf

"There’s a description of a phenomenon that’s out there known as the Downing Effect which states that the lower a person’s IQ is, the more likely they are to think they have a higher IQ than average.

I suspect most people who recall the number of times you've peppered your posts with "ka ka", "poo poo" and "giggle giggle" will take any opinions you have about other people's capacities with a fairly massive grain of salt.

[marcus]

On 8/1/2017 at 0:39 PM, Argus said:

Trump got 40% of the Hispanic vote

You are wrong again.

Trump got 29% of Hispanic votes. 

Source

You are wrong often. I recommend you do research, before posting misinformation.

Quote

The crime rate is based on police reported crime, which has been going down steadily over the past twenty years due to a lack of faith in the police and courts.

There is no point in responding to your 'feelings'. Because your feelings are wrong more often than not. Your post here is an example of that.

Quote

There were no white gangs here, at least, none that engaged in the kind of routine violence we see today. Even the Hells Angels, small as they were, were relatively peaceful compared to today's third world street gangs.

What else are your feelings telling you?

I give you stats, you give me your feelings.

Quote

Really? Name them.

Before I start naming things, why don't you start posting information based on research and stats, instead of your feelings.

Quote

I start with the proposition that our immigration numbers are based on politicians wanting new votes, not on Canada's economic or social needs. Mulroney tripled immigration for just that purpose. Add in the low incomes of many immigrants, and the fact we don't tax lower income people, and you get the Fraser Institute report that Canadian governments have to fork out an extra $30 billion per year because of immigration. Add in the violent crime and you get a lot of negatives for very few pluses.

The Fraser Institute is notorious for its wild anti-immigration conclusions. Countering their conclusion, Simon Fraser Institute concluded something different:

a 2011 Simon Fraser University study that found immigrants impose a far lower annual cost of about $450 per immigrant, or about $2 billion per year.

Source

But, I guess, congrats on finally including some source for your desperate search to show how bad immigrants are for Canada.

The racist and bigoted comments you make have made you resistant to facts. Like the fact that, for the first time ever, there are more seniors than children in Canada. Put your racist feelings and emotions aside for a second and tell me how, without immigration, can we sustain the workforce and  generate enough taxes to pay for roads, hospitals, etc.?

Quote

Education, another of those things that hasn't gotten better. Although from your perspective, I'm sure it has. After all, you don't want kids educated, you want them brainwashed. Don't bother teaching them about history or geography or science. But make damned sure you teach them that all world cultures and religions are equal and none come with the guilt and shame of Christianity and Canada. Why teach kids how to think for themselves when you can teach them to think the way you do?

There goes your feelings again, saying 'stuff'. 

Per capita, Canada has the most people with post secondary education in the world. Per capita, people with post secondary education in Canada have continuously gone up over the years.. despite those SCARY IMMIGRANTS.

Instead of hating Canada so much, BE A PROUD Canadian.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by marcus

[blackbird]

All these illegals pouring into Quebec these last number of days will certainly be costly for Canada.  This can partly be blamed on Trudeau for sending invitations over Twitter.  Many of them came here because they understood from what he said that they were welcome here.  These people have been led to believe they can successfully claim refugee status in Canada.  70% of them come from Haiti originally but have been sheltered in the U.S. as an interim measure because of natural disasters in Haiti, which is not considered a country where they would be persecuted so probably wouldn't qualify as refugees.  Why Trudeau put out the invitation that (all) refugees are welcome here is a mystery because many if not most may be sadly disappointed when their cases go before the refugee board.  According to some the waiting period could be years, meaning the cost for accommodation and food, etc. to Canada could be huge.  They likely cannot work here because they do not have work permits.  They could have stayed in the U.S. and claimed social assistance but now will be Canada's responsibility.  Today the immigration minister put out a different message saying they should stay in the U.S.  The end result is that the government is putting out mixed messages that will cost Canada millions of dollars before it is over, which might be years.  In addition, Montreal has proclaimed itself a sanctuary city even though they have not yet provided proper accommodation for the migrants, thousands of whom may have to sleep in crowded conditions in an arena.

Edited August 5, 2017 by blackbird

[hot enough]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Please take your medication.

Typical OftenWrong often wrongness.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, marcus said:

You are wrong again.

So what? So the 40% number was for women. The point is large numbers of Hispanics voted for him. 

Quote

What else are your feelings telling you?

My feelings are telling me that every five years Statistics Canada does a huge study on victims and every time it does it finds that smaller and smaller numbers of crimes are being reported to police. The last time, in 2015, they said only 31% of crimes were reported to police. My feelings are also telling me that the crime stats which show crime falling are always carefully described by Statistics Canada as "police reported crime". My feelings are telling me since the stats say the percentage of crimes being reported to police is falling this might have something to do with the amount of police-reported crime going down.

There is no doubt crime has fallen across North America in large measure due to the smaller number of young men present in society. However, the actual amount of the fall is in dispute.

Countering their conclusion, Simon Fraser Institute concluded something differ

Unsurprisingly, given the conclusion was made by a pair of immigrants. However, their report was examined and repudiated by the Fraser Institute shortly thereafter. They concluded the report's authors, Mohsen Javdani and Krishna Pendakur, used selective data to produce their own numbers.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/fiscal-transfers-to-immigrants-in-canada-responding-critics-and-revised-estimate

The racist and bigoted comments you make have made you resistant to facts.

