Islamophobia in Canada

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Put you in the no Canadian values column.

Please explain Canadian reasoning as opposed to Canadian beliefs.

Semantics in a leftist circle jerk.

What you're doing is exemplifying why Nietzsche said what he did about those who muddy the water to make it appear deep.  To make things even worse though you have to add a bunch of raw sewage to the mix.  Disingenuity is clearly not an art form.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/disingenuous

Edited October 20, 2017 by eyeball

[Jariax]

It's a difficult situation, filled with extremes. 

On the one hand, you have people that blame all Muslims, and feel that we should round them up and toss them out of the country. 

On the other hand, you have the naieve kool-aid drinkers who actually believe that there is absolutely no difference between letting in 25,000 young Muslim men, and 25,000 Phillipinos, and they refuse to have an honest conversation about it. 

The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths. However, the vast majority are fine. Do we punish all Muslims for the action of a few? If not, do we just accept an increased risk of terrorism as the result of an immigration policy that ignores Muslim terrorism around the world?

I don't think there's an easy answer, but I do think we need to stop demonizing people that are interested in policy change to protect our borders. They are scared for themselves and their family, and that is a perfectly rational way to be feeling.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Jariax said:

It's a difficult situation, filled with extremes. 

On the one hand, you have people that blame all Muslims, and feel that we should round them up and toss them out of the country. 

The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths.

The difficulty is pretty much entirely the fault of blamers who refuse to have anything to do with acknowledging the root causes that underlie Muslim grievances.  What the blamers have even less of a clue about is how exposure to the never ending stream of diatribes against Islam in the face of the endless glorification of the West's nobility directly relates to radicalization - its a wonder the moral and cognitive dissonance doesn't drive more people nuts.   It must be like a screaming case of tinnitus with red hot needles thrown in for good measure.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Jariax said:

I don't think there's an easy answer, but I do think we need to stop demonizing people that are interested in policy change to protect our borders.

A new poster with non-extreme and nuanced viewpoints?  Excuse me while I go dunk my head in ice water to wake up....

Just joking.  Welcome.  I think I can agree with some innocuous policy change, especially if we have already enhanced our security processes and realize that the politics is at least as important as the substance of it.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Jariax said:

It's a difficult situation, filled with extremes. 

On the one hand, you have people that blame all Muslims, and feel that we should round them up and toss them out of the country. 

On the other hand, you have the naieve kool-aid drinkers who actually believe that there is absolutely no difference between letting in 25,000 young Muslim men, and 25,000 Phillipinos, and they refuse to have an honest conversation about it. 

The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths. However, the vast majority are fine. Do we punish all Muslims for the action of a few? If not, do we just accept an increased risk of terrorism as the result of an immigration policy that ignores Muslim terrorism around the world?

I don't think there's an easy answer, but I do think we need to stop demonizing people that are interested in policy change to protect our borders. They are scared for themselves and their family, and that is a perfectly rational way to be feeling.  

Well said. I think some fears may be rational and others irrational and ultimately who decides the difference remains the question that gets debated.

Personally I think the current government's condoning of immigration chaos at the borders is a deliberate refusal to take leadership fearing alienation of ethnic voters Its spineless stewardship. True is a Captain of a sail boat who lets the wind of needing to be liked lead him blindly. With that analogy in mind I think Trudeau should  get over his addiction to blow jobs and grow a back bone.

In regards to Quebec, I think Bill 62 is another version of a law trying to appease or pander to a popular public sentiment but does not necessarily make a good law. The inherent nature of the law makes it subjective, impractical to enforce and defies a method of consistent application because of its wording,how it was written. Its a dog's breakfast. 

I fail to see how a woman in full cover is needed to be confronted by a bus driver if she pays her full fare. Its ridiculous. I could see the police asking for facial identification if they are driving or when serving as a witness at trial or swearing an oath (where the identity of the person is crucial) but those are specific instances.

Laws that are  not clearly enunciated for specific reasons tend to be thrown out by courts as poorly written and the benefit of the doubt given to the individuals seeking to ignore NOT enforce those laws.

We also have a Charter of Rights giving broad application to certain rights which I believe come into conflict with Bill 62.

So it then comes back to your comments.

Me personally I would like a society without face coverings but on the other hand I am not interested or agree with using bus drivers as enforcement agents to order people to remove head coverings. If a bus driver felt there was a security or criminal concern they should be calling police not being put in the position of having to enforce the law themselves and I think the bus unions may order their drivers not to enforce the law and call the police to prevent liability exposure.

