The new Ontarian Islamic Party

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Machjo said:

How do you know they would get no non-Muslim votes? I don't profess Islam and I actually agree with many Muslim ideas nonetheless.

An Islamic party can't be divorced from Islam and the current, mainstream teachings of Islam. If you don't profess Islam that means you're an unbeliever. It is not coincidental that of the 57 Muslim majority states not one gives equal treatment to non-Muslims. An Islamic party will ultimately never represent your best interests unless you're a conservative Muslim.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

An Islamic party can't be divorced from Islam and the current, mainstream teachings of Islam. If you don't profess Islam that means you're an unbeliever. It is not coincidental that of the 57 Muslim majority states not one gives equal treatment to non-Muslims. An Islamic party will ultimately never represent your best interests unless you're a conservative Muslim.

But what do we do when there is no other real conservative voice? I agreed that I would never want to see that party form government, but I could certainly support it in the opposition benches as a kind of protest vote to signal ti secular conservative parties that they want to become a little more conservative in their own right to win back some of those votes.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Machjo said:

But what do we do when there is no other real conservative voice? I agreed that I would never want to see that party form government, but I could certainly support it in the opposition benches as a kind of protest vote to signal ti secular conservative parties that they want to become a little more conservative in their own right to win back some of those votes.

Really?  That's utter insanity, as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose it takes all sorts.

[QuebecOverCanada]

Believe it or not, but I exchange a lot on different francophone forums about politics, one in Québec particularly. One of its member is a huge commie supporter -even Venezuela- and he's interested in the economic program of the Islamic Party because the party promises to abolish interests. I'm sure if the Islamic Party can present itself as 'moderates' like they did in Turkey, the Islamic Party in Ontario has a really bright future ahead. Plus, they seem to have the knowledge of the laws of our land, since they base most of their social program on the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sides with their religious freedom to do and say whatever they want.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Believe it or not, but I exchange a lot on different francophone forums about politics, one in Québec particularly. One of its member is a huge commie supporter -even Venezuela- and he's interested in the economic program of the Islamic Party because the party promises to abolish interests. I'm sure if the Islamic Party can present itself as 'moderates' like they did in Turkey, the Islamic Party in Ontario has a really bright future ahead. Plus, they seem to have the knowledge of the laws of our land, since they base most of their social program on the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sides with their religious freedom to do and say whatever they want.

I would vote against them because I've paid my mortgage off.  Where were they twenty years ago?  Tossers.

[QuebecOverCanada]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I would vote against them because I've paid my mortgage off.  Where were they twenty years ago?  Tossers.

They're still promising the 72 virgins though...

[Machjo]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would vote against them because I've paid my mortgage off.  Where were they twenty years ago?  Tossers.

If they banned interest, you might never have gotten a mortgage in the first place. Why would a bank agree ti an interest-free mortgage?

The NDP proposed a cap on credit-card interest rates a while back. I actually liked the idea but probably not for the same reason the NDP did. The obvious effect would be banks to refuse credit cards to any high-risk applicant. I doubt that's what the NDP had in mind though.

[Machjo]

11 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

They're still promising the 72 virgins though...

What are they going to do with 72 virgins? Think about it. If they're virgins, they.re not easy.

[Machjo]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Really?  That's utter insanity, as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose it takes all sorts.

The opposition benches have no real power anyway.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

If they banned interest, you might never have gotten a mortgage in the first place. Why would a bank agree ti an interest-free mortgage?

The NDP proposed a cap on credit-card interest rates a while back. I actually liked the idea but probably not for the same reason the NDP did. The obvious effect would be banks to refuse credit cards to any high-risk applicant. I doubt that's what the NDP had in mind though.

I would have wanted them to come in to power a week after I got my mortgage.  I might have even refrained from blaspheming until I paid it off, interest free.  Then, of course, they could sod off back in to the hole they came out of.

I'm a bit mercenary like that.

[Machjo]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would have wanted them to come in to power a week after I got my mortgage.  I might have even refrained from blaspheming until I paid it off, interest free.  Then, of course, they could sod off back in to the hole they came out of.

I'm a bit mercenary like that.

Your voting style exhumes so much patriotism there.

 

A few catches though. Islam tends to respect contracts, so if they voided the contract, you'd be giving everything back or they would have had a grandfather clause to exempt you.

Also,  if banks don't want to give mortgages anymore, house prices would plumet.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Ok I just read the Islamic Party program and it's pretty hilarious/as backward as the muslims who wrote this garbage, and using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to their advantage.

 

Of course they are. The Canadian Charter is consistent with the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights although most Muslim-majority countries have opted to back an alternative to the U.N. Declaration called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which is an interesting read. It begins with the following premise: "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam." Well, you get the picture. It's a counterpoint to the Western understanding of human rights as enunciated in the U.N. Declaration. Unfortunately, mainly due to the emergence of open-ended Western multiculturalism, most in the West probably don't realize the extent of philosophical divergence between the Western and Islamic belief structures.

We're told by self-styled "progressives" including politicians that these are minor differences that will work themselves out over time. Really? A 2017 article by a Muslim writer in the NY Times (link below) explains the problem with assuming that Muslims will simply adapt to Western values. The author notes that "[o]ften Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not." So, it's not at all surprising that the Charter is being used to argue the cause of an Islamic party program in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by turningrite

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Of course they are. The Canadian Charter is consistent with the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights although most Muslim-majority countries have opted to back an alternative to the U.N. Declaration called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which is an interesting read. It begins with the following premise: "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam." Well, you get the picture. It's a counterpoint to the Western understanding of human rights as enunciated in the U.N. Declaration. Unfortunately, mainly due to the emergence of open-ended Western multiculturalism, most in the West probably don't realize the extent of philosophical divergence between the Western and Islamic belief structures.

