Jump to content

Islamophobia in Canada


Hudson Jones

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, jacee said:

This thread is about Islamophobia in Canada. 

This discussion is about hate crimes against Muslims in Canada.

On the contrary. This discussion is about whether such a thing as Islamophobia even exists.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now back to Islamophobia. 

Robert Fulford has a column today on the subject.

Every era has special words that ignite resentful arguments and reveal difficult emotions. There’s no doubt that Islamophobia is our word, a painful term that’s hard to avoid.

It functions as a rhetorical weapon. Whoever uses it (and many do) is trying to convict someone else of chauvinism and a thoughtless prejudice against Muslims and Islam. It’s a protective word, a shield against Muslims being damaged by criticism and argument.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/robert-fulford-a-history-of-islamophobia-a-word-of-dubious-value

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

On the contrary. This discussion is about whether such a thing as Islamophobia even exists.

The title and the original post say the discussion is about Islamaphobia in Canada.  Neither raise the question of whether it exists; 19 wounded and 6 dead Muslims demonstrate that it does, never mind the fact that reported hate crimes against Muslims has risen over 250% in 4 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

Now back to Islamophobia. 

Robert Fulford has a column today on the subject.

Every era has special words that ignite resentful arguments and reveal difficult emotions. There’s no doubt that Islamophobia is our word, a painful term that’s hard to avoid.

It functions as a rhetorical weapon. Whoever uses it (and many do) is trying to convict someone else of chauvinism and a thoughtless prejudice against Muslims and Islam. It’s a protective word, a shield against Muslims being damaged by criticism and argument.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/robert-fulford-a-history-of-islamophobia-a-word-of-dubious-value

This is merely someone's opinion.  Facts provided by the police and news media tell us that Islamophobia is real and it has resulted in people dying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

This is merely someone's opinion.  Facts provided by the police and news media tell us that Islamophobia is real and it has resulted in people dying.

 

Of course, you don't question why there were initially two shooters yelling Allahu Akbar. Not at all.

And where is this assassin today? Why haven't we been informed of his status? What? Not available for legal reasons? I got to watch the entire Picton Mass Murder unfold on TV...

We do know he likes Tommy Douglas, fresh water for the Third World and Donald Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my issue with this Islamophobia study/motion is that if you're going to go out looking for Islamophobia in Canada, you're going to find it.  We alreay know that.  The same as if you go out looking for prejudice against Natives, you're going to find it.  The same as if you're going to go looking for anti-Semitism, you're going to find it.  The same as if you are going to go looking for prejudice against blacks, you're going to find it.  We already know there are Islamophobes in Canada.  We already know there's prejudice and discrimination against all these groups, which is why we have hate crime laws.

So what is the "study" going to show?  That there's Islamophobia in Canada?  Great.  

My concern is what is the solution to all these phobias and prejudices?  Of course Muslims don't want anyone pointing out the backwardness of their religion.  I get that.  So do we want a law saying no one can discuss the problems in Islam?

Trudeau came out today in his UN speech about Natives in Canada and said this:

Quote

For Indigenous Peoples, it means taking a hard look at how they define and govern themselves as nations and governments, and how they seek to relate to other orders of government,” Trudeau said......Trudeau’s comments to the UN today about what he clearly sees as a pressing need for First Nations to rethink how they “represent and organize themselves” signals the importance he puts on parallel institutional reforms—not just how Ottawa approaches Indigenous people, but how Indigenous people approach Ottawa.

I doubt the study will make any kind of recommendations FOR MUSLIMS to rethink how they "represent and organize themselves".  Obviously there will be recommendations on how Canada approaches Muslims, but will there be any recommendations on how Muslims approach Canada?  My fear is that it will do nothing but absolve Muslims of any repsonsibility they have to integrate with Canadians.  It will not address "Infidelophobia", which I see as contributing factor to Islamophobia.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

On the contrary. This discussion is about whether such a thing as Islamophobia even exists.

....and whether we really need this since we already have hate-crime law.

 

This is nothing more than politicians pandering to a group.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

1.  I guess my issue with this Islamophobia study/motion is that if you're going to go out looking for Islamophobia in Canada, you're going to find it.  We alreay know that.  The same as if you go out looking for prejudice against Natives, you're going to find it.  The same as if you're going to go looking for anti-Semitism, you're going to find it.  The same as if you are going to go looking for prejudice against blacks, you're going to find it.  We already know there are Islamophobes in Canada.  We already know there's prejudice and discrimination against all these groups,

2.  which is why we have hate crime laws.

So what is the "study" going to show?  That there's Islamophobia in Canada?  Great.  

3.  My concern is what is the solution to all these phobias and prejudices?  Of course Muslims don't want anyone pointing out the backwardness of their religion.  I get that.  

