Islamophobia in Canada

[dialamah]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

You do, eh? And do you also see the rise of women wearing burkas and hijabs in Egypt as a 'pushback'? Perhaps to oppression of those Coptic Christians they despise?

I thought I answered this already, but don't see it.  Anyway, what do you know about Egypt?  Nothing?   That's right, nothing.

It is true that most women in Egypt wear at least a headscarf.  But my sister, who actually lives there , in a suburb of Alexandria, sees about the same number of women wearing burkas as she sees wearing conservative Western clothing.   Notably when the Muslim Brotherhood had their time leading the country, wearing of burkas became more noticeable.  When Sisi took over, the wearing of burkas reduced.   In Egypt, some people see the wearing of religious dress old-fashioned, or "too religious", others see it as a requirement of true Islam.   Cairo university has banned the niqab for teachers, as well as medical staff.   Egypt is also considering a law that would ban the burka in government institutions.   

As for 'despising Coptic Christians', as usual the truth is much more nuanced.   It's true that Coptic Churches have been attacked - and those attacks are widely condemned by the government, religious leaders and Muslim citizens.   

Quote

 

The Grand Mufti of Egypt and an Islamist militant organization, as well as Egypt’s Muslim president, have all condemned Sunday’s attack on a Coptic church in Cairo that killed 25 and wounded dozens of worshipers during Divine Liturgy.

“Attacking churches whether by demolition, bombing, killing those inside, or terrifying … secure people are prohibited in Islamic Sharia,” said the Grand Mufti, Sheikh Shawky Ibrahim Abdel-Karim Allam.

 

There are numerous stories about Muslims protecting Christians, as well as Christians protecting Muslims.   While news stories about conflict are sent throughout the world, there are no news stories about neighbors and friends who are Muslim and Christian, who live and work together on a daily basis.  To imagine that the violence that some extremists visit on Christians is the norm of life in Egypt is just dumb.  

Now, despite how some people will try to spin my words to claim I think Egypt is a wonderful place for women/gays/Christians etc. the truth is that I only object to the one-sided and invariably negative view those people want to disseminate and my posts are about showing 'the other side'.   Does Egypt still have a long way to go to match our secular lifestyle and the freedoms we offer citizens?  Absolutely.  Are they really a society almost entirely composed of Muslim men who treat women like cattle and want to kill anyone not Muslim and straight?  Absolutely not. 

I invite anyone who would like a more balanced view of the issue of women's rights in Egypt, both the successes and the challenges, to read this article.    What I particularly like is that the article shows through education and legislation, the incidence of FGM in Egypt has decreased dramatically - and it may now be as low as 50%, from 97%.   Of course, 50% is still much too high - but progress should not be ignored or discounted.

 

[Rue]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

  No, Islamophobia in the modern racist sense didn't start until shortly after 9/11,

The only approach I see to solving the issue of refugees is to stop doing the things that cause them. 

You disconnect from the real problem by not criticizing how much of it's root cause can be laid at our own two feet

I'm surprised people don't defend our need for dictators to protect ourselves from the barbarous cultural practices of their victims.

I am no sure why I bother to respond to such drivel but I will.  The fact that Eye makes a Royal proclamation that he believes discriminatory views about the Islamic religion began after 9-11 speaks to his narcissism and elitism. He invents and pronounces his fabrications as truth all must follow.

Of course discrimination against Islam or any religion started once the religions became practiced. Its what humans do. Humans who do not agree with a specific belief may do so for well thought out logical reasons or subjective emotional ones or a bit of both. There is no time line because Eye ball decides to arbitrarily draw one after 9-11. Next Islam is a religion no a race so his continuous attempt to refer to what he thinks are discriminatory assumptions about the Islamic religion have nothing to do with race. The problem though is people like Eye don't think. They spew mantra. They spew dogma without thinking about what they say. They use racism without thinking what Islamophobia is. They are hardly spokespersons for Islamophobia when they can't even understand the basic concept of what is being discriminated against.

Next The second sentence again repeats Eye's delusion that he can blame the internal religious strife among Muslims that has gone on for thousands of years and long before the West as we know it on Canadians. He can stuff his stereotyping and blaming the West. That stereotyping and scapegoating the West is the very kind of ignorant discriminatort thought pattern he claims we Islamophobes engage in. He generalizes negatively and makes this idiotic assumption that Muslims don't create their own refugees the West did.

