The Left invites terrorists into our home

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

The past year has shown the politicians will not do the people's wishes. 

You mean Trump ?  That's not germane to the thread, and anyway he won the electoral college even if he lost the popular vote.  This is about immigration policy.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, which is why we should all be asking for more engagement, more transparently and more open and persistent reporting.  If we keep asking for it, they will have to stop saying 'no'.

Immigration is one of those meta programs that the ordinary person rarely notices until things go wrong and make the newspapers. The national media puts little focus on it except to regurgitate government assurances of its justification and to occasionally show happy stories of smiling new Canadians grateful to be here. There is no analyses by media, much less government, of how much it costs, or what the purpose of immigration is, and the numbers of newcomers seem to be entirely decided for the political advantage of the party in power.

Has anyone in media ever mentioned the poor people waiting for public housing pushed aside by all these refugees? No. They never notice such things nor do Canadians in general. Do lower income Canadians understand that their wages are depressed due to the heavy inflow of low skilled foreign workers? Probably not. Do Canadians waiting endlessly to see a specialist have any notion that their wait might be shorter were it not for immigration? Unlikely. Do Canadians understand how much of their taxes are going to subsidize government services for immigrants, refugees and 'new Canadians' who are low skill and don't earn very much income - and thus pay no taxes? Most do not. And since the national media is so sympathetic to immigration, and almost all progressives, they're not about to bring any of that up.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

Immigration is one of those meta programs that the ordinary person rarely notices until things go wrong and make the newspapers. The national media puts little focus on it except to regurgitate government assurances of its justification and to occasionally show happy stories of smiling new Canadians grateful to be here. There is no analyses by media, much less government, of how much it costs, or what the purpose of immigration is, and the numbers of newcomers seem to be entirely decided for the political advantage of the party in power.

As opposed to ?  Healthcare policy ?  Economic policy ?  Environmental policy ?  The justice system ?  I agree that the 'ordinary person' doesn't notice much, and in that we are victims of our own success.  We have stopped noticing operational effectiveness of government and become complacent.  The media uses politics as a driver of ratings, so prefers to cover strife and conflict.That's the bigger political problem.

 

Just now, Argus said:

 

1. Has anyone in media ever mentioned the poor people waiting for public housing pushed aside by all these refugees? No. They never notice such things nor do Canadians in general.

2. Do lower income Canadians understand that their wages are depressed due to the heavy inflow of low skilled foreign workers? Probably not.

3. Do Canadians waiting endlessly to see a specialist have any notion that their wait might be shorter were it not for immigration? Unlikely. Do Canadians understand how much of their taxes are going to subsidize government services for immigrants, refugees and 'new Canadians' who are low skill and don't earn very much income - and thus pay no taxes? Most do not. And since the national media is so sympathetic to immigration, and almost all progressives, they're not about to bring any of that up.

1. Has anyone paid attention to public housing wait times ever ?  Or healthcare ?

2. Do lower income Canadians pay attention to economic policy, business legislation that impacts them ?  

3. Do Canadians pay attention to wait times anyway ?  Or healthcare costs ?

Unless you want to talk about the bigger problem, immigration is just a slice of the problem pie.  Lowering immigration would just push all of these problems off a few years.

 

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, they're not.  You are using your intuition, not logic and implicitly setting a metric for 'improvement' that I suspect precludes risk in an illogical way.

I believe I'm using logic. If you believe otherwise, point out the illogic, the flaw in my thinking. 

Quote

Exactly.  If you accept that a fact-based analysis may in fact result in results you disagree with, such as male Muslims being admitted then we could theoretically begin.

My desire is to exclude all religious fanatics whose religion calls or justifies violence against those who fail to adhere to the values and beliefs taught. And I'm not talking about what can be read into the religious texts, but how the religious is practiced today.

Quote

Maybe but it's two discussions.  I think it has been pointed out before that they are screened though.

They are screened only to see if they are on any police or security lists. Their religious beliefs are not considered.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

I believe I'm using logic. If you believe otherwise, point out the illogic, the flaw in my thinking. 

