Rise in Canadian Hate Crimes

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The RCMP is not a college

Yes, I know that.  The point, which you missed, is that I'm not sure you are correct in your blanket statement that pictures are not forbidden in Islam.

[Omni]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

The government of the day tells us what we can wear.

Where do you live then? Sorry didn't have time to waste on the rest.

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

There is a religious exemption for having a photo taken for a gun license - but was not implemented for Muslims, because it requires that the religion forbid picture taken, as Hutterites and Mennonites do.  From Section 14, Paragraph 2 of the Firearms License Regulation:

 

•  

Even if a Muslim woman claimed a religious exemption, she'd fail because Islam does not forbid picture taking.  

In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that Alberta could insist that even these religious groups had to have a photo for their driver's license because it was a security issue.  

According to the CCLA, it's also a requirement for niqab wearing women to have a full face pic for driver's license and passport; the accommodation is in allowing those women to remove their niqab  in private and by another woman.   To think that the RCMP would just randomly decide to ignore it's own regulations and the general standard for other and similar situation beggars belief.  

Clearly, this bit of anti-Muslim fantasy provided to us by the Rebel is designed only to stoke outrage against Muslims.   Is it any wonder that I rarely believe any of the anti-Muslim bullshit from any source, when it can be so easily proven wrong by just 15 minutes of research.

 

Well, you've clearly seen the piece.  To me it source is irrelevant when you have the firearms person right there saying "no problem, just send in a religious declaration".

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well, you've clearly seen the piece.  To me it source is irrelevant when you have the firearms person right there saying "no problem, just send in a religious declaration".

Anyone can apply for anything under any pretext, doesn't mean they'll get it.

[Hal 9000]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyone can apply for anything under any pretext, doesn't mean they'll get it.

 

[Hal 9000]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Anyone can apply for anything under any pretext, doesn't mean they'll get it.

...but you acknowledge that there is a clause in our law that allows "veiled" people to have firearms licences without a picture....right?

Edited June 21, 2017 by Hal 9000

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

...but you acknowledge that there is a clause in our law that allows "veiled" people to have firearms licences without a picture....right?

Nope.  The clause clearly specifies a very limited circustance that does not apply to Muslim women.  

But people prefer to believe non-factual information that supports their fear and bias.  Consequently we have Sharia law hysteria if someone mentions a study and Islamophobia in the same sentence and now those people are only too happy to believe a false report from the Rebel that there is a  special 'photo' law for Muslims who are applying for a gun license.  Screw facts and critical thinking.

 

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Nope.  The clause clearly specifies a very limited circustance that does not apply to Muslim women.  

But people prefer to believe non-factual information that supports their fear and bias.  Consequently we have Sharia law hysteria if someone mentions a study and Islamophobia in the same sentence and now those people are only too happy to believe a false report from the Rebel that there is a  special 'photo' law for Muslims who are applying for a gun license.  Screw facts and critical thinking.

 

Well, i rewatched the video...and looked it up.  And "very limited circumstances"?  There is nothing of the sort, in fact, if you watch the letter scrolled behind her, you can clearly read that there is no data available for the amount of people who are using this clause - which in itself is kinda troubling.  

This is just you trying to explain it all away - nice try.  Then you grab the "tried and true formula" - Islamaphobia, hysteria, false report yada yada.  So desperate!

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Nope.  The clause clearly specifies a very limited circustance that does not apply to Muslim women.  

But people prefer to believe non-factual information that supports their fear and bias.  Consequently we have Sharia law hysteria if someone mentions a study and Islamophobia in the same sentence and now those people are only too happy to believe a false report from the Rebel that there is a  special 'photo' law for Muslims who are applying for a gun license.  Screw facts and critical thinking.

 

 

All a Muslim woman would need is a note from her Imam saying that yes...she is a practicing Muslim who wears a full covering. The RCMP weren't interested in any other info as Ms Goldy showed us.

I guess Jihadis know who to send for guns...

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Well, i rewatched the video...and looked it up.  And "very limited circumstances"?  There is nothing of the sort, in fact, if you watch the letter scrolled behind her, you can clearly read that there is no data available for the amount of people who are using this clause - which in itself is kinda troubling.  

 

There are about 1182.  Maybe you should try some research before mindlesly repeating what fear-mongering sites say.

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

There are about 1182.  Maybe you should try some research before mindlesly repeating what fear-mongering sites say.

“While the photo exemption rule is not new, not reserved for Muslims and has always been that way in Canada, along with driver’s licenses and other gov’t issued licensing, we wanted to have a look at the facts.”

Ms Goldy was told to simply file the form. They didn't ask her faith...

[Argus]

21 hours ago, taxme said:

Clarity and focus is my main concern here. Only what I said would be drivel to a far left liberal zionist. So, try and convince me that all I have read on the internet about zionism is all a bunch of hooey, and that people like David Duke and on many other websites are spreading falsehoods about zionism?

The floor is yours. I need proof. 

The problem is that you will not accept proof. I don't think anyone could possibly prove to you the unreality of your positions since you simply uncritically accept what loonies say and uncritically reject everything else as 'fake news.'

[Argus]

20 hours ago, taxme said:

And now we all know why? Zionism is the problem. But hey. 

No, I think stupid is the problem.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, but I wouldn't, because I took the test, passed the background checks, and got the good references.

If it's a restricted weapon like a hand gun, it would have to be registered to you anyway.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Omni said:

Where do you live then? Sorry didn't have time to waste on the rest.

Outside your bubble. Sorry don't have time to waste addressing your selective subjective definitions of what people should wear masks and which ones shouldn't.

You want to wear your S & M get up to a swearing in see how far that goes. You smug?