In his world its all very simple. If anything goes wrong in an Islamic society, you blame it on the West. It can't possibly be Muslims let alone Islam tales responsibility for any violence.

Isn't it interesting then because in his third sentence his accuses anyone who disagrees with him from disconnecting from the real problem-this coming from someone who attempts to scapegoat the West as the only reason Muslims kill one another let alone non Muslims. Talk about disconnecting from the real problem.

Next he spews incoherent nonsense about :our" need for dictators to protect "ourselves" from the barbarous cultural practices of their victims.

Someone need explain to Eye he is a privileged little rich boy who needs to leave his bubble. Someone needs to tell the little Prince that when females have their clitorises mutilated its not done by dictators. When Muslims stone each other its not done by dictators. When Muslims engage in terrorism against one another its not done by dictators.

In the fantasy world Eye lives in he has never walked the streets of a Muslim country to understand dictators are but one phenomena in such societies. They may front systems of political corruption at one level but at the grass-roots level these dictators don't function or survive without conforming to and kissing the hands of their Idslamic clergy.

Eye has zero clue how dictators can not function in Islamic societies without the support of Mullahs and Imams. Not a clue. Not a friggin clue how the Islamic regimes of  Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al function.

I only respond because each time I think he can't state something any more simplistic and stupid that stereotypes not just the West byt Islamic societies, he does.

 

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, Rue said:

If an illegal crime is a direct result of engaging in a cultural or religious  practice that cultural or religious practice is problematic.

Yes FGM is a problem in some communities, and it is being addressed in various ways.  One of those ways is by making it illegal.  Another way is through education.  A third is through those women who have had it done, who refuse to do pass it on to their daughters and, in Canada, are able to do that.

But the question was "Why is it still happening if it's illegal in Canada", and the answer  is still "The same reason people do other illegal things in Canada".    Essentially, some people decide that they are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what the law says.

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes FGM is a problem in some communities, and it is being addressed in various ways.  One of those ways is by making it illegal.  Another way is through education.  A third is through those women who have had it done, who refuse to do pass it on to their daughters and, in Canada, are able to do that.

But the question was "Why is it still happening if it's illegal in Canada", and the answer  is still "The same reason people do other illegal things in Canada".    Essentially, some people decide that they are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what the law says.

Why is it difficult for you to say some people engage in female circumcision because of their strong religious and cultural beliefs that come into conflict with existing Canadian laws and they choose their religious and cultural beliefs over the laws of Canada? How hard is that to say? Why do you avoid the connection and try skirt around it?

 

[Rue]

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

 

deleted I am having problems editing.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Rue, what's your take on male circumcision?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

But the question was "Why is it still happening if it's illegal in Canada", and the answer  is still "The same reason people do other illegal things in Canada".    Essentially, some people decide that they are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what the law says.

No, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that the answer lies more in the cowardice of the Canadian lawmakers and upholders.  As a Brit, I tend to pay more attention to UK events than most, and I remember this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-case-per-hour-uk-nhs-circumcision-a7564571.html

A case of female genital mutilation (FGM) is either discovered or treated at a medical appointment in England every hour, according to analysis of NHS statistics by a charity.

It has been illegal to carry out FGM in the UK since 1985, but there has not been a single successful prosecution. This failure has been branded a "national scandal" by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Things might be completely different in Canada, but other than the math, I doubt it.

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Rue, what's your take on male circumcision?

I already answered.  if you really  can't figure out the difference between a female circumcission and a male circumcission how about you lock yourself in a room and cut your dick off. That will answer your question.

 

 

 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

I already answered.  if you really  can't figure out the difference between a female circumcission and a male circumcission how about you lock yourself in a room and cut your dick off. That will answer your question.

 

 

 

And dont use any anaesthetic. 

[dialamah]

21 hours ago, Goddess said:

What would "halfway" be between wearing it or not wearing it?

I agree it's a two-way street.  Do you think the burka-wearing community would go along with not wearing it into public places?  Like malls, schools, banks, airports, etc?  I kind of doubt they would......would they meet halfway and switch to hijab for those kinds of things?  