4.  So do we want a law saying no one can discuss the problems in Islam?

Trudeau came out today in his UN speech about Natives in Canada and said this:

I doubt the study will make any kind of recommendations FOR MUSLIMS to rethink how they "represent and organize themselves".  Obviously there will be recommendations on how Canada approaches Muslims, but will there be any recommendations on how Muslims approach Canada?  My fear is that it will do nothing but absolve Muslims of any repsonsibility they have to integrate with Canadians.  It will not address "Infidelophobia", which I see as contributing factor to Islamophobia.

1.  I agree with you in that the study will find Islamophobia, and any other kind of religious intolerance it looks for.   

2.  I agree we already have hate laws against severe and overt or deadly religious intolerance, whether directed against Muslims or Jews.  I don"t think more laws are necessary or would help.

The study says something to the effect of finding ways of addressing religious intolerance.  People fear this means laws against criticism, but if the Ottawa Protocol is any indication, that fear is unfounded.  There are ways other than laws that could be used.   Education directed toward those most disparaging of Muslims/Jews/etc. perhaps, or efforts from government to reassure the public that Sharia law is not next on the agenda.   

I personally don't think the motion will result in anything much.  We regularly have motions and statements condemning antisemitism, Islamophobia, bullying, etc., and people continue to do all those things anyway.  I suspect this entire uproar is simply the oppositon trying to scare people into voting conservative next time.  

3.  The Muslims attending the gay Mosque in Toronto would dispute that, as would several female Imams around the world and those working for reform inside Muslim Majority countries.   I understand you doubt this, but I have no problem with "valid" critiscism.  Unfortunately, what people are too often calling "valid criticism" too often involves statements based in fear and speculation.  The whole idea that this motion is the first step to limiting free speech or imposing Sharia law is just one example.

4.  Accepting for a moment that the fear you express is founded, how would that work?   I imagine it something like this: study concludes and recommends working toward eliminating criticism of Islam.  The government knows they'll have to go slowly, so they try to choose something minor - such as perhaps - "no images of Allah in government publications because government must be particularly sensitive to religious minorities."

Now imagine the government trying to propose that in any way, shape or form.   Do you think the opposition wouldn't object?  Do you think the media would say nothing?  Do you think Canadians would just shrug and say "OK"?  Even if the government somehow managed to succeed, how long do you think it would be until the next government took power and reversed it?  Four years or less?   

I have asked the question before, but nobody has provided the nitty gritty of exactly how any such law would get by opposition and media\public scrutiny, which would be key components of government getting controversial laws passed.   Perhaps someone has a scenario that is convincing, instead of just offering speculation and supposition based on essentially nothing but fear, as far as I can tell.

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

The title and the original post say the discussion is about Islamaphobia in Canada.  Neither raise the question of whether it exists; 19 wounded and 6 dead Muslims demonstrate that it does, never mind the fact that reported hate crimes against Muslims has risen over 250% in 4 years.

There are lots of shootings in Canada and the US. Crazy people even shoot children. Are you going to build an ideology around creating  a word to describe that other than crazy? Your complaint of a rise in hate crimes is without merit. People are reacting to outsiders and the news. Virtually all such 'hate crimes' are minor in nature, and consist of verbal abuse or vandalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dialamah said:

3.  The Muslims attending the gay Mosque in Toronto would dispute that, as would several female Imams around the world and those working for reform inside Muslim Majority countries.

Yes, it's good to have 0.0001% of Muslims actively working at reform.

Quote

4.  Accepting for a moment that the fear you express is founded, how would that work?   I imagine it something like this: study concludes and recommends working toward eliminating criticism of Islam.  The government knows they'll have to go slowly, so they try to choose something minor - such as perhaps - "no images of Allah in government publications because government must be particularly sensitive to religious minorities."

Now imagine the government trying to propose that in any way, shape or form.   Do you think the opposition wouldn't object?  Do you think the media would say nothing?

I think the majority of the national media would cheer, and get down on their knees and bow to Justin as he nobly posed for selfies. The national media is so pro Islam they make some Muslims seem like haters. The opposition has no power in a majority government, and if you believe Trudeau is one to go slowly when he believes he has the moral high ground (which he ALWAYS believes) you haven't been following him. I expect a law right out of the gate banning  offensive language towards any and all religious, ethnic, racial or gender minorities, punishable by prison terms. And if you think that can't happen, look to France and the UK.

And besides which the point won't actually be to accomplish anything, but to virtue signal. Can't you see Trudeau now, posing like superman, looking nobly into the distance, his open shirt billowing out behind him? Muslims are an important ethnic voting block and the Liberals will want to assure their continuing support.

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The government knows they'll have to go slowly, so they try to choose something minor - such as perhaps - "no images of Allah in government publications because government must be particularly sensitive to religious minorities."