We're told by self-styled "progressives" including politicians that these are minor differences that will work themselves out over time. Really? A 2017 article by a Muslim writer in the NY Times (link below) explains the problem with assuming that Muslims will simply adapt to Western values. The author notes that "[o]ften Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not." So, it's not at all surprising that the Charter is being used to argue the cause of an Islamic party program in this country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html

 

Actually, the religious-school provisions of the Charter violate the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights. Just read Waldman vs. Canada.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

But what do we do when there is no other real conservative voice? I agreed that I would never want to see that party form government, but I could certainly support it in the opposition benches as a kind of protest vote to signal ti secular conservative parties that they want to become a little more conservative in their own right to win back some of those votes.

You can already do that with Max Bernier's new group.

[OftenWrong]

Liquor, drugs, adultery and gambling should be banned? Count me out.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Machjo said:

Your voting style exhumes so much patriotism there.

 

A few catches though. Islam tends to respect contracts, so if they voided the contract, you'd be giving everything back or they would have had a grandfather clause to exempt you.

Also,  if banks don't want to give mortgages anymore, house prices would plumet.

I would just tell the government the bank had blasphemed.  It's tough to hold someone to a contract if you don't have a head.

[QuebecOverCanada]

27 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Liquor, drugs, adultery and gambling should be banned? Count me out.

Well, burn in hell then.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Liquor, drugs, adultery and gambling should be banned? Count me out.

Those are precicely the parts that attract me the most.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I would just tell the government the bank had blasphemed.  It's tough to hold someone to a contract if you don't have a head.

Now there's one problem with that party. A Canadian who professes Islam probably does so sincerely. In Iran, there's no way of knowing who's a real Muslim. For all we know, maybe more than one in ten professes Islam just to keep his head, so in Iran, it's meaningless. Is that really what that party wants to bring to Canada?

Edited January 14, 2019 by Machjo

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Niw there's one problem with that party. A Canadian who professes Islam probavly does so sincerely. In Iran, there's no way of knowing whi's a real Muslim. For all we know, naybe nore than one in ten professes Islam just to keep his head, so in Iran, it's meaningless. Is that really what that party wants to bring to Canada?

I think there's something wrong with your keyboard.

Seriously though, any party that seeks to limit freedom of expression, abortion rights, gay rights, etc, is fringe and lunatic, and should be exposed as such.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by bcsapper

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I think there's something wrong with your keyboard.

 

Thanks. I fixed it.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Well, burn in hell then.

Thanks. My post represents the not-so-silent majority that will tell the Islamic party to go and fook off... for obvious reasons.

[turningrite]

8 hours ago, Machjo said:

Actually, the religious-school provisions of the Charter violate the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights. Just read Waldman vs. Canada.

The Charter exemption relating to Ontario's separate school system originates in a long-standing constitutional arrangement dating back to 1867. The situation significantly predates modern international human rights covenants and the 1999 UN Human Rights Commission's ruling has no legal applicability in Canada, unlike decisions made under the Charter. I believe the UN Human Rights Committee has also come out against the death penalty as well as blasphemy laws, none of which are applicable to Canada. If Canada's only sin is Ontario's separate school system, that's pretty small potatoes. Nobody loses their life over it nor is any child of any religion actually denied a publicly funded basic education. Personally, I'd get rid of all religious education and I believe the Waldman decision notes that the Covenant doesn't require any state to fund religious schools. My guess is that any Islamic Party that might emerge in Ontario or Canada would instead seek to obtain public funding for religious schools for members of the community they represent, just as Waldman presumably sought public funding for Jewish schooling.

Edited January 14, 2019 by turningrite

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Seriously though, any party that seeks to limit freedom of expression, abortion rights, gay rights, etc, is fringe and lunatic, and should be exposed as such.

 

Not all Muslims, of course, are Islamists. And there are certainly social conservatives among other religious communities, including many Christians. But any effort to limit freedom of expression, which is the oxygen of democracy, is clearly problematic. That's why I personally found the M-103 approach so disturbing. The Western ethos, which emerges out of a long and illustrious history dating back to the Reformation, and later the Enlightenment, accommodates and validates the criticism of religion. It's not a bug in the Western system, it's a feature. If we capitulate on this, we give up on the Western project.

[Machjo]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

The Charter exemption relating to Ontario's separate school system originates in a long-standing constitutional arrangement dating back to 1867. The situation significantly predates modern international human rights covenants and the 1999 UN Human Rights Commission's ruling has no legal applicability in Canada, unlike decisions made under the Charter. I believe the UN Human Rights Committee has also come out against the death penalty as well as blasphemy laws, none of which are applicable to Canada. If Canada's only sin is Ontario's separate school system, that's pretty small potatoes. Nobody loses their life over it nor is any child of any religion actually denied a publicly funded basic education. Personally, I'd get rid of all religious education and I believe the Waldman decision notes that the Covenant doesn't require any state to fund religious schools. My guess is that any Islamic Party that might emerge in Ontario or Canada would instead seek to obtain public funding for religious schools for members of the community they represent, just as Waldman presumably sought public funding for Jewish schooling.

The point still stands that the Charter violates the Covenant.