Taxpayer-Funded, Bigots-Only Housing in Toronto

[WestCanMan]

https://globalnews.ca/news/2187517/toronto-city-councillor-says-muslim-only-subsidized-housing-is-acceptable/

This article mentions a Christian-only building but it's not subsidized housing. 

There's a huge wait list for subsidized housing in Toronto but you have to be muslim to live in this 14-storey building.

[Marocc]

That's entirely normal.

[scribblet]

No it is not normal, not for government funded housing which should be open to every one.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Marocc said:

That's entirely normal.

Maybe in Muslim countries.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Marocc said:

That's entirely normal.

It’s entirely bigoted to think that you can’t even live in an apartment building with people who dont share your religion. Sounds more like a cult. 

[Dougie93]

Publicly funded Islamic Supremacy.

Burn baby burn, the absurdities of the Post National State will be its own undoing.

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Maybe in Muslim countries.

No. It's entirely normal in Western countries for the state, city or some company to give/place some apartment building(s) for specific people. It's done plenty. Look it up.

[Marocc]

42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It’s entirely bigoted to think that you can’t even live in an apartment building with people who dont share your religion. Sounds more like a cult. 

I thought you'd still be concerned over possibly having to live with people who don't share your religious views. But don't worry. I'm sure there's many more Muslims you can have as neighbours.

[Marocc]

4 hours ago, scribblet said:

No it is not normal, not for government funded housing which should be open to every one.

This doesn't on any way make it "not open for everyone". Do you think that the way the free apartments are arranged all over the city somehow changes the amount of the apartments that are available?

[dialamah]

11 hours ago, Marocc said:

That's entirely normal.

Really old news, too, from 2015.  This particular discussion has already happened on MLW.

But it's amusing  to watch Canadian bigots complain about bigotry among some other group. 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Marocc said:

I thought you'd still be concerned over possibly having to live with people who don't share your religious views. But don't worry. I'm sure there's many more Muslims you can have as neighbours.

I don't have "religious views". I'm not religious at all. 

I see religion as a behaviour modifier, sometimes an extreme behaviour modifier, nothing more. 

I think we'd all agree that if people of a certain race believed that no one could live in the same apartment building with them unless they were the exact same race that would be racist.

I think we all know that if people of a certain religion believed that no one could live in the same apartment building with them unless they were the exact same religion that would be religious bigotry.

We shouldn't be enabling extremist bigots, especially at the taxpayers' expense.

 

 

[scribblet]

15 hours ago, Marocc said:

This doesn't on any way make it "not open for everyone". Do you think that the way the free apartments are arranged all over the city somehow changes the amount of the apartments that are available?

You are not making sense, but let me know where free apts. are.    Retricting tax payer subsidized apts. to Muslims only, and one particular sect,  certainly is   not open for everyone, in that building. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by scribblet

[cannuck]

I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated.  When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I am afraid I fall into the small category that believes church and state need to be COMPLETELY separated.  When it comes to private money, one should be free to do whatever suits them, but as soon as the taxpayer is footing the bill, NOTHING to do with religion should have any bearing whatsoever on eligibility, spending, access, etc.

I agree, and think this should apply to schools as well as residences for seniors, drug treatments centers, homeless shelters, halfway houses - any kind of institution that is operated by a religious organization.  I suspect (though I'm not going to try to prove it) that all these organizations are heavily reliant on government funding; take away that government funding and their true desire for "charity" will be exposed. 

I also do not think that religious organizations should be given any tax breaks; most of them don't need it.

[cannuck]

Agreed so much on the tax thing for ANY institution, business, etc.   I learned from an extremely capable economist long ago what constitutes good legislation and regulation:  the removal of privilege.   In any case, if one person or group is eligible, EVERY person or group should be eligible..or required to pay.

BTW: what you might notice that the cults do is operate seniours homes and paliative care facilities.  Purpose seems to be to influence their chance of inheriting $$$$$$.   I believe any inheritance outside of family needs to be fair game for the tax man.

[Rue]

On 1/14/2020 at 7:56 PM, WestCanMan said:

https://globalne

On 1/14/2020 at 9:10 PM, Marocc said:

That's entirely normal.

ws.ca/news/2187517/toronto-city-councillor-says-muslim-only-subsidized-housing-is-acceptable/

This article mentions a Christian-only building but it's not subsidized housing. 

There's a huge wait list for subsidized housing in Toronto but you have to be muslim to live in this 14-storey building.

I am updating and editing my response as others already stated the concerns with segregated housing. I also tried to find more up to date information. What it appears is if you go to all the web-sites from the City of Toronto on eligibility for housing there is NOT criteria for being entitled to housing based on religion.

What does exist is the following if you go to the web-site:

https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/employment-social-support/housing-support/rent-geared-to-income-subsidy/mandate-housing-providers/

..something called Mandate Housing Providers.

When you look at it you will see that there appears to be Amidyah Muslims on that group but many non Muslim groups as well meaning the segregation going on with Amidyah Muslims is not going on with other Muslims and is not specific to just Muslims or Amidyah Muslims.

So once again if we are to have a salient and reasonable discussion about this issue then let us be clear-its not specific to Muslims and it raises an issue as to whether not just Muslims, but artists, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Macedonians, Germans, Chinese, French and Christians, who its also provided for should be allowed special requirements be accommodated that might cause their housing to be segregated.

The issue raised as it is makes it appear only Muslims receive this treatment. It is yet another example of why I challenge Wes or Argus.  They throw out stories of Muslims without proper reference and context and the only conclusion I can draw from it given its repetitive nature at this point its its deliberate and designed to incite emotionally negative responses to Muslims and I for one took the bait until I took the time to read further.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Rue

[Marocc]

Provide a single proof or even a reason that this lessens the amount of available apartments for non-Muslims. You think like children.