Calling on people to impose demands on others opens a slippery slope. Today its head coverings, tomorrow what....certain tatoos...beards.....where does it end on who decides what is an acceptable look in public?

I think fundamental principles of freedom of expression in democracy should not be sacrificed in the name of protecting democracy.

That said, I fail to see how a woman in full covering in a bus  is a threat to democracy or Canadian culture. Surely we are not that weak we  need bus drivers telling people to show their face.

Its one thing for police in very specific situations to ask that, but in general, non criminal every day situations, this law has gone too far. It is harassment of innocent people and its not the way to encourage people to adapt in a healthy manner.

I personally believe Bill 62 is generated in part by Islamophobia, a fear that our society is turning too Muslim and that Islam is contagious and going to spread to women like some sexually transmitted disease.

Look if someone wants to dress as a Nazi or in a KKK uniform or drape themselves in an ISIL flag, sure, draw a line and ask such people to stop disturbing the public but wearing clothes to deliberately incite or express hatred is one thing-wearing a full covering come on its not intended to hate people and entice violence.

It may be repugnant and counter to our modern views, so debate it, challenge it, but can we not do that with respect and civility? Do we really want to arrest and make martyrs out of women dressed in full coverings?

All this will do is the exact opposite of what it intends-it will make scapegoats and victims out of such people and bring sympathy to their values-it will in fact hinder healthy free speech and discussion.

As a Jew I hated how Nazis marched down Skokie, Illinois deliberately provoking a suburb full of holocaust survivors but the US system balanced the right of free speech with protection of these vulnerable citizens.

In that case the police were used to protect the innocent people of the suburbs and keep the Nazis contained but freedom of speech was not prevented. In a democracy sometimes we have to allow unpopular ideas to be expressed. Its how we challenge and grow past them-by keeping them in the open and challenging them.

Surely using a law to tell people how they must dress which is exactly what Sharia law is used for is not what we want our laws to do as well.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Rue

[drummindiver]

On 19/10/2017 at 5:14 PM, drummindiver said:

 

Please explain Canadian reasoning as opposed to Canadian beliefs.

Semantics in a leftist circle jerk.

 

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

We were comparing the words reasoning and belief not reasoning and reason but now you've changed the goalposts.  How typical.  Did you even check to see if your dictionary deals with these two words separately before implying there is no difference? You should've, but too late now I guess.

 

Quibbling is the appropriate word to describe what you're doing with semantics.  Perhaps its context that escapes you.

You mentioned something about Canadian values before you started quibbling over the plain english I was using.

Perhaps the reason we don't see semantic quibbling on this index of Canadian values is that it's a conservative value.

No, we were discussing reasoning versus beliefs.

Semantics is what you are arguing, and poorly.

Goalposts firmly planted. Same as context.

And of  course Canadian values are conservative. Clearly the middle and the left do not share them.

 

[Jariax]

Aside from Islamaphobia, the other reason some want to ban burkas and face coverings, is that they feel these adult women are being forced to by their husbands and/or brainwashed. 

We can't let the government determine who is and isn't brainwashed. They might one day claim that everyone religious is brainwashed, or vegans are brainwashed etc. And adults should be able to make their own decisions. 

If we want to make some compromises to protect women, maybe something like:

1) Children under 18 are forbidden from wearing the burka. (Even then, I would be uncomfortable with the government telling people how to raise their children, and deciding which religious beliefs should be respected. Remember when San Francisco wanted to ban male circumcision?)

2) Ensure that all women, get to spend some time apart from their husband in a safe-environment where women who speak their language can offer them support, and an escape if needed. All persons in Canada should have an option, and I believe there are new Canadians enter Canada in fear of their spouses. 

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

 

I fail to see how a woman in full cover is needed to be confronted by a bus driver if she pays her full fare. Its ridiculous.

Yet it appears to be quite popular within Quebec. The Liberals proposed it in its current form. Other parties criticised the Liberals for not going far enough. If anything this highlights how `different`` Quebecers are from the rest of Canada.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by OftenWrong
sticky sticky fingers

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

What the blamers have even less of a clue about is how exposure to the never ending stream of diatribes against Islam in the face of the endless glorification of the West's nobility directly relates to radicalization

That, and a promise of 72 virgins in heaven will do it every time...

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, drummindiver said:

No, we were discussing reasoning versus beliefs.

Yes I already knew that.  You tried to make it into a discussion about reasoning vr reason.

Quote

Semantics is what you are arguing, and poorly.

