Islamophobia in Canada

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

If I wrote "No More Atheists" on a bus stop....well...you know the rest.

(crickets chirp in the background)

Well, I know the lefties on here would be sure to demand a lengthy custodial sentence. 

(I wonder if Betsy would lend me one of those rolling on the floor laughing things she sometimes uses. Right now one would be really appropriate)

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, I know the lefties on here would be sure to demand a lengthy custodial sentence. 

(I wonder if Betsy would lend me one of those rolling on the floor laughing things she sometimes uses. Right now one would be really appropriate)

 

Can you see it? RCMP task force has been formed to stake-out local bus stops in hopes of catching the masked atheist denier in action...

No...me neither.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Can you see it? RCMP task force has been formed to stake-out local bus stops in hopes of catching the masked atheist denier in action...

No...me neither.

I could certainly see an all party committee set up in parliament to come up with a motion to prevent such horrors being inflicted on the unsuspecting Canadian public transport patron. They could call it...  104. 

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I could certainly see an all party committee set up in parliament to come up with a motion to prevent such horrors being inflicted on the unsuspecting Canadian public transport patron. They could call it...  104. 

 

It's funny 'cause it's true!

They actually DID stake-out bus stops looking to catch this multiple offender.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Jail time for graffiti? Stop being ridiculous.

I guess you missed this story. An 'apologetic' 17 year old with no previous record spray painted some racist graffiti on church doors, mosques and temples. I think he did it three or four times. He was given a year in jail.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/this-society-has-elements-of-racism-and-hatred-in-it-racist-teen-vandal-sentenced-to-one-year-in-jail

Edited September 23, 2017 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I guess you missed this story. An 'apologetic' 17 year old with no previous record spray painted some racist graffiti on church doors, mosques and temples. I think he did it three or four times. He was given a year in jail.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/this-society-has-elements-of-racism-and-hatred-in-it-racist-teen-vandal-sentenced-to-one-year-in-jail

 

Ahhhh....Hitler's kid. 

Quote

 

The teen was charged with inciting hatred, committing mischief, harassment, possessing weapons and failing to comply with a youth sentence order.

The teen – who turned 18 less than a month after he was apprehended by police near the Jewish Community Centre with a BB gun, hammer, knife and spray paint –was largely a loner.

At just 17, he was already living on his own and was friendless. He developed racist beliefs predominantly by reading white power and neo-Nazi websites.

 

 

 

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

I guess you missed this story. An 'apologetic' 17 year old with no previous record spray painted some racist graffiti on church doors, mosques and temples. I think he did it three or four times. He was given a year in jail.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/this-society-has-elements-of-racism-and-hatred-in-it-racist-teen-vandal-sentenced-to-one-year-in-jail

Tough on Crime, the conservative way!

This young man called himself "Son of Hitler", and targeted non-white religious establishments.  While he has made some progress in terms of improving his social skills, while in jail he also attacked a Muslim who was praying.   

I'm not really a fan of jails generally - they rarely serve the purpose of making society safer - and I would have rather seen this young man in a treatment facility.  But he was heading down a very dark path and I think the judge recognized that and did what he felt was just.  

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

I'm not really a fan of jails generally - they rarely serve the purpose of making society safer - and I would have rather seen this young man in a treatment facility.  But he was heading down a very dark path and I think the judge recognized that and did what he felt was just.  

 

I would never put a non- violent offender in jail.  And I would never let a violent one out. 

[dialamah]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would never put a non- violent offender in jail.  And I would never let a violent one out. 

I'd only put sociopaths and pedophiles in jail; most others I'd rather put in treatment because I believe that would work better in the long run to make society safer than what we are doing now.

[dialamah]

Still waiting on a couple of answers here.  

First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how  such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years.

Second, from Argus who claimed that "Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews", a cite to back that up as well as the answer to this question:

On 9/22/2017 at 4:37 PM, dialamah said:

if the crimes against Jews and Muslims are similar in both type and number (178 to 159) should the crimes (against Jews) also be dismissed as minor? 