Most people believe they are logical.  If you agree to a rebuild of the model, then the logic will be proven.  The flaw in your thinking is that you are simply stating that certain countries are undesirable with no quantification of numbers, risks, and no weights put on those risks.

As I have said, we could eliminate violence incredibly by saying 'no men' 'no American blacks' and so on.  If we want immigrants at all, presumably Barack Obama would be a net benefit to Canada.

 

Just now, Argus said:

My desire is to exclude all religious fanatics whose religion calls or justifies violence against those who fail to adhere to the values and beliefs taught. And I'm not talking about what can be read into the religious texts, but how the religious is practiced today.

You can't create a foolproof test for looking into the human heart.  Most Canadians support screening, including me, but it's not foolproof.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree that the 'ordinary person' doesn't notice much, and in that we are victims of our own success.  We have stopped noticing operational effectiveness of government and become complacent.  

 

The ordinary person simply doesn't believe what the government says.

 

[Argus]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As opposed to ?  Healthcare policy ?  Economic policy ?  Environmental policy ?  The justice system ?  I agree that the 'ordinary person' doesn't notice much, and in that we are victims of our own success.  We have stopped noticing operational effectiveness of government and become complacent.  The media uses politics as a driver of ratings, so prefers to cover strife and conflict.That's the bigger political problem.

I've seen a lot of stories and articles in media about health care and justice policy and failings, and economic policy discussions happen continuously in media, even if most people don't understand it. Environmental policy, of course, is talked about all the time now. You can't compare these to immigration policy, which is never discussed, and in which anyone who argues against the system is unfailingly attacked for immorality, bigotry, racism, etc. When was the last time any politician or major media outlet ever suggested substantial cuts to immigration, even during the worst recession?  You think every single one of them thinks mass immigration is a great idea? There is no such unanimity among the people, so why is there among the so-called opinion makers? Or are they simply afraid to say anything publicly against immigration?

Quote

1. Has anyone paid attention to public housing wait times ever ?  Or healthcare ?

Often. Many media articles about both.

Quote

2. Do lower income Canadians pay attention to economic policy, business legislation that impacts them ?  

When I was a security guard I saw a lot of immigrants as security guards, but I don't think I ever paused to consider that if they weren't available and the company had more difficulty finding guards they would have to offer more money. 

Quote

3. Do Canadians pay attention to wait times anyway ?  Or healthcare costs ?

Yes.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The ordinary person simply doesn't believe what the government says.

Ok, so let's not have government then ?  Or maybe we could work on this problem ?

Political cohesiveness is emerging as the #1 problem, and addressing any problem - immigration for example - needs to include addressing cohesiveness.

[dialamah]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

My desire is to exclude all religious fanatics whose religion calls or justifies violence against those who fail to adhere to the values and beliefs taught. And I'm not talking about what can be read into the religious texts, but how the religious is practiced today.

The problem with this is that you assume Islam teaches it's adherents to murder people for being gay and for being apostate.  Yet, my sister, her husband and all her in-laws believe firmly believe that the only justification for killing someone else is if they attack first.  That means that while they may disapprove of homosexuality, or apostasy, they would not support killing people for it.   So your preferred screening shuts out those who are not fanatics by your definition.   It's as logical as a feminist promoting the idea that all men should be castrated because some men rape.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Most people believe they are logical.  If you agree to a rebuild of the model, then the logic will be proven.  The flaw in your thinking is that you are simply stating that certain countries are undesirable with no quantification of numbers, risks, and no weights put on those risks.

If a country is undesirable due to having a high number of religious fanatics (quantifiable) and a high number of economically unsuccessful immigrants here (quantifiable) then there is a risk above other countries which have quantifiable fewer religious fanatics and unsuccessful immigrants. We might not know the exact degree of risk, but we know there is one. I am a risk averse person. I won't take a risk without a reward. The higher the risk, the higher the reward I need to motivate me. In this case we have risk in accepting people from these areas and no reward. Good immigrants? We can get those anywhere, and in a higher percentage than from these countries.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

As I have said, we could eliminate violence incredibly by saying 'no men' 'no American blacks' and so on.  If we want immigrants at all, presumably Barack Obama would be a net benefit to Canada.