Except you're the one who's arguing. I simply made a statement using plain english that apparently escapes you.

Quote

Goalposts firmly planted. Same as context.

Sinking in crap is more like it.

Quote

And of  course Canadian values are conservative. Clearly the middle and the left do not share them.

Probably because there's little to nothing worth sharing - just a bunch of illogically cobbled together beliefs.

[bush_cheney2004]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

What the blamers have even less of a clue about is how exposure to the never ending stream of diatribes against Islam in the face of the endless glorification of the West's nobility directly relates to radicalization -

 

Logical fail...or there would be a lot more "aboriginal" radicalization from "Canadian values"...past and present.

Edited October 21, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[drummindiver]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

Probably because there's little to nothing worth sharing - just a bunch of illogically cobbled together beliefs.

Unlike your communist manifesto?

[drummindiver]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes I already knew that.  You tried to make it into a discussion about reasoning vr reason.

 

The same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Edited October 21, 2017 by drummindiver

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Logical fail...or their would be a lot more "aboriginal" radicalization from "Canadian values"...past and present.

Stay tuned.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, drummindiver said:

The same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Related but clearly not the same, even according to your dictionary.

[dialamah]

13 hours ago, Jariax said:

Aside from Islamaphobia, the other reason some want to ban burkas and face coverings, is that they feel these adult women are being forced to by their husbands and/or brainwashed. 

If we want to make some compromises to protect women, maybe something like:

2) Ensure that all women, get to spend some time apart from their husband in a safe-environment where women who speak their language can offer them support, and an escape if needed. All persons in Canada should have an option, and I believe there are new Canadians enter Canada in fear of their spouses. 

In a perfect world, we could do this eh?   But why stop at women?  Why not also have men educated about domestic abuse?    Domestic violence is still a problem for many, many women - whatever they wear - and too often these women feel trapped within those relationships.   There are groups like this, of course, but it can be hard for some women to attend.  If there were an effective way of ensuring all men and women attended such groups, maybe we could effectively eliminate domestic abuse.   

Forbidding women certain clothing to 'save them from oppression' is just so stupid, in my opinion.   If any individual woman is being forced to wear a burka or niqab, then penalizing *her* for it misses the mark.  If she chooses to wear it, then who are we to take away her freedom to dress how she wishes?

But I suppose some people need to hide their Islamophobia behind a "Saving the women" excuse, so they can feel virtuous instead of just hateful.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by dialamah

[Argus]

On 10/20/2017 at 3:22 PM, Jariax said:

The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths.

There's also the study done by Immigration Canada which shows people from the Philippines are among the most economically successful immigrants to Canada, while people from the middle east are among the LEAST economically successful immigrants.

[dialamah]

On 10/20/2017 at 12:22 PM, Jariax said:

The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths.

I can see that this would feel true to a lot of people, but is it really true?  At this point in time, most terror events in Canada are committed by non-immigrant Canadians, usually of European descent and from a Christian background, even if not actively Christian.   We don't have a lot of terror events, and most are limited to property damage and are not directed against people.   And so far, the most deadly terror event in Canada has not been from a Muslim.

So, I invite you to detail your reasoning behind this statement. 

 

[peoples advocate]

On ‎2015‎-‎11‎-‎17 at 8:49 PM, Hudson Jones said:

Just a couple of days ago, a group of racist hateful lazy thinkers took it upon themselves to set fire to a mosque in Ontario.

Today, a Muslim woman, on her way to pick up her kids from school, was jumped and beaten and told to go back to her country.

In Quebec, someone posted a video declaring that one Arab a week will be killed.

Simple people need the narrative to be made simple, so they can feel like they understand the situation. Their laziness prevents them from exploring who they are fearing. Usually they're too lazy and too conditioned to change their minds by looking at the facts, so they repeat the same misinformation that is fed to them. For these people, it's a lot easier when they can go into the "us vs them", "black vs white", and "Muslims vs West" mode rather than examining a complicated and multi-faceted situation.

It's time for the quiet majority to speak out against these ignorant loud minority. The more we allow them to repeat their hate, the more it will become acceptable. The next time someone makes a racist or bigoted comment, call them on it. They need to be confronted.

May I say that I view everyone in the same light and that is if they are good people they are good people but we have been given no reason over the last number of years to trust the government to look out for our best interest instead it looks as though they are only worried about being politically correct to get votes , People are not blind and eventually understand things.