 

[DogOnPorch]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Still waiting on a couple of answers here.  

First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how  such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years.

Second, from Argus who claimed that "Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews", a cite to back that up as well as the answer to this question:

 

 

You want proof that Islam and Judaism aren't pals? Really??

[Rue]

To date Islamophobia has never been defined. It remains an open-ended definition that has not been defined or clarified.

Because it remains open ended no one knows when criticism of Islam  crosses the line to constitute Islamophobia and so certain people can use it the moment they see any criticism of Islamophobia to shut it down

This is why Jaycee's comment that there can not be discussion of Islam is idiotic. Its the very discussion of Islam that could trigger this discussion and at the pith and substance of this debate is WHAT discussion of Islam crosses the line.

The proper use of the word "phobia" can be found in the DSV, Psychuiatric Diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists to define phobias. In psychiatry, a phobia is said to be an anxiety disorder triggered by excessive fear of an object or situation. In this case the word is thrown out about it being an excessive fear of Islam. So it could mean discussing the religion, the religion itself, people who dress in attire associated with Muslims, fear of the Arabic language,  etc.

There is and has never been any objective criteria used to define it.

In fact if you trace the origins of the word Islamophobia it comes from the Muslim Broherhood looking for a unique word to describe bigotry against Muslims. They saw how well feminists used the word "sexist", blacks, "racist", Jews, "anti-Semite" and  gays "homophobic" and realized in the world of sound bites and today's journalism they needed a brand name that would immediately have people think-, 'Muslim hater".

The question remains, why would the government of the day which represents all groups equally knowing that all forms of hatred in this country are EQUALLY as problematic single only one form out? What message did that selective focus on only one form of hatred lend to?

Surely no government should play favouritism and single out only one form of hatred particularly when it remains unable to resolve its issues with native Canadians, who if anything in terms of legal priority have the oldest and longest standing legal issues still remaining in dispute.

Trudeau himself went to  Mosques and prayed with  Imams who are extremist, racist, sexist and anti-Semitic. He did not choose a peaceful Imam or Mosque.

Tell me....what mandate does this supposed "heritage committee"  have to and I quote study how to enact  " a whole of government approach" to supposedly fighting Islamophobia. What does "whole of government approach" mean? Not only do we still not have a definition of Islamophobia but now we have yet another buzz phrase with no definition,

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Rue

[GostHacked]

On 9/22/2017 at 5:53 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to sell the Muslims their weapons.

And you have no choice in the matter that our nation did just that. But instead of blaming our government, you rather blame someone else.  Your taxes helped to make that deal happen. As much as you protest, your money is still going to support those matters. But it's easier to blame the Muslims than to blame the people who are really screwing you over, meaning our government.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, GostHacked said:

And you have no choice in the matter that our nation did just that. But instead of blaming our government, you rather blame someone else.  Your taxes helped to make that deal happen. As much as you protest, your money is still going to support those matters. But it's easier to blame the Muslims than to blame the people who are really screwing you over, meaning our government.

 

I don't dictate whom you support. It sure isn't Israel...

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Still waiting on a couple of answers here.  

First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how  such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years.

Second, from Argus who claimed that "Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews", a cite to back that up as well as the answer to this question:

 

 

There has been talk of 100 million "Canadians" by 2050.

That's triple what's here now. Where are they being imported from?

That's right...

[Rue]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Still waiting on a couple of answers here.  

First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how  such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years.

Second, from Argus who claimed that "Muslims are the biggest threat to Jews", a cite to back that up as well as the answer to this question:

 

You are asking for people to give you definitive answers for a government that has not defined what Islamophobia is or what it means to hove the "heritage committee" a mandate to examine ways to implement and I quote "a whole government approach" to fighting Islamophibia".

How do you expect anyone to give you a definitive answer or even a prediction when such words are deliberately left undefined and that is the crux of the issue.