I was more thinking that the 'halfway' would come from Islamophobes and Xenophobes.   For those Muslim women who are harassed or physically attacked for wearing the hijab, do you think that's 'meeting them halfway'?      Do you think Argus's complaint that "more young women are wearing the hijab, and therefore they are more fanatical and more of a threat" is helping the more extreme among us meet Muslim women halfway?    While no poster on this board may be attacking Muslim women verbally or physically, do you think the anti-Muslim postings of DoP, Argus, etc., are 'meeting them halfway' or are they fanning the ire of those who are willing to take that extra step to action?    For these people, being Muslim is the problem - whether they are wearing a burka or a headscarf.

I read articles critical of Islam and of Islamic countries all the time.  None of them resort to 'proving' how ISIS is the only valid interpretation of Islam.  They do not refer to Muslims as "barbaric", "unable to change", "not fit for Canadian culture", "misogynistic", as if that were the only way Muslims could be defined.   

This blogger, for instance:  She comments specifically on Egypt, because that's her home country.  She is very critical of many of the societal norms and of the government's lack in addressing them.   She is also critical of Western media who present Muslims as one-dimensional figures, even if that dimension is positive.  But she also presents good news and progress within Egypt and within the wider Muslim society - something that is sorely missing from this forum in the discussion of Muslims.  

 

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by dialamah

[Rue]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And dont use any anaesthetic. 

Thank you.  He can really be an ass sometimes.

[GostHacked]

18 hours ago, Rue said:

I have zero tolerance for body mutilation of genitilia  

Fuck you both.  I asked a question and both of you are telling me to cut my dick off?  Yet I get banned for calling this out. So much for zero tolerance of it Rue.

 

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Thank you.  He can really be an ass sometimes.

Fuck you.

 

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

And dont use any anaesthetic. 

Fuck you.

[dialamah]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that the answer lies more in the cowardice of the Canadian lawmakers and upholders.  As a Brit, I tend to pay more attention to UK events than most, and I remember this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-case-per-hour-uk-nhs-circumcision-a7564571.html

A case of female genital mutilation (FGM) is either discovered or treated at a medical appointment in England every hour, according to analysis of NHS statistics by a charity.

It has been illegal to carry out FGM in the UK since 1985, but there has not been a single successful prosecution. This failure has been branded a "national scandal" by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Things might be completely different in Canada, but other than the math, I doubt it.

You are right; Canada could do a lot more to address the issue of FGM within Canada.

But that still doesn't change the answer to the question "Why do people still perform FGM if it's illegal".   People do illegal things because they want to do them regardless of what the law says.

 

[dialamah]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

Why is it difficult for you to say some people engage in female circumcision because of their strong religious and cultural beliefs that come into conflict with existing Canadian laws and they choose their religious and cultural beliefs over the laws of Canada? How hard is that to say? Why do you avoid the connection and try skirt around it?

 

Why is it so hard for you to admit people break the law because they want to do something that is illegal?

 

[Rue]

You asked a question I already answered. You tried to engage me in passive aggressive baiting to sugest an equivalency between male and female circumcision. For that you should be treated with contempt. Again you engage in baiting to mock female circumcision as something no different that removing some skin and then pose yourself as a victim.

[Goddess]

10 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Fuck you both.  I asked a question and both of you are telling me to cut my dick off?  Yet I get banned for calling this out. So much for zero tolerance of it Rue.

 

Fuck you.

 

Fuck you.

I was speaking of the procedure of FGM. It's done with no anaesthetic.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

You are right; Canada could do a lot more to address the issue of FGM within Canada.

But that still doesn't change the answer to the question "Why do people still perform FGM if it's illegal".   People do illegal things because they want to do them regardless of what the law says.

 

Absolutely, but the related question is, why do they get away with it?

Edit> And really, the question of its barbarity is not changed by its illegality, regardless of whether or not any attention is paid to such.  It's still a pretty awful thing for people to do as a matter of cultural norm.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by bcsapper

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Why is it so hard for you to admit people break the law because they want to do something that is illegal?

 

Because its vague and ambiguous and does not help explain the motive behind the acteus reus (action of the crime).

Motive or mens rea in latin is the key in analyzing when and why something is called criminal.