[Rue]

12 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Provide a single proof or even a reason that this lessens the amount of available apartments for non-Muslims. You think like children.

Actually I took the time to provide further info. The issue only pertains to Amidyah Muslims not all Muslims and as  you can see from what I shown, its not just particular to them but other religious and ethnic or social groups. I think you should understand some of us disagree with you on your political views or maybe some or many  of the Muslim precepts you uphold, but do not confuse disagreements with you as meaning all Muslims should be defined in general negative terms and that when we talk of any people we need to give some consideration to the generalizations we make. The question is do you or I engage in the same exercise Wes does in other posts. Probably. We all do it on discussion forums when expressing views or opinions. I challenge you and myself as much as I do Wes. Generalizations can blow up in one's face.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

The issue raised as it is makes it appear only Muslims receive this treatment. It is yet another example of why I challenge Wes or Argus.  They throw out stories of Muslims without proper reference and context and the only conclusion I can draw from it given its repetitive nature at this point its its deliberate and designed to incite emotionally negative responses to Muslims and I for one took the bait until I took the time to read further.

Thanks for doing the research; I figured that might be the case, given who posted it, but didn't feel like doing the research on it.  It was illogical to me that somehow Muslims would be the only ones to have every thought of or attempted this, especially given the many housing options provided by other organizations I've seen.

But this won't make any difference, of course - it's open season on Muslims and facts are eagerly ignored and dismissed in the rush to condemn Muslims for anything they do.  Or don't do, as the case may be.  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I am updating and editing my response as others already stated the concerns with segregated housing. I also tried to find more up to date information. What it appears is if you go to all the web-sites from the City of Toronto on eligibility for housing there is NOT criteria for being entitled to housing based on religion.

What does exist is the following if you go to the web-site:

https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/employment-social-support/housing-support/rent-geared-to-income-subsidy/mandate-housing-providers/

..something called Mandate Housing Providers.

The issue raised as it is makes it appear only Muslims receive this treatment. It is yet another example of why I challenge Wes or Argus.  They throw out stories of Muslims without proper reference and context and the only conclusion I can draw from it given its repetitive nature at this point its its deliberate and designed to incite emotionally negative responses to Muslims and I for one took the bait until I took the time to read further.

1) My article was from Global News, are you honestly saying that's not a proper reference?

2) Some of those are senior care facilities, not subsidized housing. Some are artist venues which hold exhibits so they're not suited to rental by the general public. That's not what they're there for.

Can you find an example of subsidized housing Rue, that's fro people of all ages but only for a specific race or religion Rue?

You still haven't done that yet and you've had 7 days now.....

Tick tock.....

[WestCanMan]

34 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Thanks for doing the research; I figured that might be the case, given who posted it, but didn't feel like doing the research on it.  It was illogical to me that somehow Muslims would be the only ones to have every thought of or attempted this, especially given the many housing options provided by other organizations I've seen.

But this won't make any difference, of course - it's open season on Muslims and facts are eagerly ignored and dismissed in the rush to condemn Muslims for anything they do.  Or don't do, as the case may be.  

I love how you openly admit to your ignorance, then you just jump on Rue's counter-point as if it's gospel without checking into it, and oh, he's wrong again, as usual.

Go fish.

[scribblet]

No one group should be given preferential treatment in public housing, especially at the expense of a disabled person unable to find housing. 

ETA:   While this practice appears to be legal or at least condoned by city council, it does raise the issue that accommodations for cultural and religious groups are  limiting access to affordable housing

Edited January 21, 2020 by scribblet

[dialamah]

29 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I love how you openly admit to your ignorance, then you just jump on Rue's counter-point as if it's gospel without checking into it,

Clearly, you did not click on the link Rue provided.

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

, he's wrong again, as usual.

Just saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.  

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, scribblet said:

No one group should be given preferential treatment in public housing, especially at the expense of a disabled person unable to find housing. 

Funny how the local leftists a) ignore this and act like the fact that muslims want bigots-only housing isn't shameful or b) try to find justification for it.

They just can't, for the life of them, agree that it's wrong.

I'll admit that the thread name doesn't lend itself itself to constructive dialogue, that was done mainly in protest of the idiotic "Trump Actions Killed 63 Canadians" thread title that MLW refuses to change (yeah I complained, and not mildly either, I was a total little biotch about it). 

People were mad, rightfully so, that Trump's father had buildings that were (on the downlow) whites-only (or at least non-black, I don't know if Asians were allowed), at any rate they were segregated and bigoted. But the fact is that those buildings were privately-owned, there was a lot of money in it for them to do so, they did it at a time when it was (unfortunately) normal and their competitors were doing it. (I know that's not a good enough excuse but when you and some other guy both buy identical buildings for $1M each and he brings in $100K/year and you bring in $57K that's a tough pill to swallow. The list of people who will protest something wrong is a lot bigger than the list of people who will give up $43K/yr to do the right thing) 

It was still wrong back then, but it's even worse now when all of our society has come to agreement that it's completely unacceptable. The fact that our gov't is engaging in it and funding it is absurd and disgusting.

 

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Clearly, you did not click on the link Rue provided.

Just saying he's wrong doesn't make it so.  

Clearly, I did click on the link that he provided.

Clearly, I did google some of the places on that list.

Clearly, if there's something on that list that amounts to taxpayer-funded bigotry-housing, you need to do a better job of articulating it.