If I asked you go give me an answer as to why you do not think Muslim extremist ideology is spreading and inciting more terrorism to come surely your answer would be just as speculative and subjective.

Asking open ended questions to issues that none of us have proper information on with due respect pointless.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Still waiting on a couple of answers here.  

First from those who are concerned that Motion M103 will lead to laws against free speech, and/or Sharia law in Canada, an explanation of how  such a law would make it through opposition and media/public scrutiny, and how a government who proposed such a law would still expect to be in power beyond 4 years.

 

This country has a history of laws both federal and provincial  that prevented free speech and singled out and discriminated against specific minorities. It happened because of the moral values of that day that made their way into the laws no different than trying to single out hatred of Muslims in M103. In fact in the exact same manner.

[ironstone]

If the Liberals can't or won't clearly define "Islamophobia" then it seems to me that they intend to cast a very wide net.Why should Islam be singled out for special protection in Canada?

[DogOnPorch]

23 minutes ago, ironstone said:

If the Liberals can't or won't clearly define "Islamophobia" then it seems to me that they intend to cast a very wide net.Why should Islam be singled out for special protection in Canada?

 

Islam demands special treatment. Part of the game.

Remember, the Quran states that Muslims are the best of people and superior to unbelievers.

[dialamah]

Hi rue, thanks for weighing in.  Hoping we can have a good conversation.

17 minutes ago, Rue said:

To date Islamophobia has never been defined. It remains an open-ended definition that has not been defined or clarified.

True.  Was antisemitism defined prior to the Ottawa Protocol?  Or did people just kind of define it when they heard it?  

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

Because it remains open ended no one knows when criticism of Islam  crosses the line to constitute Islamophobia and so certain people can use it the moment they see any criticism of Islamophobia to shut it down

Maybe.  But, are discussions of Isreal any different, even after the definition of antisemitism contained in the Ottawa Protocol?   I consider your discussions in other threads, when you accuse others of antisemitism and they deny it.   When you accuse them of antisemitism, are you really trying to shut down discussion, or only attempting to communicate to them how their comments sound?   

23 minutes ago, Rue said:

This is why Jaycee's comment that there can not be discussion of Islam is idiotic. Its the very discussion of Islam that could trigger this discussion and at the pith and substance of this debate is WHAT discussion of Islam crosses the line.

I didn't really agree with her comment here either, though I understood what she meant by it.   No doubt I have also been guilty of objecting when I should have listened more, and I continue to try to watch that tendency.  However, when the discussion constantly comes down to "a motion for a study is leading to removing freedom of speech/implementing Sharia law", it really just sounds like hysteria to me.  And when I point that out, I'm attacked as 'trying to shut down speech' and my questions on exactly how it would come about are ignored.    

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

In psychiatry, a phobia is said to be an anxiety disorder triggered by excessive fear of an object or situation.

I do understand what 'phobia' means, and I agree not everything said against Islam is a result of Islamophobia.   But in my opinion, much of what is posted here is, the 'motion leading to no free speech/sharia law' claim being the most obvious example.   

35 minutes ago, Rue said:

The question remains, why would the government of the day which represents all groups equally knowing that all forms of hatred in this country are EQUALLY as problematic single only one form out? What message did that selective focus on only one form of hatred lend to?

I can think of two reasons:

1.  They have already specifically addressed antisemitism - which outstrips all other forms of religious descrimination - in the Ottawa Protocol.

2.  Attacks on Muslims are rising; perhaps they wanted to get ahead of the curve, so to speak.

But I don't know, for sure.   I did think the suggestion by somebody in the opposition that the "including Islamaphobia" be dropped was a good one and I think the Liberals were stupid not to take it.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Surely no government should play favouritism and single out only one form of hatred

And yet they did, with the Ottawa Protocol - which ignored Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and was entirely about Jews.  Did you, or any of the criticizers of M103 object to that because it wasn't inclusive enough?