To understand why people commit crime to try prevent it, we need to understand when we can what motivated them. This is why we have criminology, abnormal  psychology and the concept of iegal incapacity a defence to crime. This is why some crimes you allow a mens rea defence and others are what we call absolute liability offences (once you are shown beyond reasonable doubt to have engaged in a specific act, there is no need to show motive as well).   Also there are limited liability offences where you only have a defence of due diligence

Its essential to how Canadian criminal law defines crime. Not all crimes are treated the same way by the Criminal Code. Understanding the nature of the crime determines the nature of the defence and severity of the sentence.

So for example a hate crime  is not the same as a jay walking offence which would in fact not be a crime but a Highway Traffic Act offence which is a provincial offence and not a crime.

With jay walking its an absolute liability offence. Once a police officer shows you did it, there is no defence. Your only defence is mistaken identity.

With a hate crime, which is in fact a crime under the federal criminal code, motive is the key. To prove hatred, you have to show more than just words but a specific intent to engage in or incite a negative act against someone because of their perceived identity, i.e., skin colour, religion, gender gender preference.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Absolutely, but the related question is, why do they get away with it?

 

That is a good question, then, isn't it?  Because clearly it is not being prosecuted nearly enough.    I suppose someone will say "It's because our weak-kneed government is scared of offending Muslims", but I tend to doubt that - sounds too much like a simplistic thought processes that can't coordinate more than one concept at a time.    I am guessing the lack is a combination of resources and intelligence from within the community itself, and perhaps a failure of how the law is written.   I would like to look into that right now, but since it's already 10 am in my little corner of the world and I have yet to get dressed nor take my little furbabies out to pee, I shall have to try to get to it later.   

 

[GostHacked]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

You asked a question I already answered. You tried to engage me in passive aggressive baiting to sugest an equivalency between male and female circumcision. For that you should be treated with contempt. Again you engage in baiting to mock female circumcision as something no different that removing some skin and then pose yourself as a victim.

Asking questions is trolling? I guess in your eyes it is. Must be sad to play the victim all the time.  I've been banned for a week because I took Dog's shitpostiung to task. I guess I'll get banned again addressing your shit posting. Or the mods will simply delete this thread, but keep up your thread telling me to cut my dick off.

So are you for male circumcision? Your posts were not clear however you did make the statement that you oppose any genital mutilation.  The exact quote is " I have zero tolerance for body mutilation of genitalia". So what is it Rue?  Either you are against all of it, or for all of it. I understand the difference between male and female circumcision, but I am sure both are just as traumatic for a child.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

That is a good question, then, isn't it?  Because clearly it is not being prosecuted nearly enough.    I suppose someone will say "It's because our weak-kneed government is scared of offending Muslims", but I tend to doubt that - sounds too much like a simplistic thought processes that can't coordinate more than one concept at a time.    I am guessing the lack is a combination of resources and intelligence from within the community itself, and perhaps a failure of how the law is written.   I would like to look into that right now, but since it's already 10 am in my little corner of the world and I have yet to get dressed nor take my little furbabies out to pee, I shall have to try to get to it later.   

 

I'm more with the weak kneed idea.  Remember I'm a Brit.

[GostHacked]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I was speaking of the procedure of FGM. It's done with no anaesthetic.

And with males is it done with anesthetic? So why don't we just use anesthetic on girls then?  If you accept one you accept both. Or you denounce both. Which I am doing here, denouncing both.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

Because its vague and ambiguous and does not help explain the motive behind the acteus reus (action of the crime).

And I wasn't asked to explain the motivation behind the crime, was I?  I was asked why it was still being done if it is illegal.   

The rest of your post is interesting, though, I shall have to try to take a closer look at it later since my dogs are crossing their legs. 

 

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm more with the weak kneed idea.  Remember I'm a Brit.

Yes, I know - simplicity is your byword.   But it would mean that successive governments since 1996 or so are 'weak-kneed' all alike, which of course shoots the leftist/liberals/JT detractors down.   

Ok, stop talking now ... I HAVE TO GO!   

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by dialamah

[Rue]

11 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I was speaking of the procedure of FGM. It's done with no anaesthetic.

It many cases its done on very young females and they can bleed to death or die of infections.  He knows damn well what the difference is between cutting off a foreskin and mutilating a clitoris. Its bloody pathetic he even attempted to walk into that one. However I already answered it fully expecting it. These discussions always revert to  some sad man needing to trivialize female circimcussion and turn it back to a discussion about their own foreskin anxiety.  Godess penises make us do damn predictable. We can only point them in so many directions.