Yes, we could. I'm fine with only allowing women to immigrate, but again, only from places which produce higher degrees of economically successful immigrants and from countries with a lower level of religious fanaticism. Yes, that might prevent a Barrack Obama from coming in, but we'd be excluding the more violent Blacks  And we could find an Obama type elsewhere. Are more likely to, in fact.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can't create a foolproof test for looking into the human heart.  Most Canadians support screening, including me, but it's not foolproof.

Agreed. Just because we make people pass drivers tests doesn't mean they're all going to be good drivers. But imagine what the streets would be like if we had no drivers tests at all...

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The problem with this is that you assume Islam teaches it's adherents to murder people for being gay and for being apostate.  Yet, my sister, her husband and all her in-laws believe firmly believe that the only justification for killing someone else is if they attack first.  That means that while they may disapprove of homosexuality, or apostasy, they would not support killing people for it.   So your preferred screening shuts out those who are not fanatics by your definition.   It's as logical as a feminist promoting the idea that all men should be castrated because some men rape.

Your sister and her family are not the Muslim world, nor even Egypt. I pay more attention to what organizations like PEW research say about Egyptian opinions about homosexuals, apostasy, gender equality, blasphemy, Sharia etc., as well as to the continued harassment, discrimination and violent attacks on Christians and Christian churches in Egypt. I also note almost all women in Egypt have been subjected to female genital mutilation, which says a lot about what their values are in terms of gender equality.

[drummindiver]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You mean Trump ?  That's not germane to the thread, and anyway he won the electoral college even if he lost the popular vote.  This is about immigration policy.

Who's talking Trump? Many Liberals also don't agree with immigration/refugee status quo. https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadians-not-so-exceptional-when-it-comes-to-immigration-and-refugee-views-new-study-finds/wcm/7dcadc98-e7de-4e35-ba51-9d89992b1e79/amp

[Rue]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

The ordinary person simply doesn't believe what the government says.

 

Of course not. Governments manipulate ordinary people all the time precisely because they care what government says. Governments get re-elected telling people things people want to believe. Everyone says they don't trust politicians but they buy into their messages every time. Ontario is proof of that as demonstrated in how they relected the Liberals.

Trudeau is engaging in a feel good campaign to get ethnics to believe in him. He's running himself about as a Messiah, God figure of the masses and I think many ethnics are buying into his pandering. The whole point of his spending future revenue to stimulate the economy is based on people believing you can buy your way out of economic turmoil.

I am not sure what planet you live in, but the fact people are quick to say they don't trust politicians does not believe they don't buy into their crap and believe it

[Rue]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

The problem with this is that you assume Islam teaches it's adherents to murder people for being gay and for being apostate.  Yet, my sister, her husband and all her in-laws believe firmly believe that the only justification for killing someone else is if they attack first.  That means that while they may disapprove of homosexuality, or apostasy, they would not support killing people for it.   So your preferred screening shuts out those who are not fanatics by your definition.   It's as logical as a feminist promoting the idea that all men should be castrated because some men rape.

You are one of the few Muslims who come on this board, explains her views in an attempt to break down stereotypes against Muslims and in my humble opinion stays pretty damn calm at things I would get pissed off at. So I admire your posts and it needs to be commended and continued. Not all Muslims are the fanatics many of us fear they are or will be when they come.

I for one find myself preoccupied  addressing some extremists on this board and their comments and I do not think they reflect or express any values other than their own. I will not stereotype Muslims because of them. I am sorry if I sound like I am in some responses.

I debate you strongly because I think you can more than handle it but on this one I think you are to be commended for using yourself as an example. It shows integrity and personal commitment to what you said and I respect that a lot. Thank you.

Now that said, I am glad you did it so people can see there is far more Muslims out there than some on this forum who couch their identities and repeat stereotype scripts.

I doubt most people in every day life, interact enough with Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., to really understand how or if their religions impact on them the way we think they do.