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

Outside your bubble. Sorry don't have time to waste addressing your selective subjective definitions of what people should wear masks and which ones shouldn't.

You want to wear your S & M get up to a swearing in see how far that goes. You smug?

Sorry pad'ner, I was born here.

[PIK]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

I'm not sure about this.....Islam seems to be whatever the individual Muslim wants it to be.

The Muslim girl I went to college with refused the photo ID required by the college on the grounds that it is forbidden in Islam.  And she was accomodated.  When I asked about it, she said there were many verses that forbid picture-taking.  

I'm sure some do allow pictures.  

But if an individual Muslim claims it is against Islam and invokes religious rights to refuse photo ID, I feel that's up to them - but that they also must accept the consequences of such a belief ie: no driver's license, no gun permits, no passport, etc.

Same with the woman who sued Canada and got our laws changed to allow coverings at the citizenship oath.  I read dissenting views amongst Muslims that did not agree with her doing that, claiming that hijabs and burkas are NOT a requirement of Islam outside of worship and that she did a big disservice to Islam by forcing her views on a country.

But again, it appears to me that Islam is whatever the individual Muslim claims it is.  If they personally do not want a photo ID, they will find myriads of "scholars" who agree with them and myriad of verses to support their view and then will invoke religious rights.

All that women did was fan the flames even more and the stupid PC people fell for it. Abide by OUR laws or stay home. It is very simple.

[Hal 9000]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

There are about 1182.  Maybe you should try some research before mindlesly repeating what fear-mongering sites say.

Well, I did do some research, I read the article you provided and I also read the links.  I have stated that there is a clause that allows muslims to have a firearms licence and purchase firearms without a photo ID, where am I wrong? So Hutterites can do it too?  I couldn't care less, I'm not discussing an equal rights issue, I'm discussing a safety issue.  The Article wants us to believe of at least allow us - as you are doing now, to fool ourselves into believing that this is a Hutterite issue, but read the article closer; 

"Canada requires a licence for private individuals to buy or own firearms legally, and a permit generally requires a photo. Section 14, Paragraph 2 of the Firearms Licences Regulations allows licence applications from people whose religion prohibits them being photographed. A similar exemption has existed for decades for other permits, partly to accommodate Hutterites, a Christian group".

A couple things, 1) muslims aren't prohibited from being photographed yet are using this law to their advantage anyway. 2) Hutterites have lost court battles to simply have driver's licences without photos - now all of the sudden it's okay to buy and possess handguns without a photo, what changed?  Hmmmm, I wonder.  3) As per your article, there are 1200 picture less gun licences out there and considering that there are but 30,000 Hutterites and they are historically against guns one can easily do the math and come to the conclusion that there are many many muslims out there with these picture less gun licences.

The one nice thing is this; as long as we have muslims around, Trudeau won't tighten the gun laws.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

No, I think stupid is the problem.

 

3 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem is that you will not accept proof. I don't think anyone could possibly prove to you the unreality of your positions since you simply uncritically accept what loonies say and uncritically reject everything else as 'fake news.'

When one questions or challenges anything politically correct they always have to deal with people like you who seem to feel that they should not have that right to do so. 

 

3 hours ago, Argus said:

No, I think stupid is the problem.

Yup, and there is plenty of stupid going on around here alright. 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

The problem is that you will not accept proof. I don't think anyone could possibly prove to you the unreality of your positions since you simply uncritically accept what loonies say and uncritically reject everything else as 'fake news.'

And just what proof do you have other than what you get from those so called fact sources of yours? Have you done your own personal investigation to check out and see as to whether most of any hate crimes reported is true or false? Many hate crimes that were reported turned out in the end to be false. The problem with you is that you appear to not believe that I have the right to question or challenge any report put out by some news or government outfit or an NGO. Maybe what you are reading is nothing more than "fake news"? Why should I believe what you believe? Think about it, will ya.  

[Argus]

56 minutes ago, taxme said:

And just what proof do you have other than what you get from those so called fact sources of yours? Have you done your own personal investigation to check out and see as to whether most of any hate crimes reported is true or false? Many hate crimes that were reported turned out in the end to be false. The problem with you is that you appear to not believe that I have the right to question or challenge any report put out by some news or government outfit or an NGO. Maybe what you are reading is nothing more than "fake news"? Why should I believe what you believe? Think about it, will ya.  

Because I am smarter than you.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Omni said:

Well good for you, but it does not obviate the fact you could. Amd Muslim women have to do the same checks. 

That's not the issue.  Anyone else can be the Muslim woman.  No-one else can be me.

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Omni said:

Sorry pad'ner, I was born here.

So what.... I was responding to your naïve comment that your government doesn't dictate what you or I should wear. Of course they do.

If you can't grasp why they do- stay in your bubble. I don' have time for your feigned ignorance or your smug support of sexual fascism and then  you depicting that support as you being tolerant and enlightened.

 

"   he said he is a liberal and  does not believe in discriminating against people which  is highly evident in who he gets into bed with and the diseases he then spreads in the name of tolerance....:"

Rue 1888

" a liberal is just someone with a  large canker sore pm their mouth  trying to convince a conservative to kiss them.."

Rue 1889 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Rue

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Rue said:

I get in trouble when I am asked for good references. I tried using you but the CBC interviewer freaked out and called the police on me.

 

Tell her to give me a ring.  I'll set her straight.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Omni said:

I hasten to add that while I'm about the last person to be a follower of any religion beyond R&B music, trying out new crazy recipes, and sipping single malt Scotch, I don't mind a little accommodation of others who have different ideas 

I don't mind a little.  I would find allowing a person to not show their face where others are required to excessive.  Passports, Driver's Licences, PALs, ect.