I know you  hate JT, so with all due respect, I don't feel there's any point in addressing your next few paragraphs.

 

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Bill  M-103 is a crass political exercise in catering to minority votes by lip service

I can believe that.  What I can't believe is that it will lead to any form of restriction on free speech or on implementation of Sharia law.   The government has made statements and motions against all kinds of bullshit behavior by its citizens, and some citizens continue to do it because it's still legal.   

Quote

they should be called out as the miserable bigots they are. Remaining silent to their words condones them and their toxic message

I agree with the sentiment, though I may not agree on who is or isn't a bigot.

 

 

[Rue]

Dialamah do you deny Muslim extremists are the biggest threat to Jews. If so what is your proof they are not?

 

 

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Hi rue, thanks for weighing in.  Hoping we can have a good conversation.

True.  Was antisemitism defined prior to the Ottawa Protocol?  Or did people just kind of define it when they heard it?  

Maybe.  But, are discussions of Isreal any different, even after the definition of antisemitism contained in the Ottawa Protocol?   I consider your discussions in other threads, when you accuse others of antisemitism and they deny it.   When you accuse them of antisemitism, are you really trying to shut down discussion, or only attempting to communicate to them how their comments sound?   

I didn't really agree with her comment here either, though I understood what she meant by it.   No doubt I have also been guilty of objecting when I should have listened more, and I continue to try to watch that tendency.  However, when the discussion constantly comes down to "a motion for a study is leading to removing freedom of speech/implementing Sharia law", it really just sounds like hysteria to me.  And when I point that out, I'm attacked as 'trying to shut down speech' and my questions on exactly how it would come about are ignored.    

I do understand what 'phobia' means, and I agree not everything said against Islam is a result of Islamophobia.   But in my opinion, much of what is posted here is, the 'motion leading to no free speech/sharia law' claim being the most obvious example.   

I can think of two reasons:

1.  They have already specifically addressed antisemitism - which outstrips all other forms of religious descrimination - in the Ottawa Protocol.

2.  Attacks on Muslims are rising; perhaps they wanted to get ahead of the curve, so to speak.

But I don't know, for sure.   I did think the suggestion by somebody in the opposition that the "including Islamaphobia" be dropped was a good one and I think the Liberals were stupid not to take it.

And yet they did, with the Ottawa Protocol - which ignored Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and was entirely about Jews.  Did you, or any of the criticizers of M103 object to that because it wasn't inclusive enough?

I know you  hate JT, so with all due respect, I don't feel there's any point in addressing your next few paragraphs.

 

I can believe that.  What I can't believe is that it will lead to any form of restriction on free speech or on implementation of Sharia law.   The government has made statements and motions against all kinds of bullshit behavior by its citizens, and some citizens continue to do it because it's still legal.   

I agree with the sentiment, though I may not agree on who is or isn't a bigot.

 

 

 

Why do Muslims need an anti-blasphemy "motion" to protect them?

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Dialamah do you deny Muslim extremists are the biggest threat to Jews. If so what is your proof they are not?

 

 

 

Seeing Islam is just a giant F---k You to the Jews....

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

You are asking for people to give you definitive answers for a government that has not defined what Islamophobia is or what it means to hove the "heritage committee" a mandate to examine ways to implement and I quote "a whole government approach" to fighting Islamophibia".

They can't do this, but they seem able to give a "definitive answer' on whether or not this motion is threat to Canadian freedoms?   How does that work, exactly?  "I don't know what this is yet, but it's gonna be bad!"   

1 hour ago, Rue said:

How do you expect anyone to give you a definitive answer or even a prediction when such words are deliberately left undefined and that is the crux of the issue.

From the research I did on the Ottawa Protocol the definition of antisemitism came through the committee that studied the issue prior to creating the document, which was then accepted by the Canadian government.  Why wouldn't they follow the same procedure this time: propose that an issue be studied; as part of the study, further define the issue and it's terms; suggest solutions.