All that said. and I say it again, on a private level, mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, are bringing in refugees and taking full responsibility for them. That to me is a good way to build a society. That said, I am concerned not just with Muslims, but any group bringing certain beliefs about gender to Canada and continuing it. I say that because I work in a system where I see the violence and how its condoned in the cultures and communities. Interestingly its in many communities, not just Muslim ones. Its by no means particular to Muslims and all these abusrs have learned to use the race card to defend their violence.

I just finished a huge battle with a family whose father and sole son abuse the mother physically. They told the court I was racist and insensitive to their culture and religious beliefs.

I also am representing a simple minded man who brought in a marriage of convenience wife who emptied his back accounts for her boyfriend. She told the Judge I was a racist.

I have seen it all played out in the criminal, civil and family courts and so I have a very specific view that sees immigration from a point of view that if not planned out properly creates huge problems to society. I don't use politically proper language - when a man hits a woman or someone steals money that is not their own, their skin colour, religion, cultural, means sweet phack all to me and I know they will play the card and the court ultimately albeit very slowly tries to address the issues as best it can.

 You are owed an assurance by people like me that we may sound politically inappropriate but we swear an allegiance to treat all the same way.

So believe me if I say I hate everyone equally and when you take a chance and put yourself on the line, its respected and recharges my idealism and belief in all people and its because you are doing what your religion has taught you.  You are an example of how you put into practice the peaceful parts of the Koran.  I know Muslims like you. They donated land to Jews when they came to the Middle East. They worked with me on grass roots projects. They also died the same reason some of my Israeli friends died. Its a bullshit way to learn about life.

It makes me feel strongly that here in Canada, we are as Canadians given a chance to transcend stupid behaviour so why not take this chance and do good with it.

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

If a country is undesirable due to having a high number of religious fanatics (quantifiable) and a high number of economically unsuccessful immigrants here (quantifiable) then there is a risk above other countries which have quantifiable fewer religious fanatics and unsuccessful immigrants. We might not know the exact degree of risk, but we know there is one. I am a risk averse person. I won't take a risk without a reward. The higher the risk, the higher the reward I need to motivate me. In this case we have risk in accepting people from these areas and no reward. Good immigrants? We can get those anywhere, and in a higher percentage than from these countries.

Yes, we could. I'm fine with only allowing women to immigrate, but again, only from places which produce higher degrees of economically successful immigrants and from countries with a lower level of religious fanaticism. Yes, that might prevent a Barrack Obama from coming in, but we'd be excluding the more violent Blacks  And we could find an Obama type elsewhere. Are more likely to, in fact.

Agreed. Just because we make people pass drivers tests doesn't mean they're all going to be good drivers. But imagine what the streets would be like if we had no drivers tests at all...

While I agree with 99% of what you aid Argus I had to send Dialamah a complement. Its crucial she said what she did to break down negative stereotypes of Muslims. She has balls. It takes integrity to put your beliefs out there. You see the passive cowards on this board playing armchair warriors. She walks the walk man.

I will hold her door open anytime and any Muslim's door who talks and walks like her. I have to-the very values you defend taught me to. Its what Canadian soldiers died for and stand for.

Have to do it if for no other reason I have read Army Guy's posts on this forum and owe him that. He went to Afghanistan for that very reason. I bloody well am grateful he did.

He didn't go out of hatred. Righteous gentiles are why I am here.

For what its worth the level of your responses has increased in clarity when explaining your views. I may not agree with all of them but I appreciate your direct honesty in putting it out. You don't couch. You put it out. Lower level of religious fanaticism is a phrase you used.  I have to agree the lower the level the less the potential problems, sure, but how the phack do we measure for that? Extremist fanatics are the first to lie and cover up their fanaticism and try couch it. Just read the crap on this board some days.

I think if we did proper intelligence screening which we now have the technology to do,  it would scare the crap out of liberals. Can't see someone like Trudeau ever doing it. He lives in a fantasy word.

[GostHacked]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Your sister and her family are not the Muslim world, nor even Egypt. I pay more attention to what organizations like PEW research say about Egyptian opinions about homosexuals, apostasy, gender equality, blasphemy, Sharia etc., as well as to the continued harassment, discrimination and violent attacks on Christians and Christian churches in Egypt. I also note almost all women in Egypt have been subjected to female genital mutilation, which says a lot about what their values are in terms of gender equality.