The normal way for governments to act is to keep people in the dark and hide facts there is no transparency at all unless they deem it necessary. People have a fear and it is justified . people fear what is different and when you force something on them you will have problems. as for the acts against Muslims the people that are doing this would be doing it anyway so the problem is with our laws and lack of enforcement no matter the crime in this great country the punishment is a slap on the wrist.

 Lots has to change but I ask everyone to give a helping hand and treat each other well and to the new comers they have to reach out as well and not try to make this country the same as the one they ran from accept Canada and the people and laws or go back and fight for what you believe in .

[Jariax]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I can see that this would feel true to a lot of people, but is it really true?  At this point in time, most terror events in Canada are committed by non-immigrant Canadians, usually of European descent and from a Christian background, even if not actively Christian.   We don't have a lot of terror events, and most are limited to property damage and are not directed against people.   And so far, the most deadly terror event in Canada has not been from a Muslim.

So, I invite you to detail your reasoning behind this statement. 

Fair enough. I'm not going to hunt down any statistics. And you're right that incidents of terrorism in Canada have been pretty limited. In fact, the only incident I can think of was the attack on Parliament Hill, which was almost thwarted by a Muslim.

However, incidents of 'terrorism' around the world. have been disproportionately perpetrated by Muslims.

Now, why Canada has been relatively immune to acts of terrorism, is unknown. 

Is it because of a small sample size?
Is it because the terrorists haven't made Canada a top target?
is it because we've been relatively successful in screening entrants to Canada?

While we can quibble over details, and what events constitute terrorism and which don't, I think that most people believe that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than other religions.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Jariax

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Jariax said:

Fair enough. I'm not going to hunt down any statistics. And you're right that incidents of terrorism in Canada have been pretty limited. In fact, the only incident I can think of was the attack on Parliament Hill, which was almost thwarted by a Muslim.

Wikipedia has a list, which lists terror attacks based on ideology.   Most of the non-Islamic attacks are older, the more recent ones tend to be related to Islamic extremists.   

1 hour ago, Jariax said:

Now, why Canada has been relatively immune to acts of terrorism, is unknown. 

Is it because of a small sample size?
Is it because the terrorists haven't made Canada a top target?
is it because we've been relatively successful in screening entrants to Canada?

I think small sample size is irrelevant.  If you check out terror attacks in Finland, Sweden and Germany, they don't seem to have as many as France or Britain, despite pretty high numbers of refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries.   I think we're not a such a large political target as France, Britain or the States and that is partly why we've been relatively immune.   But it seems that as ISIS continues to lose ground in Syria, there may be more terror attacks in Western countries.  

This is an interesting article analyzing both the expectations of terror attacks since 9/11, vs. the reality.  In many ways, the fear of terror attacks has not been borne out by the reality.  

2 hours ago, Jariax said:

I think that most people believe that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than other religions.

I agree that most people think that, but that doesn't make it automatically true.  Since the religion of any other terrorist (or even mass murderer) is not generally part of the story and motives can be hard to define, it's impossible to know if other "religions" have more or less killers in their midst than Muslims.   People who attack and kill abortion providers, for example, are not generally thought of as 'Christian terrorists' - yet what else are they?    White Supremacists are heavily influenced by "Christian" ideology, yet nobody would call them "Christian terrorists" when they set fire to buildings or attack people.    

 

[Hudson Jones]

On 10/21/2017 at 3:33 PM, Jariax said:

While we can quibble over details, and what events constitute terrorism and which don't, I think that most people believe that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorism than other religions.

Many of the countries that are being attacked or are occupied or have puppet dictators at the helm are Muslim countries. When they don't have an army to fight back with, you end up with the type/style of attacks we're seeing. This has nothing to do with anyone's religion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still waiting for all those overdue terrorist attacks from First Nations.

...since it has nothing to do with religion.

[hot enough]

On 10/21/2017 at 7:22 PM, dialamah said:

This is an interesting article analyzing both the expectations of terror attacks since 9/11, vs. the reality.  In many ways, the fear of terror attacks has not been borne out by the reality.  

You still haven't figured out that this terrorist crap is simply the new US boogeyman. Screaming "commies, commies" was getting very old and tired, even for the stunningly gullible Americans.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hudson Jones said:

Many of the countries that are being attacked or are occupied or have puppet dictators at the helm are Muslim countries. When they don't have an army to fight back with, you end up with the type/style of attacks we're seeing. This has nothing to do with anyone's religion.

Fight back by setting off bombs in markets and on buses and trains and in the streets, almost always killing just ordinary people? Puppet dictators? Which are those, and who are they the puppets of?