It seems odd to me that anyone would expect the definition to precede the study.  And if they have to decide what is Islamophobia as part of the proposal, why isn't there the same outcry to define (again) antisemitism, or religious intolerance toward Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc?   

The logic some people are employing here just makes no sense to me.   

[Rue]

30 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Hi rue, thanks for weighing in.  Hoping we can have a good conversation.

True.  Was antisemitism defined prior to the Ottawa Protocol?  Or did people just kind of define it when they heard it?  

Maybe.  But, are discussions of Isreal any different, even after the definition of antisemitism contained in the Ottawa Protocol?   I consider your discussions in other threads, when you accuse others of antisemitism and they deny it.   When you accuse them of antisemitism, are you really trying to shut down discussion, or only attempting to communicate to them how their comments sound?   

I didn't really agree with her comment here either, though I understood what she meant by it.   No doubt I have also been guilty of objecting when I should have listened more, and I continue to try to watch that tendency.  However, when the discussion constantly comes down to "a motion for a study is leading to removing freedom of speech/implementing Sharia law", it really just sounds like hysteria to me.  And when I point that out, I'm attacked as 'trying to shut down speech' and my questions on exactly how it would come about are ignored.    

I do understand what 'phobia' means, and I agree not everything said against Islam is a result of Islamophobia.   But in my opinion, much of what is posted here is, the 'motion leading to no free speech/sharia law' claim being the most obvious example.   

I can think of two reasons:

1.  They have already specifically addressed antisemitism - which outstrips all other forms of religious descrimination - in the Ottawa Protocol.

2.  Attacks on Muslims are rising; perhaps they wanted to get ahead of the curve, so to speak.

But I don't know, for sure.   I did think the suggestion by somebody in the opposition that the "including Islamaphobia" be dropped was a good one and I think the Liberals were stupid not to take it.

And yet they did, with the Ottawa Protocol - which ignored Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians and was entirely about Jews.  Did you, or any of the criticizers of M103 object to that because it wasn't inclusive enough?

I know you  hate JT, so with all due respect, I don't feel there's any point in addressing your next few paragraphs.

 

I can believe that.  What I can't believe is that it will lead to any form of restriction on free speech or on implementation of Sharia law.   The government has made statements and motions against all kinds of bullshit behavior by its citizens, and some citizens continue to do it because it's still legal.   

I agree with the sentiment, though I may not agree on who is or isn't a bigot.

 

 

Thank you as always for your courteous reponse. Now you talked about the Ottawa protocol on anti Semitism in 2010. Thank you!  Right on point. Actually you should  It is a protocol that Canada agreed to sign in regards to dealing with anti Semitism, i.e., assisting universities when teaching the subject and let's be clear, criticizing Israeli state policies was not defined anti Semitism.

With due respect though Dialamah its not a law. Had there been a protocol like that one drafted for Islam and if there is one  I would be the first to sign it. The difference being the protocol is not a law but a researcg  guideline and it does not lend to the appearance it is meant to be placed as a priority ahead of other forms of hatred with due respect-it actually says that. It was entered back into in 2010 and at the time  it is true it had no reaction from civil rights people or as you see now with M103 precisely because it was not introduced by a Jewish member of Parliament although Irwin Cotler the Jewish member of Parliament ad McGill Law Professor then in the Liberal Party  and Jason Kenney both spoke in favour of it and it was a non partisan issue.In my opinion it is  the partisan involvement that has ruined any noble intent behind M103ag. I have to concede to it  is my personal subjective bias against Trudeau initiating it and not say a neutral religious inter-faith council or progressive Muslim who was not an MP which bugs me. It is a good point you made though. Discussing or dealing with anti Islamic hatred should be done and encouraged by government as it did with that protocol and I think that protocol is one way to do it. although you can see that protocol was lip service because the BDS movement made it a mockery in universities across Canada.  I just think such initiatives are better introduced by non partisan inter-faith councils.

 

.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Rue