And herein lies the reason why Canada cannot have a reasonable discussion on immigration. Because of ignorant, loud mouthed fanatics from the Left who accuse anyone who disagrees with immigration types and numbers of racism and bigotry. After all, I said nothing here about any particular race. I never have, in fact. My argument is about economics and numbers. But that's all you guys got. You hate it when anyone counters you so your go-to argument is to slander them and shut them down.

Like the fact that, for the first time ever, there are more seniors than children in Canada.

So what? Are you going to talk about sunspots next? What does the aging population have to do with immigration when every demographics expert has concluded immigration is not going to have any but very minimal effect on this? I have posted these attestions repeatedly.

Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26813-the-ill-feeling-between-left-and-right-on-immigration/?do=findComment&comment=1239860

 Canada's immigration numbers are not based on an aging population. They are based on political hopes of individual politicians and parties. Our immigration numbers were not tripled by Mulroney because of an aging population but because the Tories were told newcomers would likely vote for them.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26783-so-kevin-oleary-wants-to-increase-immigration/?do=findComment&comment=1238144

Put your racist feelings and emotions aside for a second and tell me how, without immigration, can we sustain the workforce and  generate enough taxes to pay for roads, hospitals, etc.

Well, I would tell you to put aside your stupidity and ignorance but based on your posts I have long concluded they are an inherent part of your personality - along with antisemitism. I have repeatedly posted information that says that immigration is not going to help with an aging workforce. And in particular, the immigration of third world rabble who will spend most of their lives on welfare, or at minimum skilled jobs which don't pay enough to counter the government services they use, are certainly not going to be generating taxes to pay for roads, hospitals or anything else.

If we wanted to bring in immigrants with a better chance of paying for those roads and hospitals we'd be bringing them in from the parts of the world which the government's own studies show produce more economically successful immigrants. Those being primarily Europe, India and the Philippines, and far less from those areas which produce economically unsuccessful immigrants, namely China and the Middle East.

People from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Australia, the Philippines, Croatia, Portugal, Serbia and India did as well or better than native-born Canadians, the study said.

At the other end of the spectrum, almost one-fifth of those from China, Haiti, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Turkey, Colombia, Iran, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Algeria, South Korea, Iraq and Taiwan lived below the low income cut-off ($18,759 for a single person in Toronto).

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/20/government-studies-immigrant-incomes-by-where-they-come-from.html

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Argus

[jacee]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

All these illegals pouring into Quebec these last number of days will certainly be costly for Canada.  This can partly be blamed on Trudeau for sending invitations over Twitter.  Many of them came here because they understood from what he said that they were welcome here.  These people have been led to believe they can successfully claim refugee status in Canada.  70% of them come from Haiti originally but have been sheltered in the U.S. as an interim measure because of natural disasters in Haiti, which is not considered a country where they would be persecuted so probably wouldn't qualify as refugees.  Why Trudeau put out the invitation that (all) refugees are welcome here is a mystery because many if not most may be sadly disappointed when their cases go before the refugee board.  According to some the waiting period could be years, meaning the cost for accommodation and food, etc. to Canada could be huge.  They likely cannot work here because they do not have work permits.  They could have stayed in the U.S. and claimed social assistance but now will be Canada's responsibility.  Today the immigration minister put out a different message saying they should stay in the U.S.  The end result is that the government is putting out mixed messages that will cost Canada millions of dollars before it is over, which might be years.  In addition, Montreal has proclaimed itself a sanctuary city even though they have not yet provided proper accommodation for the migrants, thousands of whom may have to sleep in crowded conditions in an arena.

All you silly whiners afraid 'immigrants' are going to somehow affect your life!

They're not. 

If your life is in the toilet it's your own doing.

Grow up and start taking responsibility for your own life, and stop blaming your own bad choices on others. It's just immature.

[Argus]

Just now, jacee said:

All you silly whiners afraid 'immigrants' are going to somehow affect your life!

The whiners are taxpayers. If you ever get off welfare and have to pay taxes you might complain about importing tens of thousands of more uneducated and unskilled third world denizens as well.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, jacee said:

All you silly whiners afraid 'immigrants' are going to somehow affect your life!

They're not. 

If your life is in the toilet it's your own doing.

Grow up and start taking responsibility for your own life, and stop blaming your own bad choices on others. It's just immature.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering if that applies to all Canadians.

[hot enough]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

So what? So the 40% number was for women. The point is large numbers of Hispanics voted for him. 

Nice try, Argus.

So what? So what if I am wrong. My point is, I was trying, like I always do, to make my point with shoddy research, skewed facts, weird logic. Hey, it's me, Argus!

[jacee]

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering if that applies to all Canadians.

All of those who whine and wail and gnash their teeth about 'immigrants'.

Negative people always want to blame their negativity on someone else. They need to take responsibility for their own negative attitudes that contribute to their own negative outcomes, and stop blaming and picking on vulnerable people. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jacee said:

All of those who whine and wail and gnash their teeth about 'immigrants'.

Negative people always want to blame their negativity on someone else. They need to take responsibility for their own negative attitudes that contribute to their own negative outcomes, and stop blaming and picking on vulnerable people. 

As an immigrant, I have to agree.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The whiners are taxpayers. If you ever get off welfare and have to pay taxes you might complain about importing tens of thousands of more uneducated and unskilled third world denizens as well.

You whiners are simply just whiners, Argus.

All you do is make lame excuses for your fellow whiteys and you pretend you are so badly put upon. 

You never want to take any responsibility for your own mistakes, your own support for those in the world that are causing all these refugee problems, the people who have been raping and pillaging for centuries. 

[Omni]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

They could have stayed in the U.S

Except they can't after January, so I guess it's any port in a storm time.