Part of the problem is that some ignore the fact that moderate Muslims exist, but no one is listening to them, because as you say ' not part of the Muslim world'.  They are a part of it, and they are not acting like the idiots that we see in Islam.

[dre]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

There's some interesting polling data. Despite all the screeching in this thread about Muslims in the ME, NA, and Asia supporting and encouraging violence, the numbers do not support that conclusion. Europeans, Canadians, and Americans are actually more likely to support terrorism than people in the middle east.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Part of the problem is that some ignore the fact that moderate Muslims exist, but no one is listening to them, because as you say ' not part of the Muslim world'.  They are a part of it, and they are not acting like the idiots that we see in Islam.

I didn't say they were not part of the Muslim world. I said they were not the Muslim world. I don't ignore there are moderates. But there are a lot more extremists than moderates. And then there are the terrorists on top of THEM.

[Rue]

Here is a response to the often repeated argument about how Muslim attacks in Europe and the US are small and therefore Muslim terrorism rates are exaggerated or that 94% of terrorists aren't Muslim.

source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411589/are-all-terrorists-muslims-ian-tuttle

 

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/loonwatch-94-percent.aspx

 

The creators of the stats that try to distort and down play Muslim terrorist rates are CAIR and a web-site called Loonwatch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Rue

[-TSS-]

Here in Finland there was recently an outcry as one employee of the immigration-services probably inadvertently slipped that they have not one single employee among them who would be able to speak or understand Arabic or Dari and Pashtu(or whatever the Afghan languages are called).

It is so amateurish that it is breathtaking. Of course when you hire translators when questioning the asylum-seekers those translators are mostly the countrymen of those asylum-seekers and therefore totally untrustworthy.

I'm sure that in Canada things must be a bit more professional than that.

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Rue said:

Here is a response to the often repeated argument about how Muslim attacks in Europe and the US are small and therefore Muslim terrorism rates are exaggerated:

source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411589/are-all-terrorists-muslims-ian-tuttle

As for Dre's ridiculous insert it has nothing to do with actual Muslim terrorist rates and the question asked did not even use the word terrorism but leave it to Dre to totally ignore the actual issue being discussed and provide utterly useless information as to the actual rate of Muslim terrorism attacks.

They also tend to do their best to exaggerate the number of non-Islamic incidents into terrorism, however mild, however unrelated to actual political aims the incidents are. Ie, if a neo Nazi shoots someone it's counted as a terrorist act. But neo Nazis tend to be white trash losers with 'issues', tend to have a lot of guns, and be a lot more likely to be involved in crime than ordinary people. They're also a lot more likely to shoot anyone who gets on their nerves, especially cops.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Here in Finland there was recently an outcry as one employee of the immigration-services probably inadvertently slipped that they have not one single employee among them who would be able to speak or understand Arabic or Dari and Pashtu(or whatever the Afghan languages are called).

It is so amateurish that it is breathtaking. Of course when you hire translators when questioning the asylum-seekers those translators are mostly the countrymen of those asylum-seekers and therefore totally untrustworthy.

I'm sure that in Canada things must be a bit more professional than that.

Only in that hire the people who came here as refugees and immigrants and put them in charge of deciding who gets in. Our immigration minster was a Somali refugee, for example. Our refugee hearing boards are filled with ex-refugees and immigrants.

[eyeball]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:08 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so let's not have government then ?  Or maybe we could work on this problem ?

Political cohesiveness is emerging as the #1 problem, and addressing any problem - immigration for example - needs to include addressing cohesiveness.

Political in-cohesiveness not to mention incoherence are symptoms of the distrust not the cause.  My suggestion to deal with this remains the same as always - monitor the state and its minions to a degree that would make Orwell blush.

Its us vs them and I fail to see why we shouldn't be more adversarial in our relationship with them.  Leaving the transparency of the state up to the state itself is the most graphic example of the foxes guarding chicken-coop I can think of bar none.  Unfortunately most people won't have it any other way so we're kind of stuck until that changes.  I'd be perfectly content to see the whole lying contraption burn to the ground if that's what it takes. I can't abide by it myself. 