Except the government is clearly pandering to Muslims right now.  That is what concerns me.  I don't believe it cares about being "particularly sensitive to religious minorities."  They introduced a hijab to be added to the RCMP uniform, which I think is a terrible idea.  The RCMP are supposed to be neutral parties.  They don't seem to care how that might affect Jewish people who might get pulled over by a hijab-wearing officer.  They don't even care about the safety of hijab-wearing officers; will a Muslim man respect the authority of a hijab-wearing woman?  Will the hijab-wearing woman feel confident in her authority as an officer, when she is clearly demonstrating her lower status in society?

i think the government will slip in a bunch of policies to show how "tolerant" they are of Islam and will only realize too late the power they have given Islam.  Same as what happened with Khadr - we were totally unprepared for our laws and principles being used AGAINST us.

I can't help thinking our government is playing a game of "chicken" - maybe if we're really, really nice to them, they will leave us alone........

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Five months in jail for writing 'No More Muslims' on a bus stop...I'd say M103 is already showing its teeth.

https://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/7569726-oshawa-man-jailed-five-months-for-anti-muslim-graffiti-at-bus-stops/

 

the fool here wasn't convicted using M103 since M103 is not now nor ever has been part of criminal law. In fact he was charged with Mischief - multiple counts of. Mischief laws have been around far longer than M103 ever has.  M103 has nothing to do with the issue you cited - except within the fevered imagination of the paranoid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Peter F said:

the fool here wasn't convicted using M103 since M103 is not now nor ever has been part of criminal law. In fact he was charged with Mischief - multiple counts of. Mischief laws have been around far longer than M103 ever has.  M103 has nothing to do with the issue you cited - except within the fevered imagination of the paranoid.

 

Five MONTHS...let's pretend it didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Five MONTHS...let's pretend it didn't happen.

I thought it was interesting because the Muslim guy that assaulted me (and let me tell you, it was pretty scary being faced with that level of hatred and being trapped behind a desk with no possible way to escape) only got 6 months probation - no jail time, no deportation.  I still have the scar from the stitches.  At least the bus bench can be cleaned.

Edited by Goddess
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Except the government is clearly pandering to Muslims right now.  That is what concerns me.  I don't believe it cares about being "particularly sensitive to religious minorities."  They introduced a hijab to be added to the RCMP uniform, which I think is a terrible idea.  The RCMP are supposed to be neutral parties.  They don't seem to care how that might affect Jewish people who might get pulled over by a hijab-wearing officer.  They don't even care about the safety of hijab-wearing officers; will a Muslim man respect the authority of a hijab-wearing woman?  Will the hijab-wearing woman feel confident in her authority as an officer, when she is clearly demonstrating her lower status in society?

i think the government will slip in a bunch of policies to show how "tolerant" they are of Islam and will only realize too late the power they have given Islam.  Same as what happened with Khadr - we were totally unprepared for our laws and principles being used AGAINST us.

 

Quote

They introduced a hijab to be added to the RCMP uniform, which I think is a terrible idea.

I like it.  

Quote

The RCMP are supposed to be neutral parties

Neutral towards what? Crime? or maybe religion. Perhaps it is that concept that allows freedom of religion and such freedom should not be infringed upon by the state except when the interests of Peace Order and good government override such right.  In the case of RCMP officers wearing hijabs  - I see no reason for the state to interfere as long as the officer wearing the hijab (or turban) is carrying out the duties they are required to do. 

 

Quote

They don't even care about the safety of hijab-wearing officers; will a Muslim man respect the authority of a hijab-wearing woman?  Will the hijab-wearing woman feel confident in her authority as an officer, when she is clearly demonstrating her lower status in society?

What difference would it make if she was wearing the usual RCMP cap? Using your argument and assumptions: Would a muslim man have any more respect for a non-muslim woman wearing a RCMP uniform? I don't think you're argument would allow such since muslim men, according to your assumptions, consider all women to be lesser creations, it wouldn't matter to your (in your mind) typical muslim male what she was wearing.  It is the virtue of being a woman (according to you) that would determine her status, not the uniform she is wearing or any variation of that uniform. 

Quote

i think the government will slip in a bunch of policies to show how "tolerant" they are of Islam and will only realize too late the power they have given Islam.  Same as what happened with Khadr - we were totally unprepared for our laws and principles being used AGAINST us.

Actually we were entirely prepared for our laws and principles to work with the Khadr case. It was previous governments refusal to invoke those same laws and principles that resulted in Khadr's settlement. A good thing too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Five MONTHS...let's pretend it didn't happen.

I'm not pretending it didn't happen. Found guilty of well founded mischief laws that have been around for a very very long time.   Not found guilty for violation of the non-existent M103.

It is you that is pretending. Not I. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peter F said:

I'm not pretending it didn't happen. Found guilty of well founded mischief laws that have been around for a very very long time.   Not found guilty for violation of the non-existent M103.

It is you that is pretending. Not I. 

 

Five MONTHS for mischief against Islam.

Mischief = Fitnah

That's a sin according to the Quran you protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

Mischief is a sin? Could be. It's certainly illegal in Secular Canada. 

 

He caused multiple "mischiefs" against Islam and showed no remorse! Off with his head!

Wait...we're not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...