[dialamah]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

You are one of the few Muslims who come on this board, explains her views in an attempt to break down stereotypes against Muslims and in my humble opinion stays pretty damn calm at things I would get pissed off at. So I admire your posts and it needs to be commended and continued.[/quote]

Thanks Rue.  I appreciate your very kind words, except I am not Muslim.  My sister is, she converted 20 or so years ago, and about 10 years ago married an Egyptian Muslim and moved to Egypt.  

 

Not all Muslims are the fanatics many of us fear they are or will be when they come.-

Exactly.  One of the key teachings as explained to me in Islam is that Islam is not forced on people and that laws of the country are to be followed.  It is true that some Muslims ignore both of those, but blaming it on Islam in its entirety is like blaming Christianity for all the pedophilia its adherents have practiced and still practice.  

I for one find myself preoccupied  addressing some extremists on this board and their comments and I do not think they reflect or express any values other than their own. I will not stereotype Muslims because of them. I am sorry if I sound like I am in some responses.

Islamic extremists are a concern, no doubt.  But declaring that because Muslims hold beliefs not so dissimilar from fundamental Christians they are fanatics and must be prevented from entering Canada is ridiculous, imo.

You have made your position clear that you have concerns about terrorism and fundamentalism, but you have also made it clear that you don't blame all Muslims and you don't deny them the ability to progress.  I appreciate that, even if I don't entirely agree with your risk assessment.

That said, I am concerned not just with Muslims, but any group bringing certain beliefs about gender to Canada and continuing it. I say that because I work in a system where I see the violence and how its condoned in the cultures and communities. Interestingly its in many communities, not just Muslim ones. Its by no means particular to Muslims and all these abusrs have learned to use the race card to defend their violence.

I agree that domestic violence occurs in all ethnic and religious group.  I think domestic violence is more related to economic  stability and social supports then either country of origin or religion.  Did you see that link about domestic violence in Calgary increasing as the oil industry plummeted?  But such information is ignored and dismissed by those intent on painting a group as blackly as possible.  Using culture or religion as an excuse to abuse someone else should be completely ignored by the court, imo.  Even if true in their country, its not true here and they need to understand that.  

I have seen it all played out in the criminal, civil and family courts and so I have a very specific view that sees immigration from a point of view that if not planned out properly creates huge problems to society. I don't use politically proper language - when a man hits a woman or someone steals money that is not their own, their skin colour, religion, cultural, means sweet phack all to me and I know they will play the card and the court ultimately albeit very slowly tries to address the issues as best it can.

Your experience and viewpoint are an important aspect, too.  I appreciate that you personally believe in individual responsibility when someone breaks our laws, and don't judge everyone by what one member of their "group" does.

 

You are owed an assurance by people like me that we may sound politically inappropriate but we swear an allegiance to treat all the same way.-

Being a White, mainstream Canadian woman, I am fortunate that I do not need that assurance but I very much appreciate your recognition that some might - including friends I have who are neither white, nor mainstream.  I also believe that mostly thee law strives to do what is right, fair and maybe even moral, but is also composed of humans and so sometimes there is failure.  

So believe me if I say I hate everyone equally and when you take a chance and put yourself on the line, its respected and recharges my idealism and belief in all people and its because you are doing what your religion has taught you.  You are an example of how you put into practice the peaceful parts of the Koran.  I know Muslims like you. They donated land to Jews when they came to the Middle East. They worked with me on grass roots projects. They also died the same reason some of my Israeli friends died. Its a bullshit way to learn about life.

You make me wish I was Muslim, so I would be deserving of this praise. Still, the Muslims you describe are like my Egyptian family and the Muslims I know in Canada. I believe most Canadians are like you as well, perhaps concerned but reasonable and not assuming every Muslim is an incipient terrorist.  

 

 

[Hydraboss]

21 hours ago, Rue said:

You are one of the few Muslims who come on this board

Did I miss something?  When, exactly, did she say SHE was a muslim?